It depends where you start from…

There is room for a whole thesis-worth of discussion in this on-the-face-of-it stark raving lunatic headline from the BBC in this article:

‘Some Imams ‘biased against women”

What I say is this just points out the need to work harder at increasing the number of female Imams. Oh. Wait a minute…

The BBC- not p.c. at all, oh no.

Hat tip to DumbJon.

Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to It depends where you start from…

  1. archduke says:

    in order for a woman to divorce a man, the woman has to give property to the man. this is called “murbarat”

    and theres more

    “a wife, who is UNDER NINE”…

    i dont need to make up anything about islam …


  2. Jim T. says:

    Excellent links, Archduke, a pity that because of the PC brigade, including Al beeb, they can’t be publicized more widely. Now if Christianity said things such as that they’d be in jail before their feet touched the ground. My goodness, what has happened to this once great country of ours?


  3. Rob says:

    Some bears shit in the woods, allegedly.


  4. Chuffer says:

    There are rumours concerning the Pope’s whereabouts, too.


  5. NotaSheep says:

    “‘Some Imams ‘biased against women'”
    Hmmm, “No shit, Sherlock” is the phrase that comes to mind.


  6. archduke says:

    jim t-> EXACTLY what i was thinking…

    imagine if some bush supporting fundie christians said the same thing.

    the bbc would be all over it.

    having thought about it – al sistani is free to say what he likes. thats fine by me.
    i have no truck with him personally – what I HAVE a big beef with, is the likes of the BBC not reporting on it.

    thats the bit that annoys me.


  7. archduke says:

    by the way beeboids – took me about 30 seconds to find it.

    just google “al sistani”.

    makes you wonder doesnt it? what the lying bastards are hiding from the general public.


  8. The Beebinator says:

    im scared to comment on this subject as the thought police might come and get me cos anything i say would be racialist


  9. Grant says:

    Surely this is not news. It would be if the headline was “Some Imams not biased against women “.


  10. The Beebinator says:

    steady now fella, someone might throw their flip flops at u now


  11. Chuffer says:

    You can’t be racialist/racist about a religion.


  12. archduke says:

    The Beebinator | 17.12.08 – 10:36 pm |

    wow – al qaeda reduced to throwing shoes at George Bush.

    that equates to an American victory doesnt it?

    they won the war.


  13. public teat says:

    shirley this really is the worst dog-bites-man reporting in the whole history of reporting, isnt it?
    are there really any people out there who didnt already know this was the case??


  14. wally says:

    It’s clear that posters have completely the wrong idea about the nature of shariah. If you read the BBC information section on Islam you will find four pages of text showing what a wonderful thing it is.

    There is also a link to a broadcast discussion of shariah. While the presenter, Ernie Rea, atttempts to voice western criticisms about shariah, particularly its treatment of women, he hardly gives the elaborate bullshit which the Muslim speakers inflict on him (and us) the informed forensic demolition job that they deserve. The one feisty Muslim woman who criticises shariah, as currently interpreted is actually speaking under the influence of western (Judaeo-Christian) notions and practices of female equality (despite her elaborate protestations that it is all the true Islam). Most Muslim males, at least, can see this as obvious – which is why they reject her ideas.

    If, as an earnest seeker after truth, you are impressed by the BBC’s objective evaluation of Mohammedanism, there is another section giving guidance, including real-life case-studies, on how to convert to Islaam.


  15. Lurker in a Burqua says:

    The Left are finally disappearing up thier own fundament!


  16. Will Jones says:

    Some? Breathtaking.


  17. simon says:

    So I perused the articles on “Judaism” on the BBC. They read like they were written by a 5th grader. Simplistic, lacking context, unsophisticated. Basically embarrassing. Who writes these things?


  18. TheCuckoo says:

    Commented on this the other day. No Hat Tip? 🙁


  19. Anonymous says:

    are there really any people out there who didnt already know this was the case??
    public teat | 18.12.08 – 12:21 am

    I guess the hot news is that it is a Muslim organization saying it.

    Gotta be a first.


  20. oliver says:

    O/t but hey….

    From the bombing doctor’s BBC biog:

    “The destruction of his home country was the catalyst. The insurgency became his inspiration – and al-Qaeda’s indiscriminate tactics showed him a way.”

    Has iraq really been ‘destroyed?’


  21. Tom says:


    Your bloke Sistani is a Shia, so not particularly relevant to UK Muslims, but instructive nonetheless.

    And back in 2003, the UK government considered him a ‘moderate’ among Iraqi Shias and asked for his blessing.

    Accordingly, we should presumably treat the teachings expressed in your links not as the rantings of a head-banging extremist, but of a middle-of-the-road type.

    I dread to think therefore what the Salafists, Wahabbis, Deobandis etc. have to say on the subject.


  22. henryflower says:

    Oliver, that article is pretty grotesque. There are numerous logical flaws in his arguments, but the BBC don’t point them out, instead calling in an “expert” (god help us) to explain to us how complex and misunderstood radicalism is, how our ideas are simplistic and wrong.

    The article is little more than a platform for the dissemination of a terrorist’s views; or rather, those elements of his views that tally with the BBC’s preferred narrative.

    Iraq hasn’t been “destroyed”, and there is simply no excuse for trying to murder the citizens in whose name the British army is fighting the fanatics who have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis. As usual, only the West’s crimes count, only the West’s atrocities cause rage in a muslim, while islam’s atrocities are ignored; and the BBC swallow this hypocrisy and illogicality, and helpfully give it a platform, and allow him the closing word to accuse our governments of being the real terrorists.

    Utterly, tragically, stupidly illogical.

    Nice spot Oliver.


  23. steve E. says:

    Message to the ‘willfully blind’

    In Iraq, there were always a few journalists who would see signs for humanitarian projects like this clinic (see link for photos), translated into to English, and would wax cynical, claiming that it was just propaganda to mask the uglier side of the occupation. I’ve heard people say things like “This is just for the cameras and the journalists who will devour lies.” Of course, if these signs were not translated into English, an equally cynical person might say, “Look, they aren’t even smart enough to translate the signs into English. How do you expect people to know about the good things you’re doing?”

    Not that it matters what language signs are printed in Afghanistan: most people in Zabul Province cannot read any language. The government estimates that the literacy rate is, more or less, 15%. Not that they have any real way of measuring. It could be lower. And that is why the schools that are being built by foreigners are the most important thing happening in the country. For Afghanistan to have any hope of basic material progress in coming decades, is important to make sure that girls can attend those schools without fear of having acid thrown on their faces by Taliban members. Boys, for that matter, need access to education unlike the fundamentalist brain-washing provided by the Taliban-run madrassas.

    As for the clinics, they are just a small start to meeting the nation’s vast health care needs. The sad truth is that for the majority of Afghan peasants, the pathetically small amount of medical care that they received over the war years when they languished in the refugee camps of Pakistan — occasional inoculations, rehydration salts to prevent deaths to children and infants from diarrhea, antibiotics that we Westerners take for granted, a modicum of hygienic assistance with childbirth — were the first instances of modern medicine available to them. These clinics, which are pretty basic by our standards, represent a huge leap forward across most of this poor, war-torn nation.

    At a moment when much of the Islamic world is suspicious of the U.S., publicizing the positive changes that Western nations have provided is essential. The enemy advertises cutting off heads, or attacking innocent civilians in India, or blowing up a train in Spain. They smile when blowing up tourists in Bali, and dance as buildings fall. We smile when babies recover and the children of illiterate shepherds and subsistence farmers learn to read. You have to be willfully blind not to know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys in this place.


  24. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    oliver | 18.12.08 – 12:02 pm:

    I second Henry • the article you linked to is a bloody abomination • that it could have emanated from our national public service broadcaster is a disgrace.

    The Beeb refrains from using words such as “terrorist” on the supposed grounds that to do so would imply a value judgement • i.e. that the perpetrator’s act was an act of terrorism.

    And yet here in this article we have a terrorist’s claimed justification for his atrocious act • that the Alliance “destroyed” Iraq • accepted and reprinted as if it were a fact.

    Utterly reprehensible propagandist gutter journalism. In fact, I might register a complaint about it.


  25. Sarah Jane says:

    Has iraq really been ‘destroyed?’
    oliver | 18.12.08 – 12:02 pm | #

    Frank Gardner did a bit on the News at Ten last night comparing Basra before and after. The answer appeared to be that life, there at least, is significantly better now than it was in 2003 in terms of access to freshwater, electricity etc.

    Pity the view that Iraq has been ‘destroyed’ is not challenged – wheneven the BBC’s own analysis suggests not.

    FFS! The website seems to be becoming more strangled by PC/equivalence, not less. And that’s coming from me…


  26. Lurker in a Burqua says:

    How do they cope with Gay partnerships or is that a question that the BBC cant quite bring themselves to ask?


  27. henryflower says:

    I wouldn’t mind so much if they were consistent; if they called it, for example, ‘America’s audacious destruction of Iraq.’


  28. Lurker in a Burqua says:

    In an Internet & Broadcast piece, the BBC follow a man on donkey as he traces the route to Bethlehem taken by Joseph & Mary in the Christmas Story.

    The man is Aleem Maqbool, and Honest reporting dont like him

    …….watching this travesty on BBC News Channel it somehow morphed into a dewey eyed Infomercial for……………..wait for it Folks!……………………………..Palestinian Fairtrade Olive Oil………………………….

    Free Home Delivery by katyusha rocket if ordered by Suppertime.

    Christmas at the BBC. Laughable.


  29. henryflower says:

    Some imams biased against women? The rest, according to islamic theology, must technically be heretics. Still, it’s a start.

    I look forward to these future BBC headlines:

    Some imams ‘biased against Jews’

    Imam compares infidels to ‘excrement’

    Some extremists ‘finding any old pretext to kill unarmed non-combatants’

    Islamist cleric defends pigs and apes against ‘Jews’ slur.


  30. Jack Bauer says:

    “‘Some Imams ‘biased against women'”

    Rumour has it that:

    Some Imams are biased against…

    THE 21st CENTURY
    WOMEN DRIVERS (okay — have to admit that’s a man thing regardless of religion)

    In fact, while the BBC is obsessed with the gaying of the Anglican Communion, you note that it has no problems with the 100% gayfree Muslim Imamhood.

    Or hardly ever mention that Iran has a unique way of persuading young folk against the “evils” of homosexuality — THEY HANG THEM, FROM CRANES, IN PUBLIC.


  31. Grant says:

    Jack Bauer 7:19

    You said it all !


  32. archduke says:

    how come – despite the billions spent on the bbc, and their “thousands” of journalists, i have yet to see a single report on Iranian hanging-by-crane , or what goes on in chop chop square in Riyadh.

    maybe the Saudis dont want the bad publicity, but the Iranians sure as hell dont mind. they brag about it…


  33. Grant says:

    Archduke 8:15

    What I find even stranger is , if the Turks do something bad, the BBC report it.


  34. Jack Bauer says:

    I even hear that some Imams are, ahem– whisper it… MUSLIM!

    That can’t be right. Shurley shum mishtake.


  35. Grant says:

    Jack Bauer 8:29

    There is even a rumour that the Pope is Catholic.


  36. archduke says:

    and dont forget about the big huge problem of “forced marriage”.

    its a problem in “Britain”, apparently… and is happening to lots of “Britons”…



  37. David Preiser (USA) says:

    archduke | 18.12.08 – 9:10 pm |

    Fortunately, none of that drives “Britons” to terrorism.


  38. betyangelo says:

    The jewel in the article that struck me was this, “Sophiya said she wants the government to send Imams back to their countries of origin if they cannot uphold the true values of the Sharia.”

    Why in hell is the government supposed to watch dog their religion? Now the British government is supposed to decide what is true sharia??

    The last time I checked, Islam’s abhorance of the west resides in seperation of Church and State.

    I challange the claim that this woman is an educated “doctor”.


  39. betyangelo says:

    Says the illustrious spokesperson for Islam and admition to bias against human females:

    “I feel Imams are not trying to deliberately discriminate against anyone we just have to be more open in how we pass judgements so everyone is happy and understands the process.”

    In other words, “I see nothing wrong with how things stand, claims of bias are from the closed minded.”

    Then the BBC gushes, “The report is due to be published next month and will be sent to the government and agencies.”



  40. archduke says:

    I challange the claim that this woman is an educated “doctor”.
    betyangelo | 18.12.08 – 9:28 pm

    well, we now know that islamic “doctors” can’t even detect a broken back in a young kid about 2 days away from death, dont we?

    you do kind of wonder what kind of quakery is being overlooked because of political correctness and the “equality” agenda.


  41. David Preiser (USA) says:

    betyangelo | 18.12.08 – 9:28 pm

    The jewel in the article that struck me was this, “Sophiya said she wants the government to send Imams back to their countries of origin if they cannot uphold the true values of the Sharia.”

    Why in hell is the government supposed to watch dog their religion? Now the British government is supposed to decide what is true sharia??

    Good point. Hey, maybe they can get the Archbishop of Canterbury in to advise on how best to integrate Sharia into British Law.

    Meanwhile, the BBC frowns at any openly-Christian person in the US who wants to get involved in government.


  42. betyangelo says:

    Beyond that – and I am sure you’re right – the good “doctor” was rescued because others sypathized with her claim that it was “against” sharia, and another poster in the thread here pointed out her thinking was rooted in western women’s rights. But her complaint and suggestion that the government step in to supervise who is and is not an imam – it’s simply ridiculous. She shows a total lack of understanding of her own religion, and the policies long fought for of seperate church and state by her host government. In short, she’s a bimbo, an example of a muslim woman kept ignorant.

    The BBC could have covered this story much more agressively and still not scratched the surface of the sufferings of the muslima. Western woman cringe to hear their stories, and this article is like pablem on the subject – baby mush. I wonder who this Sanjiv Butto is, and if a man or a woman?


  43. betyangelo says:

    Right David, absolutely right. And here I keep reading the side articles attached to this thread’s article and I think I am going to puke. Our laws are already judeo-christian, from which Mohammed plagerized. You do not need to make a show of effort to include sharia in Britsh law! For Christ’s sake. What is happening to the world? Many sharia laws are not in the koran anyway, they are from “hadith” – a sort of text on the side put together after Mo’s death by is followers, and are the source of radical Islam’s beliefs. A strange fetish concerning body fluids predominates….Anyway, the subject is appalling, and the way the BBC seems so happy to give the country away is no less than an insidiuos form of treason. Many great men and women are rolling over in their graves.


  44. Grant says:


    I have some personal experience of this. My wife was brought up as muslim in W. Africa.
    The normal procedure would be to get the putative husband to rape the woman. So she is tainted. So the Doctor will have already been raped.But , hopefully, her boyfriend will accept her.


  45. Grant says:

    Not sure if this is a forum to say much more !