The implication being that if he wasn't a Muslim he wouldn't have deserved any help.

So much for the religion of peace.

Well, it does seem that Islam has not compassion for non-Muslims. We'll look in vain for anything like the story of the Good Samaritan in Islamic sources.

It's not just Westerners. They don't help each other either. At a traffic accident, they'll stop and stare. Someone will call the police. After that, they'll wait for police and ambulance to show up.

Western doctors and nurses out traveling have also stopped helping. They've become tired of being sued for - I forget the Arabic word - "blood money". "He was alive when you stopped to help, then he died. So it must be your fault."

I haven't been in that situation yet, so I honestly do not know if I would stop if I were first on the scene.

There's also an element of fatalism. "If he lives or dies, in'Shallah."

Frank Gardner has for years been a tireless apologist for, and therefore promoter of, the Muslim agenda. He spoke in debates at the Oxford Union, in support of a "Palestinian" state. He had the usual Bush House sneer for Israel. He reported from Cairo after 9/11, most reluctantly, that most Egyptians were "delighted" by the attacks (that bit of truthfulness, I suppose, is in his favor), but subsequently seemed to cover up that initial impulse.

It says a lot: knowing what he knows about the Arabs and Muslims (and hasn't told us), that in his moment of anguish, his appeal to these people had to be not "Help me" but "Help me, I'm a Muslim." Will he ever be able to relapse into his previous behavior, and with the rest of the BBC (Michael Grade, take the occasion of this event to seize control of the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office, and fire, outright, John Simpson, that vicious anti-American, antisemitic (see his introduction to his friend Peter Hounam's preposterous slander, "Operation Cyanide"), #3 at the BBC, and the man who has helped turn the BBC World Service into the anti-American, anti-Israel organization it is. Then fire Judy Swallow, she of the permanent sneer, and Robin Lustig, and Lyse Doucet, and bring in people who, in year #3 of the Big Jihad, are fit for the task of reporting things straight.

Will Gardner go back to his unpleasant and gentle slanders and coverups of reality once he recovers? Probably. And no doubt the Saudis will give him a special present, so that bygones are bygones.

Reza, Mahmoud, Muslims:

Allah is all-powerful; Allah is all-knowing. Why then did Allah have to abrogate verses? Why could he not get it right the first time?

Ali Dashti explains the problem of abrogation in the Qur’an in this way:

“The Qur’an-commentators and theologians collected and explained all the cases of abrogation. A previously revealed verse was abrogated by a subsequently revealed verse with a different or contrary meaning.

Change of mind after the taking of a decision or making of a plan is a normal and frequent occurrence in the lives of human beings, who cannot at any time know all the relevant facts. The human mind is limited and prone to deception by outward appearances, but is capable of learning from experience and recognizing mistakes. It is therefore fitting and desirable that men and women should revise their past decisions or plans. It is contrary to reason, however, that God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, should revise His commands. This point prompted Mohammad’s opponents to scoff that he issued an order one day and cancelled it the next day. Their protests are answered in verse 100 of sura 2 (ol-Baqara): “Whenever We abrogate a verse or order that it be forgotten, We bring a better one or a similar one. Do you not know that God is capable of everything?”

It is precisely because God is capable of everything that he would not reveal a verse and then abrogate it. Since omniscience and omnipotence are essential attributes of the Creator, He must be able to issue commands which do not need revision. Every thoughtful person who believes in One Almighty God is bound to ask why He should proclaim a command and then revoke it.

There is a contradiction in the above-quoted verse. Since God is capable of everything, why did He not reveal the better verse first?

It seems that there were hecklers in those days too, and that they were persistent. A reply was given to them in verses 103 and 104 of sura 16 (on-Nahl): “When We have replaced a verse with (another) verse – and God knows well what he sends down – they say, ‘You are a mere fabricator.’ But most of them have no knowledge. Say (to them), ‘The Holy Ghost brought it down from your Lord, truly (so), in order to confirm the believers.’”

On the assumption that the Qur’an is God’s word, there ought to be no trace of human intellectual imperfection in anything that God says. Yet in these two verses the incongruity is obvious. Of course God knows what He sends down. For that very reason the replacement of one verse by another made the protesters suspicious. Evidently even the simple, uneducated Hejazi Arabs could understand that Almighty God, being aware of what is best for His servants, would prescribe the best in the first place and would not have changes of mind in the same way as His imperfect creatures.”

pp. 155-156, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed, by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Publishers, 1994)

I find this story shocking as it's hard for me to imagine people in the US first finding out the religion of a victim before helping him. Doesn't this speak to the moral bankruptcy of Islam? Until recently if I could help a suffering victim I would, except now I might hesitate if I know the victim is Muslim. Even a week ago I wouldn't have said that.

It's scary, Lily, but I feel the same way. I'm uneasy with it. All this pro-Islam fawning tripe from the media has had the opposite effect upon its readers. I think most people now know that jihadis are the problem, if not Islam itself. I feel my own heart growing hard and I can't be the only one. Soon, I think, there won't be any compassion left for the murderers and those who would be murderers if but for a fatwa ordering so. The winds of war are beginning to spiral upwards.

".....from multiple bullet wounds in a slum area of southern Riyadh ......"

An especially painful place to be shot?

The shooting incident must be a mistake. The BBC is the favorie radio and TV station of the Islamic fundamentalists. Foreign broadcasting stations are jammed in Iran but not the BBC. Why should terrorists shoot the staff of a corporation that spreads their message in the best possible way day and night? It is a mistaken identity.

Check it out: Daniel Pipes advocates pretending to be a Muslim to save your life if attacked by jihadis. Now that's what I call the ultimate dhimmitude!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13680

No thanks!

B.A., from Iran, notes that the Iranian regime does not jam the BBC, because it so loyally presents the Islamic point of view (and what's more, because it is not from a Muslim source, can be even more effective on behalf of the current Iranian regime). The same can be said about the BBC's disgraceful coverage of the war in Iraq -- so disgraceful that one of its own reporters (I think it was a certain "Adams") took issue with its bias (British soldiers were disgusted with it).

The BBC, like much of the British press (but not all), and most of the French press (save for the occasional good pieces published in Le Figaro), like much of the Italian press (except the Corriere della Sera, and Magdi Allam's articles, now collected in a nice little book with a green cover, costing ten euros), has taken part in the disgraceful pro-"Palestinian," anti-Israel, pro-Muslim, anti-American, disinformation (no, for purposes beyond local color let it be given its nice KGB form: "desinformatsiya").

If the current or future American administrations, which of necessity consist of people who are so busy running around, with their memos, meetings, multi-course meals, everyone having learned to "take a leadership role" but not, heaven forfend, to be a leader, can't see the need to shut down Al-Jazeera, and to raise, again and again, the matter of bias at the BBC (hint: start by looking at the report of Trevor Asserson on the BBC. Next: contact the former Soviet dissident, the uncomrpomising and highly cultivated and amusing Vladimir Bukovsky, who is trying to end the practice, in England, of forcing everyone to pay a licensing fee to support the BBC, which he considers to be (and remember his own background) a propaganda organ that should be thoroughly cleansed. Who wants to play Hercules to the Augean stables at Bush House? Really, this is no way to defend against Jihad, with the capture, by enemy sympathizers, of all the major sources of news in much of the Western world. It just isn't.

During World War II, the traitorous broadcasts, designed to confuse, to misleadd, to lower morale, came from Radio Berlin and Radio Tokyo. Now you can get your very own homegrown Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses, just by turning to NPR, or BBC on NPR. How convenient.

B.A.'s post makes one at a useful guideline for the governments of Western Europe: any station that is NOT jammed by the Iranians (or the Saudis, or others) is, by definition, preenting a slant that they favor and find useful. Any such station should, therefore, be jammed by the governments of the Western world -- or at least, have their broadcasts monitored, analysed, and the trenchant criticisms that have been levelled at them, answered with more than the supercilious dismissal as at present.

Let the streets around Bush House be filled with tumbrils, with John Simpson in the first levy. Let heads roll. And we, les tricoteuses, will then gladly stick to our knitting.

Hugh

Thank you for your intelligent analysis. I think the problem of the BBC cannot be solved by sacking a few people. It is more serious than many can imagine. The BBC gets its budget for foreign broadcasts from the Foreign Office. You know that its boss is Jack Straw and we call him the best friend fundamentalists can have. When Israel killed Sheikh Yassin, the leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, jack Straw was very angry as if he had lost his best friend and ally but when palestinians killed a pregnant Israeli women and her four children Mr Jack was not available.The problen is the corrupt system of British politics and the BBC is only a tiny part of it.

Hugh,

At least in the US the administration has been able to discredit Al-Jazerra. Some Al-Jazerra correspondents have been arrested as members of Al-Qaeda. It's also been noted how Al-Jazerra correspondents seem to always be there when a kidnapping or suicide bombing occurs. Clearly not a conincidence. Al-Jazerra is also the Islamic terrorists propaganda network of choice. Al-Jazerra is routinely dismissed now as not credible and in the pocket of terrorists, which was not the case a year and a half ago.The BBC has had it's share of problems recently with the Blair government that reveal that networks bias.
NPR is basically a joke on Foxnews if you listen to Bill O'Reilly who does not hesitate to reveal that groups bias.We know Americans are not stupid. Foxnews has twice the viewers of CNN and MSNBC combined. NPR could not exist without government funding, while conservative talk radio thrives.

The US government had to launch an Arabic news service to counter Al-Jezeerah. Perhaps, the US will need to launch a news service to counter the BBC, too! 154 Jihad Verses in the Koran: www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

lily

while I sympathise with your position, we cannot allow ourselves to act like the followers of Islam, in refusing help to Muslims, they are brainwashed but still a person.

Dez

Hugh said "Frank Gardner has for years been a tireless apologist for, and therefore promoter of, the Muslim agenda. "

It just shows, what goes around, comes around. I guess those ignorant, vicious little thugs and barbarians that killed him didn't read his stuff?

"Your grandchildren will be studying islam in History Books on forgotten religions"

Some people might get upset about this, but I take a different stance. I would say I was Muslim to save myself and for several reasons......
1. You can't fight if your not alive.
2. You can't tell the truth about Islam to as many people as you can if your not alive.
3. They lie, lie, lie to us, in order to spread Islam, why not lie in order to stop Islam?
4. If I'm not alive, I can't recall who my attackers are, or where they were at in order to send in the cops, or army etc.

You have to look at this the way the Holocaust survivers did, if you don't live, you can't stop what is happening.

My values and core beliefs will be the same, I'll just be alive to continue to fight.

It shows the difference between following Jesus and following Muhammed.

Jesus said 'love thy enemy'.

I have read the Koran. In the index there are numberous subjects but not love or peace. There is compassion but it says 'compassion (of Christians)'. There is nothing about compassion of Muslims.

It shows the difference between following Jesus and following Muhammed.

Jesus said 'love thy enemy'.

I have read the Koran. In the index there are numberous subjects but not love or peace. There is compassion but it says 'compassion (of Christians)'. There is nothing about compassion of Muslims.

Why would one have to lie about Muslims and Wahhabism, Jihad and Dhimmitude? Is it possible to make up anything worse? -don't you think

Heavy losses at the BBC

Another bad day for the BBC with heavy losses reported in Saudi
Arabia, we now go over live to our special reporter Ir-la, Ir-la, Is
this another bad day for the BBC?

Yes Hue, the BBC looks increasingly beleaguered and isolated as its
policy in Arabia comes under scrutiny once again. The UN would not
allow their staff to go escorted into these areas. Back to Hue.

Thank you Ir-la. We now go over live to our special correspondent
outside the BBC Centre in Wood Lane, Matt, would you say that the BBC
is worried by the heavy losses in Arabia?

Undoubtedly Hue, you only have to ask yourself what is the BBC doing
in Arabia? Arabians resent the presence of foreign infidels and the
BBC is especially hated for its aggressive tactics unlike ITN in the
south who are on friendly terms with the locals.

Thank you Matt, back home questions are increasingly being asked
about the direction in which BBC News is taking the
BBC, should they continue to risk the lives of reporters without a UN
mandate to operate in Arabia?

We now go over live to our special correspondent in Wood Lane who
asks this question of passers by.

"I fink Gordon Ramsey ought to go over their and throw a few f's
into them"
"Yes Thank you and you madam what do you think about the BBC in
Arabia?"

"Ain't as good as coronation street is it?"

"Yes but do you think the BBC should be out there in the first
place, after all, reporters do have wives and children back at
home".

"Exactly and its disgusting that the BBC sends them OVER THERE
in the first place, I went on the anti- BBC march and I certainly
won't be paying my BBC licence this year"

"Thank you very much madam, now back to Hue in the studio".

More discontent with the BBC administration is clearly evident from
those views expressed, it looks like another bad day for the BBC
coming as it does after the sacking of the DAG, the Hutton report and
the sad loss of A Mulligan.

We move on now to lighter news that 700,000 have died while
relocating in Sudan.

Tomorrows weather now and over to our weather person, what sort of
day have we got in store for us tomorrow?

Well Hue as its the summer we can expect some rain.

Thanks.

Historically the BBC had been a propaganda service for the foreign office, but i believe thise roots go back to the 1930s.
All those albion eyebrow plucked antisemites and admirers of the "noble arab" a la T.E lawrence must have meleted away a long time ago and been replaced by the graduates of such notorious left wing institutions as the L.S.E.
Also I do not know how much income they get from ARab countries , and how much they would lose if they took less biased views.
Is it mainly about money?
It is bad enough that media are not accountable, like opposition politicians, for the news they spin. At least there is a threat that if the news is too biased they will lose money when viewers switvch off .
In the case of the BBC they are not accountable even to this since their vast incomes are not audienced based but paid by the public as a tax.

Susan, if you had been a Jew in Germany and had the opportunity to pretend to be a German Christian to survive, you would certainly have done it!

Then you could join the resistance and help to overthrow the enemy. WHERE THERE IS LIFE THERE IS HOPE!

The idea that one is stooping to the level of the enemy and that would just be intolerable..that is silly to me. Come on. Nearly everything is acceptable in self-defense - EVEN lying!

Dez,

The idea that a "religion" actually encourages its members to help only those of the same faith and allow others to die is appalling to me.Therefore, I would consider not helping a muslim who is in need.Consider this, we're told repeatedly that Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion, so if I decide not to help there should be a muslim in the area who has a duty to help. Since we've found out that muslims won't save the life of a non-muslim, they also won't be busy helping infidels so they therefore are more likely to be free to help their fellow muslim. We're also told that muslims love death, so if there was not a muslim around to help,no big loss.After all don't muslims say death is better then life?So by helping only non-muslims
I'll be aiding people muslims refuse to help, I'll also be helping people who actually prefer life to death.Even a week ago I would not have thought this way, but knowledge is power and the more I learn about Islam the more I am changing every day.

I must admit, this story had me laughing out loud. Real irony.

The important thing now of course, is not to keep these stories to ourselves. Get them into public discussion. Mention them to friends and family.

Spread the word.

Geoff

And as a second point, can we have our email addresses NOT shown? Some people have families and there are certainly going to be some very angry, Islamicist hackers out there. I trust the mod, of course but I'd rather not give any help to the lunatics who are going to read this site.

Geoff

Geoff,

If you are concerned about being contacted by islamofascists don't use your personal email addy here.Instead use an addy like infidel@yahoo.com or
disgusted@hotmail.com for example.

Frankly, I take a jaundiced view of Gardner trying to pose as a convert. When I have had dealings with Muslims, I always seem to get more respect and hospitality when I make it clear that I am a Christian.

This being said, the story confirms my view of Shoddy Arabia does seem a bigoted, paranoiac place.

Thanks for the tip - it isn't my real address actually, but it still kinda worries me that it can be seen by other people. You never really know how things can get tracked down in cyberspace.

Geoff