.
I was intrigued to read this BBC report on changes taking place in our..ahem…”ally” in the war on terror, Saudi Arabia. The sentence that caught my eye was the one that reads….”Sheikh Ibrahim al-Ghaith has lost his job as head of the commission, which enforces Saudi Arabia’s conservative brand of Islam, Wahhabism.” Now then, Wahhabism is many things – evil, toxic, violent, savage, retarded, malignant….but not, in any way, conservative. However the BBC loves to play word association, doesn’t it?
But to the collective BBC mind Conservatives are “evil, toxic, violent, savage, retarded, malignant”
There was a convoy of ‘aid’ vehicles travelling to Gaza today and some people in the convoy were arrested by terrorism police. The BBC are reporting this as two seperate unrelated stories!
Will the convoy get past Hamas without being hijacked and looted? It’ll be a first if it does.
Bizarrely, the word most often used to describe those who deliver this ‘conservative’ message is ‘radical’. See reports on Abu Hamza passim.
Who dreams up these titles, I wonder?
That’s what Orwell meant by “doublethink”, Sproggett. They really believe that radical Islamic revolutionaries are somehow “conservative”.
I take your point David.
However in the terms that the BBC are using the world conservative they do have at least a credible point.
Having said that, do you not think that for the BBC to describe a democratically elected members of The Dutch FREEDOM or libertarian party as extreme RIGHT WING, ( as if the term actually means anything whatsoever, these, or any other days ) is pushing incredulity and cruel dishonesty to a new level, even by BBC standards?
The words conservative, radical, liberal, or socialist do actually mean something. However terms such as left and right wing are completely meaningless and only defined by people such as the BBC themselves.
Right wing means only one thing to the BBC.
That is things the BBC is told to dislike. Extreme right wing means, things the BBC has been told to dislike as much as they can possibly get away with.
I’ve often wondered that if Islam does succeed in it’s ambition to enslave Britain, would the left – and particularly those at the BBC – have any regrets. I mean how would your average Beeboid survive without the following:
Cocaine
Alcohol
Gays
Womens Rights
Clubs & Bars
Casual Sex
Personally I care very little about most on that list, but it would be the end of the world as far as your average BBC lefty is concerned.
So what would they do after Islam has completely eroded their liberties and recreation?
This old chestnut again David? This has been explained to you many times before in simple language that you can understand, it doesn’t seem to have taken.
So I will let these dictionary definitions speak for themselves. Of course, you can take all of this with a ‘liberal’ pinch of salt:
‘Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change’
‘Traditional or restrained in style’
‘Moderate; cautious’
‘favouring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change’
‘disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change’
These definitions apply to ‘Wahhabism’ don’t they? So what is it about this you don’t understand David? By the way, dictionaries are available in all public libraries.
I will now resumed being banned, as dissent is of course not tolerated in David Vance world.
The breaking news the BBC wouldn’t tell
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4623607/The-breaking-news-the-BBC-wouldnt-tell.html
Islamist bully boys are quite partial to puckered rings, (if the taliban’s homo-paedo butt-f**king antics are anything to go by)… so the BBC-lefties will have plenty to keep them occupied i should imagine.
that was for Ratass’ question, BTW
Great contribution Teat, you should fit in here nicely.
Bulls**t Detective: Wahhabism is a violent extreme version of Islam (well more violent than the rest) and is not Conservative in any way (nor traditional) nor could it be defined using the quotes you took from a dictionary.
Bulls**t Detective | 14.02.09 – 10:28 pm |
And you don’t fit in here at all – your name says it all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0072w0t
You are obviously a big fan of the low brow BBC output.
“I will now resumed being banned, as dissent is of course not tolerated in David Vance world.”
Is this in case you may have to answer for what you have stated above – this is a great attitude to debate – “I have given my statement which is right and I don’t want to hear any arguments, so there” typical lefty stance.
“I will now resumed being banned, as dissent is of course not tolerated in David Vance world.”
There is more dissent on this blog than in your lefty BBC/New Labour world.
This is what happens if you ask an awkward question on a BBC message board.
“A poster to a BBC message board asked if Mr Aitken’s book would be reviewed on the BBC. After about three days the thread was deleted. No need for an answer then.”
http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/bias1.html
I haven’t seen any of your posts deleted.
“New Labour grants its members complete freedom of speech • as long as they keep their traps shut!”
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/henry.tsmith/garbgate/archive6/freespeech.htm
I would say that it is in your world that dissent is not allowed – only in a real liberal society is both sides of an argument tolerated.
On News24 there was a curious case of the BBC spinning a story in order to whitewash Islam: a piece about the 20th anniversary of the burning of ‘The Satanic verses’ in Bradford.
Two Muslim community leaders from the town in Bradford were interviewed about what their attitudes towards Rushdie were today. The first one said that things hadn’t really changed and the author would not be safe in Bradford even now – the second said that what Rushdie had done something wicked but that it should be left to god to punish him. The BBC had found a moderate Muslim!
Only the sharp eyed would have noticed, from the strapline at the bottom of the screen. that the first speaker represented the orthodox council of mosques while the second one was an Ahmadiyya.
Out of a billion or Muslims in the world 10 million belong to this sect: they are not regarded as Muslims by most believers to the extent that they are barred from making pilgrimage to Mecca, and are frequently persecuted, including being outlawed, in many Islamic countries. In the last few months there has been a clampdown on them in Pakistan.
Among the several differences between the Ahmadiyya and orthodox Muslims is the vociferous opposition of the former to violent jihad.
What a wonderful coincidence that the BBC should have alighted on one to present to the British public what a typical Muslim view is, of how Salman Rushdie should be dealt with. According to wikipedia there are 18000 of them in the UK.
there was a time when the beeboid scumbags would have qualified the word conservative with the wording “with a little c” in order to distinguish it from the Conservative Party
David, the tag to this post is somehow implying that the BBC is linking the conservatives (tories) with the conservative saudis. As if it is trying to suggest, Saudis are conservatives muslims, and the mere use of the word ‘conservative’ is a dig at Dave C. Maybe thats unintentional on your part, maybe not, but you’re not making much of a point either way.
I suppose they are a conservative regime, in the sense that liberal islamic states exist (such as the UAE) which allow the selling of alcohol, and un-islamic practices. this is not the case for Saudi, hence use of the term conservative. I agree it is not the perfect term, maybe ‘strict’ would be better.
wally
Is what you say – 10% of preachers are moderate?
Perhaps that twit MWL could help us out here ?
Clearly, an ideology that requires replacement of the established order by itself, as Wahhabism does, is anything but conservative.
This sort of mistake has been made before. You have only to look at Napoleon/Hitler/Mussolini
Don’t forget Dinesh D Souza’s idea of “conservative” Islam.
http://www.mail-archive.com/sorabia@yahoogroups.com/msg17014.html
I agree, the word ‘conservative’ is not a great fit for Saudi Arabia, but I can see why people use it. And lets face it, the media look for simple tags like ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’ etc. To actually analyse the nature of Saudi government (or it’s brand of Islam) would require insight and indepth reporting – sadly the 24 hour news cycle seems to be killing this off.
Has anyone a clue what will be preached in English churces today?
Has anyone a clue what will be preached in mosques this week ?
The problem is that in Britain conservative / conservatism is almost always associated with the Conservative Party – especially when they are referring to political ideas or people. The BBC, I believe, either deliberately or not, uses the word in a sloppy manner to infer that all conservatives are the same. They do not use the term for Chevez – he is very “conservative” to the view of Marx. Or Castro. They never for example would label the Saudi government as totalitarian. Because that word is judgmental – the BBC have tied themselves in knots over the use of words and this is because they have limited their vocabulary through PC.
“The word ‘conservative’ is used by the BBC as a portmanteau word of abuse for anyone whose views differ from the insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy of that sunset home of the third-rate minds of that third-rate decade, the nineteen-sixties.”
Norman Tebbit
This may or may not be true, but the BBC must be well aware of this feeling.
Jon | 15.02.09 – 1:36 am | #
You’ve just given me the spookiest desire to hang a large, framed picture of Norman Tebbit on my living room wall.
MATTHEW Parris caused maximum embarrassment to Ed Stourton on the Today programme this morning. Invited on to discuss freebies for civil servants, Parris rejected complaints about Sir Brian Bender by pointing out that the BBC’s own corporate events are notorious. “The BBC’s lavish corporate hospitality is incredible,” said Times columnist Parris. “The last big thing I went to was at a stately mansion in St James’s.” “You will insist on taking this interview into the most awkward directions,” replied Stourton. But plucky Parris only redoubled his efforts: “Libby Purves and I were sitting drinking champagne and wondering why the licence payers are paying for the string quartet.”
From the Evg Standard:
MATTHEW Parris caused maximum embarrassment to Ed Stourton on the Today programme this morning. Invited on to discuss freebies for civil servants, Parris rejected complaints about Sir Brian Bender by pointing out that the BBC’s own corporate events are notorious. “The BBC’s lavish corporate hospitality is incredible,” said Times columnist Parris. “The last big thing I went to was at a stately mansion in St James’s.” “You will insist on taking this interview into the most awkward directions,” replied Stourton. But plucky Parris only redoubled his efforts: “Libby Purves and I were sitting drinking champagne and wondering why the licence payers are paying for the string quartet.”
Pete | 15.02.09 – 7:14 am | #
Guffaw! Is the interview available for download?
George Galloway £1million aid convoy linked to three terror suspects arrested on M65
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145585/George-Galloway-1million-aid-convoy-link-terror-suspects-arrested-M65.html
The word “conservative” is used with a small “c”. Any serious commentator on the highly orthodox form of Islam known as Wahhabism would deem it be a conservative form of islam, in so far as it takes a traditional and orthodox view of how one should interpret the Koran. Saudi Arabia is clearly a very conservative state, in the political science sense of the term; but this has has no read-across to the UK Conservative party, which is democratic and liberal.
The BBC’s use of the term conservative in relation to Wahhabism in this article is therefore justified and non-controversial. It really is silly to say that the use of conservative in this article is part of the BBC’s on-going war against conservatism in the west. David Vance must know this. Perhaps he’s just having a bad week.
Jason.
Follow this link and scroll down to 8.37
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7887000/7887571.stm
To the BBC, the use of the word “terrorist” would arouse prejudice against the terrorists so it refrains to use that word. But it has no problem using the word “conservative” to describe both Wahabbists and certain political parties of the free West.
Any beeboid here explain that?
Whenever the BBC reports on, or does interviews re-Saudi Arabia, it gives the impression of walking on egg-shells.
For a fuller understanding and critique of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, suggesty see:
‘A Second Look at the Saudi’, a long, investigative document in PDF. Here is an extract from page 2, Part 2:
“The Wahhabi approach to a theocratic society is absolute, driven by a fanatical quest for
religious purity, rather than a merely pragmatic effort to maintain political influence and power.
As Prince Amr ibn Muhammad al-Faisal has explained, in Saudi Arabia ‘the religion is the
law.’ This is true in the most extreme sense. In its latest report on human rights practices in
Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Department of State found that, ‘Freedom of religion did not exist. Islam
is the official religion, and the law provides that all citizens must be Muslims.’ The report goes
on to note, ‘Conversion by a Muslim to another religion was considered apostasy. Apostasy is a
crime under Sharia’a and, according to the Government’s interpretation, is punishable by
death.’ Indeed, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (the
‘USCIRF’) confirms that, ‘There have been several reported cases of executions of individuals
found to be apostates in Saudi Arabia.'”
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
Correction at slacker | 15.02.09 – 11:11 am | #
“to describe both Wahabbists and voters of certain political parties of the free West.”
instead of
“to describe both Wahabbists and certain political parties of the free West.”
Slacker don’t be dense – no one, except apparently one or two people here, ever equates the conservative saudis with the Conservatives in the UK. The BBC are not trying to make a comparison, or any linkage whatsoever.
If this sort of discussion is all that this website is about nowadays, it proves there can’t be much real bias out there.
Gus Haynes,
I have not read much of the thread so I can’t speak for others. But please read and understand my original post. I did not claim the BBC compared the Conservative party to the Wahabbists.
I was merely contrasting the BBC’s refusal to use the word ‘terrorist’, the meaning of which is quite obvious to the casual reader. But you see, it has no problem using the same word to describe both Wahabbists and the conservatives of the West when ‘conservative’ has a much more nuanced meaning than ‘terrorist’
sorry Gus Haynes at 11:42 was me
I have to add that I really don’t have a problem with describing Wahabbists as conservative.. But for the reason I have cited above, I can’t resist to comment on the issue
I agree with you on the use of the word terrorist. If someone blows up a bus, they are a terrorist, no argument. That is one thing that annoys me, how they use the word bomber, as if a bomber is somehow less controversial than terrorist. anyway, its nitpicking. and no-one really makes a distinction between bombers and terrosists.
Those us old enough remember at the time of ‘glasnost’ BBC were fond of describing Gorbachev’s opposition within the communist party (ie those favouring more state control, less democracy, Stalinist) as ‘the conservatives’. With or without the small ‘c’ BBC loves the opportunity couple the word with those ‘parties’ it perceives as negative. MWL – you can’t have it both ways. The Kennedys and Castros of the world could be described as ‘conservative’ within their political context of the (broad) left – but you won’t hear from the BBC.
Mike, you are right about the use of the word, but there is a lack of ‘serious commentators’ here.
‘It really is silly to say that the use of conservative in this article is part of the BBC’s on-going war against conservatism in the west.’ Of course, any sane person would understand this.
‘David Vance must know this. Perhaps he’s just having a bad week’
– This is not the first time he’s raised this issue, it’s one of his bugbears. For me it’s up there with the whole, including Republic of Ireland stories in the Northern Ireland news section conspiracy to make everyone forget that NI is part of Britian.
BS detective: are you suggesting paranoia and conspiracy theories dominate this site and the thinking of its main contributors?
surely not…it all seems so logical to me….
Those who are reasonably well educated understand that conservative with a small ‘c’ means traditional, established values, cautious and so on. The BBC are well aware, or should be, that educational standards in Britain have fallen, and will be aiming at the lowest common denominator and aware that using this word sends a subliminal message.
Never feed trolls is such a good rule.
mikewineliberal writes: “Any serious commentator on the highly orthodox form of Islam known as Wahhabism would deem it be a conservative form of islam, in so far as it takes a traditional and orthodox view of how one should interpret the Koran.”
I’m not so sure. Wahhabism is an 18th century ‘back to the Quran’ reform movement, rather different form the ways Islam had evolved elsewhere. I would call these versions ‘conservative’ and Wahhabism/Salafism ‘radical’. Don’t forgwet that Islam also includes sufism, the ahaditha and the different Quranic schools. Salafism seeks a ‘pure’ path, renouncing ‘innovations’ in favor of Quranic fundamentalism.
Don’t forgwet to spwell check, too.
from the fons et origo omnis scientiae, wikipedia, on why Salafism (Wahhabism) is not ‘conservatism’ but ‘radical (supposed) originalism’ (my term):
“The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences. Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad.
Salafism has also been described as a simplified and literalist version of Islam, in which adherents follow a few commands and practices.”
Conservatives embrace change slowly and gradually if they think it embodies wisdom. Radicals ‘go back ot their roots’.
“Libby Purves and I were sitting drinking champagne and wondering why the licence payers are paying for the string quartet.”
Pete | 15.02.09 – 7:13 am | #
that needs to be a headline on THIS BLOG!!!
think credit crunch. bankers. fat cats. greed..
and there is the BBC doing the same.
i’m with david on this one – wahabbism is generally recognised as a radical and a revolutionary form of islam.
if you want conservative islam, go look at Turkey. its traditional, goes back through the centuries via the Ottoman Empire and has a long LONG history… and doesnt rock the boat either. tradition matters more.
thats conservative, with a small “c”.