I’m sure you will be aware that Dutch politician Geert Wilders has posted a film critical of the Koran on the internet. The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. The 17-minute film was posted on video-sharing website LiveLeak. (It’s been posted over on my own blog as it all helps the general debate on the Religion of Peace AND Love.)
Now then, the BBC reports this but the BBC report itself is laced with all kinds of subtle poison. For example, if you read it you will note that the State Broadcaster cannot apparently find anyone to interview who is in FAVOUR of this film on the nature of Islam. Furthermore it immediately characterises Geert Wilders as “right-wing” however no other political comment is prefaced with such a description. Is anyone who opposes the advance of Islam a right-winger?
Now I don’t hold the BBC responsible for the cowardly Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende who disowns this questioning of Islam, but I do hold the BBC responsible for ensuring that the topic is covered by providing a range of views. However anyone who raises questions about the Koran and those who use it to justify their terrorist pathologies seems to be persona non gratia in Beebland.
I love this article by Rod Liddle who is a lefty himself. This quote from an article reflects what I’ve seen saying for a while. It relates ot the sending back to Iran of homosexuals.
“…The BBC found itself in a bit of a bind because, while it wholly approves of sodomy, it approves of Islam too. Both are on its Category One list of stuff which deserves to be treated nicely in news reports. And so we were told that while Iran was a ‘conservative’ society which did indeed exhibit the occasional bout of homophobia, it wasn’t necessarily the case that Kazemi would be strung up as soon as he got back…”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/575491/i-know-why-the-government-wants-to-send-homosexuals-back-to-iran-to-be-hanged.thtml
As a matter of fact I have just e-mailed the BBC on the related topic of why they have not provided a link to the upload, which is there usual practice when any individual or event which has a web presence is mentioned in a news report.
As I pointed out, failure to do this could be interpreted by uncharitable folk as gutlessness, and allowing a news agenda to be affected by a fear of radical Islam.
There’s also a neat little hint that some of the film may be faked :
And pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying “God bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to hell” also feature
In fact the pictures clearly do show some people dressed in Muslim garb holding up these placards. So the only relevance of “appearing to show” rather than just “show” is to leave open the possibility that the pictures have been staged using actors. One would have thought that this wasn’t a game the BBC really wanted to play at the moment, given some of its recent difficulties, but whether it is or not, if you’re going to insist on “appearing to show” in this case, then you’re going to have to use a similar formulation for about a half of the BBC’s output. And about nine tenths of its output from Israel and the adjoining territories.
Is right winger a derogatory term. I don’t think so.
‘but I do hold the BBC responsible for ensuring that the topic is covered by providing a range of views’
Which it is doing. (tip check comments from muslim and non-muslims)
Check lack of main story comments from those who share concern about the ROP.
“those who use it to justify their”
No Mr Vance you have your facts wrong. The Koran explicitly instructs violence.
Surah 4, Verse 56
Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in the fire.
Surah 47, Verse 4
Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and [cause a bloodbath].
And my personal favourite:
Surah 6, verse 20
They who are the authors of their own perdition are they who will not believe.
Which means critics of Islam are responsible for there own assassination. People who complain about being beat up by Muslims are of course Islamophobic, and deserving of punishment.
Also, it seems liberalism and Islam are birds of a feather.
Islam is not used to justify and instrumentalise an immoral desire, Islam is an immoral desire.
Has anyone in Dutch politics actually come out in support of Wilders?
“Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in the fire.”
“They who are the authors of their own perdition are they who will not believe.”
Non-believers going to Hell for not believing? Surely no religion is this barbaric!
“Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and [cause a bloodbath].”
Meet them where? Oh look:
“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.” 47:4
So I think you mean:
“Therefore, when ye meet […] the unbelievers, smite at their necks and [cause a bloodbath].”
Has anyone in Dutch politics actually come out in support of Wilders
Do you mean has anyone offered themselves up as a murder victim – Not as far as I am aware
This is a big story so why is it not on the BBC’s news front page?
No one has come out to support Wilders because they don’t want their families’ lives threatened and to be forced to live under police protection like he has.
Islamists don’t mess around, they kill those that oppose them. That is why Wilders is such an impressive man with real personal courage. He deserves our support and gratitude.
“- Has anyone in Dutch politics actually come out in support of Wilders
“- Do you mean has anyone offered themselves up as a murder victim – Not as far as I am aware”
So who should the BBC be quoting exactly?
This offers another take on Wilders..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/brunowaterfield/march2008/wildersfitna.htm
Notice the tag ‘right wing’
Woad,
Yes, you are of course quite right.
Hi Alex, nice to see you back proving that all fresh graduates in their first job in the media can Google as well as the rest of us.
And better than Woad, it seems.
J M Rodwell translation, surah 47 verse 4
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter amongst them.
009.005 (Here)
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Convert, Jizya, or die. Only devout Calvinist Christians and Jews can live. Seeing as though Trinitarian Chrisitians say that God is three parts which means they “join Gods with God” they obviously have to die.
A Religion of Peace? Not really. Scatterlogical, demented and contradictory? Yes:
002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
Rodwell: Whatever verses we cancel, or cause thee to forget, we bring a better or its like. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?
An ambiguous verse, that is and is not ambrogation. Allah Akbar.
But really, it explicitly instructs violence? It does, both in peace time and when under duress (as Alex was quick to point out).
Do you want to haggle with a religion like that?
“I may be an unbeliever, but I wont cause trouble sir, I promise to pay the Jizya on time.”
As a liberal atheist, I think it would be a good thing to ensure this religion does not get established in the West with a discriminatory immigration policy.
Alex, just had a look at your homepage. My God! Are you a wind-up? So people like you REALLY exist. Your head is so far up your liberal @rse it’s scary – examining ethnicity in an episode of “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air” made me laugh out loud. Now then, have you ever lived in the real world, or do you hover between Planet Media and the smokey world of the Media Studies undergraduate? Priceless homepage; I’ll regularly visit it when I need cheering up!
Wasn’t Rodwell the one who translated the Koran because he thought other translations were a bit too pro-Islam?
Actually, no, that was George Sale.
Don’t feed the zit-squeezer! Encourage him to get out of his bedroom and meet some more of his “offline associates”
Here’s a selection of other translations of 47:4:
“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve”
“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks”
“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them”
“f you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks”
“So, when you meet (in fight – Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them”
That’s a lot of references to battles and war and jihads. Here’s one without:
“So when you confront the disbelievers, strike at their necks; until when you have slain them in plenty”
But ‘confront’ is a rather more violent word than ‘meet’, don’t you think?
Former “Nightline” reporter Dave Marash has quit Al-Jazeera English, saying Thursday his exit was due in part to an anti-American bias at a network that is little seen in this country.
Marash said he felt that attitude more from British administrators than Arabs at the Qatar-based network.
“British Administrators” all mostly ex-BBC
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/arts/TV-Exiting-American.php
Re post by PHIL H,
Alex is just a very representative sample of the ‘Nu media trained’ modern person. To quote a silly comedy as a valid social lesson is to us a comic stupidity of epic proportions and up there with a monty python sketch but to Alex it is all too serious! The modern ‘meeeja indoctrination’ teaches its disciples to watch all TV productions however cheesy and cheap and deconstruct them to draw out some Marxist/socialist message from it! In the Nu meeeja courses they actually get more credits for drawing the ‘right political conclusions’! No wonder our Nation is going down the pan and laughing all the way!
Alex,
Could you use your high training in political deconstruction and tell us what hidden social message was contained in…… MR BEN or the MAGIC ROUNDABOUT or the CAMBERWICK GREEN?
Perhaps there was a message about the inevetible victory of the proletariot in its class struggle against the forces of reactionary revisionism? Ha Ha Ha Ha the lunatics have taken over the loonybin?
“But ‘confront’ is a rather more violent word than ‘meet’, don’t you think?”
It certainly does. But then again, striking at people’s necks sounds a bit, er, confrontational.
Rueful Red:
“It certainly does. But then again, striking at people’s necks sounds a bit, er, confrontational.”
It does rather, doesn’t it? But then, confrontational behaviour is fairly standard when you meet someone in war/in battle/in fight.
David Vance:
I think I’ve found one of those “ad hominem” arguments you’re so opposed to.
Er Alex, I think you miss the obvious point that to the Muslim faith the war/battle/fight against the infidel is never ending and must by the korans own definition take place in every field of confrontation! Simply put, the Muslims mental view of warfare is very very different from the judeo Christian view of warfare. In effect the Islamic worlds war with western values is a total war with only one outcome and that is the total subjugation of the Judeo Christian/Hindu/Sikh/Buhdist belief system! It is a fight to the death(our death)and there can never be peace untill the Islamic world emerges as the new master religion.
The BBC has provided us with the range of views it thinks it is permissible to hold on this matter. Many other biased news sources do that too. The problem with the BBC’s biased news is that we are forced to pay for it by the government, not that it is biased. I resent being forced to pay for substandard biased news from a provider that spends most of its money manufacturing junk entertainment like Eastenders just because I want to watch premiership football on Sky TV.
BBC news is like the news in the Daily Star – the tip of a mountain of tacky entertainment and chit chat.
“I think you miss the obvious point that to the Muslim faith the war/battle/fight against the infidel is never ending and must by the korans own definition take place in every field of confrontation!”
Not an expert on the Kuran, are you? It’s ok, nor am I. I was just a little suspicious of Woad’s (and Wilders’) misquoting of it.
Anyway, shall we get back to discussing the BBC? Is there anyone in Dutch politics who spoke up in favour of Wilders’ melodramatic crock of sappy shite that the BBC could mention to counter PM Jan Peter Balkenende’s mild expression of disapproval or Brahim Bourzik’s dismissal?
Come on people… On Tuesday, the laughable BBC forced subscription charge goes up to £140.
This site is devoted to BBC bias. If nobody was stupid enough to pay their wages then there would be no bias. They would go bankrupt within a year at best.
John Reith would be working in McDonald’s and Angry Alex would be … angry in a Police cell.
There is no way for the BBC to legally enforce their subscription. The BBC is the biggest con trick that exists. Yet the (non-immigrant) population still pay their wages for the fear of: some salesman knocking on their door wanting his commission and threatening them with a £1000 fine. Wow.
1) http://www.bbctvlicence.com
2) http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB3/
3) http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/
Of course, this site wouldn’t exist if the BBC still existed. Would it?
http://tiny.cc/OszLY
Beeboids, left-wingers, right-wingers are going to be in the muck soon enough. You don’t have to be a prophet or psychic to figure out that the future is going to be somewhat less peaceful than we have been accustomed to. No amount of blindness will help you.
BBC = Apologists for Islam.
EU = Apologists for Islam.
Refuse to pay for the BBC
Alex,
There was no misquote and you do not have to be an expert on the KORAN(note the spelling) to realise that is is by definition and by history a violent and backward anti female religion. You can wring your hands and make all the pacifistic excuses you want but in the end even you will have to wake upto what a nasty and backward religion it actualy is! Now you can appease the beast and you can give in time and time again but sooner or later with your back against the wall you will have to stand up or kneel! Which will it be Alex? There will no middle ground in this fight.
To go back to Alex, I wonder why Wilders has not had the backing of so many politicians? Are they scared of being made targets by Muslims? Are they scared of losing the Muslim vote? Do they actually deep down belive in the values of Islam (putting women in their place, killing all the gays etc etc.)
Here is a question. What does Islam contribute to any western democracy?
Why does the BBC give Islam such an easy ride?
The BBC never mentions the downside of Islam in the same way it tries to promote the so called “good sides”, like Sharia law.
The BBC like to cherry pick Sharia, it’s a bit like saying Hitler actually had some good ideas (like motorways for example) and ignoring the all the evil he did.
The BBC seem quick to point out the negatives of Christianity for example and happily pull it apart (for which I have no problem with) but why not Islam?
Alex, you are correct no-one has come out and supported him.
Wilders is a right of centre politician, but he does represent a vocal group of Dutch citizens.
Wilders has tried to put across a message which is being expressed by this group of Dutch citizens.
Cassandra | 28.03.08 – 6:28 pm |
With a name like ‘Cassandra’ why are you trying to convert Alex? He surely will not believe you …
Really… | 28.03.08 – 7:39 pm |
This site is devoted to BBC bias
It once was. Now it is dedicated to slagging off muslims; any bias raised is merely an excuse.
I wonder if this site has been infiltrated? Now who would benefit from making it’s detractors look like fatuous bigots? Hmmmm.
Alex is getting too much attention here. (If you want to play ping-pong go join your local youth club, Alex. This is B-BBC, not the letters page of the Independent. I’m beginning to getting pee’d off with your needy attention-seeking. Go Huffington Post. Begone!)
Since when was it “right wing” not to want your throat cut or your life threatened for excercising a little free speech and laughing at cartoons?
yes – f*ck off vicky
“That’s a lot of references to battles and war and jihads.”
By the way, you become an unbeliever set at odds with Islam if you prefer secular law to Sharia law (perhaps on the basis of gender equality). Or perhaps unfettered inquiry without fear of reprisal (freedom of speech). But the representatives of the ROP have spoke for themselves.
We face an existential threat from Islam. Because of people like Alex.
The BBC report about it is interesting in what it says and what it does not say. It majors on his paranoia,
http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2008/03/fitna.html
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.
http://www.liveleak.com/
Typhoo:
“Is right winger a derogatory term. I don’t think so.”
To lefties,it is the ultimate curse.
LiveLeak have taken down Fitna
Al Ankabut
One post to attempt to get banned – a new record surely.
Freedom of Speech and Islam appear to be unable to co-exist. Perhaps Alex would like to tell us which one he supports
The thing which amuses me most about the apparent alliance between the liberal left and Islam is that the liberal left has the most to lose if Islam ever became dominant in the EU or the UK. I mean, most of us who find bias with the BBC have centre right politics, and yet it is us who probably have more in common with Islam (very tough on criminals, traditional values for family etc but stopping short of making women second class citizens and hanging gays and other far right positions).
It is because the liberal left continues to appease and defend Islam, when they have so much to lose in the long run by doing so, which makes me conclude that to have liberal left politics you must be both irrational and illogical. Go read some books on strategic thinking liberal left I say!
For me, the very fact the BBC lacks the backbone to fairly report on Islam because it thinks some knuckle draggers will go out and assualt some innocent Asians (because they are suspected of being Muslims), will be the reason this country (or Europe as a whole) descends into civil war in the second half of this century, if not earlier. If we can’t debate these issues fairly today, the problems tomorrow will be massive. The demographics across Europe are very worrying, and having a Hillhunt point of view (i.e. they’re mostly just innocent Muslims, leave them alone it’ll all be okay and he’s partly right as the majority are no different from me or you) is still a very risky position to take – he might trust them – I don’t, and haven’t since 7/7. I remember reading an article by Tony Blair in the Economist where he set out his arguements for invading Iraq. I agreed with 90% of his thoughts. Blair believed he could convince Muslims to come over to our way of thinking (i.e. liberal secular economies) as it is superior. But I was concerned he was too optimistic. How can you convince people when they are so exceptionally unintelligent – as most humans are? I base this assertion on several tv interviews of young muslim British men who were upset with the invasion. They simply could not articulate an arguement, or even understand one put to them. How can you win such people over if they are so dim? You cannot. You can only appease and bribe them. Or fight them.
I believe that the BBC’s act of appearing to appease Islam at every opportinty to stave off social chaos will instead precipitate it in the long run. We must have an open debate, where articulate individuals are able to continue to put forward good arguements – on both sides, be they ‘right wing’ (Copyright BBC) or ‘left wing’. Only by continually putting these arguments forward can people recieve them and understand them. By failing to do so, ignorance and hate will fester and grow on both sides of the debate.
I should qualify the left wing statement – what I don’t mean is allowing the likes of Tony Benn or Polly Tonebee commenting on Muslim issues, as they are both illogical and irrational, and do not help the deabte. I’d rather see Blair up against Douglas Murray. Two real heavy weights putting the arguements forth.
Peter:
LiveLeak have taken down Fitna
Peter | 28.03.08 – 11:17 pm |
available as a torrent
6min download
For those interested, this is the Tony Blair Economist article I referred to in my post. I recommend it as it’s a good read. You won’t see anything like this on the BBC on any form of media.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9257593
Thanks Banjo.
KCI
Yes,the irony is that the Islamists hate the liberals most.Half the BBC would be heading for orange jump suits.
Anonymous | 28.03.08 – 11:19 pm |
Al Ankabut
One post to attempt to get banned – a new record surely.
Says more about the banner rather than the banned don’t you know.
And ban away, there’s nothing left of the real purpose of this site to warrent re-visiting.
Congrats to the BBC – they win again. Bastards.
KC1:
The thing which amuses me most about the apparent alliance between the liberal left and Islam is that the liberal left has the most to lose if Islam ever became dominant in the EU or the UK.
That must be why they do it, then.
No, wait…maybe they don’t, really, and you imagine it.
Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?
.