This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

EastEnders: Hindu Muslims & Agitprop

 




QUESTION: I’m thinking about the different careers I can be involved in and one of them is acting. I really like acting and am thinking about acting in movies. Would income from acting in movies be considered harraam income?... I would really like to do something that would be Islamically encouraged and one that would please Allah.

ANSWER:
Income from acting in movies is Haraam. This is because of photography which is the main component of movies. In Islam, photography of animate objects is a major sin. Besides photography, there are other sins also involved, e.g. intermingling of sexes, music, fiction, idle pursuit, gossip, etc...

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best


Mufti Ebrahim Desai


*********************************************************

The Muslim Characters in EastEnders

Kush – played by Davood Ghadami

Tamwar Masood – played by Himesh Patel

Masood Ahmed – played by Nitin Ganatr

Shabnam – played by Rakhee Thakrar

Afia Masood – played by Meryle Fernande

Amira Masood – played by Preeya Kalidas

Ayesha Rana – played by Shivani Ghai

Syed Masood – played by Marc Elliott

Yusef Khan – played by Ace Bhatti

Zainab Khan – played by Nina Wadia

AJ Ahmed – played by Phaldut Ahmed

************************************************
EastEnders' Masood Ahmed embracing diversity.

EastEnders has consistently portrayed Islam in a positive light. That's true even when Muslim characters do bad things. That is, the writers make sure that any wrongdoing or suspect behaviour carried out by Muslims has nothing at all to do with Islam. Islam, as ever, is the elephant in the room which no one dare mention... unless what they say is positive!

EastEnders is now featuring the slow conversion of a non-Muslim female character (Nancy Carter) to Islam. To think that this was being shown during and immediately after the Islamic slaughter in Paris. If anything, I would bet that the writers of EastEnders will increase their positive portrayals of Muslims as a result of what happened in Paris.

Yet EastEnders writers must know more about Islam than they do about other religions. They must know, for example, about sharia law. Why is that? Because virtually every Muslim featured in the show so far has been played by either a Hindu or a Sikh (all mainly of Indian descent). Just look at these names above – which immediately give the game away.

So the irony of all this is that EastEnders is proselytising on behalf of Islam at the same time as knowing that Islam has a very dim view of the acting profession (as well as of music, fun, etc.).

EastEnders is also keen on portraying Muslim men having relationships with non-Muslim women. However, there's been no storyline about Muslim women having relationships with non-Muslim men. Why is that? Because Islam allows men to marry non-Muslim women; though it doesn't allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men. Thus the writers of EastEnders have conveniently sidestepped this issue as well.

Another issue that EastEnders has ignored is the situation between the two characters, Shabnam and Kush. Shabnam is supposed to be a Muslim of a Sunni Pakistani background. Kush, on the other hand, is supposed to be Iranian. The vast majority of Muslims in Iran are Shia. Sunni and Shia Islam have been at war with each other (on and off) since the 7thcentury. Indeed even in places like Bradford there's been bad feeling between Shia and Sunni Muslims. And, of course, in Iraq, Syria and Pakistani Sunnis frequently carry out terrorist bombings of Shia mosques.

EastEnders sells itself as the show that's “not afraid to tackle serious issues”. That's true... up to a point. However, it has been afraid to show Islam in a negative light, if not Muslims themselves. Sure, sometimes some of the Muslim characters are portrayed in an unflattering light; though the writers cleverly divorce that Muslim bad behaviour from Islam itself. Thus, as ever, Islam itself isn't to blame for anything. Yet it is to blame for the palpable fact that EastEnders producers and writers have to employ non-Muslims to play Muslims!

A Muslim wedding procession right through the heart of Cockney Land















*) The BBC’s portrayal of Muslims is an extreme example of the Leftist ideological notion of “lying for Justice”. It's also pure agitprop (i.e., “agitation”, “propaganda”).

The particular Muslim families has been the home of open gays, drinkers, hipsters, comedians. In actual fact, so far we’ve had gay Muslims, illicit relationships, Muslims in pubs, Muslims in Churches (during weddings/funerals), Muslims fraternising almost exclusively with non-Muslims and, last but not least, a Muslim wedding-procession (with music, etc.) through the streets of an otherwise cockney neighbourhood.

The writers of EastEnders? I can only (partly) guess. They'll be mainly - or exclusively – white, middle-class Leftists (or Left-Liberals).

The writers of EastEnders will indeed see soap drama as entertainment: though entertainment necessarily mixed with numerous social and political messages. Their purpose is to both entertain and to educate.

Of course EastEnders is sometimes entertaining! How could the writers' political and social messages get through to many people if those messages weren’t tarted up with some good-old-fashioned soap entertainment? Hell, even Leftists don’t want to preach to an empty audience.

So the silly fictions about Muslims and Muslim families (amidst an almost-exclusively white community) don’t matter much. The lies don’t matter. The surreal and absurd situations don’t matter if they get various and many social or political points across.

None of that matters. The Leftist/liberal writers of EastEnders are indulging in good old-fashioned agitprop. Sure, such agitprop isn’t as bad as it was in the 1960s and 1970s; but it's still pretty blatant.

The writers are tacitly suggesting to its viewers that Islam "is just like any other religion" and that Muslims are just like the people at a BBC dinner party.

Everyone I've ever spoken to finds the EastEnders' Muslim families both unreal and absurd. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that these fictions (or lies) help the fight against the perceived racism of Islam's critics. And we all know that every Muslim on the planet belongs to the same race or ethnicity... don't we?

Sunday, 15 November 2015

The British PM vs. the European Union? No, not really



Tory Eurosceptic John Redwood summed up what is – or what should be – at the heart of the debate about the European Union. He said: "It's about more than borders and migration: it's about who governs."

Of course immigration and borders are important subjects; though they become almost irrelevant if those who call the shots aren't listening to the British government, let alone the people of Britain. In other words, in order to sort out the mess that is mass immigration, we have to ask (as Redwood put it) “who governs us?”. The fact is that on this and on other issues unelected bureaucrats and European politicians govern the UK. And they're all in favour of mass immigration and open borders. Or, to use the EU jargon, these Europhiles firmly believe in the “free movement of peoples”.

UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, has also focussed on the fact that the“democratic deficit” is the core problem. He said that David Cameron "is not aiming for any substantial renegotiation" and that there's


"no promise to regain the supremacy of Parliament, nothing on ending the free movement of people and no attempt to reduce Britain's massive contribution to the EU budget".

Labour's shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, also said that Cameron's words were "a lot of bluff and bluster". The majority of British people agree.

McDonnellfinished off by saying that Cameron is “appeasing” Tory backbenchers. That's true too... up to a point. However, McDonald obvious meant that Cameron is appeasing Tory Eurosceptics. Yet the fact is that it can just as easily be said that he's appeasing Tory Europhiles. After all, the Europhiles have a stronger position in the Conservative Party (at present) than the sceptics. In fact Cameron is probably trying to appease both Eurosceptics and Europhiles at the same time. That's the sort of politician he is. In other words, if he can appease both sceptics and Europhiles, then that will guarantee him continued power within the Tory Party. Of course in principle it's almost impossible to appease two mutually-contradictorysegments of a party. Nonetheless, that's clearly what Cameron is trying to do.

The other strange thing is that Labour's position (or the Opposition's position) is more or less the same as Cameron's. After all, McDonald said that we need to "negotiate our reform agenda as members of the club", which is exactly what Cameron is saying.

What are David Cameron's new demands in the run-up to the opt-in-or-out vote in 2017? They include, in the BBC's words, the following:

    i) Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro countries.
    ii) Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of red tape.
    iii) Exempting Britain from "ever-closer union" and bolstering national parliaments.
    iv) Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax credits.
     
     
    i) and ii) above are vague beyond comprehension. Deliberately so, of course. (Has any European politician ever argued against cutting red tape?) As for iii). It can justifiably be said that the very nature of the EU (along with its principles and laws) is designed to bring about an “ever-closer union” between the EU's central institutions and national parliaments. Finally, iv) is a no-no because it infringes fundamental European law on the “free movement of peoples”.
     
    So not only are those four claims vague and unachievable, Lord Lawson also said that they're “disappointingly unambitious”.
     
    Just how difficult Cameron's task is can be shown by the simple fact that in order to bring about radical change he'd need the cooperation of the other 27 European Union countries. Now of course some of those countries do indeed benefit from the EU – specifically when it comes inter-European immigration (including emigrating to the UK). So that's a few countries which would say 'no' to start off with.
     
    What's more, a spokesman for the Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, said that talk about cutting benefits is "highly problematic" because it impacted on "fundamental freedoms of our internal market". In addition, it added up to "direct discrimination between EU citizens".
     
    As David Cameron, the British people and the EU's unelected bureaucracy all know, any talk about doing something radical and concrete about immigration is basically just that – talk.Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond exemplified this all-talk-no-action facade when he said that the the government is indeed open to ideas about how to reduce immigration. Yes, open to ideas and ideas alone. That is, open to more talk and little (or no) action.
     
    You know these forthcoming discussions are a “gimmick” when you take on board what the European Commission has said about them. It says that any changes in benefits for immigrants would break free-movement laws. In non-EU speak, that means that they will break these laws because it's the European Commission itself that helped create them in the first place.
     
    Cameron himself tacitly admits that there can (or will) be no change on immigration when he said the following:



"I understand how difficult some of these welfare issues are for some member states, and I'm open to different ways of dealing with this issue."


So there's very little room for manoeuvre - even when it comes to the fact that 40% of recent EU-area immigrants - even some they have jobs- receive (on average) £6,000 a year in state benefits. Put simply, the fact that some actually have jobs is almost immediately cancelled out by that £6,000 a year of benefits they receive.



In a sense it's almost impossible to restrict benefits to recent and long-term immigrants. It just won't work. It won't work because if benefits were completely cut - or even severely restricted - you'd then have many immigrants living below the breadline. That would result in more crimes and an outcry from the “rights industry”:i.e., from Leftist lawyers, professors and journalists. In other words, what would happen if immigrants suddenly found themselves without any money whatsoever? Two things may happen. One, they'd try to price out indigenous labour. Two, they'd resort to crime.
 

The solution to this is simple: don't let any immigrants in unless they have definite skills which the UK genuinely requires. There can be no other reason for immigration at this moment in time. Since we've already imported at least seven millionimmigrants in the last 15 years, we're now left with a situation which requires radical policies and action.