‘Is the BBC biased?’ are asking who are the DUP?
The BBC’s quota filling Muslim on the Today show, Mishal Husain, can answer that, calling them as she did a couple of months ago in relation to their Christian based ideology, ‘Backward and unpleasant’.
Coming from a Muslim who supposedly follows a religion that is unchanged from its barbaric 7th century origins, hence all the head chopping, killing of gays, killing of apostates, chopping of limbs, stoning, lashing, crucifying of those who don’t follow the teachings, that’s pretty rich….and of course had anyone said the same about Islam she’d have been outraged…and the BBC would have been outraged on her behalf.
The same Mishal Husain who told us that she was glad to get the job on the Today show because she could use it to promote the beauty of Isam and foster understanding.
Trouble is the more people know of the real Islam the less they like it.
In fact maybe the ‘Muslim’ Mishal Husain doesn’t really like the real Islam….she won’t wear the hijab and ‘She drinks alcohol and doesn’t fast at Ramadan.’
She says she has ‘has employed her knowledge of Arabic and insight into Islamic issues, during interviews with controversial clerics.’
If she has that knowledge of Islam then she knows that what IS does, what the Wahhabis and Saudis do, is based upon the real Islam…and there is only one Islam, an Islam based upon the literal word of the Koran, unchangeable and timeless, and the actions of Muhammed himself.
She therefore knows that this plea from her …“I would really like to see much more of the counterpoint from a theological perspective, with scholars taking to social media to refute the awful arguments we see put forward in those videos.”…is nonsense….how can Muslim scholars argue against the Koran?
She also says…“The emphasis on what you wear on your head or how many times you pray, on the outward things rather than what’s in your heart and the way you treat people, I find slightly misguided,”…again she must know that is wrong…wearing certain clothing and acting in particualr ways, ‘as Muslim’, indicates an adherence to that ideology, it’s an outward expression of your faith and in many cases a deliberate political statement of ‘being Muslim’. Just look at how many Muslims suddenly became more devout and began dressing in ‘Muslim’ clothing after 9/11, Osama’s call to arms to Muslims aroound the world. That’s a political statement by those Muslims saying we’re Muslim first and it also shows they condone what Bin Laden did and stood for.
Remember what David Goodhart said…..
The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.
Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.
I’m sick of our government & institutions bowing to Islam. It is a cult of death led by Satan. Enough is enough!
Can the Israeli government, when the next conflict occurs, extend an invitation to Mishal Husain and her whole family including children to fly to Israel and be housed in Sderot all expenses paid. Oh and she and her family must not use shelters and safe rooms. Why do I think she would not take up the offer?
Oh and anyone else from the BBC with same views and attitude
This interview is absolutely disgraceful. This should definitely be the subject of a complaint.
So Mishal Husain does not think that rocket fire is any problem at all, because although some 700 rockets had been fired each one of which could have killed many people, Israel successfully shot them down. Mishal Husain does not think that it is problem since only 20 people were killed, in about 10 years, due to rocket fire. I wonder how many people need to be brutally and savagely murdered before she would consider that rocket attacks and the people who fire them is a problem.
No wonder the BBC are not at all concerned about Islamic terrorism on the streets of the UK, and will not acknowledge it as a problem and a matter that the UK authorities needs to deal with. Our security people have managed to stop nearly all attacks, and only (about) 21 people have been brutally and savagely murdered since after the 7/7 tube bombings. It is now obvious that the editorial line of the BBC and the way that the staff think is that too few people have been brutally stabbed, had their throats cut, driven over, blown to bits and brutally murdered to be at all concerned about. Who would have thought that life was so cheap? I guess only those who are morally bankrupt, and I guess being morally bankrupt is a job requirement to be employed by the BBC (Andrew Neil excepted).
That video clip tells you everything you need to know about the mind set of the BBC. The government really needs to get a grip with the BBC, it is pure evil as well as a purveyor of fake news.
Israel uses rockets to protect their people. In Palestine, they use people to protect their rockets, by siting their weapons near schools, hospitals and marketplaces.
Good post, Alan.
If you want a solid example of a Muslim practicing taqiyaa, look no further than Mishal Hussain.
It could be that she is ignorant of Islam. Just as the young are of socialism.
I would like t know how from Mishal many Christians are in high media positions in Islamic countries.
I would like to know if she disagrees with Mohammed on the persecution of non-Muslims, and widespread killing of Christians, or the killing of any Muslim who leaves Islam.
I would like her to say so publicly. Fir that is what most Muslims agree on, based on what they find in tge Koran and Hadiths.
And it is to these Muslim Taqiyya merchants that our hard earned salaries go to support their lavish lifestyles.
Unless there is more than one Koran,it only needs reading to see that it is anything but a peaceful religion.
There isn’t any ambiguity about it.
According to what I have read in the Koran,isis are far better muslims than any muslim that runs a corner shop.
The fact that they hate and kill other muslims because of some difference nonsense about who was to succeed
their prophet.
After 7/7 I actually started reading and got about halfway through it before coming to my senses and stopped reading
this rubbish.
The bbc must know what the Koran is all about as does the people like Welby who must know that they are lying when
promoting this book.
Manky
Channel 4 News has just stated that in the flat of one of the perpetrators of the latest INTDWI atrocity, an English version of the koran was found open at a passage praising martyrdom. I suppose mentioning that the Koran was in English was an attempt to suggest that it was a “home-grown” koran read by “home-grown” terrorists. The cuddliness of Islam must have been lost in translation. As yet no calls to ban the koran as a vehicle for “hate speech” that must have led to the deaths of millions over the centuries.
As you say, the point to understand is that ISIS followers are the true believers. The “mistake” they are supposed to be making is taking the word of god too seriously, i.e. literally. I have always found it rather baffling that an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect entity could communicate an ultimate “operating manual” for his religion that was ambiguous in any way. This is why no muslim will condem ISIS followers as heretics. They may be difficult for ordinary Muslims living in the west to defend to nonmuslims, but they are not bad or impious muslims. No matter how ludicrous or self-defeating it might be, the christian strong in faith always turns the other cheek as his god requires him to do.
Another great sin of the DUP against the modern Ersatz-religion, based on divine media icon and luvvie revelation, is to be creationist.Is this actually true? How many muslims would contradict the koran, commit heresy and claim Allah was not the creator of the world. They can’t be that keen on Darwin either.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Yes, their holy book more than backs all of what they do in its name. The Koran is gods final and purified direct word from on high and to his perfect man Muhammad via Gabriel.
Unalterable, non-negotiable. And to do either as a kufr means death. And death too if any Muslim tries to do it.
Manky, I too did the very same thing after 7/7. I read most of the Koran & also the Hadith. Why does nobody ever discuss the Hadith? It reveals what a total scumbag Mohammed was.
Trying to find other people that could explain why on earth anyone thought this was a peaceful religion led me to a few websites, mainly based in America. I spent about five years obsessed by the subject, losing friends & generally pissing off people who didn’t care to talk about it.
Stepped away eventually as it was ruining my life. Here we are all these years later & nothing has changed. Although a few people have said that I was right after all, they do hate us. Not that it makes me feel any better towards what the future now holds for my now teenage daughter. Why didn’t we clamp down on Islam right after 7/7 and spare us all this future grief?
Tipple,
It’s the most frustrating thing isn’t it? Trying to get people who have never read the Koran & supporting texts to stop shouting down those who have. You can tell they have never tried to study Islam because they would have a few basic questions if they had ever bothered to devote any time to it.
For a start- who is Mohammed? Because without knowing his biography from The Sira or the sayings of the “Prophet” (Hadith) it’s hard to know what the Koran is (rather boringly) banging on about. If you were raised in the Arab world you are likely to have an idea of Mohammed’s life. If you are from the West you don’t . Even many Muslims in the west aren’t familiar with the life of the warlord.
The Koran is also a bit awkward to follow because the chapters are not in chronological order. Anyone picking it up & trying to understand it in a couple of browsing sessions would be confused. I think this is one of the things that happens with so-called “radicalisation”. All it takes is for someone to start reading the Koran in context where they can see the life of the “prophet” & the commands of the Allah “god” becoming more violent over time. And they begin to understand what it means to be a Muslim. They haven’t distorted the religion, they have seen it as it was intended to be.
How can a person vehemently defend something they have no understanding of? It’s truly alarming that a whole generation of snowflakes has been conned into doing just that.
Tipple
Melanie Philips gives a plausible explanation in her book Londonistan.
The authorities seem to have made two catastrophic strategic blunders
The name “Londonistan” was coined in the 80s/90s by foreign intelligence services who were horrified that the UK government was allowing all kinds of jihadists and islamic terrorists to base themselves in London. London even became the world centre for the arabic press. The authorities thought that if they did not act against these people, out of gratitude, they would not attack Britain.
They also assumed they had gained brownie points by helping against the Soviet infidels in Afghanistan and by protecting Muslims in Eastern Europe.
Personages like Prince Charles also talked about Islam in glowing terms. A classic case of Longfordism where aristrocratics with loopy idees fixes can use their cachet to mobilize other influential members of high society. In 1996 PC, the defender of faith, said, amongst other things, “Everywhere in the world, people want to learn English. But in the west, in turn, we need to be taught by islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads”. The Anglican church also saw islam through rose-tinted glasses – perhaps they saw an ally in the fight against secularism and atheism.
The Rushdie affaire could have been a wake-up call, but people like Jonathan Aitken thought it was something Rushdie had brought on himself.
9/11 was, of course, a wake-up call of sorts, but instead of taking any firm action, the government went for a “hearts and minds” strategy hoping it could win over the Muslim community and get it to reject jihadism. Metplod in the form of Blair and Paddick both said they found it impossible to conceive of any association between islam and terrorism. After the 2005 bombings, Nottingham plod handed out green ribbons to show solidarity with muslims, who, according to the chief constable, were on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks. Nothing has changed in 12 years.
Some security experts say 10, 000 community plod will act as the eyes and ears of the intelligence services on the ground, other security experts opine that muslim youth is being radicalised online in their bedrooms. The logical conclusion would be to permanently station 10,000 community plod in the bedrooms of Muslim youth.
When I was a girl, I saw a few leaflets from an old preacher called C.H Spurgeon. Baptist bloke from the Victorian era.
Old fashioned and hard to read, so never bothered much. But do know that he could write a whole sermon from just one line of his bible.
With that in mind, we need only get a Koran, learn one number reference from it and ask our Muslim friends-and those BBC double dealers like Mishal Hussein-what THEIR interpretation of it is.
Sura 47.4 allows you to behead people, as I recall.
It`s the literal imperative word of their god.
Let`s hear them try to explain it away. Clearly Mishal and Tariq found it hard to talk this away the other day on Today
Ernie Rea asked an imam in an episode of Beyond Belief what the punishment for apostasy in Islam was and the answer came back fast and clear, “Death!”
And that was it. No intake of breath. No, “I say old boy, that’s a bit strong isn’t it?”
Different culture, different rules. A bit like the way that anything the foul-mouthed Lily Allen says is ‘love’ and anything the affable Nigel Farrage says is ‘hate’.
Alicia Sinclair,
One of the most common tactics employed to avoid this issue is to change the subject.
They usually go straight for Christianity & point out where they think it is violent. They try to keep you
on the defensive explaining Christianity. In this way they avoid having to discuss Islam at all. They then presume victory of argument based on a false parallel. In short ‘Christianity was/is violent and Islam has been misunderstood as violent.’ Therefore It’s all the same. Everything is ok. If you don’t understand that, you are a bigot. Case closed.
Too true Lucy.
When Christians are unwilling or unable to defend Jesus, and merely see Muhammad as the Muslim equivalent or successor to Him-they have already lost the plot and (to use their theology, if only they knew it) in dire danger of hell itself for denying HIm.
Sadly, seems to me that the whole Christian apologist class from the Pope and across to Ernie Rea etc seem to prefer Muslim and Socialist approval and protections , to actually standing up for that bloke they sing about on Sundays.
Only a few good men and women left, can only hope that young Paislet and Arlene can “supply a bit of faith confidently” to the useless godless Tories. The alternatives are far worse.
Saw a good point in the Spectator by Tom Holland. He said that the London Bridge murders were closely followed by an equally dreadful attack on the Iranian Majlis and Shia shrine to Khomeini. In other words, the worldwide Sunni attacks from IS and their franchises are aimed both at our feckless, pissed up youth-as well as serious old blokes who perpetrate the Muslim faith in theology colleges too. So the BBC ought to shut up re “staying defiant and still going to Take That concerts”. Sunni Islam would kill you if you`re an Ammidiyyah or a Shia Muslim too.
Time to execute Anjem Choudhury-and get all those who protest this, and pack them all off to Mosul on a one-way ticket. IS see anything less than this is surrender.
I’ve listened to this weeks Hard Talk featuring a Muslim who was governor at one of the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham
who own son went to fight for ISIS and died there in Syria
You see she was busy dealing with these Trojan horse allegations
Those upset her son
But being to busy she didn’t spot that some recruiters had got to him and he’d been radicalised
… she didn’t find out until he’d left.
“If he’d lived, I’d believe he’d be saying sorry now”
That woman has form and is an apologist for radical Islam which the bBC is more than happy to promote:
By coincidence Arlene Foster was on yesterday’s Hardtalk
REPEAT First shown: 5 Dec 2016
“How will the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland be managed once the UK has left the EU? Sarah Montague speaks to Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s first minister. How will she make sure Brexit doesn’t mean a return to the divisions of the past?”
There is a lot of nonsense talked about borders and a hard Brexit.
I lived in Norway before Norway was part of EFTA. Norway is still outside the EU, but now within EFTA.
Even though Norway was outside the EU and not in EFTA, there was a very soft boarder between Norway and Sweden, and soft boarder between Norway and Denmark (Sweden and Denmark both being within the EU).
As regards Sweden, only on a few roads was there any boarder control/check points, and for the most part these were never manned, and even if manned cars were almost never stopped. As I say, there was no fence/wall between the two countries and one could easily walk between the two, and on most roads, the smaller roads, there were no checks/controls. May be from time to time on the smaller roads, the police would set up a random check, but I never heard of such.
To cross between Norway and Sweden or Norway and Denmark it was not necessary for a Scandinavian to show a passport or ID. If you looked Scandinavian and spoke one of the Nordic languages you were through. I was never stopped once traveling between Norway and Sweden even though I was going with friends on a regular basis to do the cigarette and booze run. The price in Sweden was about 1/3rd of the price in Norway, and large savings could be had on other items. One could bet one’s bottom dollar that 95% of cars on a Norwegian plate crossing from Sweden to Norway were loaded to the hilt with cheap cigs and booze, and were in breach of strict custom regulation, but they were never stopped. For all practical purposes there was no border, and such controls as there were at most targeted suspect looking lorries.
In fact even with Russia, there was not a full fence and the border only weakly controlled. The Norwegians have always liked the Russians, since the Russians provided them with food and help when Norway was occupied by the Germans. The border might now be tighter controlled since Norway has joined EFTA, and since the EU are hostile to the Russians. But when i was living in Norway, it was weak.
There is no reason why there need be any manned boarder between North and South Ireland, even if the UK has a hard exit. The Irish need not be concerned.
Oh and guess which MH is main feature in Stephen Glover’s devastating attack on the BBC in Saturday’s Mail ??
Good call @Pounce