Sometimes I read these things and it just seems incredibly depressing that the horrors of the world that I was writing of ten years ago could just as easily have been written yesterday. But there is something particularly galling when those horrors are closely associated with people that are generally considered to be muslim.

There was an aspect of this Thought for the Day that brings back a particularly bitter taste to my mouth, however, as it was the one time that I was specifically forbidden to say what I felt I ought to be saying. So I will write about it at more than usual length in the margin here.

It was a long time ago, so I don't remember exactly what the issue was (the unfortunate recurrence of these themes does blur one occasion into another somewhat), but it was to do with public execution by beheading in Saudi Arabia, its use in highly selective (and contentious) situations, and the impression given that it was as much a matter of public entertainment as of justice. There had been a long programme about it on the TV two days previously (I think Panorama) which had begun with a picture of a Qur'an being opened (to make clear that this was a religious, not a political problem), and had the Saudi Ambassador explaining how this was an integral part of our religion. The following day (the day before my broadcast), all the newspapers had the story emblazoned across their front pages in full holer-than-thou xenophobic mode, and the Glasgow Herald had more or less a full page article (written by non-muslims, of course) devoted to this 'Islamic' butchery. Yet when I wanted to write a piece specifically challenging the Islamic credentials of the Saudi Government that was acting in this way in the name of Islam, the muslims, and therefore me, I was told quite categorically that it would not be allowed. It was OK for every non-muslim journalist on every TV news programme, magazine, broadsheet and tabloid to give full vent to their prejudice, yet as a muslim regular on Thought for the day I was not allowed to directly challenge the Saudi Government on their interpretation of Islam. This piece was the closest I could get. I could mention them in association with certain arms deals in the news not long before, and a couple of paragraphs later use the word 'beheadings' in a slightly different non-specific context, and assume that everyone knew what I was talking about. I was so incensed that I wrote a letter of complaint, and received back a letter of sympathy, but no real explanation. A short while later, however, it was announced that the Saudis were withdrawing their funding from some TV station that was being run for them by the BBC. So in the end they lost their money anyway, and they might just as well have let me say my piece in the way that I originally wanted to say it.

(censored prior to broadcast)

The Strathclyde Defence Industries Working Group now has the results of a survey showing that 28,910 jobs have been lost in the last five years. If, as Campbell Christie suggests, "defense cuts are leading to a de-skilling of our industries and the loss of much of our high tech capabilities", is it not time to find alternative uses for the talents of our workforce in a more useful arena than the arms trade.

Our policy, of course, is to only sell arms to friendly nations, but in that we tend to follow the Arab proverb "My enemy's enemy is my friend", not the advice of Muhammad who said "A person tends to follow the beliefs of his friend, so be very careful with whom you make friends."

Recent Saudi attempts to influence Government action using arms sales as a lever is only the latest reminder of the way that weapons can backfire. Saddam is still sitting in his British made bunker,  still claiming moral leadership, and refusing to go away, like the smile of a cheshire cat. But Islam can seem alien to those with little knowledge, so our politicians are rarely equipped to evaluate muslim morals.

Genocide and Torture, including in their repertoire Beheadings, Amputations, Floggings, and suchlike, are the armoury of dictators everywhere around the world. Yet a muslim constantly hears it suggested that these issues are somehow intrinsic to his faith, not merely a tool of oppression. Qur'an says the Hypocrites "have made their oaths a cover for their misdeeds, and so turn others away from the path of God".

Muhammad said "There are four qualities which if they are found in a person prove him to be a hypocrite: When he is entrusted with anything he embezzles it, and when he talks he lies; when he promises he breaks the promise, and when he argues he reviles." and "he will not enter Paradise whose neighbour is not secure against his mischief."

Non-muslims will obviously have only an observer's interest in his view that "If anyone walks with an oppressor to strengthen him, knowing he is an oppressor, he has gone away from Islam", and that "The most excellent jihad is to speak the truth in the face of a tyrannical ruler."