Littlejohn talks sunnis and shias

This is just hilarious.

Off the back of the new US House Intelligence Committe chair Silvestre Reyes thinking that Al-Qaeda was a shia organisation, the Sunday Times showed up a load of British MPs who have an interest in the Muslim world by finding they didn't fair much better in knowing the difference between sunnis and shias either.

Helpfully, right-wing Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn who has not been shy to engage in rants against Muslims in the past to say the least, waded in [fourth entry down] to assist his readers:

... here is a simple cut-out-and-keep guide to the two dominant branches of Islam: Sunnis are the peace-loving, Saudi-backed wing who brought you Al Qaeda.

Shias are the peace-loving, Iranian-backed strain behind Hamas and Hezbollah. I hope that helps.

Never mind the branding of all Muslims into either being Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hizbullah which Arab Media Watch rightly complain about. The astonishing point here is that anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows Hamas is not shia.

And this is the problem. Self-proclaimed experts, spouting off like nobody's business - making life and death decisions in the case of MPs - who in actual fact know absolutely nothing. Littlejohn meanwhile was not even put on the spot - he voluntarily took the time to compose this article and still got it wrong.

Comments

[bat020]

Mind you, Littlejohn isn't the only one who thinks Hamas are Shia.

[abdiel]

Salaamun alaykum Osama,

The frames of reference good brother Littlejohn uses are retarded too. Sunnis are Saudi-backed? Shi'as are Iranian-backed? I'm no scholar, but I could swear the history of Islam stretches back a little further than ibn Saud and Ayatollah Khomeini.

Dean Barnett over at Townhall.com, an American neocon mouthpiece, offered similar insipid comments on the Shi'a/Sunni divide. I wrote some coverage here:

http://www.abdiel.ca/node/44

Barnett's a little more nuanced than Littlejohn, but not by much.

Wasalaam,
A

[Osama]

Salaam A, just tried to post a comment on your side, and either: I've got much worse at counting; your math questions are making fun of me; or there is a problem with your comments system!

[Abdiel]

Wasalaam. Bad code, brother. Should be fixed now...

--A

[aineliva]

Considering both the tone and the content of last night's Dispatches programme on Channel 4, regarding some of the preaching habits of Muslim clerics in this country, don't think anyone is in any position to call the other names.

Never in my life have I hear such hatred, bloodthirsty rethoric, racism, gender hatred and intolerance drip from the lips of religious clerics, and all Muslim clerics, and all in this country.

If less press attention is what is wanted, how about pulling some of your boys in line Osama, no one else, apart from the BNP is preaching such hatred to their faithful.

[joe90]

I thought Al Ciaduh! was the CIA-backed wing of the American-Jihadi movement, although the realationship has went a bit cold recently!

As for Hamas,
since when has being able to defend yourself against unprovoked aggression
(from Israel since at least 1978 - Israel signed a peace aggreement with Egypt, which left it free to start attacking ist neoghbours to the north and east)
become a crime?

Not many folk can tell the difference between New Labour and Old Conservative, because there isn't any - they even steal each others clothes viz New Labour is for big buisness and racists, and Cameron's Conservatives want to appeal to British workers and also want to get rid of their over-patriotic imagery and reputation -
- just like American politics, each party stealing the other's traditional policies and philosophy.

So, no-one has any idea what their political parties fundamentally stand for - and the politicians themselves haven't a clue who they supported when Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviets.

[DrM]

Sounds like another red herring from the usual suspects to cover up their failed policies. Littlejohn is a lowly idiot and third rate tabloid repository to claim that Hamas is shia. He ought to be sent to Iraq so he can learn to tell apart. Joe makes an excellent point about the inability to tell Labor and Conservatives apart.
And please, don't lecture the Muslim community about "hateful clerics" when you've got frothy mouthed evangelical nutters trying to speed up armageddon for their rapture acid trip via the wild eyed messianic zionist terrorists who think the Almighty is their personal real estate agent. All at the expense of the very people they accuse of "hate." Gotta run, 700 club is on and I don't want to miss Pat Robertson's latest prediction....

[aineliva]

Lecture, Doctor emm, hardly. Statement of fact. Watch the programme. Also the lecturing aspect is coming from clerics. I don't watch Pat Robertson, and vaguely know who he is. And only the fanatical and easily lead will listen to the words of any demagogue.

As I said, the Muslim Clerics, on last nights Dispatches program, are as far as I am concerned on the same level as the BNP, and both I feel should be banned. As should any other religious cleric who preaches bloodthirsty hatred, bloodthirsty rethoric, racism, gender hatred and intolerance dripping from their lips.

They should be banned, and the respective places of worship that harbour them should be shut down. That perhaps would encourage the respective faith communities to take responsibility.

[John Palubiski]

As I said, the Muslim Clerics, on last nights Dispatches program, are as far as I am concerned on the same level as the BNP, and both I feel should be banned. As should any other religious cleric who preaches bloodthirsty hatred, bloodthirsty rethoric, racism, gender hatred and intolerance dripping from their lips.

They should be banned, and the respective places of worship that harbour them should be shut down. That perhaps would encourage the respective faith communities to take responsibility.

Agreed, Aineliva. Certainly the moderates, such as Osama, should be posting denunciations of these sick individuals instead of some trite twadle about a second rate journalist's observations concerning the Sunni/Shia divide.

Reading "DrM's" non-response to all this gives the people reading this blog a very good idea of just how deep the denial is.

The imams highlighted in this programme should be expelled from the country, the mosques and "community" centres they mananged shut down and any wanna-be "apostles" they've groomed carefully watched and even expelled, as well, should they show signs of engaging in similar activites.

We've got several jihadis in the docks for planning yet more mass-murder and we,ve got oodles of rabid "clerics" spouting nazi nonsense, so such measures are more than justified.

So for just how much longer can the construct of "islamophobia" hold in order to mask some very ugle truths?

The more the brutal reality is presented to the British public, the more that public becomes aware of just how wide the gap is between the "real islam" and the mild "New Age" variety, chiseled to order and then wheeled out in the hopes it will meet and satisfy the expectations of the ignorant and the naieve thereby stiffling all honest debate and questioning.

After watching this documentary of the obscene, does DrM really believe Britons care about Pat Robertson? Does he still think they'll buy into the equivalency argument postulating Christian evangelicals as being as dangerous as Islamist nihilists?

The gap between the way in which individuals such as DrM see themselves and the way in which others view them widens with each passing day.

The greate the width of that gap the more the pathology comes into focus.

Do doubt many more documentaries exposing these radicals are in the works.

I can only hope that Osama cultivates his moderation to the point where he could one day he could pitch in and narrate one of them.

One more thing, Aineliva, these clerics aren't quite on a par with the BNP.

The hatred expressed by the former is much worse; it's a pathology anchored in what its practioners actually believe to be "Divine revelation".

Such vile intense hatred, though, can only be demonic in origin.

[Westerner]

I was once again ashamed when I saw the Iranian respond to the racist caricatures of their Prophet. Our is to offend and humiliate and even worse to enlarge the islamophobia and theirs is to make a political statement. Shame on you my old West.

http://www.answers.com/topic/001derkaoui-abdellah-morroc-jpg

[Osama]

Guys, just to nip this one in the bud before it goes out of control, you will not find me defending the bigoted comments made on last night's programme. They were out of order, full stop. In fact we did not see the people that made them finding much defence either.

There were some inaccurate criticisms in the film, but this does not take away from the fact that there are some objectionable people who say seriously objectionable things in speeches. Muslims who hear these things must take them to task.

The fact this exists though does not, as Aineliva posted in another comments thread, stop other Muslims speaking out on anything. Muslims do not run a papacy and even if we did, I'm not the Pope, and I doubt he would stop speaking on things anyway on the basis of some co-religionists being nutters.

[John Palubiski]

There were some inaccurate criticisms in the film, but this does not take away from the fact that there are some objectionable people who say seriously objectionable things in speeches. Muslims who hear these things must take them to task

Then for heaven's sakes do a posting that takes these people to task, Osama.

What's the point of an article about Richard Littlejohn's opinions on Islamists, when one can watch a documentary in which those same Islamists express their true opinions?

Were non-Muslims to claim that Islam promotes the homophobia and misogyny as clearly and unambiugously expressed by the imams in this documentary, then those individuals would be classed "islamophobic", as ignorant, as knowing nothing about Islam. Yet somewhow these ideas when uttered by believers are greeted as anodine, as not worthy of discussion.

In light of this hate-speech, then, your nitpicking post about whether Littlejohn's observations are accurate or not ( as though Shias and Sunnis would even care) comes off as little more than a diversionary tactic.

Let's talk about some real meat and potatos issues instead of contemplating the qualities of an irrelevant sprig of parsley.

[aineliva]

There has been some press recently about an Iman in Dublin, Shadeed Satardier, who has spoken out against extremism. In that particular article one man interviewed said that one of the reasons he attended Satardier's mosque was that the Iman gave his services in English.

What greater way to encourage all of us non-Muslims to understand Islam, than to speak in the language of the country. This particular Iman's example could be followed. Then at least we non-Muslims would be able to tell those who follow the true meaning of Islam from those who are just demagogues.

We would also be in a position to take a stand if necessary for those who might be unjustly accused of terrorism, because we would be able to communicate. At the moment there is little possibility because of a language barrier.

It is not just down to the non's to communicate, effort has to be made from Muslims as well. After all Osama, the Catholic Church has moved from Latin to the venacular.

As you wrote Osama, "I'm not the Pope, and I doubt he would stop speaking on things anyway on the basis of some co-religionists being nutters".

Indeed, I take your point. However, these nutters are among us, and are as much a danger to you, as they are to me. I'd at the least expect a discussion of that threat. And in the process, some enlightment. (I'd expect the same from the Pope by the way.) I'm not suggesting that you should censor yourself in any way, in fact what I am suggesting is that in doing a post to clarify what was shown on the program, you might also help understanding. As well as tackling what you see as innaccurate, you could clarify what was actually accurate.

I cannot, as hard as I try, recall any Catholic, any Protestant, IRA, Loyalist, etc speaking with such hatred and contempt for their fellow humans on the basis of religion alone. Indeed, I imagine that we'd have to return to the 16/17th century religious wars to find such bloodthirsty rethoric.

As a human and a person who believes in human rights, I, am also conscience bound to raise this issue. No use trying to push it under the carpet and counter it with what you see as inaccuracies, that I'm afraid is a defence and a deflection of the issues raised by the program.

I'd much rather that you clarified exactly what you believe is accurate within the programme. Then at least we'd all have a greater understanding of what exactly is happenning. Indeed that honest view of these "nutters" and your own personal analysis of what direction Islam is taking in this country, might be even more revealing than the Dispatches program. But that might not be safe for you to do, so it is a suggestion, not a demand.

(And by the way, there are many "nutters" in the Catholic Church, the Papacy is there to keep them in line, of course that means that some of it's more radical and rational and progressive critics, e.g. Ivan Illich are also kept in line.)

I am not trying to score any brownie points in this discussion. I really would like to know your views on the Channel 4 programme, and that you are as critical of the nutters as your are of the innaccuracies which you believe the programme contained. Clarification of what you see as the inaccuracies of the Dispatches program, might help to balance my current horror of what I saw and heard, (I am right now disgusted, though I don't live in Tunbridge Wells).

[Osama]

John, I thought you might drop the comparison with Littlejohn, but since you haven't, I must point out that it was posted before the documentary was aired.

The point of this blog is not to chronicle everything going on in the world anyway. When I get the time I will put up as considered pieces as I can. They've been some things recently that I simply don't have the time to do. And right now I don't have time to go into the transcript and dissect the film except to say what I've said above.

And FYI Littlejohn's article was not about Islamists, but about all Muslims. And it can't be dismissed as a trivial matter since he is a well-known columnist in one of the country's best selling newspapers. He reaches more people with his bile than all those in yesterday's film put together.

[aineliva]

Unfortunately, Osama, "all those in yesterday's film", have now reached us.

And I don't read the "Daily Mail".

[aineliva]

John, if we take "God" out of the equasion, then the BNP and the hateful preachers are on a par.

They take the marginalised, dispossessed and angry and turn them to hate. They use people to futher their own aims. For it is only by doing this that they can maintain their "power".

As I see it, the "preachers" in this documentary are responsible for a lot of Islamaphobia, they are creating their own particular climate of fear for their own purpose. It seems they have a purpose in encouraging Islamaphopia. After all, if there is no "enemy" what is there to fight or fear?

Those currently in the dock, are the result of the work of these preachers. Now I see where this hateful rethoric comes from. In some ways I feel sympathy for these young men that they have been brainwashed and mislead, however, the actions they are on trial for, are theirs.

[John Palubiski]

There has been some press recently about an Iman in Dublin, Shadeed Satardier, who has spoken out against extremism. In that particular article one man interviewed said that one of the reasons he attended Satardier's mosque was that the Iman gave his services in English.

I've read a bit about this fellow....originally from South Africa, a reformer and an anti-apartheid campaigner. His maternal grandmother is Irish. His brother, also a reformer, was murdered by islamists and that is the main reason Satardier is now in Ireland.

However, the man's stance against Islamic extremism has earned him the wrath of almost all of Ireland's muslim community.

The mainstream over there consider him marginal and probably heretical, as well.

And Aineliva God can't be removed from the equation when it comes to the views of radical right-wing Islamists. God is what they invoke as justification.

It's one thing to denigrate the other based on skin-tone or race...as in the case of the BNP... but it is quite another blasphemy to invoke the "word" of the Almighty, the will of the divine to rationalise such demonisation and hatred.

I quite agree with your assessment of Osama's wiggle-room when it comes to openly discussing these types of prechers. I'm sure there are considerations at play about which I know very little.

[DrM]

Oh come now aineliva and palpablinski, don't play down the vicious hate of terrorist evangelical nutters and their messianic zionist chums. Palpablinski in particular, the moronic non-academic revisionist wannabe is a fine example of somebody in deep denial. Talk about the the pot calling the kettle black. "Britons don't know about Pat Robertson." What a lame response. Robertson and TBN are on everyday, and seen around the world with calls supporting terrorism, including assassinating heads of state. Pretty demonic I'd say, but you'd rather nitpick on some no name loud mouth. Anyway if you jokers are so smitten with littlejohn, perhaps you can accompany him to Iraq and learn to tell Sunnis and Shias apart. Or do christofascists prefer fighting their battles behind a computer?

[aineliva]

Let me repeat in plain English, using simple words so that you may understand Dr eemm. I do not know of Pat Robertson.

I vaguely recall someone mentioning that he is a Christian Fundamentalist Preacher Nutter on TV, and that is where I "switch off". I do not listen to any form of facism, especially the kind that uses poor old God to back up its arguments.

As to Littlejohn, I don't read the "Daily Mail".

"Or do christofascists prefer fighting their battles behind a computer?" You are projecting again DRM, you mean Christophobes. Don't you?

You know I'm going to be blunt here, your arguments are sh**e. I cannot make sense of them.

[aineliva]

John, you wrote of Saheed Satardien "His maternal grandmother is Irish." Now I know I shouldn't do this, it is a bit chauvinistic of me, but could his maternal ancestor explain the man's courage in standing up to the denial of his fellow Muslims, his obvious compassion for his fellow humans, and his wish to communicate in a language that each and every Irish person can understand.

Next time I'm in Dublin I'm going to look this guy up, and get the honest lowdown, after all he is partly Irish, he isn't afraid to say it like it is, it's in his blood.

[DrM]

You don't understand ainelivia(the same goon who was whining excessively about yasir's views about the pope's comments last year), I don't care whether you know Pat Robertson or not(you probably do but wont admit it). The point is he and other christofascists regularly use their bully pulpit to promote and openly support terrorism, and they have an audience of millions. Projection? Please, thats exactly what you've been doing all along, you spineless hypocrite.
Frankly anybody who buys into rubbish put out by zionist nutter Martin Bright isn't exactly in a position to claim aversion to fascism. It's just as well you can type, for if you had to speak your mind, you'd be speechless.

[joe90]

You can see the power of the western propaganda system at work here.

One tv programme about a few nutters talking inane rubbish and the resident western jihadi fanatics on this blog go positively bananas about it.

Goebbels and Stalin could only dream about having a brainwashing and propaganda system as effective as the one we have here in the 'free' west.

Much as I hate to correct a doctor,
but the christiano-jihadis spout propaganda much worse than just promoting mere terrorism DrM - they promote war crimes which is a far, far worse crime and which is responsible for terrorism.

[kris]

I tell you what I'd like to see: -

a Mohammad Luther King. Maybe you could be the guy. You know, a Muslim Ghandi.

Some one who takes the high road rather than many of the petty little vandals and misogynists that we see on an almost daily basis.

You, as a group, Suni or Shia, Hamas, Chechen Rebel whatever make it too easy for the trash journos.

[joe90]

kris,
remind us all again who MLK and Ghandi were criticising and who they were up against?

The same old western racist imperialists - some things never change, except the excuses of course.

How about a Tony Ghandi or a Martin Luther Bush?

So,
how would a Ghandi or an MLK have protected Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese from unprovoked aggression against them by Bush-Blair-Olmert?

I mean,
I remember vast world-wide peaceful demonstrations to try to stop the Butchers and De-capitators of Baghdad, Bush and Blair, from attacking peaceful innocent Iraq.

What more should we have done then, to prevent Bush and Blair's now on-going Iraqi bloodbath, O wise kris one?

Saddam was supposed to have WMD but that didn't seem to stop the Butchers, Blair and Bush from unprovoked agression against Iraq - so what makes you think non-violent civil dis-obedience was, or is, going to be effective against the usual violent western attacks against the defenceless Global South?

Occupied Palestinians practice civil non-violent disobedience all the time - the fact they are still alive is a protest in itself. If they don't cower before their Israeli superiors they are liable to be subjected to SS-style summarary executions on the spot, no questions asked. Many of them are, day in and day out - its known as an illegal racist military occupation. Much the same as in nazi-occupied europe where people were perfectly entitled to resist their illegal occupiers - same with occupied Palestinians. Resistence is no crime.

If western war criminals don't like it then they they can do something about it - stop attacking people then their victims won't need to defend themselves.

As for giving some unrepresentative nutters an excuse to spout rubbish here in the UK - Blair and the British government was warned by their own internal security services, well in advance, of the consequences their illegal actions against Iraq would cause domestically for British people - but Blair went ahead and committed his crime anyway, of which there is none greater. That is how much Blair cares about the real interests of British folk, and about law and order, compared to following his orders from Washington.

How much lies and hatred has Tony and his cronies preached from their British mass-media pulpit?

ps
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1168898806.html>Message to C4 dispatches - Undercover Mosque
from
MediaLens.org messegeboard
15 Jan 2007
with a discussion thread

[kris]

Joe, I think you miss the point, despite your long posting.

It should be a Mohammad Luther King- not Tony or George Luther King.