My entire career as a reporter for a leading daily newspaper in Mumbai was governed by a maxim from Aroon Purie, editor-in-chief of India Today, the country’s most respected news magazine. Purie would tell his reporters: ‘Somewhere, someone is out to hide the truth. Find that. That is news. All the rest is merely advertisement.’

Mishal Husain’s two-part series this week on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme is what Purie would describe as ‘merely advertisement’. Husain presents a form of British Islam so domesticated and sanitised that it glitters like gold. ‘All that glitters is not gold’, a well-seasoned proverb reminds us.

Somewhere, someone is out to hide the truth and the quintessential technique of hiding the truth is by not reporting it. The cleverest form of fake news is not falsifying the truth. It’s too obvious. The best fake news is by omission. What Husain is not telling you is more important than what she is telling you.

Husain cherry-picks a few shining stars from the great British Islamic galaxy consisting of three million Muslims. She damns the alternatives – not a single Muslim who is critical of current disturbing Islamic trends is invited.

Husain takes the listener on a Muslim magical mystery tour beginning with a mosque in Woking, Surrey. Like an estate agent on Location, Location, Location she tells us how the Shah Jahan Mosque, built in 1889 by Dr Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner, was the first to be built in Britain.

Husain doesn’t tell us there isn’t a single woman on the mosque’s nine-member management committee. She doesn’t tell us that Dr Leitner, an Orientalist, was a bald-faced apologist for Islam, who sanitised concepts of slavery and jihad in the Islamic texts and dismissed Western responses to Islam as ‘misconceptions’ and ‘a great libel on that religion’. I’m comparing Dr Leitner’s article on jihad from the Asiatic Quarterly Review of October 1886 with Dr Patrick Sookhdeo’s magisterial tome Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam and I know whom to trust as an authoritative source on jihad.

Husain and her interviewees spin a fairytale world of Muslim multiculturalism. The mosque representative informs listeners that Dr Leitner was a Jew and the architect William Chambers was a Christian. I’m waiting for Husain to lead us in a round of ‘Hip hip hooray’ or ‘For he’s a jolly good fellow’ and for the programme to end with the words ‘And the Abrahamic faiths lived in Britain happily ever after’.

Why doesn’t Husain drop in for a cuppa and chat at one of the nearly 600 mosques in Britain influenced by the radical Deobandi Sect, characterised by its total rejection of western values, which calls on Muslims to ‘shed blood for Allah’?

Husain then throws her lasso around Professor Ron Geaves, my former colleague at Liverpool Hope University. Geaves feeds us with some titbits about the British Raj and Islam – male Muslims were mostly seamen and female Muslims were nannies or ayahs of the Raj, he says. I wish Husain had asked Geaves a little more about Quilliam. Geaves is an authority on William Henry Quilliam, who was a cultural Christian before converting to Islam. Husain rambles on about Quilliam and Pickthall – white British converts to Islam – but doesn’t tell us the whole truth.

Geaves can tell you lots of ‘naughty’ things about Quilliam. The convert was a pioneer of using aggressive tactics to negotiate with the British Raj. He was known as an anti-imperial agitator and was unashamedly pro-Ottoman and a supporter of the Emirate of Afghanistan. He questioned the virtue of Muslim imperial subjects fighting on behalf of the Empire against their fellow brethren in the Sudan. He also wrote tracts supporting jihad and called on British Muslims to demonstrate solidarity with the Muslim umma in defence of the caliphate.

‘Islam has done more for civilization than Christianity,’ wrote Quilliam. ‘The strictly regulated polygamy of Moslem lands is infinitely less degrading to women and less injurious to men than the promiscuous polyandry which is the curse of Christian cities, and which is absolutely unknown in Islam. The polyandrous English are not entitled to cast stones at polygamous Moslems,’ he claimed in his book The Faith of Islam.

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, the famous translator of the Koran, was also seen as a security risk in official circles. Husain doesn’t tell us any of this stuff.

So, asks Husain, what attracted these men to Islam? They travelled extensively and met Muslims from other cultures, says Geaves. He also points out how Christianity was beginning to be challenged by Darwin and scholarly biblical criticism.

Which brings us to Tim Winter, another British Muslim convert, who teaches Islam at the University of Cambridge. I remember Dr Winter from my Cambridge student days – a nice chap who believes nice things about Islam. Husain leads the conversation to education and teaching Muslims how to interpret the Koran, etc.

But why does she not point out that Muslims are forbidden from using textual criticism that is taught at Cambridge and other universities and is so freely used on the Bible? When I taught Islam, I would preface my lectures by apologising to students and telling them how Islamic scholarship is light years behind biblical scholarship. If you address the issue of variant readings you are questioning the authenticity and authority of the Koran and you can be sure of a visit from the Islamic goon squad. Some of my Islamic scholar friends have had such visits!

Seventeen of Britain’s 26 Islamic seminaries are run by Deobandis, producing 80 per cent of clerics trained in Britain. Husain fails to educate us on the merits of this ‘noble’ tradition in British Islam.

In the second part of the programme Husain talks about how much Muslims give to charity. She interviews Zac Hussain from Muslim Aid who tells us that Muslims gave over £100million to charity in 2016. ‘Our focus is providing for the needy, regardless . . .’ he claims. Husain doesn’t tells us that zakat is not usually given to non-Muslims except those people whose hearts are leaning toward Islam and are thus in the category of ‘those whose hearts are to be reconciled’.

Listeners are also taken to an animal welfare halal farm in Oxfordshire that a uses a ‘minimal stun’ on poultry and to Zeena Qureshi, a ‘millennial Muslim’ developing a Living Quran app so you can read and interpret the Koran on your Smartphone! Then the radicals can’t get you because it will be the real Islam! It is not often I can endure a whole hour of commercials on Islam.

By the end I am feeling like Alice Through The Looking Glass and saying ‘one can’t believe impossible things’. I hear Mishal Husain say to me in the words of the White Queen: ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. That’s why I’m a presenter on the BBC.’


  1. But why does she not point out that Muslims are forbidden from using textual criticism that is taught at Cambridge and other universities and is so freely used on the Bible?

    That’s like asking why so many people today are so wrongly convinced that Christians read the Bible only in the most literal manner imaginable, as if we were all fundamentalist evangelicals … or as if we were “just like the Muslims”.

    People are being fed a steady stream of lies about Christianity and lies about Islam, so in my view, textual criticism would nowadays be better used by neophytes in the discipline to examine those lies rather than either the Bible or the Koran.

        • Your comments are ultra-stupid. You comment for the sake of commenting or to get attention. You are a troll.

          • Don’t take any notice of him. He’s got nothing better to do. Probably a sad man, sitting in his basement, living off benefits, with a stubble 3-days old. His only amusement in life is trolling. Let him troll… mere words never hurt anybody.

          • These are false statements, motivated by your entrenched hatred of Catholics and of the Catholic Church.

            Otherwise, get rid of the Charitas in your internet handle — well, either that or live up to the expectations that such a word should require of you.

            PS Thank you for your lovely insults, and Homer too BTW

  2. Spot on Reverend Gomes, As you say the key is what they choose not to tell us. Just like it took them 8 days to acknowledge that anything happened at the Cologne ‘ Mass sexual assault’ New year incident. Even then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

    I notice this week that the BBC feels it is its responsibility to visit schools and teach children how to identify ‘fake news’ God help us!

    • I too despaired when I learned that the BBC are on a mission! Fox in the hen house comes to mind as they are the Biased Broadcasting Corporation masquerading as the British Broadcasting Corporation. Our children are so brainwashed already they live in fear of Climate Change, are indoctrinated on issues far beyond their competence and are dragged into virtue signalling on a massive scale. Take Pudsey Bear campaign for a start – I looked up the beneficiaries of this scheme in my area and found that £150,000 was going to LGBT children’s organisations – especially those wanting children to be trans. Cut off the money supply to them.

      • Very true,
        I really think that the MSM believe they run western democracies. They talk to politicians as if the MSM are thier bosses at a 1-1 performance meeting.
        They want to manage the agenda in every respect.That is why they hate Brexit and Trump.

      • When Children In Greed first started, and being an innocent soul, I thought that it might last a year or two, as with Comic Relief. Now both are inflicted on us periodically and have become excuses for a great big posturing jamboree, with the money raised going to a variety of dubious entities.

  3. I listened to the programme and to be honest I took most of it at face value.

    I kept thinking that this sounded rather too good to be true but how was I to know?

    Thank you for rebalancing it for me

    • Without being rude how naive do you have to be to believe anything you are told about Islam by the BBC.
      Doesn’t the attacks all over the world give a clue.
      A half hour of researching political Islam would tell you they are following the true Islam everything else is a smokescreen .
      And when you find out all Muslims are encouraged to lie in support of Islam you soon realise you can’t believe anything they tell you.

      • It feeds into your own experience

        I know some Muslims I work with in London. They are very rich, into charity work in their native Bangladesh send their two daughters, modestly dressed but articulate, to a Christian Independent Girls School, etc

        Nothing radical is apparent so we can easily believe that they are the norm as this is our experience.

        My home is in rural Wales, so these are the only Muslims I come across.

        • So these rich muslims living in the UK only give charity to other muslims in a foreign country. This is zakat as the article correctly points out.

          • To be honest I don’t know if that is true.

            I know that one family funds in its entirety, an orphanage in Bangladesh.

            Seems a worthy cause regardless

            Whether they fund anything here? I do not know. If it comes up I will ask. They are customers rather than friends

  4. I find that news today, especially on the Internet, not to be fake. In fact I would opine that the phrase “fake news” is losing its meaning, other than it means “its biased”. Instead what we now have online is many hyper-partisan newsfeeds that go beyond the bias of our traditional press.

    We knew the bias of the Guardian and Telegraph but they still upheld basic journalistic standards.

    The Internet has changed that with the chasing of “hits” that is the number of site visits to increase advertising revenue. The use of stretching the headlines using extreme verbs and misrepresentation by quoting out of context to gain people’s attention has notably increased over the past few years.

    • The BBC telling people about fake news is like the fox coming into your hen house to count the chickens….

  5. ‘Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. That’s why I’m a presenter on the BBC’. Absolutely priceless! Thank you so much for that – it’s made my day.

  6. Thank you Rev Gomez for bringing truth into the darkness we now inhabit. The One Show surpassed itself last night by looking at how all faiths “celebrate” Christmas – Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccan. We were treated to a sugary sweet Christmas tree and presents event that everyone can be involved in. BUT guess what – not a Christian in sight – it was left to the Wiccan (witch presumably) to tell the audience that Christians celebrate the coming of the Son of God, but the Wicca celebrate the regeneration of the whole earth!

    • Wiccan!?!

      I wonder how many people describe themselves as ‘Wiccan’ or witches. I suggest the following:

      1/ Some people on or around 31st October each year, for one or two nights only;
      2/ Some of the visitors to Whitby during the annual Goth Dracula pilgrimage, for that occasion only;
      3/ A very small number of upper-middle class cranks, all the time. The ‘logic’ behind their adherence to this faith is that Wiccan were powerful women, therefore Wicca is a feminist faith.

      I suspect that though the proportion of Wiccan in the population as a whole is microscopic, the proportion found amongst the weirdos who run the BBC is probably quite significant.

    • I don’t usually watch the One Show, but must try to catch that on the iPlayer. Was going to out my decos up next week and I do like sound of the Wiccan Christmas. I may go for a Wiccan theme! Thanks for bringing it to my attention

  7. Lying by omission has its own word in Islam: kitman.
    To a native Englishman this suggests the cheery, chubby chap who helps out the local football team and to me shows the problem of denying one’s own culture.

    • Indeed, they have various words for different forms of lying to the kuffar (ie us) – taqiyya, kitman, muruna etc. Look them up, people, educate yourselves!

      • Isn’t it sad that we have had to educate ourselves about these ideas?
        When we constantly told that yet another terror event will not change us I beco e somewhat introspective and notice how untrue that is.

  8. Why does Mishal Husain get to proselytise for islam on Britain’s national broadcaster? Time and again, the Beebyanka favours islam over other religions. Frankly, it is not its business to evangelize for any religion, but Beeboids are nothing if not preachy. While they are happy to take the mickey (or worse) out of Christians and Christianity and thinly disguise their anti-Semitism with blatant hostility to Israel, they never criticize islam at all.

    It’s not a fear of Charlie Hebdo-style consequences. I’m sure muslim terrorists would love to put a great, big bomb under the BBC, but that’s just because it has “British” in the title and because terrorists (a word, incidentally, Beeboids never use) like to put great, big bombs under things.

    When it comes to islam, though, the Beebyanka actively suppresses stories which reflect badly on islam, such as rape gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale and Cologne, or the no-go areas in numerous European cities, or, for an example on a truly colossal scale, continuing genocide within Sudan and against South Sudan. In conflicts involving muslim versus non-muslim combatants, the corporation’s line is invariably pro-muslim (“Palestinians”, Rohingya) and, when the non-muslims are defenceless, e.g. Coptic, Syrian, or Iraqi Christians, Beeboids couldn’t be less interested.

    We even have our tele-historians getting in on the act. The constantly more ridiculous Sam Willis explained to us, just the other day, how agriculture was supposedly brought to us from Syria. OK, he didn’t suggest that Neolithic farmers were proto-muslims (which would have been ironic, since islam has a decidedly nomadic origin), but the subtext was obvious: a mass influx of people from the Middle East had happened before, resulting in the displacement of the existing population, so we shouldn’t resist a repetition. As history, it was total claptrap, so I have to assume that the Beebyanka, for whatever reason, is entirely devoted to propaganda, these days.

    It was Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, after all.

    • The “mongrel nation” and “continuum of immigrants”/”nation of immigrants” are tired old clichés of the left which would be considered highly offensive and unacceptable in most other normal countries. Their deployment in an attempt to calm the increasingly restless natives is transparently puerile. When recent arrivals spout them it adds insult to injury. And the conflation of invasions with immigration is equally silly. England has never experienced mass immigration on the scale or at the rate imposed since 1997. It was and is folly, and those who try to justify it, let alone encourage it, are dangerously foolish.

      There is malevolent madness here as strident celtic nationalism is appeased and pandered to but an English identity is swamped under contrived “British values” and divisive multi-culturalism. Now the English shires are to be divided into competing camps with urbanising regionalisation and “city mayors”, gauleiters in all but name, creating yet more political bureaucracy from all the usual suspects. It devolves nothing except a centralising web of political power from the Metropolis outwards. No wonder the sleeping giant of populism and the so-called “far-right” has been stirred. Those aghast at the fact and who have no problem apologising for all sorts of brigandry and terrorism on the grounds that they are just a “reaction” by “victims” should take the dense hardwood from between their ears and face up to some reality. The same idiots who peddle political correctness and promote mass immigration are responsible for the growing polarisation, division and extremism, which is only going to get worse as all the unconsidered, unplanned for and wilfully disregarded chickens come home to roost.

      • You know it is interesting, the terms “mongrel nation” and “continuum of immigrants”/”nation of immigrants” are ones we Americans take pride in, to the point that we often describe ourselves as ‘mutts’. But the difference is, our left notwithstanding we have almost always required immigrants to assimilate to our norms and customs. What are these customs of normal America. Nothing less than to become essentially English. Sure, we too have proud Scots, Welsh, Germans, various flavors of the middle east, even the ‘heathen Chinee’. But underneath it all, the bedrock is what our founders brought with them from England, with an emphasis on the Eastern Association.

        • I dont believe that ‘values’ are enough to hold a nation together. These might suffice for a few ‘intellectuals ‘ but more, much more is needed for ‘everyday people’.

          One reason is that anyone anywhere can lay claim to these ‘values’. I recall that Gordon Brown tried to say years ago that the Britishness was defined by ‘fairness’. Comically, this remark was immediately pounced on and denounced by Asians as ‘racist’.

          John Jay in the Federalist Papers remarked about the now United States:

          ‘Providence has been pleased to give this connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..’

          The USA would never have come into existence had it not been for these factors. Regardless of the formalities of the Constitution, this is what the country was founded on.

          As the USA becomes less and less as Jay described it, so it becomes less and less United. If the last ditch attempts by Trump fail, total disintegration at some time in the future beckons, just as it does in Britain,

      • Mrs May talks about ‘British values ‘ and ‘decency’ as if these were somehow in the air in this country instead of being the result of thousands of years of Christian Civilisation.

        And the fact that Britain has had no significant immigration from any source for the best part of a millennium, during which time it homogenised groups which were in any case closely related ethnically.

        The attempt to redefine Englishness in terms of a ‘beliefs’ rather than ethnicity is very recent and would have baffled our forebears, including the generation who fought WW2 to ‘save Christian Civilisation’ as Churchill told the nation.

        It is saying, in effect that English people have no ethnicity while Asians, blacks and others do.

    • Yes, it is interesting that Orwell’s Statue has just been erected outside the BBC premises.

      I wonder what the apparatchiks within think of this ?

  9. The Deobandi sect originated in an Islamic revival centred on anti-colonial and anti-British agitation although it later split in two distinct directions of travel. From Wiki:-

    “According to a 2007 investigation by The Times, about 600 of Britain’s nearly 1,500 mosques were under the control of “a hardline sect”, whose leading preacher loathed Western values, called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah and preached contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus. The same investigative report further said that 17 of the country’s 26 Islamic seminaries follow the ultra-conservative Deobandi teachings which had given birth to the Taliban. According to The Times almost 80% of all domestically trained Ulema were being trained in these hardline seminaries. In 2014 it was reported that 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars are controlled by the Deobandi, the largest single Islamic group.”

    The clueless British government has long offered hospitality to those who pose a risk to the traditional tolerance and freedom of this country, from Marx to Miliband Snr, and we are now witnessing the consequences. That radical Islam and the radical left are strange bedfellows is no surprise at all.

  10. Doh! The BBC are dhimmis who are using the old Muslim tactic of taquiya (dissimulation) to convert us into believing Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ This is one reason, if not the most important reason, why we so desperately need a credible alternative media. Thanks TCW for providing this! Keep going!

  11. The biggest problem we have is that people simply will not even accept the possibility that their political leaders and others are being bribed by Middle Eastern oil money, particularly Saudi to promote and allow to be promoted, the Salafist view of Islam.

    The Deobandis are funded out of Saudi, they are also Salafist as are the Wahabists.

    20 different countries around the world have outlawed Salafism, all of the them are Muslim. The ideology which drove ISIS was Salafism, and how can you have a hope of tackling it when the BBC lies and says it’s not really Islamic.

    Seriously? That’s like claiming the Pope is not a Catholic !

    The penalty in some of these countries for a woman wearing the veil in public is up to 25 years in prison. Not for the garment but following that ideology.

    Imagine you are a Salafist living in a country where it is illegal and you want to practice your faith? You are going to have to leave that country, yet the main region it is practiced bans immigration. Where do you go?
    Yep that’s right! You come to the continent of the terminally stupid Europe, where your violent ideology will be not only allowed but protected in law, because the politicians are just puppets of the Middle Eastern potentates.

    Every terrorist act in Europe has been carried out by a Salafi of some shade or other, and our politicians bleat about ‘moderate Muslims’. Well the sheep are well and truly sorted from the goats so why not do what many other Muslim countries have done and ban this extreme ideology?

    There can only be one explanation, and that is personal greed.

        • I think the moment of horror for me was when I became aware that there were a lot of words describing various nuances of deception.

          Language is in some ways a living organism that tells you what is significant in the culture it is used in.

          The Eskimo’s famous 50 words for snow makes sense when your well being depends on knowing that.

          The fact that in the English speaking world at least, the word muslim is modified by the preceding ‘moderate’ whereas a hindu is a..hindu, a catholic a catholic, no modifier, default = peaceful .

          So it is very unsettling to know that deceit was important enough in islam to need 50 (well certainly more than is comfortable anyway) words to describe it.

          • According to the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ‘The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive. It is disrespectful and an insult to our religion There is no ‘moderate and immoderate Islam’; Islam is Islam and that’s it’.

            Erdogan also said that the term ‘Moderate Islam’ is a Western invention which is being used ‘to weaken Islam’.

            Well, it is certainly an Invention of Western Liberals, but the intention is not to weaken Islam but to weaken the West’s resistance to Islam.

          • In that vein I have heard a saying.
            if ISIS is the snake then ‘moderate muslims’ are the grass.

            Bit harsh but, not out of kilter with what the very muslim president of turkey’s point of view.

          • Absolutely, Islam is Islam.
            Two things I have found interesting is the Muslim comment, you can hate better in Arabic. That explains a lot.
            Second, is the Muslim belief that all souls are born Muslim.
            In their eyes they are trying to turn unbelievers BACK to being Muslim.
            The same as any land that has been Muslim is always Muslim. Just temporarily lost.

    • ‘Great is truth, but greater still, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.’- Aldous Huxley.

      The BBC has lied by concealing the truth for as long as I can recall. It has got it down to a fine art.

  12. She’s a presenter on the BBC primarily because

    1.She’s a Muslim
    2.She’s nice looking
    3.She’s female
    4.She’s left liberal

    Why do we never hear from her anything about the 109 verses in the Qur’an which advocate the murder and oppression of non- Muslims? Or the deeds of Mohammad, the ‘perfect man’ and example to Muslims who carried these out to the letter?

    She is an educated woman. Surely she realises that these injunctions and the tone, the perspective of them and the ‘beautiful pattern’ of behaviour set by Mohammad must have had and did have a profound effect on Islamic culture and the attitudes of Muslims to the non- Muslims they live amongst?

    One has got to ask such as Hosein why it is, if Islam is as wonderful as they say it is, so many millions of them including herself fight to live in a fundamentally Christian Civilisation rather than an Islamic one.

    • She may be genuinely clueless.
      She may not actually know much of the koran, only the ‘nice bits’.
      she , however, may know it very well and is playing the taqqiya card to gain influence in the kaffir world.
      Having listened to that guy on LBC , i’m pretty sure that’s what he is up to.

      My hope is she is one of the first two and is actually ‘nice but dim’ as the saying goes but you always wonder…

      • I know that a goat or sheep ate some of it, thus disposing if it forever. It was all it was good for anyway in my opinion.

        I know it gives spiritual sustenance to millions, but that said, pace the Archbishop of Canterbury, assorted Popes and other ecclesiastical bigwigs I have no doubt that Christ would angrily condemn it as the wicked work of a false Prophet who has led these millions astray.

    • Most Muslims learn the Qur’an by rote in classical Arabic, and haven’t got a clue what the verses say or mean. (thank goodness!)
      They have to rely on an Imam to explain the meaning to them, and seeing as these Imams don’t know how to read the Qur’an either it is all taught to them by previous Imams.
      One of the funniest examples of this is on YouTube with LBC phone in, and Robert Spencer with an Imam. The conversation from the Imam is all left wing nonsense about cohesion, vibrancy etc etc and when challenged as to whether what Spencer is saying is correct the Imam eventually fesses up to not knowing much and that “it’s his subject” i.e. the Qur’an is Spencers subject !

      It really is an extraordinary insight into how little these people know about their own religion.

      • I sort of figured that it wasn’t likely that so many muslims were actually as nasty as the book they follow.
        I didn’t realise until now how that actually came to be.
        I hope that the nicer ones realise the discord between their personal values and the word and deed of the faith they have had the misfortune to be born or forced into and choose one of the other Abrahamic paths.
        Same god after all…

        • Not the same God at all. The Koran is very clear that Jews made Ezra into the Son of God (where on earth did they get that from?) and Christians committed the greatest sin of shirk (blasphemy in turning monotheism into polytheism) by making God into three persons — Father, Jesus and Mary (again where on earth do they get that from?). Hence no pious Muslim would agree that the Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the Yahweh of the Jews or the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Ok..I’m confused…
            They all revere Abraham ..but think he was working with different gods?
            Depending on which side of his tomb you pass that is.
            I wasn’t aware there was an Islamic god in the old testament….much less that Abraham spaketh to him…

            And I though the trinity was god, JC and the ‘holy ghost’ who/what -ever that is…but it was really all one…because it is…welcome to theological , er, logic…

          • Ok..I’m confused…
            They all revere Abraham ..

            The whole “Abrahamic religions” and “religions of the Book” thing is an invention of atheists and secularists.

          • I will admit my knowledge isn’t great but I’m sure that at Hebron both Jews/Christians on one side and Muslims on the other come to see the tomb of the old testament Abraham.
            Hence the ‘Abrahamic’ title as he is significant in all three religions.

            As for ‘people of the book’ . I have seen references to them (Jews and Christians) on a very non atheist Islamic sources so , maybe you were mistaken…

          • The fact that some religious people buy into this syncretist or theosophist nonsense doesn’t make it any less secular in origin.

          • Mohammed relied on sources that were highly dubious. Yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all revere Abraham, but while Christianity has preserved the Old Testament intact, Islam has seriously altered biblical stories to suit its own agenda. I don’t think they did this deliberately but because, as I mentioned, reliance on very dubious sources, primarily a number of apocryphal gospels and distorted oral traditions. For example, in the Old Testament, Abraham is about to sacrifice Isaac; while the Koran changes it to Ishmael.

          • Yes, you are right. The Christian Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Muhammad couldn’t even get that bit right. There is no Islamic god in the Old Testament. Muhammad plagiarised the Old and New Testament, but sadly he used a number of heretical sources and got the whole thing screwed up.

      • They know very little about much.
        That’s what you get from indoctrination and praying all the time.
        I’ve worked with them in their countries unfortunately , and I know very well what they are like.

      • I bet I know more about Islamic theology and history than most Muslims worldwide do. Or British politicians who pontificate on how peaceloving etc etc Islam is. I’ve made it my business to know and have a library of books to prove it.

        I’m not bragging, because many people posting here are equally knowledgeable.

    • Michelle Husain may well realise these things.

      But she knows that if she talks about them, at the very least she will lose her job, and she will probably end up getting killed.

    • As a good looking woman I imagine she would not be seen dead in a Burkha and she is probably not in favour of female genital mutilation either.

  13. The two-part report on the Today programme described would not have been very long and will not have been listened to closely by many people. The ‘Today’ format does not allow for a radio documentary and listeners are doing other things at the time, so don’t focus on what is said for long. From the report above, Ms Husain would not have got away with this stuff in a full radio documentary; if it had been broadcast in such a way, she would have come under criticism for lack of even-handedness and what sounds like public relations for Islam; or the BBC scrutiny would have enforced some ‘balance’ on her, if half-heartedly.

    It would be worth pointing out the facts highlighted in this article to the BBC if just to deter it from broadcasting the content again.

    Apparently Ms Husain was not so ‘muslim’ in the past as (according to gossip columns) she was called Michelle Husain at school and university.

  14. Good to see that someone else agrees with me on the meaning of fake news as I’ve been communicating with the BBC for a long time and pointing out their omissions.
    My latest is that UK manufacturing output has increased month on month for the past six months but all I hear is negative economic news.
    I’d thus implore you all to bombard them with such fake news.

  15. Here is the news : Mishal Hussein says ‘ We at the BBC take ALL historical sexual abuse very seriously. And that includes Mo and Aisha.

    • The ‘perfect man’ and ‘beautiful pattern’ of behaviour – as he is described by Allah in the Qur’an – married Aisha at 6, ‘thighed’ her until she was 9 and then had full sex with her.

      This has opened up children of all ages to be abused by adults. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on behalf of Shiah decreeing that sexual relations may be had with babies from birth, including anally. Think of it. Or rather, better not. There is nothing in Sunni jurisprudence against the practice. Together with the ‘one day marriages ‘ allowed in Shiah, this amounts to a paedophiles’ Carte Blanche.

      The perfect man also sucked the tongues of little boys and girls, cross dressed and actually lay with the corpse of his aunt as with a wife. A very creepy dude indeed that one wouldn’t want near ones children .

      Then there is his execution of hundreds of Jews; his sex slaves, his launching of booty raids on his neighbours, his murder of opponents, his advocacy of terror and subjection in the spreading of his religion…..

      Still, that very ignorant and stupid woman who is our Home Secretary thinks that those who criticise Islam are ‘divisive’ and are condemned by the overwhelming majority of the British who believe in ‘decency’. Are they ? how does she know that? Opinion polls say otherwise.

      In my opinion, any decent person! ie one whose conscience has been formed by two millennia iof Christian Civilisation, must condemn Islam for what it is.

  16. “She damns the alternatives – not a single Muslim who is critical of current disturbing Islamic trends is invited”

    A very interesting point. The media – and in particular the BBC – is actually contributing to anti-Muslim sentiment by refusing to air these viewpoints. I often hear the question “Why are no Muslims speaking out against Jihad in Britain?”.

    If they are, Husain and her cronies are helping to silence them, thereby contributing to the impression that the Muslim community approves of Islamic extremism.

  17. Brilliant article.We are not fooled by the BBC and many are waking up wondering why we are being lied to.This undermines most of the institutions we have relied on for decades and will not be easy to fix because once trust goes it is gone for good.
    An uneasy time is coming and these institutions will be unable to moderate the anger which will spread.The lies are there for us to see.

  18. BBC is doing this at the cost of its viewers. Stop paying licence fees, do not watch it, and and pray that this rubbish news channel will implode and destroy itself from within. It continues to poison minds of viewers and misleads them… that seems to be their agenda all the time. ‘Bias’ is not the word for BBC. It is a Leftist, poisonous, lying channel..

Comments are closed.