Category Archives: BBC

Dodging Islamic Apologistics Of Classic Bait And Switch

HUGH FITZGERALD, THE MYSTERY SCHOLAR OF ISLAM, has written about this tactic of da'wa apologists quite well, and we again strive to honor Hugh in a snippet from a comment we clipped from Jihad Watch. Hat tip goes to Proud Kafir:

Diwan-i-Khas at Fatehpur Sikri, a town built by Akbar
The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyone—thank god it has been preserved on tape, for all time—how Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.

So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim. Could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”

No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available online with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.

Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, noted—too quickly, alas—that Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.

[Dodging Islamic Apologistics Of Classic Bait And Switch]

Artists Fearful To Address Islam

Danger 2007
Danger 2007
BRITAIN'S CONTEMPORARY ARTISTS are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

“I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. “I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it,” he said. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

Perry said that he had also been scared by the reaction across the Islamic world to Danish cartoons deemed anti-Muslim in 2006 and by the protests against Salman Rushdie’s knighthood this year.

Across Europe there is growing evidence that freedom of expression has been curtailed by fear of religious fundamentalism. Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, is in hiding after calling the Qur'an a “book of extraordinary violence” in Le Figaro in 2006; Spanish villages near Valencia have abandoned a centuries-old tradition of burning effigies of Muhammad to mark the reconquest of Spain, against the Moors; and an opera house in Berlin banned a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it depicted the beheading of Muhammad (as well as Jesus and other spiritual leaders).

Read it all, and don’t neglect the comments. That’s where the REAL story exists.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Remember The USS Cole
Remember The USS Cole
By Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch:

Europe - NGOs have come a long, and very dismal way, since the dreams of Rene Cassin. They are filled as naturally with creatures of a certain worldview and bent as is the BBC World Service, or The Guardian. What is that worldview? That worldview consists of those who wish to criticize, in the main, what they see as the white, Western world, for not properly making their chief concern, and rescuing from their own misrulers often prompted by ideologies (such as Islam) that the members of those NGOs will never recognize as being the source of the misgovernment, the corruption and cruelty and waste that are such noticeable features of so much of what used to be called (thank god the phrase is falling out of fashion) the "Third World."

Nationalism for them is not acceptable if it is an impulse animating the residents of the advanced West. They are not allowed to take a special interest, have a special affection and tenderness for, their own countries, and histories. They are not allowed to worry about cultural continuity, and cultural continuity as being connected, possibly, to other kinds of continuity, including that of ethnic makeup. These are impermissible for that "white, Western world" —even if perfectly permissible for everyone else (compare, for example, the policies toward immigration and immigrants in Japan, Korea, China, or the same policies toward non-Arabs, directed especially at black Africans, in Egypt, Libya, Chad, and Morocco).

The United States is not to remain a country. The United States is, rather, to be transformed, in the determined if unstated view of so many of the ideologues at NGOs, to be turned into, by slow degrees, into one great big...NGO.
The rest of the world is entitled to preserve itself. We, on the other hand, in North America and Western Europe and the outposts of the former British Empire, such as Australia and New Zealand, are required to give up whatever "local" patriotism, interest and pride in our national histories and cultures, and open ourselves permanently to the world.

Other countries can remain countries.

The United States, Canada, Australia, England, France, Italy, and the other countries of Western Europe, on the other hand, are not allowed to remain countries in that full sense. Their people are not allowed to maintain their own legal and political institutions and social arrangements, or render them less vulnerable to undermining from within by taking control of their own immigration policy. They are not allowed to fully defend themselves, and if they try...well, the NGOs will come down hard.

For those who now staff the NGOs have big plans for the West, big plans for Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and especially for the United States.

Yes, for the United States and other advanced "white, Western" countries (Japan doesn't count, nor South Korea, in this calculation) the futuree is clear.

They are to be transformed. They are to be stripped of that has given them their national identities, treated merely as geogrpahically identifiable places that should be permanently available to all those who wish to come, and those who wish to come will, in the main, be those from comparatively poor and often ill-governed neighbors (in the case of the United States, those neighbors include Mexico, Central America, and some but not all of the countries of South America), or from lands further away where the local despots, or locally-prevailing ideologies, explain the malgovernance -- but those who come from Muslim lands, places that are so unpleasnat and malfunctioning becuase of Islam unfortunately do not see things aright and "flee from Islam," and far from abandoning Islam (refugees from the Nazis or Communists hated Nazism, hated Communism), they bring it with them in their undeclared mental baggage, and unpack it right away.

According to the New Men who have infiltrated and taken over so many of the formerly respectable NGOs, la Lutte Continue, and the hostility they always felt toward their own Western world can now be plausibly, even respectably, channeled into their work at these NGOs, with their highly selective and tendentious indignation.

Their goal for the United States is clear.

The United States is not to remain a country. The United States is, rather, to be transformed, in the determined if unstated view of so many of the ideologues at NGOs, to be turned into, by slow degrees, into one great big...NGO.

Brit Leader Bytes Back

Wellie, well, well, as the screw turns. Things in Jolly Olde England are not as they seemed even just a few weeks ago. Former Dhimmi Tony Blair finally speaks out in real terms about real issues without stooping to all that "religion of peace" (ROP) sugarcoating. As reported by Islam News in Cairo:

Great Britain
Great Britain

CAIRO — In an unprecedented strongly-worded language, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called on immigrants to accept British values or "stay away", and re-advocated a face-veil ban in public places, reported The Independent on Saturday, December 9. "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here," Blair told an audience grouping academics, students and Muslim leaders, adding, "We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed." Blair defined British values as "belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage".

The British premier said his government will take a series of measures to encourage immigrants and ethnic minorities to integrate into society, according to Reuters. Immigrants seeking a settlement in Britain will have to pass an English test, Blair said. Ethnic and religious groups in Britain will also be required to show they promote integration for getting government grants, he added.

"In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration," Blair said.

Integrating immigrants has become a burning issue in Europe with right-wing and conservative governments vowing to expel the un-adaptive or deny access to foreigners failing culture tests. In the Netherlands, would-be immigrants have to watch a film featuring a topless woman and gay men kissing to test their readiness to learn Dutch values and liberate in the country's liberal society. A number of German states are further considering a lengthy cultural quiz that immigrants have to answer to get citizenship. Blair also favored a ban of face-veil (niqab) in public places. He said that it was common sense that "when it is an essential part of someone's work to communicate directly with people, being able to see their face is important".

Blair, who earlier described the veil as a "mark of separation", was reportedly mulling a face-veil ban in public institutions, including schools. Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday, December 9, opposed a ban of religious symbols in public places.

"Hostility to all forms of recognition of the political and cultural importance of religion and in particular the presence of any religious symbols in public institutions—is not a sign of healthy secularism, but the degeneration of secularism," he said. A BBC survey on November 29 showed that the majority of Britons were against a blanket ban on the veil. The issue of face-veil was recently thrust into the spotlight after former foreign secretary and incumbent leader of the House of Common Jack Straw revealed asking Muslim women visiting his constituency office to show their faces. Aishah Azmi, a 24-year-old Muslim teacher, was recently sacked over her veil. The young woman had expressed willingness to remove her veil in front of children—but not when male colleagues were present.

Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations. As for the face veil, the majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands.

Blair singled out "new and virulent form of ideology associated with a minority of our Muslim community" for threatening Britain's racial harmony. "Most Muslims are proud to be British and Muslim and are thoroughly decent, law-abiding citizens. But it is a problem with a minority of that community, particularly originating from certain countries," he added, drawing a parallel between white supporters of right-wing British National Party and Muslims who shun integration. Blair also spoke of what he said frustration of some Muslim women at being barred from certain mosques, saying, "Those that exclude the voice of women need to look again at their practices," he added. The British Prime Minister also dismissed suggestions for applying Sharia law in Britain.

The Muslim minority, nearly 1.8 million the majority of whom are of Asian origins, has been in the eye of the storm since the 7/7 terrorist attacks by four British Muslim bombers.