Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Channel 4 Dispatches - open thread


    by Sunny
    15th January, 2007 at 9:15 pm    

    Anyone who watched tonight’s C4′s Dispatches documentary has to admit it was pretty raw and hair-raising, even for a seasoned veteran of religious nuts like myself. Unsurprisingly the usual dimwits are busy protecting these people. Maybe something was lost in the translation eh Sullivan?
    Anyway, what did you think?


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Media,Religion






    137 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Leon — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:21 pm  

      Couldn’t help feel it was a bit over the top with the “and they hate democracy” lines. Kept expecting the ‘Dun Dun Deerrrr’ music to followed by a shot to a Bond villain stroking his cat…

    2. El Cid — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:32 pm  

      it made me question whether i was underestimating the problem. still, in the big scheme of things, the hawks have clearly lost credibility and made a bad situation a lot worse. so let’s see what the doves can achieve in the next few years. good luck

    3. ZinZin — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:33 pm  

      Not surprised at all really 7/7 did not take place in a vacuum. I feel that John Wares Question of leadership and Martin Brights 30 minutes programme exposing the foreign offices links with the Muslim brotherhood did a far better job at opening up the debate on Islamic terrorism.

    4. raz — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:53 pm  

      You know I heard a great joke from an Imam once on the subject of uneducated mullahs:

      In our culture if you have a son who is really bright, you want him to become a doctor.

      If he is a fairly bright you want him to be a banker.

      If he is not so bright, then maybe he can become a carpenter.

      And if he is too stupid to do any job, then you send him to the madrassah and he can become a mullah :)

      There is a serious point here though, which is that, partly due to the decentralised nature of Islam, just about anyone can become an Imam and start preaching, despite lack of Academic knowledge or extremist views. This lack of ‘quality control’ is a big problem when it comes to the importing of Imams from abroad. There definitely needs to be some kind of regulatory system in place for foreign Imams.

    5. Nyrone — on 15th January, 2007 at 9:59 pm  

      It’s an invasion!!!
      Run for cover!!!
      It’s the MOZZZLEMMMS!!!

      but seriously, it’s never a good sign when a programme starts and a little person inside your my brain goes “uh-oh”.
      I felt embarassed watching this programme, but then it finished and I saw that additional advice was supplied by a one, Martin Bright…now the thurst of the programme makes much more sense.

      However, that said nobody can deny that 95% of the drivel coming out the mouths of those ‘teachers’ was horrifying, dangerous and idiotic.
      Not to mention to un-islamic.

      Even my Muslim friend watched wide-eyed in disbelief.
      The intelligence-level of some of these people is quite shocking.
      7 years studying? where? studying what? under who?

    6. Sahil — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:00 pm  

      “And if he is too stupid to do any job, then you send him to the madrassah and he can become a mullah :)

      There is a serious point here though, which is that, partly due to the decentralised nature of Islam, just about anyone can become an Imam and start preaching, despite lack of Academic knowledge or extremist views. This lack of ‘quality control’ is a big problem when it comes to the importing of Imams from abroad. There definitely needs to be some kind of regulatory system in place for foreign Imams. ”

      Ditto Raz, this is really true. I can’t understand how anyone can become a Mullah, but anyone person needs to talk to god via a mullah. Bizzare or completely corrupt!!

    7. Refresh — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:00 pm  

      Sunny, not seen the program. Hopefully there will be a repeat.

      With regards the link to Islamaphobia Watch (your reference to Sullivan) - do you have any more on what the interfaith organisation says about the imam in question:

      “The Saltley Gate Peace Group (SGPG), a multi-faith community organisation based in Birmingham is made up of representatives from the Muslim and Christian community. It issued a press statement on Friday giving its “undiminished support” for the Green Lane Mosque. SGPG said that Imam Abu Usaamah “is accepted by much of his congregation and the wider interfaith community to be a peaceful man and is known to promote peace to his congregation”.

    8. El Cid — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:10 pm  

      my daughter said she was scared and my son, who has clearly picked up something from elsewhere, said that is he went to a mixed school he wouldn’t be able to make moslem friends. i said to him, don’t be silly, it’s not like that, these people are not normal.. at that point the tv cut to one of the imams railing against parents who sent their kids to mix with christians and jews..
      you see dad..
      i didn’t leave it there of course, but still…

    9. Sunny — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:13 pm  

      Refresh, MPAC helpfully has a transcript from the programme:
      http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3266/34/

      “Imam” Abu Usaamah was caught on tape saying (in English btw)

      - Abu Usamah: Allah has created the woman deficient
      - Abu Usamah: take that homosexual man and throw him from the mountain
      - Abu Usamah: I don’t believe them, because they are kuffaar, lying is part of their religion
      - Abu Usamah: they are liars, they are terrorists themselves, liars, they will come before the people and talk and they are lying, you can’t believe them, these are pathological liars
      - Abu Usamah: It has come to pass that the Christians and the Jews, America, the UK, France, Germany, they have come against the religion of Islam. Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam, to please someone who is an enemy to you?

      Filmed undercover, he says he doesn’t agree with the violent actions of Muslim terrorists - but he prefers them to non-Muslims

      Abu Usamah: I don’t agree with those individuals, but at the same time they are closer to me than those criminals of the kufr

      Abu Usamah: He’s better than a million George Bushes, Osama Bin Laden, and he’s better than a thousand Tony Blairs, because he’s a Muslim

      And there is plenty more on that page.

      The peaceful nature of this man just oozes from him. You can tell he’ll follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

    10. ZinZin — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:14 pm  

      El cid
      It should not have been on before the watershed.

    11. El Cid — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:20 pm  

      ZinZin
      I think you may have a point

    12. Anas — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:36 pm  

      A bit funny to have a program about the massive Saudi Arabian influence in mosques and not mention that they’re also among our closest allies in the war on terror. And of course we also love selling them billions of pounds of weaponry even if it means giving them millions in kickbacks. I know this was a program dealt with fundamentalism in mosques specifically, but not to mention the official UK relationship with the Saudi regime (which measures up pretty close to the taliban in most respects) seems a bit remiss.

      Anyway, let’s not get too sensationalist. Obviously all religious communities have their intolerant elements, the important point here being that none of the imams featured advocated breaking the law or murdering innocent civilians.

    13. sabinaahmed — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:37 pm  

      I could`nt watch the programme but took part in a debate this morning on the Asian networks phone-in.
      Majority of callers were bypassing the issue and blaming everyone else,including

      on Somalia, Saudi Arabia ,the Wahabis and the dreaded “media”.
      I feel that unless all the muslims living in this country,as no doubt that they are peace loving and decent,should categorically and un-conditionally condemn such activities. Foriegn policy aside everyone living in this country owes a duty of care to their fellow citizens, as such activities not only endanger the lives of everyone,including attacks on muslims by the racist thugs. If every muslim objected to such activities and language, then the mullahss will not have an audience to preach.

    14. Anas — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:44 pm  

      sorry that should read “..our closest allies in the war against *some* terror”

    15. Refresh — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:55 pm  

      Thanks Sunny.

      A deeply depressing bunch, you couldn’t imagine these views could exist in the context of Islam.

      Its also good to see MPACUK is running a full transcript. Comments and clarifications would make a good read - assuming the original interviewees go on to the site.

    16. Anon+1 — on 15th January, 2007 at 10:57 pm  

      Thank god they are a small fraction of individuals.
      Should be instant deportation for preaching that garbage.

    17. lithcol — on 15th January, 2007 at 11:09 pm  

      They might be a minority, and not representative of those who follow Islam, however they are dangerous and should not be allowed to spread their poison. First you dehumanize and then you murder. All totalinerian belief systems practice this method. I fear for ordinary God fearing Muslims for they are the victims of the backlash against fundamentalists.

    18. Nyrone — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:21 am  

      Actually, now I’ve had a few hours to think back and reflect on the content of this programme, I feel this might actually be one of the worst portrayals of fake-Muslims yet seen on British screens.
      I was actually dumb-struck listening to some of the ‘scholars’ talk about the ‘Kuffir’ and that young born-again whipper-snapper snorting pig noises in ref to Jews and his other absolutist comments.

      He was classic ‘bonkers’ you could see it in his feverish eyes, and he tried to raise his voice to some ridiculous level in the hope that it would have some cosmic effect, perhaps he was hoping for sunshine to come breaking out of his face or something. Where does this guy come from? was he severly beaten as a kid or something, that made him want to stamp-impose his beliefs on an entire people? His loony statements were pure provincialism.

      Regarding what Lithcol said, we can all agree that it’s a minority of people sprouting this hate-filled bile, but didn’t we all say the same thing when Jon Snow did his C4 program and found some ‘chavlims’ around the way too? I mean, how far does this extend? I confess to be a little scared about the scale of this problem, is it growing? do they plot ways to work towards an ‘Islamic state’? What would be the best way to handle them, and how much of what they say has some validity? (The prophet marrying a girl who was 9-years old)

      and SHAME on someone like Khalid Yassin talking about women as deficient, that comment is gonna come back to haunt him for years to come. I thought he had some sense.

    19. Nyrone — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:24 am  

      OP, show me the proof.

    20. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:24 am  

      “Its also good to see MPACUK is running a full transcript. Comments and clarifications would make a good read - assuming the original interviewees go on to the site.”

      As does their knee-jerk reaction when they learned of the programme’s existence:

      http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3255/64/

    21. Sid Love — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:30 am  

      Oh it was horrible to watch - simply appalling. There was one particular ranting maulvi cunt who made the pig noises in a reference to killing Jews. I was screaming obscenities at the TV.

      This is the same Saudi-funded conveyor belt which moves these indoctrinated cockroaches all over the world.

    22. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:36 am  

      How long did this programme take to make? i.e. how hard did they have to look to find these mosques?

    23. ZinZin — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:44 am  

      Bert
      They travelled to brum and the smoke.

    24. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:49 am  

      I am not showing many signs of surprise.

    25. Sid Love — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      I fear for ordinary God fearing Muslims for they are the victims of the backlash against fundamentalists.

      I fear “ordinary God fearing Muslims” have allowed these cocksuckers to get away with subverting Islam with this Saudi-funded supremacist ideology for too long. They have themselves to blame if they can’t create a some kind of consensus against it to identify it and flush it out.

      The government must identify the funding sources and Muslim groups must accept that its right there under their noses.

      There has to be a ‘Not In Our Name’ movement against this sickness or Muslims, more than anyone, will pay the price.

    26. ZinZin — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:55 am  

      The only shocking part was the fundi who impersonated a pig.

    27. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:01 am  

      “There has to be a ‘Not In Our Name’ movement against this sickness or Muslims, more than anyone, will pay the price”

      This was discussed a few moths back here:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/800

      The results weren’t overly encouraging.

    28. Riz — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:28 am  

      I didn’t really learn anything new from this programme..in the grand scheme of things I thought the Saudi radical influence in many UK mosques was already documented, but I suppose the programme still kind of works as an ‘expose’ because it is new information to many folks.

      …so I turn over to another channel and it’s a piece on Iraq and the shia-sunni conflict, and then a story on the failed London Muslim bombers. The Pavlov dog association of muslim = something terrible and negative, must have kicked in the public mindset by now. I don’t believe in great conspiracy theories, but I am just tired of it all. Better just to watch re-runs of Futurama, Simpsons, Bones, and maybe even Big Bruv, than to watch your average news prog (allowances for Paxman on Newsnight…of course!).

    29. Nyrone — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:37 am  

      Riz, why no family guy?

    30. William — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:47 am  

      Saw the programme and lot’s of it was frightening. As an expose one could argue that it needed to focus on the things it did and the speakers it did. It seems Muslims are also exposed to a range of types of speakers. While at University a couple of years ago for a term I attended weekly Islamic Society meetings. There was a whole range and types of invited speakers from the reflective and humble (sometimes even over humble) to the warm friendly and tolerant to the hellfire ranters although there was nothing like what was portrayed on the programme. However there was one individual who spoke of Islam’s tolerance, it’s diversity etc and that there were different levels to it. Then at the end he said if anyone fancies any of my sisters I would like to break their legs. No one brought up the subject he just came out of the blue with it. I mention this because I wonder if he knew he knew he was making the type of statement that he did. Most people there were open minded and friendly.

      It’s been mentioned about Muslims speaking out and opposing the extremists themselves. Well the first thing I notice about the group was they seemed a bit shy worried about speaking out and passive even unhealthily so. I couldn’t help wonder if this itself had something to do with some ways religion itself can pacify some people. How much are people taught to respect the word of the elders etc rather than thinking for themselves. This may be wrong or a generalisation but that is how it seemed. There was no debating with the audience in the clips. Just preaching.

      There seemed to be denial at the end of the programme with organisations distancing themselves from the people and groups under scrutiny or denying what was said. Is it lies, self deception or just protectiveness.

      It’s been mentioned about people protecting them. It comes as no surprise. I also belong to an Interfaith Group and have been specifically told by a member that they are reluctant to confront issues. Has inter faith work become too much let’s get along all very nicely in the cause of multi-culturalism and tolerance. On the other hand the issues also make it harder for Muslims with the possible backlash. Also more and more many Muslims find themselves having to prove themselves as human. To quote a Muslim guy attending one of the faith group meetings “sometimes when I meet people I have to tell them 8 things I am not before I tell them 2 things that I am”

    31. Hari — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:26 am  

      While I was at secondary school in 1994, islamic preachers from hamas and islamic jihad aswell as usual rabble from Hizb-ut-tahir used to come to my school in east london to give lectures to the muslim youths. From that day I noticed a marked increase in religious and racial violence towards non-muslims. I even saw my “chilled out” bengali muslim girlfriend suddenly changing after attending these lectures and becoming all islamic fundamentalist on me after they had brainwashed her along with many muslim kids at school to hate the non-muslims.

      She turned from a normal western asian gal into a burka wearing muslim fanatic supporting all number of islamic terror groups at the tender age of 15 (she will be 25yr by now i reckon) BTW I am non-muslim asian guy.

      This problem has been festering since 1992 when the islamic extremists were allowed to operate in uk and preach their hateful ideology and poison. The result is a generation of segregated of asian muslim youths who see the different non-islamic ways of life and non-muslims as the enemy and dirty.

      What needs to be done is to extract the posion of the islamic ideology that was and is allowed to infect young impressionable minds from early age. To make them realise that to live in a democracy is better than a system based on the 7th century where their is no freedom and dictatorship of the religious leaders is like the word of God. There needs to be an iron fist approach towards those who advocate hate, segregation, discrimination and violence towards any group in british society.

      But I doubt will be done by the British govt while saudi wahabi oil money is funding these low lifes in spreading their perverted ideology across the world.

    32. Refresh — on 16th January, 2007 at 3:59 am  

      Look Hari, some of us are trying to have a serious discussion - so can you do the decent thing?

      Hamas and Islamic Jihad preachers coming to your school?

      You’re keen also to point out that you are an Asian too. But are you really?

      What divisions would you like to sow today?

    33. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:01 am  

      You are funny Refresh!

      TFI

    34. Nick — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:21 am  

      Chilling, I thought, and profoundly sad. I said to my girlfriend before I started I suppose it will just be another one of these nutty groups, but no - this was nuttiness in the mainstream.

      As a non-muslim white what struck me was the tolerance that the so-called moderates showed to extremists, whose undistilled hate was profoundly disturbing, then the smooth spin they put out to us kuffar.

      They talked about conspiracies, but all the conspiracy seems to be on the Muslim side. I am sure the majority of muslims are not like this, but it shocked me and my supposedly deficient girlfriend, and it has caused me to re-assess future Muslim voices of moderation. In the future I will always be wondering if they say one thing to us, and one to each other.

    35. Galloise Blonde — on 16th January, 2007 at 9:13 am  

      My 6-year old came down for a drink of water while this was on. ‘Mummy, what does deficient mean?’ ‘That silly man thinks girls aren’t as good as boys.’ Her, laughing, ‘He can’t say that! Someone might believe him!’

      William, could it be that inter-faith work is not just about co-operation and tolerance but is becoming an alliance to defend faith itself against secularism? I’m with Nick in being alarmed at how easily these individuals can move from preaching hate to smooth PR (I think that’s the only thing that really surprised me here.)

      The music was too dramatic and putting the end credits over that shot of people walking around the street looking Muslim was just odd, like it was Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something.

    36. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:20 am  

      Talking of nothing, anyone see The Trial of Tony Blair last night? Didn’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? :-)

    37. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:21 am  

      PS. Hari, paedophilia wasn’t illegal back then any more than incest was in the days of Adam & Eve. So they broke no law

    38. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:21 am  

      Old Pickler,

      I’ll answer your questions, a disclaimer first: I’m not being an apologetic or indeed these may not be my personal views but I hope they are in-line with general Islamic consensus. Any other Muslims please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      homosexuality:
      The view on killing homosexuals is indeed from Islamic law but it’s more to do with the public advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle not necessarily a private act committed by two individuals in the privacy of their own home.

      age of marriage:
      In theory a girl can be betrothed at the point of birth but the marriage can’t be consummated until after puberty. A similar law exists in Judaic law also. This is from a Jewish site: ‘In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three. A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.’

      In addition, according to Islamic law a girl can say ‘no’ at the point of marriage and the marriage ceases to go ahead. This indeed happened during the times of the Prophet. Also as stated earlier it cannot be consummated until after puberty, at whatever age that may be.

      intellectual and spiritual deficiency of women:
      There’s a quote from the Prophet that states women have a slight handicap (often translated as deficiency) when following religion as they are not required to fast or pray during menses. This doesn’t mean that they are deficient but that they have an extra hardship put upon them. The Quranic view is that men and women are equal in intellect and spirituality but different.

    39. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:39 am  

      Hari,

      These hadiths that you refer to all contain contradictory ages for Aisha ranging from 6 to 25. The hadith’s were compiled several hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The fact that nobody tried to cover anything up and revealed everything ‘warts and all’ whilst maintaining their faith is pretty revealing.

      As for maintaining precise accounts of age, my parents don’t even know their exact age and they were born approx 60 years ago in the Indian sub-continent.

      In addition, the very concept of childhood is a relatively new post renaissance concept. Traditionally children participated in war and were subjected to the same capital punishments as adults. There was an entire battalion made up of children during the time of the crusades, unthinkable now but quite common thousands of years ago. In Middle Eastern cultures marriage usually took place post puberty whatever age that may be. Mary was around 12/13 when she gave birth to Jesus and the patriarch Rachel was also 7 when she got married. Aisha is not the only one, Middle Eastern history is littered with examples of famous women who were married at such a young age.

    40. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:45 am  

      “ou cant say things like that Pickler, I mean actually showing that the Koran is a book of evil rather than peace and that Mohammed was nothing more than a dirty paedophile rather than a godlike prophet is crazy talk!”

      Do you know how ignorant you are? Are you really so stupid as not to try and work out how ignorant you are? Because, all you have to do to make yourself a little less ignorant is to read the book before you cuss it.

      Now as a born-again Islam loather (been there, done that, bought the holy water) I actually got round to reading it (this time in a language I understand).

      It’s a self help book.

      It tells you to do good things.

      It doesn’t tell you to kill Jews (it calls them the people of light and encourages them to see the muslim way), it doesn’t tell you to kill jews (the people of lot were killed for being barbarians not gay) and tells you women have the same rights as men (adultery is punishable by stoning both men and women)

      The book is not at fault

      Some of its followers are

      Try a little less ignorance and you may well find more people willing to agree with you instead of muttering ‘tosser’ every time you speak

    41. Leon — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:46 am  

      Talking of nothing, anyone see The Trial of Tony Blair last night? Didn’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

      Nope! Wished I had. You should maybe do a short write up about it…;)

    42. Sid Love — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:47 am  

      Look, its an absolute waste of time going into a theological debate into the justification of the Quran, or the Hadith or the fiqh, the commentaries etc.

      What we saw was a group of people subverting the religious texts and the faith as a vehicle for their own political agenda and their racist/fascist ideologies. I didn’t see these people preach faith, just hatred.

      Muslims should be targetting these “preacher”. Not spinning into semantic hell trying to justify them.

    43. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:48 am  

      Oh Leon, it’s everything we ever wanted (still fuzzy & warm)

    44. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:49 am  

      “I actually got round to reading it (this time in a language I understand).”

      Which translation?

    45. Leon — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:49 am  

      Oh Leon, it’s everything we ever wanted (still fuzzy & warm)

      Write it up!!

    46. Sid Love — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:59 am  

      Don’t feed the vampires kids.

    47. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:01 pm  

      Sid,

      Agree with you on this one.

      Bert Preast,

      The Quran exists in Arabic form only as it is a recital. It’s an oral scripture. There are no different versions of the Quran unlike the Bible where we have the King James Version etc. However, we do have different translations. Muhammad Asad’s translation is good and so is Yusuf Ali’s. The Quran can be a very difficult scripture to get your head round as it is not linear but once you get past the initial difficulties it really is a most beautiful scripture. Traditionally scholars used the analogy of gazing at the stars. When you first look at the night-sky you see nothing but muddled up and jumbled up stars but when you return night after night you slowly begin to understand and appreciate the precise ordering and perfection. Below is an interesting article to get you started on what the Quran is and then perhaps if you are still interested you can take Kismet Hardy’s advice and read the book yourself.

      http://khartoumi.blogspot.com/2007/01/introduction-to-literary-excellence-of.html

    48. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:02 pm  

      ARTICLE 6:

      (a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has her own rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform, and has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

      (b) The husband is responsible for the maintenance and welfare of the family

    49. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:06 pm  

      Isaa - the Yusufali translation is a sanitised version and not a faithful representation. And I have read it - though to be honest I found it every bit as dull as the bible and thus skimmed large parts of it. Pass the Andy McNab.

    50. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:06 pm  

      Kismet - 4:34 iirc.

    51. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:13 pm  

      Kismet Hardy,

      OP dosen’t speak Arabic, so we cant blame him/her for misinterpreting the Qur’an. Its a shame he doesn’t have the intellect to carry out any research before spouting off his nonsense. The verse that he is referring to contains the word ‘daraba’ which can be translated as condemn, strike and also beat. Some translators have translated it as beat hence why we have some people claiming that men can beat their wives.

    52. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:42 pm  

      Hari,

      Nobody is disputing this. Like I said the sira and hadeeth contain contradictory accounts ranging from 6 to 25. If you read Ibn Khathir you would come away with different ages. What is certain is that a) she led a happy and prosperous life, b) she must have been considerably younger than the Prophet and c) she was already engaged to someone else before she married the Prophet. The rest is pure speculation and guesswork. The fact that you are so obsessed with this probably tells us more about you than anyone else.

      Need to leave now, as I unfortunately have a career and can’t sit around all day debating obscurantists.

    53. Isaa — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:47 pm  

      Hari,

      Ground breaking research. The Arabs have a word for ‘Dissimulation’, wow. Next you’ll be telling us that there’s a phrase for armed robbery in Arabic.

      Got to leave seriosuly, nice chatting thou. Level of debate on PP has really degenerated these days, I can remember why I stopped frequenting this site now.

      Catch you over at CiF sometime Sunny, keep up the good work.

    54. El Cid — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:48 pm  

      OP,
      Please stop it. You aren’t really offering anything. The bible has a lot of shit in it, as has Plato’s Republic and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. Liberals are also among the biggest hypocrites on earth while conservatives are amongst the most ignorant. But at the end of the day there are many more nuances, exceptions, and idyosyncracies than there are generalisations, however compelling they may seem.

      Anas/Riz,
      Sorry to lump you together, but extremist moslem ideology is a problem and we need to deal with it. If not, we will become dangerously polarised.
      I appreciate that you may have other legitimate agendas, but your comments also suggest that you may be in denial.
      There’s nothing new in a lot of news themes — take the De Menezes case — but these were hard facts and excellent reportage. The moslem reporter should be congratulated.

    55. raz — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:52 pm  

      It’s a shame that the valid and important subject raised by this topic has been hijacked by the usual theological stupidity.

    56. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:53 pm  

      It is good that this programme was shown to smoke out these vile bigots. It’s not that their disgusting opinions have any chance of being anything other than the vomit and saliva of a barking mad minority — it’s how their hatred and paranoia and idiocy disseminates and corrodes minds and society and provides the filthy ideological and moral petri dish in which suicide bombers and other turds grow. (Teaching children that shit)

      I predict a suicide bombing either in or emanating from Birmingham.

    57. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 12:57 pm  

      Bikhair, one of the assholes shown last night was a dickwad African American fundamentalist who lives in Birmingham England, who makes speeches with drool and saliva dripping from his mouth about the ‘Kuffar’ — have you heard of him? One of these wahabbi shitheads.

      Did anyone notice that dirty old man saying that marriage to pre-pubescent girls should be legalised, and girls who don’t wear hijab should be physically beaten? Time to send in the peadophile unit, I think.

    58. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:01 pm  

      I fear for ordinary God fearing Muslims for they are the victims of the backlash against fundamentalists.

      No — all Asians have to cop it because of these shitheads. My nephew and Uncle copped it after 7/7 walking past a shop in the early afternoon getting abused. Sikhs always cop it big time because of these motherfuckers. Thats why we hate them so much.

    59. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:02 pm  

      That’s why the media should stop using the word “Asians”.

    60. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:04 pm  

      The media can use the word Asians as long as it is used accurately. The media is not to blame for racist attacks which affect us all.

    61. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:07 pm  

      Asian should be used if the story concerns Asians as a broad group, or if the nationality or religion (whichever is pertinent) is not known.

    62. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:10 pm  

      Yes I agree, but that should be how it is done anyway, it won’t make any difference to the ignorant people who abuse at the sharp end. We are all in the shit because of these disgusting little perverts and mentalists — Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, we all are at threat of a backlash because of these disgusting nazis and the nazis they provoke.

    63. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:14 pm  

      My wife said they all looked like rapists — the constant obsession with girls (including pre-pubescent marriage) and she also said they talked about homosexuality they are the biggest gang of repressed homos in denial she’s ever seen (her exact phrase ‘I bet they’re gagging for it’)

    64. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:16 pm  

      I’m actually all for the word Asian.

      I think the greatest victory of British Asian is that a tiny part of such a big continent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, maybe Sri Lanka and perhaps Afghanistan) is what makes up the people that make you think of Asians in this country.

      Nowhere else on earth. There Asian means oriental or Arab.

      The fact that you can have magazines in Britain called Asiana and stations called BBC Asian Network and everyone expects to find people and sounds of the sub-continent means this is our victory

      We should celebrate the word

    65. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:20 pm  

      Why does it feel that each time a Muslim writes that one shouldn’t read quotes from, but read the entire book, it sounds like a “call to Islam”?

      I’m not interested in converting, I’m only interested in understanding why people keep commiting violence in the name of Islam.

      I’m quite happy to believe that these people misunderstand the core teachings of Islam, but it is not me that needs to be convinced. I’m not hurting anyone.

      Personally much of the protesting made in the defensive of Islam is Muslims trying to convince themselves.

      Take Refresh, from what I’ve read of what he has written he is a well meaning nice guy, but he is shocked to see these views being aired and associated with Islam.

      How can anyone be suprised by what we saw in this programme? Only and article of faith and self delusion can shield oneself from the poison that is infecting and pouring this religion.

      We need to shine a very bright light on these hateful retards and force the Muslim community to accept their existence so that they may reject them, face them down or the future is very bleak for us all.

      TFI

    66. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:24 pm  

      Religion taught man to be good

      But men, as women will tell you, just don’t listen

      (I have the same problem with my own religion. I say no to drugs, but it won’t listen…)

    67. Sunny — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:27 pm  

      OP - I thought I told you to go away? How many times do I have to tell you that your faux-theological debates are not wanted here?

    68. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:35 pm  

      > Religion taught man to be good

      Good to his co-religionists.

      That’s very tribal, love the group, have no love for those outside the group.

      That’s not the same as teaching a man to be good.

      Do Hindus hate non-Hindus?
      Do Buddists hate non-Buddists?

      What is their equivilant word for “Kufr”?

      TFI

    69. raz — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:36 pm  

      Well done for deleting the garbage Sunny.

    70. Hari — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:44 pm  

      sunny why have you deleted my posts exposing the quotes from islamic ideology? the hadiths and quranic verses can be verified and yet you chose to delete my response to islamo-apologists.

      These verses and my posts are relevant to the discussion and yet you chose to delete some of my more relevant and informative posts.

      What kinda comment board is this?

    71. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:45 pm  

      Bit unsure as to why article 1 of the OIC declaration of human rights is faux-theological.

      What sources are approved?

    72. Col.Mustafa — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:49 pm  

      Hello pickled people.

      Alot was made of this programme before it even aired.
      Mainly from muslims paranoid that it would make us look even more crazy and escalate the scale of the situation we are already in.

      We all know its a minority of muslims preaching this crap, but over the past 5 yrs atleast this preaching of crap has increased due to the lack of, i suppose purpose and direction of alot of impressionable youth.

      Ive been to quie a few mosques in recent times only because i want to know whats going on in them and what sort of people are leading the prayers and what not.
      Mainly to get an idea on the attitude of the majority and to see where our hearts truly lie.
      Its difficult to tell, and obvious as well.
      Loads of angry youth, loads of scared parents of the youth and people in the middle that don’t really care.

      Even alot of the angry youth i have spoken too are not angry enough to bomb anyone nor do they wish to.

      I can’t say i have been to any of the meetings that i saw in the programme last nght; if i had stumbled across one of these, i would try to leave asap, but wouldn’t because of unwanted attention and them asking me why im leaving for. Then you can imagine it would turn into a scene from Ong bak with me doing all sorts of moves whilst telling them what the moves are, like ‘the monkey kisses its teeth whilst extracting a banana from the elephants ass’.

      What i can say however is the material is far too extreme to be worried about.
      They haven’t figured out how to start a real revolution yet, and that is not the way.
      The sort of material being spewed out is too extreme for a majority and will only be viewed that way by the minority.
      Muslims that have ‘lives’ tend to steer clear of that sort of crap, or should i say humans.

    73. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:49 pm  

      TFI, I think we’re just violently agreeing

      There’s little point in a peaceful doctrine if no one gives a shit about what it says and just takes from it what they think it means to get what they want

    74. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:56 pm  

      Kismet,

      We are, but convincing OP that Islam is a peaceful doctrine is pointless and self defeating.

      I look around the world and I don’t see this love that Muslims are meant to hold.

      I only see misplaced anger, denial and a cycle of “justified” violence.

      TFI

    75. Anas — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

      I’m glad we have Islamic scholars of the pedigree of OP and Hari on PP to inform us regarding the “true Islam”, and to reassure us that the frothing, rabid imams we were treated to last night are preaching the correct interpretation of Islam.

      EC, yes, the spread of the intolerant, hateful Wahabbi strain of Islam is problematic in that, yes, it does foster an attitude of isolationism within the Islamic community. But, it is something that can only really properly be handled within the Islamic community itself, and if that community is, as a whole, constantly feeling itself demonised and on the defensive, then Muslims become more and more reluctant to tackle the loonies in their midst even if they emphatically disagree with their warped ideologies.

      Secondly, it is important to recognise that all of these imams emphasised compliance with the laws of the land (well apart from the one that was sent to jail), and they probably also emphasised — as Wahabbi scholars do — that killing innocent civilians is forbidden within Islam. Therefore we have to be careful when linking these kinds of preachers with Islamic terrorism, i.e., of sensationalism.

      Thirdly, I will re-iterate my point, that it is slightly unfair to bemoan the influence of Saudi scholars and universities on British imams and not acknowledge that the West props up the extremist, taliban-like, Saudi regime — and in fact that the relationship between the Saudis and the British govt. is extremely, extremely close. In effect our government is giving an endorsement to the Saudi regime and its brand of Islam because it’s in our monetary interests. This needs to be addressed if there’s to be any moral consistency here.

    76. Kismet Hardy — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

      TFI, again, I agree with you. But then I know people like my dad. Good men that pray to be spiritual, help the needy to do god’s work and strive for peace. I hate my dad for loads of reasons, but I can’t take the fact that his faith makes him a good, moral, kind man away from him. There are many like him and I think it’s wrong to tar them with the same brush as these hate filled psycho gimps you speak of

    77. Sunny — on 16th January, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

      sunny why have you deleted my posts exposing the quotes from islamic ideology?

      Because we’re talking about a specific programme not having a discussion on Islamic ideology and their own interpretations of it. For that you can go to other websites. I won’t have mine be used to spread bigotry. Those are my rules and you take them or leave them.

    78. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:03 pm  

      Anas — pump youth full of nazi like hatred of non Muslims, then stand back and condemn them when a few bombs go off, uhh, we don’t agree with that bit, but we do agree with everything else. Yeah, good strategy, lets not be too tough on these benign wahaabis. What a load of bollocks.

    79. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:06 pm  

      Right — total ban on all religious institutions funded in the UK by Saudi Arabian money. What do you think?

    80. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

      That didnt come out right. Ban or moratorium on FUNDING by Saudi money to religious institutions in the UK. What do you think?

    81. Anas — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:13 pm  

      Er, Jagdeep, not very likely, given that the UK govt is terrified of offending those nice Saudis what with all their precious oil money. Didn’t you read this in today’s Guardian?

      BTW, I never said the Wahabbis are benign, just that the usual sensationalism might actually be a bit counterproductive.

    82. Leon — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:14 pm  

      Right — total ban on all religious institutions funded in the UK by Saudi Arabian money. What do you think?

      Good idea although not likely to happen. We mustn’t upset our Saudi friends remember?

      Seriously though, it’d have to be a piece of legislation which covers external funding of religious and/or political groups rather than just targeting Muslim ones for it to work properly.

    83. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:15 pm  

      MPAC UK have a video interview up with this Abu Usamah chap. It’s 28 minutes long but I’ll try and watch it this evening.

    84. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:18 pm  

      No Anas, it’s only counterproductive to people in denial about the issue. It is vital to smoke them out, to counteract the blockheads who claim that pumping hatred into the bloodstream of Muslim youth, but then twiddling their thumbs and denying any kind of culpability when the shit hits the fan (as you do) so they are not so bad after all, because you know, they don’t suggest breaking the law of the land at the end of the day, they only rant against the Kuffar and the Jews and the gays and the Indians, but at least they dont condone suicide bombing, so dont sensationalise it. Bollocks to that.

    85. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

      Seriously though, it’d have to be a piece of legislation which covers external funding of religious and/or political groups rather than just targeting Muslim ones for it to work properly.

      We need to do it. One thing that could be incorporated is a reciprocity principle. Countries can be graded as to whether they allow funds originating in the UK from all religion to be used to fund institutions in their country. In other words, Saudi Arabia has to allow British Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs to fund the building of churches, synagogues, mandirs, and gurdwaras in Riyadh and Mecca, and if they don’t they are not allowed to send money here. Same thing with every country in the world. That should do the trick.

    86. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:26 pm  

      Just watched a few minutes of Abu Usamah, where he explains that women are deficient in intellect because their testimony in law is worth only half that of a man, and their deficiency in deen is because menstruation means they cannot fast for a month.

      Frankly he strikes me as genuinely insane. Can’t he be sectioned?

    87. Col.Mustafa — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:33 pm  

      The question is after dispatches made this programme, were any arrests made?

      Or do these programmes just make us aware of the nutters around, but not actually do anything about it.

    88. El Cid — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:34 pm  

      Anais Anais,
      Just one thing: polarisation is a two-way street.
      Aside from the danger of young moslems becoming more isolationist, there is the threat at the margin of non-moslems having their tolerance more and more stretched.
      Hearing the non-nutty moslem majority say, yeah but foreign policy, no but police raid, yeah but israel, etc or just generally playing the problem down is not helping.

      Religious hatred bill anyone?

    89. Anas — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:34 pm  

      So, Jagdeep, basically you’re saying these imams are like “gateway” imams, the pot or the magic mushrooms of the Islamic extremist world. But that when the kids no longer get the same adrenaline rush from watching these guys whip their audiences into a frenzy about Jews and gays and stuff, then they move onto the harder class A stuff, e.g., your al-Qaedas and your terrorist cells. Right?

    90. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

      Anas, indoctrinate white youth incessantly in an equivalent kind of racist and vicious hate ridden ideology like those individuals do — selling DVDs of the worst scummiest NF racists to children and teenage boys, that kind of thing. Do it continuously, openly, consistently, in inner city areas. Now, of course, if there is a concomitant rise in racist attacks or shoe-bombers as a result of that, of course the rabble rousers will say they condemn such violence, but to say that they are not in some way connected, is piss-in-your-pants cowardice and mendacity. Same principle applies with these people, and your extrapolation that we shouldnt sensationalise it, because at the end of the day, they say ‘obey the law of the land’ (which is bollocks because half of them were advocating violence and discrimination) is an equivalent slice of mendacity. I am using the NF example to open your eyes to this because you don’t seem able to see it when it’s staring in your face regarding this issue.

    91. Sahil — on 16th January, 2007 at 3:04 pm  

      Anas, I’ve heard you rightly bang about white racism from the BNP type characters, but these guys on the show yesterday are just the SAME!!! What was really scary was that they were allowed regular slots in pretty popular mosques across the country. That’s nuts!! Imagine the BNP holding conferences in churches. Plus the new generation of kids, simply do not have the cultural understanding of Islam like the previous generation who had grown up in India, Pakistan etc. The older generation probably understand the Quran a lot better, but they have left (mandatory) religious instruction to nutters from Saudi. Its appaling and needs to be stopped now! Whabbis have no time for muslims, who they believe consort with the enemy, and reject any form of dialogue or interaction with other beliefs and scholars. People like them have no place in modernity, expect just to fermet hatred of others.

    92. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 3:14 pm  

      Yep, but these days people mooching about claiming to talk to god get sectioned.

    93. bananabrain — on 16th January, 2007 at 4:33 pm  

      actually, there were bits of what anas said that i really agreed with further up this thread. but in the later debate with jagdeep, i regret to see he’s sticking to his guns. i don’t really see anyone suggesting a solution here - the fact is that the UK is going to have to take this bull by the horns sooner or later.

      this is the hidden cost of stability in saudi arabia - and of course the price of our dependency on oil. fortunately, the US and others may now be waking up to the threat of letting the saudis fund world islamic education for the last 30 years or however long it’s been. that’s why most of these guys look and sound the same - it’s because their books, teachers and role models are the same bunch of nutters in saudi. if i were a conservative christian, i’d be kicking myself - all they managed to come up with was putting gideon bibles in hotel rooms.

      i note with displeasure a similar process (not funded by oil money, fortunately, nor advocating terrorist activities, but just as injurious to quality religious education and particularly pluralism) within the jewish world, namely the increasing dominance of the “artscroll” product line, which i personally have long denounced as “windows judaism” in contrast to my own preference for “open source” religion. it’s mostly annoying rather than actually dangerous but has, imho, unpleasant long-term consequences which we have yet to see. it may not be “wahhabi judaism” exactly but it may yet become its trojan horse given 50 years or so. in which case it would be a far more appropriate candidate for mpac’s spleen than their furious spluttering about “why, eh, why aren’t they investigating all those BRITISH JEWS who are being INDOCTRINATED into the idf and being TRAINED TO KILL PALESTINIANS, eh, eh?”

      incidentally, i know the programmes they’re talking about, which are run as gap-year courses lasting one to three months, which basically involve doing basic training and a lot of hikes with heavy packs, as well as being lectured on the “purity of arms” doctrine. when i was 18 that was what you did if you were a bit of a twat or belonged to a right-wing youth movement. here’s a link if you’re interested:

      http://www.destinationisrael.com/marva.asp

      please note the other links, which include internships with the magen david adom (the israeli equivalent of the red cross, which has just been allowed into the IIRC after 28 years after agreeing to accept a “red crystal” so as not to be vetoed by the red crescent, you get the general idea, same old same old) although i dare say mpac would probably say that training to save zionist lives was a dangerous precedent to set.

      but i digress. i only hope it doesn’t turn the thread into an I/P hijack!

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    94. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 4:41 pm  

      Go Jagdeep, I am standing 100% behind you.

      It would be great if our moderate Muslim friends stopped saying things like “Islamophobe”, “Conspiracy”, “Media Whore”, “Zionist”, “They aren’t Muslim”, “read the whole book”, “out of context” etc whenever this Islamic bigitory is exposed.

      As one of my Muslim mates said after I sent him a copy of Obsession: “Franky mate, its an embrassement. I don’t know what to say”.

      It is an embrassement. Be embrassed. Be ashamed.

      Do something about it that doesn’t involve blaming commentors like Mad Mel or AHA or even OP for speaking out about such things.

      TFI

    95. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 4:41 pm  

      I wish I could spell.

    96. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 4:53 pm  

      So everyone, what do you think about my reciprocity arrangement regarding overseas religious funding? Surely this can be addressed by writing to MP’s and raising the agenda. No reciprocal freedom for British Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus to fund religious institutions in your country means you are banned from doing the same here.

    97. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 4:57 pm  

      Jagdeep - Can’t fault it.

    98. bananabrain — on 16th January, 2007 at 5:04 pm  

      i like it too, but i have one word for you:

      al-yamamah.

      defence contracts = jobs in marginal constituencies = strategic priority = national interest.

      deary me.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    99. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

      Jeez….we are screwed. The Saudis have got us by the balls.

      Grow a spine, government people.

    100. Don — on 16th January, 2007 at 6:01 pm  

      Jagdeep,

      Great idea, but I think you might have a problem getting the concept across to fundies of any stripe. ‘But when We proseletyze in Your country, We are spreading Truth. When You proseletyze in Our country, you are spreading Lies. How can there be reciprocity between Truth and Lies?’

      How feasible is it to set up some sort of licence/quality control system for immams? I appreciate that their position is not really analogous to priests and ministers as there is not the formalised, hierarchical structure which is present in pretty much all mainstream christian churches. But the current system seems to be a shambles. At least if a CoE clergyman started spouting racist bile we could button-hole Cantab and say, ‘He’s your boy, what’cha gonna do about it?’

      The supine attitude of successive governments (anybody remember ‘Death of a Princess’?)towards KSA is a moral blot and enduring embarrassment. But just to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, what if the government did grow a spine, took the moral high ground and royally pissed off the House of Saud? I’m no economist, but if the result was a trebling of oil prices, double digit inflation, tens of thousands of job losses, a return to the three day week and three hour queues at petrol stations, how many people would vote for it? I mean people here, we progressives?

      The only way out of this, it seems to me, is to secure another source of oil. This might mean, say, overlooking the inhuman behaviour of an eastern European source even as they became a gangster state carrying out massacres in former possesions, or maybe even conntriving a pretext to invade an oil rich but generally reviled dictatorship…

      It’s not the Saudis who have us by the balls, it’s our own greed for a standard of living we can’t legitimately afford.

    101. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 6:47 pm  

      We’re better off dealing with the Saudis than the Russkis. Because if we ever do grow a spine we have the option of waltzing in there and stealing all the oil we fancy.

    102. Sahil — on 16th January, 2007 at 7:03 pm  

      What about natural gas, more important no?

    103. William — on 16th January, 2007 at 7:37 pm  

      The first few appearances of the word Kaffur on the media it seemed like just a slightly derogatory word.
      Later it started to look as bad as the word nigger. Last night it was as if the words fithly nigger was being machined gunned out of the TV screen.

    104. William — on 16th January, 2007 at 7:47 pm  

      Sorry fithly should be filthy and was should be were

      Blush!!!!

    105. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:03 pm  

      Abu Usamah is saying that he didn’t say muslims must hate kaffir, just that they must hate the disbelief in the kaffir rather than the kaffir themselves. He goes on to say hating the kaffir is ridiculous as muslims are a better people and therefore embrace multiculturalism in order to improve the kaffir by calling them to islam. Apparently it’s rather important to him to eradicate the misunderstandings non muslims have against muslims. Eradicate was the word he used.

      He constantly complains what he said is being taken out of context, but never bothers to fill us in on the correct context.

      It seems homosexuality is an abomination not only against god, but against mankind. Then all of a sudden it’s fine to be a gayer as long as you don’t die a polytheist. Doesn’t really explain his exhortations to his flock to throw shirtlifters off mountains, does it?

      Jihad is a military campaign, and whoever rejects it is apostate. Admirably lucid for a moment there, but then he’s straight into the jihad being a struggle to be more muslim. Then he stresses again he’s a huge fan of the military jihad before accusing those calling for jihad of having lost the plot. Now he’s onto the jihad as a recruiting drive trip, while making clear that the recruiting jihad is a prelude to the slaughter and dominance jihad.

      Quite why he or the Green Lane lads thought this interview would put them in a better light is beyond me. To yer average kaffir he comes across as howling at the moon. It’d make my day to see him in court trying to prove his sanity.

      Apologies for the rambling nature of this post, I’ve been commenting as I watch the video.

    106. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:04 pm  

      The interview is best seen here:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5621979422472502457&q=Abu+Usamah

    107. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:08 pm  

      “The first few appearances of the word Kaffur on the media it seemed like just a slightly derogatory word.
      Later it started to look as bad as the word nigger. Last night it was as if the words fithly nigger was being machined gunned out of the TV screen”

      I always assumed the word as used in South Africa came from the French “cuffar”, for cockroach. I discovered the other day it comes from the Arabic, and was how the slavers referred to the Africans.

    108. ZinZin — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:10 pm  

      Kaffur is a racist term used by white South African to abuse blacks.

      Note how they described non-muslims in racist terms, pigs or monkeys but that is par for the course amongst fundis and in particular the wahabbism strain of Islam. Funny how they crow the loudest about any insults given in their direction but they indiscriminatly abuse non-believers in terms that even the BNP refrain from using.

    109. ZinZin — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:12 pm  

      Damn you Bert you beat me to it.

    110. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:13 pm  

      Try to stay on topic ZinZin, or your posts disappear like the garbage.

    111. Bert Preast — on 16th January, 2007 at 8:14 pm  

      “Damn you Bert you beat me to it.”

      That’s why they call me Trigger.

      I think.

    112. Jagdeep — on 16th January, 2007 at 9:14 pm  

      Put some of these fookers in the Big Briother house. Now.

    113. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:33 pm  

      Disappointed that we seem to have left the topic of this thread. I’d like to ask a few questions:

      From the MPAC website:

      Dr Bilal Philips: The Prophet Mohammed practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty, with his practice he clarified what is permissible and that is why we shouldn’t have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Mohammed practised it, it wasn’t abuse or exploitation, it was marriage

      Is this true? Is this a logical arguement made from the core beliefs of Islam? Is it true by Islamic Law? How would a moderate engage with Dr Philips on Islamic, not secular, grounds?

      “Whoever changes his religion from Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”

      Is this true? Is this what Muslims that campaign for a Muslim state wish for? Does this make the wish for an Islamic state unacceptable to moderate Muslims? How do moderates align this with their beliefs? Is it just ignored?

      “Abu Usamah: No-one loves the kuffaar, no-one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here from the Muslims loves the kuffaar, whether those kuffaar are from the UK or the US. We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar”

      Is this hatred of non-Muslims a central tenant of Islam? Is it overlooked by moderates or is simply not true?

      “It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man”

      Is this true? does this mean that a womens word is considered inferior to a mans? Is this something that is in Islam and just ignored in a moderate interpritation of Islam?

      As an external observer I see these items coming up again and again, but I’m not seeing anyone knock these claims down.

      In the absence of explainations as to why these arguments are invalid, one has to come to the conclusion that these extremists may NOT be misrepresenting Islam, but instead the moderates are by brushing such embrassements under the carpet and not speaking of them?

      Without asking me to read the entire Koran to understand the “context” of these issues, or asking me to act on an article of faith “it just is” why should I not conclude that the extremists are the ones telling the truth and the moderates bending the truth?

      In my opinon, that is the million dollar question that is calling so many youths into the arms of Miltant Islam today.

      TFI

    114. Anas — on 16th January, 2007 at 11:49 pm  

      Jagdeep, I accept that these preachers do represent a problem for the Muslim community, especially given their proximity to the mainstream of Islamic life in Britain. On the other hand you can make too much of the links between this kind of intolerant preaching and terrorism and terrorist organisation. It pays not to dive straight into hysterics and hyperbole when discussing this kind of topic — at least without direct evidence.

      I mean, these imams derive their authority from their religious training they’ve received from Wahabbi scholars. As far as I’m aware several of these scholars have delivered clear religious edicts against terrorist actions that affect civilians, or that kill innocents. They believe that this is part of Islam, that it is beholden on them — many also feel it’s a religious obligation to keep to the laws of the land. This, IMHO, makes it less likely that the eager minds gulping all this up will be encouraged towards seeing terrorism as a means to effect change. Rather, I think it’s more likely that this kind of preaching promotes separatism and isolationism within the Islamic community.

    115. Anas — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:04 am  

      TFI. I believe that those kinds of question are the subject of active theological debate between scholars you would term “moderate” and those who you might say were more traditional. There’s no one simple ruling that will answer these questions once and for all. I mean, a lot of modern Islamic thinkers are emphasising the need for evaluating the source texts in light of modern day context, others doubt the extent to which this can be achieved.

      The problem here isn’t the lack of debate per se, but the massive influence of one particular viewpoint of Islam on mainstream UK (and worldwide) Islam, not because it’s the most persuasive, or because it makes the most sense but because it’s backed up by Saudi billions.

      And if you want to know why Muslim youths are being driven into the arms of the Militants, it’s obvious: it’s Western foreign policy!

    116. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:19 am  

      “Put some of these fookers in the Big Briother house. Now”

      You’re an evil and cold-hearted man, Jagdeep.

    117. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:22 am  

      Anas, thanks for your response.

      It seems to me that that not only do the Saudis have the billions, but also because they have the simple argument:

      1) Mohammed is the perfect model for man

      2) The Koran is the perfect word of god and cannot be changed.

      3) Mohammed said a, b, c see the above post for examples

      Therefore strike the neck of the infidel, marry prepubesent girls, disregard the word of women.

      These are simplistic, easy to follow, difficult to fault arguments - just like your claim that all the radicalisation is due to “Western foreign policy!”

      Perphaps you are right, it is all Western foreign policy if so don’t you think you are being irresponsible by adding fuel to the fire by complaining about it in front impressionable youths?

      Better to play the devils adovocate and try and calm down things down?

      TFI

    118. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:29 am  

      “Dr Bilal Philips: The Prophet Mohammed practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty, with his practice he clarified what is permissible and that is why we shouldn’t have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Mohammed practised it, it wasn’t abuse or exploitation, it was marriage

      Is this true? Is this a logical arguement made from the core beliefs of Islam? Is it true by Islamic Law? How would a moderate engage with Dr Philips on Islamic, not secular, grounds?”

      It’s true for the shia at least. Here we have as close to a central authority as it gets, and the main man Khomeini married a 10 year old girl when he was 29. I’ve also seen some of his writings which I find hard to believe even though I want to. Gary Glitter, eat your heart out.

      For the sunni, seems your wahabi/salafi go with the Aisha was 6 when bethrothed and nine when married, and they’re probably right. Other sects try to twist the hadeeth to make her anything up to 29, but the evidence looks flimsy. Why they pick holes in things rather than giving the correct answer of “it might have been acceptable then, but in a society with a welfare state it’s most certainly not needed now” is beyond me. Or rather it’s not, but it’s trying to see one’s hard written comments deleted.

      The age of consent in Iran is 10.

    119. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:33 am  

      ““Whoever changes his religion from Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”

      Is this true? Is this what Muslims that campaign for a Muslim state wish for? Does this make the wish for an Islamic state unacceptable to moderate Muslims? How do moderates align this with their beliefs? Is it just ignored?”

      Technically apostacy is a capital offence, though if done quietly it’s more one of those laws honoured in the breach. i.e. don’t make a fuss and we’ll let it go. I think only in one or two countries is the law adhered to the letter, see the Afghan bloke - I’m fairly sure everyone involved would have rather he buggered off quietly but some bastard spoke to a journalist.

    120. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:37 am  

      ““Abu Usamah: No-one loves the kuffaar, no-one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here from the Muslims loves the kuffaar, whether those kuffaar are from the UK or the US. We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar”

      Is this hatred of non-Muslims a central tenant of Islam? Is it overlooked by moderates or is simply not true?”

      Not hatred in general, though with anyone using the term kuffaar to the face of non muslims we can safely assume he’s either genuinely deranged or really hates unbelievers. It’s undeniably derogative, though when I’ve taken this up with muslims their answer has been the prophet used the term so it cannot possibly be incorrect. I can’t deal with those people.

    121. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:40 am  

      ““It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man”

      Is this true? does this mean that a womens word is considered inferior to a mans? Is this something that is in Islam and just ignored in a moderate interpritation of Islam?”

      It certainly is true in the Saudi export strength variety. In fact, I’d still be sceptical if they said the word of a woman was worth one hundreth that of a man. They’d still be lying.

    122. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:41 am  

      And rest.

    123. ZinZin — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:44 am  

      “As far as I’m aware several of these scholars have delivered clear religious edicts against terrorist actions that affect civilians, or that kill innocents. They believe that this is part of Islam, that it is beholden on them — many also feel it’s a religious obligation to keep to the laws of the land. This, IMHO, makes it less likely that the eager minds gulping all this up will be encouraged towards seeing terrorism as a means to effect change.”

      How you can write this shit with the 21/7 attempted suicide murderers on trial some of whom attended Finsbury Park Mosque beggars belief.

      That your still pushing the foreign policy causes terrorism shtick amazes me. The 21/7 men are not Iraqis or Palestinians but Ethiopians and Somalis.

    124. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:44 am  

      Anas wrote: “I mean, these imams derive their authority from their religious training they’ve received from Wahabbi scholars. As far as I’m aware several of these scholars have delivered clear religious edicts against terrorist actions that affect civilians, or that kill innocents.”

      That’s as maybe, but it’s hardly reassuring if they condemn terrorism on the grounds that the time is not yet ripe to take over. Then tell us that when they take over, no more shall anyone be killed - unjustly.

      Or am I just being paranoid?

    125. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:46 am  

      Anas wrote: “I mean, a lot of modern Islamic thinkers are emphasising the need for evaluating the source texts in light of modern day context”

      Who, and what reforms are they pushing?

    126. ZinZin — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:51 am  

      Oh my lord Anas is starting to turn into Inayat Bunglawala. For gods sake somebody help him!!!!!!!!!!!

    127. Sid Love — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      I now eagerly await a refutation on Islamic grounds, using Islamic sources, of these views.

      someone give her a hand.

    128. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th January, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      Thank you Bert, for some reason Anas had trouble answering these two questions. He deffered to a righer authority, some lofty debate that we mere mortals cannot engage in. Although he was able to shift the blame from the extremists to “Western Foreign Policy” to which he is benefactor of? Have a car do we Anas?

      Therefore from your demostrations, can we conclude that what these extremists had to say was Islamically correct?

      Its all very well saying that we shouldn’t question the teachings of another faith as it is not acceptable, but when it is used as logical framework to justify the killings of innocents I think we have that right.

      TFI

    129. Old Pickler — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:00 am  

      Sid Love - yes, please do. I’m still waiting, as Diana Ross sang.

    130. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:01 am  

      A christian preacher can come out with fire and brimstone and find all the religious justification he needs in similarly respected religious texts, so if you want the real root problem it’d seem monotheism is the massive candidate. It just makes people take these things too seriously.

      I’m not going round taking the piss out of christians by the way, and shan’t until they begin blowing up randoms. Live and let live, I suppose.

    131. Anas — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:08 am  

      Yes, I did have trouble answering the questions because I don’t think I could do them justice. I’m ashamed to say I have a pretty superficial knowledge of these things, something which I hope to remedy in the near future. Maybe a nice Saudi university will take me on.

    132. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:12 am  

      I’ve listen to the Anna Rita show this evening (I think I’m in love with that women, she so lovelly).

      Not ONE, I repeat, not ONE caller refuted ANYTHING these “extremists” had to say about Islam or Mo.

      There was a lot of positive things said as the show went on, specifically many callers applauded channel 4 for making the show and “Bobby” for having been so brave to walk so far into the Lions den to get the footage they had.

      One chap suggested that it should be shown every week to force people to accept and face what is going on under our noses.

      One older lady went potty complaining about the tendacy to blame others for faults in themselves. She kept asking why there was no unified rejection of the teachings of these people from the Muslim community, as that is all the British public (whites, blacks, asians, whatever) need to be assured that this really is a fanatical minority not the mainstream belief.

      With clear statements like that coming from mature members of the Islamic community cries of “Foreign Policy” ring very hollow.

      It is clear that the varying strains of Islam have found varying ways to acsend from the 7th century teachings of Mohammed and that strains like Wabbhism is dragging them back.

      Everytime that someone says: “The Koran should only be read in the orignal Arabic” they give creedence to the 7th Century version that the Wabbhis hold so dear.

      TFI

    133. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:15 am  

      OP wrote: “And even non-Muslims, when I bring up those very arguments here, sweep them under the carpet by deleting my comments.”

      Don’t harp on like some sensationalist tabloid junkie. Whether Mo married a 9 year old or not matters nothing in today’s world. What matters is realising it’s not needed in today’s world, or at least not in our part of it. Islam can be classed as a Large Slow Target, and taking shots at it really couldn’t be easier. There’s no need to swing in with claims that while probably correct are essentially unverifiable and don’t matter anyway. All that matters is what islam is teaching today, and whether that affects non muslims or not.

      I’m not having a pop at you here - I remember your campaign against the islamexpo and I was right with you - that for me was the final straw. Just reduce the angle of attack and you’ll get a wider audience.

    134. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:16 am  

      Anas, you ought go now, as in my expirence the weather in the Middle East is much more bearable at this time of year than in the summer.

      TFI

    135. Bert Preast — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:19 am  

      Anas - all those questions are remarkably easy to answer for people of other persuasions if you substitute the requisite wording.

      What is it that makes “Whoever changes his religion from (insert religion here) to anything else – kill him in the (insert religion here) state” such a tricky one for you? Is this a practice all religions should adopt?

    136. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:21 am  

      OP, listen to Bert, he has a very valid point.

      You were silly just to post quotes from the Koran earlier in this thread as of course it was going to get deleted.

      Better to quote from the programme and ask questions of that, as that is what we are discussing.

      Well we are, the apologists seem to have mostly gone to bed.

      In fact that is what I ought be doing to!

      TFI

    137. Sunny — on 17th January, 2007 at 1:31 am  

      Guys, I don’t know where the confusion lies. All three of the Abrahamic religions contain texts and lines that can be interpreted to mean all sorts of heinous things. Hell, even Hinduism contains some pretty vile stuff in the Manu smriti about the situation of the woman.

      So what if a few crackpots and sexually furstrated inbreds are dreaming that they are going to establish their perfect state and take over. It’s not happening, full stop. You think there aren’t Christian crackpots who want to make America a Christian evangelical empire? Or aren’t Hindutva people who want to make India into a Hindu nation? These imams have even less power and influence than the Hindu/Christian ones because for a start the Middle East is an economic minnow.

      What annoyed me about the programme wasn’t that the revelation these idiots existed. I can find you atheist freaks in America who want to bring down the government and live by anarchy.

      No, the real problem has been the response of the organisations (MCB, MPAC) in response to what was showed. I’m going to write about that soon. Until then you guys are going round and round in circles and boring the hell outta me. Especially Old Pickler - who is banned anyway. End of discussion.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.