I’m currently writing an essay on the impact that Muslim immigration and birth rates are having on UK demographics. Surfing across the web, I came across a site that seeks to “debunk” the “myth” that Europe is being Islamified. Can you guess where it is? Yes – the BBC magazine, Allah’s little helper. Do give what they have to say a read. I think the sort of mindset that can produce this dhimmified nonsense is the reason so much of their current affairs coverage is warped out of all shape.


Have a read of this piece published by the BBC concerning that lovable old Jihad preaching rogue Abu Qatada. Get the feeling that it is slightly unbalanced? It’s clear the BBC want Qatada to stay, whether out of mendacious delight in the humiliation this would bestow upon Theresa May or just because whoever is the enemy of the British people is the friend of the BBC.


Ah, my old twitter sparring pal, Mehdi Hasan, has been moved on to greater things! Biased BBC’s Alan asks;

” Wonder when the BBC will see the light as another of their favourite ‘moderate’ Muslim commentators is felled?

Mehdi Hasan has been ousted from the New Satesman and gone further to the fringe at the Huffington Post UK.

‘Raheem Kassam, editor of the conservative The Commentator, told the Free Beacon that Hasan might have parted ways with the New Statesman due to his toxic political views.

“There is the ongoing speculation around Westminster as to whether he was dropped due to the sheer scale of negative attention he brought to the New Statesman magazine,” said Kassam, who has thoroughly documented Hassan’s favorable coverage of Iran.
“Everyone knew that the status quo couldn’t continue with Hasan,” he added. “It was only a matter of time until he was rightly held to account for what became increasingly nonsensical journalism and a repeated refusal to comment on his extreme views as highlighted by the videos.” ‘

Hasan was widely recognised as an Islamist with disturbing views….as well as ostensibly a loony ‘Lefty’ to boot.

You might think the BBC would think carefully before using him as a commentator on important issues but of course their desire to have  a ‘Muslim’ on the Telly or radio overran their common sense… was in any case hardly a ringing endorsement for Islam to be represented by Hasan….as he was one who believed in actually living the religion, carrying out its true requirements…..or as the BBC might put it ‘perverting the religion’.

Because of course such a way of life is hardly compatible with the Liberal, Enlightened West.

The BBC loves a friendly Muslim though… attempts to slip in as may as possible into the mix in its programmes to ensure we aren’t ‘frightened’ by the ‘mysterious and strange’ community in our midst.

Like Professor Jim Al Kalili…..scientist with a Muslim name…however….’Al-Khalili has stated that, “as the son of a Protestant Christian mother and a Shia Muslim father, I have nevertheless ended up without a religious bone in my body.’

Regardless of that the BBC know we will immediately class him as Muslim because of his name….the BBC intent is to say….’Look, here’s a ‘Muslim’. He’s friendly, a nice chap, and what’s more a highly intelligent, successful scientist… must not think all Muslims are potential terrorists!’

It is also part of their campaign to have the the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science  brought to the fore and given its ‘due place’ in our history….because of course, the BBC, and the Guardian, tells us, the West was built on the Islamic science….without Islam we’d be living in mud huts eating raw cows….and ultimately to have us ‘see’ Muslims and Islam as a benefit to society rather than a backward, Medieval, oppressive, homophobic, mysogynistic, divisive and intent on religious apartheid religion that brings violence and conflict to our society.

Good luck on that.


‘Today’ goes to war on evangelical warmongers and conservative Americans in the military who no longer represent the true America……. all just a cover to smother any and all criticism or suggestion of criticism of Islam.  B-BBC contributor Alan writes…

‘We do not disassociate Islam from war. On the contrary, disassociating Islam from war is the reason for our defeat. We are fighting in the name of Islam. Religion must lead to war. This is the only way we can win.’
Said by the moderate and respected Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, February 2006

Today I was minding my own business, filling in time watching the TV when an advert came on. This advert, taking on the Zeitgeist, whispered to me that ‘Institutions’ have let us down…But if you value honour and honesty and if you think promises are important you are not alone. For some impossible to fathom reason the BBC sprang to mind. An Institution that lets me down all the time, one that doesn’t seem to value honour and honesty nor fulfil its promises of accurate, impartial journalism.

Perhaps I was feeling a bit jaundiced having the day get off to a bad start (John Bell of the Iona Community’s uplifting sermon aside) by hearing America had declared war on Islam.  A surprise to me and perhaps to the American Army.

Not to the BBC however who were quite happy to give this story far more prominence and relevance than it merits….its full report differed from its careful  description of the item.

This is what the Today blurb said: ‘The most senior military officer in the US has described as “totally objectionable” a course being taught at a military academy that asks students to imagine an all-out war against Islam.’

Note the ‘imagine an all out war’ …not ‘we are at war gentlemen, kill ’em all!’ which was the gist of the full report.

‘Lawrence Korb, of the Centre for American Progress, told the Today programme that some people in the military “really feel that this is the struggle we’re in”.
“There is a certain element in our military – a lot of them influenced by evangelical religious beliefs – that feel that the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are an indication of the fact that we are at war with Muslims and that people are using their religion as a justification for killing Americans and our allies.”

Korb went on to blame ‘very conservative’ people (Republicans!?) who didn’t represent the true America for this war mongering.  Today’s Naughty jumps in and says ‘That’s a very interesting point does that disturb you?’ Naturally it did and Korb goes on….‘They think this is the struggle we are in….Islam is just the latest threat to western civilisation.’

Naughty is definitely coming at this from the point of view that the course was wrong in concept and that people should realise that thinking Islam is a threat to Western civilisation is not clever at all……
‘The extraordinary thing about this is that the basic premise of the course was ‘let us destroy the civilisation and the people and this is how you would do it’….there has been a rise in political sensitivity about these things….not in a politically correct way of course…you would have thought people ‘get it’ a bit more….somebody might have had a bit of a brain to say this wasn’t very clever.’

Naughty obviously has no idea what goes on at any military training establishment or at the planning establishment in government. Does the BBC send its journalists to war zones without ‘hazardous region’ awareness training? No…they all go on these courses so they know the dangers and how to protect themselves…..prior planning prevents… an early grave.

The BBC story was that a military college was teaching its students that we are actually at war with Islam and that certain actions are necessary to win that war such as bombing Mecca and killing civilians as in Nagasaki or Hamburg.

In reality the the lectures  were not based on the premise that we really are at war with ‘Islam’…it was a training model, a ‘what if’ scenario that illustrated what events could happen in such an eventuality and what measures could be necessary to win against 1.4 billion Muslims.
As the material itself said…..’this model presumes we have already failed at Phase 1- “Deterrence” therefore Phase 1 is not shown as a part of this OP Design framework.’
Is that unusual? No. All military colleges and command structures carry out such scenarios and planning for all eventualities….to train commanders and to have contingency plans for all eventualities….fail to plan and you plan to fail.

How many such scenarios were built around the Soviet threat? How many are now built around the Chinese potential for war? There are similar courses being run right now that wargame China as the ‘enemy’ and envisage ‘all out nuclear war’ at some stage….as one scenario.

In the 1930’s the USA had plans to attack the British Empire:

‘In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.’

In 1945 the USA had plans for the defeat of Stalin with Operation Dropshot:

‘After Nazi’s defeat in 1945, Soviet Union emerged as a new superpower with its own aggressive agenda to promote Communism and eventually, dominate in the world. “Dropshot” is a result of contingency planning, a frightening but realistic scenario of the Third World War.’

Britain had her plan:
Operation Unthinkable (Churchills Plan for War with the Soviet Union)
Within days of the defeat of Germany in World War II, Winston Churchill ordered his war cabinet to draw up contingency plans for an offensive against Stalin that would lead to “the elimination of Russia”, according to top secret British documents.

In 1961 the USA had more contingency plans to tackle the Communists:

‘U.S. War Plans Would Kill an Estimated 108 Million Soviets, 104 Million Chinese, and 2.3 Million Poles: More Evidence on SIOP-62 and the Origins of Overkill
A recently declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff report on “Berlin Contingency Planning,” produced in June 1961 as the Berlin Crisis was heating up, includes horrific estimates of fatalities and destruction that the execution of U.S. war plans would cause to the Soviet Union and putative allies.

The truth is the only difference here is the word ‘Islam’.

The BBC intend to infer that this is what happens when ‘Islamophobia’ gets a grip on a nation…irrational and frightening, dangerous thoughts are spread about the religion of peace. There is a massive movement to close down all discussion about Islam…and certainly about any ‘threat’ that the ideology might pose to the West. The BBC has never discussed the consequences of Islam’s imposition upon Europe, the US has expunged all mention of ‘Islamic’ terrorism or radicals from its counter terrorism training manuals.

There are some people who speak out having recognised the craven Establishment subjugation to Islamic ‘community’ threats of violence…….
‘Officialdom is easily frightened of Islam, with good reason, treading carefully in a minefield. There is an essentially craven tendency to give in to the notion that religious belief deserves some special treatment by the state.’

Polly Toynbee said:
‘We must be free to criticise without being called racist’
Liberals appease Muslims for fear of association with anti-immigrant thugs
‘I pointed out yet again that theocracy is lethal. Wherever religion controls politics it drives out tolerance and basic human rights.
More alarming is the softening of the brain of liberals and progressives. They increasingly find it easier to go with the flow that wants to mollify Muslim sentiment, for fear of joining the anti-immigration thugs who want to drive them from the land.
The liberal dilemma over Islam is not unlike the prevarications of some over communism in the cold war.’

And this…..
The Independent (London)
October 23, 1997, Thursday
In defence of Islamophobia; religion and the state
Polly Toynbee
‘I am an Islamophobe. I judge Islam not by its words – the teachings of the Koran as interpreted by those Thought-for-the-Day moderate Islamic theologians. I judge Islam by the religion’s deeds in the societies where it dominates. Does that make me a racist?’

or Boris Johnson:
‘To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia fear of Islam seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke.
Judged purely on its scripture to say nothing of what is preached in the
mosques it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its
heartlessness towards unbelievers. We look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islams mediaeval ass? ‘

Why did they invite Lawrence Korb onto comment….of all the people in the world why him? Korb was former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense dealing with ‘Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics’ from 1981 to 1985.
but is now a fellow at the Centre for American Progress. He is rabidly against the Iraq and Afghan wars, wants to massively reduce the US defence budget and instead of going to war suggests we engage, talk, to the enemy.

In fact pretty much the BBC’s own world view.

However he does have an insight into the necessary strategy to defend a nation in his publication:
“Integrated Power: A National Security Strategy for the 21st Century”.
‘Defending our country has always been and will always be the highest priority of the federal government. To carry out that task, the government needs a clear, consistent national security strategy….based on sober judgments of how things are, not what some ideologues wish them to be.
It must reflect complex realities, not a naïve black and white view of the world.’

Which is pretty much what the US Army ‘unofficial’ course was doing….taking a ‘what if’ scenario and ‘planning’ a war around that….but for purposes of training.

I leave the best till last……and of course it is Mark Mardell who rather foolishly spells out in no uncertain terms exactly what the BBC ‘unofficial’ line is:

‘The course taught officers there was no such thing as moderate Islam and that they should consider the religion their enemy. It advocated “total war” against all the world’s Muslims, As far as I can see this is not intended in any sense as a rather sick academic exercise in stretching the bounds of what could be thought. It is actually what the officer teaching it believes.

In other words: completely nutty stuff that would disgrace the wilder fringes of the blogosphere.

What does seem rather surprising is that all those commanders, captains and colonels must have sat through the course and not felt the need to tell someone that something rather weird was going on.’

It could be ‘rather sick’ but is in fact what the officers really thought….they’re completely nuts and rather weird.

In fact, having read the material, it is a sensible and rational assessment of, firstly, what Islam the religion means and demands of its followers, secondly what would the threat be if the whole ‘Islamic world community’ did come together in a war against the ‘rest’ and then how that threat might have to be tackled….and being a big threat would need a big ‘stick’ to deal with it.

In other words the course was not saying ‘we are at war with Islam’ it was assessing what would happen if such a war did occur.

The BBC know that but intend to keep the pressure on anyone who raises their heads above the parapet and says Islam may not actually be a ‘religion of peace’ after all and we should take a serious look at the consequences of allowing it to flourish within our own societies.

Old Arab saying….’Once the camel gets his nose in the tent his body will surely follow.’

Oh and just as an addendum… in my search for the ‘camel’ quote this popped up ….

‘Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for “horse sex” since 2004, “donkey sex” since 2007, “rape pictures” between 2004 and 2009, “rape sex” since 2004, “child sex” between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, “animal sex” since 2004 and “dog sex” since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.

The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for “sex,” “camel sex,” “rape video,” “child sex video” and some other searches that can’t be printed here.
The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan did not reply to a request for an interview.’

Maybe that explains a lot recently in the news?


Biased BBC correspondent Alan writes;

“You have to look hard to find this story on the BBC website:

Imam dies in mosque arson attack in Belgian capital

It doesn’t make the Homepage (though ironically it does have a report on Le Pen running in the French election), nor even merit a highlighted report on the world news…just a line in ‘Europe’.

Could the reason be for this lack of reaction that the arsonist was another Muslim…a Sunni attacking a Shia Mosque? I’m sure it had nothing to do with religion what so ever though.

Imagine…or in fact just go back through the archives and you can find the BBC reaction to attacks on Mosques by ‘Islamophobess’ or apparently Israelis….where no one died or indeed no serious damage done. The BBC continues to hide the violence done by Muslims whilst highlighting Israeli ‘aggression’ of any nature and measure.

It highlights and goes into spasms of delight when an American goes beserk in Afghanistan but it ignores the cold blooded and deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by the Taliban.

Rewarding Muslim violence with favourable media coverage or at least, coverage that hides motives behind the violence, or the violence itself, will only lead to more violence…it obviously gets results politically and financially as politicians pour money into communities in an effort to look like they care. It’s a clever strategy by Muslims…get people to distrust or hate you…then claim victim status and have politicans falling over themselves to ‘protect’ and develop your community and culture.”


Startling admission here by Mark Thompson;

“The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity. 

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed. He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford. Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

This explains a lot. The point is that the State Broadcaster has one standard for how it deals with Christianity but another for how it deals with Islam. I suggest that it is not just the “emotional force” that concerns Thompson should the BBC offend Muslims as it does Christians but rather the “cutting edge” that the Religion of Peace offers to all who dare demean it.

Wildlife of Luton

Imagine David Attenborough’s version of Proud and Prejudiced. He’d most likely take the anthropologist’s view of the inhabitants of Luton. He’d examine Islamist Sayful, the dominant male, and peer at the female of the species, squawking as they flock together in their black head-to-toe plumage; the males, beards glistening luxuriantly, displaying. He might scrutinise the indigenous tribe, their dull appearance enlivened by the odd tattoo, and perhaps allude to its vigorous attempts to defend its miserable territory, driven by a fear that the invading species threatens to drive it to extinction. Would David have used the word ‘misguided’ to describe Tommy Robinson as the C4 narrator did early on in the programme? Would he have warned the audience to distrust his emphatic protestations that the EDL wasn’t based on racism?

There was no need for any explanation from the narrator regarding the Islamist inhabitants of Luton. They did exactly what it says on their tin. They behaved like the ludicrous cartoon characters they obviously were.
However much the programme makers wanted to portray the EDL as the ideological equivalent of the radical extremists, Tommy Robinson and his fellow EDLers wouldn’t play ball. They persisted in conducting themselves within reasonable bounds of respectability, forcing the filmmakers to resort to simply telling the audience that they were liars. A stupid childish drunken episode was mustered up, which somewhat dented Tommy’s credibility, but a couple of shots of tattooed, chanting shaven-headed men giggling as they behaved badly hardly amounted to the ideological equivalent of the religious rabble hell-bent on imposing their will upon a hitherto complacent majority.

I realise that this was not a BBC programme, unlike the Stacey Dooley’s strangely blindfolded effort aimed at BBC3’s youth orientated audience. But it is alarming that the press have almost unanimously swallowed the moral equivalence that the programme makers were driving at, apparently taking it on board wholeheartedly. The BBC’s continual portrayal of Islam as if it embodies righteousness on a par with applehood and mother pie plays no mean part in this tectonic swindle.
Take the Huffington Post. (please) Mark Hawker thinks the Jihad is a mere war of words. But he reveals a little more about the tint of his lenses when he continues: “Their anger at UK foreign policy is understandable, in my view.” So that’s his opinion filed in room 101.

But the Telegraph?
Andrew Marszal’s review was a diatribe warning us not to fall for the lies of Tommy Robinson. His final paragraph tells us what, in his opinion, was the most chilling thing the film had shown:

”But perhaps the documentary’s most chilling moment came when Robinson, out on a drinking binge, began doing “humorous” impersonations of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bomb blast and gun rampage in Norway last year. Breivik claimed to be an EDL sympathiser – a disturbing reminder of how high the stakes in this quarrel really are.”

No mate. I’d say Andrew Marszal in the Telegraph writing such tripe is a much better reminder.


Biased BBC’s Alan reports….

“The BBC trumpets on its frontpage a Greek tragedy for Greece’s historical artifacts…..‘Armed robbers have stolen dozens of artefacts from a museum in Ancient Olympia – the birthplace of the Olympics, Greek officials say.’

The BBC were delighted, some might say, to report the looting of Iraq’s national museum during the Iraq War….because it showed the inhuman cost of Bush and Blair’s illegal war on Iraq’s and the world’s historical heritage. They weren’t so keen to tell us about this recently:

‘The Maldives’ national museum reopened Tuesday without some of its most valuable exhibits a week after a mob of suspected religious extremists smashed images from the pre-Islamic era of this Indian Ocean archipelago. About 35 exhibits — mostly images of Buddha and Hindu gods — were destroyed….the the attackers did not understand that the museum exhibits were not promoting other religions in this Muslim country.Practicing or preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited by the Maldives constitution. Last year, a mob destroyed a monument given by Pakistan marking a South Asian summit with an engraved image of the Buddha in it.’

Could it possibly be that someone at the BBC decided that this was not a good reflection on the tenets of Islam….perhaps these were just extremists yet again ‘perverting’ the true glory and vision of the Islamic faith? It could be though that these ‘extremists’ were in fact following the exact teachings of Islam and following in their Prophet’s footsteps…...

‘A good place for a historian of Islam to start would be 629 ad, or Year 8 of the new Muslim calendar, though that had yet to come into being. In that year, 20 armed horsemen, led by Sa’d ibn Zayd, were sent by Muhammad to destroy the statue of Manat, the pagan goddess of fate, at Qudayd, on the road between Mecca and Medina. The tribes had been impressed by the muscularity of the new religion, and Muhammad must have deemed further ideological compromise unnecessary. Sa’d ibn Zayd and his 20 horsemen had arrived to enforce the new monotheism.’

 As the BBC tells us itself such a stance towards other religions is the true Islamic attitude…there can be no other God than the Muslim one:

 “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” 
This is the basic statement of the Islamic faith: anyone who cannot recite this wholeheartedly is not a Muslim.When a Muslim recites this they proclaim:
That Allah is the only God, and that Muhammad is his prophet
That they personally accept this as true
That they will obey all the commitments of Islam in their life
The Shahadah is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam.


Biased BBC’s Alan points out…

“The BBC has revealed that MI5 and MI6 have been ‘cleared’ over allegations of being involved in torture….in other words the allegations by the ‘victims’ are lies. But they make sure you understand that this is only because of lack of evidence…..and so the Security Services are probably guilty of something….if only they had the evidence…but any way something else might be found soon.

However evidence is not always held in such high esteem by the BBC, even if it points conclusively to guilt.

The BBC has over the years been keen to give terrorists and Islamic extremists a platform to voice their ideology and grievances. The BBC is prepared to give a high degree of credibility to their tales whilst not giving equal weight to the statements of the security services, the Army and police.

British soldiers, according to Victoria Derbyshire, are murderers when they accidentally kill civilians in military operations, security services are all implicated in torture and the police are racist and violent, the Justice system weighted against Muslims. Mozzam Begg, Binyam Mohammed, and now Shaker Aamer amongst many others, are given the explicit backing of the BBC regardless of whether or not there is a wealth of evidence that they were involved in extremism.

The BBC’s naive elevation of such people to ‘martyr’ status and spokesmen for the Muslim ‘community’ without questioning their allegations in the slightest is highly dangerous for society, destabilising and undermining the secular State whilst promoting Islam as an essentially harmless ‘Faith’ intent merely on spiritual endeavours.

It is a shame the BBC have forgotten those who are the real victims, those who died at the hands of people who follow the same ideology as Begg and Co.

In 2005, in London, on the 7th of July 52 people were killed and over 700 injured by devotees of Islam.

The BBC leapt to the defence of the bombers, asking ‘what could drive such young British Muslims’ to do such terrible things…..concluding of course it was their treatment by British Society and British foreign policy….Islam means ‘Peace’…except for a few forgotten voices…..


Easing my way back into this post-Christmas blogging and I am sure you will have read about the horrific mass murder in Texas carried out by a “gunman who shot dead six relatives before killing himself at a family Christmas celebration in Texas was dressed as Santa Claus.” The curious thing is that the killer was also a devout Muslim and it looks like it was an honour killing with extras. Naturally the BBC choses not to update the story with this detail – after all it’s not relevant…right?


Hi folks! Been away for the past few days so trust this finds you all well. Quite a bit to catch up on and I think I will start with this one because it nicely articulates my own views having read the same BBC report; From the Commentator;

“All right. I’m not going to make this difficult. The families giving the orders, as well as the victims, are in all, or almost all, cases Muslim. Surprised? No, of course you’re not. Honour attacks ranging in brutality from beatings to murder are commonplace in many parts of the Muslim world. Since Britain, like many other European countries, has imported sizeable Muslim communities, which are to a significant degree unassimilated, the cultural practices of the old country have survived the transition to the new. Finally, the figure of 2,823 attacks is almost certainly a gross under-estimate since, apart from anything else, it is drawn from only 39 of 52 UK police forces. 

Got it? In just over 150 words (including title and summary) you now know all the basic information, and as intelligent, informed citizens you can have a discussion on what to do about it. That’s what journalism is for. 

Propaganda, on the other hand, is intended for something else. It is designed to present a politically charged narrative held to with a fanaticism that will allow no mention of facts that contradict it. It is thus deliberately intended to lower the quality of the discussion by erasing key pieces of information. Enter the BBC, which reported on the matter in a lengthy, 700-plus word article and failed to mention the words “Muslim”, “Islamic” or “Islam” even once.

Very true. I also got to watch BBC breakfast news coverage on these “honour killings”  and again the sanitisation was all too evident. It’s never news, it’s always propaganda. The BBC seems determined to ensure that Islam escapes any criticism even when, as in this case, the savagery is crying out for the strongest condemnation.

Wake up Call

“Now for a party political broadcast on behalf of Islam.”
Not heard in so many words on the BBC, but the strategy of bringing Muslims and Islam into our lives with a series of “they’re just like us” programming has been hammering away at the audience with the intensity of one of Saatchi’s finest ad campaigns.

As well as programmes about Islam itself, programmes about Muslim family life, programmes about Islamic culture, dramas with Muslim heroes, plots where all things Islamic are depicted as virtuous, often contrasted with some indigenous British scroungers, scoundrels and amoral good-for-nothings just in case we haven’t already got the message that Islam is thoroughly and benignly British, there is the increasing role Islamic preachers are playing in mainstream religious broadcasting.

This would be all very well if they were willing and able to openly mention and examine the negative characteristics associated with Islam and Islamist practices, as honestly and readily as they obviously expect us to accept all the rest of it.
When such things inevitably feature in the news, overtly politically correct attempts to distance them from the ‘religion of peace’ prevents the connection from being openly and realistically acknowledged. Not only terrorism, but honour killings and forced marriages. When we hear scary tales about these, it’s made very clear that they’re not exclusively Muslim, but Asian. Similarly, there are ‘unmentionable’ aspects of the sexual grooming phenomenon that are worth mentioning. Apparently statistics say the perpetrators of sex crimes are predominantly white, but the figures don’t show whether there are behaviour patterns and attitudes within this broad grouping that are specific to Asian gangs. There is also the unasked and unanswered question of whether Muslims’ alleged moral superiority makes it all the more incongruous that any of them indulge in this crime in the first place. Or does repressed sexuality and a contemptuous attitude towards non Muslims constitute an explosive combination?
Additionally, there’s the question of whether the number of sex crimes, or criminality in general by Muslim offenders is relative and proportionate to the population as a whole.
Must we assume that the high number of Muslims in the prison population is because of Islamophobia in the justice system, or unfair targeting of Muslims by the institutionally racist police? Or is it for some other mysterious reason.
All over the papers yesterday, but, at the time of writing, absent from the BBC, was the incident involving a Christian worker at Heathrow airport who allegedly lost her job after being bullied by Muslim colleagues. Most concerning to many of the online commenters was the predominance of overtly Muslim employees at the UK’s largest and busiest airport. The gateway to the UK gives new arrivals the impression that they’ve landed in an Islamic state. Several people alluded to foxes guarding the henhouse.

This morning’s Start the Week discussed the Arab Spring, and various speakers assured us the new Islamist ideologies are moderate and tolerant. Someone told Andrew Marr that Erdogan is so popular with the Turkish people “because of his attitude towards Israel and Syria.” This went unchallenged. Not unusual, because Andrew Marr habitually lets this sort of thing pass without a murmur. Criticism of Israel, the assumption that it’s evil, lumping it together with Syria, etc. is an everyday occurrence on that programme.

But just moments earlier, Today put out a lengthy promotional piece about Alan Yentob’s upcoming radio 4 programme on the dwindling number of Jews in Iraq. The trail even featured the remarkable Canon Andrew White ‘the vicar of Baghdad’, who told us that the recent Wikileaks exposure of their names and addresses put the lives of the seven remaining Jews still living there in grave danger.

During this feature John Humphrys sounded sympathetic to their plight and that of the thousands of Jews who had been hounded out of Iraq. No doubt, had he been involved in that conversation, Andrew Marr too would have responded sympathetically, and gone ‘mmmm,’ as he is wont to do. But the cognitive dissonance displayed here, by which I mean the disconnect between the BBC’s sympathy with persecuted Jews, alongside their own simultaneous compliance with and participation in Israel’s vilification is staggering.

Yet Alan Yentob’s programme information has this.
“Nazism, Arab-nationalism and anti-Zionist feeling created a wave of anti-Semitism“
In black and white, the BBC has allowed a writer to link Nazism with Arab-nationalism. They’ve even gone so far as to connect the terms ‘created’ and ‘a wave of antisemitism’. Normally, antisemitism is regarded by them as something that just exists, out of nowhere, and persecution of Jews arises from nothing, and is not created by Nazism and Arab Nationalism, nor fueled by the antismitism inherent in Islam.

A recent From Our Own Correspondent featured one of the few Jews remaining in Macedonia, an 89 year-old holocaust survivor who remembers the deportation of Macedonia’s Jews. In the same section of From Our Own Correspondent, the reporter himself, Mark Lowen, recounted a moving tale about his own grandmother, a concert pianist who had been sent, with her sister, to the concentration camp that was immortalised in the film “Schindler’s List.” Furthermore these items were briefly featured and linked to on a main BBC news webpage, under the heading ‘Features and Analysis’ before being relegated to another section.

Is this a sea change somewhere in the bowels of the BBC, or is it just part of the same ‘old one step forward, two steps back’ progress we’re more used to. The BBC is still some way off from connecting the current waves of antisemitism with events in the present day Arab world. They seem uncannily eager to impress upon us that every newly, or about-to-be, democratically elected Islamist party is moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party that recently won the elections in Morocco, and last but not least our moderate friend Mahmoud Abbas. But it seems these moderates swiftly impose restrictions on the population as soon as they get the chance. Veils in universities, modest dress, polygamy and hatred of Jews, Israel and the West may seem moderate to some people, but surely not here in ‘Great’ Britain.

Programmes and items about the holocaust are not unusual. The BBC and the film industry have always been interested in depicting the holocaust. The pathos can sometimes appear self indulgent and gratuitous, but when people refer to “the holocaust industry” they don’t mean that. What they actually mean is that in their opinion the holocaust is being cynically and exploitatively used by Jews to shut down debate and act as a smokescreen to obscure the wrongdoings of Israel. This accusation works just the same in reverse, shutting down debate from the other side and unconvincingly masking the antisemitism that lies behind the accusation. Remembering the holocaust does more than beg for the universal sympathy vote. It reminds us how far things can escalate before they’re acknowledged, properly recognised and seen for what they really are. Hindsight shows how easily people can abandon reason, and should warn us to be vigilant lest history repeats. Be vigilant, BBC, and wake up.

Mud Sticks

You can’t do much about your reputation. A bad reputation can follow you like a shadow and place you at a considerable disadvantage in all your future endeavours.
Some movements, philosophies or ideologies are deemed so despicable that no affiliate or former member can ever dissociate themselves from the body’s loathsome reputation. But inexplicably, others with an equally ignominious record do it with ease.
Double standards exist. Some people can’t do a thing right, while others, apparently not for want of trying, just can’t put a foot wrong.

Take Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, representing the sunny-side of Islam. The commissioning editors of the BBC happily disregard all negative factors associated with the religion of peace, and give Shaykh Mogra a platform on radio 4 to preach to us every morning for a whole week, as though certain unmentionable issues had never raised their ugly heads. For instance Islam’s approach to women, to sex and to the non-believer; not to mention, literally, the antics of a certain publicity-seeking band of poppy-burning beardies, the Muslim Council of Britain’s duplicitous record, Islam’s inherent antisemitism, oh, and Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Ibriham Mogra can shayke off (sorry) all association with that nasty stuff and quote passages from the Koran as though butter wouldn’t melt in his beard. He evidently believes these unfortunate things are ‘nothing to do with me, guv.’
In stark contrast, certain other ideologies or movements are deemed ‘beyond the pale’. An individual associated with any of these despised bodies is automatically pushed into purgatory. Take the Nazi. Can there be a benign Nazi? At one end of the spectrum we have Goebbels and co., and at the milder end, the ‘gullible victim of propaganda’ and the ‘only following orders’ brand of Nazi. All are permanently regarded as personae non gratae, with the exception of one reformed Nazi who has made a convincing case by publicly denouncing his former incarnation and reinventing himself as the Pope. According to Wiki, Joseph Alois Ratzinger was “an unenthusiastic member” of the Hitler Youth all along, so that’s okay.

There’s little prospect of exoneration for Israel however. As far as the BBC is concerned Israel’s pariah status is set in stone. It is unremittingly portrayed as ‘beyond the pale’, and is seen by the BBC as indomitably fiendish, even though most of the evil-doing the BBC finds so unforgivable is a construct of their very own.

Organisations like the BNP can’t rehabilitate themselves. No matter how plausible he tries to be, Nick Griffin was caught on camera being racist and antisemitic, and his denials and ostensible changes of heart aren’t fooling anyone.
Similarly, Tommy Robinson has a lot of work to do on the EDL’s image before he’ll be able to distance himself from its reputation for thuggery and racism.
Incidentally, when the BBC set attack-dog Paxman onto ‘Tommy Robinson’, I doubt Paxo suspected he was in for a profound pasting. But that’s what he ended up with. The BBC was so confident that Robinson’s guilt-by-association was enough to crush him, that they didn’t bother to do any pre-interview research. In the event Paxo stabbed wildly and spuriously in all directions, and had to resort to making those faces. It probably wasn’t that particular humiliating fiasco of an interview that deterred the BBC from putting the good Shaykh up for a similar grilling before setting him up with a week’s worth of Prayers for the Day. But surely, if all things really were equal, they’d give Tommy a regular spot on the radio and send the Shaykh in for a couple of rounds with Paxo.

The BBC can brush aside the evil-doings of his religious compatriots, such as terrorism, wife beating, honour killing and gay-bashing, but can’t overlook alleged skinhead thuggery.
Every morning, for seven glorious days, Shayhk Mogra has been quoting some incomprehensible passages straight from the Koran for our edification.
On two occasions he assumed our fond familiarity with the Hajj, and an episode entitled “Kick Racism Out” contained the following:

“Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “O people, indeed your Lord and Sustainer is One and your ancestor is one. All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab nor for a non-Arab over an Arab; neither for a white person over a black person nor a black person over a white person except the superiority gained through righteousness. Indeed the noblest of you to God is the one who is most conscious of God.”

I wondered momentarily if the above-mentioned exception does subtly bestow superiority upon very ‘righteous’ Muslims, which by sleight of hand exempts me and the other kafir from being considered their equal. But I was all wrong, because he continued:

“Dear God, cleanse our hearts and give us the strength to be more righteous. Enable us to respect all human beings as equals and as members of Your family, amin.”

(‘Amin’ is Muslim for ‘Amen’)

Somehow Shaykh Mogra feels able to pick and choose which bits of the holy Koran he condones, and which bits he rejects. One of the latter is the death penalty for apostasy, which he says is outdated and old fashioned. But, would you adam an’ eve it, he’s sticking with the literal interpretation of the creation? “ All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth.

His Pollyanna version of the ROP doesn’t mention the Jihad. But he’s not your typical Islamic cleric. Hizb ut-Tahrir calls him a ‘government linked sellout’ and, on apostasy: “Even the kafir reporter knows more on Islam sharia then[sic] Mogra!”

I’m afraid today’s prayer really takes the biscuit. It’s called Caring for Women.

If the BBC can pretend that Islam’s record of caring for women bears any relation to this sermon, I’d like to know how.
The next passage has something of the literary style of Enid Blyton about it:

“He who supports three daughters or sisters by educating them and being merciful to them until they become self sufficient, God will make Paradise compulsory for him.” A man then asked, “What about two daughters or sisters, will the same apply to two?” Another asked, “What about one daughter or sister?” Muhammad said, “The same applies to one daughter or sister.”

(I don’t know how respectfully Noddy and Big Ears treated women, but they had a very unPC reputation with regard to golliwogs.)
He continues:

“He who has a daughter and looks after her and does not disgrace her, nor does he prefer his sons over her, God will admit him to Paradise.”

Disgrace her? How? Oh never mind. Next week’s Prayers for the Day are by Alison Twaddle.


One of the many benefits of the BBC is that it helps educate us lesser mortals. For example, did you know that many Muslims do not understand Sharia? Here is the helpful BBC article concerned and a little excerpt for your morning edification;

“Sharia is a now a familiar term to Muslims and non-Muslims. It can often be heard in news stories about politics, crime, feminism, terrorism and civilisation. All aspects of a Muslim’s life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur’an (the Muslim holy book), theHadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars). 

Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It’s often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countries. 

Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.”

Got that. Meanwhile back on Planet Islam;

RIYADH — A Sudanese man was beheaded Monday in Madina after he was convicted of practicing sorcery, the Interior Ministry announced. Abdul Hamid Al-Fakki “practiced witchcraft and sorcery,” which are illegal under the Shariah law, said a ministry statement. Rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking are all punishable by death under the Shariah law enforced strictly in the Kingdom

It all makes so much sense.
Hat-tip to Alan!

Getting Stoned on Islam

Dear BBC World Service. I’d like to complain about inappropriate product placement in a programme broadcast on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

An episode of Heart and Soul entitled “Muslim White and Female” was a 28 minute eulogy to the religion of Islam. Not once did it mention the unacceptable racist and violent aberrations inherent in its teaching. Even as an advertisement, which is what it amounted to, it broke all the codes.
“The Advertising Codes contain wide-ranging rules designed to ensure that advertising does not mislead, harm or offend.”
The advertisement for Islam broadcast on BBC World Service violated the advertising code on all three counts. It misled, harmed and offended.
The 28 minute-long unadulterated misrepresentation (falsehood) implied that subscribing to the product on offer would produce an euphoric state, which was actually likened to a morphine-induced state of ecstasy. So you can get stoned on Islam in more than the usual manner.

Most offensive of all, the programme promoted the views of a notoriously psychologically flawed personality with apparent delusions of grandeur, and who is known, amongst other things, for addressing rallies, specifically to incite antisemitic hatred, violence and anger.
A self-publicist, a would-be thespian, a person frequently caught on camera performing off the cuff speeches of passion in front of an audience characteristically predisposed to being incited into an intoxicated frenzied state; a baying mob, ready to forgive all the lapses in fluency and panic-stricken hiatuses when the oratory degenerates into slogan-chanting and frantic arm-waving.

Not one allusion to this was included in the misleading advertisement.

A newly acquired Arabic accent, and ludicrous gratitude expressed for the reforming nature of a religious fanaticism – apparently the only thing capable of delivering long-awaited maternal attention from a previously drunken self obsessed narcissist of a mother – added salt to the wound of a programme that was an unadulterated, misleading, dishonest, offensive, harmful advertisement for Islam.

The programme’s presenter recently won a claim against the BBC. “The BBC has not only admitted it got it wrong and apologised, but also held out an olive branch to Ms O’Reilly”

If the BBC is capable of handing out apologies for ageism, I await an unreserved public apology to all the listeners of the BBC World Service on the grounds of serious gross misrepresentation and falsehood, gratuitous exploitation of minors, advertising, and causing acute offence.