Now do you see why Islamists often state that democracy is incompatible with Islam? Sudan and the BBC.

Hidden away on the BBC African news page is a story headlined 'South Sudan backs independence - results'. In it we learn that:

'Southern Sudan voted overwhelmingly for independence, election officials have confirmed.

They said nearly 99% of the voters in January's referendum were in favour of dividing Africa's biggest country.'

The upcoming vote received very little publicity on the BBC and there is a throwaway line in this report that simply reads:

'At least 50 people were killed over the weekend in fighting between soldiers in south Sudan's Upper Nile state.'

50 people died in fighting and their daeths warrant such little reporting. Why do the BBC devote so much space and time to the reporting of every death of a Palestinian and so little to the deaths of Africans? Do the BBC consider African lives to be worth so little in comparison and if so why? Or is it because the Israel/Palestinian conflict is so crucial to the BBC world view that every wrinkle needs reporting so as to ensure the British public are appropriately (mis)informed about the State of Israel?

So why is the split of Sudan happening> If you read much further down the article, and of course most people won't, you will read this rather bland wording:

'In the last half century southerners have fought two devastating civil wars with Khartoum, in which more than two million people are estimated to have died.'

Two million people died? I would say two million killed but let us leave that suble sub-editing alone. Two million people died and how much news reporting has the great news organisation that is the BBC devoted to the story? Meanwhile the BBC concentrates its resources on conflicts where the anti-West (Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ) and anti-Israel message can be spread more easily. The BBC seem to like to portray the USA, UK and Israel as the world's aggressors and so conflicts that do not fit this narrative are ignored.

So why is there a conflict between North and South Sudan? The BBC has an explanation:

'The south sees itself as different in cultural, religious and ethnic terms from the north, and believes it has suffered years of discrimination.'

OK, any more detail? No it seems not. At the bottom of the article is a graphic with seven tabs showing dofferent aspects of the geographical split between North and South Sudan, does that give us any clues? lots of colours devoted to the different groupings but what's that? The large yellow block of colour in the North shows that 48% of the population of the North Sudan is Arab. Still there seems to be one word missing from the BBC's report: Islam. For the South's wish to split form the North of Sudan was not based on race but religion. The North is 80% or more Islamic, the South 50-70% or more Christian with the remainder mostly adherents to indigenous religions. Oddly the Christians and others did not appreciate living under the code of Sharia law imposed upon them by the followers of Islam ruling from Khartoum. It is strange though that the religion of peace seems to have encouraged so many people to want to get away form it. But what is even stranger is that the BBC do not even mention religion as a factor, other than in passing, why is this?

I also wonder how many other non-Muslims would like to not live under Sharia Law. This not something that the BBC will investigate for they are willing spreaders of the narrative that non-Muslims live and have always lived freely and happily under Islamic rule. The BBC happily parrott the claim that Muslims, Christians and Jews lived as free equals under the Islamic Caliphate; never mentioning such terms as dhimmitude and jizya. The BBC's world view is so incredibly skewed and embedded that I doubt that it can ever be corrected.