Jihad Watch reader Null has alerted me to a superb example of how the mainstream media -- in the case in Britain -- misleads the general public. In two recent stories about the female Afghan warrior Kaftar, neither the BBC nor the Telegraph quotes her own words about who she is and why she does what she does.
Today the BBC identifies her as "Afghanistan's only female warlord" and refers to the fact that "she insists that a male relative accompany her into battle" as a "concession to social mores" that is "in line with Afghan tradition for women outside the home." It analyzes her phenomenon as arising from Afghanistan's "old feudal order" which "persists." It is "an often violent culture of blood feud and local justice where the reach of central government is weak or non-existent."
What is the ultimate motivation for it all, according to the BBC?
"Zar, zan, zamin" - gold, women, land - in the words of the old Afghan proverb provide the motivation for the violence that underpins local life."People get killed over little things, water and land," said Kaftar with a shrug.
Ah. Feuding tribal people. Of course. Education and welfare benefits will take care of this problem forthwith.
The same author wrote much the same things in a Telegraph piece from last month. Kaftar is "Afghanistan's only female warlord." She "joined the resistance during the Soviet invasion, she claims. Her father was a powerful tribal leader and she had a naturally warlike temperament." Her "only concession to gender roles on the battlefield is that she requires a male relative to be present when she is fighting, in line with Afghan tradition for women outside the home."
The UN disarmament program inside the country faces immense problems "because outside Afghanistan's cities the government's control is weak and armed confrontation is a way of life."
And what is the root cause of all this fighting?
In the words of the old Afghan proverb, "zar, zan, zamin" - money, women and land - are the root of most of the feuds which dominate life. The tribal system of Loya Jirga, conflict resolution through councils of elders, is the only means of settling the frequent outbreaks of violence. The exchange of money or women is often the preferred alternative to reciprocal killings over generations.
But neither in the BBC nor in the Telegraph did the author, Tom Coghlan, have the courage or perspicacity to pick up on some choice quotes from Kaftar herself on who she is and what her motives are -- as reported by the Times in October 2004. And who is she? Why is she fighting? You guessed it:
“We Mujahidin have not been given our rights,” she complains, her face framed by thick braids beneath an open scarf. “We fought for so long but this Karzai Government has given us nothing.”
She is as untroubled as Umm Nidal Farhat by the deaths of her children:
The death of two of her boys along with one of her brothers, slain in combat with the Taleban, appears not to trouble her. It was the death of her commander, the iconic Ahmad Shah Masood, assassinated by a suicide bomber in September 2001, that now shadows her days.“Oh, Masood!” she sighs. “I smiled as I buried my sons, because they died in the way of God fighting a jihad, and I was proud of them. But Masood was my leader and was murdered. It was the saddest day of my life.”
Now why wouldn't the BBC and the Telegraph care to mention that she is a jihad warrior? Wouldn't her ultimate motivations and goals -- beyond the quaint primitivist evocation of zar, zan, zamin -- be important to tell their readers? Or do both the BBC and the Telegraph wish to downplay the prevalence of jihadist sentiments?
It seems that they do -- for this is not an isolated case. They of course are breathing the same zeitgeist as are we all, and are in fact responsible for it to a tremendous degree. As the jihad in the West intensifies, they and others like them will bear increasing responsibility for the general ignorance and unpreparedness of Western non-Muslims for what is coming upon them.
I think it would be useful to have a webpage dedicated to collecting these smoking gun cases of media bias. It's such an important issue. In general, it would be nice if Jihad/Dhimmi Watch had more by way of an index, though I guess the search function is the next best thing. (I realize there would be serious software issues involved.) One problem with websites such as this is that for all practical purposes, the archives are lost to the general reader. Only a quasi-scholar will be willing or able to dig through them.
Yes, I think there is a lot of lazy recycling going on.
Hugh dissected a recent piece in the New Duranty Times and, inter alia pointed to its comparing Taliban rulings on special clothing for Hindus with "taking a leaf out the Nazis' book" (something like that - I quote from memory). But, as Hugh pointed out, such practices for dhimmis/zimmis are native to Islam and far pre-date Herr Hitler. However, what's the odds that the New Duranty Times columnist lifted this straight from Peter L. Bergen's (CNN) Holy War Inc.?
Pretty good odds, I'd think. Thus are mis-apprehensions recycled.
The Telegraph is better than some, but while the Telegraph is up for discussion how about this:
The Telegraph's Understanding Islam: A complete guide to its history, culture and beliefs..
Bearing in mind Hugh's point that "shilling for Islam" crosses lines of left/right political allegiance, note the egregious John Casey, of Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge, the darling of the "Hegelian Conservatives", pops up here yet again.
DEFEND OUR CULTURE! Freedom of speech and expression is an established part of British culture, it is the very thing that has allowed multiculturalism and our multi faith society to thrive. Or to exist at all, It is essencial that we defend it at ALL COSTS. Against more oppresive natured easily offended cultures, if any culture is eroded at the cost of pleasing another. Then the multi culti ethos has died and the predominant culture of that land should take presidence over all.
"it would be useful to have a webpage dedicated to collecting these smoking gun cases of media bias..."
-- from a posting above
Yes, examples, big and little, from all over the world, in many languages, and with appended only the briefest of mocking commentaries pointing out exactly where the mistake, the silly assumption, the gross miscomprehension, the denial, the avoidance of reality, lies -- here, and here, and here.
The amount of material might overwhelm this website's bark. A trillion gigabytes could fill its hold in a femtosecond. That ship is sturdy, and the course certain, and the crew members, a handpicked group of American Practical Navigators, have proven fit for their self-assigned tasks. But their numbers are few. Fit, but few.
If her male escort gets killed in the fighting, does she have to stop and run home?
Robert:
Wow, you're on the ball! Early morning (one imagines) and you can absorb my diatribe and the three articles, and then assemble your post in a matter of minutes - furthermore picking up on the "zar, zan, zamin" obfuscation, the significance of which I didn't even notice until after I emailed you.
However, perhaps stronger coffee is in order in both our houses. We both missed the fact that the Telegraph and BBC articles are by the same reporter, Tom Coghlan - hence the similarities!
Finally, here's the link to the 2004 Times article that puts the two more recent pieces to shame.
Null:
I apologize. I am not that much on the ball or I would have noticed they were by the same author, and would have included the Times link.
I will revise the text accordingly now. And thanks again.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Particularly note one section of the Telegraph's 'Guide to Islam this disgusting little piece of tagiyya written for the consumption of the infidels says:
As if religion could be separated from the "cultural norms" (oh! and "style") of a society. As if what anthropologists refer to as "culture" does not grow, in large part, from religion in the first place. As if the Koran did not denigrate women.
Notice the author has written "nearly 40 other books [sc. dishonest apologias] on Islam for children and adults". But the Telegraph gives him space to attempt to lull its readers to sleep.
The more I read by these dhimmi writers, the less I understand what is exactly in it for them to "sell" Islam in this way?
"the less I understand what is exactly in it for them to "sell" Islam in this way?"
-- from a posting above
No shaking of complacency. No need to examine world-view, as in All Religions Are Good, or All Religions Mean the Same Thing, or We All Want the Same Thing. No need to reconsider anti-American or anti-Israel attitudes (for the irreducible number of pathological antisemites, this of course is very important).
No need to question authority, whether of ruling classes (and these elites -- a word to be used ironically here -- differ in their formation in each Western country, and what gives them their brief authority, but authority for a while they have.
No need to worry; all will come right. No need to think ahead; things take care of themselves. No need to confront the awful possiblity that now burrowed within the Lands of the Infidels, behind what they regard as enemy lines, millions of people, multiplying fast, adept at exploiting the very tolerance, sweetness, innocence, credulity, stupidity, of those among whom one has settled, and toward whom it is easy to feign friendship, sincerity, ability to become thoroughly whatever it is one must become or, alternatively, to frame demands for changes in Infidel societies and laws in ways that may seem plausible, even palatable, to many Infidels (think of how many began to parrot the idea that it is wrong to use the right of free speech to make others "feel bad" -- what nonsense).
Oh, that's just a start.
And then there is money. So much money is flowing to the Muslim oil states, so very much. And how easy it is to get hold of it, just by saying nice things about Saudi Arabia or Islam. How do you think John Esposito is doing now, compared to how he did at Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, as a lowly professor, before he became that Grand Thing, the head of the Talal bin Al-Waleed (is that it? did I get it right?) Center at Georgetown for Muslim-Christian Understanding or whatever that whole outfit is now called?
Much as I normally love BBC World, I have recently become increasingly infuriated by an apparent company code dictating that specific references to 'that' religion/ideology should be avoided if possible. Thus, I have now learned that "Paris suburbs" is an euphemism for the M word. No need to refer to ethnicity, let alone religion, let the viewer draw his/her own conclusions, and we should not fan the flames, etc.
As a card carrying Dane I have also been extremely upset by reporters not asking glaringly obvious questions at e.g. demonstrating hordes, such as "shouldn't you be demonstrating against your own government rather that against some cartoons in a foreign newspaper that is not even sold here?," or "does your government subsidize Christian churches like the Danish government supports the Muslim community in Denmark?". I am pretty sure that such glaring hypocrisy is *never* addressed when submissives are being 'interviewed' on Al-BBCera. This also applies to Danish TV, I should add.
See points regarding media in these RESTRICTED UK Government documents (Operation Contest) concerning the appeasement of islamic groups in the U.K.
Clicked on RESTRICTED in posting above. Nothing happened. Please re-link.