‘Is the BBC biased’ has done a write up of Sunday Morning Live….it concludes that overall it was a fair effort on the part of the BBC….I haven’t seen it yet so can’t comment myself.
What is interesting is part of the programme that they have transcribed.
I have in a previous post suggested that most Muslims don’t actually like Islam…..the real, fundamental, follow all the rules Islam….they are in fact ‘Islamophobes’. They are born into the religion, they are obliged by their community to ‘keep the Faith’ but it is more cultural for them, more lip service than devotion, they’ll take the social and perhaps the spiritual parts of Islam but say no thanks to the wife beating, gay baiting and hand chopping etc.
They might express a desire to see Islam ‘reformed’….that is, have those violent, supremacist and genocidal parts of the Koran and Sharia excised.
If so they would be denounced as ‘Islamophobes’ were they to appear on the pages of this blog no doubt, as the desires they have for the reform of Islam are the very same concerns that are expressed on this site by posters as they argue the BBC should take a more critical look at Islam, only to be charged with ‘islamophobia’….an irrational hatred of Islam….despite the criticism of Islam being based on reasoned argument and endless proofs from the Koran and the Hadiths themselves.
With that in mind here is part of the write up of the SML programme:
‘We heard from Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini who said that the British people “no longer believe the Islamist peace double discourse from British Muslim leaders.” In one of those “wow!” moments that thrills the heart, Sheikh Muhammad argued that “the literalist, supremacist use and abuse of scripture by violently extremist Islamist groups…isn’t so far actually different to the same kind of literalist supremacist readings of the same kind of scripture by, if you like, sort of mainstream extremist Islamist groups like the Muslim Council of Britain and Jamaat-e-Islami front organisations like the the Islamic Foundation.” He went on to argue that the violent texts in Islam need to be moderated by Islamic scholars and said they should follow the example of Jewish scholars who have long moderated the texts of Deuteronomy. He then went on to denounce the “interfaith or Islamophobia kind of industry”. Mehdi, you won’t be surprised to hear, wasn’t entirely happy about that!’
Anything different in there from what this site says?
No.
And yet if ‘John Smith’ should try to express those views on a BBC programme he would be quickly cut off and ‘outed’ as a likely EDL member…sin of sins!
Much like, as George R points out, Douglas Murray was smeared by Mehdi Hasan as a ‘supporter’ of the EDL:
Mehdi Hasan and the EDL
Interesting isn’t it…he, Sheikh Muhammad, a Muslim, says that there is little difference between what the extremists claim and what the mainstream Muslim groups say about Islam.
Much like the FBI offical who told us what the only difference between Al Qaeda and the Islamic community group CAIR (the US MCB equivalent) and the Muslim Brotherhood was:
“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics.”
In the end they all have the same aims…just different methods of achieving them.
That’s a very important point to remember…one that the BBC and politicians deliberately refuse to acknowledge….because to acknowledge it would mean they would have to do something about it…it would mean suppressing Islam in some form or another.
The non-violent Islamists are just as ‘dangerous’ politically and culturally as the ones prepared to bomb and shoot their way to victory….if you consider Islam itself a threat to democratic, secular/Christian society that is.
The BBC should, if it were doing its job, be examining every word of Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini and be asking just what exactly does he mean?
To do so would mean having to examine Islam and all those tricky little verses about the Jews and Christians being sinners, unclean, to be controlled at the end of a sword.
….and then what? What if the BBC discovered that this was the true teaching of the Koran, the real meaning of Islam?
That’s why it will never happen.
That and the fact that the ‘Establishment’, from the Royal Family, politicians, businessmen and those in the Media all have close and extensive links to Muslim states……not just through commerce, oil and weapons, but cultural and social ties…a surprising number of the ‘upper crust’ being married to Muslims…George Osborne’s brother for instance.
And of course the final calculation that they make is that should such an eventuality happen, an Isamic takeover, they, already at the top of the tree so to speak, would likely remain there and would not suffer overly much, not having to alter their opulent lifestyles greatly, judging by the excesses of the Saudi Royal family.
For those at lower levels or the bottom of the tree things might be a lot less pleasant.
Nice though that the BBC keeps giving the floor to an Islamist like Mehdi Hasan without challenging his views themselves.
Quote: ” He went on to argue that the violent texts in Islam need to be moderated by Islamic scholars and said they should follow the example of Jewish scholars who have long moderated the texts of Deuteronomy. He then went on to denounce the “interfaith or Islamophobia kind of industry”.’
Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call, under the threat of expulsion, to clean up their communities of extremism . They even went further and made changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK or the West, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.
correct, painfully so …
tamaskan tatamakan – very VERY well known, and well used Arabic phrase, show the victims face and you will take over
… all part of the jihad, “war is deceit” and all that
now who said that eh!
“fair effort on the part of the BBC” … fair and bbc?- never in the same sentence.
Ahmed, (host), Hasan, Mughal, islamophile Atkinson? by head of programming Aquil Ahmed … oh and D Murray? … just unrelenting pap from “tell lies i mean mama” beebots tripping islamophobia? off the tongue as if it had any basis in reality … sheesh!
just shows the depths to which the which the bbc has plummeted.
islamophobia is all part of the “show the victims face” narrative – how widely propagated/ingrained … OIC?
deliberate … Warsi?, wilfully complicit … all Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia?.
but through all this propaganda, given the opportunity,
the british public smell a rat, and tell you so, example the viewers vote 78% to 22% on this very programme. telling the BBC wrong wrong and WRONG again, and … every time there is a vote concerning this over publicised retrograde ideology it is the same.
Does the BBC “like a smiling Abdul, with a horrific stench from the basement” take any notice?
That alone shows the “is the bbc biased?” blog up for what it is, if you can t see the bias with that programme
… you re clearly obsolete
On the issue of how best to heal with the self-inflicted fatal wound that we have dealt ourselves, we need above all, to bear in mind that Islam is a dual faced ideology. In practice this means that one group of Muslims will wage violent Jihad, while the other proclaims that Islam is a peaceful and compassionate religion, based on tolerance etc, and violent Jihadis do not represent Islam. As it is impossible to differentiate between the two, as the groups are interchangeable at a moments notice, what this does in practice, is to make it impossible for the victims of Islamic Jihad to take any action to defend themselves, for fear of hurting the peaceful Muslim group, and what is assumed, will make the situation worse.What needs to be understood is that both groups operate in tandem, each supporting the other, and interchangeable from ‘moderate’ to ‘radical’ at a moments notice. This is apparent from the Muslim engineers or doctors as they morph to became suicide bombers – its always stated later by neighbours, how very peaceful and normal the Muslims were. The reverse is also true of the violent Jihadi – when he gets caught, he immediately becomes a peaceful moderate, who admits temporary insanity or that his understanding of Islam was wrong. In either case, it is not just to get a lenient sentence but mainly to absolve Islam from the atrocity.
Not sure why the video shows some Sikhs. Last time I looked they were not setting off bombs in the London Underground.
The beeb have been bending over backwards to ensure us fee payers are aware that Baroness Ashton has met with Morsi.
A few things;
Ex-CND loon Ashton (described as EU foreign policy chief, whatever that means?) has never, ever been elected. She was placed in her handsomely paid for doing nothing position by Brown.
So it’s a bit rich bemoaning the fact that “democratically” elected Morsi has been “ousted” when she herself is in as undemocratic a position as they come.
Funny how the beeb never seem to explore why Morsi was “ousted” – how the populace just couldn’t face being dragged back to the 7th century via totalitarian sharia law.
Funny also how Ashton never explored how women would fair under such a system during her get together.
But then, none of that would fit the beeb or EU agenda, would it?
Funny also how Ashton never explored how women would fair under such a system during her get together.
Or how Christians will be treated under full sharia. Even now, Christians are being killed, a Coptic priest beheaded for no reason other then he was a Christian priest, and churches burnt.
BBC where are your reportets?
And then Syria. Here again Christians are being killed, churches burnt, and the usual, and now quite normal beheading of a Christian Orthodox priest.
Beheading like “honour” killings, are getting to be quite normal in the UK, so they don’t need any media coverage.
There can be no revision of the scripts attributed to the prophet, or to those that recorded the lifystyle and actions of that prophet.
To suggest anything else is possible is merely deceipt, and at the point of a sword, or the barrel of an ak47 the status quo of their basic teachings would be reinstated very quickly.
These so called moderates would melt into the background or risk death by barbaric means. Similar fates await the kuffars.
some bright spark will pop out of the woodwork soon and ask me for my evidence.
But it’s all around us, an open pair of eyes and ears will be in no doubt.
Dont ever think you can modify the texts, or reinterpret them, it simply will not happen.
The effects within the countries of that majority ideology are plain to see.
Don’t ever be fooled.
“The car will be ready on Wednesday”
“The cheque is in the post”
“Democracy will flourish in ____________ (insert middle eastern country here) under the muslim brotherhood.”
So how is our Tony doing with his Middle East peace envoy job then? With every other Arab/Muslim country in chaos you would think his mates at the BBC would be wanting to plug his efforts.
Your quote from “Is The BBC Biased?” implied that Mahdi Hasan “wasn’t entirely happy” about the comments by Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini. My impression was that Hasan completely ignored them and made no response. He just resorted to his usual technique of diversion so that “9/11” is balanced by “Anders Breivik”.
I must admit I don’t buy the ‘moderate Muslim’ line, it is a figment of the BBC/’Imam’ Cameron’s imagination. I draw the parallel with the Russians during the ‘cold war’. Would we have permitted unlimited Russian immigration during that period? Would it be true to say that the average Russian citizen of those times was ‘peace loving’? Absolutely yes! Would those Russians have manned the tanks of the USSR in the event of a war? Without doubt!
And so it is with the ‘peace loving’ Muslim. They aren’t British Muslims they are Muslims who live in Britain and when the chips are down the distinction will be all too apparent.
Spot on there. I’ve been chewing my wife’s ear off saying the same thing but substituting the Russians for the Germans (Nazis). Can’t imagine allowing huge numbers of Nazis to settle here whilst they were trying to dominate Europe. Mind you your analogy is better.
“They aren’t British Muslims they are Muslims who live in Britain”
What about the Muslims who fight in the British Armed Forces? There are about 600 at the moment, so yes they are a minority of British Muslims, but it goes to show that there are at least some Muslims living in this country who are proud to be British.
http://militarymigrants.org/2013/03/british-muslim-soldiers/
Much like the FBI offical who told us what the only difference between Al Qaeda and the Islamic community group CAIR (the US MCB equivalent) and the Muslim Brotherhood was:
“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics.”
=====================================
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3672/muslim-brotherhood-us-government
“History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government”
if people detest or does not agree with the ideology of islam, it is not because of the miltants of the edl demonstrating against the extremes of that religion, it is because of muslims everyday behaviour that they show towards non muslims in terms of crime and terrorism in the last few years or so,it is a myth that the edl stir up anger against islam and muslims,muslims and islam do a very great job at that themselfes by there behaviour towards non muslims on daily basis,tell mama that medhi hassan.
In answer to your question, I don’t think they can possibly like their own religion because so many around the world are always killing each other, blowing people and things up and generally being noisy, aggressive and horrible to everyone who doesn’t subscribe. Look at many Christians who are very happy drinking tea and sitting watching the cricket on Sunday afternoons, and the Buddhists and Sikhs I know are all really jovial people. They don’t go round chucking hand grenades through windows or driving planes through windows. The most unhappy Christians I know are those from Stornoway who chain swings up on the Sabbath (but they’ll quite happily swig a bottle of single malt behind closed doors!).
Sorry to bang on the same old drum, but so much of this is sprurious headwanking, akin to “how many angels dance on the head of a pin”.
And it`s not as if I`m being snippy…really I`m not.
Clare Lopez-thanks to Leha somewhere else on this site…puts it so much better than me, so for Gods sake seek it out,.
For now though
1. Islam seeks a Caliphate(world Government), and Sharia(enforced Islamic Law)…it`s not going to fuss with John Kerrys road maps, unless it`s a straight track between Auschwitz and Birkenau. Any pretence that there`s a game or negotiating to be done between the Muslim umma and the Jooz/Kristyans is merely for the likes of the BBC and Giles Fraser. This is the final countdown.
2. Do you want to be garroted( Muslim Brotherhood, and their patient game)…or do you want to be hanged(Shia) or beheaded(Sunni)?…that is the extent of compromising with Islam…and Michael Adojebola( as if I care about Satans other monikers) knows that-Sura 9( …FFS, read it!)…it`s the one that the BBC cut out from his meat-cleaver moment re Lee Rigby.
3. Anything else is just counting the daisies and the daisycutter bombs are aimed at the flabby, compromised West-Syria? Egypt?-let them kill themselves and lets deal with the winners!
Only the likes of the BBC would suggest otherwise-if you had a choice between Qatada, Hussein or al-Zawahiri..or Hague, Kerry and Malloch Brown/Blair…who would YOU back to win?
Thank God I`ve got my God-the BBC have Medhi Hasan as a guide..Thank you Jesus, thank you Israel.
Can’t we all just agree that religion is a pile of man-made shit and get on with the one and only life we have and will ever have?
Damn, I wish I had been born 3,000 years ago, I could have stopped so much crap.
“the final calculation that they make is that should such an eventuality happen, an Isamic [sic] takeover, they, already at the top of the tree so to speak, would likely remain there and would not suffer overly much”
Been talking to David Icke? This is the most hilariously demented theory I have read this week. This site has the superficial appearance of serious commentary, but it didn’t take long to find it is riddled with lunacy…
Earls court, you back?
eh?
Anybody else think the ruling class and aristocracy are staying quiet about Islam because they’ll do nicely under the Caliphate? No? That’ll be because the idea is COMPLETELY INSANE.
@ CTC
One day, you will have to face your Grand kids, and explain how you wet arsed liberals let this happen…that is, of course, if you, and they, survive the cull.
Still feeling cocky?…I wouldn’t if I were you, you, and your ilk will be the 1st ones meeting the sharp side of an Islamic sword down at choppy-chop square.
Keep that in mind, as you rant at the evil “waaaaaaaysists”, remember this, when you squeal for help, and those who knew what was coming say “No.”
Where did I say I was a liberal? You don’t have to be one (I’m not) to think that the conspiracy theory I highlighted above is complete batshit crazy.
“aristocracy” LOL
Keeping up-to-date with contemporary Britain I see.
At least I’m not living in some hate-filled parallel universe.
Funny that’s exactly where I thought you were you beaming from
After all ,every one that doesn’t agree with you is “COMPLETELY INSANE.” (higher case letters ,all ways a give away) or “batshit crazy.”
And you live in a world where the British ruling elites have not had a romanticised view of Islam since the 19C .
You know Burton ,Percy Bish, Coleridge and all those other ‘romantics’
Or did Edward Said get it all wrong?