Talk about Newsnight

Latest programme

Wednesday, 20 September, 2006

  • Newsnight
  • 20 Sep 06, 05:53 PM

abu_izzadeen_203.jpgAbu Izzadeen turns up at John Reid’s meeting in an East End Muslim community centre; the accusations that oil company Exxon funds groups who argue that global warming is not caused by human activity; and Sue Lloyd-Roberts returns to Romania after 16 years.

Comment on Wednesday’s programme here.

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 06:24 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Dan Parry wrote:

Very much hoping that tonight's show can help with the following question. When Islamic militants, and their supporters, urge 'Muslims around the world' to kill the infidel, why is that members of Britain's moderate Muslim community have not yet publicly stood up, delcared their commitment to a peaceful religion and simpy said no?

  • 2.
  • At 07:17 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • chris wrote:

If the Government didnt want Abu Izzadeen and his ilk mouthing off during a speech it wouldnt happen.

Izzadeen was used to prove Reids point.

  • 3.
  • At 07:31 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • said wrote:

I honestly believe that these gentlmen should be sent to arab countries where sharia is the law.How much freedom of expression would they have to air their views in say Saudi Arabia,Syria then how about Jordan? But because they live in a democratic country they can say all that they are saying.Isn't it time for these grown up men to wake up from their make-believe world?

  • 4.
  • At 08:46 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Gordon Pye wrote:

If The Royal Society is squealing about Exxon funding organisations which question man's contribution to climate change, perhaps mainstream climate science is becoming a new age religion not based on science at all. The Royal Society squealing about alternative climate science is reminiscent of Muslim fundamentalists squealing about the Pope's comments on Islam

People should be aware of what Abu Izzadeen said about the 7/7 bombers

Why is this man not in prison?

  • 6.
  • At 10:14 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

John Reid is missing the point as usual. Young muslims are angry at perceived war crimes committed by Bush, Blair and Israel.

  • 7.
  • At 10:42 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • David Green wrote:

Are we going to ask the question whether this was a setup with Izaudeen working with Dr Reid to fulfil his message. Ask the question. more spin...

I'm an athiest, but I understand that everyone has to have the right to believe whatever they want.

But to hear some idiot going on about "muslim areas" in the UK.

If there is anything about being British is that there is nowhere off-limits.

  • 9.
  • At 10:48 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Richard wrote:

Given the opportunity to throw a bit of light on what Muslims think, what does the BBC do - go for the cheap and facile option and wheel out that ghastly nutcase Anjem Chowdry. Have a look at the man's history - he is not really even a Muslim, he is a loser who if he had not found Islam would have become a Goth and massacred a few innocent citizens in a small market town. How ever are we to have an adult debate on a crucial issue in today's Britain if Newsnight tries to be a cheap redtop tabloid with its bizarre view that "good television" means having a spat, even if it means dragging in a nutter?

  • 10.
  • At 10:49 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Mainstream wrote:

Jeremey asks who speaks for the Muslims and then invites extremists from both the left and right!

When are you going stop spinning and start to actually bring mainstream Muslim opinion on your screen?

I am dissapointed by the decline in Panaroma's opinion forming stratgey of Islam in the uk.

  • 11.
  • At 10:51 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Carla Harvey wrote:

I am a white Christian English woman who also violently opposes British foreign policy. Who should I blow up to demonstrate my anger? If others wish to live in this democracy - protest must be by PEACEFUL means.

  • 12.
  • At 10:52 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • A Wallace wrote:

I thought Paxman didn't address the issues with any of his customary vigour. Why wasn't the comment made by Izzadean accusing Dr John Reid of "coming into a Muslim area" raised?

This is a very important point with regard to the alleged "ghettoisation" of some areas. It would seem that Muslims themselves are claiming tranches of cities as their own, that Government Ministers only "dare" to enter with Muslim consent.

  • 13.
  • At 10:53 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Andres wrote:

This terrorist supporter made it entirely clear that John Reid had a good point. I still do not understand why the authorities in Britain still let somebody like Izzadin to spread his garbache. In any civilised country in Europe he certainly would banned from speaking!

  • 14.
  • At 10:53 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Peter Magill wrote:

The discussion tonight has many resonants with the approach adopted by Sinn Fein in presenting their case. This idea that Muslims in the community have a more difficult time than others in the same socio-economic group is simply playing the we are different and therefore we are treated less by society at large. Utter nonsense. After the radicals leave the stage they will accept accommodation within the norms accpted by all of us as did Sinn Fein after decades of futile fighting. If I wanted to live in an Islamic society I would live in the Middle East - subject to local tolerance which is not a given or guaranteed human right. Otherwise, those of the true Muslim faith will accept the law of this society formed over centuries of European culture.

  • 15.
  • At 10:53 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • George Kendall wrote:

Congratulations to Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Council of Britain, for speaking out for the decent law-abiding muslim majority.

Surely extremists like Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary only represent a small minority of muslims.

But whenever these issues are discussed, these extremists tend to get equal billing with the moderates. If I were a muslim, I'd be pretty annoyed about that.

  • 16.
  • At 10:55 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • kc wrote:

I find it extraordinary that the BBC allows airtime to Mr Choudhury. If he is so concerned about foreign policy and crimes against muslims, perhaps he would be better to criticise the parties perpetrating genocide in Sudan. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Always remember that the latest spate of terrorism began well before the war in Iraq and, however ill-advised that may have been, it is disingenuous to suggest that all our woes stem from that. In any case, if he really wants to live under Sharia law.....

  • 17.
  • At 10:57 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Ian Barron wrote:

The United Kingdon has been a place for free speech and tolerance for years. Foreigners who come to this country to live work and raise a family should remember they are raising their family in the United Kingdom not a 'Muslim' country, an African tribal country, or an ex communist country. They should leave the aspects of those countries behind and integrate into the life of the country they are going to live in. I would not expect, (and it would never happen) to move to another country and try to impose my way of life upon them. So if you are willing to take benefits of this democratic society, free speech, health, education, social security benefits, then you should adhere to the laws of it or just leave.

  • 18.
  • At 10:58 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • brian sutcliffe wrote:

Sick and tired of ranting anti -British religous fanatics being given air time as a platform to broadcast their evil. enemies of the state should be deported!

  • 19.
  • At 11:01 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • dave upton wrote:

Could you explain to me why do the likes of Abu Izzadeem want to live in this country.Its obvious they hate our society they don't want to integrate they wish to wear their ethnic clothing.On the other hand the other Muslim interviewed by Paxman seemed to be more westernized and much more of a moderate.

  • 20.
  • At 11:02 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • anne wrote:

In reference to John Reid's speech, Paxman remarked that parents in non muslim communities weren't lectured about their children going off and getting drunk every night, so why should muslim parents be lectured on how to bring up their kids.
What was his point ? Was he seriously comparing kids who get drunk with kids who become suicide bombers and commit mass murder ?
And why was he so low key and deferential?

  • 21.
  • At 11:04 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • K.C. wrote:

I think the major problem is that muslim fundamentalists exploit the politically correct climate and cite rascism as an excuse for any comments about problems that obviously exist in their religion. It does fall to the muslim community that live in the uk to ensure they live within the laws of the country and dont threaten others for having a point of view. It's intresting to see the "hard spokesmen" of fundamental islam avoid living or fighting in any of the hotspots, instead they sit here and pontificate about "the cause" also the only person killed in the fight against terror in the uk wasnt muslim... He was a Brazilian.

  • 22.
  • At 11:06 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Edward Henning wrote:

The ridiculous comment tonight that the climate was not warmer than it is today 1,000 years ago should have been countered properly. Apart from missing the point about how Greenland got its name, as the ice has been melting recently, old Viking settlements have been exposed for the first time in hundreds of years. Were these relics planted there by Exxon? The cold period when the Thames used to freeze over 300 years ago is also denied by many enviromentalists in their desperate attempt to blame carbon dioxide for mainly natural changes.

  • 23.
  • At 11:07 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • John Howson wrote:

When are white people going to be allowed to comment on what was said tonight. I am absolutly digusted by the attitude of these agressive muslims. I feel threatened by them in my own country.

You dont allow anyone from the BNP on to say what they think. Why ?

  • 24.
  • At 11:11 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Natalia wrote:

Why did Jeremy Paxman spend more time in that interview pushing the moderate Muslim to justify his comments, when he said practically nothing to the fanatic terrorist apologist? Why does the british media pander to these lunatics? They need to be consistently challenged, not patted on the head by a society too scared to cause offence.

  • 25.
  • At 11:20 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Dave wrote:

This is the very first time i have ever commented about anything within my country. I have just watched your programme and saw a radical muslim in Mr Abu Izzadeen shouting at our home secretary,izzadeen is a man who obviously dosn't like the way we do things in the UK. So why dosn't he go home to his origins or go and support his friends in Iraq, or Afganistan. I am a very moderate Englishman but people like that are starting to turn us against muslim people in general. Mr Izzadeem Tow the line or go home we dont want your kind here.

  • 26.
  • At 11:31 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Marion Armstrong wrote:

Brilliant end to Newsnight! Incredible that it takes Newsnight to showcase some of the best young British jazz musicians on the scene at the moment. Shame on the Mobos, well done Newsnight - more Jazz and Jeremy.

  • 27.
  • At 11:34 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Ian Flintoff wrote:

By your own standards tonight's item on global warming was a disgrace. I say this as a fan and as a general admirer of Jeremy Paxman. One oversimplified interpretation of global warming is now force-fed to the public. The "science community" - often refered to in the programme - simply doesn't exist. What do you think scientists are for heaven's sake? Single-minded, sheep like, all togetherists? It is a principle of all science propositions that they are hypotheses. Which means open to disproof. That applies to CO2 emissions (though these should be cut back of course) as the sole or main cause of climate change. Tropical conditions have prevailed in these islands in the past. I have heard no single reason or explanation why the causes which brought these about are totally excluded from today's discussions of global warming. What did cause these tropical conditions in northern Europe? And why could they not, just possibly, be another factor in what is happening now and in the future? Worst of all in your programme was the elaborate plug for George Monbiot's book. His stuff was entirely and completely unscientific in that it matters not at all who finances the most rigorous science, providing it is rigorous, however much moral sententiousness is made against such funding. (The state won't do it so someone has to. I happen to be a socialist so have little truck for corporate hegemonies in fields where they should not tread, but if the mafia sponsored fresh Italian fruit in schools, rather than the crap provided in many, I'd have to say the mafia were right.) The programme came across as bigoted, cock-sure and unscientific - relying on a single scientist to sum up a very compex and complicated issue. The real danger is this: if it is so universally (and stupidly) accepted that the only causes of climate change are anthropogenic then future generations are likely to face horrendous surprises and unforeseen horrors. Please - from a general admirer - do not so glibly toe a fashionable media line in future. Ian Flintoff, Fulham, London

  • 28.
  • At 11:35 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Stuart Coster wrote:

Exxon funding groups critical of the increasing hysteria around climate change? Great news!

They may or may not be right, but it's about time there was some balance to the climate change debate rather than the mutual admiration society of doom merchants that we saw on the programme discussing the alleged need to cut carbon emissions the other night.

Why are Monbiot & Co. apparently so afraid of us hearing these views - of challenges to their brand of climate change hand-wringing? In his piece he seemed to be suggesting that independent think-tanks should be ashamed of receiving support for their work from those who agree with them just because their conclusions don't happen to support his own views. How oppressive!

As far as Newsnight is concerned, I certainly don't remember such a fuss the other night, when that Friends of the Earth-sponsored report whipping up just as self-serving hysteria about climate change was given heavy coverage on the programme.

Howabout getting that Exxon-supported think thank on the programme next time you discuss a climate change story? A real debate might be more productive than what we have seen from Newsnight so far - a chorus of voices for one view, followed by an attempt to 'embarrass' and suppress those daring to set out an alternative.

  • 29.
  • At 11:44 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Omar wrote:

The sight of a small, slight, helmeted police officer being dwarfed by a giant ranting person. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

  • 30.
  • At 11:47 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • abi wrote:

I think that *all* parents should be both aware of what their children and teenagers are doing and be prepared to intervene if necessary.

Two aspects of recent news reports have worried me: this evening, the emphasis on Muslim parents and communities - during the height of 'the troubles' I don't recall any such emphasis or onus placed on Irish families whose kids might have been seduced by the romantic notions of Nationalism, which also lead to terrorist attacks.

I regret too that as yet very few of the moderate - and peaceful - muslim majority have voiced their opinions (or have perhaps not been invited to do so on TV?).

Also the sad report of a teenager shot dead 'in the early hours of the morning' in a Manchester park. All respect for the family's grief, but am I the only person to have wondered what a young teenager was doing there at that hour in the first place?

  • 31.
  • At 11:59 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Brian Kelly wrote:

We cannot allow our Foreign Policies to be dictated by a minority of Muslims whatever the rights & wrongs of such policies. The UK is democractic & allows the populace to make peaceful protests & vote at the ballot boxes... Perhaps, & very probably, this government has not taken the tough necessary measures in the past... & now reaping what we allowed the militants to preach. Would we have given the BNP the same freedoms?..NO!.. For some reasons.. it has suited governments vote-wise perhaps? to keep quiet. Whatever, action must be taken to curtail fanatical speech & behaviour now ...irrespective of whomever & how many are upset!!

  • 32.
  • At 12:31 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Omar wrote:

I wonder if John Reid will be telling non-muslim parents to keep an eye on their children to make sure they don't become Islamophobic extremists.

I was pleased to note that Wednesday's programme conformed to the old standards of Newsnight seriousness. The three items were all worth watching.

The Trevor Brooks Show

The Trevor Brooks Show, with guest star the Glasgow Thumper, was instructive in that it showed, with a little back footage from previous programmes, how people issue warnings. Trevor said: "It's a warning!" Creepy, eh? Another grammarian said: "You're either with us, or you're either with them". Illiterate, eh? The debate was good.

Mombiot and CO2

Then, George Mombiot. I always unkindly call him Mumbliot - which is not actually true. He has a slightly too staring-eyed and indeed clearly enunciated take on current events. I found that the arguments on both sides of the CO2 spat between fag & oil interests and the Met Office, finely balanced. Another plus for Newsnight. Melanie, the Oriana Fallaci of Londonistan, gave an interesting interview. Again, Newsnight kept the two sides in the studio debate as well finely balanced.

Romanian orphanages and EU policy

The best, and most moving, part of tonight's programme was Sue Lloyd-Roberts' return to the Romanian orphanage story. This tragedy - which has still not gone away - shows clearly that we, i.e. the rich EU, must invest in, and bully (!) if necessary, those paradise-seeking countries in Eastern Europe into becoming civilised. Otherwise we must leave them to shiver in the chill of shame until they see sense. The EU has yet to digest new countries such as peaceful Hungary, prosperous Poland and other very old European nations. We do not need any more immigrants running away from chaos.

UNICEF is surely the same kind of joke as most UN institutions are. Pierre Poupard made it sound as if all this was news to them. Didn't they get to hear of Sue-Lloyd-Roberts' original and shocking reports?

We must make sure that Eastern European governments have no option but to be honest. The farcical events in Budapest these past few days show that it's just too easy to get into the EU, then bask in corruption and decadence. Those poor, poor kids in Romanian orphanages deserve a better life. But it is only if the West in general, and the EU and particular, is as tough as hell with Eastern European backsliders, that Romania, Bulgaria, and other notoriously chaotic countries, will pull their socks up. The EU cannot afford any more countries who are going to exploit the Schengen borders in order to cure their own self-inflicted economic and social problems. (And I'm speaking as a pro-European!)

If you're a mentally disturbed teenager in a Romanian orphanage, all this will pass you by. But it's a matter of principle. The EU must get its act together.

  • 34.
  • At 01:03 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Ashley Ballard wrote:

Why does Newsnight keep on providing a platform to these extremists? Can’t you see there's no reasoning with them? What do you expect from those in the pocket of the oil giants? Climate change sceptics should be deported for trying to brainwash our children.

In contrast, your little Islamist fanatic was much more well behaved than last time, though it was less fun to watch than "We're moving on, Matey!".

  • 35.
  • At 01:21 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • matlub hussain wrote:

Thw muslim community needs help overcoming lack of education and social exclusion.Perhaps then we could further address issues via the ballot obx and open debate.We love the UK for giving poor muslims a chance to earn enough money to feed out families.
God bless you all!

I keep hearing about moderate Muslims, but am not convinced that they exist, or if they do that they have any influence at all.

I am also very unclear about how influential various Muslim groups are, there seem to be so many of them.

Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Association of Britain, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Sufi Muslim Council, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islamic Human Rights Commission, Pakistan Muslim Association, Al Mahujiroun, Al Ghurabaa, the Saviour Sect,

and that is just a few of them.

Shouldn't the BBC provide a clue about how influential they are?

I don't think the fact an organisation has a mouthy spokesman
means it has much influence, so why does Newsnight invite people like Anjem Choudary who advocates assassinating the Pope onto its programme?

  • 37.
  • At 02:42 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

Nice lead with a yin and yang of the Muslim Community.

I also liked the portrait in the background with the chap that was stood next to the Home Sec making a gesture not too dissimilar to the salutes in Germany circa 1940.
Anjem Chowdhary was well behaved this time, perhaps it was because the other chap - Harris Rafique was not as much of a pushover compared to some of the previous "numpties" that al Muhajiroun has had the PLEASURE to debate on TV.
I have seen Mr Rafique twice on Newsnight and am impressed that you have finally found a Muslim spokesperson that goes beyond foreign policy and actually helps the community he represents come accross as the moderates that they truly are (it took you long enough).

As a non Muslim that does not understand the intricacies of the different groups, I find it difficult to tell who the bad guys are and who are the genuine good guys.Until recently, I thought that all Muslims were baddies, however after hearing Mr Rafique speak, I am willing to re-think my opinions.

I would love to see a more in depth interview with Mr Rafique to ascertain what lies under the skin, and see if he really is what he appears to be. If he is genuine, then I am sure that the non Muslim community would love to see more people like him stand up for what they believe in.

  • 38.
  • At 02:49 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Jamil wrote:

Thank you Newsnight for finally having sensible Muslims such as Haras Rafiq on your show. I am worried about my children and can empathise with Haras. I wander how he dealt with combating his daughters views? Also it would have been interesting to explore a little more as to what signs we should be looking out for? Also, can you tell me how I can join the Sufi Council? or at least support their work?

  • 39.
  • At 03:40 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Ed wrote:

I was very disappointed to see Anjem Choudary on the programme again tonight. Is there really no one else in the Newsnight contact book when it comes to fielding a panel of Muslim opinion? The boring obfuscations of this cloth-eared bigot get staler every time he comes on the programme. Haras Rafiq was a welcome, eloquent change to the usual line-up. Newsnight is always asking 'where is the voice of moderate Muslim opinion?' - perhaps a new feature could be devoted to finding it, rather than swelling the egos of a tiny cohort of loudmouth twerps whose toxic cause is only boosted by their incessant appearances on the programme.

  • 40.
  • At 03:51 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Sir Ian Blair wrote:

It has come to my attention that fun is being made of the metropolitan police recruitment critera.

Let me assure the public that the deployment of non-threatening 5ft tall, 5 stone ethnic minority police officers to the MUSLIMS LANDS of East London is the best way of showing the MUSLIM brotherhood that the METROPOLITAN police mean business.

PS. from a cost perspective, as these new recruits are 1/3 the size of a normal officer we pay them 1/3 the wages. So there!!

  • 41.
  • At 04:01 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Iqbal Carruthers wrote:

Does the METROPOLITAN POLICE make 1/3 cost savings when deploying male officers 1/3 the size of a normal police man?

I do hope the wee man carries a gun when on patrol. It would be a shame to see him beaten up by a 8 year old.

  • 42.
  • At 08:04 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

It's pretty obvious to me that Reid's comments are motivated to insult muslims and stir up some publicity in the tabloids, rather than trying to help them.

He would be more effective if he asked parents to keep an eye on children to make sure they don't grow up to be politicians who start wars based on lies, supported by constant fearmongering.

  • 43.
  • At 09:26 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • A J wrote:

What was the name of the charity mentioned as part of Sue Lloyd Robert's piece on Romania?

  • 44.
  • At 09:45 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Mr P Hyams wrote:

I was disappointed to see a western country again stereotyping eastern european civilisation. It is time the west gave a true reflection of life in eastern europe.
I am not disputing the state of the Romanian orphanages either now or in the past, I am however, referring to the portrait you gave of the country.
Why show poor Romanian gypsies in desolate housing as a yardstick to judge and portray the lifestyle of millions: I have never visited a home in Romania where they use the toilet also as a sink.
Would we expect our local gypsies to be portrayed as the norm for a British citizen.
Romania has to establish a greater image for itself in the rest of Europe and as a country/people has so much to offer. Come on BBC, lets show programs representative of the people rather than creating programs for their shock value.

  • 45.
  • At 09:53 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • sal wrote:

AbuAzadeen, AlMuhagiroon etc are all doing exactly what Bliar's gang want them to do. They do not represent ANY muslim but are simply a handsomely paid government instrument. You should examine WHO is benefiting from their activities and stop being Newsnightsheep. Bliar and co must be rubbing their hands with glee at your report. WHO benefited from 7/7? Who made loads of money from the tragedy that day? WHO keeps us in fear and turns us against each other so we don't see the real enemy and so become willing participants in the devil's game? WHO is creating terror made to measure for the purpose of waging wars, committing genocide, and, oppressing, robbing and destroying nations? Why has there never been a proper enquiry into 7/7? Why haven't we seen any cctv footage from that day? Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious when you stop and think about it for a moment.

  • 46.
  • At 10:15 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Charlie Meban wrote:

I'd just like to echo those who've praised the excellent Haras Rafiq, whose moderate and inclusive stance is surely the kind of representation that the vast majority of British Muslims would wish to see on mainstream TV. Please allow us to see more of the dismay and bewilderment felt by many decent, law-abiding people who find their religion hijacked by a tiny number of fanatical troublemakers and, as a result, suffer distrust and prejudice every day. The Muslim community struggles to articulate the debate going on within British Islam and many moderates are reluctant to condemn the extremists for fear of being accused of collaborating with some kind of "divide and rule" strategy. The media should foster Rafiq's voice and those of people like him to illustrate the real feelings of the quiet majority.

  • 47.
  • At 10:45 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Ian McQuattie wrote:

i was truely outraged by the tobacco analogy during the global warming sketch

To what level of debate do the BBC think the public deserve?

Let's stick to the facts

What scientific credentials and his personal opinion does Mombier have? There was no mention of them. Do the BBC expect us not to notice this?

  • 48.
  • At 11:11 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Valerie Worley wrote:

It was very refreshing to see a moderate member of the muslim community being interviewed on Newsnight last night. Mr Rafiq put across his views forcefully and is to be congratulated. I would urge the BBC to give more moderate muslims this opportunity because it is very easy to believe that all muslims are extremists given the coverage that the extremists receive in the media.

We are at a crossroads now with regard to race relations in this country and I fear the outcome if we do not hear more from muslims prepared to abide by the law and live peacefully in our society. A lot of what the extremist muslims are saying only serves to incite racial tension and the result could be anarchy, which is probably what they want.

  • 49.
  • At 11:18 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Phil Davis wrote:

I look forward to the day when a presenter questions "British foreign policy" as the source of extremism in this country, as used by Anjem Chowdrey last night. As far as I can tell, it is muslim commiting atrocity against muslim in Iraq. Was not Saddam guilty of the same? Am I missing something?


The name of the charity mentioned in Sue's report was Hope and Homes for Children. You can find out more about them at their website:


  • 51.
  • At 11:43 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Saf Hussain wrote:

bismillah ar rahman nir raheem

i was one of the people to try and get this programme not to be aired. as it was going to be a one sided, biased point of few, to get the reaction from some radicals, who had the history of their behaviour.

Muslims, stand up against oppression, promote good and forbid evil. At the current state of times, there is alot of oppression going on. Not directly by the people, but by the system. This is where the irony comes in of the brainwashing. One method of brainwashing is being repetitive, which basically they keep bringing back the same views over and over again.

So if you had good muslims on there, who adhere to islam. islamically you cannot hurt innocent people. even in jihad. which means struggle. i could be in jihad with myself, which means i am trying to sort myself out. its ludicrous that statements of islam was spread by the sword, when there still is coptic christians in saudi arabia.

then again the shariah law, gave some areas that were occupied Jews or christians, their own local governments. but the only thing they did insure was that they adhered to their holy books (bible / taurat), and ruled by them.

comming back to jihad, if even a young man didnt want to fight. he would be left alone. also if he surrendered, the muslims duty was to protect him.

the democratic government we have is an atheist government. but i do agree with, you dont like the country leave. you cannot go around and killing innocent people to make a point.

the other thing is, historically, before a war was commenced against a country, they were written a letter. they were given three options.

1) submit yourself to god (allah)
2) pay taxes, and we will protect you and provide services.
3) come and fight.

so it was left to the country leader to decide. when they did occupy terroritories, they would leave the religious places intact, and didnt force people to come to islam. as religion is of free will, and cannot be forced on anyone.

duty as a muslim is to convey the message, not to convert people. thats one of the basic duties of a muslim.

if the country was ruled by religion, you wouldnt need soo many police. The citizens themselves would do the policing. As they would say god is watching their every move, lets not smash the telephone box; or steal; burgle; beat up innocent old people. It would stop all that.

with an atheist government, its the government that watches you, hence the big brother state. You every move is watched and profiled. they know what you buy (credit history). a person is what he eats, the books he reads, the pages he browses. So they can get a good profile on your state of mind.

ie, if a muslim see's someone getting battered on the street, or mugged he should intervene if he can, or shout, or make a phone call, or pray in his heart. going from the strongest to the weakest.

I am a british citizen, but i am a muslim. There are things i dont like what the government do, but there is nothing to do with religion. ie the laws are soo restrictive for citizens. let the let the burglers, charge the citizens for stopping them because they have illegally entered into their property. we are victims in our own homes. we lock ourselves away,

yours faithfully


p.s. i rather use the word allah, or the old jewish hebrew word illah, than god, because you cannot associate anything with it. ie godfather godmother godson goddaughter goddess.

  • 52.
  • At 12:14 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • said wrote:

A personal message to Mr.Abu Izzadeen,why don't you take a trip to Darfur and see with your own eyes what fellow muslims,arabs in this case are doing to fellow muslims,none arabs in Darfur? It might not be as fashionable as ranting in London but it would be highly educational and might wake you up.I am a muslim of East African origin and my country was colonized by Great Britain,what makes you think Mr.Izzadeen that i and millions like me would want to be re-colonized by people from the middle-east claiming to be ordained by God to colonize us?
To Newsnight,why aim your cameras at the likes of Izzadeen when with a little effort you could find muslims who aren't flaming mental cases as you
and other journalists so often do?
I live in a democratic country with it's problems but wouldn't want to live in countries run by self ordained "Learned"men like in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Abu Izzadeen,if you are serious why not travel to the above mentioned countries and send an honest report from there?

  • 53.
  • At 02:46 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Resistor wrote:

How predictable is the continued Newsnight policy of providing 'safe haven' and the oxygen of publicity to Islamist extremists. Cloaked in the interests of democratic debate the Newsnight team once again wheel out their pet extremist Anjem Choudary, former high ranking member of Al-Muhajiroun and the banned Al Ghurabaa group.

However it was refreshing to see that Choudarys' latest appearance was far less farcical than his previous Newsnight propadganda-fest in February when speaking about the Cartoon debacle, (remind yourselves of his 'tolerant' approach here - Perhaps Mr. Choudary has purchased a copy of New Labours Spin For Dummies as I was shocked that last night he actually paused to allow others to make a comment. Wonders will never cease.

Choudary is an extremist and one of the Muslim worlds chief terrorism apologists/supporters. His agenda is completely transparent. Yet the BBC's unfettered lust to provide open and democratic debate allows this sad individual to peddle his Islamist propaganda on a regular basis.

At best his continued appearances on the programme are intended for blatant shock value. At worst many would consider it to have a damaging and destabilising effect of our society and serves nothing but to fan the flames of Islamist extremism amongst the impressionable Muslim youth. Incidentally, exactly what John Reid attempted to warn us against yesterday.

  • 54.
  • At 02:48 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • nicetime wrote:

Not sure if anyone at the BBC reads these things, but is Melanie Philips going to get a right of reply to last nights 'personal view' from George Monbiot? Why did he spend so much of the time allotted to him by criticising her specifically? Why mention her at all?

Jeremy Paxman's subsequent interviews on the subject of Exxon funding were also an extraordinary example of selective quoting and bias. I fully agree that those arguing against a carbon element in Global warming have next to no case, but the veiwer can judge for his/herself without help from the BBC.

  • 55.
  • At 03:13 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Scott wrote:

Disappointed Newsnight isnt more objective when it comes to Global Warming. Instead its advocacy journalism all the way, and push the barrow hard, what seems twice a week, every week.

  • 56.
  • At 04:24 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • JPseudonym wrote:

Msg #35 matlub hussain wrote:

"Thw muslim community needs help overcoming lack of education and social exclusion."

Why does the Muslim community need special help? Other immigrant communities have managed to get by without needing it.

The problems in the Muslim community are self inflicted. We are importing third world poverty into already over congested third world ghettos in our major cities through chain migration where foreign born uneducated spouses are unable to speak English which leads to large numbers of non-English speaking families. If you can't speak English when you start school you start with a disadvantage.

There is some parental responsibility in bringing up kids to make the most of opportunities offerred to them. You can't expect government handouts to solve matters.

As for social exclusion, who is responsible for that? The Hindu community do not constantly bleat on about social exclusion.

On the one hand we are told that lack of funding for 'socially excluded' Muslim groups will lead to greater radicalisation

and on the other hand we see what happens when extra funding goes to these groups

You just can't win.

  • 57.
  • At 04:28 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Marcus wrote:

Why doesn't Newsnight attempt to be balanced? If Newsnight is so confident in it's view on Global Warming, why is it not interested in seriously debating those that challenge Global Warming?

Jeremy Paxman, a good journalist, usually tries to take both sides of a debate in order to get a discussion going. But last night - he just wanted to cut off all possible dissent.

Another shocking imbalance is that Scientific Research that receives money from Governments in order to do research that potentially supports the Global Warming cause - which politicians then use to win votes and make a case for their own importance - are never, ever, for one moment considered to biased.
According to Newsnight, only large US Companies (with an implied evil and greedy agenda) can be scientifically biased; whereas politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists are never biased on this issue.

Here's a challenge for Newsnight. Why don't you report on the scandal of the last 20 years of Governments that banned the use of DDT at the behest of environmentalists . The WHO now promotes the use of DDT in the third world to combat Malaria - because it is harmless to humans. Environmentalists pushing for the ban in the 70's are responsible for millions of subsequent deaths in the third world. All due to a bogus and untrue allegation made by environmentalists that DDT was toxic to endangered birds. It turns out that the decrease in the numbers of endangered birds had nothing to do with DDT. However, environmentalists made an allegation of cause and effect - just as the Global Warming crowd do now.

Here is the link to the Journal Nature (if you have a subscription):

From the article:
"I think the whole push of the environmentalists like Rachel Carson and many others to eliminate all uses of DDT are, quite honestly, responsible for millions and millions and millions of human deaths," says Don Roberts, professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland.

  • 58.
  • At 04:50 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Frank Scott wrote:

Just caught up with Monbiot and Newsnight. Good to see that there are members of the public who are intelligent enough to see through (a) the Monbiot self-promotion (b) the irrelevance of who funds science - as long as it asks the right questions and (c) the media hyped anti-scientific principle that any current and fashionable interpretation (whether of MMR, GM or climate change) is OK as long as it sells papers, TV programmes or books by Monbiot.

  • 59.
  • At 06:04 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Bob wrote:

I am quite shocked at the overall representation of Muslim community as a whole by these few who are not doing any justice to them. If they continue to get these idiots represent them then the overall image of the religion is no far from the comments quoted by the pope.

I recently met someone working in a care home who has recently moved from italy to the UK because he as a muslim feels that UK has a better environment than Italy to bring his children up in! Then these people cannot be representing the manjority of hard working people of the muslim community.

What I would like to know from our government is, how many of these people running these groups or conducting these activities are active tax payers or have contributed anything to this country. The attitute to hold the UK population to ransom when someone makes a comment has to STOP. This version of political correctness that stops anyone from speaking the truth is going to create further divions and mistrust in the communities.

If these people feel so wronged they should give up their british nationalities and emmigrate to live in countires which run the Sharia law and where the foreign policies are in line with their beliefs.

  • 60.
  • At 06:06 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Nilavra wrote:

Not sure those complaining about islamic fanatics get it!

If another country bombed our cities, destroyed our homes, targeted our schools, hospitals, power stations, water purification plants, TV and media, killed 1,100 of our citizens, nearly all civilians, because 2 of our soldiers had been kidnapped, would be so calm and collected about it? Would we be petitioning the UN or would we have declared full scale war? Of course it would never happen because no-one would dare try - we're bigger and stronger than most of the world and with powerful friends. If the Lebanese had oil fields instead of olive groves, maybe they would have got more support from the US and Britain!

Yes, let's deal with fanatics - all religious fanatics not just the islamic ones, but to think that we can pursue a blatantly anti Arab, pro Israeli foreign policy and not bear the repercussions is simply naive. Of course muslims in Britain care about muslims in the Middle East, just as Christians in the UK and US care about Christians around the world. That's human nature.

  • 61.
  • At 06:10 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

JPseudonym - it's well-known that many of the Hindus in Britain came from East Africa (chucked out by Idi Amin in Uganda for instance) from reasonably prosperous and educated backgrounds. Whereas many of the muslims came from rural communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. So they are starting from a different baseline. Give the muslims time and space to catch up. Constant attacks and criticism creates a community that feels under siege and is not helpful. It's pretty clear that New Labour has decided to use the same tactics of division and fearmongering used by Bush's Republican Party in America.

  • 62.
  • At 07:07 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Bob wrote:

Of course people complaining about fanatics get it!

If atrocities are being committed by individuals or nations it doesn't justify to hold the innocent people of a democratic country by plotting to bomb them.

If these acts of plotting were being conducted in a country with Sharia law the individuals wouldn't get a trial but would have been hanged, shot or confined to prison for life without a trial.

The word democracy is not being clearly appreciated by the likes of Anjem Choudary and Abu Izzadeen. The fact that they can continue to speak freely and spread the fanatic message across the country is unique to the UK where the culture of tolerence allows them the freedom to preach hatred. If this message was being spread in any other nation in the middle east, Europe or US they would have been locked up or on trial now.

What really disturbes me the most is that a select few are creating mistrust for a religion that preaches spirituality not fanaticism.

If the fanatics have their way our legacy to our children will be of mistrust and hatred for other cultures and communities.

  • 63.
  • At 08:27 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • JEM wrote:

Interesting and understandable comments here in the main. Personally though I have no problem with the likes of Choudhury and Izadeen being given air time; they are a pair of clowns without even a semblance of authority in either their words or general demeanor. Compare them to say Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, both far more heavy weight than these two idiots, both harbouring distasteful views to many, but with a few major difference - they had a rational aim and at least some reasonable arguments. They also both possessed an obvious authority and real courage, in stark contrast to the two fore mentioned clowns. No, bring 'em on I say, at least we can be reminded of the warped motivation of what could be regarded as a new Islamic sect - Perverted Islam - because that's what this is - a dangerous perversion of an established world religion. Some have asked why these clowns don't go to live in some Islamic state. Take it further and ask why if they feel so strongly aren't they in Afghanistan aking on the PARAS for instance. The answer to that one is easy - they are cowards. It is far easier to "fight on the home front" where they can guarantee that they won't have to risk the harsh rules of battle at the hands of real soldiers who would bury these guys. No,we should all be far more concerned about the threat posed by the so called Moderate Muslims from the Muslim Council of Britain and their various supporters on the back benches and in the senior ranks of the Plod. Take a look at the backgrounds and past activities of people like Sir Iqbal Sacrany and co; we should all ask ourselves why they are so inert in their condemnation of Perverted Islam and lack lustre in their support of a government which is trying to respond to a very serious threat to the population of all races and faiths. Only a few weeks ago a delegation made up of just this sort of appologist tried to get the government to accept a raft of concessions to Muslims - such as allowing limited Sharia law in Muslim areas. Unbelievable but true. And very very worrying. Some of these aims correspond with some of the aims put forward by the likes of our friends, the two clowns, that have provoked such debate and dismay here. One of the less exreme aims (yes, less extreme) of the nut case element is the creation of little islamic "states" within the UK where Sharia law is the law. Presumably step 2 of the plan would be to join these up. Worry about the smart Muslims who plow the political furrow - not the clowns.
I caught Choudhury today on the excellent Jeremy Vine Show - as vile and totally pathetic as usual, but rendered even more laughable and pathetic by Saira Khan, the lady who was the runner up on The Apprentice. She's a proud Muslim, modern in outlook, intelligent, polite, strong and an achiever; in fact everything that these insecure, sad misfits and clowns are not. She also says the things that need saying that the Muslim Council of Britain conspicuously do not. John Reid take note - this lady is someone who you could really use right now...

The programme made a reasonable attempt last night to cover the scandal of Romania's apalling human rights record. The story was factual, but with many omissions; the reporter failed to challenge some blatant untruths. In particular, there was an assertion that children who were kept in institutions for their first two to three years would not be permanently damaged. Unfortunately the reporter either failed to challenge this statement or simply did not realise that it is completely wrong.
Other bland statements connecting the sale of babies with international adoptions were also left unchallenged.
A few examples of improved conditions were shown, but nobody asked the question as to what has happened to all the children who were abandoned in the past, who are now turned to adulthood and are completely forgotten by the media and by the world. These young adults often live in conditions that would not be acceptable for animals within the EU. The use of daily sedation as a management method for instance, in the absence of sufficient care staff, is not acceptable, but it continues.
Membership of the EU was touted as a panacea for all ills in Romania -- everyone, it seems, will be rich post 2007 and all will then be well. I was surprised that the BBC would let such simplistic statements go unchallenged. The reality is that the EU, and in particular the European Enlargement Commission, could have solved many of these problems by making reforms a condition of forward progress towards accession. They have consistently refused to do so, and have been in denial as to the extent of the problem. The Commission is content to accept the word of the Romanian government that all is well, when patently it is not.
All that aside, at least the world media are still willing to look at this issue, albeit in a cursory way. The sad reality though is that once the European Parliament closes the file on accession for Romania, the pitiful level of reforms currently underway will grind to a halt. Human rights issues are not even on the menu in Europe.

  • 65.
  • At 10:03 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Jenny wrote:

How interesting that, forewarned, the friends of global warming have been out in strength in Newsnight's comments space, doing exactly what the Newsnight report described, muddying the waters in exactly the same manner as the friends of tobacco have done for decades. It seems very likely to me that the oil, coal and car lobby will have bought up the mailing lists of smokers and that we will increasingly now get pro-global warming propaganda from people irrationally high on nicotine. Can't wait...

  • 66.
  • At 10:25 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Brenda Enright wrote:


we were very dissapointed that you chose to censor the contributions by my son Peter to this site.

Helping the BBC to filter out the truth?


For the last five years, I have been involved in the support of voluntary agencies (both Romanian and US-funded) who have been working tirelessly to provide social support systems for the forgotten children of Ceausescu.

Too often, I have seen their great efforts destroyed by the over-zealous actions of Romanian authorities, even when the standards of care provided for young children were on a par, or in excess of the best examples that the Romanian care system can provide. Only this year, I have seen two excellent units for the care of babies forced to close, because of un-realistic standards of care imposed upon them. Standards are one thing - they are important - but they come at a price. If the State is not able to meet that price, or unwilling to make a contribution, all that happens as that the organisation is forced to close the facility. True - it might not be as good a solution as permanent fostering - but we are talking about Romania - a country that is struggling to rid itself of the impoverishment brought about by years of communist control, and neglect of economic and social infrastructure. True - the Government is making great changes - but their actions will take years to become as good as those of even the poorest country in Western Europe. It is all 'too fast and too far' - and it is the weakest that suffer most - the young children.

And what of the other legacy? - the children who have escaped the system by opting out - who exist in a no-man's land, on, or under the streets of many of Romania's cities? Many of these children are now past the age of state care - are fertile - and are starting new families on the street. This is a time bomb, set to explode in the face of the new, radical, free-enterprise Romania.

Sue Lloyd-Roberts programme was a model of objective reporting - but where do we go from here? As one writer said, what is UNICEF and the EU really doing - it works in the country - it sees what is happening - and yet appears only to be focused on reform of the system - not on channeling its vast resources to the many excellent charitable, and voluntary groups that are at work within the country - who know what works - and are desperate for the resources to do a better job - probably at a fraction of the cost of grandiose public, bureaucratically inefficient schemes?

  • 68.
  • At 11:20 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Ida Cubitt-Alan wrote:

Much as I admire Jeremy's ability to keep his guests on their toes,I was rather lost by the end of the global warming debate.Please keep the bloodhounds under control,Jeremy.It would have been nice to have a chance to hear what the guests made of Newsnight's film before the answers were mapped out for them.

  • 69.
  • At 11:27 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Nilavra wrote:

Sorry Bob (No 62) but from your comments, clearly you don't get it!

Innocent people died in Lebanon and continue to die in Gaza. Our lives are precious but so are theirs, if only we acted as though they were through our foreign policy! In Gaza, they can't even get formula to feed babies at the moment thanks to sanctions.

Not sure you can have it both ways -they elected a Hamas Govt so we hold the people responsible and raised sanctions. When our Govt is responsible directly or indirectly for attrocities against other people, are you saying we hold no responsibility? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Terrorists never lose to guns, they lose when they're left out in the cold without people to support them. We learnt this in Irelend. When we add some balance to our foreign policy, maybe we can start rebuilding some credibility.

  • 70.
  • At 01:43 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • JPseudonym wrote:

Msg #61 Rick B wrote:

"JPseudonym - it's well-known that many of the Hindus in Britain came from East Africa (chucked out by Idi Amin in Uganda for instance) from reasonably prosperous and educated backgrounds. Whereas many of the muslims came from rural communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. So they are starting from a different baseline. Give the muslims time and space to catch up."

Pakistanis (Muslims) have been coming to Bradford for 50 years. Some families have been here for four generations and yet many kids start school unable to speak English and struggle at school. There are no such problems in the Indian (Hindu and Sikh) community which also came at the same time from the same part of the world. In fact kids from an Indian background do exceptionally well.

The major difference is the chain migration, family size and attitude to education and integration.

I suggest you read this excellent analysis of why things have gone wrong as far as the Muslim community is concerned.

Things have now deteriorated so much that it is virtually impossible to turn things around.

The advent of hungry, poor, well educated Eastern Europeans, with a work ethic into the jobs market means that an ever increasing number of the rapidly growing Muslim population will become unemployable, leading to even greater social tensions than we already have.

It isn't surprising that records number of the indigenous population are heading for the exists, before civil war breaks out.

Lovely programme. Missed almost all of it except the excellent jazz at the end. Missed the intro to the jazz so didn't get the name of the band. Can't use Real Player so can't download it.

Very disappointed to find no mention at all of the band on the Newsnight site.

Can anyone tell me who they were?

  • 72.
  • At 09:57 AM on 23 Sep 2006,
  • Angus Pountney wrote:

Regarding Jeremy Paxman's interview with Prof. Dawkins I just comment that there are thousands of christians in prison throughout the mainly muslim and communist countries because they refuse to deny their christian faith. It beggars belief that they are suffering this for a myth.

  • 73.
  • At 05:45 PM on 23 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Abu Izzadeen a.k.a Trevor Brooks (a convert) seems to presume much :)

Brianist #8 is correct, no areas of the UK are off limits, people may not choose to live their or afford to live their, but nothing is off limits :)

Certain communities may have chosen to self ghettoise but that is wholly different.

The Islamic convert Abu Izzadeen/Trevor Brooks [1] ... displays naivety, ignorance or dishonesty of actually whom is responsible for violence against Muslims.


Looking forward to mainstream Muslim indignation aimed at questioning why more Muslims are killed by other Muslims around the world, than by anyone else.

Far too many in 'mainstream' Muslim communities in UK & abroad, prefer to believe in the notion of government conspiracy in 911 etc than accept that anyone of their faith could be involved …AGENDA of DENIAL [1]

- For example of British Muslims polled by Channel 4 revealed "45% thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the USA and Israel" ... see other CT stats [2]

- Hardly surprising given Muslims legendary inability to acknowledge / accept the need for reform or accept any criticism of their religion - Islam.

- Hardily surprising given the views of Britain Muslim communities about how they see themselves & how they believe UK should treat them [3a] [3b] [3c] [3d]

- Hardly surprising given Muslim promotion of the 'empathy' argument …. whilst plainly ignoring the reality that more Muslims are murdered by other Muslims around the world than anyone else (sectarian killings) as Iraq & Afghanistan unfortunately demonstrate [4]

- Let alone purposely ignoring the fact that Sectarian impasse between Sunni & Shia, predates the creation of USA or the British Empire (that was) or allied action in ME & Asia … its an historical evidential fact that sectarian killings have occurred since the factions first murdered each other back in the earliest days of Islam.

- Islamic Fracticide - its not the responsibility of the West & progressive democratic governments - the historical & continuing levels of Islamic Fracticide is the responsibility of MUSLIM's

btw - did people of that faith perhaps consider that the lack of 'empathy' for Muslims problems (by non Muslims around the world - the vast majority), have something to do this denial & this disingenuous position held by Muslims regarding their problems within their faith, adverse cultural practices in their faith (oppression of women) & how such communities practice their faith, esp in democratic progressive societies.


People are free to worship, as long as the practice of their faith does not contradict the civil & criminal laws of the land - The United Kingdom.

The Islamic convert Abu Izzadeen/Trevor Brooks by any stretch of the mark, has time & again violated these laws - what overt action will government take against this sad hate filled individual who encourages others to abandon the norms of our society to hurt/maime/kill others.

Meantime, mainstream British Muslims enmasse need to step up to the mark, not be intimidated and/or be misrepresented by such radicals, its your faith. 98% of your fellow countrymen (non Muslims) are looking for collective response from such these communities in the face of such growing Islamic Extremism.

If such communities stay collectively silent (other than to tout the 'empathy' argument to justify protest when it suits them) they can be rightly once again suspected as endorsing/harbouring thoughts/beliefs of threat to the progressive democratic nations that gave Muslims communities a home & allow unrestricted growth in these communities (from 10,000+ in 1970's to 1.6 million by 2006).

Unfortunately, the surveys/polls plainly see there is a significant minority wish to others ill [3a] [3b] [3c] [3d]

British Muslim communities clearly need saving & reforming, if nothing else from themselves & the handfuls of people who have made the effort are in the minority.

The failed status-quo between British Muslim communities & mainstream society is not sustainable.


[3c] [

  • 74.
  • At 05:52 PM on 23 Sep 2006,
  • Malcolm Archibald wrote:

The BBC play into the hands of whom? The Government, who use every situation to scare us into giving up our democratic rights...or the Muslim minority, who the BBC give every opportunity to mouth obscenities at the quiet majority?

Either way, the BBC is no longer an independent, fact driven broadcaster. It panders to this Government and its' politically correct dogma and confuses freedom of speech with an imbalanced and perverted view of the World.

  • 75.
  • At 11:00 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • Matt Linares wrote:

Even if Monbiot is not a scientist, he undertakes superb journalistic work on the basis of a credible and growing body of scientific work which is itself endorsed by, among a majority of eminent others, our own government's Chief Scientific Advisor. These are people whose contribution to the 'debate' is peer-reviewed by fellow scientists, the chief method of ensuring credibility and scientific cogency.

The climate change 'debate' will require efforts from many factions, being a manifold political matter. What Monbiot strives to reveal here is the pressure exerted by non-peer-reviewed parties, seemingly motivated by dubious incentives rather than a commitment to scientific integrity; such exposure is a vital role for investigative journalists in a complex political landscape. If we believe in the advancement of reason and sound scientific method, then it is of the utmost importance that someone should work in the gaps where a challenge to these values emerges.

Monbiot does an excellent job.

  • 76.
  • At 01:38 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • Mr D A Stewart wrote:

I wonder if anyone has noticed, that the company "3" has made an advert, poo-pooing Al Gores film. "3"!! who owns that company? This is a mobile-phone company... Who the hell are they being paid off by?

  • 77.
  • At 03:33 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • D Petrie wrote:

Muslim fundamentalists and the events surrounding the Pope's speech has prompted me to bring to light three facts from the Koran. I am not putting forward any opinion or faith, nor am I criticising Islam, just facts which raise questions for me and for which I seek answers. So far, Muslims have been avoiding answering me. Why? Do they deal with sensitive truths?

1. One verse from the Koran, Sura (chapter) 46 "Al-Ahqaf" verses 9, struck me. In this Mohammed says of himself: "I am not a new Messenger to come, nor do I know what is to be done to me or you." If Muslims accept that Mohammed speaks the truth, then they must accept that he is not a prophet. If this statement is not true, then Mohammed is lying and again he is not from God. Either way doesn't this show that he is not a prophet? What is their faith, and so much killing, based on?

2. Another very important point from the Koran is this: Mohammed and the Muslims are supposed to ask Christians whether the revelation of Mohammed is from God or not. The Koran actually contains many verses which speak highly of the Bible and advises Muslims to learn from Jews and Christians: "And if thou (Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which we reveal to you, then question those who read the Scripture that was before you (i.e. the Bible)." Sura (chapter) 10.95. And, "0 you people of the Book! You are not grounded upon anything until you observe the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel), and that which has been revealed unto you from your Lord." Sura 5.68." So Muslims are commanded to follow the Gospels.

So why is there this bitter hostility today? Aggression and persecution of an alternative view are often a sign that the aggressor is insecure in his own position. Is this the case with Islam? A brief look at certain facts about its origins suggests that it is.

3. Muslims say that the Bible has been changed. (If Christians say the same about the Koran what will happen?) The question is: Has it been changed before or after the birth of Mohammed? If before, why does God tell Mohammed to learn from the Bible? And why doesn't God tell him that it is corrupt? If after, where is the original to base this statement on? There is no such book in existence. So have all the thousands of Bibles throughout the world through the centuries been collected and destroyed and replaced by the corrupted one? In my research there has been no changes in the Bible but I think that it is a convenient way to cover the discrepancies in the Koran.

As I said, I am not attacking but seeking answers to genuine questions. Are Muslims prepared to face these or will these be blindly attacked as blasphemy?

May I also quote one of Mohammed's early biographers, Ibn Hisham, who says about Mohammed that he converted the people of Mecca to Islam by force because they would not accept him as a prophet. Is not this what the Byzantine Emperor said also? It is not an attack but quoting existing documents – even from the Arab world.

Why is it ok for them to plaspheme against the God of the Christians calling Him a prophet but is not ok to say anything about Mohammed?

Why won't any Muslim answer me these questions?

  • 78.
  • At 08:24 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref JPseudonym #70

Interesting & valid observations, esp about sub continent immigrants positive contributions amongst Britain's Hindu communities.

Ref immigration, those who compliment mainstream British Society & contribute to economy will always be welcome (in manageable numbers).

Those who undermine society by self ghettoisation resulting in vitriol/violent intolerant relationship with mainstream society, do themselves & their offspring no favours.

Mainstream society is not obliged to stand by & do nothing (government/public) if we fight intolerance abroad, no way we should allow it to fester here (liberal left way too silent on this one ref domestic intolerances - why?).

Ref immigration, for example, whilst wary about unsustainable numbers of Polish workers (from a country UK has strong historical ties with) don't believe the sub cultures such worker bring (catholic & polish) will result in religious extremism or in undue social instability (since WWII large numbers settled & intergrated into the UK anyway) [1]

Who will/do British employees engage? those willing to get on with the job & fit in or those unable to get through the door & do the job because of self-imposed 'chips on both shoulders'. Unemployment rates for Muslims are higher than those for people from any other religion, for both men and women [2]

Britain's Muslim communities (30+ year old- numbers rising from 10,000+ to 1.6 million) has overly strong ties with troubled parts of the world (ME, Africa & Asia).

Communities largely responsible for an import of instability into the UK, breeding of intolerance & an export of succour for international terrorism (funding, support, recruits etc) & domestic terrorists acts.

Is this a recent development? …. the latest generation of Britain Muslim communities spoke out (1 year prior to July bombings) [3]

Quite frankly will these communities ever fit in (beside the welcomed exceptions who have integrated) when they demand & certain elements of the establishment/groups insist on treating them like SPECIAL NEEDS.




This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites