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.
I see Bari from the MCB has condemned that Somali cleric for his remarks about the Pope (here – http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html).
“One would expect a religious leader such as Sheikh Malin to act and speak with responsibility and repudiate the death threat against the Pope in the name of harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism,” said Bari.
“Regrettably, Sheikh Malin did not do so and this has understandably caused a lot of dismay and hurt throughout the Catholic world. We would hope that the Sheikh will clarify his remarks without delay,” said Dr Bari added.
Yeah, like hell he did.
All this inter-faith squabbling makes me thank God I’m an atheist.
Have a look at this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5352404.stm
It starts:
“The furore over the Pope’s remarks about Islam has left many Catholics inside and outside the Vatican shaking their heads in disbelief. ”
But there’s not one quote from one of those Catholics that’s made after the comments. They’re probably too busy shaking their heads in disbelief. Usual form for liberal Catholics, talking and shaking their head is beyond their talents.
Also, what’s happened to the complaint link?
Muslims don’t like atheists, either, pal.
We atheists are well aware that muslims disapprove of our take on life, the universe and whatever, but it’s somewhat satisfying to see the pope get “Galileoed” (ie, retract or die). No hard feelings though. I like the pope’s speech and I will (I swear even) that if I see the pope someday, I’ll offer to buy him a beer. It’ll be my round. The religious-minded can pray that I’ll have enough money on me.
SUDAN:
People dying in their thousands.
The UN useless.
A UK/US could sort it out, but the lefties would be up in arms about our “Foriegn Policy is Muslim Countries”
Sorry Beeb you can’t have it both ways!
No doubt already mentioned in the thread, but go and read this by David Warren with regard to the Pope and the BBC reporting:-
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=649
“All this inter-faith squabbling makes me thank God I’m an atheist.
gordon-bennett | 16.09.06 – 10:44 pm |”
i’m atheist myself, but i find this entire incident deeply troubling, purely from a free speech perspective.
i find the conduct of the MSM also very one sided – where is the MSM when the Mullahs of Iran or Saudi rant about the Jews being “apes and pigs”? why is there no blanket coverage of that?
I think that the Catholics have their own doctine of Pope’s infallibility and he cannot fully apoligize withought damaging this doctrine.
The BBC’s perfidy is quite serious in the matter of the Pope’s supposed (but, if true, then long over-due) attack on islam. From what i can gather from elsewhere, the BBC disseminated the ‘story’ very quickly, in Arabic and Urdu, which is fair enough for a multi-£billion organisation. But the BBC spun the Pope’s message as an attack on islam and that muslims would be expected to be violent as a result. The BBC mobilised the muslim mob.
I’m sure that others here who are more resourceful would be able to check the timelines and the narratives snet by the BBC to the wider muslim world.
archduke writes:
“i find the conduct of the MSM also very one sided – where is the MSM when the Mullahs of Iran or Saudi rant about the Jews being “apes and pigs”? why is there no blanket coverage of that?”
Well, yes, that is precisely the worry: the fact that by threatening violence at every turn, Moslems have managed to establish themselves as some sort of protected species.
The stance adopted by the BBC and other elements of the MSM is not just morally despicable, it is actively dangerous. Appeasing thugs and bullies simply encourages them and when the reckoning eventually comes (which it surely will) it will be very bloody indeed.
Had western ‘liberals’ not cringed and kowtowed to these blackmailers, there was a chance (though a slim one) that major confilct could have been avoided.
I do not now believe that any such chance exists.
Dong
I understand that the Father in Rome needs to invoke the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
He has to say that what he is about to pronounce on is covered by the Doctrine.
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that it is definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as “We declare, decree and define…”), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
Thank you Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
“Had western ‘liberals’ not cringed and kowtowed to these blackmailers, there was a chance (though a slim one) that major confilct could have been avoided.
I do not now believe that any such chance exists.
GCooper | 17.09.06 – 12:37 pm | # ”
FWIW
I concur.
I wonder how al-Beeb will whitewash the murder of the 70-year-old Italian nun by plumbers?
Lemme guess — they didn’t realy mean to shoot her in the back, they were aiming for her legs to keep her from running away. . .some 70-year-olds can be pretty spry.
Just posted this to Have Your Say:
“The Pope was not quoting the Byzantine Christian emperor, whose lands had been under attack from Islamic armies, to offend Muslims but rather, looking at dialogue over the centuries about how a faith is spread.
The protests (some of which has been violent) are of course regrettable. But ultimately the anger over the Pope’s speech reflects more on the state of Islam, than the state of Christianity.”
Doubt it will be allowed.
Rod Liddle in today’s Sunday Times:
“The Pope should have been aware that Islam always reacts to western allegations that it is not a peaceful religion by mass outbreaks of vituperation, denunciation and acts of jihadic violence”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2361328,00.html
I’m coming to the conclusion that certain members of staff at the BBC, particularly those involved in the compilation of CEEFAX, had an agenda which included stoking up trouble on this. If that is the case then these individuals are little better than vermin.
TPO writes:
“I’m coming to the conclusion that certain members of staff at the BBC, particularly those involved in the compilation of CEEFAX, had an agenda which included stoking up trouble on this. If that is the case then these individuals are little better than vermin.”
allan@aberdeen touched on this earlier and I think you are both on to something.
The role of the BBC World Service’s Iranian section has already been alluded to here as having played a direct role in the agitation surrounding that benighted country’s last revolution and one can only wonder what the general WS broadcasts to the Middle East and Pakistan might have been reporting in the past 48 hours.
In the UK, it seems beyond doubt that there are some very unusual choices of story (let alone the presentation of those stories) on News Online, no doubt Ceefax too.
This goes beyond the usual allegation of Left-liberal bias and becomes what I am increasing starting to see as direct political action. In this case, the deliberate fomentation of anti-Western sentiment among Moslems, both at home and abroad.
If it can be proved (and it would be quite hard to do without some very serious resources – or inside intelligence) then the consequences would be very grave indeed.
About a hundred barbarians were intimidating lttle old ladies as they came out of Mass at Westminster Cathedral today. Any report on the BBC. Nah.
http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/
As Colonel Kilgore says in Apocalypse Now! “F***ing savages!”
And people want these people to join the EU? Total insanity.
Paulinus:
So a copper thought some of them “might be prosecuted”? What, the ones who weren’t covering their face?
The police aren’t interested at all in prosecuting Islamonazis intimitading and spreading terrorist messages. Some bloke in Cardiff attending a gay rally thought, that’s a different story.
Is it just me or does every time the police step back from confronting these fascists it brings us closer to catastrophe?
BBC excuses Muslim murder of elderly nun in Africa:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5353850.stm
It’s all about the “anger”, see. The slightest of provocations leads to murder, so the murderers are absolved.
From the article:
“It is unclear if the shooting is connected with strong criticism by a radical Somali cleric about the Pope’s recent comments on Islam.”
It is only unclear to someone who is completely amoral. A BBC journalist in fact.
Rob asks:
“Is it just me or does every time the police step back from confronting these fascists it brings us closer to catastrophe?”
No, it’s certainly not just you. Though, if you believed the BBC was any sort of gauge of public opinion, you might very well believe that.
Clash of civilisations, my a*se! It’s civilisation versus barbarism. The problem is that the PC establishment which now controls most of the instruments of power in the west is clearly on the side of the barbarians.
The doctrine of papal infallibility is rather less overwhelming than it sounds, and is most closely analogous to the position of the Law Lords in English law – on questions of Catholic doctrine, when speaking ex cathedra, his interpretation is the definitive one. It doesn’t extend to everything he says, even on religious matters.
I hope you are all aware that the BBC has closed many of its World Service locations in Europe, (e.g. Slovakia) so that they can fund an Arabic World Service. They can not be trusted to do this. Your license fee towards fomenting anti-Western sentiment in Arabia.
The World Service is funded by the Foreign Office.
If World Service funds were being diverted from one place to another, it is because the Foreign Office wants them too.
It is extremely unlikely the Foreign Office is diverting funds to foment anti-Western sentiment.
“It is extremely unlikely the Foreign Office is diverting funds to foment anti-Western sentiment.
Anon | 18.09.06 – 6:10 pm ”
Do you have any evidence for that?
PJ, I’d certainly be interested to hear your thoughts on why diplomats directly accountable to the government are using British taxpayer’s cash to do something which seems, prima facie, to be directly contrary to their most basic job description.
Do you have any evidence that the FO does actively seek to foment anti-Western sentiment?
Or is this a “do you have any evidence you don’t beat your wife” kind of question?
Do you have any evidence that the FO does actively seek to foment anti-Western sentiment?
Martin Bright has:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5703
The half-hour program, Who Speaks for Muslims, presented by New Statesman political editor, Martin Bright, reveals that high ranking officials in the Foreign Office of the Blair Administration are openly advocating dialogue with some of the most radical international jihadist elements, allowing them to enter the UK after re-labeling them as “moderate” and “mainstream”; in addition to the administration’s close alliance with the Muslim Council of Britain, an organization dominated by radical Islamists and which is far from actually representative of British Muslims.
http://www.btinternet.com/~musicweaver/brightsblog.htm
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/S/speaks_muslims/
Download here:
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm
Opening dialogue = fomenting anti-Western sentiment?
That’s a fairly damning view of.. pretty much all diplomacy.
The more prosaic nature of the engagement is actually in the link you provide:
“A series of leaked Foreign Office documents, demonstrate that the mandarins dealing with the Middle East believe we have no choice but to engage with the radical religious right, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”
The British, and the US for that matter, engage diplomatically with all sorts of people whose views are diametrically opposed to ours. To read that as some nefarious desire to foment anti-Western sentiment either suggests one knows nothing about the nature of diplomacy or that one believes diplomats are fifth columnists plotting the downfall of their own country.
Anon:
Opening dialogue = fomenting anti-Western sentiment?
That’s a fairly damning view of.. pretty much all diplomacy.
You, or somebody else calling themself “Anon” saiid that, not me.
Why can’t you “Anons” use a screen name, any name will do?
Instead of cherry picking one part of one quote try reading the whole article, or better still watch Martin Bright’s programme before commenting on it.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/07/19/who_speaks_for_muslims.rm
…the reason for the vehemence of neocon anger is simple: lack of education means that many Americans imagine that 14th century Byzantine emperors spoke and wrote in English. Nor do they comprehend that the subtleties of word order may be entirely different, or non-existent, in a different language (or indeed in the 14th century version of their own, e.g. Chaucer).
Take pot-shots at the BBC all you like, and I’m sure your little clique of fans will applaud you. Show that yoy haven’t the vaguest clue what language you’re talking about, and nobody will take your English lessons seriously.
Rob- just because one doesn’t mention things doesn’t mean they didn’t occur to one. Sorry to rile you so.
I’d say though that all that would be necessary would be to look at the translation offered by Prof Khoury, assuming him to be a sound academic. Do you really think the Beeb went into the background like that? I wish.
Anon 19.09.06 – 1:34 pm
As pretty well anything the FO does these days seems to “foment anti-Western sentiment” I wondered if you had any evidence that this was not intentional. On the other hand, maybe we’re presuming a greater competance at Whitehall than is strictly deserved. There seems to be quite ample “anti-Western sentiment” to go round without anyone actually going to the trouble of provoking it.
More to the point, who gives a toss anyway?