Here’s a great guest post by a Biased BBC regular. I think it illuminates the essential point that the BBC’s bias is dangerous. Give this a read, well worth your time.
“The BBC’s contemporary battle for hearts, minds and souls extends far beyond the purile petulance of its news outlets. Such is the BBC’s eagerness to produce the next generation of politically correct, self-loathing social justice dhimmis that they are now indoctrinating school children via the BBC Bitesize guide to National Curriculum.
Al-Beeb’s sinister agenda is evident in Key Stage 3 resources, such as “The Islamic World in the Middle Ages”. The licence fee is helping fund a programme of propaganda that is telling children as young as 11 that Allah really is the greatest. Indeed, you will notice that they openly refer to the “Prophet Muhammad”. Does that mean that the BBC officially believes that Mo WAS a prophet of God?
Our children are told that Muslims were going to beauty parlours, using deodorants and drinking from glasses, at a time when the English were telling children not to pick their nose over their food, spit on the table, or throw uneaten food onto the floor (here) and the city of Cordoba in Spain (omitting the fact that Muslims had invaded and conquered Spain) was a city of over half a million inhabitants with street lighting and running water while, at the same time 10,000 Londoners lived in timber-framed houses and used the river as their sewer (here).
Ah, but surely if talking about the Religion of Peace™ the Beeb will have to mention the concept of jihad, dhimmis and jizra? Well, not really. On Islamic imperialism, the Beeb seems to think that the Ottoman Empire expanded so quickly not because of a desire to extend power or the march of Islam but because “the Turks believed in a prophecy called Osman’s dream, about a tree which grew until it covered the whole world” (here). 1.5 million Armenians can’t be wrong.
Foundations of Western Civilization
Ah yes, but the Quar’an and Hadith are very clear what Muslims should do once they are victorious in jihad over the infidels and kuffirs; once they subit they become second class citizens (dhimmis) and pay a tax for the privilege (jizra) of not being killed. Alas, the Beeb suggests: “The different non-Muslim religious communities inside the Ottoman Empire were called ‘millets’”. They were given a great deal of independence, including the right to have their own religion and leaders, and to collect their own taxes. Christian and Jewish people were not persecuted in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire tolerated different religions. The English kings expelled Jewish people and persecuted the Lollards.”
If the kiddies haven’t got the message yet, what about being told that the Islam provide the foundations of Western Civilization? Shamelessly: “The Islamic empire had a huge impact on the development of medieval western Europe. It is possible to argue that the Islamic world provided the foundations on which later developments in western civilisation occurred.”(here)
Crusades “barely a pinprick” in the history of the Islamic world
Come on though. When the Muslims were invading, enslaving and butchering Europeans, Christendom had to do something? They had to fight back to expel the foreign imperialists, you know, like in Iraq and Afganistan? The Beeb will surely reference the Battle of Tours and the subsequent Crusades that successfully pushed back the invasion and stopped Europe being eradicated? “It would be a mistake to think of the Crusades as the most important wars in the history of the Islamic world. The Crusades were “barely a pinprick” on the Islamic world.” (here)
There are plenty more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zx9xsbk/revision and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/the_wider_world/medieval_islamic_world/revision/2/ while there is also an entire suite of pro-Islam materials: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/topics/zsdtsbk.
Even for the BBC that is shocking.
The BBC as usual will omit the fact the US Marines were formed to rescue US citizens seized by Barbary Pirates.
The BBC fails to state that Western citizens seized from civilian vessels seized by Barbary Pirates.
The BBC helpfully omits the History of coastal communities raided by Barbary Pirates
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
evad,
Beeboids probably don’t know that. They are incredibly ignorant of history.
The fact that this sort of activity no longer shocks me is in itself unacceptable. The BBC no longer just panders to the fringes, it is actively trying to destroy the established order of the country it claims to represent. It knows that its influence on adults is waning so it’s targeting children and adolescents that are too young to know any different, not to mention they’re surrounded by this same indoctrination in their schools.
They get a respected oncological researcher, Tim Hunt, fired for a so-called sexist quote taken completely and deliberately out of context by a BAME feminist with a history of dishonesty to the press, but didn’t even mention Baha Mustafa’s repeated racist statements about white people (including using the hashtag #killallwhitemen) while serving as “diversity officer” at Goldsmith’s – for which she did not apologise and did not lose her job, despite a petition with 20,000 signatures.
They and the Guardian are the only mainstream British media outlets that have never reported on a single case of a male rape defendant committing suicide after the accusation has been proven false yet the accusor remaining anonymous while the defendant has his life destroyed.
They cover up details of Islamic extremism and attribute it to depression before they even know the attacker’s name, yet they ignored Tommy Nair’s history of mental illness and instead attributed his one isolated act of brutality as indicative of the entire Brexit campaign.
They take millions to pedal the EU’s lies and cover up for the likes of George Soros who barely even gets a mention on the BBC despite probably being the most prolific social upheaver alive today.
They apologise for BLM as the advocate killing police then claim Trump is racist, and also claim he has no chance of winning the election even though most current news polls have it neck and neck and most ANONYMOUS polls have Trump winning in an absolute landslide since there’s no chance of liberals or SJWs tracing and attacking his supporters in these polls.
The BBC is funded by the public, through threat of prosecution, to repeatedly lie to them and treat them as worthless. We need to do more to end this farce once and for all, get their deception out to the wider public, and take back control of our society. Brexit is a start, even though the BBC still thinks it has a chance of being avoided. The fall of the BBC is the next step.
I’m shocked to read these underhanded tricks by the BBC! If any BBC employee is reading this thread why don’t you go get one of the many Qur’ans that must be within short distance of any BBC employees desk and check the following out!
In my opinion, Islam doesn’t even deserve a second consideration!
Why don’t you go and ask any Muslim scholar/believer why Islam (the religion of truth) omit’s Isaac for Ishmael in (Gen 22:2)? There can only be one answer – a clear case of lying.
If you are a Muslim reading this why don’t you go and check it out! I promise you I am not lying!
So, why on earth would anyone believe in a faith where the author switched Holy Scripture.
Surely Muslims are pagan in their practice by using magical carpets to kneel on while praying to their “unknown god” who they believe dwells in a middle eastern destination
Strangely enough, although the Quran is the Word Of Allah, dictated straight to Mohammed in a cave, large parts of it are a mash up of the Old and New Testaments, written by someone who did not fully understand either text. An odd mistake for Allah to make, you might think, but then he moves in mysterious ways. His choice of a murderous paedophile as his Prophet was one of his more intriguing little jests.
And I’m sure that every BBC progressive Elitist must know more about the Qur’an’s teachings as they continue to sweat blood in promoting Islam’s “attractiveness”!! Most BBC employee’s should know about this lie re the Isaac/Ishmael issue as it is the mainstay of Islam’s Truth to the infidels! Aren’t we the infidels BBC? So please try to explain this lie!?
The flagrant intellectual dishonesty and moral regression of the BBC is no more evident than it is here. Evil, evil sods.
The BBC have long been at this.
Blame Kenneth Baker and his BBC Micro B computers drive into schools in the 80s.
Catastrophic-and Thatcher takes the blame for letting her slug go feral in state schools…not private ones of course!
After this…well with Grange Hill etc, cBBC…Childrens telly became a BBC project…start with John Noakes, end with Jimmy Savile…then Jacqueline Wilson and Dick and Dom , Richard Bacon etc.
Nobodys fault but ours.
Thankfully kids HATE the BBC as we do-and people like me use Memri,Ka`aba etc to show them what Islam REALLY stands for…so their brainwashing only works with thick parents and tomorrows liberal graduates like themselves.
Self replicating viruses.
Shall we make a deal?…let`s bitch at the BBCs crap for kids when WE can shut them up over burkinis…over alcohol concerns…over halal provision…over muslim preferential treatment for criminals…for our own self-censorship re being regarded as foamy phobes and furbies…and we get Brick Lanes finest off our streets in Luton…Oh, and ensure that Khan does NOT censor the ads in the bus stops and tube stations.
Why WON`T the BBC corrode our kids in class-when we grown men and women out here let them ignore the Muslima imperative of booze bans and baselines…stop letting Islam take its inches-the buggers can`t measure, but we give them yards for nothing.
No WONDER they think we`re shit for stabbing…we let the BBC confirm it with every decapitualtion we sede to them.
Odd, the BBC doesn’t explain why the ungrateful residents of Spain spent 6-700 years battling to rid themselves of the wonderful, highly scientific and kind Muslims.
I guess some people will never know when they are well off, its a good thing the lunatic BBC is here to tell us all how wonderful a Muslim invasion would be.
Anyone know if this utter nonsense is also part of the education within schools?
Its a case of ‘If you see El-Cid’ tell him. (gets coat)
I recently said in one of the Open threads that I have always viewed the coverage of Islam by the BBC as appeasing rather than supportive. I think this particular thread shows my thinking was wrong.
The BBC as usual will omit the fact the US Marines were formed to rescue US citizens seized by Barbary Pirates.
The BBC fails to state that Western citizens seized from civilian vessels seized by Barbary Pirates.
The BBC helpfully omits the History of coastal communities raided by Barbary Pirates
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
The BBC ignores the fact Islamic science was based on Greek foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanismand that an early Caliph who was keen on science and maths was overthrown by the Imams who objected to his curbs on their use of slaves and satraps.
Correct!
But this is the BBC promoting Islam’s so called “significant” contribution to science again!.
“More and more I am hearing and reading these myths being pushed about.
I find a more accurate representation of Islam’s contribution to science in the comparison of Nobel Prize winners: as I recall, roughly 25% of all Nobel prize winners are Jews, while 10 have been Muslims.
As Wikipedia puts it:
“Half of the 10 Muslim Nobel laureates were awarded the prize in the 21st century. Six of the 10 winners were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates
My first point; half of them were given in the last 15 years, probably because of all the previous discrimination against Islam in the world – it is only fair! Awards from the politically correct generation generally don’t mean a whole lot (recall that Obama was awarded the Peace Prize) which leads to…
My second point; half of them received the Nobel Peace Prize, meaning they either genuinely want peace and so aren’t really following Muhammed’s example of real Islam closely, which is of course brutally violent and oppressive in any place or time it exists, or they have probably been awarded based upon all sorts of politically correct falsities, like Arafat clearly was”.
Simon Fox. 9.6.14
Come on Kukichiyo, defend the indefensible.
Johnny,
Their minds are locked in a cage and there is no escape for them. No argument will change the minds of Kiku “little flower” and his clones. They are Robots. Orwell said it all in 1984. Nothing has changed .
In a similar vein to their Bitesize guide I decided to have a quick look on the CBBC Newsround page and discovered an article titled: “What’s the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka?”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241
The illustrations are simultaneously comical and slightly terrifying.
‘The Islamic empire had a huge impact on the development of medieval western Europe.’
No, the Arabs pinched the Greek learning from the Byzantine empire & added very little to it except alchemy, which of course was blind alley. It was therefore Europe that had an huge impact on the development of the Arabs, which the Arabs soon gave up. Street lights in Cordoba? What happened to them? By the time street lights appeared in western Europe they had long been gone in Islamic countries. It must be remembered however that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottomans did have a powerful effect on the development of Europe causing the renaissance of course, but it wasn’t Islamic knowledge that did this, it was the release of Greek knowledge accumulated by the Byzantines (Europeans)that did it, it was already European knowledge & Europeans knew what to do with it unlike the Arabs.
“Indeed, you will notice that they openly refer to the “Prophet Muhammad”. Does that mean that the BBC officially believes that Mo WAS a prophet of God?”
I have noticed they have sparse reporting on our saviour Jesus Christ.
Talking of books….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
http://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17841
Completely agree with the issue of bias in this thread, but I remain unconvinced that the BBC are a conscious participant in the Islamification agenda. As an organisation the BBC is now staffed by a vast collection of professional idiots. It seems as if expertise is no longer valued and that long established journalistic disciplines have been discarded. Laughably, those at the top of the BBC believe they are still working in the public service tradition and it is this that is the motivating factor behind their ridiculous re-telling of history.
“with street lighting and running water”
I found this:
Cordoba: A City of Light
“The streets were well paved and lighted, the lights being attached to the outer doors and corners of the houses”
I’m not sure I’d call that “street lighting”, better than nothing but that’s about it.
“Cordoba was abundantly supplied with running water, for the supply of which ‘Abd al-Rahman I had constructed an aqueduct.”
Really? This is interesting:
Cordoba – CORDUBA / COLONIA PRATICIA
“One can follow the stages of urban growth of Roman Corduba through the analysis of the strategies for the water supply. Throughout the Republican era the wealth of ground water in this area, at shallow depth and in very soft clay, allowed public and domestic supply from springs and wells. But with the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) an important period started with a significant impact on monumentalization of the water infrastructure.”
More detail:
“Roman aqueduct and Muslim qanat
The Roman channel was built using opus caementitium (Roman concrete), a material made of medium-sized limestone rocks stuck together with lime and sand.
The Arab historian al-Dabbi (9th c) reports the existence of two fountains situated in the Western outskirts of Cordoba. One of them was called Ayn Funt Aurea, an Arabic version of the Latin name Font Aurea (Golden Fountain). This Font Aurea could originally have been a saliens (Roman fountain or nymphaeum) situated either in the circus or in the Western quarters of the city, and supplied by this aqueduct.
In 976 al-Hakan II decided to build a large piping system or qanat to supply the Great Mosque with water. In order to achieve this purpose, the engineers working for the caliph discontinued the route of the old Roman aqueduct and diverted its water with a new system of pipes that went over the former siphon and a castellum divisorium. After the Reconquista of the city the qanat became the property of the Cathedral authorities. They started to charge the citizens for the privilege of supplying their houses with aqueduct water. In modern times it continued to carry water to the Cathedral and the Alcázar (fortress). For this reason it became known as Water from the Factory of the Holy Church and Cathedral.
This aqueduct has remained in use since Roman times. After building the bus station, its water was channeled so that it could continue to feed the gardens in the Alcázar.”
So – it seems to me that the Muslims have forgotten what the Romans did for them. As for the BBC – they’re liars, pure and simple.
Sorry – italics didn’t work in the longer extract for some reason. Bloody Romans!
Yes this truly shocking from the BBC. What I find more offensive than over emphasising the role of ancient Islamic technology (how about some examples of new ones?) is the loathing they have for British/English culture, achievements and history, and this from the tax funded state broadcaster! Surely the Department of Education might want to look into this?
Can we get the BBC to comment on why they use The Prophet? As opposed to the prophet or how about in current style BBC ISIS reporting the so-called prophet.
As for “It is possible to argue that the Islamic world provided the foundations on which later developments in western civilisation occurred.” It is of course equally valid to argue the exact opposite, so no bias there. And again how about a list of all the great Islamic contributions since The Enlightenment…..
Islam is a parasitic totalitarian ideology.
Like any parasite, it needs fresh kills and lebensraum once it`s trashed the host country-North Africa had vineyards and was fertile under the Romans…within a few hundred years it became the desert that we see today.
The koran hasn`t one original thought in it-even that crap about “if you kill one person, you kill a universe” is from a Jewish Mishnah-NOT “Schindlers List” Obama and Clegg!
Everything gained in their eras would have been pilfered from the Greeks or Egyptians that they plundered-except for their own Islamic poetry in Arabic, which I gather is good.
Lots of boys and wine in them-pudendas and the like-which is why they don`t boast too much about that though.
Yes, they DID finesse number systems, formalised hospital care and played parts in developing some physiology, some maths and some creations like alcohol…but with near-on a millennium and a captive hog tied and free run at all that had gone before-not THAT much to boast of is it now?
Since then-the last flamenco chord in Granada in the mid-15th C-they`ve given the world nothing…zilch…nada.
Hence their wish to take us all back to their golden age-our dark ages apparently.
But we STLL didn`t do what they do…and time travel is no longer required now we know the nature of the stoning age that is Islam.
But-unless you know God-and, to be fair-they know of His anger and finality-then they will take this culture that let it nuzzle in the bowel, and remove it as not of God-and that is correct.
But God wants us to improve our culture-and there are few signs of that.
So if you see Islam as kill or cure, improve or remove…as Gods purgative, corrective or whip of purloined scorpions…you`ll be on the way.
As Paul says in Romans-we are without excuse if you don`t know, don`t care.
Because Islam does care-and still we let the BBC throw its lazy offal over the sides of the inflatables.
NOT the sermon required I know-but having heard the crap from Edinburghs Kirk this morning on Radio 4…thought I`d be a little more “exclusive”.
There is something i just don’t understand. Perhaps the BBc can put me right. That Cathedral in Salisbury. It could not have been built by my uncouth uneducated and stupid ancestors could it?
After all the BBC tells me continually that is what we were. Medieval brutes don’t build one of the finest buildings in the world.
Will the BBC please put me on the road to right thinking. I am confused. Perhaps Salisbury Cathedral is really in Islamic Spain and just looks as if it is in Wiltshire.
Anyway the kiddies of the BBC probably think a Gothic Cathedral is really some type of mosque or more probably a medieval shopping centre.
This is taken from a letter I sent to the BBC, not the first of it’s type, on their ‘historical’ pieces.
‘As a historian with a keen interest in the history of Asia and the Middle East, I find this account deeply lacking on a number of levels and feel the authors haven’t applied the kind of impartiality which is normally to be expected. This is especially an issue here as this summary of ‘Islamic History in the Middle Ages’ is aimed at a young audience and may be the first, and possibly only exposure they ever receive to a fascinating and important subject.
I understand the need to redact a massive swathe of history for the sake of making it ‘bitesize’, and thus easily comprehended and retained by a younger audience, and appreciate the need to provide a greatly simplified summary as a revision aid. I also appreciate that when dealing with topics relating to religion and potentially contentious subjects it can be challenging to present historical facts in a way which is appropriately impartial and inoffensive to all involved. However, I consider this particular account presents a totally lackadaisical view of the history of a vast region clearly viewed from an extremely nuanced perspective.
There has been, I completely concur, a historical lack of appreciation in the Western world of the contributions of Islamic science and culture to global civilisation as we appreciate it today. One of the most important messages I would have liked to have seen included here was the crucial significance of scholars and practitioners in the region carrying forward, and in some cases improving upon, the science, engineering, architecture, medicine, and political thoughts, of the Ancient World, both Occidental and Oriental. Much of this knowledge was, of course, lost in the West during the period of the so called ‘Dark Ages’, in the great cultural centres of the Middle East the Islamic conquerors captured and inherited much of this ‘wealth of knowledge’ and, thankfully, in most cases treasured it, in stark contrast to the actions of some modern ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ such as the so called ‘Islamic State’ who have gone out of their way to destroy ancient relics and documents (Palmyra, Timbuktu and Bamiyan, to name just a few). I am very pleased that you mention the role of Muslim States in passing on their more advanced sciences and arts, particularly in medicine, mathematics and engineering to the West, and you very rightly point to this influx of ancient and Eastern knowledge being crucial to the Renaissance in Europe, however I’m concerned that no mention is made of the part played by the Muslim states of the region in saving the lore of the ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent which predate Islam by millennia. That this was a deliberate policy of some of the more enlightened of the ‘Arab Conquerors’ as recounted in many histories of the era is, I feel, a highly significant point you’ve failed to make.
Also, I feel you rather belittle the militaristic nature of some of these Islamic states and the impact this had on neighbouring cultures. For example, no mention is made of the almost complete obliteration of earlier Persian (Iranian) culture and the genocidal eradication of peoples of religions not acceptable to the Islamic conquerors such as occurred in: Persia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian subcontinent. You are right to mention that in some cases non-Islamic religions and traditions were permitted to continue within some Muslim Empires, with the treatment of the followers of other ‘religions of the book’ (e.g. Judaism and Christianity) being particularly favourable in some cases (although not others). This does contrast with the sometimes brutal treatment of some religious groups (specifically the Jews) and groups perceived as heretical (e.g. the Lollards) in Europe, but it totally ignores the periodic massacres of ‘heretics’ and ‘unbelievers’ in nearly all states (European or Middle Eastern) during this era, and the tendency of states to harbour groups of religious dissidents (‘heretics’) from enemy states as a form of state policy, or ‘fifth column’, but not to tolerate any ‘heretics’ ostensibly of their own religion.
It is interesting that you don’t mention the origin of the Crusading movement in Europe (if we ignore the fascinating, but essentially ‘side show’ of the Iberian ‘Reconquista’) with the advent of the markedly more brutal, and less tolerant treatment of non-Muslim minorities coinciding with the Turkish invasions of the region. It should surely be mentioned that these ‘barbarians’ terrorised indigent Muslim, Christian and Jew alike, and practised what was considered a very debased form of Islam by the urban elite of the Muslim Middle East of the day. It was the atrocities these ‘barbarians’ carried out on Christian pilgrims, in contrast to the liberal and tolerant native Muslims who welcomed the Christian pilgrims as a valuable seasonal source of ‘tourist income’, that directly led to the Council of Clermont and the call to arms, yet you don’t mention this.
To describe the entire Crusading movement over five centuries as a ‘pinprick’ is ludicrous, especially if you take the well founded view that it ultimately lead to the exploration of the world and empire building of European states which continued right up until almost our own era. The Crusades had an undeniably massive negative impact on the Middle East, and coming as they did at the same time as the equally devastating great Mongol conquests and sequential outbreaks of the Black Death, it’s impossible to overstate their impact on the society and civilisation of the region. Many historians have described the succeeding centuries as the Middle East’s ‘Dark Age’, some indeed claim that the Middle East has yet to truly recover from these blows. To pass all that off as a ‘pinprick’ is disingenuous, and also belittles the so called ‘Response of Islam’, specifically in the form of the amazing Ottoman Empire. Without the Crusades there would have been no Ottoman Empire, and without the Ottoman Empire there would be no Renaissance and no modern world – this is one of the key points of world history and you dismiss it as a ‘pinprick’?
Regarding the Ottomans a great deal could be written, but you cover them in a couple of completely inaccurate and misleading bullet points. The first point is surely that the Ottomans were a military state from start to finish, they were founded in a war zone and every aspect of their state was established purely to maintain and finance an army of conquest, a self perpetuating machine which fed on the conquest and subjugation of neighbouring states, both Christian and Muslim.
Given the importance of the army to the Empire it’s good you mention it, but surely there were three main elements to the army (not two): the Ghazis (religious volunteers fighting for loot, and the chance to kill unbelievers and thus to earn a place in Paradise in the warlike version of Islam adopted by the Turks), the Feudal forces (landholding ‘Timars’ or ‘Siphais’ much like Western Knights and their vassals), and the Janissaries (and other regulars). The Janissaries (lit. Yeni Ceri – ‘new army’) were the sons of Christian subjects of the Empire that were taken as slaves as a form of tax on Unbelievers – no mention of this? They were circumsised, converted to Islam and trained to be fanatical and highly professional warriors, although the best looking and most intelligent were syphoned off to serve the Sultan in various roles. These Janissaries were the most feared of the Ottoman forces, especially in Western Europe, but some of the Ottoman ‘irregulars’ (‘Ghazis’) were renowned for their cruelty and savagery too, such as the Barbary Corsairs and Akinji Raiders. The Ottoman army it was said, like the Mongols (another Central Asian nomadic people) ‘conquered as much by the terror of it’s reputation as by war’.
For centuries the Ottoman Army looted, tortured, raped and sacked vast swathes of the world from the Atlantic to Iran, Austria to the Sahara, they were a far cry from the civilised, urbane, Muslim states of the Middle East in earlier centuries, investigating the secrets of the ancients and founding universities and hospitals. However, the Ottomans also had an impact on the West, giving rise to Western prejudices against Islam that exist until today, encouraging the development of professional armies, superior fortifications, and gunpowder weapons, causing Western Europe to explore the Atlantic and discover the New World, as well as the passage around Africa, introducing the West to the concept of African slaves, and ultimately to the formation of the modern European states we recognise today. For some reason you don’t mention any of this?
Perhaps someone at the BBC would take the time to name some of the ‘experts’ involved in the creation of this ‘learning aid’, if so I would be greatly appreciative of their comments on these issues.’
Wonderful letter, DrMike!
It reminds me of a complaint I sent in about the BBC’s article entitled The Jews of Arabia.
The article states:
But if this remains a mystery, it’s well-known that Jews once lived all across Arabia.
The Koran records Jewish tribes in and around Medina in the 7th Century, and the medieval traveller Benjamin of Tudela, who passed through in about 1170, describes sizeable Jewish populations throughout modern-day Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as well as on both shores of the Gulf – at Kish (Iran) and Qatif (Saudi Arabia).
Baghdad had been home to Jews since the 6th Century BC. Around the time of WW1, officials estimated the city’s Jews to number between 55,000 and 80,000, in a total population of 200,000 – a proportion equal to or greater than that in centres of European Jewry such as Warsaw or Berlin.
Today, fewer than 10 individuals remain.
For a combination of reasons including economic migration, political pressure and outright persecution – notably after the State of Israel was declared in 1948 – almost all the Jewish communities of the Gulf countries dwindled to nothing in the 20th Century.
So… what happened to all those “Jewish tribes in and around Medina in the 7th Century”, then?!?
Somehow the BBC manages to miss out the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Hejaz, by Muslims in the generation following Mohammed, and focus entirely on anti-Israeli feeling post 1948, as if it had all been roses up to that point, and it’s all Israel’s fault.
What are they, the propaganda arm of the Arab League? It is utterly sicking.
(At the time I wrote the complaint, I was unaware that Yemenite Jews had suffered their own holocaust – which is also ignored here.)
The response to the complaint was that well, they couldn’t cover everything, now could they, and anyway they only had a limited number of words. In an online article. Seriously!
God forbid they should offend anyone. Unless they’re Jewish, then it’s OK.
And they need their heads read if they think that anyone believes them any more.