Thanks for listening!

Cheers big ears!

Now fixed. Download

I can’t right-click to save as mp3 :-< ….pleeeeeease can you check linkypoo?

What’s the magic word? 🙂

I’ve always been interested in how radio phone-in callers approach all of this, coupled with how the presenters handle it. I’ve always suspected that if eg Tom Holland got on the radio and explained it from his outlook, the presenter would listen and accept. But if Joe Bloggs phoned in doing the exact same thing, the presenter might get wobbly. This is in the sense that of course ISIS *are* applying koranic principles (and hadiths, example of Muhammed etc), albeit very literally, as well as the assertion that they are a form of “Muslim” who consider that they can easily kill other Muslims. So I was quite happy to hear Iain Dale have Tom Holland on to do exactly that. Finally, I thought, a radio presenter might “get it”.

The very next day, Iain Dale had a Muslim caller who was naturally very upset about ISIS and how they go about things. During the conversation, it was veering towards “ISIS are not Islamic in any way,” and Dale said to the caller, “and yes of course, they kill Muslims”. What happened? Had Dale listened to Tom Holland or not? Was he just “being nice”? Was Dale veering back to what many non-Muslim radio presenters have done over the last few years, in determining what a Muslim actually is, and what Islam actually is? They ought to be careful, because sooner or later, they will be decrying the non-headscarf lady as “not a proper Muslim”. This also seems to be happening (with general media) when people point out the Paris attackers (for example) went to bars, and therefore couldn’t possibly be “proper” or even Muslims at all. All they are doing is lending themselves into the denial business, and failing to understand how religion works among the masses. You do not need to be devout to act upon certain things, and you can have a drink, a cigarette, etc, etc, and still lend yourself to fanaticism. Surely that is how it has worked with religions throughout history.

All it surely takes (I say this as an outsider to religion), is that the people of that particular faith, recognise fanaticism/puritanism/zealotry etc for what it is, and want rid of it. Or is that a deluded thought right now?
But when the media start getting involved, the rest of us who recognise the fanaticism etc, run the risk of being called names (“the rest of us” obviously includes Muslims too). Unless you are a respected Historical author!