Blogs

How else would one depict conflict between Sunnis and Shias?

31 January 2014

6:42 PM

31 January 2014

6:42 PM

I don’t know if you’ve seen this letter to this week’s edition of the magazine, from a person called Chris Doyle. He is a member of the ‘Council for Arab-British Understanding’ and has taken exception to last week’s cover cartoon. He objects that the drawing of ‘two bearded, large hooked nose, weapon-wielding men’ was a stereotypical way of depicting a possible war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Yes, you utter idiot. That’s what cartoons do. They look for the easily definable, so that they might have a meaning to people. Would you have preferred the cartoon to be of two people with average sized noses dressed in lounge suits and clean shaven and bearing no weapons? Do you think that would have done the job?

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • andy_gill

    Apparently Chris Doyle’s CAABU outfit was largely funded by Syria. Since the war, it has experienced a funding crisis.

    With a it of luck it’ll have to shed staff,crawl away and die.

  • Ameer

    Guys you got it all wrong, the sunnah is to trim the mustache not let it grow into a bush. Smh…

  • zakisbak

    Clearly some mistake.
    As the message constantly being drummed into us says,sorry,I mean,as we all know,Islam is a religion of peace.

    Re “black” savages,I’m sure there are figures which display disproportionate amounts of violence from some of our “communities”?
    This is definitely the case with gang rapes,gun crime,and street robbery,in which one community are massively disproportionately represented.
    You cannot continue to simply dismiss this with the racist/bigot/xenophobe card.
    The latter accusations are invariably false,a form of emotional blackmail intended to silence truths that some do not want to hear.

  • Colonel Mustard

    The history of the Middle East before the Crusades is fascinating, especially what happened in Palestine, and has many bearings on the current situation. Unfortunately it has been largely airbrushed from popular history in favour of equally cartoon, guilt-motivated stereotypes of those wicked Western Crusaders.

    I urge reading of Michael Haag’s excellent ‘The Tragedy of the Templars – The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States’ for a balanced view that Guardianistas would hate. It would be impossible for them to conceive that Syria, Palestine and Egypt had predominantly Christian populations long before a single crusader set foot there or to ask themselves what happened to that Christian majority.

    http://michaelhaag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/tragedy-of-templars-recommended-reading.html

    • Bonkim

      Only logical – Islam was the new vigorous religion that converted the then existing populations mainly Christians as you say as the pre-Christian populations were converted to Christianity in the post-Roman period.

      All new religions – Christianity included was mainly spread by Zealots and often by force or the rulers of the land converting and then expecting its inhabitants to convert. Special privileges awaited those that conformed to the state religion and those that did not suffered various forms and intensities of persecution and exploitation. Conquests usually brought with it a new religion.

      Colonial expansion into Africa, Asia, and the New World similarly expanded the Christian base – it is human tendency to adopt the customs and religions of the conquerors to gain favour.

      If you look at the French and Spanish/Portuguese Empires the population today mainly Catholic, the British/English Empire mainly COE or related Protestant Churches, Islamic Empires – Muslim.

      That is the nature of human history and human motivation to adopt religions.

      Aggression and imperialism were the catalysts for changes in religion and culture all over the world including Europe where pre-1000AD much of N Europe outside the old Roman Empire was pagan and only tamed through missionaries and violence/conversion of the rulers..

      • Fasdunkle

        Initially in many places conquered by islam the local christians weren’t encouraged to convert because christians and jews were subject to a special tax (jizya) which brought in a lot of revenue which would be lost if they converted.

        • Bonkim

          Yes on non-Muslims – many variations but originally intended to be used for charitable purposes, the revenues from the jizya were paid into the private treasuries of rulers, and the Ottoman sultans used the proceeds to pay military expenses.

          I bet medieval Monasteries used free labour of the locals and the Pope and local kings found ways of extracting labour and gold from the locals in various forms, more from foreigners or those outside Christendom.

          Many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax. Benevolent Caliphs and Emperors through history had excused Jizya. Nasty lot increased it.

          Muslims gave voluntarily – Zakat –

          • Colonel Mustard

            “I bet” doesn’t really cut it when it comes to your overblown opinions vs Mr Haag’s meticulously sourced facts.

            I look forward to reading your properly sourced treatise on the subject. Please let us know where and when it will be published and under what title, thank you.

            • Bonkim

              Who is Mr Haag? Medieval monasteries were run as businesses, engaged in lending, agricultural and industrial production, had serfs, and all other paraphernalia of a land holding and workers – no different from the way Lords of the manor managed their businesses.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Read the book and find out. He has a rather better pedigree when it comes to writing history than ‘Bonkim’ whom I have never heard of.

                I understand that you can write lots of opinionated guff here about your particular relativist perspective of history but the original comment was simply a book recommendation for those interested in the subject of militant Islam and the Crusades, especially the post-modern propaganda that has clouded it. It was not an argument about mediaeval monasteries.

                With respect I am not interested in your opinion about this.

                • Bonkim

                  No further comment.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Unfortunately the imposition of the tax was usually the least of their worries but indeed they were not encouraged to convert and in some cases the heads of households converted to reduce the persecution and oppression whilst the family remained staunchly but secretly Christian.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Which completely and spectacularly misses the whole point whilst continuing true to form with the shabby relativism with which you seek to excuse militant Islam.

        • Bonkim

          Militant Islam or corrupt and enslaving Christian Missions in colonial Spain or France – no different. The Church took advantage of its position and power of the rulers of the day and exploited those outside – the term infidel is relative. In fact we live in a relativist world and causes and effects can come from both poles. To me all religions are superstitions – each believing their’s is the one true God and all others rubbish.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Very different. Read the book and find out.

            • Bonkim

              Hung up on a book by an Austrian Catholic – The Turks came within Graz in Austria – hence the old Ottoman lands – latter day Yugoslavia.

              Not sure why you need someone else’s opinion to believe in your heresy – i prefer cause and effect analysis and also observations from the lands I have travelled in. History is always written by those that have a bias in one or other sides – the victors usually end up telling the story.

              Today’s reality – the Muslims across the Mid-East still living in the Middle Ages, the reformation that took place in Christian Europe two centuries back and the scientific/industrial age bypassed them – possibly because of conquests and subjugation by European powers which had the vigour to thrust forward whilst that of the Islamic Empires was waning.

              If you are a believer you have to ask yourself whether God created religion in his image or Man in his. If man – it has been changing with time, place, and people – Whether Christianity or islam or any other – there are Heinz 66 varieties – each believing theirs is the true interpretation and willing to give their life in defending their faith – only in today’s world only the Muslims appear to be living within their deep and dark hole and prepared to jump out with open sabre.

              Very dangerous for the rest and hence need to be treated without mercy.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Mr Haag is impeccable in using many muslim sources so can in no way be considered writing from a ‘victor’ viewpoint. His book is not ‘someone else’s opinion’ and I have not advocated any heresy.

                You jump to too many conclusions. You have also created an argument here largely to give yourself a platform in which to write reams of opinionated bonkim.

                • Bonkim

                  We all present our views based on knowledge, experience/exposure gained from travel and following events across the globe. You don’t have to accept my view – and you appear to be commenting on comment rather than present your views/analysis on the topic. All one gets from you is anti Islam – I have no problem with that but it would help to get the basis of your comments, not refer to learned references.

                  I am sceptical on religion, any religion – knowing that history of all religions have dark regions, and corruption – equally people can be good or bad within any religion, the worst is religion and nationalism/ethnic solidarity combined – destructive.

                  Regards the evils of Islam – people living in Muslim lands are all too aware of the devils within – they are the worst suffers – Without exception most of the mid-East, Pakistan, Central Asia, Indonesia and the African/Arab lands – all engulfed in inter=ethnic, and sectarian warfare in various degrees. Islam has not much to shout about – following the Biblical ‘by its fruits you will recognise the tree’

                  Conclusions have to be related to what it will be used for – and surely the Spectator blog-site is not a University research Forum – given the rants that most appear to post.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t think it is correct to observe that I am anti-Islam and favour Christianity. I am certainly anti militant (or imperialist) Islam and can see no relevance in pointing to a historical militant Christianity that no longer exists in order to apologise for it or justify it. Especially so when that militant Christianity in the form of the Crusades is so often misrepresented.

                  The excesses of modern militant Islam are often excused on the grounds of retaliation for past incursions and persecutions but that completely fails to understand the context of the in-fighting between Islamic dynastic and religious factions or the Turks in the decades preceding the First Crusade. In fact Turkish oppression of Palestine was so marked that its peaceful muslim inhabitants were quick to embrace the Crusader states as the much lesser of two evils and this in turn led to much cultural exchange.

                  Your relativism in respect of both religions just does not stack up either in the historical record or the modern context. War and power might have invoked Christianity in the past to justify aggression and oppression but there is no real correlation with ‘jihad’ or the militant Islamic treatment of non-believers. The Crusades are invoked to provide such but as Mr Haag demonstrates even that is not a valid comparison. It remains a historical fact that far from seeking to subjugate Islam the Crusades were about defending Christian territories from dynastic Islamic aggression and oppression.

                • Bonkim

                  First para militant Christianity, apologies, etc, not relevant – looking back in history and value judge based on today’s values is absurd. However the Church and its Colonial Masters have done dastardly acts in history, and continued well up until WW2 after which there has been a huge change in values, and belief systems in the West whih prevailed until recent years.

                  2nd para – no comment – as above judging history in today’s values and also revenge for past real or imagined hurts – means little. Most have only vague ideas of history and much of this is reinvented as time goes.

                  Crusades – the Caliphates and the Mongol expansion occurred at a time when Christans were squabbling with each other/also expanding their Empires. I would suggest the whole then known world was in turmoil. The Mongols although adopting Islam only took that on as a cover and to gather other like minded invaders together. Most of the invasions in the early/middle part of the second Millennia were more plunder and pillage rather than nation building. The desert nomads excelled in that form and Islam as said just a cover.

                  The Empires that followed Chenghis Khan were more stabilising and nation building, Islam as Christianity of the time were fragmanted, and practices varied, various schisms appeared. My take is that certain locations – Iran, Damascus/Arabia reflected the desert lifestylebut the Turkish and the Mughal streams (India) were more Empire building and stabilising.

                  I have seen enough of religious bigotry around the world to start taking sides. Yes the present day virulent Islam is danger to stability but some truth in Western political mismanagement in some of the Muslim lands that make them hold US/Britain responsible – Iran for example the overthrow of Mossadgeh and subsequent US involvement with the Shah of Persia. Both sides – US and USSR played dirty politics – the US thought it was top dog and could do what it wanted – and came unstuck in Vietnam.

                  Going to the Syrian episode – Assad is the main stumbling block and I would have no difficulty supporting a clinical strike on Damascus to take Assad out of the equation. Funnily though I like Iran, and Iranians – a highly cultured lot and not withstanding the Ayatollah and their support for Assad, or Islam, friendly and intelligent people. They also have a sort of democracy.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “They also have a sort of democracy.”

                  Hmm. The sort of democracy that publicly hangs gay men from cranes. No thanks.

                  Your latest reads like a continuing relativist attempt to play down militant Islam both in the historical context and in the modern Middle East by comparing it directly to Christianity. I don’t buy that.

                  It is the same muddled thinking that allows the left to de-stabilise Christian teaching, promote atheism and yet at the same time demand respect for those Islamic practices and sharia laws which run counter to religious tolerance, democracy and civilised behaviour, to largely ignore the treatment of women and gays. Look at the response of the leftist illiberati in the UK to Putin’s assault on gay rights and compare it to the absolute silence on Iranian persecution and murder of gays.

                  There are no historical parallels to a militant Christianity however much you attempt to draw that inference from the activities of dynasties and nation states that happened to follow Christian religion. Islamic jihad and imperialist ambition on the other hand shows striking parallels with what is happening now and what happened in the 11th Century and before. The clue is in the word ‘Caliphate’ used universally by militant Islam to describe their aspirations. Even Iran, which you apologise for, openly asserts its intention to destroy another sovereign nation. Could you imagine the Pope calling for the absolute destruction of Turkey because of its historical occupation of the Eastern Roman Empire and its displacement of Christians?

                  Western interventions, however misguided or incompetently executed, bear no comparison to jihad and have been largely in response to emerging militant Islamic terrorism, now with 50 years worth of accumulated global evidence. Show me Christian outrages on that scale. No militant Christian regime was established in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are still no churches in Saudi Arabia but there are mosques a plenty in the West.

                  So don’t try to peddle the idea that this is some six to one, half a dozen to the other deal between Christianity and Islam. The two religions are very different with a very different post-modern legacy and Islam has a militant, imperialist element to deal with, no minority either.

                • Bonkim

                  No further comments – the question you should be asking is what are the solutions to the threat of militant and blind Islam. Judging the past or even the present in other cultures is meaningless – Homosexuality was a crime in Britain until some decades back with prison sentences – still is in many parts of the world. Don’t expect all cultures and religions/sects across the earth to be like what it is in Britain today. One may accommodate diversity but not tolerate backward cultural or religious practices – although it is not in your power to apply that in other parts of the world.

                  I am a realist and see all such manifestations for what they are. Not something to get heated about – The tensions you refer to have existed all through time – it is that between fundamental belief systems. I don’t have any – hence able to view all that without bias.

                  Regards Christian atrocities – don’t want to open up another blind discussion with you who is convinced Christianity has been benevolent all through history. In theory yes – but in practice quite the opposite. Leave you to do your research – in any case as said judging the past in today’s standards is meaningless. Much of the Islamic world is still in the Middle-ages and hence the stark contrast with our present.

                  Regards right/left wing, etc, meaningless – I am fairly right-wing and believe in the survival of the fittest – clash of religions, and cultures have alway led to human development.

                  The greatest threat to human existence today is the population explosion and fast depleting resources caused by our consumer culture and international trade and economic system which has to keep growing – slow down will lead to collapse – In that context comparing the pros and cons of religions is stupidity – being an atheist all religions are superstitions.

                • Neil Saunders

                  Too many opinions supported by too little evidence, and stated at excessive length, as if you not only have a right to write but others have a duty to read.

                • Bonkim

                  We all put our views – you are not using this blog for research into your next PhD I assume.

                  No one is compelling you to read and respond.

              • Neil Saunders

                According to FitzGerald’s version of The Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam there are “two-and-seventy jarring sects” (presumably of Islam), and at the last count I believe Heinz had nine fewer varieties than you have enumerated above.

                • Bonkim

                  Thanks for the enlightenment. Heinz are now not as popular and they have cut down on varieties I understand. Muslim and other sects I understand have proliferated – is it any different in Christianity?. The Hindus I understand had 33 million Gods some decades back – one assumes they are breeding as profusely as man-made sects on earth.

          • Neil Saunders

            Is your rejection of religion absolute, or only relative, though?

            • Bonkim

              absolute – consider all religions man-made superstition.

  • Perseus Slade

    And what is the chinless Chris`s game: fool or knave?

    Is he just a latter-day Jack Horner,
    or is there something more tangible in if for him?

  • edlancey

    Alien vs Predator

  • global city

    another example of the terminally idiotic thinking that by portraying a position of permanent offense they are achieving something other than displaying their terminal idiocy!

    They are funny really, or rather, they used to be before they were given the veto on the whole of society.

  • Agrippina

    Dear Mr Doyle, I am sure you will read this article because you are prob vain enough to think that the arabs really like the work that you are doing to promote the org.

    Please could you explain why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Bahrain et al have not accepted any syrian refugees? Because if they did, it would really assist you in your work, we could see that they are great humanitarians.

    You see we are a poor country and very densely populated. It would really aid the recovery of the syrians if they were placed in a muslim country, where the culture, religion, language and climate is much the same as the place they have left behind.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    • David davis

      Ho ho ho ho ho! Good one.

      Bet you 2p he won’t answer.

  • scott

    I propose the ‘replace with Jews’ test. Rod Liddle has just produced a drawing of ‘hook-nosed Jews’…how does that grab you?

    • Daniel Maris

      That’s OK. I think a cartoon of Jews with Nordic noses would look a bit daft.

      • Icebow

        Like Netanyahu’s?

        • Daniel Maris

          WelI I ain’t going to get into the absurdities of matching individual physiognomy to generalised traits but I doubt many people would describe Benji’s nose as nordic. Check him out on Google images.

          The point though is we are talking averages. When Gerald Scarfe wants to put a representative sub-saharan African in his cartoon (normally starving and with begging bowl – which I find quite objectionable actually, but there you go) he does draw a white kid with thin lips and straight hair.

          • Icebow

            Well, it certainly isn’t anything like a cartoon Semitic nose. A pity we can’t post images here. I already had looked at his Google collection. When younger, he was as handsome as anything out of Hollywood, and not in any identifiably Semitic way.

            • Daniel Maris

              You’re the one identifying nordic noses with pulchritude, not me. For many people on this planet the boney protruberance on the face is something of an eyesore.

              • Icebow

                Hmm. I could have expressed myself better, I suppose. Of course there are different types/standards of beauty, as I thought I had implied; it was just that N.’s looks do not conform to what many might think a Semitic type. Personally, I’ve seen less obviously Nordic noses on very good-looking Scandinavians. As you imply, there’s a considerable degree of subjectivity. The Phi-based approach is interesting, though.

          • rodliddle

            You have no sense of principle, not even remotely.

          • scott

            Netanyahu,like most “Israeli” PMs, is Polish. Family name is Mieleikowsky. My corgie is more semitic than him.

            Though he likes to point out his name on some crest, with messianic fervor, ‘Netanyahu’ for him is one of those fake Zionist names they were obliged to take, or they wouldn’t be sent on state business, etc. Same with David Grün of Poland, Golda Mabavich of Ukraine.

            I don’t take offense to cartoons personally, as long as they are making a point besides just the caricature, but again, if this were a drawing of Jews in a western publication the artist would be sacked straight away.

    • Ridcully

      You should see how Jews are portrayed in the Arab media:

      http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

      • Daniel Maris

        Quite – it’s not the facial stereotypes that are important*, it’s what the cartoon is trying to say.

        [*How is one supposed to depict Chinese people en masse in a cartoon? With round eyes or narrow eyes? With straight black hair or wavy blonde hair? These things run on averages. How is one supposed to depict sub-saharan Africans en masse – with thin lips and straight hair? Of course not.

        Depicting Jews in a cartoon with a hooked nose is perfectly acceptable as a kind of averaged out depiction. Depicting them as Na zis, child killers and so on is highly questionable in principle.]

        • Fergus Pickering

          Perhaps I can go on here to back you up, Daniel. Scotsmen in cartoons usually ave tartan about them, often have tam o’Shanters and red hair. Most Scots are smallish, pale and straight haired. But it’s a CARTOON. Cartoons of Mr Cameron are red-faced. Photographs of him are not. CARTOON! Cartoons of Eric Pickles show him as much fatter than he is. You’ve got it. CARTOON! Now let’s try Ann Widdecombe. What parts will we exaggerate?.

        • Kitty MLB

          Also Tony Blair with big ears, The two Ed’s
          as Wallace and Gromit, Clair Short, small and square
          like a Russian. The Dutch , thin, tall and wearing Clogs.!

      • scott

        The website you linked to refers to this type of caricature as ‘anti-Semitic’…so clearly you are connecting Mr. Liddle with anti-Semitism in this case? Quite.

        • Ridcully

          I’m not doing anything of the sort; simply pointing out that the way that Jews are caricatured in the Arab world is far more unpleasant than how Arabs are generally caricatured by the West.

      • scott

        The website you linked to refers to this type of caricature as ‘anti-Semitic’…so clearly you are connecting Mr. Liddle with anti-Semitism in this case? Quite.

  • Radford_NG

    One of these depicts the mad-mullahs of Iran,the other the sons of Ibn Saud.If you zoom out from Syria you will see these two confront each other across the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

  • Joseph Willits

    Yet again, we have another article from Rod Liddle with the same tact, almost as if “black savages” wasn’t enough.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Where did he say ‘black savages’ nd what’s wrong with it if you are describing savages who are black? Or is the word savages off limits?

      • Joseph Willits

        Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/rod-liddle-two-black-savages-spectator-blog_n_3346505.html

        You might not agree with me, but I don’t think “black savages” is ok.

        • Fergus Pickering

          You don’t think black savages is OK or you don’t think black savages are OK? If he was referring to the murderers of that soldier, how would you describe them?

          • Daniel Maris

            Jihadis – followers of Islam.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Doesn’t cover all the facts of the case.

              • Daniel Maris

                Yes it does.

              • FrenchNewsonlin

                For the acts committed by the guilty barbarian butchers ‘black savages’ is really far too mild a description.

          • Alexsandr

            ‘black savage butchering scum’?

    • edlancey

      I agree. I can’t stand pleonasms either

    • Daniel Maris

      I would agree that Liddle is to be criticised for that description and it does rather form a pattern with some other stories, I’m afraid.

      The point about the murder of Lee Rigby is that the two attackers were ideologically driven followers of Islam. Followers of Islam come in all shades of skin pigmentation – being black had nothing to do with the crime. If it did, Liddle never explained how.

  • Robert N Melshah

    Oh… bless Rod Liddle and his liddle mind.

    • scott

      and his Liddle Rod.

  • anotherjoeblogs

    Is he a ‘ revert ‘ to the ‘ Religion Of Peace ‘ ?
    He would probably see a misunderstood arab and a £ sign in an ink blot test.

  • Wessex Man

    Lets get fracking and stay of this wasteland that has always caused us problems, the Yanks arn’t interested now they are self sufficient and nor should we be!

  • ADW

    What Doyle really wanted to say was that there was no possibility, ever, of any Arab or Muslim doing anything wrong ever, so they should never be portrayed ever unless as victims or tremendously virtuous benefactors

  • ohforheavensake

    So your considered answer is, ‘It’s a stereotype. So what?’

    • gerontius

      Yup, and it was a pretty good answer at that,

    • Rainsboro

      No, the point is that it was a cartoon designed to illustrate a thesis – that two feuding Arab religious factions were, quite possibly about to go to war. I suppose you could draw two stick men one labelled ‘Sunni’, and the other ‘Shia’ both with thought bubbles reading ‘I think I’m going to start a war with the other guy’ but it would be a bit pointless. Cartoons rely on exaggerations and stereotypes. So what? .

    • vieuxceps2

      Yes. So what?

  • Rainsboro

    It’s wonderful that there’s a short, simple English word that sums up Chris Doyle perfectly and removes the need for further debate. Unfortunately, it always gets you moderated

    • Alexsandr

      c blank blank blank 4 letters?
      or t blank blank t (4)

    • David davis

      “en-blank blank blank” is ultimately the word for all these awful repellent people. There…I’ve just broken Godwin’s Law…again, for the billionth time.

      The ****s will “get it”, in the end, about what they actually are.

  • Nick

    I just don’t understand all the conflict between Sunni and Shia. I mean, I Got You Babe was a good song, but really……….

    • crosscop

      True… but surely not as good as ‘My Shariah Law’ and ‘Jihad joy, jihad fun, we had jihad in the sun…”

      • Ameer

        HAHAHAHAHA, love this!

      • logdon

        Not forgetting Stevie Wonder’s My Sharia mour?

        • crosscop

          That’s just a poorer version of “My Shariah Law” in my opinion. It doesn’t even come up to the standard of Alexei Sale’s “Ullo, Mo! Gotta New Martyr” – never mind Frank Ifield’s classic “I Dismembered You.”

          • Fred Scuttle

            And there’s Tom Jones
            Kid Bomb Kid bomb, I’m a kid bomb, I can really make you gone.

            Proud Muslim dad to another. “Kids eh, they blow up so fast these days”……..

            • Ameer

              Ok fred calm down, no one’s talking about sacrificing children…

              • Fred Scuttle
              • crosscop

                Except Palestinian mothers…

              • Fergus Pickering

                Well, yes they are actually. Wasn’t there a ten-year-old girl wrapped up as a bomb by her caring family?

              • Fergus Pickering

                Oh yes they are, my muslim friend. See Fred below

              • Auntiemilibland

                Unfortunately you appear to be in denial. Palestinians sacrifice their children every day by allowing Hamas to use their homes, their schools and hospitals to bomb Israel.

          • logdon

            “Ullo, Mo! Gotta New Martyr”

            A definite keeper.

            • crosscop

              Just one more from my “Songs for Jihad – Lyrics and Chords for Ukelele.”

          • Raw England

            Erm, yeah. Not a jokey subject, is it, really, considering that Muslims are currently ruining our country.

            • crosscop

              Ridicule is a weapon. Muslims just hate it. Think Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator.”

              • Ameer

                Its irrelevant to the shia-sunni conflict. You guys can talk all you like, I posted a rebuttal of that material but for some reason spectator wont publish it; my post had no insults or anti-right blasphemy.

                • Neil Saunders

                  Oh, the sons of the Prophet are pompous and dull
                  And quite unaccustomed to sneers,
                  But the dullest of these on the Rod Liddle blog
                  Was a humourless git called Ameer…

              • David davis

                Socialists and other similar sorts of Nazis hate it too. They have no sense of the ridiculous at all, which is part of what makes them dangerous and destructive. You can see the truth of this in that they are always offended by stuff, all the time.

      • Nick

        I remember during school rugby matches it went along the lines of “We had joy, we had fun, we had Eastbourne on the run, but the fun didn’t last, ‘cos they ran so f*cking fast”……..

      • mandelson

        Old Rama allah ding dong is good one too

  • rodliddle

    Here he is! I’ve found the half-wit. And guess where I found him?

    http://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-doyle

    Get a proper job, you neatly groomed hatstand.

    • edithgrove

      He looks like one of the new set of schoolboys who writes for the Spectator.
      (Just saying).

    • Icebow

      If only he had a boyfriend named Bodie.

    • gelert

      Looks like he has a weak, er, chin.

  • Ricky Strong

    I just simply give up, I really do.

  • Daniel Maris

    From the CAABU site (they run a “education” programme in our schools, trying to influence impressionable young minds):

    “Sadly, many British schools do not cover the
    Middle East in their regular curriculum, and they are only starting to face up
    to the problem of ‘Islamophobia’. Caabu is at the forefront of tackling this
    worrying tendency, and its visiting speaker service provides students with an
    insight into some of the most important issues of the day that they would
    otherwise be sorely lacking.” Ahdaf Soueif, author.

    They seem to be a pro-Sharia front organisation, since they clearly consider it phobic to dislike Sharia law which makes second class citizens of non-Muslims.

    Perhaps CAABU can tell us which aspect of Sharia law we should welcome in this country as an improvement on our existing laws…

    • gelert

      I wonder who provides the dosh for them. The same lot who fund Wahabi imams ?

    • John Smith

      Keep an eye on Tower Hamlets. A mayor, cllrs., all they need is an MP & they can claim the Shariah by democratic demand ..

  • crosscop

    The one on the left is Mo, of course – but who’s the other one, Rod? It’s definitely not Jesus…

  • Daniel Maris

    Captions?

    “That’s agreed then. We kill each other first and THEN we kill the Jews.”

  • Icebow

    I do hope some gets Doyle to read this succinct thrashing.

    • gelert

      He would call it hate speech and we are all racist; standard Grauniadspeak.

  • saffrin

    Chris Doyle, odd name for a muslim as if he were British he needed not join any council of Arab-British Understanding to understand Arabs expect us to change our culture in line with theirs.
    It ain’t rocket science Chris.

    • tompiper

      A standard dhimmi implicated in the ‘Stockholm syndome’ peut-être. If he really wants an understanding of Arabia he should take time to look at the way the British and Americans and the Jews and Christians are caricatured in the Saudi press. Vicious. Really nasty. Been there, didn’t buy the T-shirt.

      Doyle is simply a cat’s paw. Is he paid?

      • Daniel Maris

        Council for Saudi-Funded Junkets.

        • tompiper

          Imagine that. A Saudi junket – how much coffee and tea hospitality can any sane man (women you are not there, so shut up) take/

          • Daniel Maris

            Somehow I suspect they choose locations other than Jeddah and Ryadh for the junketing.

    • tompiper

      He’s a cat’s paw but I will not use thee word dh.mm. in this edited down vession of my moderated comment. He should see the cartoons about the west in the Saudi press. Not kind.

  • David

    What’s depressing is that these people more often than not actually win.

  • tompiper

    No doubt the plods will start a ‘hate-crime’ investigation.

    • gelert

      Someone renamed them iPlod.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here