The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

The Sun's Anila Baig Is a Right Laugh!

[Top: Anila Baig. Although Baig loves a laugh and even appreciates the tits 'n' bums in the Sun (which is policy), this nevertheless didn't stop her arguing passionately against the French ban on the Islamic burqa. Left: I'm not sure if the burqa-supporting Anila Baig wrote this tasty item on 'Lusty Louise'.]

Anila Baig, who writes for the Sun, once said that the ‘root cause [of terror] must be addressed’.

If it is acceptable to claim that there is a single cause of terror, then I too will claim the same. Whereas she hints at the fact that it is politics which is the 'root cause' of terror, I will claim that it is the Koran itself. Take this passage:

‘Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocritical Jews and deal rigorously with them.’ – 9:73


Strike off infidels’ heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.’ – 8:12

As a matter of fact, I don’t believe that there is a single ‘root cause’ of Islamic terror, unlike Baig. I think that it is a mix of Koranic statements and the political situation in the Muslim and Arab worlds. If it’s all about poverty, exploitation, etc., then why did Osama Bin Laden – once a rich Saudi living in the United States – become a terrorist? I simply don’t believe that politics is the root cause of Islamic terror.

Baig's position, as with so many other people who comment on Islam and terrorism, sounds like a watered-down Marxist analysis of religion. I presume that Baig is not a Marxist.

I don’t, and no one should, make a mistake that because Anila Baig, a Muslim, can write affable journalese in which she refers to
Pop Idol and uses the exclamation ‘eh!’, that it follows that Islam itself is affable and nice. She herself has told us not to generalise about Muslims. So I won’t take Baig to be a typical Muslim.

Yet she often goes right ahead and does generalise
positively about Muslims. She often recites a list of 'Islamic achievements'. However, were these the achievements of Islam or were they the achievements of people who just happened to be Muslims? Did Islam, or the Koran, somehow cause these achievements?

Take a parallel with Nazism. Werner Heisenberg (a great physicist), Martin Heidegger (a great philosopher) and Richard Strauss (a great composer) were all Nazis, to a greater or lesser extent. Does that make Nazism itself, like Islam, responsible for these ‘great achievements’ of German science, philosophy and music? No. They just happened to be Nazis as well.

As a matter of historical fact, Muslims did indeed pass on ‘advancements in medicine and science and astronomy’ to the West. But these Muslims too had almost all this passed on to them by people who had taken most of it from the Ancient Greeks and the Romans.

Muslims changed little of Greek medicine, science and astronomy. They did indeed pass it onto Western Europe. And to say that 'Muslims gave the world geometry' is ridiculous. Pythagoras and Plato were keen geometricians over a thousand years before the Islamic Prophet. And much of Muslim and Arabic mathematical knowledge came from India, and, again, from Ancient Greece.

Baig also often quotes from the Koran itself. One particularly passage is often quoted at non-Muslims, as she herself admits. As usual, it is misquoted! This is Baig's version:

‘He who takes a life, it is as if he had taken the whole of humanity.’

My Koran, however, reads:

‘… whosoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the

land [my italics], shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind…’ – 5:32

There are two responses to this: one negative and one positive.

The negative response is that Baig cynically and deliberately erased the central clause of the sentence. The positive response is that she had this passage passed on to her by other Muslims to cite
at non-Muslims. Anyway. Perhaps all non-Islamic practices could be deemed as that passage’s ‘villainy’!

She often jokes about converting non-Muslims. Please convert us, rather than kill us:

‘Fight against unbelievers until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

Baig also talks about the ‘duty to protect communities whether their communities are Muslim or not’. But we have passages in the Koran such as:

‘Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends… Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number.’ – 5:51


I was at first perplexed by the claim that ‘Islam’, the Arabic for ‘submission’, is derived from a word meaning ‘peace’. It’s like saying that ‘peace is war’. In any case, this rejoicing in the ‘complete submission to God’ sounds frightening to many Western ears. It is almost bound to lead to oppression and jihad. If we must submit ourselves to Allah, then, perhaps, we should also submit ourselves to His representatives – the clerics, scholars and imams – here on earth.

*) Bertrand Russell wrote that Muslims scientists, etc. were ‘parasitic’ on Ancient Greek knowledge.

*) I soon came to know that the fusion of the words 'peace' and 'submission', in the word 'Islam' (in the Arabic) means that we achieve peace only when
everyone submits to Allah. This is truly 'the peace of the grave'!

1 comment:

  1. Baig is a practising taqqiyist and an ignoramus. This thing she quotes from the holy qurap has been lifted whole from the Old Testament(the Jewish Torah) and perverted by mozlems - parasitic on also Jewish and Christian writings:

    ‘He who takes a life, it is as if he had taken the whole of humanity.’