The BBC broadcast a programme about a new railway line that threads its way through Jerusalem.  The BBC thinks this line is somehow so controversial that it may be the catalyst for a new war, a new intifada…..started of course by the Palestinians…but we’ll gloss over that….‘ ….it has only deepened the sense of resentment on both sides. Travelling through the old city, he comes face to face with the battle over one of the world’s holiest sites and asks, could it be the flashpoint for the start of another war?’

The tale of the train, by Adam Wishart, a ‘British Jew’, as he liked to keep reminding us as if to suggest that as a Jew any criticisms of Israel are therefore valid and all the more powerful, was in reality just an excuse to parade a long list of ‘issues’ that are clearly of concern to Wishart and the Palestinians.  It was a bit like decorating a Christmas tree with Muslim artifacts…at first glance maybe a genuine attempt at conciliation but is in fact a calculated insult.

This wasn’t really about the rail line and turned out to be a pretty one sided diatribe that forgot to mention Hamas or Fatah or any other Islamist organisation bombarding Israel with missiles….and the important fact that they all wish to wipe out Israel and create a Palestinian state ‘from the river to the sea’.

Which is a bit of an omission when he seemed so concerned about Israeli activists who wanted to increase the Jewish presence in Jerusalem…one was from the ‘Temple Movement’ which wants to rebuild the Temple on the Mount, the other a property developer who bought up land from Palestinians and built homes that were bought by Israelis…hoping to make Jerusalem de facto Jewish….note that he was buying land not bulldozing the occupants off it as the programme seemed to like to imply.

Apparently land was compulsorily purchased to build the rail line on…not as if that doesn’t happen here…reference HS2.…‘The department has written to all owners of properties that are very close to the proposed line of the route to inform them of the government’s decision, and the potential need to compulsorily purchase their property.’

Wishart tells us of a Palestinian who was offered compensation but refused the money for political reasons….Wishart tells us that the buying of the land ‘fits into a broader picture’ of land ‘seizure’….he also claims that the security barrier is in reality meant to cordon off the squalor and deprivation.

Note that frequently you can hear the Palestinians talking of the Yahood, the Jews, but the film doesn’t translate the words when they would be controversial, opting for a different, less obviously loaded and racist, term.

Wishart also concentrates on the Shuafat refugee camp.  He puts all the blame for problems there onto the Jewish Mayor of Jerusalem.  What Wishart doesn’t tell us is that it is UNRWA that runs the camp, created by the UN and Jordan when it was in control of the West Bank in 1965, and that Israel offered to hand the Shuafat area which includes the camp over to the Palestinian Authority but Palestinians themselves refused this ‘opportunity’…. ‘Nabil Abu Issa, head of the village of Muchtar, located a few hundred meters above the refugee camp, told the Post that he doesn’t see himself as a Palestinian. “We don’t want to be under Palestinian authority. We are Jerusalemites, we vote for the mayor and for the Knesset. We are part of this place and unless there are no two countries for the two people, we will stay here. It would be a mistake to hand over these villages; it would cause a mess and a bloodshed. What [would] happen if Israel gives us to the PA? How can a family prevent the rocket launchers from taking over their house and firing at Jerusalem? If I would have to, I’ll take my family and move to east Jerusalem, Jaffa or Haifa,” Abu Issa said. ‘

Ironically many of the problems are caused because Palestinians themselves actually want to move into Shuarat camp where the Israeli police and city authorities fear to tread and enforce the laws…they overload the limited infrastructure.  As residents of an area of Jerusalem the Palestinians get the valuable ‘blue ID card’ which gives them the same rights as Israelis and allows them to travel freely.  Shuarat is not what the BBC likes to label one of those ‘open prisons’.

Wishart doesn’t like the security barrier.  He refers to it as the ‘barrier’…not a neutral term as it implies an attempt to create some sort of apartheid however there is a reason for that security barrier…..East Jerusalem’s Shuafat refugee camp a terrorist stronghold, security sources say.

Why did Wishart make this programme?  After all it’s an old story, one told by the Guardian last year….but that told a more nuanced tale than Wishart…Jerusalem’s light railway: commuting with a rifle through the conflicted city.

For instance the BBC’s narrative was that Palestinians don’t use this train and that it is mostly used by Israelis moving into Palestinian areas…..the Guardian’s narrative is less one-sided….

Men dressed in ultra-orthodox monochrome, under hats and coats even in the Middle Eastern summer, squeeze on board, averting their eyes from young women tourists in shorts and skimpy t-shirts. Religious Jewish mothers, hair bound in long winding scarves, with a brood of small children clutching at their ankle-length skirts, stand alongside Palestinian women in skinny jeans and elaborate hijabs framing carefully made-up faces and groomed eyebrows.

Israeli soldiers in uniform, some armed with guns and all apparently armed with smart phones, lounge on seats opposite Palestinian labourers heading for jobs in Jewish areas of the city. Christian pilgrims en route to Via Dolorosa and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the site of Jesus’s crucifixion, mingle with Muslims heading to the sacred Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque, and Jews intent on praying at the revered Western Wall, the last surviving remnant of the Second Temple.

As for Israelis invading Palestinian areas and Palestinians being cut off by the railway…

The unintended consequence has been to make it much easier for Palestinians to get to the Old City. “It’s brought Haram al-Sharif [the site of the Dome of the Rock] closer to Beit Hanina and Shuafat,” says Seidemann.

And not just the Muslim holy sites, he adds; Palestinians are more visible in the west of the city than previously. “Has that united the city? No, but it’s an interesting change in the patterns of movement.”

The reverse is not the case. “The light rail has not brought Israelis into Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem. On the Israeli side, the patterns of movement have not changed at all.”

The main problem with the railway seems to be that it doesn’t run on the Sabbath…

That statement sits uncomfortably with the fact that Palestinians, who make up 37% of the city’s population, are deprived of this effective transport system on Saturdays, a normal working day for most of them, because the light rail does not operate on the Jewish sabbath.

Wishart finishes off his diatribe with clear evidence of what he intended with this film…

‘My journey has been heartbreaking.  When my grandparents campaigned for the State of Israel they hoped for a place of refuge, tolerance and equal rights for all. 

I just can’t believe this could be the place they dreamt of all those years ago.’

Maybe Wishart can explain the difference between his grandparents wishing to create the State of Israel by Jews in essence invading Palestine licensed by the UN and evicting the Palestinian residents and that of the settlers in the West Bank today.  Not a great deal of difference.  If his grandparents would have such qualms now why not in 1947?  He can’t paint his grandparents as ethical and humane people who campaign for equal rights and tolerance when they conquered and took over what was Palestinian land.  Maybe that’s what this film is all about…a great big guilty mea culpa.

On the same basis of land seized and a people unfairly treated where is his film about the creation of Pakistan and the even more horrendous events that unfold there?

I await it with interest.

Toby Young was on 5Live  (13:20) the other day talking about Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and telling us of his very far left credentials, he rattled off the identifiers….support for Hamas and Hezbollah, a Stop The War fanatic, someone who wants to hand the Falklands to the Argies….and let’s not forget an end to austerity.

I thought hang on….that’s pretty much a run down of much of what the BBC supports.

John Humphrys has said we should surrender the Falklands, or is that the Islas Malvinas?, to the Junta…

‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’

….as did Peter Allen…

Peter Allen relates to Nicky Campbell how when as a young journalist he asked Mrs Thatcher this about the Falklands War:

‘Why are you bothering to fight this war when you  know perfectly well that you will have  to give them back to the Argentinians eventually.‘

 

and today we have a reminder of what Maggie thought of the BBC’s deadly coverage of the Falklands War…

The BBC has long been a propagandist for the terrorist group Hamas, making strenuous efforts to turn Israel, not the terrorists, into a pariah state.  Here Yolande Knell gives us a good example of how the BBC tries to rework Hamas’ reputation and that of the Muslim Brotherhood….Can Hamas hold back Islamic State in Gaza?

What is a squabble between two fanatical Islamist groups is portrayed as ‘moderate’ Hamas defending itself from extremist ISIS elements in Gaza…..we are still  fed the old lie about a moderate Muslim Brotherhood…So far, Hamas, which has its ideological roots in the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, has been largely able to contain them.

Here’s news for you Yolande…the Muslim Brotherhood is the intellectual and spiritual home of Al Qaeda and therefore of ISIS, as well as Hamas.  AQ and ISIS are putting Muslim Brotherhood beliefs into action.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not ‘moderate’.

As always with BBC reports about Gaza there is the obligatory mention of this...Last year’s 50-day conflict killed some 2,200 Palestinians, mainly civilians, according to the UN, and 73 on the Israeli side, mostly soldiers. The BBC shoehorns in the casualty figures whatever the story is.   Israel is of course to blame for the rise of ISIS in Gaza…Some observers see Israel’s approach as potentially playing into the Salafists’ hands.

As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…well it’s back to John Humphrys again I suppose…as a starting point.

The BBC plays a dangerous game.   It’s all too often British troops who pay the price for that.

Fascinating watching the Left turn themselves in knots in reaction to comments by Katie Hopkins about the migrant surge that is resulting in so much tragedy….as the Spectator says it’s the greatest game in town for the Lefties..

Hating Katie has become the speediest shortcut to the moral highground in this slacktivist age, when people prefer to make a virtual advert of their moral correctness than to do anything so tough as try to change the world outside their bedroom door. And if you aren’t hating Katie, if you aren’t partaking in this orgy of competitive benevolence, what is wrong with you?

It is an irony that, as said before, the real extremists, those who spout the irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric about immigration, aren’t the likes of Hopkins but those on the Left itself which demands open borders and mass immigration knowing full well the shattering consequences but willing to look away and ignore them as they seek to implement their grand project whilst at the same time grandstanding, mouthing ‘concerned’ platitudes about the ‘tragedy’ of the migrants dying in their hundreds, a faux compassion, a mockery of the humane principles they pretend to espouse so loudly.  To compound their crime, and to hide it, they work to silence their critics and those who propose controlled immigration that would benefit countries taking in the migrants and not least the migrants themselves…not only trying to silence their critics but to blame them for the deaths that are in fact the outcome of the ‘good men and women’ of the Left whose ideology overrides their professed humanity.

What did Nietzsche say?…

‘Good men are thus the most harmful type of men because they prevail at the expense of truth and at the expense of the future.’

‘Morality as a hiding place, a shield, a weapon…like a beast near death, crawl away and hide behind it.’

 

Those good men and women of the Left no doubt adhere to the principles of that famous socialist Adolf Hitler who didn’t believe in letting the facts get in the way of a good story either…..

‘What is important is not what the creator

of an idea of genius may mean, but what this idea

becomes in the mouth of whomever transmits it.’

                                                                                      Adolf Hitler

 

So let’s look at what those on the Left who retransmit the ideas of Katie Hopkins can turn them into……..

Let’s start with the Huffington Post which lays bare the raw anger that Katie Hopkins remarks apparently generated….

Katie Hopkins Wrote This In The Sun About Migrants And Now Everyone Is Really Angry

“NO, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad.

I still don’t care.

Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit “Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984”, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors.

It’s time to get Australian. Bring on the gunships, force migrants back to their shores and burn the boats.”

Here is John Wight, Guardian and Huffington Post writer, with a taste of his position on immigration…

Migration is as old as humanity itself, and attempting to impede the natural right of people to escape poverty, war, and social convulsion is both futile and cruel.

In other words…make no attempt to prevent immigration.

Here is his reaction on Twitter to Katie Hopkins…

After the ‘Ted Talk’ mentioned in the last post I heard a trail for Thursdays ‘Crossing Continents’ in which we were told that we would hear the story of Gaza’s last remaining piano, the only one to survive ‘the bombing’ and which was being used to help traumatized Palestinian children….so it looked like Israel was in the frame again.

Curiously on looking at the actual blurb for the programme it gives a different slant altogether..

You have to understand what the root cause of radicalisation is in the Muslim community. Here’s the maths….

British Society is increasingly intolerant of Islam, that intolerance is being fostered by a sensationalist media that fuels prejudice, the intolerance and attacks on Muslims leads them to become angry, alienated and marginalised,  under such a siege they understandably feel the need to fight back and defend their prophet and their religion against these Islamophobic attacks.

 

Only its not true.  It’s the BBC narrative.  It’s the Muslim community’s narrative, it’s the radical’s narrative.

But it’s not true.

The BBC is charged with ‘sustaining citizenship and civil society’ by its Charter and it has decided that in order to do that it must lie to its audience.  Not just turn a blind eye to the truth about Islamic radicalisation but to actively work to suppress the truth, to maintain a fiction that Islam is the religion of peace, love and tolerance. They do this because they have a belief that to allow the truth to be told would see the Muslim community and Islam come under such extreme scrutiny that it would expose it irrefutably as an ideology that is incompatible with a Western, secular, liberal, democratic and humane society.

And then what?

So instead the BBC has decided that a bit of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable…the BBC has decided that in order to maintain that fiction about Islam it is willing to sacrifice, not just that very precious liberal, free, democratic society that is increasingly the victim of creeping Islamisation, but it is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.

Dramatic stuff, but true.

There is a war being fought and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs.  The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge.  And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society on that phantom menace, ‘Islamophobia’.  Of course what is even more frighetening is that these men have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.

For instance Islamist Tariq Ramadan sits on the Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief which is intended to ‘advise FCO Ministers and staff on how to build on the active approach they already take to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.’

Ramadan’s boss was Baroness Warsi whose credentials are also highly questionable in that nearly everything she does and says seems to support the Islamist outlook….the most obvious of which was her belief that Israel should be disarmed and terrorist group Hamas armed.

Warsi is well known….just days ago Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph wrote this article denouncing her and the government’s foolish policies, Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall, and in which he noted that ‘Baroness Warsi gave official roles to people with links to Islamist groups’.  She was also an outspoken critic of the anti-radicalisation ‘Prevent’ project and supporter of the Islamist student organisation Fosis.

Gilligan says..

Baroness Warsi then, a very controversial person with a highly dubious reputation, and yet another ‘goto’ spokesperson for the BBC on issues of Islam in the UK. An example of the dangers in employing these ‘radicals’ as government advisers is this from Jihadwatch…Sweden’s “Islamophobia” expert joins the Islamic State.

Despite Gilligan’s article just a few days ago the BBC chose to ask Warsi for her opinions  (08:10) about how the Muslim community in Britain feel about their place in Society based on a BBC poll which, part of its on ‘war on Public (false) perceptions about Islam’, which the BBC trumpeted as a glowing testimony for Muslim attitudes in Britain claiming…Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals’

At no time was she asked about the allegations made by Gilligan which you might think the BBC’s premier current affairs programme, with its elite interviewers in the saddle, might have broached.  Instead we had Justin Webb doing an imitation of an over-ebullient Spaniel about to go out on a walk…Warsi threw him a few balls which he eagerly chased, enjoying the game immensely, rushing back to the mistress for her to throw him some more. Webb failed to challenge Warsi at all on her claims and bought into her narrative so much that he even started to add his own derogatory comments about other faiths being as bad as Islam in their extremism.  Even Warsi had to bring him to heel on that one.

Before she came on we heard a report from one Muslim community that in essence, as laid out above, blamed the rise of radicalisation on British, non-Muslim society, which we are assured, has attacked and marginalised Muslims egged on by an Islamophobic Press.

However one message to take away was that, yes they were extremists, extreme in their love for their prophet and for their religion.  Curiously the BBC didn’t think that an important factor in any Islamist radicalisation…because of course, as we heard, the ‘radicals’ weren’t real Muslims.

Warsi was able to articulate the same old prejudices and blame anyone but Muslims and their religion for the dangerous situation we find ourselves in.  She claims there is no evidence that can indicate why Muslims become radicalised and that of course 27% of Muslims may support killing people for drawing Muhammed but she explained, you have to look at their reasoning behind such decisions before you denounce them.  In other words she too thinks the Charlie Hebdo killings were justifiable….and an interesting turn of phrase from her…that it was unfortunate that Charlie Hebdo led to the death of ‘civilians’…..is she saying other, non-civilian, targets would have been acceptable?  And again Warsi blamed the Media for whipping up anti-Islam prejudices.

The BBC is not alone in excusing Muslim terrorism, the Guardian here giving a perfect example of the thinking that ‘understands’, and thereby justifies, murder….

Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris

The Guardian tries to erase Islam from the picture and chooses to look for other causes for radicalisation saying..

What the three had in common was growing up on the margins of French society

The article is a very long one, nearly the whole body of the text builds on the narrative of the alientated, disenfranchised and marginalised young men driven to radicalisation by such factors.  Only at the very last paragraph do we get a clue that that is rubbish…

“People say simply discrimination plus social malaise equals terrorism, that’s not true.”

Of the families she had recently spoken to she had seen children of educated parents, including doctors, or youngsters leaving medical school, and many from non-Muslim backgrounds. The profiles of jihadis radicalised and self-radicalised in France were increasingly complex and nuanced.

 

But even that is not true…for it has long been known that the majority of those radicalised came from the ranks of the educated and well-to-do….not marginalised, not ignorant and not poor….what they do all have in common is being Muslim.

Dan Hodges in the Telegraph has a completely different take on the BBC poll….

Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many

This morning the BBC published details of a major poll of the attitudes of Britain’s Muslims. The headline on the front of the BBC website linking to the research states: “Muslims ‘oppose cartoon reprisals’”. This of course relates to attitudes within the Muslim community towards the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks.

It’s a reassuring headline. It’s also wrong.

Below the report is an article by BBC Today program reporter Sima Kotecha. It begins: “Islam is a religion of peace and love – not violence.”

That statement – and those sentiments – are simply not compatible with the BBC’s own research.

We are going to have to start to reassess what we mean by “moderate Islam”.

The BBC is wrong. Many Muslims have sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo killings. Far too many.

 

Have you seen the reports of ISIS executing people for being gay?  Not on the BBC….nor it might be added has the caring Media Hasan made any comment despite his opportunistic and disengenuous little tweet here:

And he is outraged at blood being spilled in the name of the prophet….

….Just, it seems, not ‘gay blood’.

Perhaps he’s not got over his youthful homophobia….

As a Muslim, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality

I’m sure he’s on his knees right now praying for gay people.

Still, good to see the BBC still have room for the odd comic charlatan to bring a bit of light relief to Question Time….no time though to report on the horrific killings of these gay people.  Why not?

Hasan gets a free ride on the BBC.  Outside the BBC he has a reputation for hypocrisy and lies as well as for his Islamist rants denouncing the Kafir.  About time the BBC did some due diligence and started to question just what does Hasan really believe as a devout, fully believing Muslim and allow people to see him for what he really is rather than letting him pose as the reasonable voice of the ‘alienated’ Muslim community…and think about this…Hasan is a Shi’ite…Shias do produce images of Muhammed….so his public stance against the cartoons is pure show biz…or blatant hypocrisy and political opportunism…..

When it suits the BBC doesn’t like to raise difficult subjects if it shows their favoured groups in a bad light…remember when Hamas slaughtered Fatah members in Gaza, some thrown off buildings?  The BBC dismissed the massacre as Hamas merely ‘flushing out the corrupt and violent Fatah’.  

Then there is this guy, long time convert, Dr Abdal Hakim Murad…what does a respected Islamic scholar have to say about homosexuality?:

“INEXPLICABLE ABERRATION”: Cam Lecturer Slates Homosexuality
1st May 2013
Divinity Faculty lecturer Tim Winter labels homosexuality an “inexplicable aberration” in a hastily removed YouTube video.
An eight-minute clip of [Dr Abdal Hakim Murad] ‘Tim Winter’, a Cambridge lecturer and a Director of Studies at Wolfson College, has gone viral on Facebook after he referred to homosexuality as an “inexplicable aberration”. 

The clip appears to have been taken from his recent DVD, Al-Ghazali on Disciplining the Soul, in which Winter, a practicing Sufi Muslim, discusses at length the Sharia’s  “emphatic, unqualified condemnation and prohibition of all forms of homosexual behaviour”.

From the Daily Mail:

Drawing from the Sharia but expressing his own personal opinion, Winter, also known as Abdal Hakim Murad, refers to homosexuality as a “denial of [our] manifest creative purpose”, labelling it the “ultimate inversion”.
He goes on to refer to homosexuals as “ignorant people…[who] don’t understand what their bodies are for”.
He adds, “How ignorant can you get? Even the animals know”.

[He said] homosexual acts were an ‘extreme defiance of Allah’.
He went on to compare gay people to smokers, affirming that practising homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking.
‘There is a great war against cigarette smoking but there is no campaign at all against the vice of the people of Lut [ie people of Sodom, or homosexuals]’

 

 

The good Dr Abdal Hakim Murad also, of course, has something to say about recent events…apparently the killing of cartoonists who offend him and his fellow ideologists is, well, uncontroversial…but sanctioned by, not the Koran, but the Bible!…

Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence

He invokes the Bible, it’s second Commandment, as a defence for the killers….

Muslims believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment. We are to make no graven images of any living thing, irrespective of whether such images might or might not lure the unwary into idolatry. Orthodox Judaism and many Protestant churches have been similarly direct in following this biblical injunction.

Funny thing…can’t find any mention of the second Commandment in the Koran….indeed no injunction on making graven images of the prophet at all.

It is an irony that a Muslim has to invoke the Bible to defend Islam…and telling porkies in the process to do so…..below are the verses in the Koran that mention the Ten Commandments…or rather some of the Commandments…notably missing is the second one….

The Quran speaks of them in verses 6:151-153 and verses 17:23-39….it commands you to worship one God only but it says nothing about graven images.  Sorry about that.

Now Muslims may or may not ‘ believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment’  but it ain’t in the Koran.

Ironically the Islamic scholar that he is dismisses the murders as…‘ the acts of criminals with troubled pasts and little religious knowledge, and have been condemned by a rare show of unity among Muslim leaders in France and worldwide. ‘  Can’t say much for his own knowledge.

But, again, ironically,  he says this…‘ it would be easy to dismiss this as yet another tragic case of fringe elements trampling on the teachings of the mosques.’

And yet that is exactly what he does.

And then he really gets on the victim bandwagon telling us that the cartoons were outrageous, an act of war he implies,  just another log on the fire stoked under long suffering Muslims by rampant Islamophobes who stalk Europe hunting down Muslims…

It was received, and rightly so, as a deliberate insult to an already maligned and vulnerable community.

Mosque burnings and a raft of legal disadvantages are increasingly a fact of life for Muslims in Europe.

er..hang on…who just killed 10 cartoonists and 4 Jews, and 3 police officers?  And just where do the Jews fit into this ‘rampant Islamophobic’ atmosphere that needs such a violent response from Muslims?  What exactly did those Jews do to French Muslims?  Oh, you know what, he doesn’t mention them at all.

Here’s the funny equation….Muslims launch terrorist attacks on Europe in the name of Allah, the response by Charlie Hebdo is to draw some cartoons….the Muslims claim this is Islamophobic and kill them.  Islamic scholar implies this is justified and complains of endemic Islamophobia.  Fair one.

Sorry don’t quite see where Islamophobia fits in….it isn’t as if criticisms of Islam, this alleged Islamophobia, came from nowhere …it arose as a response to Islamic terror.  Is it not merely a justified questioning of an ideology that patently is at the heart of so much violence around the world?  ‘Islamophobia’ is the ‘backlash’ to Muslim anti-Western attacks.  If it is OK for Muslims to kill 10 cartoonists as a ‘backlash’  for some drawings then it is OK to do a bit of Islamophobic backlashing for the murders no?  That’s the logic….and remember, most of this so-called Islamophobia is in fact entirely peaceful articles and news reports looking at the terrorism and the ideology that spawned it.  Murad thinks Muslim ‘anger’ justifies their actions but anyone elses anger is unreasonable and some sort of hate crime.

Murad then goes full tilt [Remember this is the guy who said Gays were a perverse aberration, lower than animals] making out Muslims are the ‘new Jews’…how ironic..when Muslims just killed Jews for being Jewish:

Scorn towards despised minorities is a hazardous business. During the days of Nazi terror, cartoons supplied a key weapon of anti-Jewish polemic. To laugh at the Prophet, the repository of all that Muslims revere and find precious, to reduce him to the level of the scabrous and comedic, is something very different from “free speech” as usually understood. It is a violent act surely conscious of its capacity to cause distress, ratchet up prejudice and damage social cohesion.

 

Finally he recommends that Muslims launch a war of legal attrition against the secular democracy….the good old Islamist tactic of ‘lawfare’…

It is for the many Muslims who now populate the Inns of Court to discover whether these legal precepts can in practice be used to protect non-Christians from abuse. A series of complex cases would trigger an overdue national and perhaps Europe-wide discussion on the right to protection from hate speech. Not all the lawsuits would succeed, but the community would have shown that it is determined to enjoy the protection of our country’s laws.

 

 

One day Muslims will admit the truth and take responsibility for their own action and stop blaming others.

And the BBC will start to raise a few questions themselves about Islam….and perhaps take a more questioning approach to who they invite on as speakers on Question Time.

The BBC is going full tilt themselves with the Muslim grievance narrative…time they drew a breath and started to look at what is being said and who is saying it…and the logic, or lack of logic, behind the claims.

Here is a particularly good example of the genre from ‘Is the BBC biased?’ where Islam isn’t to blame…and of course UKIP manages to be invoked and compared to the Jihadis….!!!!   Is the BBC biased? has many more such examples from recent programmes…have a read and despair.

But before you do have a read of this…..some more ‘context’….

What does Islam say?, as taught by the moderate and respected Yusuf Qaradawi [Ken’s old mate]:

“Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”
(At-Tirmidhi: 1376)

 

Sexual Perversion: A Major Sin
We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all ways which lead to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
The jurists of Islam have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death?   [This line should be in the text but was cut out ……“How should they both be killed? By the sword? Or by fire? Or by throwing them from a wall?”]  While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.

And what about the fair sex?  How about that respect we are so often told they get?…

Marital rape?

Your wives are a tillage to you, so go in to your tillage as you will, and send (ahead something) for your souls; and fear Allah and know that you will (one day) meet Him, and give glad tidings to the Believers. (2:223)

Wives are ‘filth’?

It is not a function of religion to define the postures of sexual intercourse. However, a Muslim who fears Allah in his relationship with his wife and possesses the certainty that he will meet Him avoids the anus because the Prophet (peace be on him) said, “Do not approach women from the anus.” (Reported by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisai, and Ibn Majah.)
Again, he referred to such an act as “minor sodomy.” (Reported by Ahmad and al-Nisai.) A woman of the Ansar asked him concerning vaginal intercourse from the back; he then recited to her, ‘Your wives are a filth to you, so go in to your filth as you will,’ but with only one receptacle.

Obey the Master

Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink. If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury.

 

Charming.

Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

From the pro-Hamas Alastair Crooke

It didn’t take long for the BBC to revert to type and start peddling the Islamist line only hours after the slaughter of fellow journalists by AK47 toting Islamists and telling us that Muslims are the real victims of this attack, whilst the real threat is from the Far Right.

Today we had wall to wall Muslim apologists telling us ‘How terrible the shootings were’…but then came the inevitable weasle word…‘however’.

Apparently Newsnight was choc-a-bloc with them (h/t Is the BBC Biased?) but of course no day would be complete without the likes of sly Islamist Tariq Ramadan and Ibrahim Mogra, Assistant Secretary General of the Islamist Muslim Council of Britain, who told us that we should respect Islam and consider ‘common human courtesy’ before we criticise the religion…..that’ll be the religion that tells Muslims not to make friends with Christians and Jews, in fact it tells them to kill unbelievers.

Nicky Campbell was asking ‘Has this made you think again about freedom of speech?‘…..but that question should really have been ‘Has this made you think again about freedom of religion?’.

Muslims and their apologists fill the airwaves with talk of the insult to Islam…Newsnight dragged in Iqbal Sacranie, ex head of the extremist MCB, who once told us there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, nor an extreme Islam, there is just Islam.  Today he was demanding censorship and blasphemy laws.

If you consider that the Koran calls unbelievers unclean, people who will suffer eternal torment in hell and trashes the Christian religion’s deepest held beliefs then you can see the hypocrisy when they tal of insults to Islam and the hurt feelings of Muslims.

According to Muslims Jesus is not the Son of God, the Holy Trinity is a Kufar belief, Jesus did not die on the cross and was not resurrected.  All central to Christian belief and yet day in day out trashed in Mosques and Muslim schools up and down the country as Muslims like to make the provocative claim that Jesus is one of theirs….a Muslim prophet.

And fight them on until there is no more sedition (literal translation) and religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety (Surat Al-Anfal 8:39).

 

We’ve had many of the usual suspects peddling their Islamist views on the BBC but there was one blatantly missing, the cut rate Tariq Ramadan that is Mehdi Hasan.

Not a peep from him about Charlie Hebdo, at least not in his usual form of a long diatribe apparently saying one thing but meaning the entirely opposite as he tries to ingratiate himself with the secular Establishment and worm his way into a position of influence from which he can push his Islamist fantasies…being the devout Muslim that he insists he is.

He has made a lot of comments on Twitter...but they are not in solidarity with the dead of Charlie Hebdo, instead he prefers to spend his time defending Islam…..and indeed his latest retweet seemed particularly divisive and seemed to indicate a certain hesitancy about denouncing the killers of the journlalists:

Whilst the normal over productive Hasan has not bothered to pen any commentary denouncing the killers the self-serving Hasan did publish a letter to ‘angry Islamists’ in 2012, in which he, on the face of it, criticised their ‘extremism’.  This letter re-appeared yesterday in the New Statesman but has since been taken down for some reason.

However no fear…..someone else thinks Hasan is the dog’s doodahs….the BBC’s Mishal Husain:

You have to remember whenever you read something from Hasan that he has told Muslims to take jobs in the media in order to proselytise for Islam, to push the case for Islam, to gain influence in order to make Islam more powerful and dominant.  Ironically perhaps the pen for Hasan is mightier than the sword in the fight for Islamic dominance.

Hasan is a Muslim preacher but a Shia one…so when he criticises ISIS and says the ‘Caliphate’ does not represent him he isn’t being progressive and secular he means a Sunni Caliphate that defines Islam as ‘Sunni’ is not something he can accept….ISIS (and many Sunnis) does not consider Shias to be ‘Muslim’.

Hasan criticises the Wahhabi Saudis for demolishing the house of one of Muhammed’s wives….he of course as a Shia is no supporter of the House of Saud…so such criticism is again a sign of his slippery nature as he pretends to be a critic of ‘Islam’.  Does he similarly criticise the building of the Al Aqsa Mosque on top of the holiest Jewish site at Tempe Mount when Islam conquered and colonised the Middle East?  No, of course not.

When Hasan criticises those who challenge the teachings of Islam and rages about Islamophobia remember this is the man who, not only is a devout Muslim and a preacher, tells his followers that non-Muslims are ignorant cattle, they are immoral animals, they are Kufar.

No problem insulting and demonising other religions there then.

And what other benevolent line does he push? It’s the same one the ‘extremists’ do…..

Extremists point to western foreign policy to explain their acts. Why do we ignore them?

Often, the likes of Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, who used violence to make “points” about the Muslim world in Woolwich, aren’t “religious fanatics”. The trigger we refuse to see is our foreign policy.

 

 

And why has he maintained a studied silence about Charlie Hebdo?  Could it be that he recently called for the prosecution, bullying and victimisation of those who criticise Islam or rather those whom he claims are ‘smearing Islam’…

Mehdi Hasan: sanctions for ‘dishonest, demonising press coverage’ of Muslims

Note that after intense criticism Hasan asked for this to be added to the piece in the Guardian about him:

“I’m all in favour of free speech and the robust criticism of all religious beliefs. But it’s the made-up stories and the smearing of individuals and whole communities that I have an issue with. ‘Why isn’t anti-Muslim bigotry as unacceptable in the press as anti-Jewish bigotry?’ That’s the question that needs answering.”

 

What about the ingrained anti-Christian and anti-Jewsih bigotry in the Koran?

Good though that a fellow Muslim at the BBC, who said that she felt she could use her job on the Today programme to further people’s understanding of Islam, should support this charlatan Islamist.

The actions of the Islamist killers are ‘unislamic?’  The Koran orders Muslims to defend Islam if it is ‘assailed’…..

If they … assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. …
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

 

 

 

Don’t worry…they can’t be racist coz they’re black (h/T Jo Brand)…

Bahamas fends off critics over new migrant rules

On the first day new immigration rules took effect this month in the Bahamas, officers in green fatigues swept through poor sections of the capital filling two yellow school buses with dozens of people who couldn’t document their right to be in the island chain.

The government, amid fierce criticism of the raid, later insisted the timing of the operation was coincidence. Still, the message of the surprise morning raid, in which the officers were accompanied by local media, couldn’t be clearer: The Bahamas aims to become less hospitable to its swelling population of migrants lacking legal status.

“The fact is that illegal migration is a huge problem for us,” Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell said in a recent interview. “We spend enormous resources for it. It is a drain on our social services, health care and education and we need to get the matter under control.”

Government officials say the new restrictions remain popular among Bahamian citizens. “It’s becoming a national security issue for us and for our neighbors and we have to do something about it,” Mitchell said.

 

Nothing on the BBC about this.  Wonder why they’re being so coy at this time.

And where is all the fuss about Cameron saying he will deport immigrants in his latest speech?

We will extend our new policy of ‘deport first, appeal later’ to cover all immigration appeals where a so-called right to family life is invoked.

 

Mark Reckless was hung out to dry for mentioning that word.

Listening to Today we heard that Cameron had run his speech past the European great and the good for their approval…

Angela Merkel forces David Cameron to retreat from EU migrant cap

What was notably missing was a comment that this quite starkly illustrates how membership of the EU takes away all control of the borders and only leaving the EU political structure will succeed in controlling immigration.

Even an immigrant recognises and admits that:

If he [Cameron] wanted to start a real, honest debate he could have said to the British public: look, we cannot bring the number down, that is the reality and there are real benefits for us. But we can, if you want, just get out of the EU, with everything that entails, so let us have that discussion, have that referendum.

Most factories must have closed down yesterday as the immigrant work force were too busy doing interviews with the BBC and the Guardian to turn up.

Hardly an approach that is designed to give us an impartial view of the subject….they are hardly likely to say reduce immigration…as indeed they did not.

Did hear a BBC set up yesterday with several immigrants voicing their opinions of Cameron’s speech..again why is that relevant…Turkeys voting for Christmas?

We heard that they had no thoughts of claiming benefits, they came because they loved Britain…and they’ve never claimed a benefit in their lives…never mind that one had 3 kids, 2 born in the UK and the oldest she brought over from Poland with her…so immediately she would have been a priority on the housing list and been given benefits.

Here is the Guardian doing a similar job:

A migrant’s verdict on immigration plan: ‘there is a war against us’

Cameron’s speech makes the UK feel less open, less safe, less friendly – and he is not the only politician to do so. All the main parties seem to be following Ukip in this debate and it is having dangerous consequences for us as we try to go about our day-to-day lives.

 

That is the BBC’s excuse for not talking about immigration honestly…there will be blood on the streets if we acknowledge there is a problem with immigration…or Islam.

I would have thought it more likely there would be blood on the streets if the majority’s views are continually dismissed and maligned as racists and bigots.  UKIP is in fact the saviour of the BBC’s grand project to preserve civic order and community cohesion as it is giving a voice to that majority long ignored and insulted.

Without UKIP what would happen as the elite continue to preserve their own privileges and entrenched power systems?

As Chomsky said:

The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigour and passion.

The BBC has been the handservant of the rich and powerful guarding their privileges and despotism, allowing them to impose policies that run against the interests and wishes of the population.

The BBC is far from independent and does indeed lie in the service of power….as long as that power also aligns with the BBC’s own moral and ethical compass.

Where does Mishal Husain get her news from?  Al Jazeera?

Mishal Husain, the BBC’s Muslim presenter who thinks that Hamas rockets are pretty harmless and that it is part of her job to improve the image of Islam made a slight factual error this morning claiming that (08:52)

‘The Israeli authorities have reopened access to the Al Aqsa Mosque this morning….closed yesterday after unrest following the fatal shooting of a Palestinian.’

 

Trouble is that’s just not true as even the BBC reported yesterday…..

A spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has described the closure of a disputed Jerusalem holy site as a “declaration of war”.

The move came amid tension and violence after the shooting of a Jewish activist. Israel’s PM urged calm, saying Mr Abbas was stoking unrest.

The holy site will reopen on Friday, Israel’s economy minister says.

 

And what of that ‘Palestinian’?

Israeli police later killed a Palestinian suspected of shooting him. Moataz Hejazi, 32, was shot after reportedly opening fire when police surrounded his home.

 

So the mosque was closed because a Palestinian shot an Israeli Rabbi and then that Palestinian killer was shot resisting arrest.

Not quite the tale Husain cobbled together.

Later in the day we had Kevin Connolly giving us an analysis of the historical context and background to events in Jerusalem….apparently the start of the problem was the Israeli’s ‘supreme conquest’ of Palestinian territory in 1967.

Strange, I thought 1967 had the Israelis routing the massed Arab armies who were ready to annihilate Israel but instead fled the field leaving Israel in charge of the land by default…..they didn’t ‘conquer’ it as Connolly suggests.

Facts and language….the proper use if which determine people’s perceptions and reactions.

The BBC’s mis-use of both is fuel to the fire for the ‘radical Islamist’s’ narrative.

It is interesting that Connolly talks openly about the Muslim reaction to any Israeli incursion into the Mosque….it would set off violent repercussions across the Muslim world.

Connolly mentions the Crusades, no doubt doing the usual BBC thing of trying to suggest that Christians have a history of violence in religion’s name thereby intending that we should not judge Islam for its violence…trouble is…Christianity doesn’t tell you to hate the non-believers, it doen’t tell you to kill them.  The Koran does.

But it is that Muslim reaction to any Israeli incursion that is interesting because Muslims continually refer to the Crusades as something that even now radicalises Muslims, just another point in history that Muslims have suffered persecution at the hands of Christians.

Never mind that Muslims attacked and conquered Jerusalem and the Crusades were an attempt to regain Christian land.

Connolly’s admission that Muslims would set the Middle East alight to get the Al Aqsa Mosque area back, Temple Mount to the Jews of course, tells you something of the hypocrisy of the Muslim narrative that feeds their grievance industry and the subsequent terrorism.

They complain about the Crusades and yet would do exactly the same thing should they be excluded from the Mosque.

‘Although you may tolerate Islam, Islam might not tolerate you.’

Yesterday Nicky Campbell asked ‘Would you support an amnesty for Jihadists?’

This was the day after David Cameron denounced such people as ‘enemies of the UK’ and repeated his intention to tackle not just violent Islamists but those who support such Islamists.

Last month he told us that…

“the root cause of this threat to our security is clear: it is a poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism that is condemned by all states.”

 

A shame then that Campbell’s guest speaker to guide our thoughts on whether extremist Islamists should be welcomed back and treated as ‘vicitims’ or not was one Asim Qureshi, Research Director at CAGE whom Campbell described as a ‘former extremist’.

You could perhaps refrain from using the ‘former’ part of that description.

Here he is speaking on behalf of Cage:

“We’ve been a bit politically naive,” he said. “We haven’t questioned some of the underlying assumptions about who Muslims are and what they believe in.”
PREVENT strikes at the heart of the transnational identity that Muslims have, and confuses or shrouds the core principles of Islam which offer genuine alternatives to an aggressive global neo-liberal system.

Note that ‘transnational identity that Muslims have’….in plain language that means Muslims owe no loyalty to the country they live in, their loyalty is to Islam….and Islam that ‘offers a genuine alternative to…..?’ well, to Western democracy.

Qureshi speaks the same language as the ‘extremists’ of ISIS when it comes to Islam and its values.

Here he openly supports the idea of the Caliphate, Shariah and Jihad…those ‘conservative Muslim values’:

Is it a crime to care?

The concepts of jihad, shariah and khilafah are not the exclusive possession of ISIS but core Islamic doctrines subscribed to by almost one third’s of the world’s population. It is telling that the government’s treatment of ISIS is similar to its treatment of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut Tahrir, and the Taliban, despite the enormous differences of belief and methodology between the groups.
Witch-hunts such as the Trojan Horse hoax and the mass hysteria over issues of the niqab, halal food and conservative Muslim values demonstrate that the criminalisation is spreading beyond Middle Eastern politics.
Join CAGE at this series of events around the country to unite the Muslim communities against this criminalisation of our faith, our beliefs, our mosques and organisations, and our leaders.

No surprise that back in June the Muslim Council of Britain, instigators of the infamous Islamist ‘Trojan Horse’ plot, should have said that Muslims could not be school governors if ‘conservative Muslim’ beliefs were deemed incompatible with British values.

The MCB now seeks to prevent action being taken against radicals:

Muslim Council of Britain says constant talk of legislation and monitoring is leading marginalised Muslims towards radicalism

“They need to be talking to us and others to understand what it is that’s leading these boys down this route,” Khan told the Guardian. “Part of the problem is the constant talk of legislation, harassment and monitoring, stripping people of their passports. This is what’s leading young people towards radicalism.”

 

The last thing the government needs is to be talking to, and taking advice from, a extremist group like the MCB….despite the MCB’s claim that ‘They would love to help rather than obstruct.”

Similarly the last thing the BBC should be doing is bringing on a man whose group supports the ‘extremist’ ideology and presenting him as a ‘moderate, reformed Muslim extremist’.

Has Campbell learned nothing from his mistaken love affair with Mo Ansar?

Harry’s Place reminds us of Ansar’s politics:

…..it seems Mo’s ‘extensive experience in countering extremism‘ involves promoting and defending the work and goals of what every right-minded person regards as an extremist organisation…..Mo’s twitter feed of full of links to and endorsements of leading extremist groups and individuals. And therein lies the real tragedy. British Muslims have been let down again and again by self-styled leaders who abuse their position to espouse a regressive and reactionary agenda. In the case of Mo, actively promoting the work and ideas of an organisation that gave birth to Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri and a whole host of other extremists that have inspired many terror attacks in the UK.

 

 

The same Ansar who predicts the takeover of the West by Muslims….

The BBC, in promoting the views of Asim Qureshi, is providing a platform for the extremists, if that is, we are defining ‘extremists’ as those who wish to impose ‘conservative Muslim Values’ upon the world rather than limiting the label to those who are violent.

From what Qureshi says about Jihad, the Caliphate and Sharia it is quite clear he supports such conservative Muslim beliefs.  It would have taken the BBC 10 minutes to check his beliefs, he doesn’t hide them.

Qureshi’s own words are a perfect description of the BBC’s failure to do the legwork and find out those beliefs:

“We’ve been a bit politically naive,” he said. “We haven’t questioned some of the underlying assumptions about who Muslims are and what they believe in.”

 

But was it ‘naivety’ or stupidity or a deliberate move to promote Qureshi and Cage’s views in the full knowledge of what they are?

If so Cameron has a much harder task than he thinks if he wants to tackle the ‘poisonous ideology’ of Islamist extremism when the national broadcaster is itself, once again, promoting it.

Theresa May thinks she has the answer…..

Radical Islamist extremists and neo-Nazis could be banned from making public appearances including on television under a gagging order proposed by the Conservatives with echoes of the broadcast ban that once applied to the voice of Gerry Adams.

Theresa May will announce the measure as part of a widely drawn counter-extremism strategy that is intended to catch so-called hate preachers such as Anjem Choudary, who was released on bail last week after being arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism.

The home secretary’s new orders would be aimed at those who undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy”, a wide-ranging definition that could also catch a far wider range of political activists.

The BBC, as with the IRA, will seek to still give voice to the terrorist/militant/extremist/reformed extremist.

The Spectator tells us:

It is, after all, so easy to tolerate what does not immediately affect you, and it’s nice to feel that one is liberal about Islam. But the lesson I’ve learnt is that we’re going to have to fight for our progressive democracy, because although you may tolerate Islam, Islam might not tolerate you. When it lives in your house, eats your food, sleeps under your roof, enjoys all the comforts you provide, all the while despising you, then you will be forced to make a choice.

The BBC has made its choice.

If you oppose Islamist extremism you are not just racist and Islamophobic but paranoid: