Has anyone got any comments about the panorama prog tonight about Islam?
I thought it was very revealing about how Islam and muslims look upon the west in general and secularism as being decadent and dirty and something which they must do all they can to change to the Islamic ideals of living.
Looked like the muslim council of Britain are indeed intertwined with some very extreem muslim clerics who want to make everyone in this country live there life according to Islam.
A very revealing prog which I have to say I did not think the BBC would have the balls to show,I hope lots of you have seen it and maybe some of you will see just what the real agenda of muslims and Islam is all about.
So now you know, if your jewish ,christian or gay then you had better wise up while you still can.
Watching the leader of the muslim council squirm when being intervied was also quite revealing,he looked like he knew he had been rumbled and showed himself to be just the public face of Islam and to be as bad as the rest.

Religion mate- causes more problems in the world than anything else!

Its all a load of BS!

More info can be found here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm

Unfortunatly I missed it.

Also its going to be repeated this Friday (26th) at 1:45am. Set the recoreder if you want to watch it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=thursday&service_id=4223&filename=20050825/20050826_0145_4223_13512_60

Originally posted by royjames

So now you know, if your jewish ,christian or gay then you had better wise up while you still can.

And if your a turkey make sure you vote for Christmas in the upcoming elections.

Reading some of the comments made on the BBC forum I think it's a great shame too many viewers have missed one of the programs main thrusts, which was that their is no such thing a unified block of Muslim opinion. For example in this documentary the heaviest criticism of those seeking to politicise Islam came from other Muslims and the narrator made the point several times that the radical members of the MCB only represented a tiny fraction of UK Muslims.

I thought the most powerful scene was the speaker in tears talking about the pain he felt following the London bombings. Very bemused to see how anyone after watching the grief and pain this guy was suffering could then conclude:

Originally posted by royjames
muslims look upon the west in general and secularism as being decadent and dirty and something which they must do all they can to change to the Islamic ideals of living.

Quite interesting also to see that some of the fiercest criticisms levied at this program is from Christians who are furious that the narrator dared to refer to England as a secular country.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
And if your a turkey make sure you vote for Christmas in the upcoming elections.

PMSL!!!:P :P

Roy, you can be so see through sometimes mate. :hihi:

The programme was way over-hyped by the BBC and revealed nothing that hasn't been reported previously in the press.

I had hoped Ware would have interviewed the BMC media secretary Inayat Bunglawala, a much more sinister figure than Sacranie. Bunglawala is apparently to be recruited by the Home Office for a seven man task force with responsibilities for tackling extremism among young Muslims :o , - this in spite of his firm belief that the British media is 'Zionist controlled'.

IMO he would have done better to question a wide sample ordinary Muslims to see what impact, if any, the extremist clerics were having in places like Luton, Bradford and Leicester.

Expecting someone like Sacranie to be candid on camera was bound to fail.

it was enlightening - seems none of the major 'moslem' organisations would speak out against the attacks and the young chap who offered to execute himself ws playing up to the cameras....

If they are a true representation of this 'superior' faith then I'm glad I'm not a follower. If they had nothing to hide why did they not answer any of the questions put to them - instead did a Blairite special of trying to avoid the question by waffling on..

Do you think Blair will try to ban the MCB now?

Originally posted by Internetowl
it was enlightening - seems none of the major 'moslem' organisations would speak out against the attacks

Except of course for the MCB which was shown preparing and then broadcasting an unequivocal condemnation of the attacks

Originally posted by Internetowl

Do you think Blair will try to ban the MCB now?

When it came to condemning the London bombings their was no hesitation only clear cut condemnation, the hesitation came when discussing terrorist attacks upon military targets in occupied countries such as Palestine. Personally I think such attacks are unjustifiable but I can see that their is a difference between the two.

And to say their was no condemnation is simply wrong as the transcript shows

"Moulana Mohammed Shahid Raza, President, World Islamic Mission of Europe: Any Muslim youth, any Muslim man or woman, going anywhere on the globe targeting civilians anywhere by suicide bombing is Harram."


So if Blair is going to ban the MCB for some of it's members showing support for the Intifada he is going to have to act against much of his own party and his wife

What does 'Harram' mean?

Originally posted by serapis
What does 'Harram' mean?

That which Allah and the Prophet have completely and specifcally forbidden. Engaging in an act that is Haram (ie eating food like pork, drinking alcohol, having sex outside of marriage) would lead to punishment in the Next Life, and maybe even in this Life.

As opposed to halal - something that is lawful and permitted in Islam.

dont believe everything you see on tv, and try not to read stuff into it.

A key to understanding the concept of Haram is the knowledge that Islam, like Orthodox Juadaism but unlike Christianity, is an orthopraxic religion, meaning that great importance is set on specified actions rather than primarily on beliefs. Conversely, Christianity is primarily an orthodoxic religion, in that beliefs tend to play a more important role than the performance of specified actions. Of course, both are relative rather than absolute conditions, but they do provide in my view insights into why the concept of haram is so important in Islam and why religion and politics are so difficult to separate in Islamic thought and practice. The orthopraxic nature of Islam is also manifested in the five pillars, which are basically ritualised activities.

Anyone who has watched the Islam channel on cable TV will soon be made aware of the importance of haram and halal. For example, it has regular Questions and Answers sessions, where muslims ring in to ask Imams about the correct way to behave. Recently, a boy rang up to ask if it was OK to play snakes and ladders. No said the Imam, it could lead to gambling which is haram. Other recent questions have included: is it OK to consume vinegar? Only in very small amounts, because it contains wine? Is it OK to eat shellfish? Er, only under certain circumstances; What position should men adopt to urinate? preferably sitting down; can I listen to music? No, except when played by a drum as mentioned in the Koran for religious purposes, not for pleasure. Non-muslims are hardly likely to find such requirements appealing and may struggle to understand why 'God' should care about such precise and seemingly arbitrary behavioural requirements.

The response to the programme from the MCB website

A Look At John Ware’s Panorama Programme About British Muslims

[The comments below are based upon a BBC transcript of the Panorama programme obtained on Friday 19th August 2005.]

John Ware’s Panorama programme ‘A Question Of Leadership’ is due to be aired on Sunday 21st August 2005.

The Panorama programme takes a look at several British Muslim organisations, in particular the Muslim Council of Britain and several of its affiliates, including the Islamic Foundation, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith and the Leeds Grand Mosque.

In summary, we believe John Ware’s team have made a deeply unfair programme using deliberately garbled quotes in an attempt to malign the Muslim Council of Britain and with the barely concealed goal of drawing British Muslims away from being inspired in their political beliefs and actions by the faith of Islam.

We have spoken with one of Ware’s key interviewees, Mehboob Kantharia who is shown at the outset of the programme as implying that the MCB leadership are in a ‘state of denial’ about extremism. Kantharia has informed us that his remarks on the matter did not mention the MCB at all and were not referring to the MCB. Yet Ware’s programme presents the comments as such.

The Muslim Council of Britain offers its detailed observations about the Panorama programme below.

Islam vs Ware’s Preferred ‘Personal Islam’

Ware speaks approvingly of those Muslims who do not allow their faith to influence their political outlook. He goes to a mosque in Birmingham and says that ‘Muslims here follow the Sufi stream, like most in Britain. They do not politicise their faith, theirs is personal and spiritual.’

It is indeed true that many Muslims admire Sufi teachings. However, Ware does not provide any evidence to show that ‘most’ Muslims believe that Islam should not influence their social and political beliefs.

The idea that Sufis only follow a ‘personal and spiritual’ Islam is another common misconception and shows insufficient research on Ware’s part. Muslims who follow the ‘sufi way’ as well as others are both in the same Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) coalition party as the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan. This is the same Jamaat-i-Islami that Ware attempts to portray as extremists. The primary anti-colonial jihadist movements of the 19th century were all sufi-inspired. For example, Imam Shamil in Daghestan belonged to the famous Naqshbandi order, Umar al-Mukhtar in Libya to the Sanusi order, Amir Abdul Qadir in Algeria to the Qadiri order and so on.

Furthermore, Ware's presumption that we live in a truly secular society/world is quite flawed. Take George Bush. His conception of Christianity very obviously informs his political beliefs and actions. But it's not just the United States. At least three members of the UK Cabinet are committed Christians. There are members of the Christian clergy in the House of Lords and Britain has an established Church. Christian values and teachings have been a major influence behind the Welfare state, the NHS, etc.

The Pope often meets with world leaders and comments on world affairs. The Archbishop of Canterbury regularly comments on social, economic and major political events.

Ruth Kelly, the cabinet minister, has made no bones of her commitment to Opus Dei, remarking "I am a practicing Catholic. Clearly I have strong personal principles. I would have to abide by them in my political career if they are strong personal principles." (The Guardian, 17th December 2004).

So it is strange that when Muslims seek to be guided in their social and political beliefs and actions by their faith, Ware describes this as ‘playing politics with religion in a secular country’. To disconnect morality from public life would be to make faith largely irrelevant.

A Few Selected Voices of Discontent

The Muslim Council of Britain is this country’s largest umbrella body for British Muslims. It's over 400 affiliates represent the diversity of the Muslim community, including schools of thought (Sunni and Shi'a) and ethnic and national groups - from the Kosova Islamic Centre to the Council of Nigerian Muslim Organisations. However, the MCB makes no claim to represent all of the UK’s 1.6 million Muslims and we recognise that there are other senior Muslim individuals and organisations that are not currently affiliated to us and we seek closer cooperation with them, even if they do not wish to formally affiliate with us.

The Panorama team quotes some voices of opposition to the MCB and describes them as ‘influential Muslims’.

One voice who is quoted approvingly is Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui who is described as the ‘Director of the Muslim Institute’. We are told that ‘a decade ago he believed Islam and politics should be fused. Now he thinks the only way Muslims will join the mainstream is if that link is broken.’ Why does John Ware not inform his viewers that Dr Siddiqui is also the head of the ‘Muslim Parliament’? Could it be that this was omitted because it would have undermined his argument about Islam and politics not being ‘fused’?

Another person that the Panorama team give prominence to is a former member of the MCB’s Central Working Committee, Mehboob Kantharia.

Mehboob Kantharia is quoted by the Panorama team as saying (apparently of the MCB and their acceptance of the terror threat facing this country): “a lot of them still live in a state of denial…it is my personal belief that because they are in this state of denial they cannot become…forthright about wanting to do something about the kind of extremism that prevails.”

Note: We have spoken with Mehboob Kantharia who denies that he was referring to the MCB when he was talking about ‘a state of denial’ about extremism. We hope the Panorama team will explain the truth about this matter.

The MCB makes no claims about perfection and we do have many shortcomings. However, it is deeply unfair of the Panorama team not to make mention of the MCB’s efforts to help promote the common good by sending a letter – following the Madrid bombings - to every Islamic organisation and mosque in the country urging vigilance against the terror threat. In addition, in September 2004, the MCB printed 500,000 copies of a Pocket Guide on Rights and Responsibilities in which we prominently printed the Anti-Terror Hotline Number. Why was this not mentioned – is it because it would have undermined the ‘denial’ case that John Ware was trying to build?

A third voice is Dr Taj Hargey who is described as the Chairman of the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford. He is quoted as saying the MCB is mainly composed of “Indo-Pakistanis” and concerning the Shabina Begum case that the jilbab (long women’s garment) has “no validity in Islam whatsoever…There is no religious verse, there is no Qur’anic ayah, there is nothing in the Qur’an that says you must wear the jilbab.”

The Census of 2001 showed that of the 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, around 68% of them had their origins in the Indian subcontinent. As a body which seeks to bring together British Muslims, it is therefore inevitable that the MCB will be mainly consisting of people who are “Indo-Pakistanis” – yet Ware allows Dr Taj Hargey’s remark to go unchallenged.

Concerning the jilbab, the MCB had clearly stated at the time that ‘the British Muslim community is a diverse community in terms of the interpretation and understanding of their faith and its practice. Within this broad spectrum those that believe and choose to wear the jilbab and consider it to be part of their faith requirement for modest attire should be respected.’

We would disagree with Dr Hargey’s assertion that ‘there is nothing in the Qur’an’ about the jilbab and would refer him to Surat al-Ahzab (al-Qur’an 33:59) where the Arabic word ‘jalabib’ (plural of jilbab) clearly occurs in connection with the recommended dress for the Prophet’s wives and ‘nisaa al-mu’mineen’ (believing women). It is unfair of John Ware’s Panorama team to have let Dr Hargey’s assertion once again go unchallenged. What adds to the unfairness is that Ware does not mention that the Barrister who defended Shabina Begum’s right to wear the jilbab was none other than Cherie Blair, the wife of the Prime Minister and that many other schools do allow the wearing of the jilbab by Muslim schoolgirls without it causing any problems whatsoever. Denbigh High School made the headlines precisely because it refused to allow Shabina Begum that right.

Note: We have spoken with Dr Hargey to obtain clarification about his exact words and he denies saying to the Panorama team that the Jilbab is not mentioned in the Qur’an. He says that he was referring to the Niqab (face-covering).


A Deliberate Lack of Context In Order To Mislead Viewers

A significant part of the programme looks at the ‘foreign’ influences on British Muslim organisations.

Ware’s programme shows little understanding of the reality that any community that has experienced recent migration and settlement, will carry along with it different kinds of influences, especially in the context of Globalisation.

The programme looks at the influence of the Jamaat-i-Islami party in Pakistan on the Islamic Foundation and senior figures in the Muslim Council of Britain. Quotations are shown in the programme from the writings of Mawlana Mawdudi – the founder of the Jamaat-i-Islami party, presumably to show how they reflect on British Muslim organisations that regard him as an important Islamic thinker. At one point, a quotation of Mawdudi is shown as saying that an Islamic state – which his party campaigns for - bears:

“…a kind of resemblance to the fascist and communist states…”

It is well known that it is possible through mischievous editing to choose carefully selected lines from the writings of just about any author which will then make it appear to suggest he is saying the polar opposite of his actual words. This task is made all the more easier if viewers are shown the writings of a foreign author who was writing in a rather different time and place. What is less well known is that programmes such as the BBC’s Panorama indulge in this kind of manifestly dishonest practice. Compare the above quotation that Ware provides his viewers with the actual full quotation from Mawdudi’s book, Islamic Law and Constitution:

“Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. But you will find later on that, despite its all-inclusiveness, it is something vastly and basically different from the totalitarian and authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship in it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved.” (Islamic Law and Constitution, Chapter on The Political Theory of Islam, 9th edition, Lahore, 1986, p146)

Remember too, that Mawdudi’s book was published first in 1955, at the height of the Cold War. And just one page further on in the same book:

‘The Islamic state is based on a particular ideology and it is the community which believes in the Islamic ideology that pilots it. Here again, we notice some sort of resemblance between the Islamic and the communist states. But the treatment meted out by the Communist states to persons holding creeds and ideologies other than its own bears no comparison with the attitude of the Islamic state. Unlike the Communist state, Islam does not impose its social principles on others by force, nor does it confiscate their properties or unleash a reign of terror by mass executions of the people and their transportation to the slave camps of Siberia.’ (Islamic Law and Constitution, p147)

It seems to us clear that the Panorama team has been less than honest in its selective quotation from Mawdudi’s writings and this underhand approach must call into question the veracity of other ‘facts’ in the programme.


Impartial Or Bias?

John Ware’s programme makes a pretence of being impartial and nowhere is this more clearly displayed than in the section about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is worth quoting Ware in full:

[Ware] “The Israel-Palestine conflict is over land and holy sites. It’s a rallying cry for young martyrs in the global ummah. Islamist groups like Hamas have used terrorist tactics against Israel because they want to destroy it. Israeli military operations targeting the Islamists have also caused many civilian deaths.”

Note how Ware tries to sound balanced to the unsuspecting viewer. Yet we would not know from listening to him that it is the Israelis who for decades now have been illegally occupying Palestinian lands in defiance of numerous UN resolutions. We are told that Hamas use ‘terrorist tactics’ against Israel but are not told about terrorist methods used by Israel against Palestinians. When describing the assassination of the quadriplegic Hamas leader and Islamic scholar Shaykh Ahmad Yasin by Israel, Ware refers to it simply as an ‘Israeli missile strike’. Ware gives no indication of the imbalance in power between the two sides and the disproportionality in the numbers of casualties where since the year 2000, four Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli.

Ware makes a big fuss of Sir Iqbal Sacranie having attended a memorial meeting for Shaykh Ahmad Yasin and asks Sir Iqbal: “You did not have to go to that memorial service in the central mosque…you could have chosen not to go.” Would Ware make a similar fuss about British Jewish leaders who have repeatedly met the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was found by Israel’s own Kahane commission of being ‘indirectly responsible’ for the massacre of over two thousand Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila camps? Somehow, we doubt it.

Ware evidently approves of the secular democracy we live in and the freedom of speech we enjoy. He castigates Sir Iqbal Sacranie for his opposition to Rushdie’s blasphemous book ‘The Satanic Verses’. However, when it comes to British Muslims expressing their opinions Ware suddenly becomes a lot more censorious and demands that Imams not declare the war on terror as a war on Islam.

[Ware to Sir Iqbal]: “Isn’t it important for you as the leader of the Muslim community in Britain to put the Imam of the Leeds mosque right when he says that the war in Iraq is about plotting to decrease the faith of Islam?’

Anti-semitic Remarks

The Muslim Council of Britain strongly abhors any form of racism, including anti-semitism. Islam as a faith is famously colour-blind and was revealed to bring peoples of all nations together in worship of the One True God. Ware quotes the Imam of the Ka’bah as making allegedly anti-semitic remarks. If this was the case then we would condemn them completely. However, based on Ware’s ‘selective’ quotations which we have highlighted earlier in this response we would urge caution and verification that these were indeed uttered by the Imam of the Ka’bah.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Non-muslims are hardly likely to find such requirements appealing and may struggle to understand why 'God' should care about such precise and seemingly arbitrary behavioural requirements.

Especially when you consider how many 'committed Christians' struggle to follow a measly ten commandments.....

Originally posted by Splodge_CRB
Especially when you consider how many 'committed Christians' struggle to follow a measly ten commandments.....

As far as i'm aware, 'committed Christians' dont have to follow the 10 commandments as Moses smashed them! Dont ask me to tell you when, how or if he was drunk at the time though :D

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

So if Blair is going to ban the MCB for some of it's members showing support for the Intifada he is going to have to act against much of his own party and his wife

Blair won't ban the MCB, not least because he played a major role in elevating it to its current status as the main collective 'voice' of moderate Islamists within the UK. Its the old political strategy of encouraging moderation through co-optation. However, as the Panorama programme pointed out (and indeed this seemed to be the main thrust of the programme) some of the leaders have rather questionable track records as putative moderates and even today are equivocal and ambivalent on certain sensitive issues.

Sacranie won't ban the MAB (Muslim Association of Britain) either, even though its head Dr Azzam Tamini explicitly supports suicide bombings in the Middle East and justifies this position on religious grounds. The MCB is a loose federation rather than a hierarchical organisation, but it has a charter incorporating its values and purposes. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question as to whether the views of the MAB are compatible with those of the MCB, or whether the former is using its membership of the latter in order to bestow upon itself a moderate image which it does not deserve.

Seems Lord Ahmed is not happy with the BBC either - seems they are out to get the British Muslim organisation.

More likely he's now concerned his chickens have come home to roost....

Originally posted by cgksheff
That which Allah and the Prophet have completely and specifcally forbidden. Engaging in an act that is Haram (ie eating food like pork, drinking alcohol, having sex outside of marriage) would lead to punishment in the Next Life, and maybe even in this Life.

As opposed to halal - something that is lawful and permitted in Islam.


What is different about pig meat such as pork to make it "haram". Also, would marrying a 6 year old girl be "halal" or "haram"?

Originally posted by t020
...Also, would marrying a 6 year old girl be "halal" or "haram"?
IIRC it's halal...

...as long as the marriage isn't consummated until the bride is 9 years old.

Precedents eh !

;)

Seems to me that the MCB should be banned as some of its connections are questionable to say the least,of course it wont be banned as Labour rely heavily on the muslim vote and so they are allowed to continue.
Of course it ok to try to destroy the BNP who have not got the clout the muslims have with the goverment,one law for those who have sympathy with suicide bombers and one for a legitimate political party.
Talk about having the wrong priorities,still new labour its too be expected.

Originally posted by t020
What is different about pig meat such as pork to make it "haram".
Deuteronomy 14:8
Leviticus 11:7

Roy, i'll reserve my judgement until i have seen the programme. I think any programme that airs it's view against the Muslim Community will always come under attack by some.

However i was suprised to see that it was the BBC that aired this type of programme.

I think with any type of programme of this nature, Panaroma has its own agenda and his twisted/edited the programme in such a way that it looks unfavourable on the MCB. Although to be fair Roy i apply the same logic to programmes against the BNP.

IMO i generally believe that the MCB do not condone Terrorism and the London Bombings which is the same for the majority of Muslims within the UK. However, i have always felt the Muslim community stick together (something that we can learn from). Therefore any possible extremists or wrong-doers are more likley to be dealt with within the community rather than outed.

Originally posted by youwhatref
i'll reserve my judgement until i have seen the programme.

You can read a transcript of the show online here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm


Interesting that the MCB does not seek to refute the claims regarding their boycott of the Holocaust memorial event, they have obviously realised how utterly indefensible their actions were.

However I do think they have a case in questioning John Wares neutrality towards Israel. As has already been said Ware was incapable of accepting that Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine may in some peoples eyes legitimise it’s army being targeted by terrorists. Their was also a significant section devoted to showing placards on stop the war demo’s which equated Zionism with fascism.

I agree that such analogies are utterly offensive and misguided but why include such examples of peaceful acts of demonstration in an investigation into suicide bombings? seeing such footage of these placards must have struck a raw nerve with Ware as it seemed he’d gone out of his way to include them.

Originally posted by youwhatref
Roy, i'll reserve my judgement until i have seen the programme. I think any programme that airs it's view against the Muslim Community will always come under attack by some.

However i was suprised to see that it was the BBC that aired this type of programme.

I think with any type of programme of this nature, Panaroma has its own agenda and his twisted/edited the programme in such a way that it looks unfavourable on the MCB. Although to be fair Roy i apply the same logic to programmes against the BNP.

IMO i generally believe that the MCB do not condone Terrorism and the London Bombings which is the same for the majority of Muslims within the UK. However, i have always felt the Muslim community stick together (something that we can learn from). Therefore any possible extremists or wrong-doers are more likley to be dealt with within the community rather than outed. good post,but isnt the last sentance saying that they take the law into their own hands by not ousting the terrorists?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
IIRC it's halal...

...as long as the marriage isn't consummated until the bride is 9 years old.

Precedents eh !

;)


Indeed. :hihi:

Well I eat pork, ham and bacon, and I've never married a child, so I guess I'm screwed.

Watched it, interesting programme.

"However I do think they have a case in questioning John Wares neutrality towards Israel. As has already been said Ware was incapable of accepting that Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine may in some peoples eyes legitimise it’s army being targeted by terrorists."

Seems to me ware was more perturbed at the fact that palestinian suicide bombers are a lot more likely to attack buses, cafes and nightclubs full of civilians than attack israeli army/police. When was the last time a palestinian suicide bomber attacked a military target?

Originally posted by Sidla
Deuteronomy 14:8
Leviticus 11:7


Just Googled those - the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. Very amusing though.

did anyone see the programme on the new Pope on C4 tonight?

He is on record as saying that Catholicism is superior to all other faiths including the Church of England which 'doesn't have proper churches in the true sense of the word'.

Now there's a religion that (allegedly) colluded with Hitler, has (allegedly) been very soft on paedophile priests amongst other things.

Lets hope Panorama interview Pope Benedict and ask him a few awkward questions one day..........

Originally posted by sham71
did anyone see the programme on the new Pope on C4 tonight?

He is on record as saying that Catholicism is superior to all other faiths including the Church of England which 'doesn't have proper churches in the true sense of the word'.

Now there's a religion that (allegedly) colluded with Hitler, has (allegedly) been very soft on paedophile priests amongst other things.

Lets hope Panorama interview Pope Benedict and ask him a few awkward questions one day..........


Maybe they might when people blow themselves up in London and kill innocent civilians in the name of Catholicism. For now however, radical Islam is the problem. Thinking long term though, religion needs wiping out completely.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
You can read a transcript of the show online here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm


Interesting that the MCB does not seek to refute the claims regarding their boycott of the Holocaust memorial event, they have obviously realised how utterly indefensible their actions were.

However I do think they have a case in questioning John Wares neutrality towards Israel. As has already been said Ware was incapable of accepting that Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine may in some peoples eyes legitimise it’s army being targeted by terrorists. Their was also a significant section devoted to showing placards on stop the war demo’s which equated Zionism with fascism.

I agree that such analogies are utterly offensive and misguided but why include such examples of peaceful acts of demonstration in an investigation into suicide bombings? seeing such footage of these placards must have struck a raw nerve with Ware as it seemed he’d gone out of his way to include them.

He was including them to show that the MAB (an affiliate of the MCB) is an organisation headed by people with extreme views (and recent events have so painfully demonstrated that it can be but a short step from extreme views to extreme actions). The placards shown were not the products of individual initiative, but were professionally produced and presumably officially sanctioned by the leadership of the MAB. Moreover, the clip also showed the head of the MAB engaging in a rant reminiscent of a 30s style demagogue. He was then interviewed by Ware. Ware led him to admit that he condoned suicide bombings in the Middle East. I therefore think that it was perfectly reasonable for Ware to include this footage.

Originally posted by t020
Indeed. :hihi:

Well I eat pork, ham and bacon, and I've never married a child, so I guess I'm screwed.

:)

Don't beat about the Bush - say it as you see it....

You forgot multiple wives, taxi cab and corner shop

Originally posted by t020
Maybe they might when people blow themselves up in London and kill innocent civilians in the name of Catholicism. For now however, radical Islam is the problem. Thinking long term though, religion needs wiping out completely.

I guess the problem with 'wiping out religion' is that one is left with the problem of what to do with people who insist on having religious beliefs.

Can we envisage a bunch of Atheist Fundamentalists? :)

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
I guess the problem with 'wiping out religion' is that one is left with the problem of what to do with people who insist on having religious beliefs.

Can we envisage a bunch of Atheist Fundamentalists? :)

Joe

It will be a long process but I'd like to believe that one day, even in thousands of years time, the world will be religion free.

Originally posted by t020
It will be a long process but I'd like to believe that one day, even in thousands of years time, the world will be religion free.

Fella, you speak the truth :)
Damn straight... get rid of religion.. the world would be a much happier place.

Also the people in africa dying of aids because mr Popey tells them not to wear condoms as well--- thats religion for you!

I have not watched the Panorama programme, but I'll make a point of watching the repeat and then I may comment further.

However, I have to say I have found Panorama to be very suspect in the way they 'report' information.

Panorama puts itself up as a flagship of investigative reporting, encouraging people to believe the information presented is impartial and objective. However, many past programmes have been so blatantly subjective and misleading that I do not place much confidence in the validity of anything they present.

I find it worrying that the BBC has made few attempts to provide impartial, factual information, presented without bias thus allowing the viewer to come to an informed and educated conclusion. But as the BBC still has it's strings pulled by the state - I don't suppose I should be too surprised.

Originally posted by Hels

I find it worrying that the BBC has made few attempts to provide impartial, factual information, presented without bias thus allowing the viewer to come to an informed and educated conclusion. But as the BBC still has it's strings pulled by the state - I don't suppose I should be too surprised.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that the BBC was being criticised in the media (and on this very forum) for giving Muslims proportionally too much air time on Question Time (or a similar programme), so I guess it's easy to blame them in accordance with whatever your political leanings are.

Personally I think the BBC do a fine job and overall present a pretty balanced view.

You may not agree with the Panorama programme, but you can be sure there will be another show along shortly with an opposing view.

As I said, I have not seen this particular programme so cannot yet comment specifically on its content.

I do however, have concerns about the Panorama programme in general - specifically their subjective (under the guise of objective) reporting and language.

Originally posted by skny

Seems to me ware was more perturbed at the fact that palestinian suicide bombers are a lot more likely to attack buses, cafes and nightclubs full of civilians

I found it interesting Ware never stressed that when he was talking hypothetically about. Was talking about either against civilian or military targets. Most people accept their is a distinction and I'm surprised he did not stipulate which scenario he was referring to. This would have saved any ambiguity.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The placards shown were not the products of individual initiative, but were professionally produced and presumably officially sanctioned by the leadership of the MAB.

I disagree with this but I'd have to watch the show again. I seem to remember them looking very home made and the fact their were only one or two on the demonstration ( I was there) would suggest they were mass produced. They certainly did not have the MAB or MCB logos' on them so they were not officially sanctioned by the organisation.

Just to mention that dico cat is gay yet he backs a religion which looks upon homosexuals as dirty and to be executed,talk about the turkey voting for xmas.:loopy:
Just think what your fate will be if the Islamic state comes to pass,as one cleric said on panorama all gays should be thrown off the tower.
Wise up old chap.
:(

Originally posted by royjames
Just to mention that dico cat is gay yet he backs a religion which looks upon homosexuals as dirty and to be executed,talk about the turkey voting for xmas.:loopy:
Just think what your fate will be if the Islamic state comes to pass,as one cleric said on panorama all gays should be thrown off the tower.
Wise up old chap.
:(

You make a very good point roy. I've often wondered why those who have the most to lose are always the ones who shout the loudest. ;)

It's kind of like a turkey looking forward to Christmas (except we won't be allowed to have Christmas any more before long in case it offends the other religions ;))

Originally posted by royjames
Just to mention that dico cat is gay yet he backs a religion which looks upon homosexuals as dirty and to be executed


As far as I'm aware I've never backed any religion, just objected to it's constant persecution and misrepresentation by neo-fascists.

which political system shall we chose to rid us of religion......communism stalin style?.......or fascism hitler style?

Benevolent Dictatorship, Phan Style.

Originally posted by depoix
good post,but isnt the last sentance saying that they take the law into their own hands by not ousting the terrorists?

I dont think they take thw law into their own hands, i feel that as a community and as 'brothers' they will try to influence the individuals directly rather than highlight him/her as dangerous to the police.

IMO i dont think they do this in a malicious way but so that they keep peace within the community.

Originally posted by royjames
Just to mention that dico cat is gay yet he backs a religion which looks upon homosexuals as dirty and to be executed,talk about the turkey voting for xmas.:loopy:
Just think what your fate will be if the Islamic state comes to pass,as one cleric said on panorama all gays should be thrown off the tower.
Wise up old chap.
:(

I never knew Islam and the BNP had so much in common... the BNP are opposed to homosexuality too.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
As far as I'm aware I've never backed any religion, just objected to it's constant persecution and misrepresentation by neo-fascists.

No, you come across as an apologist for Islamic extremists.

Originally posted by Patchy
I never knew Islam and the BNP had so much in common... the BNP are opposed to homosexuality too.


Difference is we dont plan to throw them off the tower ,we beleive in the traditional family, you know that increasing rare breed which is so maligned these days.
Try to keep it it context carcrash,we dont come anywhere near what the Islamists would like to do with gays.:loopy:

Originally posted by royjames
Difference is we dont plan to throw them off the tower ,we beleive in the traditional family, you know that increasing rare breed which is so maligned these days.
Try to keep it it context carcrash,we dont come anywhere near what the Islamists would like to do with gays.:loopy:

So what does your party "want to do with gays"? Invite them all to a big queer RWB festival?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So what does your party "want to do with gays"? Invite them all to a big queer RWB festival?


oooh WELL FANCY USEING LANGUAGE LIKE QUEERS ,I am suprised at you Phan.

It's OK roy, you can take the 5th and not answer the question

Originally posted by t020
No, you come across as an apologist for Islamic extremists.


Please could you give an example of me doing this.

Originally posted by royjames

Try to keep it it context carcrash,we dont come anywhere near what the Islamists would like to do with gays.:loopy:

No your sort stick to cowardly nail bomb attacks....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781097.stm


Since you are suddenly so interested in campaigning for gay right Roy, may I ask what you have done to oppose your parties involvement with this rather nasty little group,

www.christianvoice.org.uk

Who by their own emission state:

" Clearly, the presence of police in ‘gay pride’ parades is a mark of how deeply support for homosexual rights is now embedded in the British establishment. We shall continue to oppose homosexual rights. As our National Director said in our first press statement, standing up for righteousness is what we do. Calling sinners to repentance and to faith in Christ Jesus is what we do, as well."

Originally posted by Patchy
I never knew Islam and the BNP had so much in common... the BNP are opposed to homosexuality too.

Notice the connection. Al Quaida, BNP, KKK, Neo-Nazis all right wing ideologies. They all share quiet a bit in common, you would think they would get along. None want outside influence in their "culture", they all hate gays, they all think they are 100% correct and their is no areas of grey, and they all love to hate and use violence to get what they want.

If they all got together, it would work for them. Al Quaida want and end to western influence, and the BNP want all Brown people out, so their views are very compatible.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It's OK roy, you can take the 5th and not answer the question

Hi Phan its ok we dont plan to do anything to the gay community unlike disco cats friends who are going to kill them if given the chance.

Now to Disco Cat you know very well David copeland was NEVER a BNP member ,you ought to be careful what you put on here as you could be up for libel.
Now I cant help it if the people who you are quick to defend look on you as vermin you have to deal with that not me.
AGAIN you ought to wise up disco cat.;)
Oh and to the christian site you linked to ,so what,they are simply following the teachings of the bible in that what you do is wrong,simple aint it.:loopy:

Originally posted by royjames
Now to Disco Cat you know very well David copeland was NEVER a BNP member ,

"In May 1997, at the age of 21, he joined the British National Party, a far-right, anti-immigration party that fields candidates in Britain's local council elections. Copeland acted as a steward at some BNP meetings, in the course of which he came into contact with the BNP leadership and was photographed standing next to John Tyndall, then BNP party leader. It was during this period that Copeland first learned how to make bombs using fireworks with alarm clocks as timers after downloading a so-called terrorists' handbook from the Web."

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-copeland


"He joined the extremist BNP and became an activist. In 1997 he was photographed standing next to the party's founder John Tyndall."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781755.stm

Ok disco cat I stand corrected he was a member of the BNP according to your link,but that was BEFORE Nick Griffin became leader and the party was indeed more right wing back then.
He left within a year bacause he felt the party even then was too moderate for him,in that the BNP did not countanance violence.
You still dont get it though do you? you are backing the wrong side mate,you ought to look a little more long term and think of your fellow gay people,they will be among the first to feel the wrath of sharia law.
WISE UP.;)

Originally posted by royjames

Now to Disco Cat you know very well David copeland was NEVER a BNP member ,

I have admitted I was wrong,which is more than you ever have.

Originally posted by royjames
Hi Phan its ok we dont plan to do anything to the gay community unlike disco cats friends who are going to kill them if given the chance

So this
Originally posted by royjames
we dont come anywhere near what the Islamists would like to do with gays.:loopy:

was a slip of the keyboard then?


On a side note, why do so many BNP members look like genetic throwbacks?

Oh Phan you know full well what I meant in the context of BNP compared to Islam, twisting things does no good.
My party as I have said on numerous occasions is for traditional family values,is that so wrong?
Not to me it isnt anyway.

) Necer mind I see I wont convince you .

__________________

Originally posted by royjames

My party as I have said on numerous occasions is for traditional family values,is that so wrong?
Not to me it isnt anyway.

It is when it wants to achieve them by stripping away gay rights and persecuting the LGBT community. Tell me Roy how many openly gay members do you have in the BNP if it is indeed the saviour for the LGBT community I'd expect the number to be rather high, and also would you care to share with the forum the comments high profile members of your party such as Nick Griffin and Sarah Cain have made regarding LGBT people.

Originally posted by royjames
My party as I have said on numerous occasions is for traditional family values,is that so wrong?


If that is the case then is no reason why you would have a problem with gay people, we are not the reason that people don't get married or get divorced, we are also not the reason for all the pregnant teenagers or the number of single parents, do you agree ?

Tell me disco just what is this lgbt?I have to confess I have never heard of it.
But of course some members have strong views on gay issues in that we are just like the country at large we have those who dont mind them like me and those who do, its a broad church the BNP.
We are going off track here its supposed to be about the panorama programme,not about the BNP.

Originally posted by royjames

We are going off track here its supposed to be about the panorama programme,not about the BNP.

Well what a surprise the former leader of the BNP in Sheffield started a post poorly veiled around a Ponorama program but which had the clear jist of being about how bad Muslims are and how all Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender people need to vote for the BNP and somehow it got sidetracked away from discussing the original Panorama program.

Originally posted by royjames
its a broad church the BNP.


A 'church' led by a man who following one of his congregation carrying out a terrorist attack upon a gay pub, which murdered amongst others a women pregnant with her first child, said, "The TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/beliefs.stm

Excuse me I NEVER said you should vote for the BNP ,I said you are supporting the wrong people if your gay christian or jewish,tell you what you had better hope that we dont become a islamic country old chap or you gays are literally for the chop.

:hihi:

Mind you in one way I would love to see people like you trying to live your life under sharia law,shame we cant just whisk you off to saudi then you might have a little less sympathy for islam and all it entails.

So if you are so outraged by homophobia within the Muslim community why have you done nothing but support it within the BNP?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
So if you are so outraged by homophobia within the Muslim community why have you done nothing but support it within the BNP?

Show me where I have said anything like you say I have?
oh sorry I did make a comment when I was the worse for drink last week but that aside I have never said anything bad about gays.
I dont have a problem with the gay issue,you are the one making a big deal out of it not me.

So you can give examples of you challenging Nick Griffin on statements such as the one above, or what about Sarah Cain. Have you ever let her know how much you supposedly disagree?

Although your language towards gay users on this forum this not support your assertions.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
As far as I'm aware I've never backed any religion, just objected to it's constant persecution and misrepresentation by neo-fascists.

That's very magnanimous of you. Strangely, I don't see any Muslims rushing to defend gay rights in return.....

Ever get the feeling you've been had?

Dont quite understand your last comment?
As to my conversations with other party members they are private not for public consumption,but some do indeed know my stance on the gay issue.
Its no big secret as far as im concerned.

Originally posted by royjames
Dont quite understand your last comment?


Let me summarise it for you.

You do not care about gay rights in the slightest bit. All you care about is ways in which you can exploit situations to spread your racism. Proposing that gay men have a polarised choice between execution under Shaira law or choosing the pink triangle offered to them by the BNP is a totally false proposition.

It is a false proposition because the vast majority of humanity has the ability to tolerate difference and work side by side with other people despite differences in religion, ethnicity or sexuality.

I know this is very hard for you to understand as you isolate yourself within the BNP community where racism is the absolute norm and homophobia is espoused from the leader down to 14 year old members of the Youth BNP.

However If you would like an example of the fact that members from the LGBT and Muslim community, along with all other faith groups, can despite their difference stand together united then look at the organisations which oppose your vile racism and fascism.

Because within the anti-fascist movement their is total unity against you and your ideology of hate and division.

[b]
Mod. Note

OK, folks, this is getting off topic and out of hand.

Please get back on topic and lay off the mud slinging.

Consider this to be teh only warning that will be posted.

Thanks,

Joe
[b]