UK TV airing for Islam's story of Christ

Insulting Christians, eh?

""How would the Muslim community respond if ITV made a programme challenging Muhammad as the last prophet?"

I'm no Christian, but I agree with that statement. This is ridiculous. Is England so deep in self-loathing that they're willing to just hand themselves over to Islam on a silver platter?

Demand equal time on UK TV to air a documentary featuring Ali Sina's "Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh’s Prophet."

justamomof4

Now let us see if ITV or any media, broadcast the truth about Mohammed - a mass murderer, child molester, and that he is not the last prophet, or in fact a prophet at all but a barbarian war lord. These are all facts.

The British media would wet or foul its collective trousers at the very thought, leave alone making and broadcasting such documentary.

When it comes to destroying and denigrating the faith that is the basis of Western civilisation, the media shows such courage, it should get the prize for bravery beyond the call of duty.

I guess this goes along with the statement from the Dutch bishop encouraging Christians to call God "Allah." The day of 9/11 really was a huge victory for Muslims; they have gained so much in six years and on so many fronts. Would anyone like a footbath? I know plenty of places that now offer that service. How about a piece of meat from the sheep that has been cruelly killed on live television as a Muslim sacrifice?

If Melvyn Bragg and the TV company had a shred of integrity they would also make a documentary about the life of Mohammed, preferably one without a script by Karen Armstrong.

It would have to include things like the murder of Asma bin Marwan, marriage to Aisha, 1400 years of Jihadist violence etc.

Of course, they won’t make this programme.

After the programme has aired, perhaps the CPS and the police will see fit to investigate...........?

GetBornAgain:

We all know how the muslim community would react -with outrage! And we all know that a true biography of mo will never see the light.

Neither will muslims, for that matter.

"On the last day the Koran says Jesus will destroy all the crosses, abolish the Jiziyah and kill the swine"

The swine are the Christians in case you're wondering...

This is a further proof, if it were needed, that Christians in the UK have accepted muhammad's supiriority over jesus.

While I have heard and read many immams villifying christians at every opportunity, to this day I have not heard a peep from an Angical Bishop saying anything derogatory about islam or muhammad.

All you get in the UK is how wonderful and peaceful islam really is.

We already heard about the ban on kuffars from eating during rammadan so as not to upset the muslims, I predict that UK will become an islamic country in all but name in a matter of 10 years.

Welcome to "Bartaniya" folks.

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

The Blair-ennobled Bargg makes something of a show out of his being a Christian. His persona as no-nonsense,hard headed (i.e. non-sissy and non-posh) media intellectual and critic received something of a dent when he wrote a novel about a young girl having a passionate affair with a much older man, about his age and resembling him in some other respects. He's terribly conceited - most weeks he hosts a discussion show on radio 4 about all sorts of recondite topics - from the permian extinction to the Scottish enlightenment. His attitude is one of being fully au fait with the background (no doubt having spent a week buffing up on it) and has merely to bully the two academics, who have studied the subject all their lives, he hosts, into providing details and clarification. For all his northern bluster and not-suffering-fools-gladly airs, he has a rather credulous streak- I was shocked when he did a documentary on St James of Compostella and seemed to regard the entire legend as true or at least put up the merest token show of critical, historical objectivity. It bodes ill for any account, by him, of Mohammedan attitudes to Jesus.

Message to United States citizen jihad watchers:

We are near the beginning of the fifth day of posting this request at Jihad Watch, and we are up to 27 volunteers. California is now in the lead, with four.

I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message.
If we get more than two people per state, we’ll also send copies to the House of Representatives.

If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a new graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before we do the mailing, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.

I think this would be a good opportunity for pastors, priests and everyday Christians to remind each other what the Bible really says about Jesus.

I don't like that the TV station is airing Islamic anti-Christian propaganda but, as others have written, perhaps this might open the eyes of some Christians, as long as they know what the Bible says about it.

It surprises me that not all Christians have a good grounding in the Bible but there's no time like the present to start learning.

It's also important for non-Christians to know the difference between the way Jesus is portrayed in both religions just so they can understand that we do *not* all worship the same God.

That's why I think Robert Spencer's new book is important for everyone. I am looking forward to purchasing and reading it.

My husband and daughter are not Christians but I have told my daughter what the Bible says about Jesus and compared it to what Muslims say. She also knows the Koran, etc., was written much later than the Bible.

I think this would be a good opportunity for Robert Spencer (hint, hint) to write an article for publication in a British newspaper either now or around the time that TV program is aired. It would be a good tie-in to his book.

From the article: "Representatives from mainstream Anglican and Catholic organisations were invited to take part in the film, to be broadcast on Sunday, but nobody was available, Mr Ashraf said."

I can just see them going through the list:

Father O'Reilly -- He has to wash his hair that night.

Sister Bernadette -- It's her grandmother's funeral.

Reverend Smith -- The dog ate his invitation.

"With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians".

I wonder which "scholars and historians" have advised the producers? I bet $1 that Robert wasn't asked for his views.

"Jesus was such a prominent figure in Islam but most people don't know that," says Melvyn Bragg.

Indeed, Melvyn. They know even less about about Mohammad too but, let's face it, you and your fellow broadcasters simply wouldn't dare to produce a documentary that offered anything less than a completely hagiographic view of Islam's Prophet.

In other words, Melvyn, your documentary will challenge the very fundaments of Christian belief and worthy as that is, you will never dare to offer a documentary that questions the Islamic view of history or the integrity of its prophet. Ask Salman Rushdie what happens when you do.

Melvyn Bragg is a pompous and arrogant buffoon and ignorant wind bag. I once had the misfortune of sharing a queue with him many years ago in a sub post office in Hampstead, London. He was berating and shouting at the poor over worked post office clerk to hurry up...the assumption being that it was humiliating for him to line up at all. Obnoxious.

We live in a time where the West has enormous access to truth, yet our people perish for lack of knowledge (proverbs?)

I met a Treasury employee who specialized in spotting counterfeit currency. I said, "You must study a lot of phony money to be so good at this." He replied, "No. I study real currency and it makes fake currency obvious."

Islam is fake currency and it's too bad so many do not know reality. This is why people in the West, where we have for the moment, a free choice, should never choose Islam.

As a devote Christian, I'm fine with them airing the Islamic view of Christ only if they also present the cases for the legitimacy and illegitimacy of the Islamic-Jesus.

Personally, the whole story is so full of holes, it is laughable. Islamic theology and narratives are so historically laughable, I wonder why more documentaries debunking them are not made. Oh yah, I forgot, Muslims kill people who critique them, Christians don't.

Newsflash to those who would like to participate in the project to send Robert Spencer's new book to Congress, but have not signed up because you feel your budget is currently too tight:

A generous Australian by the name of Gabrielle has expressed interest in buying a copy of Robert Spencer's new book and donating it, on a first-come-first-serve basis, to any American citizen jihad watcher who wants to participate in this project, but whose budget currently doesn't permit it. The only requirement is that you must have been posting comments at Jihad Watch for at least a short length of time -- long enough so that you are at least a tiny bit familiar here and it's clear you are not a jihadist or someone else who would pulp the book upon receipt. (Sorry, Naseem.) The first eligible person who in a comment at Jihad Watch expresses a desire to participate will receive the book from Gabrielle so that on a certain date you can send it, as part of our project, to Congress.

After you have posted a comment to express a desire to participate, email me at traehnam@yahoo.com, and tell me the date and time stamp of your comment and the Jihad Watch story where the comment is posted. If you are first past the gate, you will only need to provide a mailing address to me, and I will forward it to the trustworthy Gabrielle, who will get the book to you.

Islam=antichrist

(1 John 2:18, ESV
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

Well I guess UK TV has declared their allegiance.

There is no way on earth that they would air a Christian or atheist view of mohammad.

NONE!

Well, the Christians might have a clue, but I doubt if the athiests do. This Christian knows that putting a torturer, rapist, enslaver, thief, liar, and a murderer's story on TV is just another 'crime' episode. I believe that every single TV station is too cowardly to print the full truth of mohammed - especially his later years - after the Jews laughed at him and he started his thuggish battles. Or even that islam is based on a pagan religion - I don't believe that any TV station has the gonads to do such a thing. Why? Because they are indeed cowardly, but they prefer not to have a clue.

And this is what baffles me because they can, #1. have guards, and #2. many are Jews, and Christians, who should be putting out the truth instead of appeasing muslims.

Keep in mind that even Fox backed down after CAIR went after them for a '24' TV show that put muslims in a bad light. As if every single other group of people haven't been put in a bad light on TV. Fox News backed down to Saudi prince's who wanted them to say 'disaffected youth' instead of muslim youth for the French riots. Now, Fox news has indeed put on some specials about islam - but they are unable to think that radical islam vs peaceful islam, or radical muslims vs peaceful muslims, might be disinformation that only adds confusion.

Will this documentary include opinions of Chritian theologians who are critical of the Islamic narrative? I doubt it. But If this film simply depicts the Islamic version of Christ in an objective and complete way, then it would be good for Britain.

They should include the end-times theology about Jesus being a military leader who will offer the final ultimatum to Christians: "Convert or Die."

I've been thinking about this all day, and I think it will be good to air such blasphemy. It will create dialog, and from that we will be able to discuss the reality of Islam(unless further hate crime legislation is passed forbidding the discussion of islam's roots.

I do hope public television in the US picks this one up.

When does The Satanists' version air?

What do Muslims know about it? Muhammad came bouncing down the side of the mountain long after Christianity was established.

They know nothing about it, only that they were taught that Jesus is not the son of God.

They are warped from the hot sun.

"the Christians might have a clue [about Islam], but I doubt if the athiests [sic] do..."
-- from a posting above

Really? What is Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Ali Sina? Ibn Warraq? Pim Fortuyn? Oriana Fallaci? Wafa Sultan? Atheists all. There are even one or two who are connected to this website.

And talking of Karen Armstrong, today I went in to a branch of Waterstones, to see whether or not they stocked any of Robert Sprencer's books (of course I didn't expect to see any) - and I was right. They stocked books written by those uber-apologists Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, but nothing written by the likes of Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bernard Lewis, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina etc.

There is one bookseller I know of in London who stocks Robert Spencer’s books.
Hopefully others will eventually follow his example.

"How would the Muslim community respond if ITV made a programme challenging Muhammad as the last prophet?"

To interpret the question literally-- dare they? Will there one day be a television documentary on the Baha'is? Will their theology, their theory of "progressive revelation" that posits Baha'u'llah as the fulfillment of the messianic expectations of many previous faiths, including Islam, be given the time of day? Will any attention be paid to the appalling ongoing persecution of the Baha'is in Iran and in every Arab country-- denial of access to higher education, starvation, imprisonment, torture, hangings, brutality of all kinds? Being bound by religious rules not to act against their governments, they cannot, after all, speak up for themselves in any meaningful way. When will attention be paid to their plight? I shall do my part by forwarding to this website any information I have as to their experiences under Islam (which have never been covered here so far as I am aware, which is doubtless due only to the obscurity of the matter, not lack of concern)-- what more shall be done? Anything?

Which intrepid reporter will devote an hourlong exposé to the vanished Christian communities of North Africa? To an exploration of the veracity of Sarkar and Lal's claims of a "Hindu Holocaust"? To a truthful portrait of India under the Mughals, the truly great Akbar the exception rather than the rule? To the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Sassanid Empire of Persia, and a "peek at the lives" of modern-day Zoroastrians? To an honest appraisal of Islamic Andalusia, which would puncture the balloon of feelgood patter inflated by those seeking to hold it aloft as a means of deflecting further inquiry into the history of non-Muslim experiences under Islamic rule?

Anyone?

Who will one day air a television documentary on the sufferings of the Ahmadiyyah Muslims, or of the Ismaili Shia, each of these being sects which (I must politely dissent with Hugh's reading) do offer a modicum of authentic hope for an Islam fully married to Western Enlightenment ideals? Isn't that the perfect angle-- The Real Peaceful Muslims: A Journey Into Ismaili and Ahmaddiyah Islam?

Note: It could be that I am merely a naive sentimentalist, coloured by my many positive interactions with members of these sects, whose teachings do emphatically reject the divison of the world between Believer and Infidel, and who have either rejected entirely the principle of jihad-warfare (as have the Ahmadis) or have developed an understanding of Jihad as a responsibility to seek knowledge wherever it is to be found, squaring it up admirably with skeptical inquiry, a hallmark of the Ismaili understanding. But I rather think these people are "on our side", as it were, and ought to be regarded sympathetically by the counterjihad.

Ive wanted to ask this question and i didnt know where to ask it because i didnt want to annoy eople because i look at this site every day.
Dont any of you people christians or jews ever look at islam and see that all religion is totally man made? i feel that people cant accept thats it when you die. so they have invented a god that there is no proof exists becuase they dont want to believe that thats the end when you die

markuk

That is a good question you pose. I do not take offence at all at your question, as it is a valid one.

A priori, there is no reason to assume that atheism or having a faith can be proved one way or other.

The question then arises, is faith a requirement for morality and hence to do good for the individual and society, or is atheism sufficient.

Bear in mind that Western civilisation, or as V S Naipaul puts it, Universal civilisation, its art, music, science and technology, is essentially based on Christianity. Atheism has contributed virtually nothing.

So even from a purely utilitarian point of view, atheism has nothing to offer in life, or even at the point of death, more so really at point of death.

You have posed the question with honesty. I do recommend you read "Mere Christianity" by C S Lewis. It can be downloaded.

Islam OTH has offered nothing to world civilisation except sorrow, though it is a comfort to millions of its followers.

Even if what you say is true it still doesnt make god exist. i just get the feeling that people are kidding themselves that there is a god. Im not saying what you said is wrong but i would love to know how science and technology is based on Christianity? I think we could move progress faster without religion.

I would love to see the U.K. program, just so I could learn what muslims believe about Jesus, as to both his life 2000 years ago and his promised return.

From what little I know, Jesus is supposed to return and attend a service led by the Mahdi (or 12th imam). After his return, dhimmitude will be abolished. That option, to live as Christians or Jews under muslim rule, will no longer exist. Instead, EVERYONE must convert or die.

markuk

You are asking proof of something i.e. God, that is a power or being beyond the material world. No such scientific proof can exist. Besides, if such proof could be provided, then it would be a material fact, and there would be no requirement for faith. Even atheists would then perforce have to believe in God. The distinction only arises because of that transcendent being or power that is beyond the material world.

Now you say that science would make more progress without faith. It is debatable, and maybe now that science is well founded, it is possible. But the roots of science, and the most illustrious scientists were Christians, and some Jews. But even the Jews were operating in Christendom, and hence part of its environment of free enquiry, particularly in Protestant countries.

Now we have no real statistical data to prove that science and technology would have come about in other cultures. We have just the one case i.e. the West. No other culture, whether Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, atheism, Islam, Chinese religions, etc, have produced the kind of mega-explosion, a veritable continuous supernova of scientific and technological innovation that has come about in, and part of Christendom, particularly the Protestant part of it. Is this just a coincidence, or is there something in Christendom that fostered and made possible that scientific and technical enquiry could flourish.

I have to go now as we have holiday flight early in the morning. Do read "Mere Christianity", it is well worth it.

Goodnight and hope we can carry on in a few weeks when I get back. Take care.

Who will one day air a television documentary on the sufferings of the Ahmadiyyah Muslims, or of the Ismaili Shia, each of these being sects which (I must politely dissent with Hugh's reading) do offer a modicum of authentic hope for an Islam fully married to Western Enlightenment ideals? Isn't that the perfect angle-- The Real Peaceful Muslims: A Journey Into Ismaili and Ahmaddiyah Islam?

Posted by Funky Child above.
---------------------------

I agree with you about the Ismailis but not about the Ahmaddiyah, if by Ismailis you mean the Nizari Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan.

The Nizari Ismailis reject even the most basic tenets of Islam. They do not make Haj, they don't have mosques but worship in Jamatkhanas instead. They even believe in re-incarnation. Most important, they read the quran as spiritual symbolism and are thus opposed to Sharia, Dhimmitude, and Jihad in any form. They encourage education of women and have a modern outlook on the world. Ismailis are also strongly pro-Western and have been for nearly two hundred years. This mixture of Islam with Christianity and Hinduism is a true reform that deserves our support.

Unlike mainstream Twelver Shiism which holds that the external teachings of the Quran, such as the injunctions of Sharia are valid and applicable. Ismailis are required to adjust to the modern era according the infallable teaching of the living "Imam of the Age" currently Karim Aga Khan. The current Aga Khan, who is also a British prince, has an English mother and is the step-son of the late American actress Rita Hayworth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan_IV

Don't forget that no group has suffered more from Quranic Islam (both Sunni and Shia) than the Ismailis but they still make up a slight majority in the Hunza area of Pakistan and the Badakhshan region of Afghanistan as well as having a substantial population in the eastern half of Tajikistan. If the US were smart, it would forget supporting Musharraf and Karzai but instead push for an independent Ismaili state in this region.

In contrast, the Ahmaddiyas have strict Sharia and read the Quran literally. Their biggest difference with other Muslims is that they believe the Mahdi has already come and that their leader is the legitimate Khalif. Other than that, they are just as narrow as other Muslims. For these reasons we should never trust the Ahmaddiyah but we must support the Nizari Ismailis.

Honestly, I think this is good. Most people are no aware of how Muslims consider Jesus. This show, insulting as it may be, will create awareness in Christians that Islam is anti-Christian. Hopelfully, they will realize that Allah is a concept of god antagonic with the Christian (and Jew) concept of God.

This show should be given to the hierarchy of the Catholic and Christian Churches too.

"the Ahmadiyyah Muslims, or of the Ismaili Shia..."
-- from a posting above

The first are not considered orthodox Muslims; in Pakistan they must identify themselves on official documents not as "Muslims" but as "Ahmadis."

The Ismaili Muslims are, according to Ibn Warraq, possibly the least menacing of Muslim groups. But they are a very small group.

The Camp of Islam, becuase of the immutable texts and how those texts are naturally received and perceived, and have been acted upon, is a permanent danger to the Camp of Infidels. Ahmadiyya Islam, whose adherents are not considered truly Muslim (and denounced as
"Qadianis"), and discriminated against in Muslim Pakistan, and despised by Muslims elsewhere, are not going to change Islam. Nor are the Ismailis, whom we all know from those old newsreels in which the Aga Khan, the head of the Ismailis, was weighed so that his followers could produce for him his weight in diamonds (or was it gold?), is not the answer either, because of the limited appeal of this not-quite-orthodox sect. Would that all Muslims were Ismailis. But very few are, and it would be folly for Infidels, at this moment in history, to drop their guard -- which is already close to the ground, and pin pious hopes on either the Ismailis or the Ahmadis. Look at sub-Saharan Africa, where the Ahmadis have in the past been missionaries, helping to persuade non-Muslim black Africans to become Muslims. And then what happened? The Saudis, the Wahhabis, moved in, built their mosques and their madrasas, spread the money around, and it is now the Ahmadis who are in retreat, and those who were Ahmadis now turning to the full-monty of Wahhabi Islam. With the results we all see, and some that we don't see -- to our peril.

Which intrepid reporter will devote an hourlong exposé to the vanished Christian communities of North Africa? To an exploration of the veracity of Sarkar and Lal's claims of a "Hindu Holocaust"? To a truthful portrait of India under the Mughals, the truly great Akbar the exception rather than the rule? To the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Sassanid Empire of Persia, and a "peek at the lives" of modern-day Zoroastrians? To an honest appraisal of Islamic Andalusia, which would puncture the balloon of feelgood patter inflated by those seeking to hold it aloft as a means of deflecting further inquiry into the history of non-Muslim experiences under Islamic rule?

Anyone?

Glenn Beck might just do it. I think that you should contact his office and suggest such a program...and include a segment on Christians in Iraq and Pakistan, etc.

Hugh,

Even if the Nizari Ismailiya have a limited appeal to most Muslims they are by no means an insignificant minority. They actually are the majority of the population accross a an area from northwest Kashmir to Tajikistan. Unreliable statistics have resulted in there being only an estimate as to the number of Ismai'lis in the world. Estimates range from 15-30 million. It is accepted that Ismai'lis constitute the second-largest Shi'a Muslim population and the Aga Khan's flock are the largest subgroup. Beyond that, they are also the most prosperous group having a similar economic and business outlook as another historical outgroup: the Jews.

The Ismaili are found primarily in India, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, China, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, East Africa and South Africa, but have in recent years emigrated to Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and North America.

In recent years, because they are strongly pro-US and mostly pro-Israel, they have been accused by the Pakistani ISI of trying to set up an Ismaili state with Mossad support. God that it were true, but it isn't. Mossad hasn't really operated in Pakistan since the Soviets left Afghanistan and then, like the US, were on the side of the Muslims.

There is a movement for Ismaili independence that does deserve our support.
http://www.balawaristan.net/shia.htm
but believe that in order to be succesful, they can't be openly Ismaili but have to appeal to msinstream Muslims as well.

Nevertheless, please read the Balawaristan National Front's letter to the Indian prime minister: http://www.hvk.org/articles/1101/199.html
to see how these people are persecuted by the same Muslim enemy we oppose here at JW/DW.

Hypocracy and blasphamy at its very worse. Ironic last year the Muslims were going balistic over the Muhammed cartoons. This year its let's insult the Christians. At least Christians can pray for the conversion of the Muslims to the TRUE Lord and to the Christain faith.

THE ACADEMICS ARE THE SOURCE OF THIS EVIL

Without the liberal social science professors in our universities, we would not have the problems we do now.

The source of all the liberal, left-wing, dhimmi, apologist, multicultural garbage that pervades our societies is the humanities departments of our universities.

It is these academics who brainwash, indoctrinate and otherwise pass on their warped views to tens of thousands of graduates every year. These graduates become teachers, police officers, public servants, social workers, journalists, lawyers, judges, administrators, authors and yes, academics.

Some people are resistant to the mindless evil inculcated into them by their professors. Others swallow the lies hook, line and sinker. They then reach positions of responsibility and carry on the damage. They incorporate their beliefs into procedures, curriculums, written work, regulations, court decisions and laws. The people who follow them into these professions usually believe the same as they do. The cycle repeats itself.

The academics are the source. We can beat this sickness by destroying it at the source.

We need to publicise the transgressions of academics. Whether they spit anti-white racism, or make outrageous suggestions of accommodation, they need to be exposed. Their name, position, history of similar acts, institution and contact details - these all need to be made available to the public so that we can see what goes on in our universities. This can also act to demythify the intellectuals.

We also need to push for reform of our universities. We need to end tenure, make firing procedures easier, and push for budget cuts to the humanities. By diverting funds away from "Whiteness Studies" or "Art History", we can spend more money on the hard sciences.

The academics who don't espouse dhimmitude or affirmative action or anti-white racism should be praised. Their positions must be protected. They should receive great public support. Their classes should be the beneficiary of some of the budgetary savings from the elimination of left-wing subjects, courses and professors. Through these teachers, we can again produce graduates with common sense.

The greatest allies that Muslims have are the PC, Multi Culti, ‘Yuman rites’ spouting, Tree Hugging, Leftwing, Moonbat, Guardianistas. These people have long been in power in UK and almost exclusively supply all of Acedemia, the Judiciary, Social Services, Political Parties and the BBC (along with radical feminists and Gays of course) and the rest of the MSM. They have also heavily infiltrated the Police Force and the Armed Services. In the USA now I see the same moonbats taking power Nancy Pelosi et al and you already have them in the MSM (CNN,CNBC etc). The next presidential election is crucial for the USA the result will decide if the USA survives or falls victim to the same moonbat disease which grips most of Europe. The BBC is currently under fire for its outrageous Islamic bias and also its anti-Christian, anti-semitic,anti-American editorial bias in fact this is so endemic in the BBC that it goes far above editors and IS company Policy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=476267&in_page_id=1770

I encourage education about what the Quran and hadith says about things, that is the only way people will find out Islam is rubbish.

BBC forced to remove 'bastard' slur about Jesus from its website

This is a great idea.

Most people think that Mohammed and Jesus have the same God. Now, they will see that that is not at all the case.

They are far from being the same.

At least this will open people's eyes to the truth.

I am watching this programme now. What a disgrace. I am not a christian but this is just an insult UNLESS they follow this with a programme questioning whether Mohammed was a prophet or a psychologically unbalanced power monger who invented a "religion" from parts of other religions in order to progress his lust for power. They could cover whether mohammed married a child (as we know he did), whether he murdered people who questioned him (which we know he did), whether he raped jewish women (which we know he did), whether he had changed what God had already apparently told him to fit his own ends (which we know he did). This program is so biased, and the muslims are so arrogant in it (as usual) that I find it hard to believe that it's intention isn't merely to promote islam and insult christians. We know they have stories of Jesus in the Koran, it's not a secret. They try and portray this fact as if it is proof that the koran is more factually correct than the Bible. What a totally disingenuous programme. Designed to incite hatred.

The best part is at the end where one guy says that mohammed asked how he could turn someone who disagreed with him into a friend. What koran are they reading? This is a hugely disturbing programme. The makers of this programme need to be investigated, they have totally slewed the facts to attack christianity in the UK. Melvyn Bragg should be ashamed of himself. Channel 4 need to be brought to book for this.

Anyone with a copy?

Kay - good point. I think most people have no idea what Muslims mean when they say they 'respect Jesus and Mary'.

Jihadwatchers in the UK should be poised to pounce, at the office or in the social whirl, if someone mentions having seen the doco. Encourage people to read the Gospels and the Quran side by side and draw their own conclusions; put in a big plug for Spencer (Religion of Peace?), Bat Yeor, Bostom, Mark Durie et al.

God bless Bishop Sookhdeo! Good on ya mate! At least this article reported his words and his background, and gave some free publicity to the Barnabas Fund. Anyone who visits that website will soon learn all about the horrible way Islamised societies are mistreating Christians, here and now; they will also learn about Islam's methods of infiltration, its longterm project of Total World Domination by All Means Necessary.

Ideally, in response to this ITV program, members of the Bible Societies in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales should hold simultaneous public recitations of the Four Gospels, in the original Greek and in English, in public places - most particularly, on the front steps of St Paul's Cathedral in London, and at Westminster Abbey - and in Hyde Park where the soapboxes are? If the Bible Society won't do it, perhaps ordinary parishioners of UK churches - such as it might be, people posting or reading here? - could do it themselves?

What if even 20 or 30 Christian Londoners (led by Bishop Sookhdeo, perhaps?) got together to simply read the Gospels aloud, outside St Paul's of London? What if they had, some months before the event, humbly and respectfully written and begged Her Majesty, as Defender of the Faith, and the Catholic and Anglican Archbishops, and whoever is in charge of the Orthodox community in Britain, to be present and to take part? Imagine Her Maj reading John 1: 1-18!

Gospel recitations in Cardiff and Carnarvon should be conducted in Welsh as well as English; the sessions in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness, in Scots Gaelic as well as English; sessions in Belfast, Cork and Dublin should be presented in Irish Gaelic as well as English. THAT might get publicity!

I understand there is a British actor who can recite St Mark's Gospel off by heart. He could be invited to take part. Muslims like to skite about reciters of the Quran - let them see that Westerners can play that game, too, with OUR sacred books.

The awful truth is that way too many nominal UK 'Christians' - and a lot of the unchurched general public - have no knowledge of the Gospel accounts and are therefore in no position to judge and reject the ugly and ridiculous counterfeits of Islam. That state of affairs has GOT to change, fast! The Muslim claims aren't just an insult to Christians - they are a flat insult to the work of many sober secular scholars of the languages, texts, archaeology, geography and history of the Eastern Mediterranean shores at the time of the first century AD, under Augustus and Tiberius.

Furthermore, inspired by Traeh's projected mailout to U S Senators, ordinary Christians throughout 'the west' should be sending, to our religious leaders - pastors, priests, abbots, abbesses, bishops, archbishops, Patriarchs - copies of Mark Durie's "Revelation? Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?" This UK documentary provides the perfect 'hook'.

Durie's book is cheap - only fifteen Australian dollars - and it is short, almost 'pamphlet' length, but it is rock-solid. Bat Yeor gave it a good review; and at least one of her books is in the Bibliography. Durie also references Bostom, "Legacy of Jihad". Not Spencer, I'm not sure why - but a covering note slipped in with the book could fix that, by recommending "The Truth About Muhammad", "The PIG to Islam and the Crusades", and "Religion of Peace?".

I put Durie's book in our church parish library, and wrote a review of it in the parish paper, of which I am the editor (tee hee!). I think my parish priest will read it. He and I will soon meet to discuss, among other things, plans for a parish event honouring and praying for persecuted Christians - the bulk of whom are suffering at Muslim hands.

Even Jews might find Durie useful, just for the extensive section devoted to setting out the radical character differences between the Biblical YHWH (as presented in the TaNaKh, the Hebrew Scriptures) and the Muslim 'allah'.

This 'documentary's' solemn exposition of arrogant and disgusting Muslim Big Lies about Jesus etc. should be met by a storm of irrepressible and mocking laughter, both from instructed Christians and from secular historians of the first-century Roman imperial period.

If anyone is interested - I have done an unofficial, somewhat awkward and literal translation of Jacques Ellul's last work, an essay entitled "The Three Pillars of Conformity", which ruthlessly demolishes the usual supposed points of contact between Islam on the one hand and the Biblical faiths - Judaism and Christianity - on the other.

Since there is at present no official English version of this important text, I would be prepared to send Robert a digital copy of my translation - to be passed on to anyone who might be interested. I would emphasise that I receive no material benefit therefrom, and that it is intended purely to make the gist of Ellul's thought on Quran vs Bible, available to those who read no French, while we wait for a better-quality, official translation.

I have just finished watching The Muslim Jesus, and must congratulate the programme makers. They have produced the most outrageous piece of daw'ah yet seen on British television (which is no mean feat, believe me)

Where to begin? How about with some of the talking heads featured in the programme? They were overwhelmingly either Christian converts to Islam, or else happy smiling young Muslims chosen, no doubt, for the fact that they wouldn't frighten the horses.

Among them - incredibly, for me - was Ahmad [Martin] Thomson, the Rhodesian-born Muslim convert, lawyer, author, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and British Government advisor on all things Islamic, who famously claimed that a sinister group of Jews and Freemasons forced Tony Blair to invade Iraq in order to help Israel control the Middle East.

Also featuring alongside the high profile converts and smiling imams, predictably, was Karen Armstrong, doubtless to add a spurious academic gloss to the whole affair. The claims aired by the Muslim speakers were refuted by two Christian academics.

The programme covered the whole of Jesus's life as it is written in the Islamic texts, from his virgin birth, to his speaking as a baby, right through to the crucifixion that Islam claims never happened.

What I was waiting for, of course, was the last part - the story of Jesus's Second Coming, as related in Bukhari's Hadith. THIS, I told friends, would show the true difference between the Muslim version of Jesus and the Christian version of Jesus.

And do you know what? They didn't cover it!!! Not in full. They glossed it over. On his return, we were told, Jesus would "destroy the cross, and kill the pigs". There was no mention at all of the third component of this verse, the ending of the Jizya. Why not, I wonder? Surely they weren't embarrassed by the fact that Islam forced Christians and Jews to pay a tax for their own protection?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ending of the Jizya is the key element that completes this verse. It is this that establishes Islam as the only faith, and those that do not accept the faith will not be given the option of paying the Jizya - i.e, they'll be killed.

Instead of mentioning this key quote, the programme explained that "breaking the cross" simply meant that Jesus will tell Christians that if you want to follow me, you will have to abandon Christianity and embrace Islam. What a crock!

The programme ended, unbelievably, with Ahmad Thomson inviting viewers to accept Islam.

I’m so flabbergasted I don’t know where to begin. I hope that someone technically-minded can get this onto YouTube so that you can all watch it.

In May 2006 BBC radio 5 broadcast a one hour documentary about Mohammed that gave about 2 minutes of soundbite length comments to critics of Mohammedanism and devoted the rest of the time to some of the most unctuous apologetics about a religion I have ever heard on radio. Many of the sections were delivered by a female Muslim whose voice, whenever the ‘prophet’ was mentioned, was only one notch short of spiritual transport. All that was missing was an number you could ring for the address of your local mosque so that you could sign up for this wonderful religion after the programme had ended. The sorry mess was compounded by being presented by Clive Andersen who has the reputation of being an amusing, iconoclastic kind of fellow and, as an ex-QC, someone who is bright and nobody’s fool.

I sent in an e-mail list of criticisms about it but these things, if read, are just disposed of. It’s a shame because a complaint was lodged against the programme which does not seem to have been as cogent as it might have been. The BBC’s response did not come out until this May. It is at:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:a-syyt2ZizMJ:www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/apr2007.pdf+truth+about+mohammed+radio+5+bbc+clive+anderson&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a#14

At risk of flooding the thread I'll post it here:

"The Real Muhammad Radio Five Live, 20 May 2006 1 The programme The programme was a Radio Five Live news programme and part of The Real... series, where Clive Anderson looks at different iconic figures in society. This particular episode explored the life of the Prophet Muhammad and looked at the events that shaped his view of the world and the context of his times. Other episodes have included The Real Jesus Christ, The Real Tony Blair, The Real Michael Jackson and The Real Saddam. 2 The complaint The complaint is summarised below (quotes are extracts from the complaint): “The programme was utterly dominated by uncritical proponents of Islam whose assertions, many of which were objectively false, went unchallenged..” There was no one on the programme who: - put the unambiguously critical case against Muhammad and Islam - took a dispassionate view - put the sceptic’s case - overtly represented any other religion than Islam The programme did not sufficiently challenge the fact that the claims about Muhammad were based on oral history and thus were untrustworthy. It was inaccurate to claim that the Koran does not authorise the beating of women. The claim that the Koran suggests that women are placed “on an equal footing to men” was absurd. The Koran “sanctions many other things incompatible with a liberal society such as slavery, polygamy, concubines and the killing of homosexuals”. The BBC should broadcast another programme that “deals honestly with Islam”. “The BBC is meant to be a broadcaster devoted to factual accuracy.” BBC response The Commissioning Editor of Radio Five Live responded: “It was not the intention of these programmes to dissect the detail and examine people’s faith.” “In order to understand the history we have to understand the religious context within which we know Jesus Christ (as in The Real Jesus Christ) and the Prophet Muhammad, so both programmes examined and heard from religious figures from both faiths.” “Their role was not to be challenged on their beliefs, but rather put these iconic figures into a modern-day religious context before the programme attempted to look at the real people behind the foundation of the religion.” “The programme was dealing with a real historical character not the religion in its own right.”

3 The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit (HECU) did not uphold the complaint. A summary of his finding is set out below: He pointed out that the primary aim of the programme was to “shed light on the figure of Muhammad and his teaching rather than to address the various areas of current debate in which Islam is involved”. “The programme did include an appropriate range of viewpoints ... not all the speakers were Muslim, and one of the Muslim speakers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is best known for her outspoken opposition to aspects of traditional Islam.” “The requirement of due accuracy applies to all BBC output, irrespective of whether it deals with controversial topics. However, there is a distinction between statements of that kind and statements which are speculative, debatable or simply expressions of legitimate individual interpretation.” He noted the complainant’s concern that the programme was at fault in allowing unchallenged assertions about matters whose factual basis is entirely uncertain. However, he pointed out that this was a special case due to the “evidential situation” (oral history). He stated: “‘the real Muhammad’ is the figure that emerges from the Koran and Hadith and the early tradition of commentary, there being no other which is accessible to us”. He believed “it was legitimate for the programme, having alerted listeners to the fact that the authenticity of the early sources isn’t uncontested, to proceed as if those sources provided evidence about the ‘real Muhammad’”. He explained that the authenticity of these sources was not a matter that fell within the definition of controversial subjects, and as such did not breach editorial standards. Although the substantive element of the complaint was not upheld, HECU did find in the complainant’s favour on one aspect of the programme: HECU was satisfied that a comment by a contributor who stated that there was nothing in the Koran which authorised husbands to beat wives seemed to conflict with all versions of the Koran he had consulted which appeared to authorise the corrective use of violence. He therefore upheld this element of the complaint. Applicable editorial standards Section 3: Accuracy The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation. For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.

We aim to achieve accuracy by: the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. checking and cross checking the facts. validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. Misleading audiences We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. Section 4: Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy. we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. Achieving impartiality Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. 19

4 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaints against the relevant editorial standards, including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines. The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal; this included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were asked to comment on the material going before the Committee. The Committee considered the issue of impartiality. This included a consideration of whether the choice of contributors was appropriate to provide an impartial historical analysis of the subject matter. It was satisfied that, in the context of this programme, the programme’s choice of guests from a range of different backgrounds that included academics, journalists, politicians and authors was appropriate to provide the necessary range of views to examine the evidence there was to illuminate the historical figure of Muhammad. It noted that the programme had raised doubt about the accuracy of information regarding historical facts about Muhammad and had considered what corroboratory evidence there was available to support the claims of Muslim scholars who used the Koran and the Hadith as historical testimony on the life of the Prophet. The Committee also noted the conversation with Dr Chase Robinson, who suggested that there were only two ways to provide independent corroboration: material evidence such as documentation or archaeology and written material in non-Islamic languages. The Committee noted from the transcript what he had to say about both of those options: “Unfortunately that’s irretrievable [archaeology], Muhammad was living fourteen hundred years ago and many of the places in which he lived have been built and rebuilt and rebuilt again.” And: “Material written in non-Islamic languages ... virtually all of it is written by Christians and Jews who were a) all outside of the Arabian peninsula, so they only knew him by reputation, and b) precisely because they were Christians and Jews and not Muslims, they were arguing against him.” The Committee was satisfied that by raising these doubts the programme had fulfilled its requirement to question the authenticity of the known facts. It noted that it was not for the programme to either prove or disprove these theories but to leave the listener to come to their own conclusions as to what was said. In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that the programme complied with the required editorial standards. The Committee then considered how the complaint was handled. The Committee agreed that the time delay between lodging the complaint and getting an answer at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the process was unacceptable. FINDING: The Committee did not uphold the complaint, but will raise the issue of slow/late responses with BBC management. 20

Action The Committee will write to BBC management to remind them of the importance of providing prompt and considered replies to complainants at all stages of the complaints process."

Did it occur to them that the line about the Koran forbidding wife-beating was deliberate lie and that an expert critic might have pointed out about a dozen deliberately misleading comments. Also Hersi's criticism of Mohammed, besides being short was extremely mute - a sure sign of editorial tinkering.

sory! - for 'mute' read 'muted' in the last line

Provoslavni-- Thank you for echoing my support for the Ismailis. I must again stand up for the Ahmadis, however-- their reading of the Qur'an is not strictly literal in respect to the question of Jihad. They flatly reject the principle of warfare to bring about the dominance of Islam. Technically they do hold that the dominance of Christian nations is the handiwork of the Dajjal (Antichrist)-- but for whatever reason, this hasn't stopped them from being full partners in the venture of Western civilization. By their actions they manifest genuine, unfeigned amity toward non-Muslims.

http://www.alislam.org/library/history/ahmadiyya/111.html

^ This is an Ahmadi humanitarian organization of some repute.

In actuality, my experiences with Ahmadiyyah Islam have led me to the conviction that it has considerably more in common with Christianity than with Islam as Jihad Watchers understand it. The words and deeds of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder and supposed Mahdi, carry nearly as much weight if not more than those of Muhammad, and his diktat is enough to dispel much of the warlike nature of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, at least in the Ahmadi understanding. Ahmadis flatly reject the notion of warfare against unbelievers-- for them, Jihad actually means what other Muslims claim it means (i.e., that it is an inner spiritual struggle for one's own betterment, and if at all combative is a defensive measure to defend against extreme persecution, and no more.) They have also jettisoned the doctrine of naskh, and so take Qur'an 2:256 literally, interpreting it in the sense Westerners would like to believe mainstream Muslims do.

It's sad to hear that Ahmadi missionary activity has been so roundly unsuccessful. One wishes the community were more actively aware of, and had been openly won over to, the efforts of the counterjihad. As it is, with their reverence for Muhammad even as they take as their main inspiration a gentle soul quite unlike the prophet, they're caught between a rock and a hard place-- between the beauty of their own interpretation and the venality and cruelty of their father faith.

"Imagine Her Maj reading John 1: 1-18!"

A beautiful image in the mind's eye. Thank you.

Abraham took his son Isaac to sacrifice him to God. God told Abraham his strong belief was proof enough he did love God. God told Abraham no more sacrifices that Jesus was to be the ultimate sacrifice. A perfect vessel to fullfill God's promise. It was Jesus that would restore life after death. It was Jesus who gave us free will. The 2nd humanity=Life. Both Adam and Jesus were free will characters, the difference being that one chose to disobey God and the other out of love chose to obey even to the mysterious death. The life of Jesus was the effulgence of the glory Heb 1:13 an exact expression of the Father's character. It was the human spirit of Jesus that made him human in the image of the Father, and that spirit of Christ in us will make us vessels of honor in God's image. A spirit of love for Christ within us will consent to His Will. 2 PT1:3-4 1 Jn 3:12 If the humanity of Adam was to be made into a likeness of God, it needed the capacity to be filled with the spirit of God. The personality of man needed the endowment of certain capacities.
1. The capacity to reason
2. The capacity to grow in wisdom
3. The ability to guide one's actions in accordance with reason and conscious
4. The ability to love
5. The possesion of free will
These are the needed elements in a person for the development of a perfect personality.

It was at that time Abraham and Isaac that Mohammed changed the meaning. Mohammed took the credit. Re-wrote the meaning. Continuing to kill! To keep living in the 1st humanity! Which is baren and lies death!

It is the Koran that is trying to destroy the Cross and all crosses besides the ACLU and the liberals and disbelievers! Yes, let's make a movie on their belief of Mo he was born under a rock! A black horse took him and he came back through the ideology of his people who have no wisdom to choose or have the freedom to think for themselfs! They have no metric. Theirs is death! Fear! Annihilation! Propagation!

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him. Seems part of Europe has become "Chicken Little's" and want stand up to Islam.

Amazing how Jesus Christ can be portrayed different from what He is and it's ok with world...but if we speak anything against Muhammed or allah..they have our throats. And lawsuits..etc. WOW!

UK...you falling in a deep pit and no way out if you keep going the way you going! My heart goes out to the people who are caught in this mire and can't do anything about it. But I would say...fight to take your country back and kick the media where it hurts..in their pockets.

(quote)The makers of this programme need to be investigated, they have totally slewed the facts to attack christianity in the UK. Melvyn Bragg should be ashamed of himself. Channel 4 need to be brought to book for this.(unquote)

Posted by: DaveMate
------------------------

Sorry to have to correct your post Dave Mate although I entirely agree with your sentiments. The programme was broadcast on ITV 1 which is separate from Channel 4.
I watched with growing disgust. It was the most pro-Muslim sychophancy I have ever had the misfortune to see on British TV.
As a practising Jew I don't personally share the Christian view of Jesus, but I absolutely reject the way that Muslims have reconfigured the prophets of the Bible and their stories. About a year or so ago the BBC claimed on its website that the Muslim festival of Eid commemorated the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. It failed to add that both the Jewish Torah and Christian teaching says this son was Isaac. Muslims have completely appropriated and reconfigured the story in the Quar'an so that it is Ishmael who is the intended sacrifice.
There is a saying I read on here once about Muslim stories but cannot remember who used it. It was:"If it's familiar it's been pinched. If it's new it was made up."

I didn't mind the basic premise of the program but when the program described Karen Armstrong a muslim apologist as a 'religious scholar' and her rants as 'scholarship', i knew it was time to turn the idiot box off!

The idea that Islam reveres Jesus, and that Christians should accept that as a sign of the compatability of the two religions is ridiculous. Mohammad said that on Judgement Day Christians would ask Jesus to intercede for them, and Jesus would tell them that He could not do it, and that they should ask Mohammad instead. Now, people are entitled to believe what they want, but don't point to that story and say it is an example of reverence. Don't slap my in the face and tell me it was a kiss.

"...the BBC claimed on its website that the Muslim festival of Eid commemorated the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. It failed to add that both the Jewish Torah and Christian teaching says this son was Isaac. Muslims have completely appropriated and reconfigured the story in the Quar'an so that it is Ishmael who is the intended sacrifice..." Posted by: moris2

This misrepresentation by Muslims has been on my mind lately. Muslims say we all worship the same God: the God of Abraham.

I'm a Christian. According to the Bible, Christians and Jews worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

(Exodus 3:6; Acts 3:13)

It seems to me that stopping at Abraham is disingenuous.

I'd love to see this program. Any chance of it being shown in the U.S.?

I just sent an e-mail to ITV asking if they intended to produce a programme about Mohammed and will let you know if I get a reply and what it says.

Thanks Funky Child!

I agree that compared to mainstream Sunnis the Ahmadiyyah are definitely a positive development. We should encourage them and wean them completely from the dominant culture in Islam. Actually, Muslim persecution of Ahmadiyyahs is probably doing that for us. However, while Ahmadiyyah are moving toward complete positive reform, the Ismailis have already reached that goal.

Has any one else noticed how the Western secular press always refers to the "Prophet Muhammed" but simply to "Jesus Christ" without any title. If they are going to appease Muslims by always putting "Prophet" in front of Mo's name, then they should use the same standard and put "the Lord" in front of Jesus Christ.

MORIS2 WROTE:-

Sorry to have to correct your post Dave Mate although I entirely agree with your sentiments. The programme was broadcast on ITV 1 which is separate from Channel 4.

You are absolutely right, I was so infuriated by this "documentary" that I lost the plot and quoted the wrong channel. I thank you for the correction. And I apologise to channel 4 for misrepresenting them. Unlike the makers of this "documentary" I am happy to be corrected.

Thankyou.