The ongoing furore over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad

Like any powerful storm, it shows no sign of abating! Yet more proof that the Islamic world and the West are totally incompatible.

This is a storm over cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten depicting the Prophet Muhammad. This is, after all, supposed to be the free and democratic West!

Arla Foods has been badly hit by the storm, since there is a total boycott of its products. Its sales in the Middle East have come to a standstill.

In the meantime, Jyllands-Posten has published an “Open letter to fellow Muslim citizens”, in the hope of stemming the rising anger. In addition, the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made an official statement concerning the publication of the cartoons, and the Ambassador of Denmark [to Saudi Arabia] confirms his country's respect to religions.

It is interesting to note Turkey's stance on the matter, especially in view of its hope to join the EU. This from Turkish Weekly.

A round-up of what some of the other newspapers have to say on the matter:

Arab News: Imams Back Call for Danish Boycott in Cartoons Row

Arab News: Arab FMs Slam Denmark Over Prophet Muhammad Cartoon

The BBC: Nordic firm hit by Arab boycott

The Times: Danish imams relent on Muhammad cartoons

The Times: Denmark faces international boycott over Muslim cartoons

The Telegraph: Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet

Die Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Entschuldigung aus Dänemark für Mohammed-Karikaturen

UN to Investigate Jyllands-Posten ‘Racism’

Bill Clinton in Qatar condemned “these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam”.

For those of you who want to have a taste of what all the fuss is about, click here to see one of the controversial cartoons of Muhammad.

©Mark Alexander

Fanaticism

This video shows why ISLAM and the WEST will NEVER mix!



With thanks and appreciation to You Tube.

Mark

BREAKING NEWS: Criteria for aid for Palestine set

The criteria for Palestinian aid have been set. This from the BBC.

Mark

Whatever happened to the gentle but effective art of propaganda?

When the Berlin Wall stood, when the Cold War was in full swing, when the USSR was our main concern and communism threatened to overrun the free world, one tool was used very effectively: propaganda disseminated by radio broadcast.

Why have we forgotten how effective this tool can be? Why aren't we broadcasting by radio and television in the Islamic world today, telling them how superior the free, democratic and 'Christian' West is? Why aren't we pumping them with the information we want them to come to know and learn about?

It would seem to me to be a good first step forward. It would cost no lives, and it could create doubt among the people of the verity of Islam, at least among those who are less than devout followers of the religion.

©Mark Alexander

Coverage of Hamas victory by the media

In an assessment of media coverage of Hamas' victory, Honest Reporting has this to say:

The landslide victory of the Hamas terror organization in the Palestinian Authority elections has tremendous ramifications not only for the Middle East peace process but for the global fight against terrorism. While it is our mission to portray and respond to media bias, it is also important to note when the media do an accurate job. Most of the media we monitor, including many news organizations which we have previously cited for anti-Israel bias, have so far been responsible in their coverage of the issue.

Read the rest here.

Mark

Some welcome tough talk coming from the heart of Europe for a change!

Angela Merkel, on her first visit to the Middle East since she became Chancellor, has said that it would not be possible for Europe to fund the Palestinian government if it didn't recognize Israel. "Such a Palestinian Authority cannot be directly supported by money from the EU," she said. Further, according to the NZZ, Hamas would have to renounce violence. Moreover, she added that Germany would never be able to come to terms with Hamas' denial of the Holocaust.

This from the BBC and this from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

©Mark Alexander

Surprise! Surprise!

Mahmoud Zahar, the leader of Hamas, has told the Sunday Telegraph that they will never recognize Israel.

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him and his followers that Israel feels exactly the same about his terrorist organization?

He then had the chutzpah to call on the world to recognize Hamas!

Fat chance, Mr Zahar! Fat chance! (Unless, of course, the loony left has its way.)

Read all about it here.

©Mark Alexander

Dieser Artikel von der NZZ für die Deutschen, die Österreicher die Schweizer, und die Deutsch-Sprechenden, die unsere Website besuchen:

Bushs Demokratie-Doktrin im Härtetest

Mark Alexander

Hamas Charter

With thanks and appreciation to Always On Watch for alerting me to this, and thanks and appreciation to Cuanas, too.

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times...

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kassam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after...

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...’

*Please note that the last paragraph is from the Qur'an, the holy book of the 'religion of peace'!

Doesn't Hamas' election win in Palestine make a mockery of President Bush's mission to bring democracy to the Islamic world?

As I have said many, many times before: Islam and democracy are immiscible. They're like oil and water!

When will our leaders learn this simple lesson? One can only wonder whether they will learn this lesson in time to save Western civilization!

Mark Alexander

A democratic world shocked by the democratic process!

HAMAS, an Arabic acronym for Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia, has, till now, been an Islamic resistance movement. It's an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, it was born as a new political power. It has won the Palestinian election. As a result of this election victory, we should all be very concerned.

This was certainly not the outcome hoped for by President Bush, since it calls into question the wisdom of trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Indeed, the President has shown his dismay, though naturally he has put a positive spin on the result, saying that this landslide win by the radical Islamist party reminded us of the "power of democracy"! Indeed, Mr President! Indeed, it does! He added that he and his administration would not deal with HAMAS unless it renounced violence and its commitment to the destruction of Israel.

"The United States does not support a political party that wants to destroy our ally Israel. People must renounce that part of their platform. A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal."

Democracy, as a political system, relies on well-educated voters, capeable of cool, rational thought, uninhibited by a religion which has as its ideal the implementation of Shariah, or quranic, law, and is not helped if, at its core, the government is blatantly anti-Semitic, or anti any other ethnic or religious group if it comes to that. A democratic government should strive to be tolerant and fair and inclusive. How tolerant, fair and inclusive can we expect this government to be?

This election result is certainly going to change dramatically the peace process which the President and other Western powers have worked so hard to put into place. How can the peace process have any meaning for a party which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

Furthermore, this result is going to embolden other Islamic militant groups in the region to push for the implementation of their agenda and, more importantly, to push to achieve power themselves. The budding democracies of the Middle East are beginning to look neither so attractive nor so democratic after all! We have set a train in motion which we are going to find difficult, nay impossible, to bring to a halt! In addition, we have the prospect of yet another extremist government in the region. Now, this one in Palestine can mimic the excesses of Ahmadinejad's régime in Tehran, and the one can add power to the elbow of the other. On top of all that, it has been stated recently that Iran and Syria are edging ever closer to each other, the one has vowed to help the other in the difficulties that lie ahead.

To add insult to injury, Iraq is a disaster area: that country will be taken down the Islamic route, too. Today's victory was yet another victory for Islamic fundamentalism! Things are closing in on the only true democratic act in town: Israel!

Without wishing to sound like a prophet of doom, World War III doesn't look quite so far off as we might at first have thought!

Should I perhaps suggest that you brace yourselves for a very rough road ahead?

Reaction from around the world (Source: The BBC)

©Mark Alexander

Reconciling Islam with Modernity Can Only Be a Vain Hope!
There are few voices of moderation in Islam, either here in the West or there in the East. One notable exception was Zaki Badawi, a moderate voice of Islam in Britain. Unfortuantely, there are all too few moderate voices in the Islamic world.

Zaki Badawi's obituary in The Times tell us a lot about this moderate man. The obituary in The Telegraph tells us that "the true teachings of the Koran were incompatible with terrorism."

Whilst there is no doubt that this man had good intentions, the evidence of history tells us a very different story about the Qur'an's compatibility with terrorism. Whilst the moderate, ever-ready-to-compromise British would love to believe that the teachings of the Qur'an are incompatible with terrorism, the fact remains that Islam has been spread largely by the sword of Islam, by acts of terrorism, and brutal ones at that. Wasn't it the Prophet Muhammad himself who set the precedent? Wasn't it he who told them to kill the non-believers, usually called infidels, or Kufar, in every strategem of war unless and until they submit to the will of Allah, or at least feel themselves subdued enough to pay the extortionate tax known as the jizyah, in return for protection?

The Times tells us that "few men have played such a crucial role in attempting to find a harmonious balance between the beliefs, culture and values of Islam and secular British society." That is probably very true. But the fact remains that in Islam and secularism, we have two 'religions' which are totally incompatible, totally irreconcilable, totally opposed. How can a "harmonious balance" be found when the one believes, ultimately, in the inviolable will and power of the people, and the other, ultimately in the inviolable will and power of Allah?

Further, The Times tells us that the Qur'an, according to Badawi, "emphasised that those who disturbed the peace of society and spread fear and disorder deserved the severest punishment that could be imposed." Really! Did he read the same Qur'an that I have read? According to Islam, the world is divided into two parts: Dar al Islam, or 'House of Peace' - that part of the world which has submitted to the will of Allah, that part of the world in which the people have accepted the Prophet Muhammad as Allah's final messenger, accepted him as ar rasul Ullah, the messenger of God; and Dar al Harb, or 'House of War' - that part of the world which has yet to submit to the will of Allah, that part of the world in which the people yet have to accept the Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah. The name, 'House of War', says it all! In the 'House of War' every stratagem is fair game in order to bring the people to accept Islam as their religion and Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah.

The Times also says that Zaki Badawi "believed passionately in interfaith dialogue". Now this is a noble concept. Unfortunately, it is not a realistic one. How can one have interfaith dialogue with adherents of a religion who are incapable of budging an inch (the Qur'an can never be changed), and who would be unwilling to do so anyway. The result of such a dialogue can mean one thing only: the Christians giving way and diluting their faith still further.

In Christianity and Islam, we have two religions with diametrically-opposed belief systems. For starters, Islam believes that Jesus was merely a prophet of Allah, or God (though calling Allah and God one and the same is a debate unto itself!). They deny absolutely that He was the Son of God, calling it a sin to associate a son to God. To believe that Jesus is the Son of God is absolutely essential if one wishes to be a Christian.

Moreover, to be a Christian means that one has to believe that Jesus was not only crucified, but that He was crucified to save us from our sins. He is the Christians' Saviour, their Redeemer. This is anathema to Muslims, for they deny that He was crucified at all, believing that someone else was crucified in His stead so as to save the penultimate 'prophet of Allah'!

These are just two basic incompatiblities. There are many more. But these two important ones highlight why interfaith dialogue would appear to be a totally and utterly fruitless exercise. Fact is: Islam believes passionately in its ultimate destiny of Islamizing the whole wide world. There is to be no peace until this is brought about. Fact!

In addition to all that, though, there is another problem. Zaki Badawi, according to The Times, called for an Islam which fitted comfortably with British values, so that younger generations, brought up and educated in this country [the UK], would find no conflict between their faith and their civic identity as British citizens."

Alas, there is bound to be conflict between being British and being a Muslim, since Islam calls for the laws of the Qur'an, as Shari'ah to take precedence over all laws in other countries. Muslim citizens of other countries are to follow the laws of the land only inasmuch as they do not conflict with Shariah law.

It is a sad fact of life that modernity and Islam are totally and utterly incompatible: they cannot be reconciled. To hope for such a reconciliation can only be a vain hope. Islam is essentially a belief system of a bygone age, a belief system based on mediaeval thought and values. It also encourages its adherents to revere their ancestors and follow them in their ways of dressing, follow them in their living habits. The emulation of the ways of the Prophet Muhammad is elevated almost into an art form! In short, it is a backward-looking faith. One glance at a photo of Osama bin Laden will highlight this point for you. Modernity, by contrast, is forward-looking. Whilst it might sometimes revere what has past, it certainly looks forward to changed times, to brighter times. Modernity likes to find new and exciting ways of living, new and exciting ways of dressing. It is vibrant. Islam, on the other hand, is moribund, stagnant, lifeless.

Moderate Muslims, however well-intentioned, however sound the character - and there is little doubt that Dr. Zaki Badawi was such a sound, moderate, well-intentioned character - can do little to alter the basic nature of Islam. And that's the rub! (No cryptic pun intended!)

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Jihad Watch Director, Robert Spencer, on Fox News

Robert Spencer, well-known to my visitors, is on TV today, on Fox News. He's interviewed by Tony Snow about the new bin Laden tape. The interview is extremely interesting and, as usual, Robert speaks clearly and authoritatively. It's an excellent interview.

Please click HERE to watch the interview. The video is shown here courtesy of Alex Porter of the INTELLIGENCE SUMMIT.

Mark

An important letter to the free world!

Courtesy of Ali Sina:

Dear Friend,

Madness has overtaken a portion of humanity and what they do is nothing short of insanity.

We are losing the fight against terrorism. That is because we are missing the target. We must reach to the world and let everyone know that terrorism is the symptom and the real problem is the ideology behind it.

We need your help. Please read the following short “Letter to Mankind” and if you agree please forward it to all the people in your address book and request them to do the same.

Send a copy to your newspaper and politician too. Everyone must hear this message.

Sincerely yours

Ali Sina

A LETTER TO MANKIND

Dear fellow human,

Today humanity is being challenged. Unthinkable atrocities take place on daily basis. There is an evil force at work that aims to destroy us. The agents of this evil respect nothing; not even the lives of children. Every day there are bombings, every day innocent people are targeted and murdered. It seems as if we are helpless. But we are not!

The ancient Chinese sage Sun Zi said, "Know your enemy and you won't be defeated". Do we know our enemy? If we don't, then we are doomed.

Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool; but the terrorists kill for an ideology. They call that ideology Islam.

The entire world, both Muslims and non-Muslims claim that the terrorists have hijacked "the religion of peace" and Islam does not condone violence.

Who is right? Do the terrorists understand Islam better, or do those who decry them? The answer to this question is the key to our victory, and failure to find that key will result in our loss and death will be upon us. The key is in the Quran and the history of Islam.

Those of us, who know Islam, know that the understanding of the terrorists of Islam is correct. They are doing nothing that their prophet did not do and did not encourage his followers to do. Murder, rape, assassination, beheading, massacre and sacrilege of the dead "to delight the hearts of the believers" were all practiced by Muhammad, were taught by him and were observed by Muslims throughout their history.

If truth has ever mattered, it matters most now! This is the time that we have to call a spade a spade. This is the time that we have to find the root of the problem and eradicate it. The root of Islamic terrorism is Islam. The proof of that is the Quran.

We are a group of ex-Muslims who have seen the face of the evil and have risen to warn the world. No matter how painful the truth may be, only truth can set us free. Why this much denial? Why so much obstinacy? How many more innocent lives should be lost before YOU open your eyes? A nuclear disaster is upon us. This will happen. It is not a question of "if" but "when". Oblivious of that, the world is digging its head deeper in the sand.

We urge the Muslims to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into "us" vs. "them" and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.

We also urge the non-Muslims to stop being politically correct lest they hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! Let us save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.

Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Do something! Send this message to everyone in your address book and ask them to do the same. Defeat Islam and stop terrorism. This is your world, save it.

The ex-Muslim Movement

FaithFreedom.org

Mark

How successful have we really been in Iraq?

The following from The Telegraph today:

Iraqis put Shia alliance in the driving seat

And then there's the editorial:

Democracy in Iraq doesn’t mean unity

It's enough to make anyone think, isn't it?

©Mark Alexander

Chirac finds his backbone: He's started to use the 'N' word!

My apologies to my visitors who cannot read German, but the following is so good that I should like to bring it to the attention of my German-speaking visitors...

Today in the prestigious Swiss, German-language newspaper Die Neue Zürcher Zeitung, this fine editorial about Chirac's latest tough talking, entitled:

Chirac spricht plötzlich Klartext

Kurz nach dem Scheitern der Verhandlungen mit Iran ergreift Präsident Chirac die Chance, Klartext zu sprechen. Die Drohung, gegen Terrorstaaten notfalls auch «andere Mittel» einzusetzen, rückt ins Bewusstsein, dass der Krieg gegen den Terrorismus sich nicht auf polizeiliche Massnahmen und Grenzkontrollen, auf Abhöraktionen, klandestine Treffen und kulturelle Dialoge beschränken kann. Es bedarf eines französischen Präsidenten, in Erinnerung zu rufen, dass Nuklearwaffen existieren, dass es so etwas wie Abschreckung gibt und dass zur Wirkung dieser Abschreckung Erwägungen über die Möglichkeit eines Einsatzes dieser Waffen gehören. Hätte ein Präsident Bush die gleiche Rede gehalten - man wagt kaum daran zu denken, was dann passieren würde. Chirac hat seinem Land und Europa damit sicher einen Dienst erwiesen.

Hier weiter lesen!

This is a loose and quick translation for those who do not speak German (as requested by JudahQ):

Chirac suddenly does some plain speaking.

Shortly after the failure of negotiations with Iran, President Chirac has seized the opportunity to speak clearly. His threat to use "other means" in an emergency makes one aware that the war against terrorism cannot be limited to police measures, control of the borders, tapping phone calls, clandestine meetings, and cultural dialogue.

It has taken a French president to remind us that nuclear weapons exist, that they can be used as a deterrent, and inasmuch as deterrents exist, the consequences of using them need to be considered.

If President Bush had given the same speech, one dare not think of what the consequences would be.

With this speech, Chirac has done a service to France and to Europe.

Mark

New Bin Laden tape

To read the full story from the BBC, click HERE. To read the actual transcript of the tape, click HERE.

But the Daily Telegraph asks the question: Is defiant tape a sign of weakness?

Quote of the day:

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business." (Source: The BBC)

For our French-speaking visitors:

Ben Laden : des opérations sont en cours aux Etats-Unis

For our German-speaking visitors:

Bin Laden droht mit neuen Anschlägen gegen USA

For our Italian-speaking visitors:

Bin Laden: «Nuovi attentati negli Usa»

Mark

What the world needs now!

According to the song, it’s love. Alas, that song was written for different times.

Of course, the world can always use a heaping dose of love; but what the western world needs more than love right now is a strong leader – a leader with vision and courage and fortitude. One who has a clear vision of where the West needs to be taken.

Leaders like Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher come immediately to mind. They were all great in their own way. Churchill saved Britain and helped save the world from Nazi tyranny. Reagan saw off communism and brought the Berlin Wall down. Thatcher saved Britain from socialism, and played a very significant part in defeating communism along with Reagan, her great ally. These were no mean achievements!

These leaders knew exactly what they wanted to achieve: they had clear vision, and saw nothing but the big picture. Nor did they allow themselves to be led by the opinion polls. Indeed, Thatcher is quoted as having said: I didn’t come into politics to be popular. I came into politics to do the right thing. She wouldn’t allow herself to be side-tracked by what others thought of her policies; rather, she simply forged ahead with what she knew would be right for the country. She entered politics to put the 'great’ back into ‘Great Britain’, and put the ‘great’ back into 'Great Britain' she did! Churchill was in politics to win the war, and win the war he did! (Along with the aid of the USA, of course.) Reagan wanted to defeat communism, and defeat communism he did! (Along with the aid of the UK, of course.)

What we have today is something quite different from these three great people. For example, in Britain today, we have a leader – Blair – who busies himself with the small things of politics. He lacks clear vision, and seems to be unable to see the big picture.

Whereas Margaret Thatcher spent her time freeing up the people, Tony Blair has spent his time in office taking their freedoms away! No longer can one smack one’s children when a smack is needed, no longer can one go fox-hunting, and soon the British will see their freedom of speech curtailed, and their right to smoke in any public place. Are these the kinds of policies which make the leader great? This is what is generally called: Fiddling while Rome burns!

President Bush in the US also has his shortcomings. He is a likeable sort of fellow, I know; but, as the leader of the free world, he needs to define the threat to the free world more clearly. He needs to identify what the real enemy is. The real enemy is, as all good thinking people know, Islam.

No, Mr President! Osama bin Laden, contrary to popular myth, has not bastardized the religion of Islam at all. What Osama espouses is Islam – the real thing! So our real enemy is not some vague threat of terrorism, but the jihad. The jihad is, of course, a form of terrorism. It is, was, and always will be. But let’s be certain that it is a manifestation of Islam on the move, of Islam now empowered with petrodollars and, as Muslims the world over are bound to perceive, of an increasingly weakened West! A West that knows not whither!

Wars can be fought on the offensive or on the defensive. But wars are won only when waged on the offensive; they are generally lost when waged on the defensive. Offence is always the best defence. As I see it, Mr President, you are fighting this war on the defensive.

Yes, it is true that you have been successful in keeping the American people safe from further attack. But Churchill would not have been anything like as successful as he was if all he had done was to save the British from the Luftwaffe and its Blitzkrieg! He needed to go on the attack. He had to thwart the enemy’s ambitions at every turn. And he had to turn the enemy back.

Further, it has to be said that Reagan, Churchill, and Thatcher all had one thing in common: they were all good orators. They could stir the people to action by giving stirring speeches. They could lead from the front. They made people listen to them. They insisted on getting their way. It was their way or no way!

But more than this: This isn’t a time for petty politics. School programs, tinkering with taxes, passing petty legislation – these are all things to be concentrated on in less difficult times. Now we have an implacable enemy before us. The enemy needs to be dealt with. It needs to be defeated. Economically, politically, militarily – whichever way is best!

And nor is the enemy just Islamic terrorism in the form of the jihad, either. We have Islam spreading peacefully here at home in the West. Daily, now, we can read stories of mosques springing up, of Islamic schools being built, and of businesses being taken over by Middle Eastern money. This needs to be stopped, and at whatever cost to the nation, at whatever cost to the free world! What price freedom? If we allow this nonsense to continue, and to continue at this rate, then we will be left with a West we will no longer be able to recognize! It will have been so Islamized that it will not be any longer the West as we know the West to be.

When are our leaders going to do something meaningful about these developments? When is someone going to have the courage to stand up and say what the West stands for, what underpins western values, what matters to us?

But one more thing needs to be mentioned: We need to cut the oleaginous umbilical cord that keeps us tied to the Islamic world. This should be a matter of the highest priority.

We all know what one of the main problems here is: It’s the power of the oil companies. Well do something about that power! Have the courage to take that oriental carpet away from under the oil companies’ feet, just as Thatcher had the courage to take the carpet away from under the feet of the unions!

The unions once wielded the power in the United Kingdom. The question on everybody’s lips was: Who runs the country? But Thatcher took them on in an almighty fight. She showed them who ran the country! It was an experience they never forgot! God, it took some stamina on her part! But by God, she won!

If we continue to allow the oil companies to run the West like this, we will soon have no western civilization to speak of: It will have been given away to the oil rich Arabs, given away for them to Islamize it! For they are Muslims all!

This is our only hope of winning this war of civilizations; and make no mistake about it: A war of civilizations it truly is!

We must regain our independence of the oil-rich Arabs, we must take back control of our own destiny, we must defeat this creeping Islamization, we must be triumphant. For without triumph, the West will be no more! To achieve this, we have to use our technology to our advantage, we have to free ourselves of the increasing power of Islam in the West. We must remain FREE and WHOLE!

These are some of the things that the world needs now!

©Mark Alexander

Be careful of Islam! It will take over by stealth!

Islam is an insidious religion. It is inclined to take power oh so quietly, oh so surely, oh so gradually, so quietly, gradually and surely that ordinary folk are often unaware of what is happening. In short, it pushes out the boundaries here and the boundaries there, demanding this concession and that one, until, unbeknownst to you and me, it has entrapped us, its enemy! And make no mistake about it, we are its enemy, for we are non-believers, infidel, kufar, the unworthy, the unclean, those who have submitted neither to Allah’s injunctions nor his messenger’s.

You see: Muslims belong to Dar ul Islam, or the House of Peace. We belong to Dar ul Harb, or the House of War. To a Muslim, we infidels are fair game!

It is troubling indeed that those leading us know so little about Islam, and understand still less about it. In fairness, to the mind of a Westerner, the religion can be enigmatic and therefore difficult to comprehend, since it goes against all we stand for: tolerance, fairness to all, inclusiveness, openness, compassion, understanding. Islam is neither tolerant nor fair nor inclusive nor open nor compassionate nor understanding.

Indeed, Islam is the converse of all these: It is intolerant of non-believers, unfair to them, exclusive and closed in its approach (try entering their world as an infidel!), not compassionate to people who do not submit to the will of Allah, and not understanding of anything other than the Islamic way of life.

Yet these people demand all of these qualities from us. They demand concession after concession to their eccentric way of life. And Westerners usually give in, bringing us all further down the road to dhimmitude, further down the road to a life under Islam which will be for us, nothing other than second class life, a life of servitude!

I was alerted yesterday by Always On Watch (whose weblog, incidentally is excellent, and well worth visiting) to a very disturbing article in The Scotsman, written by Hilary Duncanson, entitled Islamic group urges Catholic school to move to Muslim faith about a Roman Catholic primary school in Glasgow.

AN ISLAMIC campaign group has called for a Catholic primary school to be based on the Muslim faith.

The Campaign for Muslim Schools said 90 per cent of pupils at St Albert's Primary, in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow, are Muslim, yet children are having to take part in Catholic rituals like saying the Lord's Prayer and attending mass.

Osama Saeed, co-ordinator of the alliance of Glasgow's main mosques and Muslim organisations, said he could see no reason why the main faith of the school should not change.

He said: "Clearly the parents of that area find a faith school, even if it is of another denomination, preferable to a secular one. But surely it should be possible for them to have one that is relevant to their own faith.

"To move towards this would be a fantastic example of good faith - in more ways than one - on the part of the Church."
The call came just days after Scotland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, sparked controversy by stating that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country". A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland was not available for comment tonight.

This is the sort of thing I mean. Muslims will push out the boundaries all the time. Always pushing, pushing, pushing, fighting, fighting, fighting, struggling, struggling, struggling in the cause of Allah and his messenger.

Haven’t you noticed one thing, though? How little these people give away. In fact, they give nothing away: They make no concessions to us at all, anywhere or anytime. Why don't Muslims make concessions to us? That would be a fantastic example of good faith. We could start by building a few churches and Christian schools in Saudi Arabia. And we could throw in a few Christian propagation centres for good measure! Now that would be a fantastic example of good will! But they won't make any such concessions, since doing so is proscribed by their religion.

Western politicians and businessmen, in their haste to obtain oil at reasonable prices (whatever they are), and in their haste to make a fast buck wherever they can, have traditionally paid little heed – indeed, one could legitimately say no heed – to the state of health of our civilization. And now cancer has already set in, and the West is beginning to look decidedly cachectic as a result!

Reciprocity – that’s the principle we should have been operating on! That means to say, on a principle of give and take. You can come to my country and build a mosque if we can come to yours and build a church. You can come to our country and build an Islamic school if we can come to yours and build a Christian one. But no, operating on such a principle would have jeopardized our leaders' chances of obtaining oil on the cheap and making a fast buck on the quick!

This story in The Scotsman shows just how brazen these people have become! If the Scots give in to this request, then they deserve all they’ve got coming to them. It is to be hoped that the Scots will show some spunk here; it is to be hoped that the Scots will tell them a firm NO!

If we don’t start stiffening our resolve to stop the onward advance of Islam here in the West, then we have a bleak future ahead of us. We will be well on the road to serfdom, well on the road to dhimmitude. Indeed. Many would assert that we are already on that road!

One thing is for sure: As things stand, the future looks bloody, the future looks blood red, and the future looks Islamic, the future looks Islamic green.

It would seem that the clash of civilizations of which Huntingdon wrote is well under way now. Why? Because we have allowed this thing to get out of hand. We have allowed too many Muslims into the West, seemingly ignorant of the fact that they are people who do not assimilate into the culture of the host country. Ever! It is not in their nature to assimilate; rather, it is their nature to snuff out the culture of the host country only to supplant it with a more backward culture: Islamic culture. And why is it backward? Because it's a culture which doesn't tolerate diversity, doesn't tolerate the equality of women (Prophet Muhammad said that women are inferior to men!), doesn't tolerate gays (indeed, it's a culture which is profoundly homophobic!), doesn't tolerate adultery (adultresses are stoned to death!), doesn't tolerate people enjoying a drink of alcohol, doesn't tolerate freedom of speech or freedom of worship, and doesn't tolerate the eating of pork. And it doesn't tolerate much else besides. Moreover, it prescribes everything, and proscribes everything else! Furthermore, punishment in Islamic nations does not fit the crime. That, in itself, is backward!

Cardinal Keith O'Brien deserves our respect for having the courage to say what should have been said long ago when he said that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country".

This is the way to do it. Bravo, Cardinal Keith O’Brien! Bravo!

©Mark Alexander

Fulla: A cool kinda gal for a kinda hot Middle East!

So Barbie's been given the go-by! Middle Easterners now favour the more decent and certainly far less raunchy gal called Fulla! Fulla's the coverup gal for the little girls of the Islamic world. Playing with Fulla will catch 'em while they're still young. It's much easier to indoctrinate the young than it is the old. It's also much easier to make girls grow up to know their place in society that way. Fulla will always be dressed traditionally. She will wear the abayah, or sometimes when she is feeling more daring, just the headscarf! She will never reveal an arm or a leg; so definitely no sunbathing for her! At the moment, she even comes with her own pink prayer rug. Pink!

Fulla is to be honest and loving and caring, and she is to respect her father and her mother. Wow! Doesn't that sound rather more Christian to you?

Anyway, they want to start making good little submissive Muslimahs while they're still young enough to be malleable. It's much easier to knock them into shape when they're very young than to end up with a child that has been used to playing with the raunchy Barbie, and then try and teach her that Barbie characterizes the wicked ways of the West. After all: No good Muslimah would want to end up looking like her, and nor would she like to behave like her either. Isn't Barbie the cheap little tart with a boyfriend called Ken?

By the way: There are no plans for Fulla to have a boyfriend!

Read all about it, and take a look at the raunchy Fulla HERE.

©Mark Alexander

The mad mullahs of Tehran and the even madder president!

The Times today asks the question whether the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world. Why ask such a question? The man clearly is!

The article goes on to say that it is ”thin reassurance for the West that Iranian clerics are the bulwark against Ahmadinejad’s excesses.” Too right!

Islam is a religion like no other, and for many reasons. One reason is that it is rare in any religion for ‘clerics’ to call for people to take up arms against others. Indeed, religion, as we understand religion to be, should be the very opposite of this: Religion should call for people to love one another, to tolerate one another’s frailties and weaknesses, to bring compassion into the world, something which is sadly lacking, and it should be merciful. In short, religion should bring harmony where there is discord, love where there is hatred.

Not so Islam!

The religious leaders in Islam preach unadulterated hatred of the infidel, or kafir, and even greater hatred of the Jew. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that, in general, Muslims are the greatest anti-Semites of all.

Only recently, Ahmadinejad, someone with ideas on the Jews similar to the vast majority of Muslims, has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. He has also said that he hopes that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would die quickly. (Are we, perhaps, to be relieved that he hasn’t wished the poor man a lingering death?) Ahmadinejad has also said that the Holocaust was a myth! The President of Iran is also determined that Iran should keep its nuclear research.

And this is what they call a religion!

Can you imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of England, or perhaps a bishop of a diocese calling for uranium to be enriched? Can you imagine such a person denying that the Holocaust took place? Can you imagine such a person calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the face of the map? Can you imagine such a person saying that he hopes that Ariel Sharon will die quickly? Or can you imagine a priest saying that he thought that Hitler had been sent to this earth to annihilate the Jews, as Abu Hamza al Masri has said?

It would be unthinkable, wouldn’t it?

Further, imagine what the reaction of the congregation would be if such utterances were made! There would be shock and horror and consternation and indignation, and open hostility to the cleric. Not so in the mosque, however. Such utterances are often met with joy and glee!

To listen to some blood-curdling speeches in mosques, click HERE! After listening to these, you should be left in no doubt at all.

Reading about the proceedings in The Old Bailey on the Abu Hamza case, and reading the utterances of our leaders, one must come to the conclusion that many of our lawyers and seemingly all of our politicians believe that Islam can be tamed, tamed to fit in with our liberal, tolerant, pluralistic ideas.

Alas, I have news for them! Islam is neither liberal nor tolerant nor pluralistic; on the contrary, it is illiberal and intolerant and given to ethnic cleansing! (Even Prophet Muhammad wanted the Arabian Peninsula cleansed of infidels!) This is the Islamic motto: You embrace Islam, or else at worst you will be killed or punished, and at best you will live a second class existence as a dhimmi, paying higher taxes and denied the enjoyment of the privileges that life has to offer!

The fact is that the mullahs are indeed mad, sometimes even rabid! President Ahmadinejad is even madder and more rabid still! But we will be mad, too, if we don’t wake up to the reality which is staring us in the face!

How many innocent people are going to have to die before we all come to realize this one fact: Islam cannot be tamed. It has never been tamed in 1400 years. Islam cannot be tamed because of its very nature. Islam must be defeated, vanquished, subdued. This is our only hope if we wish to continue as a civilization.

©Mark Alexander

More on the prosecution of Abu Hamza

The Times has reported on the trial at The Old Bailey in London of Abu Hamza al Masri.

The article, entitled 'Hate-filled bigot encouraged followers to kill non-Muslims', written by Sean O'Neill, starts with the prosecution stating that Hamza, the radical imam, has twisted Islam to produce a creed of violence and intolerance.

This is further evidence, if indeed evidence were needed, that Westerners, even at their most educated, cannot get to grips with the fact that Islam is a creed of violence and intolerance!

You'd think that people would start getting it by now. God knows there is enough evidence out there to show us all that this is so. But no, Westerners are determined to stay in a state of denial.

For as long as this state continues, we are actually fighting this war on two fronts: The front of jihad and the front of our own ignorance!

If only these people would take the trouble to read at least some of the Qur'an.

©Mark Alexander

Abu Hamza fools the prosecutor

Abu Hamza al-Masri told his followers it was their religious duty to kill non-Muslims. Should the prosecutor at the Old Bailey have been surprised?

The prosecutor said:

No religion condones the murder or killing of innocent men, women or children or the dissemination of hatred and bigotry...The prosecution's case in a sentence is that the defendant, Sheik Abu Hamza, was preaching murder and hatred in these talks. You will hear the tapes and we will hear that the defendant, Sheik Abu Hamza, encouraged his listeners, whether they were an audience at a private meeting or a congregation at the mosque, to believe that it was part of a religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, God, and as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill.

This was not a trial against Islam, said the prosecutor, and added that it wasn't a trial against its holy book, the Koran, either; he said the case had been brought because of what the defendant said.

What the prosecution say is that it is quite clear that no religion condones the murder or killing of innocent men, women or children or the dissemination of hatred and bigotry. Mr Perry told jurors that in his position Mr Abu Hamza should have been preaching tolerance and mutual co-existence but in fact he preached intolerance, bigotry and hatred. In the course of one lecture he accused the Jews of being blasphemous, traitors and dirty. This, because of the treachery, because of their blasphemy and filth, was why Hitler was sent into the world, Mr Perry said. Mr Abu Hamza had also said Jews controlled the West and should be removed from the earth, Mr Perry said.

This aspect of his teaching also represents the offences of inciting racial hatred, he added. (Source: BBC)

Mr Perry! Are we to assume from this that you do not consider Islam to be a religion? Or are you, as I suspect, making the same mistake that so many other Westerners make - the mistake that people like Abu Hamza are distorting the real message of Islam?

Mr Perry! I've got something to tell you! Welcome to the world of Islam!

©Mark Alexander

My apologies

I am sorry that the Christmas decorations are still up on Librabunda.com. I am experiencing a software incompatibility at the moment; so I am still unable to update the website. Rest assured that it will be updated as soon as possible.

Mark

This phony war

What a funny kind of war this is! We are told we’re engaged in a ‘war on terror’; indeed, the whole of the West is supposed to be engaged in this war. But we’re all engaged in a war which has never been properly defined. That’s why it’s a vague war, with vague objectives. Has a war ever been so fought in history, fought with such ill-defined objectives?

Let’s take the first rule of engagement in any war: defining the enemy precisely. We haven't done this, so can we really expect to win this war?

The West is truly in denial! In denial over who our enemy is, in denial over our enemy’s true nature, in denial over our enemy’s objectives, in denial over our enemy’s history of aggression and expansion, in denial over our enemy’s ultimate goal: to Islamize the world.

Oh dear! I have already committed a grave error! I forgot. We are not supposed to say that Islam is the enemy, are we? Osama bin Laden has distorted the true loving nature of Islam, hasn’t he? Or so the official line goes. Bush and Blair, among others, tell us that Islam is a ‘religion of love’, Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. After all, Bush and Blair should know better than Osama bin Laden what Islam is all about, shouldn’t they? They are infidels, and infidels know Islam better!

The fact is that Islam is not, and never has been a religion of love or peace. If there's any love in Islam, then it's only for other believers. There's certainly no love for the infidel. Our leaders should therefore stop spreading misinformation about Islam’s true nature. There is enough ignorance out there about the true nature of Islam; indeed, people are woefully ignorant on this most important of subjects. It helps not one jot to confuse them even more.

If our leaders, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, find themselves unable to utter the truth, then they should say nothing at all. If political correctness is the problem, then they should ignore it.

In fact, it is hard to conceive how they expect to win this war. The top brass are making money hand over fist from the Middle East, so nobody wishes to upset the sensibilities of the Middle Eastern potentates. Let’s be realistic here for a moment. It isn’t so much because our leaders are so terribly polite that they don't wish to upset sensibilities. It’s really more because too many people at the top are making a killing from oil and gas and armaments. Contracts and deals are signed for billions and billions of dollars all the time. Who wants to give up these lucrative deals to save the West? If Islam starts getting too strong here, they, after all, won’t be around to face the music. They’ll be out of it all, basking in the sun somewhere and living the life of Riley.

It will be people like you and me who will have to face the consequences, for it will be people like you and me who will have to alter our lives significantly to fit in with the strictures of Islam. The super rich have always been able to buy their privacy, and shield themselves from the unpleasantness of life.

Surely this is the true reason why nobody is prepared to define this war properly. This is the true reason why we are seeing the West lose the moral high ground. We cannot take the moral high ground, after all, when we are prostituting ourselves to the world of Islam like this.

Do you really think that Muslims cannot see what’s going on? Do you really think that OBL cannot see this, too? Believe me, he can. Moreover, he sees this as part of the weakness of the West. He sees this as the West's Achilles heel. He also knows that Westerners cannot or will not do without anything. He knows that Westerners want all their comforts. This, he feels, puts the Islamic world in a strong position – in a strong position to dictate the terms, in a strong position to push for the growth of Islam here. He knows that no Western politician is going to have the courage to put a stop to this process. He realizes full well that Westerners want the oil and the gas and the aerospace contracts, and then some: they want the inward investment that oil-rich Arabs can provide. That’s one reason why we see companies being bought out, and mosques, schools, and propagation centres being built. Building these, after all is said and done, provide good business for the construction companies.

Imagine if the same tack had been taken by Churchill during World War II! Do you really think we’d have won the war against Nazism?

Churchill knew what it meant to wage war, and he knew what it took to win one. He knew that the enemy had to be clearly defined, and he also knew that war had to be total or it shouldn’t be waged at all. None of this half-hearted nonsense for him! He knew that waging war involved sacrifice, sacrifice on the part of all, and sacrifice until victory was achieved.

What are Westerners sacrificing in the name of ultimate victory in this war? Absolutely nothing! Life goes on just as normal for all, except, perhaps, for the inconveniences of queues and searches at airports.

Take the recent phone-tapping ‘scandal’ in the States! Nobody wants his phone to be tapped, of course; but this sort of thing went on all the time during the Second World War. Many rights had to be temporarily suspended or relinquished in the name of ultimate victory over the foe. The media was controlled, too. The BBC, for example, was not allowed to tell the public all. Information was censored. People today, however, are unwilling to make any of these sacrifices. This is why it is questionable whether this strategy can ever lead to ultimate victory.

Sad though it is to have to say it, but we have gone badly wrong in this war. And this is why this war has something phony, something surreal about it. People seem unconvinced of the need for the war, because the nature of the enemy hasn’t been explained to them, and they haven’t been shown what life will be like for us all if we do not succeed. Moreover, sacrifices haven’t been demanded of the people. But then how could all this have been done when our leaders are acting as apologists for our enemy?

The way we are waging this war, it will go on forever and a day. We shall have to be eternally vigilant, vigilant of the forces out there wishing to destroy our free way of life. And what about the cost of this eternal vigilance?

I would suggest that we get back to the drawing board and start re-defining this war. We need to identify the enemy, start understanding the enemy’s motives, and thwarting the enemy’s every move to destroy us and bring Islam to the West.

The world has been here before, you know. This scenario is nothing new. The way it manifests itself might be new, because the world we live in is now high-tech and geographically far less limited. But Islam remains the same as it ever was: proselytizing, expansive, and determined to dominate, determined to rule the world. It will never change. So we had better start learning lessons from history. He who ignores the lessons of history is destined to repeat the same mistakes. He also makes himself very vulnerable.

The fact of the matter is this: the West is Islam’s prey. It always has been, and always will be. That’s why we need to start waging a real ‘war’ against our enemy: a 'war' against the growth of Islam in the West. For with the unrelenting growth of Islam here, the nature of the West will change dramatically in the years to come. No phony war will not put a stop to this! War, to be effective, has to be real, or it shouldn’t be waged at all.

©Mark Alexander

What would Churchill have made of the threat of Islam?

This article by Ben Macintyre published in The Times last summer is worth reading again.

Politicians today display a cowardly approach to the problem posed by Islam. Churchill would certainly have not.

How do you think Winny would have reacted?

Mark Alexander

"Gays are immoral"

So says the UK's top Muslim, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the recently-knighted head of the Muslim Council of Britain. "Homosexuality is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging society", he says.

So much for the BBC's assertion that Islam is compatible with a modern democracy!

Many people have problems with homosexuality, not only Muslims; but most people today, even if they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and civil partnerships for them, do not deny the right of gays to exist and their right to lead their lives as they see fit. Muslims, by contrast, with their mediaeval ideas do not. Many a Muslim would have them killed.

It was predictable that I found no reference to this outpouring on the BBC website. Is this part of their whitewashing of Islam, too? Or are they scratching their heads there trying to think up a creative way of reporting this backward opinion.

This will not be the first time for me to assert that Islam is totally and utterly incompatible with a modern liberal democracy; indeed, I have asserted this many, many times, and I shall go on asserting it, since it is totally and utterly incompatible with our system. Churchill also asserted it.

Sir Iqbal says that homosexuality "is not acceptable". Perhaps, in that case, he might think of relocating to a more mediaeval culture where such people are not tolerated, and perhaps even killed.

The funny thing about Islam's great problem with homosexuality is this: There are many gays in Saudi Arabia in particular, and in the Gulf in general! In fact, when I worked there, I found it to be a ubiqitous 'deviance'! A deviance that many a Muslim turned a blind eye to, I was told on good authority. The only crime there, I was informed, was to get caught in flagrante delicto! Separating men when at their friskiest from attractive women is nothing if not a recipe for the promotion of homosexuality!

More evidence, perhaps, that Islam breeds hypocrisy. The reason for this is simple: If a religion places so many burdens on its followers and metes out such harsh punishments for not observing the rules, people are left with no choice but to break the rules, but pretend that they are living by them. This, in most people's book, is known as hypocrisy!

Now that we have heard the honest thoughts of a high-up British Muslim pontificating on the evils of homosexuality, how long will it be before we hear such a person speaking against the rôle of women in Western society, and unmarried mothers and other 'deviants' in our evil Western societies?

Be sure of one thing: This is just the beginning! Brace yourselves for more backward thoughts from backward Muslims.

©Mark Alexander

Churchill's incisive take on Islam:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." Source: WinstonChurchill.og

Mark Alexander

Should this be the rôle of public-service broadcasting? Or this?

The BBC has been doing its thing again! It's been whitewashing Islam! Par for the course, you might say. Yes, but isn't it nauseating to observe its use of taxpayers' money for the propagation of Islam?

It certainly doesn't use tax pounds to propagate Christianity, or, for that matter, any other religion. But it finds it absolutely necessary to use tax pounds to whitewash the fastest-growing religion in the West today: Islam. It also finds it necessary not only to whitewash it, but to help it to grow here in the West.

Were the BBC to be fair and balanced about it, were it to point out the positive and negative aspects of Islam, then it might be more palatable. But it doesn't: It always casts Islam in a positive light. The negative aspects of the religion are ignored. This is why this exercise comes over to me, and probably many other people, as an exercise in propaganda!

I understand that there is probably a noble objective underlying their strategy: Presumably, they wish to inform the public of the positive aspects of a religion which has taken a bashing since 9/11 in order to foster social harmony. A lofty ideal to be sure. In doing this, though, they have become its defender; further, they are actually numbing the public of the dangers which are inherent in this religion, particularly the danger of world domination, which, after all, is a stated goal of all good Muslims.

They also ignore history in propagating this faith. Each and every country in which Islam has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually come to dominate and take over. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril!

The BBC is essentially a very liberal organization: It fosters equality of opportunity for women, gays, and other minority groups. But were Islam to become dominant in the United Kingdom, there would be no such equal opportunities. Islam abhors the gay lifestyle, and can hardly be thought of as a religion which fosters equality of opportunity for women. Indeed, were Islam ever to become that strong in the UK, then women would be forced back into the home!

So surely there's an irreconcilable conflict here. This is one circle which cannot be squared!

If the BBC thinks that, in the long-run, it is going to be strong enough to stand up to the might of Islam and maintain equal opportunities for these groups, then it is making a grave error of judgment. Do they really think that such appeasement will dumb down the aspirations of Muslims to turn the West into an extension of the Middle East, with all its backwardness, all its pro-Arab supremacy, pro-male domination, anti-Semitism, and anti-infidel stance.

Where does the BBC really stand on honour killings, on the beheadings of criminals in public squares, on amputations for theft, on the lapidation of women for adultery, on the prohibition of the Bible and all other sacred texts in countries such as Saudi Arabia, and on the ethnic cleansing of the Arabian Peninsula?

Given the BBC's reticence to cast aspersions on these barbaric practises, are we to assume that they give their consent to them?

©Mark Alexander