• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    Mindless paranoia


    by Sunny on 14th March, 2006 at 10:36 pm    

    I read with much amusement last night that the departure of Sunday Telegraph’s editor Sarah Sands last week is being blamed on Muslims by some bloggers. The furore revolves around an article in the ST that carried plenty of opinion on Islam from a Muslim convert to Christinanity, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo. The article was recently taken down from the Telegraph website without explanation.

    Needless to say such hysteria eventually reached Little Nazi Footballs, which is now busy informing the blogosphere that The Telegraph is also infected by their favourite word ‘Dhimmitude’. You mean the rag that published editorials from an anonymous Will Cummins comparing Muslims to dogs? Yes, infected, as they say. And who is to blame? Islamophobia Watch! That’s even more hilarious.

    Rather than constantly churning this pot of conspiracy theories, I suggest the boys from IBlogA just throw in their lot with the BNP’s local election strategy. Apparently it’s becoming ‘too socialist‘. Having all the idiots under one roof would make them easier to deal with. This way is too confusing.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Humour, Media, Religion




    52 Comments below   |  

    1. Jay Singh — on 14th March, 2006 at 10:48 pm  

      I remember that article in the Telegraph that compared Muslims to dogs. Why were they not taken to the press complaints commission for publishing that filth?

    2. Sunny — on 14th March, 2006 at 11:30 pm  

      NO idea… i think complaints were made but the PCC is quite useless anyway.

    3. Bikhair — on 15th March, 2006 at 3:13 am  

      Why dogs, why not cats?

    4. Mike — on 15th March, 2006 at 3:17 am  

      Relax Jay. Mr. Cummins did apologize to the RSPCA.

    5. Jay Singh — on 15th March, 2006 at 10:03 am  

      Relax yourself and stop barking Mike, you flea ridden bigoted mongrel.

    6. Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery — on 15th March, 2006 at 12:26 pm  

      Sunny,
      Do you have a link to the article by the convert and the one comparing Muslims to dogs?
      Thanks!

    7. Sunny — on 15th March, 2006 at 1:50 pm  

      Here is the link for articles earlier in the ST.
      http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/publishing/542

      The Patrick Sookhdeo article is still in Yahoo’s Cache here

    8. David T — on 15th March, 2006 at 3:06 pm  

      I know nothing about Sookhedeo, but assumed that he was some form of christian fundy convert.

      When I first saw the article, i thought he might have been the fellow who stood as a Christian Party candidate in some local elections a year ago … but I may be wrong, as I can’t find any trace of it.

      I thought he was an odd authority to be quoting, as he obviously has a religious axe to grind… but there you go. That’s the Torygraph for you. Vicars and retired majors, innit?

      The Torygraph website gives “legal reasons” as an explanation. I think that Yusuf Smith posted a few days ago that the “Noble Quran” - a radical translation of the Quran on sale in the UK that Sookhedo says calls for the killing of christians and jews - had been misidentified. My guess is that this is the legal reason that the article was removed.

      The one thing I find odd is that IBlogA claims that Sarah Sands told them, by email, that she was removed because she “placed” that article.

      Whether IslamophobiaWatch have indeed claimed a scalp - and they’re not Muslims, they’re SWP-alikes called Socialist Action - I dunno. I doubt it.

    9. Larry Teabag — on 15th March, 2006 at 4:29 pm  

      What I found interesting about this episode is that the Sookhedeo piece was immediately reproduced on all sorts of frothing far-ish right blogs. And although it does rave a bit, most of its unwitting hosts wouldn’t have agreed at all with the piece’s conclusions:

      “First, [the government] should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed ‘community leaders’ who don’t actually represent anyone…

      “Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration.. ..

      “Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. …”

    10. Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery — on 15th March, 2006 at 5:08 pm  

      Thanks Sunny.

    11. Eddie Truman — on 15th March, 2006 at 5:22 pm  

      Hello David T, anybody in ?
      Are you capable of understanding politics beyond ‘they’re in such and such gang’ ?
      I am not, never have been and never likely to be a member of Socialist Action.
      This may not fit into your “SWP-alikes” simpletons theory but it is nonetheless the fact of the matter.

    12. David T — on 15th March, 2006 at 6:25 pm  

      Well, you should ask Bob Pitt to sit you down and explain why you should join then!

    13. Mike — on 15th March, 2006 at 7:16 pm  

      Jay, let me see if I understand you, if you’re the Telegraph and you allow a writer to make some robust statements about the Muslim penchant for suicide bombing, imperialism, amputations, repression of women and minorities and a generally celebratory attitude to September 11 – none of which is factually in dispute –then you will be described as publishing filth.

      David T

      “I know nothing about Sookhedeo, but assumed that he was some form of christian fundy convert. ”

      You assumed wrong, but for the sake of argument if he was, would he be a danger to any of us? Admittedly They do take a pretty un-PC view of abortion, but only four doctors who carry out this procedure have been murdered by “Christian fundys” in the last two decades, and all in America. It seems they have a lot of catching up to do with the more hirsute followers of the Mohammedan faith. And if memory serves I don’t think many of these starry-eyed evangelical types have blown up public transit or slammed airliners into office buildings? Moreover, I can’t fathom any reasons why an apostate from Islam might have an axe to grind. But you sound like a Guardian, New Statesman reader and you might be a firm believer in this “Islam is peace” business. You might even have asked yourself after the London bombings, where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it?

    14. raz — on 15th March, 2006 at 7:28 pm  

      *cough* Srebrenica *cough*

    15. David T — on 15th March, 2006 at 7:49 pm  

      I’m just interested in the facts, ma’am.

    16. Sunny — on 15th March, 2006 at 8:50 pm  

      but for the sake of argument if he was, would he be a danger to any of us?

      Goddamn right. Any sort of religious nutter, like Bush et al, is a danger to all of us.

    17. Bikhair — on 15th March, 2006 at 9:02 pm  

      Sunny,

      You dissing my Pres again?

    18. Bikhair — on 15th March, 2006 at 9:05 pm  

      Mike,

      “Muslim penchant for suicide bombing, imperialism, amputations, repression of women and minorities and a generally celebratory attitude to September 11 – none of which is factually in dispute –then you will be described as publishing filth.”

      Muslims have a penchant for many many more things than those you have mentioned and probably to a far great degree but you wouldnt argue that the religion, or a believers adherence to the religion- Islam was conducive to such things, i.e. fornication, consumption of alcohol, ignorance of the religion, usury, etc.

      BTW Islam only has two celebrations Eid Al Fitr and Eid al Adha.

    19. Eddie Truman — on 15th March, 2006 at 9:39 pm  

      David T;
      “Well, you should ask Bob Pitt to sit you down and explain why you should join then! ”
      Well I guess he could try but it kind of makes a mockery of your spin that Islamophobia Watch is run by “SWP-alikes called Socialist Action” doesn’t it ?
      Given that I set up the site and do all the administration, your attempt to spin IW as a Trotskyist set up is shown to be total nonsense.
      Try and be a bit better informed David.

    20. Sunny — on 15th March, 2006 at 10:20 pm  

      You dissing my Pres again?

      Bikhair - yes, I am.

    21. David T — on 15th March, 2006 at 10:48 pm  

      But you’re Scottish Socialist Party, Eddie! Although I’m surely you’ll tell me that you were from the non-Trotskyite wing of that party, or something. I’m no expert on your career, I admit. And you’re hardly a mainstay of Islamophobiawatch. Its Bob Pitt’s site - 1751 articles by him, 104 by you.

      Here’s my question, though.

      It is pretty clear to me that there are two real forms of Islamophobia which need to be recognised. The first is anti-asian/arab racism. The second is an emerging form of conspiracism aimed at Muslims. Both of these need to be taken seriously, and fought hard.

      Somewhere in the middle ground is a reactionary, bourgeois, religiously inspired politics which strikes me as no different in essence from Hindu, Jewish, or Christian chauvenistic movement. I wouldn’t regard, for example Erdogan’s politics as that different from the politics of the Christian conservative Right in the US.

      And then, far to the right, is the politics of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut Tahrir which is primarily theocratic and is fundamentally antagonistic to democracy: although the Muslim Brotherhood has a strategic and short-term commitment to democratic politics.

      Why would a socialist fail to make these sorts of distinctions? Why, indeed, would a socialist regard it as his duty to defend or - in the case of the SWP - partner with such a movement? Why would socialists uncritically reproduce the line of the so-called “Islamic Human Rights Commission”? Or indeed, devote its energies to attacking the Worker Communist Party of Iran, of all groups! Not to mention to relentless smearing of poor old Tatchell.

      I generally don’t engage with Islamophobiawatch for these reasons: and because you’re just too weird. The Left should be working together to combat why you and I should be able to identify as core cases of Islamophobia, rather than whether Maryam Namazie has to be slagged off because nutters like Robert Spencer bigs her up.

      And I also think that the rally to defend the likes of Qaradawi has absolutely nothing at all to do with defending Muslims from racism, and everything to do with the perception the Islamism - as Galloway put it - is the last bastion of opposition to capitalism. I find that incredibly disappointing for three reasons. First, because it shows a depressing lack of faith in secular, socialist, and progressive politics. Secondly, because it uses Muslims instrumentally: I don’t believe at least some people at Islamophobiawatch, at least, have any interest in Muslims except as proxies for battles that they can’t fight themselves, on their own terms. Thirdly, I think it is a strategy which is doomed to failure. Chris Harman writing in 1994 reckoned that the point of joining “with the Islamist sometimes” was that by working with Islamist, socialists would be able ‘convert’ some of them. That isn’t what has been happening, has it?

      There’s nothing wrong with a strategic alliance, on some issues - the war, for example - with Islamist groups: but as they used to say, that ought to be done ‘with no illusions’. There’s a world of difference between that, and a website which devotes so much of its energies to an uncritical defence of the most reactionary elements in Islamist politics. I mean, you wouldn’t devote your energies to defending the BNP from their opponents, even though they also opposed the war, would you?

      Yeah, I know you’ll have thought about all this, and I’m not saying anything which hasn’t been said before. I’m sure you’ll disagree with most of it, strongly.

      But you take my point…

      Anyhow, we’re all pretty chummy on this site, and I don’t want to get into a fight with you. Just saying my piece, you know.

    22. Jay Singh — on 15th March, 2006 at 10:52 pm  

      Mike

      If someone makes a statement comparing an entire group of people to animals, saying that Muslims are like dogs, then yes, I call that filth. You must be a howling dog yourself if you can’t see why that is moral excreta, but then you seem the type that wallows in it yourself.

    23. Sid D H Arthur — on 15th March, 2006 at 11:37 pm  

      The last time I heard of a blogger getting someone discharged from a newspaper fired was when the Harry’s Place-endorsed Muslim baiter and letterbox turd-pusher, Scrote Burgess of the execrable Daily Ablution, got Aslam fired from the Guardian for being a member of HuT.

      I seem to remember the right-wing blogosphere found it difficult to contain their glee on that occassion. Why the long faces now?

    24. Mike — on 15th March, 2006 at 11:54 pm  

      Jay,

      Do you have the quote from Mr. Cummins? I can’t seem to find it. If memory serves most of his three? editorials were pretty spot on in regards to the Muslim imperialism and the subjection of non-muslim populations. Something that is a big yawn to you and Sunny. It seems if the pasty Ghora’s didn’t commit the crime you dont get terribly excited about it.

    25. Jay Singh — on 15th March, 2006 at 11:59 pm  

      Mike

      What are you chatting about ‘ghoras’ for you halfwit? Get that chip off your shoulder you obtuse degenerate. Anyone who describes an entire group of people as being like dogs is a purveyor of filth. Can you understand that?

    26. Sid D H Arthur — on 16th March, 2006 at 12:04 am  

      editorials were pretty spot on in regards to the Muslim imperialism and the subjection of non-muslim populations.

      I did. I didn’t exactly find them “spot on” but then many people tell me that Nick Griffin is a intelligent and well-informed man who knows his Muslim imperial history and can trot out the facts. But that position didn’t stand up to examination when he was crumpled by a few choice questions on a HardTalk interview.

      I did read the Cummins article and its just a simple peice of Muslim-baiting by someone who has issues to work off. Its a shame that the Telegraph felt it necessary to run that kind of hate-mongering.

      And whats with the pidgin Punjabi? Are you trying to ingratiate yourself to people who post here?

    27. Sunny — on 16th March, 2006 at 12:08 am  

      All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. A dog is not the same animal as a cat just because both species are comprised of different breeds

      That was the piece of intellectual rigour from our friend Harry Cummins, aka Will Cummins. Taken from here.

      Another addition to this saga which is quite amusing. I wrote afterwards saying: After all, finding bigoted inbred chimpanzees to tirade against Muslims or any ethnic minorities isn’t really that difficult.

      The BNP posted on their website that I was calling all white people ‘inbred chimpanzees (huh?) and I got about 200 emails from their friends saying they’d find me.

      That was mildly amusing for a few days. :)

    28. Don — on 16th March, 2006 at 12:14 am  

      Mike,

      ‘Do you have the quote from Mr. Cummins? I can’t seem to find it.’

      Follow the links, you lazy twat.

      ‘All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. A dog is not the same animal as a cat just because both species are comprised of different breeds.’

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/25/do2504.xml

      Robust? When a moslem publicly refers to jews as pigs and monkeys he is , on this site at least, called on it. When a representative of the British Bloody Council lets his well modulated mask slip and comes out with that shit, someone will call it shit.

    29. Sid D H Arthur — on 16th March, 2006 at 12:14 am  

      well can you blame them? Dogs are positively sweet compared to bigoted inbred goré chimps. tut tut tut.

    30. David T — on 16th March, 2006 at 8:48 am  

      But the BNP are inbred chimpanzees.

      PJ O’Rourke once pointed out that you could tell the success of a political movement by the number of hot chicks it attracts. cf CND in the 1960s v CND in the 1980s.

      There are no ‘hot’ members of the BNP.

    31. kulvinder — on 16th March, 2006 at 9:38 am  

      That article by Mary Riddell is the most idiotic crap ive read in a long time. There isn’t anything wrong with saying the BNP are ‘too socialist’ and holding controversial academic views is no bad thing. Frank Ellis is a nutter, but hes paid for his work on russian and slavonic studies if he want to believe the moon is made of cheese let him, afaik he hasn’t prejudiced against his students.

    32. raz — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:39 am  

      “It seems if the pasty Ghora’s didn’t commit the crime”

      A Ghora is a horse, you fucking retard.

    33. David T — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:54 am  

      Pastry Ghoras. Yum!

    34. raz — on 16th March, 2006 at 11:06 am  

      “Pastry Ghoras. Yum!”

      Are you French? :)

    35. Jay Singh — on 16th March, 2006 at 11:10 am  

      Maybe he is a horse ;-)

    36. Jay Singh — on 16th March, 2006 at 11:11 am  

      I mean maybe Mike is a horse and is complaining about how horses are marginalised on Pickled Politics and that’s why he doesnt mind Muslims being called dogs.

    37. Mike — on 16th March, 2006 at 1:31 pm  

      Don,

      ‘All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. A dog is not the same animal as a cat just because both species are comprised of different breeds.’

      How is this an insult? You English love your furry friends, moreover, this sentance is a tiny part of a very good article I have read all three articles, they are intelligent and obviously well thought out. There is no venom or xenophobiia …so what is the problem? Is criticising aspects of Muslim theology or differing interpretation of Muslim history hateful? It is a shame that Britain has allowed itself to become such an insecure society, where any criticism of Islam is met with intimidation reminiscent of the anti-Communist McCarthy era in the US.

      Sid

      “well can you blame them? Dogs are positively sweet compared to bigoted inbred goré chimps. tut tut tut.”

      My friend if we are going to discuss the topic of inbreds in the multiculti west then I think we can agree that the Muslim community places first when it comes to consanguineous marriages. Perhaps your parents are first cousins.

    38. David T — on 16th March, 2006 at 1:37 pm  

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    39. j0nz — on 16th March, 2006 at 2:03 pm  

      There are no ‘hot’ members of the BNP.

      This is simply not true! Nicole Colgate is pretty hot.

    40. j0nz — on 16th March, 2006 at 2:18 pm  

      Ok I’m a little shocked to read the wording on the Wil Cummins article. With a headline like “Muslims are a threat to our way of life”, this is clearly demonising all Muslims, and would be pulled, even at Infidel Alliance. Well at least altered. Genuinely surprised this got published in it’s current form!

      If the word Muslims or All Muslims could be replaced with jihadists or Islamists it would be pretty much on the mark.

      After the dumbarse and irresponsible tarring of all Muslims, he says
      “An extreme Christian believes that the Garden of Eden really existed; an extreme Muslim flies planes into buildings - there’s a big difference.”

      What a twat; he had to mess up a good theological debate with the preceding demonisation of all Muslims. A lot of what the BNP and Nick Griffin say about Islam (well publicly anyway) is true. But they don’t fool me. And they won’t fool the British public. So, chin up, lads.

    41. Siddhartha Singh Muslim — on 16th March, 2006 at 2:21 pm  

      Mike

      Nope, my parents weren’t consanguineous. Although my dad always was sanguine about things in general. But cosanguinous, no. Mother was the sprightly undergrad and he was the handsome, ambitious young doctor.

      How’s the food at the chimp farm?

    42. Siddhartha Singh Muslim — on 16th March, 2006 at 2:31 pm  

      A lot of what the BNP and Nick Griffin say about Islam (well publicly anyway) is true.

      Not what I’ve heard. He sounds like he decided to read and instead absorbed the visceral sectarian of people who were victims of the Partition and then decided to use them in his vocabulary without an iota of research. He also completely fucked up his history of East Pakistan and confused it with other bits of Indian history he managed to mangle together in a massive self-defeating euology to his own mediocrity.

      Oh and then he said that victims of rapes in India found themselves with children who grew up to be Muslims, even after their fathers fled. As if the Muslim quality is in the DNA! And the same thing could happen in Britian!

      I mean, really. And I was hoping for a sharp sneering racist and all I got was a buffoon.

    43. Jay Singh — on 16th March, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

      I like your new middle name Sid!

    44. David T — on 16th March, 2006 at 5:21 pm  

      Nicole Colgate is pretty hot.

      No she is not.

      Still, de gustibus and all that.

      On the Cummins artice: it is classic Islamophobic conspiracism isn’t it? This is precisely the sort of stuff you get from those types with an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure bits of the talmud …

      Its not a trend which is as well developed, or as consistent in its themes, as the parallel jew-obssessed stuff, but it is pretty close.

      The giveaway is the “dogs” code language. He chooses “dogs” because he knows that there is a dog related cultural taboo in Islam.

    45. Mike — on 16th March, 2006 at 7:35 pm  

      Siddhartha,

      So nothing about Muslim inbreeding then?

      David T

      I don’t mean to nitpick, but strictly speaking Islamophobia is an illogical or irrational fear of Islam. As you well know, there are plenty of valid reasons to fear Islam and/or it’s practitioners, and fear is in fact the aim of Islamists. Moreover, Islamophobia is not phony or even psychological but very literal-if you’re a Dutch MP, Danish cartoonist or apostate in hiding under threat of death, your Islamophobia is highly justified. It is the oldset trick in the world to throw dirt on your opponents when you can’t think of anything more to say…. The word itself is completely inaccurate and it’s use should be discouraged.

    46. Sid D H Arthur — on 16th March, 2006 at 9:13 pm  

      Mike

      Consanginuous marriages have been covered on PP more comprehensively and frankly than you have been thus far. Check the archives, puts to shame your furtive little attempts at snearing and sniggering. Come clean man. No one likes a snivelling, furtive racist.

    47. Sid D H Arthur — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:03 pm  

      I like your new middle name Sid

      I always thought Talwar Singh was da coolest name in the world for a man. You kow anyone with that name has bound to have lead in his pencil.

    48. Bob Pitt — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:13 pm  

      In response to David T, and just for the record, I’m not a member of any left group and haven’t been for about a decade and a half.

      For what it’s worth, I would describe my politics as broadly Marxist but not Trotskyist. Indeed, I long ago concluded that Leninist ideology and forms of organisation are largely counter-productive.

      I’ve expressed these views publicly for many years and recall being denounced in the Weekly Worker on a couple of occasions because of it.

      What pisses me off about David T is that he makes these accusations against Islamophobia Watch and myself – just as he recently did against Neil Berry of Christian CND – purely on the basis of political prejudice and without making any attempt to check the facts.

      The irony is that David T deludes himself that he’s upholding Enlightenment values against the supporters of Islamo-fascism, whereas in reality he’s just an ignorant bigoted little pillock. And that’s really all I have to say on the matter.

    49. Mike — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:13 pm  

      Sid,

      Your not the sharpest tool in the box. Why do you keep slinging this racist labrel about? What have I written on this blog that can be described as racist. You should really develop a thicker skin. Some of my best friends are brown, actually my wife is too.

      We both know we would all be “snearing and sniggering.” if stump-toothed, white Brits and not British Asian Muslims practiced consanginuous marriages

    50. Sid D H Arthur — on 16th March, 2006 at 10:19 pm  

      Mike,

      I bow to your superior patriarchial dogma-stentorian-ness. It is clear that you are not and never have been a racist in a court of law.

    51. Sunny — on 17th March, 2006 at 2:46 am  

      Hi Bob, nice of you to make an appearance. Clearly your reputation preceeds you.
      It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on post 21 by David T though, as I’ve wondered that myself quite a bit.

    52. Clive Davis — on 17th March, 2006 at 5:24 pm  

      AN EDITOR DEPARTS

      Private Eye had the last word on Sarah Sands long before she was dumped from the Sunday Telegraph:For me, a Sunday newspaper is like a bath bubble, floating in the air, smelling of perfume, with a picture of a woman

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.