The BBC’s editorialising of the news is quite something. Faced with the very foolish Muslim anger over the Pope’s rather erudite (and I might add, as a non-Catholic, rather excellent) speech, the BBC states baldly:
“The BBC’s Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the reason for the vehemence of Muslim reaction is simple: America’s global “war on terror” is perceived by many Muslims as a modern crusade against Islam.”
Ooh, can anyone play?
the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: lack of education means that many Muslims cannot contextualise the Pope’s comments. Nor do they comprehend the nature of quotes, or the subtleties that, yes, do exist in European languages.
or
the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: manipulative politicians use undereducated mobs to bolster their credentials as defenders of Islam.
or
the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: Muslim media never report on the aggressive acts of their faith, so ordinary people know little about the ferocious acts of Jihadis around the world.
or
the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: muslims around the world are sufficiently enthusiastic about Bin Laden and his agenda to use whatever pretext they can to advance its influence.
One could go on. So really the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is not simple, is it? Only in Beebland.
Update: Lordy Lord they can’t even get a quote right.
The Pope quoted a Byzantine ruler saying “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”
The BBC report: : “the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.”
Can you see the blatant difference which the BBC are missing here? “only things” and “things only” ought to be construed very differently, and I’d bet 100 quid that the difference is important in the original dialogue- otherwise the dialogue would have been perishingly short. Yes, it’s farcical to be discussing the placement of an adverb in a BBC report, but then it’s absurd to be witnessing Muslim hysteria over such an -literally and metaphorically- academic address. Tips for Beeb journalists who’ve yet to be educated (in the use of “only”) can be found here.
The BBC; completely out of step with the ordinary UK citizen.
It gets better…
On the 10 o’clock bulletin on News 24, the presenter managed to keep a straight face as she concluded her report on the continuing anger felt amongst Muslims towards the Pope by saying that his (the Pope’s) proposed visit to Turkey later this year may be cancelled because “his security couldn’t be guaranteed”.
The BBC, apologists for Islamic Fundamentalism.
Or perhaps the Beeboids have been reading today’s letters page in the Independent:-
“What was His Holiness’s motive in pouring oil on this smouldering Islamophobia with which the Bush-Blair war on terror has infected our politics, I ask myself – and find no answer. Except that the virus of bigotry and prejudice makes no distinction between an Abu Hamza and a Cardinal Ratzinger in Pope’s robes. May Allah saves us all from such blind faith.
M A QAVI
LONDON SE3”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1873712,00.html
Giles Fraser, Anglican priest, Today programme “Thought for Today” regular, and Beeboid through and through.
Oh dear, what a pickle! In a discussion (not mentioned on the “Today” running order http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ ) about the Pope’s lecture Stourton made a desperate attempt to demonise the Pope by implying that whatever the Pope said in his lecture is undermined because he has “previous form” about Turkey’s suitability for entry into the EU. Tariq Ramadan sought – rather inconclusively (and in my opinion quite incorrectly) – to claim that “Europe” is a product of Islamic as well as Greek civilisation. Bit difficult that since the concept of “Islamic civilisation” is, well, debatable (according to Prodicus http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-bunch-of-turkeys.html#links )
Furthermore, the point made – rather reluctantly it seemed to me by the Christian apologist whose name I didn’t catch – concerning the Pope’s view that Christianity is a religion open to critical analysis by Christians (ie the nature of Christianity is a belief dependent on faith and reason) and that Islam by it’s very nature isn’t open to similar analysis by its adherents (and has to be accepted on a “take it or leave it” basis – although leaving can be very damaging to your mortality), is an open and shut case.
Why doesn’t the BBC report the seeming tradition in Islam to respond to any criticism with violent demonstrations?
1,610 articles and rising
On newsnight last night (Bungawala said the Pope “must” apologise) Kirsty Wotsername first said that the Pope could have cited the Crusades or the Inquisition … but he “picked on” Islam instead. Martha Kearney, I note, cannot pronounce “dahlia”.
on sky news they are saying that the Pope has “strong opinions”…
of course he does – he’s the f***ing Pope!! you dont get to be Pope by being a bit wishy-washy about religion.
good god. the idiocy of the MSM is unbelievable.
Stourton was right that the Pontiff has “previous form” on this sort of thing. He injudiciously supported the rantings of the muslim world during the Danish Cartoons incident.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734454.stm
Maybe he is now regretting his earlier sentiments.
You need all to ask yourself how expedient it would be for the world wide leader of the islamic faith (supposing for a second such a thing existed) to say or quote someone who said “Show me just what Jesus Christ brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”
You would certainly say that such a quote was further evidence of the fundamental problems with his faith would you not ?
BEEP—–BEEP
Moral equivalence alert
I noticed that too Trofim.
(Kirsty Wotsername first said that the Pope could have cited the Crusades or
the Inquisition … but he “picked on” Islam )
The bias is so obvious and has been going on for so long. Can we not just do something like organise a protest or some campaign against the BBC or something? Any Ideas?
Haven’t heard anywhere on al-beeb yet about the burning of two churches in Nablus by the religion of love, peace, and understanding as a way to deal with an historical criticism. (Christians are an easy target for terrorists as they now form only 1% of the population in the West Bank and Gaza. Most of those who fled can be found in Detroit.)
Anon- : “You need all to ask yourself…”
Thanks for the nice line in patronisation.
Seriously though, I’d respond, were I taking the Christian line- by saying that of course things associated with the advent of Christ may by anyone intent on it be placed in the category of “only evil”. One could offer the tendancy to communes and sects as an example, where people sought to “bring in the kingdom” by living the “self-denying life”, yet often became violent, secretive, licentious etc.
Evere heard of apologetics? A whole branch of theology devoted to parrying the impious thoughts of intellectuals. Never launched a Jihad yet.
The point is that even the Byzantine ruler appears to have been making an academic point in circumscribed language (things that are only evil, as opposed to all evils- he could have been talking about child-brides, for instance), and the Pope merely uses it as a starting point, as stimulus to a discussion of rationality, religion and their place in modern life. His broader focus isn’t even Islam, but us Europeans.
The idea that such an allusion could justifiably be taken as an offense by a world religion is possible only under the rationale of agitpropagandists.
Of course you’re right about the popes point ed, but just like Jews, a lot of muslims are understandably a little touchy about preceived criticism.
Anon
Are you taking the ****?
Why is it that Qardawi the “pre-eminent scholar of the Sunni branch of Islam” according the MSM can state that suicide bombing is justified, and that the Jews are “Apes and Pigs”, that homosexuals “are not worthy of life”, and there is not one call for an apology from him from any of the the institutions of the left or the EU – instead Qardawi gets an invite to London by Red Ken to spread his message of hate amd his organisation a £300,000 stipend from the British FO?
If thats not enough have a look at what a whole host of Muslim Imams have to say on muslim MSM about “Christianity and the West”
http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=57
and other subjects
http://memritv.org/subjects.asp
And not one peep from BBC commentators or form the Archbishop or Cardinal of anywhere stating that this type of behaviour is abhorrent and apologies need be issued.
If an Islamic leader said or quoted someone saying, “Show me just what Jesus Christ brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” there is every chance he would be branded a heretic, accused of blasphemy and executed.
If that were his central premise, however, I would intrigued to hear his arguments (before he is killed for blasphemy).
Besides – and I am speaking as a committed secularist and agnostic – Islamic leaders the world over lambast my belief-system on a daily basis.
Polytheists, People of the Book and atheists get it in the neck regularly. We are kafir, according to Islamic leaders from Nome to Rome. So fricking what?
The BBC; completely out of step with the ordinary UK citizen.
Eamonn
But the BBC is in step with the rest of the Western media.
Why are they only interested in putting pressure on the Pope? Why do the media not take the line from the most recommended HYS?
oh look, muslims are up in arms. again.
Meanwhile Muslims who hate our crusading ways are risking their lives aboard unseaworthy craft heading for the Canaries & the EU.
There is one Coptic priest, Zakariya Boutrous, who is brave enough to oppose Islamic hate propaganda, and he does this on Al Hayat TV no less, and has the balls to state a number of home truths about the extra curricular activities of “the Prophet Mohhamed” (as the BBC calls him along with other matters. If the Muslims are not too thin skinned to listen to him then they should be strong enough in their own beliefs to examine what has been set out for them by the Pope,
see the videos & transcripts here. in light of the current MSM genetared firestorm they are illuminating
http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=57#
#826 – Coptic Priest Zakariya Boutrus: Islamic Scholars Attack Christianity to Cover Up Scandals in the Life of Prophet Muhammad
#753 – Coptic Priest Zakariya Boutrus Demands to Strike Out Verses from the Koran and Demands an Official Apology from Muslim Governments to Christians
#751 – Coptic Priest Zakariya Boutrus: The Prophet Muhammad’s Hadith Is Reminiscent of Hitler
718 – Coptic Priest Zakariya Boutrus on the Spreading of Islam
pay particular attention to the 10 demands on Islam & changes to the Koran that Zakariya Boutrus makes.
Notice what he states at the very end about the “immutability of Islamic belief” and then for good measure he throws in an anecdote or two regarding a certain well known rapist! Excellent stuff you wont see on the BBC website.
http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=57#
#753 – Coptic Priest Zakariya Boutrus Demands to Strike Out Verses from the Koran and Demands an Official Apology from Muslim Governments to Christians
Instead all you get for your exhorbitant license fee is rubbish such as this (see video to teh right)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351988.stm
For many people, this could be the post-9/11 Question Time moment of enlightenment when the true nature of the RoP becomes self-evident and undeniable. The BBC is playing a useful role when it attempts to portray the RoP’s adherents as peaceful and reasonable when our lying eyes and ears tell us that they’re not.
On the BBC “Have Your Say” pages there were 778 comments at the time of writing with the top readers recommended message being “oh look, muslims are up in arms. again.” receiving 1043 recommendations so far. The rest of this section is all in a similar vein. So you would think the BBC might use one of these quotes in the main article being a fair reflection of the majority view. Yeah right! Sadly, as another poster mentioned, the MSM as a whole seem to be all singing from the same hymn, er koran sheet, and towing the appropriate dhimmi line. It really does make you wonder who is running the show behinds the scenes.
What does it matter? – the Pope has apologised!
So what is the BBBC concensus? Why was he quoting an obscure 14th Century Byzantine emperor but not an infallible pope? Does he agree with the emporer? Is he saying that the situations today and then similar? Was this really a throw-away line in an obscure doctrinal discussion or was he trying to send us a message?
If so did he wimp out?
I agree Alan, I don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace, or the world is flat, no matter how many times and ways the beeb tries to tell me.
Just on Radio One news:
“The Pope has apologised…”
Has he really?
“… but many muslims feel an apology isn’t enough.”
What? Do they want him to convert to i-slam?
Second part should have read “… but many muslims say an apology isn’t enough.”
Addition: “Many non-muslims say enough is enough!”
deegee-
But it’s one of those “sorry you were offended” apologies, so not a real climbdown at all.
It’s a ‘Sorry you didn’t read the message carefully’ apology.
🙂
Michelle Malkin has a worthwhile addition to the analysis.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
Some of the comments are well worth reading.
Anon | 16.09.06 – 1:27 pm,
You really need to find an antidote for that moral equivalence poison you’ve ingested. If you can find it, let the BBC know about it as well.
Breaking news (Not yet on Al BEEB)
Bombs going off in Southern Thialand.
Any guesses which religious group is attacking the peace loving, buddist people of Thialand?
Why should Pope Panzer apologize for telling the truth? Go Pope Panzer, go!
Susan returns… !
The BBC continue to stoke up Muslim “rage” (or theatrical offence, to give it it’s proper name):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351988.stm
Note the quote from the (Don’t) Have Your Say. 75% of the opinions, from my rough estimate, are supportive of the Pope and describe Islam for what it is – xenophobic, touchy and downright nuts. Yet which quote does the BBC cherry pick? Why, one which supports their opinion, of course!
Look how the BBC portray a sequence of photographs about “Muslim anger”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5349604.stm
So, what do we have here – wild-eyed staring fanatics, inflamatory signs, an armed policemen having to guard a church and a banne denouncing the leader of a world religion as unhuman. The BBC mildly reports this as Muslim “anger”.
Now, consider if these protests had been carried out by white Christians – posters denouncing Mohammed as inhuman, armed police in Britain deployed to protect mosques, etc – does anyone even remotely believe the BBC would have sympathetically reported it as Christian “anger”? Er, no. There would have been 50 articles about “Islamophobia” and another 50 articles given various heads of Islamic extremist organisations an opportunity to air their views.
“David Warren in Canada:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=649
“By turning the story back-to-front, so that what’s promised in the lead — a crude attack on Islam — is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.
From the start, the BBC’s reports said the Pope would “face criticism from Muslim leaders” — in the present tense. This is a form of dishonesty that has become common in journalism today. The flagrantly biased reporter, feigning objectivity, spices his story by just guessing what a man’s enemies will say, even before they have spoken.
[…]
From now on, the reporting will be about the Muslim rage, and whether the Vatican has apologized yet. That is the “drama” the media will seek to capture — the drama of the cockfight — because they know no better kind. That the Pope said nothing intrinsically objectionable will be overlooked, in deference to the Muslim rage, just as the media hid the Danish cartoons from their viewers — preventing them from discovering how mild they were.”
Well said – time for His Holiness to get the bell book and candle out for the BBC who regularly slag off Christianity without fear of punishment….
The Pope has not apologised for what he said. An apology has been issued by representatives of the Pope, yes.
Of course, as it usual in these circumstances, an apology is never enough. Nike, Amazon, and Orange have all discovered that Islamists always seek more than apologies.
Perhaps the rage will be assuaged if the Vatican agrees to give $500,000 to a Muslim charity or funds a nice new Islamic school somewhere in Rome?
No, the demands will continue. And continue.
A good post Ed Thomas.
Look on the bright side, the BBC are painting themselves into a corner here. I have spent weeks trying to find any ordinary person (i.e. not a Beeboid and not an Islingtonian) with any sympathy for the Beeb position.
“deegee:
What does it matter? – the Pope has apologised!
So what is the BBBC concensus? Why was he quoting an obscure 14th Century Byzantine emperor but not an infallible pope? Does he agree with the emporer? Is he saying that the situations today and then similar? Was this really a throw-away line in an obscure doctrinal discussion or was he trying to send us a message?
If so did he wimp out?
deegee | 16.09.06 – 2:24 pm | # ”
I’m sure I detect a stealth edit on the link deegee provided – I’m sure the second link in the “key stories” list (Top right) was something like
“Britain welcomes Pope’s regret” or similar.
When I clicked the link a couple of hours ago, it led to the same main page, but anyone glancing casually at the headlines would gain a different impression.
The link now reads: “Pope Benedict XVI and Islam”
Time for the Google cachemeisters to go to work??
Thank you for finally allowing me to see what his Holiness actually said. Of course all he did was quote a fourteenth c. Byzantine Emperor’s understandably jaundiced view of Islam. I mean given he and his kingdom were fighting for there lives against the Turks…who apparently don’t like being reminded they are living on stolen ground.
The quote is part of his Holiness’ argument against forcible conversion – something I guess Moslems suppport?
BTW: Anybody know who these ‘your Magnificences’ are? Cardinals are ‘your Eminence’, Bishops ‘your Excellency’ but who on earth, or in the Catholic Church, is addressed as ‘your Magnificence?
So, once again the followers of the Prophet are going to demonstrate their peacible nature by violent demonstations against criticism of their faith – even if they’re nearly seven centuries old!
Do “citizens” in some Muslim countries stand about on street corners waiting to be insulted? Seems like it.
Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.
But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.
By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.
Here is what one liberal blogger posted.
http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html
“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”
Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.
Why doesn’t the BBC refer to the Pope as “His Holiness”? They unctuously refer to old Mo as “The Prophet”, so why not give the Pope his honorific title also?
Surely not preferential treatment for Islam on the BBC? My God!
Let us see if this one makes it through the anti Christian moderators on Have Your Say!
“Will the various Imans now apologise for calling Christians and Jews “apes and pigs”on a regular basis? Will they also please apologise for invading Spain, kidnapping an estimated 1 MILLION Europeans including many people from Cornwall as slaves as well as the various slaughters that resulted in Christians having to defend themselves? chirp chirp……….still waiting……Oh and with regard to our protecting Muslims in Bosnia/Kosevo, Iraq etc no worries. We do this because we are Christians!”
If it gets on I’ll buy you all metaphorical beers!
I notice the media including the BBC don’t seem too keen on going into much detail about who this Byzantine emperor was the Pope quoted. Why exactly did this Byzantine emperor say the things he said?
Perhaps the fact Byzantium had faced centuries of jihadist attacks by Muslems, including I believe attacks by the peaceful Mohammad himself back in the 7th century, could have something to do with it?
somali cleric calls for pope’s death
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html
“peaceful religion” watch
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22593_Peaceful_Religion_Watch&only
hmmm.. looks to me as if the Pope hasnt apologised.
thing is – where are the western media when Qaradawi or the Grand Mufi of Saudi mouthing off about Jews being apes and pigs. Or the numerous instances where Muslims call the rest of humanity “kuffars”?