Mohammed - the movie, and the aftermath

Yesterday - on the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, followers of the Religion of Peace went into its predictable mode of outrage following an obscure, low-budget film about the Islamic prophet Mohammed. It resulted in the death of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and 3 other staffers.

To which the first response of the US embassy in Cairo was:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Note - after murderous attacks by fanatical followers of Islam, the US government already lays the blame at the door of US citizens producing the aforementioned film. More - it declares that they have "abused" their first-amendment rights. Did it release such statements after "piss Christ" or similar offending of Christian beliefs?

But what was the film actually about? Turns out the 13-minute trailer for it is still on Youtube.

My initial impressions of it were as follows:

• Low-budget? Yes
• Blatantly fake shots of deserts and palm trees? Yes
• Suitable for worst film of the week on TV? Yes
• Making fun of Mohammed? Yes
• Tackling the most-"controversial" bits of his life? Definitely
• Showing him in any humiliating/gross scenes? Maybe 2 seconds - where he is shown near a woman's crotch.

Apart from these aspects, the film does actually try to tackle serious aspects of Mohammed's life - such as his 6-year-old bride Aisha, or another of his wives, Safiyya bint Huyayy, whose husband was killed by Mohammed's men - apparently in cold blood... Even if the film was not a great one - it was one that actually tried to tackle these subjects. Something that may well be a first in the history of cinema.

It didn't take long for the Guardian to get in on the action of bashing those who had "abused their right of free speech". So out came Andrew Brown, who even compared this low-budget production to films of terrorists chopping off peoples' heads:

"If jihadi videos are banned in this country, and their distributors prosecuted, the same should be true of this film and for the same reasons."

Apparently for some, it's too difficult to distinguish between glorifying homicidal maniacs and ridiculing them....

I wrote the following response to one of Andrew Brown's comments:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No: the offence is not blasphemy but incitement to religious hatred. They can be distinguished quite easily.

Here's some more text that could be construed as "incitement to religious hatred"...

O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean. So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He pleases. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.

And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned away!

(Quran 9:28-30)

Not only incitement to hatred - but 9:29 may be understood as a clear incitement to violence too. Which I believe is illegal, under UK law...

Just out of curiosity, would you also be in favour of making these texts illegal?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment was written under an old Guardian username, Falcon3, under which all my comments are pre-moderated. It was never published. I had also written the following as a response to another comment:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you choose to accept the version of the story that says Aisha bte Abu Bakr was 6 and not other accounts that say she was between 19?

Here is the Hadith of al-Bukhari,  Book 7, Volume 62, Hadith 88:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

About the Hadiths of al-Bukhari:

Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and al-Muwatta [1]. In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an.

So, what's your basis for saying Aisha was 19? Anything more "authentic"??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment was also not published. Apparently on the Guardian, it's now unacceptable to cite Quranic verses, as well as Hadiths. Is this the censorship they seek for those who "abuse their right of free speech"? And what further action will they seek against such "thought criminals" in the future?

The likes of Terry Jones and Sam Bacile may at times seem unnecessarily offensive. But the likes of Andrew Brown and the Guardian moderators are, on the face of it, an infinitely bigger threat to the foundation of our societies.

New Britain's Undesirables

A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: "New Labour -  New Britain". Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new "Cool Britannia". Later, Blair vowed to "defeat" the "forces of conservatism". The 15 years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country's own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, 5 stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.

 First, the undesirables - who are unwelcome in the New Britain:

1) John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college - and facing deportation from Britain. His "crime" - being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had "wrongly" received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):

As a comment below the article shows, he's not the only one to face such an experience:

"I'm in a similar boat. We can't settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife's a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of "convenience." I kid you not."  - protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23


This implies that the visit to the Sikh official, culminating in his "perceptive" question, happened around 2002 - long after the "New Britain" revolution had started...

Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:

"The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government." - jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02

"Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge." - alzie, Cumbria ., 3/9/2012 10:28

"WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? " Easy , I know why . It is because he is actually legitimately British , and as reported , born of British parents serving the country in a British colony , he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country , he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record , thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot . . . . and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country . Yup , obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers , terrorists and honour bliar's human rights rubbish . We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome . - Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21

Sadly, far-feched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay - and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back, like John Tulloch.


2) Next, 4 UK Christians, fighting for the right to express their faith. 2 of them dismissed from their jobs for wearing small crucifixes. The government's lawyers had this to say:

"Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said."

The official reason for such a statement:

"James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law."

Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices - on account of such a ban "not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private"?

To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let's make a very slight change to the original sentence:

"Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as a 'Bindi' on the forehead, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

Or

"Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

What would the reaction be to such a sentence being uttered by a government representative? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it's perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians...

The lawyer also mentioned the following:

"Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture."

For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith - and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who's to say that the Crucifix "is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship" - but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!


3) Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain. They came last weekend to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and "anti-racist" groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest. Among the incidents (from Gates of Vienna):

• A man bleeding from deep gashes to the head (believed to have been inflicted by Muslim protestors) in clear view of dozens of officers, offered no medical aid, not even basic first-aid.
• A heavily pregnant woman kettled in and detained with the others and released only after dark. (There were reports that she had been vomiting, having being denied access to water and toilet facilities for many hours .)
• People forced to remain on their feet for eight hours or more.
• Water and toilet facilities agreed by the police only after angry and vociferous protests from the crowd.
• People complaining to police officers of chronic pain due to not being able to relieve themselves.
• Others, unable to contain themselves any longer, forced to endure the humiliation of urinating or defecating in full sight of the crowd, in a busy public place.
• Searching of individuals taking many hours longer than necessary, with only a handful of officers deployed for the task, whilst dozens of others sat on the kerb drinking water or stood idly chatting.
• Individuals who, having been searched and found clean, were arrested, handcuffed and put into police vans.
• Reports of women left by the police in unfamiliar locations in dead of night.

A compilation of video footage, put together by Vlad Tepes, can be seen here.
All this leading Paul Weston, leader of the British Freedom party and ex-candidate for MP of Westminster to conclude:

"Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech died in Walthamstow on September 1st 2012".

So is freedom of speech another of those "undesirable" traits of New Britain?


Taking the places of the undesirables in the New Britain are the desirables. Those wanted, supported and, by many on the side of the new regime, even celebrated:

1) Those in Walthamstow protesting against the anti-radical-Islam protesters:

While the English Defence League are the undesirable "racists", these are the "anti-racist heroes" protesting against them. No doubt the "Islam" that they want to "dominate" would be every bit as respectful of (what's left of) British culture as the powers-that-be in Britain are respectful of Islam, today... or would it?


2) Earlier this summer, the East London rapper Dizzee Rascal performed at the Olympics opening ceremony:

At 0:20 of the video, he sings, in front of the Queen, dignitaries from around the World, and a worldwide audience of around a billion people, the memorable line:

"And all I care about is sex and violence..."

With the London riots, carried out by "youth" in large part listening to artists such as Dizzee Rascal, only a year old, this seems to have been a fitting line to summarise the defining values of the New Britain.


So, with these flag-bearers of the New Britain in mind, perhaps there is a way to ensure that the 7/7 victim John Tulloch stays in the country? Perhaps if he was a rapper glorifying violence, or an Islamic supremacist Jihadi wannabe, he would not be now facing deportation?