newspapers and Is it cool to use the term �Inshallah� ?newspapers

There�s a bit of a thing going on about Nicky Campbell using the term �Inshallah� when he signed off on last Sunday�s TBQs.

Was it supposed to be affectionate but slightly ironic? Or was it another example of Islam infiltrating our cultural norms? In other words, does it demonstrate the BBC�s normalisation of Islam in the UK.

Putting into context by taking Nicky Campbell�s and TBQ�s past performances into account, it�s truly hard to say,

Remember, not everyone can be an obsessive BBC geek. Some of us know more than enough about a given BBC employee�s political affiliations and preferences. We trawl their Tweets and document their impartiality lapses, be they overt, covert, subtle, subliminal or imaginary. We might spot something genuinely worrying, or, on the other hand we might get over excited about something that turns out to be nothing.

Nicky Campbell has been eviscerated (and the contents analysed) by connoisseurs of BBC bias over the years, particularly as regards his radio 5 shows, which I�m afraid I�ve never heard. My radio doesn�t go there.

Lookie here. And, on this very blog, there are 12 items tagged Nicky Campbell! (only one was mine)

Personally, I do watch TBQs, not only for the pantomime but also to keep an eye on what�s going on. Watching one�s back. In my opinion Nicky Campbell does tend to over-apply moral equivalence. Not that he tolerates radicalism or violence, but let�s call it an almost rigid adherence to the non-value-judgmentalist, multicultural ethos preached by the BBC. 

On that occasion Campbell�s use of that term may have been tinged with irony, but at the same time, in that particular context there is certainly an element of deference to Islam. Which some of us find sycophantic and -  I don't know - disconcerting. 

As we know, the BBC is used to pleading �we must be doing it right because we get criticism from �both� sides�, so maybe Campbell�s gratuitous use of this expression with an infinitesimal touch of irony is pure mischief-making. A way of hedging his bets and leaving enough mystique in its wake to please the Muslims while simultaneously heading off the inevitable cries of bias from the likes of us. Or maybe it�s none of that; just creeping Islamisation.

Meanwhile the normalisation of Islam in the UK grows apace, and if it makes some of us feel uneasy, we must suck it up.  Happy Ramadan.

newspapers and Let me finish my point!newspapers

I was toying with the idea of switching over to ITV after Andrew Marr and before Andrew Neil  to see what Peston�s show was like (I hear David Cameron was a guest) but when I saw who was on the front row of TBQs I stuck around to see what Adam Deen, Douglas Murray, Peter Hitchens and Kate Smurthwaite would have to say. 

The question was to do with the �Prevent� strategy. �Is countering extremism compatible with freedom of religion?�. (No-one even agrees about the exact definition of extremism, so the  programme was doomed to go nowhere)

Today�s representatives of Islam were Dr. Rizwaan Sabir (Lecturer Liverpool John Moores University) and Mohammed Khaliel. True to form, they were pugnacious and reluctant to let anyone else speak, but that�s probably why the producers invited them on. Half the precious air time was wasted by people asking if they might be allowed to finish their point.

Dr. Sabir said there was �no empirical evidence that an extreme form of Islamic Ideology is in fact the cause of terrorism.�

Peter Hitchens made a strangely ill thought-through argument, which seemed to be that freedoms of �thought� should never be impinged upon - including the thoughts and words of proponents of radical Islam - until actual violence is involved. 

He said that acts of terrorism have always been undertaken by petty criminals, drinkers and drug addicts, not theologians or scholars of Islam. You don�t see many imams carrying out their own dirty business, that�s true. They�re too fond of their privileged position in this life to splat prematurely on to the next.

The rather large flaw in his argument is that those freethinking theologians and scholars are in the business of manipulating the petty criminals into doing their bidding, lured by the promise of martyrdom and all those seductive virgins. 

I assume Peter Hitchens can only think this because he fears that his own Christian views might be criminalised, were the Prevent strategy to be applied too rigorously.  He might incur an ASBO.

The thing that never fails to amaze me is the set. Who in their right mind could have deliberately picked the theme of orange, blue, bronze(quilted), blue, yellow, purple, ochre, blue, veridian(quilted), blue, tangerine and yellow vertical stripes as a backcloth to this programme. Even before anyone has said a word it�s highly depressive. 

It�s even worse than Andrew Marr�s new set, with the orange upholstery and the vermillion cushions. 

Good grief.