Re-Programming Brit ish Muslims A Study of the Islam Channel Talal Rajab Quilliam is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank. Located in London, our founders are former leading ideologues of UK-based extremist Islamist organizations. Quilliam aims to generate new thinking through informed and inclusive discussion to counter the Islamist ideology behind terrorism, whilst simultaneously providing evidence-based recommendations to governments for related policy measures. Our strategic communications work involves research projects, training seminars, public events, specialist roundtables and media campaigns to empower civil society to work towards improved national cohesion, Muslim integration through respect for scriptural diversity, and encouragement of political pluralism.
For further information contact: Quilliam Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)207 182 7280 www.quilliamfoundation.org
Re-Programming British Muslims—A Study of the Islam Channel Quilliam, March 2010
© Quilliam 2010 – All rights reserved ISBN number: 978-1-906603-12-0
Disclaimer: The views of individuals and organizations used in this report do not necessarily reflect those of Quilliam. Re-Programming British Muslims Contents
Contents
Introduction to and Significance of the Islam Channel 6 Methodology 10 Chapter One: Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims 11 Attitudes Towards Women 11 Views on Mainstream Muslims 21 Further Attacks on Mainstream Muslim Practices 25 Views on Shi’ah Muslims 29 Chapter Two: Encouraging Social Seclusion and Divisive Relations with Non-Muslims 35 Attitudes to Non-Muslims 35 Advocacy of Segregation within Schools 37 Case Study 38 Marriage with Non-Muslims 40 Ambiguity on Joining the British Army and Voting 41 Chapter Three: Arab-Israeli Conflict & Politics 43 Historical Portrayal of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 44 Misrepresentation of Facts 47 Anti-Semitism and Support for Hamas 50 Chapter Four: Islam Channel News 54 Islam Channel News and Channel 4 News: A Comparison of Priorities 54 Chapter Five: Supporting Extremism 65 Providing a Platform for Extremism 66 Controversial Preachers 74 Adverts 79 Chapter Six: Ofcom Regulations 82 Chapter Seven: Recommendations 95 Glossary 98 Appendix 101 References 103
Introduction Re-Programming British Muslims
Introduction
In 2004 the Islam Channel was launched in Britain. Over the years the channel has grown in terms of the number of different programmes broadcast and the variety of topics that are covered on its airwaves. Young, British Muslims are now able to access ‘Islamic’ guidance on a range of topics from marriage, finance and health-related issues to jurisprudential advice on prayer, fasting and hajj. Such guidance is admittedly vital for a young generation that has found it difficult to find authentic authorities on Islamic matters outside traditional outlets such as the mosque and the madrasa. As the premier Islamic satellite channel in Britain the Islam Channel therefore has a potentially important role to play in civil society, with the ability to become both a vehicle for greater national cohesion (aiding the integration of British Muslims into mainstream society) and a bulwark against extremist elements within our communities.
However, as a regular viewer of the Islam Channel over the past few years it is with great regret that I publish this report. I have been disturbed by the fact that, as shown by our analysis, the very same extremists that the Islam Channel is expected to speak out against are instead promoted by the network; and in some cases even allowed to host and produce programmes commissioned by the channel.
It is also worrying that the channel consistently pushes one type of political opinion on its viewers to the detriment of others, with the majority of presenters and guests on the channel failing to represent the diversity of political thought within British Muslim communities. The fact that the channel has previously been fined by Ofcom for flouting regulations on due impartiality is indicative of the poor standards that have been endemic within the Islam Channel for a number of years.
Furthermore, as a Muslim whose mother follows the Shafi’i school of thought with aspects of Sufism and whose father combines those Sufic aspects with an adherence to the Ja’afari Shi’ah school of thought I have also been troubled by the sharp denunciations and criticisms of followers of both traditions by presenters on the channel. Whilst peaceful, legitimate theological debate is to be both expected and encouraged on an outlet such as the Islam Channel, in keeping with the rich tradition of debate in Islam, our analysis has shown that at times such debate has led to the expressions of views that will be seen as highly offensive by significant elements within Muslim communities in Britain. It is extremely worrying that a channel that purports to represent all of Britain’s Muslim communities can be so sectarian on a regular basis, consistently denouncing a number of mainstream Islamic practices and thereby discriminating against the very Muslims the channel claims to represent.
Some of my concerns were relayed to the CEO of the Islam Channel by the Directors of Quilliam. The channel’s inertia towards our apprehensions and lack of concerted action has led to our going public with evidence to illustrate the damage being done to young Muslim minds by this channel.
The Islam Channel potentially has an important role to play in Britain and not all of
Re-Programming British Muslims Introduction
the channel’s programmes have failed in their objectives. Programmes on the life of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and his companions, cartoons for young children teaching them how to pray and the broadcasting of Qur’anic verses translated into English are all vital for English speaking Muslims looking to regain their spiritual heritage. Unfortunately, this valuable output is polluted when the channel’s programmes divert from such themes and foray into confrontational, destructive political issues and contentious religious subjects that only serve to further alienate British Muslim communities and encourage separatism and intolerance.
It is hoped that, with the release of this report and its subsequent recommendations, the Islam Channel can fulfil its potential and become a positive influence on a new generation of young British Muslims and thereby contribute to strengthening Britain’s national security. The disturbing evidence presented in this report requires urgent attention from government and civil society bodies that partner with the Islam Channel without challenging its separatism, extremism, sexism and anti-Semitism.
Talal Rajab
Research Fellow
Trainer
Introduction Re-Programming British Muslims
Introduction to and Significance of the Islam Channel
The last decade has seen an increase in alternative public spaces opened by British Muslims in order for them to further explore their faith and its role in secular British society. From internet forums to conferences and exhibitions, from university societies to radio stations, young British Muslims have found exciting, different methods of celebrating their faith away from traditional outlets such as the mosque or local community centre. Unlike the first generation of Muslims who came to this country, whose religious space consisted of only places of worship, British Muslims have found a new array of alternative spaces through which to express their Islamic identities and differentiate themselves from the religious expressions of their parents’ generation.
One important alternative public space that has gained much ground in recent years has been the use of Islamic television stations. With a large number of viewers, and a modern medium through which to reach them, Islamic television channels have become one of many avenues a British Muslim may use to learn about Islam. At a time when some Muslims often feel under-represented and demonised in mainstream media outlets, Islamic television stations have become perfect alternatives for technologically and politically savvy Muslims to propagate their versions of Islam. A number of Islam-related channels have therefore emerged over the past few years that are aimed at providing a voice to Britain’s Muslim communities. Of these many channels, the Islam Channel stands out as the most prominent and popular.
The Islam Channel logo.
Re-Programming British Muslims Introduction
The Islam Channel
Although a number of other Islamic satellite channels have emerged over the past few years to rival the prominence of the Islam Channel, including Noor TV and Ahlul Bayt TV, the Islam Channel remains the most significant and influential Islamic satellite channel in Britain. The channel insists that it represents all of Britain’s Muslim communities, unlike many of the other channels that are more directed at a specific Islamic or ethnic community. The Islam Channel is reported to have a viewership of over 59% of British Muslims,1 and has become a template for other Islamic television networks to follow.
Since its inception in 2004 the channel has, however, courted a fair amount of controversy. Its founder and CEO, Mohamed Ali Harrath, has had a colourful history. Harrath has been on an Interpol ‘wanted list’ since 1992 for co-founding the outlawed Tunisian Islamic Front, an Islamist political party that was accused by the Tunisian authorities of seeking to overthrow the regime in favor of an Islamist state, and had been in and out of jail during his adolescent years for what he calls his ‘involvement’ in the ‘Islamic Movement’.2 After fleeing to the UK and achieving refugee status in 1995, Harrath later launched the Islam Channel.
FACT BOX
The Islam Channel is the largest Islamic television channel in the UK. From its base in central London, the free to air channel is available via satellite or the internet and is broadcast to over 132 countries, making it one of the most influential Islamic satellite channels in both Europe and the world. Launched in 2004 by Tunisian national Mohammed Ali Harrath, the channel states that its aims are to ‘(convey) Islam in its true form to curious non-Muslims and further educate Muslims alike’.3 This is achieved through a combination of religious, political and historical programming that covers an array of topics. Through filling a niche gap in the television market the Islam Channel has managed to identify itself as the televised ‘voice’ of Britain’s Muslim communities, with notable politicians and public figures appearing on the network in an attempt to reach out to Muslim audiences.
The Islam Channel has also attracted criticism for the views expressed by many of its presenters, ranging from inflammatory statements made about Sufi and Shi’ah Muslims to Holocaust denial. The channel has previously been criticised for violating Ofcom regulations which have resulted in a number of complaints being made against the channel, a fine from Ofcom and a legal dispute with one of its presenters, Yvonne Ridley.4
1 ‘Unanswered questions about a ‘man of peace’ on Interpol list’, The Times, 15 December 2008,
In spite of these revelations and the controversies surrounding the network, the content and material produced by the Islam Channel has hitherto not been fully scrutinised. Many people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are therefore unaware of the channel’s message and the type of Islam that it promotes to Britain’s Muslim communities. How does the Islam Channel view wider society? Is it creating a certain type of Muslim? What is the Islam Channel’s view on other Islamic traditions, particularly Shi’ah Muslims? How does the channel deal with matters of political and religious controversy? How representative is the Islam Channel of Britain’s diverse Muslim communities? Has the Islam Channel learnt from its prior dealings with Ofcom? And does the channel rigorously counter extremism, or has it provided a platform for extremist preachers and organisations in the recent past?
This report will seek to answer the preceding questions and provide a detailed analysis of the content, message and impact of Britain’s leading Islamic satellite channel. In order to assess the channel key programmes were monitored and evaluated during a three month period, particularly those that provided religious advice to viewers and those programmes of a political nature.
One of the key themes that emerged from Quilliam’s analysis was that the Islam Channel failed in its claim to represent all of Britain’s diverse Muslim communities, with mainstream Islamic movements largely under-represented and maligned.5 Whilst not wanting to promote one Islamic tradition over the other and not wanting the state to interfere in the religious interpretations of a television network, such an analysis should inform the public and policymakers alike of the sectarianism that exists within the Islam Channel.
FACT BOX
The Global Peace and Unity Event is an annual, two-day event that the Islam Channel holds. In 2006 the event managed to attract 55,000 Muslims from across Europe. High profile politicians and public speakers such as the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, Sadiq Khan MP and Steven Timms MP have all spoken at the event over the past years.
Furthermore, programmes of a political nature were found to be largely biased and one- sided, especially when dealing with matters of controversy such as the Arab-Israeli conflict or the war in Afghanistan, thus rendering obsolete the channel’s claims to be impartial and to ‘remain committed to representing both sides of any story fairly’.6
Lastly, the Islam Channel’s contribution to tackling extremism has been negligible at best, as several extremist preachers and organisations have been permitted to use the channel to promote their views and ideology. The channel has also been reluctant to provide positive
5 The term mainstream here refers to the majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom who follow either a Deobandi or Barelwi interpretation of Islam. Both schools of thought are largely under-represented on the Islam Channel in favour of Wahhabi-inspired Muslims who adhere to a stricter, literalist understanding of the faith. 6 ‘About Us: Islam Channel News’,
guidance for views on key contemporary issues, made contentious by extremists in Britain, such as the permissibility of voting or joining the British army.
Such failures are of major importance since a large number of high profile politicians and public figures have, perhaps unbeknown to them, appeared on the Islam Channel over the past year thus appearing to legitimize the channel’s aims and promoting the channel’s agenda. The names of those whose images have been used on the Islam Channel include Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the leaders of both opposition parties David Cameron MP and Nick Clegg MP, and other prestigious political figures such as Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice), Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) and Sir Paul Stephenson (Metropolitan Police Commissioner). This has occurred due to a lack of public information and awareness about the Islam Channel. This report will therefore aim to influence the Islam Channel to change its modus operandi and persuade the above people, and Muslim viewers, to take the channel to task when it fails its viewers.
It should however be noted that, due to the need for alternative public spaces for young Muslims mentioned above, the Islam Channel does have the potential to have a positive impact on Britain’s Muslim communities. Certain shows have managed to fulfill this potential, with programmes such as ‘Legal Forum’ and ‘Teens and Parents’ on occasion providing useful and positive advice to British Muslims. Regrettably, such examples of good programming on the Islam Channel are limited. The Islam Channel can, and should, do better.
Methodology Re-Programming British Muslims
Methodology
For the purposes of this report the Islam Channel was monitored for a period of three months, beginning in late August and ending in November 2009. These months were of importance since they corresponded with the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan; a time when a larger number of British Muslims would have tuned into the channel in part due to the fact that the Islam Channel carried live coverage of prayers in the holy city of Mecca during the holy month. A number of key programmes were recorded and closely analysed, including: ‘IslamiQA’, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, ‘Politics and Beyond’ and ‘Ummah Talk’. These programmes were selected due to the regularity with which they appeared on the channel during the three months, the numbers of high profile guests the shows were able to host and the fact that all programmes appeared in the evenings, therefore possibly generating a larger audience. They were also particularly important for the purposes of this report since they specifically addressed issues such as identity, belonging and how Muslims are to live in a liberal, secular country. Other earlier episodes of the same programmes that were available online were also examined in order to guarantee consistency in evaluation.
Furthermore, all programmes of a political nature were also recorded and closely monitored due to the Islam Channel’s previous history in reporting on matters of political controversy in an impartial manner.7 Lastly, ‘Islam Channel News’ was also examined in order to ascertain whether major differences were evident between the manner in which the Islam Channel reported news stories and the ways in which mainstream media outlets reported on the same stories.
In order to pre-empt accusations of taking statements ‘out of context’, we have made recordings of the majority of contentious content available on YouTube; the relevant references appear in footnote form throughout the report.
This report has therefore been separated into several different sections: chapters one and two examine the religious advice given on the Islam Channel, with an emphasis on the channel’s flagship religious programme, ‘IslamiQA’: a live phone-in show in which the presenter, usually an imam, gives religious opinions to viewers who ring in. Chapters three and four focus on the political programming of the station, and analyze the manner in which issues of political controversy are addressed on the Islam Channel. Chapter five will attempt to address the channel’s stance towards tackling extremism, whilst chapter six looks at whether the Islam Channel has learnt from the previous offences it had made in relation to Ofcom’s broadcasting code of conduct. Finally, chapter seven lists a number of recommendations that the Islam Channel could follow in order to improve the content of its output.
7 In 2007, the Islam Channel was fined £30,000 by Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, for a variety of offences, most importantly the biased nature of a number of political programmes. See. ‘Islam Channel Fined £30,000’, The Guardian, 31 July 2007,
10 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
Chapter One: Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
Our analysis of ‘IslamiQA’, the Islam Channel’s most popular religious programme, revealed that much of the religious advice provided on the programme could be seen as discriminatory and offensive to a large number of mainstream British Muslims. Despite claiming to cater for the needs of all Muslims, the majority of presenters that featured on the programme were dismissive of many of the Islamic practices of Britain’s diverse Muslim communities, the majority of whom come from the Barelwi8 or Deobandi9 schools of thought. On numerous occasions Wahhabi10 teachings were promoted at the expense of other Islamic views, particularly those of Sufi and Shi’ah Muslims.
The purpose of such a criticism is not to say that Sufis or Shi’ahs are preferable partners for government or the only communities that promote cohesion - but merely illustrating the diversity of thought that exists within British Muslims. Indeed, the promotion of Wahhabism in itself is not a problem, as many non-extreme Wahhabis have formed strong communities in Britain and contribute to the well-being of society. The Islam Channel’s promotion of Wahhabism, however, has resulted in discrimination against other Muslims who do not adhere to the same principles. If such intolerance is promoted and accepted on the Islam Channel, what will be the long-term effect on relations between Muslims and non-Muslims? If Muslims are encouraged to be intolerant of alternative Islamic practices what can one expect their views of non-Muslims to be like?
Negative views of women and non-Muslims were also prominent on the programme even though a large proportion of callers on ‘IslamiQA’ were in fact women. It could therefore be argued that the religious advice given on the Islam Channel risks harming cohesion within Britain’s diverse Muslim communities with a variety of Muslims, from mainstream Sufis to women, finding that many of their day to day practices, actions and occupations are described as ‘un-Islamic’ by the channel and harshly condemned.
Attitudes Towards Women
‘A Woman Cannot Refuse the Relations of her Husband’
The religious advice that was given on ‘IslamiQA’ is significant since a large quantity of the questions that were posed to presenters were on the topic of women and the rights of women in Islam. Although a large number of the callers on ‘IslamiQA’ were women, much of the advice that was given on the programme attempted to limit their rights. Outdated
8 Barelwism is a Sufi-based religious affiliation found in the Indian sub-continent. Greatly influenced by the teachings of Ahmed Reza Khan (1856-1921) the majority of Muslims in the UK hail from families linked to Barelwi networks. 9 The Deobandi network was established in 1886 in the Dar al Uloom, Deoband, India. Deobandis form the second largest Islamic denomination in the UK and are also a Sufi-linked network. 10 Wahhabism is a literalist denomination in Islam based on the teachings of Muhammed Ibn Abd-al Wahhab (1703- 1792) in 18th century Saudi Arabia. Wahhab advocated the purification of Islam from what he referred to as innovations, arguing that anyone who practiced such innovations became a kafir [non-Muslim] and that killing such people was legitimate.
11 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
The logo for ‘IslamiQA’, a daily phone-in show on the Islam Channel.
FACT BOX
‘IslamiQA’ is a daily, live-phone in programme on the Islam Channel in which viewers are invited to ring and ask the sit-in presenter an Islamic-related question. Presenters on the programme include Sh. Abdul Majid Ali Hasan, Dr Khalid Khan, Sh. Abu Hanifah and Sh. Abdul Qayyum. It is one of the most popular programmes on the channel and is broadcast during prime-time hours. stereotypes of women were rampant on the channel, such as the belief that “sometimes women act according to their emotions... [And] get upset by certain things and they do things that would not necessarily be correct”.11 This negative opinion of women is typical of the vision of the role of Muslim women in society that was encouraged by presenters on the Islam Channel.
For example, on numerous occasions it was argued that men had numerous rights over their women, such as granting permission for them to travel, that had to be respected at all times; rights that one could argue would limit the public role of Muslim women and consign them to the margins of society. Such advice went beyond traditional, mainstream Islamic opinions on the issue and resulted in a number of women being told that they were
11 Farhat, Sh. Fraz, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 12 October 2009,
12 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
not even allowed to leave the house without the permission of their husband. A telling example came from one incident where a caller stated that his wife refused to move to the area where he lived, and asked whether there was anything in Islam that could persuade her to move to his town. The response the caller received was indicative of the attitude that Islam Channel presenters adopted towards the individual rights of women:
“You are a man. You are a husband... Your responsibility is to take care of your wife, to fulfill her necessities... you have to be very serious; your wife has to be where you are. There is no way. That is your right. And if she is not willing, then you can advise her. Otherwise I can say that she is not good for you. And she should know this. In Islam, that because [she] is insisting on wrong things, and she is not serious about Islam, [if] something goes wrong with you, she is responsible for that on the Day of Judgement. So Islamically, you have the right to bring her to you. And you are the decision maker in this case”.12
This was no isolated incident, for on another occasion one presenter went as far as to argue that it was obligatory for a woman to seek permission from her husband to travel, regardless of whether the intention of her journey was religious or not and even if the decision of the husband went against the wishes of the female:
The logo for ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, a weekly topical programme aimed at women on the Islam Channel.
12 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 15 August 2008,
13 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
“...the permission of the husband is needed. Very important. Without his permission a woman cannot travel. Ok? Even if she has a mahram [a male companion]. Her father might, you know, take her, ‘come on my daughter I will take you for Hajj’. If the husband is not happy then Allah is not happy. Ok? If the husband refuses without a valid reason, whatever it is, then he takes the blame by Allah (swt). But she shouldn’t say ‘well that’s once in a lifetime, you know, if my family are going, if my brother is going or my father is going, ok, I will be going with them’ - no. You are not allowed by any means to step out of that house [without permission] - even if you are going thinking you are pleasing Allah - you are going to earn Allah’s anger. Ok? So that [leaving the house] is not allowed without the permission of the husband”.13
FACT BOX
‘Muslimah Dilemma’ is a weekly programme on the Islam Channel that deals with women related issues. According to the Islam Channel website the programme ‘tackles both controversial as well as taboo subjects which the Muslim community may not have had an open discussion about up until now e.g. honour killings, forced marriages and divorce’.14 The programme is regularly hosted by members of the extreme Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir [The Party of Liberation] whilst the majority of guests used on the show are also members of this organisation.
The belief that men had complete control over the movements and actions of their wives was also shared on other programmes on the Islam Channel. For example, during an episode earlier in 2009 of the weekly topical programme for women ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, it was argued by a regular guest that women were not even allowed to refuse the sexual advances of their husbands. It therefore becomes clear that sexist views on the Islam Channel are not limited to one presenter or show:
“The idea that a woman cannot refuse her husband’s relations - this is not strange to a Muslim because it is part of maintaining that strong marriage. In fact it is a bit strange... to refuse relations. It would harm a marriage”.15
“...Within the western way of life the idea that a woman, even if she gets married, can refuse relations with her husband because of ‘individual choice’. This is something which is part of the western culture, but not Islam”.16
Despite the fact that the above examples could be seen as justifying marital rape and completely go against mainstream Islamic opinion, they are given prominence on the
13 Hanifah, Sh. Abu, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 8 November 2009,
14 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
Islam Channel and promoted by presenters and guests alike. It is also noteworthy that, in the last example above, Islam is contrasted with western culture, thereby implying that the two are incompatible.
The advice provided by imam Abdul Majid presents a perfect example of how such a pessimistic view of women permeates the channel, and the manner in which these views influence the religious advice that is given to women on the network. During one episode of ‘IslamiQA’ Abdul Majid mentions “a Hadith [narration of the sayings or actions of the Prophet Muhammed] in Sahih Bukhari [that] RasoolAllah [the Prophet Muhammed]... was shown in the hell that the majority of the people of the hell were women’.17 Although many scholars have attempted to put this Hadith in context,18 the presenter on the Islam Channel uses it to justify his negative views on women. He therefore argues that the reason for this was due to the fact that, in his opinion, the majority of problems in society stemmed from the actions of women and the fact that men were no longer able to “control” their women in what he refers to as ‘the western world’:
“...you can see that today, the afflictions, the things that are diverting from right to wrong, the things, sources, by which a person is misguided, the main sources, are women today. At home, women are forcing their husbands to do Haram [acts that are forbidden in Islam]. Women are not taking care of their children. They are responsible for their children. The upbringing of the children. They don’t care, so the children are going astray. The husbands are in trouble. The parents are in trouble... in these European countries, the western world; you can’t control your women. You can’t control your children. And the parents are committing suicide. The parents are hiding their faces from the community because of the sisters...due to this the majority of the people in the hell will be women... I am not against the women. I am not against anybody. But this is the truth. That today, the problem, the calamities and hardship and suffering is due to the women...”19
Opinions such as these form the foundations for much of the religious advice that is given to Muslim women on ‘IslamiQA’. Many women are advised by presenters on the programme to, amongst other things, refrain from many activities such as wearing perfume amongst strangers:
“... [A] woman is allowed to use perfume only for her husband. Woman - if she goes out from her house applying - wearing perfume... [if] the smell of the perfume is smelt by the strangers. Non-Mahram. Opposite sex people. Then she is declared as a prostitute by [the Prophet Muhammed] (saw)”.20
And even cutting their hair:
17 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 26 September 2009,
15 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
“...Why should a girl take some of her hair or shorten them? Is it for any disease? If so then it is allowed. But apart from that, she is allowed to take some hair from the front and back if they are too long, unusually long. Other than these two situations, she is not allowed to take her hair. Whatever beauty Allah (swt) has given her in her hair she should be content with that, she should be satisfied with that, without resorting to the so-called hair fashion designed by the people these days”.21
Driving a car for long distances without a male companion is also apparently forbidden, a rule that is highly influenced by Saudi law and customs:22
“....if she is in town, there is no problem with that at all. But if she is travelling [out of town] then the differences and the disputes between the scholars come here. But strongly we say ‘no’. The reason why is travelling alone, ok, with a car, between one town to another, between one country to another, will expose this woman into many hardships [sic]. In case if the car breaks down, what is she going to do? Until she gets help she is exposed to many trials and many difficulties. What if the night falls before she even gets somebody to come and help? So in this manner we say ‘no’ it is better to travel accompanied with a mahram...”23
Gender Segregation and ‘Muslim-Only Hospitals’
The issue of women and employment remains a pertinent topic for British Muslims, especially since a large number of Muslim women in Britain are unemployed.24 Although the presenters on the show agreed that there was nothing in Islam that prevented a woman from working, this did not stop a large number of them from applying a variety of restrictions on women who wanted to work. The majority of their verdicts were a result of their Saudi-influenced insistence on complete segregation between men and women:
“...if it is not unisex, it is rather gender based, sister working with the sisters, [then] maybe it is ok, inshAllah [God willing]. But to work in a mixed environment [is] probably very harmful for one’s deen [religion]... too much interaction between the genders, male and female, breaches some Islamic adab [manners]”.25
“As far as the woman’s job is concerned they can work if they are working in a decent place, like teachers and medical doctors, and they are avoiding the mixing with the men”.26
In one case, the argument is made that a woman is only allowed to become a police officer
21 Sayeed, Sh. Abu,‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 5 October 2009,
if she is allowed to wear Islamic clothes and if she does not ever find herself on duty with a male officer on her own:
“...she should maintain the discipline that while she is working in the office, or while she is going with another officer, then she should not spend time alone with a stranger. That is the discipline that should be maintained...”27
Such restrictions are not regularly placed on Muslim women, who have not traditionally been prevented from working and have been advised to follow the examples set by the first wife of the Prophet Muhammed, Khadijia, who was a successful business woman and the Prophet Muhammed’s manager before she agreed to marry him.28
Much of the advice given on ‘IslamiQA’ however sought to restrict interaction between men and women to such an extent that women were encouraged to not work in any mixed- gender working environment. Women were also advised by presenters on the programme to refrain from other public activities, such as going to the market and visiting cemeteries, when there were males present:
“...a woman is not allowed in fact [to shop] if the husband is able to go and do the shopping. Unless if it is, that pleasures her [sic]. If she says, well, can I do the shopping? Ok, Alhamdulillah [praise be to God], go ahead... as long as that does not cause you to be, subhanAllah [glorious is God], harmed in your deen [religion], in your akhlaq [morals], in your manners and behaviours. You might go to the market and you know, subhanAllah, be mingling with men...[so] when it comes to shopping, and so on and so forth, no, this is from the actual duty of the husband, ok. A woman is not requested to do that unless if it is good for her”.29
“...if you don’t go [to the cemetery] very frequently, you go one-off type of visit and you also choose the time when there is no many male around [sic], you are in very well dressed [sic], you don’t stay too much... If you don’t do all these then maybe considered [sic]...”30
The desire amongst presenters on the Islam Channel for complete segregation between men and women also extended to schoolchildren, one of whom was advised to abstain from going on school trips if it involved ‘mixing’ between girls and boys. Such advice is unprecedented amongst British Muslim communities, whose children regularly go on school trips and partake in the majority of activities required by a school:
“.... What type of trip are you going to? Where are you going? Who is accompanying you? Is it a school trip? Is it a place where there [are] people who are responsible? Is there
27 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 18 May 2008,
17 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
segregation?... many a time there has been cases where because of boys and girls going into one place, one trip and then they are being encouraged, and then they are socialising, and then they are mixing, before you know it one thing may lead to another... their minds have already been corrupted and when we ourselves, when it is in our control and we are able to prevent this, we [should] ensure that there is complete segregation [on school trips] and there are people who are in charge who are responsible...”31
One caller was even advised that this strict form of segregation applied to her relationship with her fiancé, and that communication between her and her fiancé was strictly prohibited until they got married:
“...you are not allowed to talk to your fiancé. Because in Islam it’s only marriage contract. Nika [marriage contract]. There is no khitba [marriage proposal]. There is no this kind of issues [sic]. So once you have done nika then you are his wife and he is your husband. But if you have only just had a discussion, verbal discussion, then it is not allowed for you to talk to him in private and it is not allowed for him to talk to you in private. This is Haram in Islam”.32
Possibly the most troubling demand came from imam Abdul Majid, whose desire for segregation between men and women led to a stated aspiration for the creation of so- called ‘Muslim only’ hospitals up and down the country in order to see that Muslim women did not have to mix with men when visiting hospitals, and to ensure that they be treated only by female Muslim doctors and nurses. He goes on to promise heaven for any Muslim who fulfilled this desire:
“My brother my question to you, do you know any Muslim doctors, men and women?... All the brothers and sisters who are listening to me and if Allah has blessed them with this medical education... you people, a group of people, when you can get together for the crescent of Ramadan, when you can get together for the crescent of Eid prayer, when you can get together for all the other social Muslim issues, why can’t you get together with this issue and spend at least £1. Ask the people just to spend £1 for this cost. And InshAllah every town you will have Muslim hospital, inshAllah, where the women are taking care of the women and men are taking care of the men, inshAllah. And if you do this, inshAllah, I can guarantee you will get jannah [Heaven]”.33
Similar demands were also repeated by another presenter on the same show a few weeks later when it was stated that a woman should aim to seek advice from Muslim doctors before any other:
“...seek the advice of an authentic - I would say first of all if we have a Muslim doctor that would be great...”34
31 Ghani, Sh. Sulaiman, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 12 October 2009,
If Muslim women were to follow the advice given to them by the presenters on the Islam Channel they would therefore be restricted from, amongst many things, leaving the house without the permission of their husbands, working in mixed-gender environments and visiting hospitals where they may be treated by male doctors. Such advice would lead to the segregation of Muslim women from the rest of society and prevent further interaction between Muslim women and those of other religions or of no faith. This point is further emphasized by the reaction by one presenter towards the question of whether a woman could be the leader of a country. The presenter argues that it is impermissible in Islam as women have ‘different’ roles to men, and that the fact that some women today were becoming leaders of states is a sign of the end of time. This is despite the fact that many Muslim women, from Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan to Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, have held positions of power in their respective countries, and despite the fact that, as stated by Imam Zaid Shakir, ‘the Qur’an itself relates the story of Bilqis, the legendary Queen of Sheeba, [who is] mentioned in the Qur’an as attaining worldly success’.35 Such mainstream opinions and examples do not resonate, however, with the presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ :
“...that is not their position, SubhanAllah. Allah (swt) has blessed them [women], Allah (swt) has given them great position, but that position is greater than the men at certain place, at certain time, with certain duties, Alhamdulillah, which men cannot be compared with. A man cannot take the position of a mother. A man cannot take the position of a daughter. A man cannot take the position of a sister. They [women] have a beautiful position; a beautiful role to play. But when it comes to the prayers, when it comes to the ruling of the country, women cannot be the Khalifah [caliph], women cannot be the leader of the Muslims when the Muslims are there, women cannot be the imam, women cannot be the Khatib [person who delivers the sermon during Friday prayers] when the men are there. And if the people who want to change the religion, they should wait, Allah sees everything. Allah is able to punish them if he wants. But Allah shows to the people, this is the time when the [day of judgement] is getting close. The more you come close to the [day of judgement] the more you will find people going against Islam. So this is the sign of the [day of judgement], no problem”.36
The presenters on the Islam Channel also spoke at length on their desired clothing for women, with the majority of them arguing that a woman “should be fully covered from top to bottom” including her face.37 According to one presenter, “only some scholars allow that you can uncover the face and hands when you are in the street” and that such attire was desirable and “better for the men with the evil eye”.38 Although mainstream Islamic opinion states that the niqab [face veil] was an option for Muslim women but not obligatory, programmes on the Islam Channel such as ‘IslamiQA’ and ‘Muslimah Dilemma’
35 Shakir, Imam Said. ‘The Social Involvement of Women in Islam’, January 2004,
19 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
have stated that a full-face veil was a requirement for Muslim women, particularly in places like Afghanistan, to prevent them from being sexually abused:
“...I heard a story about Afghanistan, and girls were getting beaten for not wearing the burkha... we have to understand the social conditions why this may arise on a temporary basis. Girls who weren’t wearing it were getting kidnapped on the back of guys motorbikes, taken off to their village and possibly being forced to marry... It would cause a lot of problems. It would cause a lot of fitnah [discord] just because of the way that people were. So it was a lot easier for the society that the girls should wear niqab. You might have a similar sort of situation, for example, in Saudi Arabia because it causes less fitnah...”39
“...we need the woman to protect herself when she is outside. And we hear today, because of the way the woman exposes her body, she might be kidnapped, she might be flirted [sic]. She might be raped...”40
In emphasising that women must change their dress to avoid rape, presenters on the Islam Channel are laying the blame for the crime of rape on the victim, not the culprit. Overall, the argument put forward by a variety of presenters on the Islam Channel was that it was obligatory on women to wear the jilbab [long loose fitted garment] or niqab and that those women who did not wear such Islamic clothing were “satans’ influenced” and following the dictates of the media and other ‘unclothed women’.41 This is despite the fact that the vast majority of British Muslim women do not wear a jilbab or niqab. Women were also told that wearing trousers in public was also forbidden,42 since according to the presenter it was not part of Islamic culture and, as stated by another presenter on ‘IslamiQA’, Muslims are advised to “not wear clothes that, again, will make us look like the non-believers or the non-Muslims”.43 Ignoring the distaste the last remark shows towards non-Muslims, the above quotations together represent a concerted effort from presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ in restricting the dress and actions of Muslim women, many of whom wear trousers, and creating a wedge between Muslims and wider society.
It should be noted that on occasions presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ did speak up for women’s rights, with Abdul Majid for example using the programme to condemn domestic violence against women,44 and also encouraging Mosques to provide facilities for women.45 Such examples were, however, few and far between.
39 Guest, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 11 October 2009,
20 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
Views on Mainstream Muslims
‘Sufism: ‘Twisted Islam’
FACT BOX
Sufism is the mystical tradition of Islam based on spirituality, ascetism and meditation. Various Islamic sects, such as Barelwis and Deobandis, would identify with this understanding and see the tradition as a sub-category within Islam. A practitioner of this tradition is usually called a ‘Sufi’. Sufis are characterized by their practice of dhikr [remembrance of God].
An example of the negative treatment that are afforded to majority Muslim communities on the Islam Channel can be found in the treatment of followers of Sufism, who are targeted by some of the presenters on the channel for what they deem to be acts of ‘innovation’. A large number of mainstream Islamic practices are regularly denounced and mocked by presenters on the Islam Channel as acts that have nothing to do with Islam and that need to be avoided by Muslims. This is highly surprising since a large number of Muslims in the UK would classify themselves as Sufi Muslims, or would practice rituals that are usually attributed to Sufism. According to an ICoCo study, the largest single bloc of Muslims in the UK hails from a Hanafi Sufi Barelwi background.46 One order, the Naqshbandi school,47 are on one occasion specifically singled out as ‘un-Islamic’ and criticised for their strict adherence to a Shaykh, which in the eyes of one presenter was akin to an act of ‘slavery’:
“...[this] Naqshbandi Tariqa, or any Tariqa, there is no basis of these Turuq [Orders] in the deen [religion] of Islam... this Tariqa, whatever this is, this is not permitted... one of the other things which many have is that they would do the bayah [oath of allegiance] on their Shaykh and then leave themselves in the hand of their Shaykh. However he wants he can order them, handle them... this is a kind of slavery which is not permitted”.48
In this particular incident the presenter then goes on to argue that such Muslims had ‘changed’ and ‘twisted’ Islam for their own purposes, and therefore their rituals were pointless since they would in the end be ‘rejected’ by God.49 This is significant since many of these practices that, according to the presenter, were ‘twisted’ are in fact practices that the majority of Muslims in the UK follow. The above incident, recorded last year but still available online, was not a one-off occurrence. Numerous references were found during
46 Institute of Community Cohesion, ‘Understanding and Appreciating Muslim Diversity: Towards Better Engagement and Participation’, (iCoCo) April 2008, p.11. 47 The Naqshbandi order is one of the major orders within Sufism, based on the teachings of Baha-ud Din Naqshband Bukhari (1318-1389). The Naqshbandi order traces its lineage back to the Prophet Muhammed through Abu Bakr, the first Caliph and close companion of the Prophet. The order has millions of followers around the world. 48 Khan, Dr Khalid, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 2008,
21 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
the period that the channel was monitored which, put together, form a strong foundation for the premise that religious advice provided by the Islam Channel’s ‘IslamiQA’ programme is highly discriminatory towards a large number of mainstream Muslims.
Another example of this can be found in the reaction of many of the presenters to the act of visiting the graves of pious scholars, or ‘awliya’. Despite a large number of British Muslims seeing such visitations as praiseworthy, many of the presenters on the Islam Channel denounce the same acts as ‘shirk’ [polytheism] and ‘bida’ [innovation],50 claiming that such practices went ‘against Islam’;51 an accusation that implies that the perpetrators are outside the fold of the religion. The implications of this are serious since extremist movements such as al-Shabaab in Somalia and the Taliban in Afghanistan have used similar denunciations to justify the use of violence against other Muslims. That the Islam Channel also promotes a similar agenda is therefore problematic and could fuel further sectarianism in Britain - something that has become all too familiar in several Muslim majority countries where accusations of ‘shirk’ have become prerequisites for killing in al- Qaeda’s philosophy. This sectarian intolerance shown towards mainstream Muslims by the Islam Channel is so severe that, in one instance, it even led to one presenter condemning his own family for visiting ‘kufr’ [un-Islamic] shrines, a slur that implies that in the eyes of this presenter even his family are outside the fold of Islam, likening the act to pre-Islamic traditions when idols were worshipped instead of God:
“...the way we see today, the people how they decorate... the people they bow down to them [the graves]. The people they serve them - different garments. SubhanAllah. I know my family, I came from the same background. My family in Bombay, they consider visiting Ajmer Sharif, once in a year, [more] compulsory upon them than Hajj. They say ‘no, hajj is once in the lifetime, finished, no problem. It’s not that important’. But they think that if they don’t visit every year to Ajmer Sharif, subhanAllah, their iman [faith] is, they are out of Islam. And they spend thousands and thousands of Rupees. They go all together with their families. They go with, you know, the women they go, they don’t have any discipline. They go in mixing... this is not from Islam. It is shirk [polytheism], it is kufr [disbelief in Islam]...any place where there is shirk existing, Allah will not bless that place, ever”.52
The assertion that the shrine of Ajmer Sharif,53 in India, is un-Islamic and ‘kufr’ will be seen as highly offensive by a large proportion of Muslims in Britain, particularly those from the Indian sub-continent, many of whom would have visited the shrine in their lifetime or hold it in high esteem. On another occasion, the mere act of visiting the grave of a saint such as Hazrat Mu’innudin Chisti is also denounced:
50 Qayyum, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 8 October 2009,
22 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
“...those people who go to, who worship Awliya [pious scholars], they talk about them, they praise them in a manner; raising them from what status they are given - anyone who will go to the grave of a person, a pious person, and then he raises his hand, makes dua [prayers of supplication], asks him to intercede for him, this is all major shirk. This is not permissible at all”.54
On the 31st of August a caller asked for an opinion on the special prayer sessions that many mainstream Muslims hold on the 11th day of every month in commemoration of the saint Abdul Qadir Jilani.55 This was also described by one of the presenters as an ‘un-Islamic’ act:
“...this is not the deen [religion] of Abdul Qadir Jilani... We are not following the way of Abdul Qadir Jilani. We are following the way of Muhammed (saw) and we do not know anything from Muhammed (saw) that he chose the 11th day and did something like this”.56
These are just a few of the many examples of the Islam Channel’s attitudes towards religious acts that do not fit into their strict, puritanical Saudi - influenced strand of Islam.
‘Celebrating the Birthday of the Prophet Muhammed is a non-Muslim imitation’
One of the most popular Islamic events of the year for British Muslim communities, the celebration of the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, or Mawlid, is also severely criticized by presenters on the Islam Channel. According to many of the channel’s presenters this event, which is celebrated by many mainstream Muslims around the world, is an innovation that has come from ‘non-Muslim’ culture and will give Muslims no spiritual benefit:
“...it has come from the non-Muslim culture. The other people [non-Muslims], they celebrate the birthdays of their children, the birthdays of their Prophets, the birthdays of their holy people. So we Muslims are showing our people more love, more respect for the Prophet so we do that [sic]. But in Islam this is not - they would not get [any] reward; I am guaranteeing you this...”57
“...Celebration of Milad is not from the Sunnah [examples] of RasoolAllah [The Prophet Muhammed] (saw). It’s not from the Sunnah of Abu Bakr (RA). It is not the Sunnah of Umar, Ali, Uthman (RA). It’s not the Sunnah of Imam Abu Hanifa. It’s not the Sunnah of Imam Malik. It is not the Sunnah of Imam Shafi. It is not the Sunnah of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. It is not the Sunnah of any Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamma.58 ...Shaytaan [the devil] plays with us. When we give up the Sunnah, shaytaan will make us do the Haram things...”59
54 Khan, Dr. Khalid, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 2008,
23 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
Celebrating the birthday of the Prophet is also described by the channel as an act that may lead people to become ‘deviated’ from what the presenters see as the true path of Islam.60 Although this event has attracted much theological debate in Muslim communities, with some Muslims holding the opinion that celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad is not recommended, the majority of Muslims in Britain celebrate the occasion with great zeal and few critics of the festival would go as far as to state that those who partake in the event are ‘non-Muslims’. Presenters on the Islam Channel, however, maintain that since the event is similar to imitating the festivals of non-Muslims, those who participate in a Mawlid are either non-Muslims or not proper Muslims due to their belief that “...anybody who imitates any religion, any religious people, any particular group [becomes] one of
A Mawlid celebration in Blackburn, England.
FACT BOX
The event of Eid Milad an-Nabi is used by Muslims to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet Muhammed which occurs in the month of Rabi al-awwal, the third month in the Islamic calendar. The tradition is thought to date back to 8th century Mecca, where the house of the Prophet Muhammed was transformed into a house of prayer. The earliest account of the celebration by Sunnis of the Milad dates back to 12th century Syria. The practice is observed by millions of Muslims globally.
60 Qayyum, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 24 September 2009,
24 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
them”.61 One presenter even went as far as to argue that such people were favoured by the devil and would go to hell for partaking in the event despite having ‘good intentions’:
“...every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance will lead a person to be from among the people of jahanam [hell]. Do you know why he will be from among the people of jahanam? Why? Because he will argue. He will argue. Ok. So that’s why they say the person with a bida [an innovation] is more beloved to shaytaan [the devil] than a sinner...“62
In this particular incident the presenter goes on to argue that Muslims who participated in such events were beyond redemption, were deficient in their understanding of Islam and had abandoned the pillars of the faith:
“...the majority of the people who will talk and argue with you about the mawlid-e-nabi, you will find them that they are people who will come with a shortage in following the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (saw). So they have left obligatory things. They have left the pillars of the deen. And they will argue with you about something that is a branch that is not practiced by RasoolAllah (saw)... so it is bida, and if you love Allah (swt) and His messenger, dedicate your time inshAllah to reviving the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (saw)...”63
Whilst not taking sides in a theological debate regarding the festival of Mawlid, our analysis of the views of the presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ on the issue reveal the fallacy in the Islam Channel’s claim to represent all of Britain’s Muslim communities.
Further Attacks on Mainstream Muslim Practices
‘Kissing the hand of a Shaykh is not from Islam’
The criticism of mainstream Muslim observations on the Islam Channel was not limited to the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday or the visiting of the graves of pious scholars. In fact, nearly every distinguishing feature of mainstream Islam that did not fit in to the Islam Channel’s rigid interpretation of the faith came under attack during the period that the channel was monitored, including acts such as the pledging of allegiance to a Shaykh, the recitation of the Qur’an in congregation for the deceased, visiting the graves of saints, the use of loud supplications after prayer in congregation and the act of kissing the hands of respected elders and pious Shaykhs:
“...following the Shaykh is also not something which is recommended by Allah in the Qur’an, or RasoolAllah (saw) in the Hadith. All what is known is that when a person, when a country is conquered by the Khalifa, when a country is conquered by a Muslim Khalifah, the leader - Muslim leader - so those people who are there, they give the pledge to the
61 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 31 October 2009,
25 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
leader, the Khalifah... in India and Pakistan we have many Maulanas [religious leaders], we have many Pir Saabs [Sufi teacher], we have many Wali Saabs [holy person], they all make this issues to the Muslims that you cannot - you will never go to Jannah [heaven] if you don’t give the pledge. And they refer to the Hadith - that there is a Hadith of RasoolAllah (saw) - ‘a person who has not given bayah to the Kahlifah, to the Amir’ - So they are not our Khalifah, these Pir Saab, Maulvi Saab, Wali Saab, Busuk Saab [holy people]. They are not our Wali. They are not our Khalifahs. But the Hadith clearly mentions that the bayah, the pledge, is to the Khalifah. So if a Khalifah is existing - the Muslim leader is existing, then we have to give the bayah. And if we don’t give bayah to him, which means we don’t follow his commands, then our neck will go to hell. This is what it is mentioned. So these people, they are taking this Hadith and putting on the people and misguiding them, and lying to them. So there is no such issue in Islam”.64
“...reading Qur’an for the dead people, it will not benefit them. Qur’an is not for the dead; Qur’an is for you and me who are alive. Qur’an is for the non-Muslims who are alive to give them the dawah [invitation to Islam]. Qur’an is for the Muslims who are alive to learn their Shari’ah, to live their life accordingly. Not after my death. If I have not benefited from the Qur’an when I was alive, the whole world reading Qur’an for me will not help me, because this is not the purpose of the Qur’an”.65
“...in some countries - in some communities - when somebody dies some people gather together in a gathering and they distribute among them all 30 Juz [Section of the Qur’an] and in one session they need to finish it. This kind of distribution and informal session - probably something innovation [sic] - bida - it’s not found in the practice of RasoolAllah (saw)... to go in a formal session of inviting people, and everybody is distributing the 30 Juz - this kind of formality should not be left practised”.66
“...any grave, any grave, where the people they worship the grave, or people they respect the grave like as if they are worshipping [the grave] - and what we see in India and Pakistan, the mazar [grave shrine] how the people are taking, bowing, doing their issues to the mazar [sic], this is all against Islam...”67
“...about kissing the finger and then wiping the eye with that finger? This has no basis at all. This is not from the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (saw). This is a kind of exaggeration in the deen which RasoolAllah (saw) warned... saying “beware of exaggeration in the deen” ... because the only reason the people before you were destroyed, [was] because of this exaggeration... so this is a kind of thing which has no proper basis, and this is something that [has been] innovated by people”.68
64 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 31October 2009,
“...the second question about reciting ‘Allahummah Salee Ala Muhammed Wa Ala Ali Muhammed’ in congregation. Again this is a bida. There is no basis for this. There is nothing proven. This is making a new kind of Ibadat [worship] attached with the salah [prayer] and this is not permissible for a Muslim to innovate things in the matter of Ibadat”.69
The fact that the acts that are criticised above are all ones that are closely identified with Sufism is not a coincidence, since it ties in with a wider agenda of criticising Sufism that appears to operate on the Islam Channel. Whilst theological debate on such issues is not unprecedented in Islamic circles, the criticism seen on ‘IslamiQA’ goes beyond legitimate theological debate and has often resulted in the ridiculing of mainstream imams and scholars who disagree with Wahhabi teachings, and the same imams and scholars being denounced on the Islam Channel for ‘misguiding’ and ‘lying’ to other Muslims.70 Such accusations of ‘misguiding’ and ‘lying’ are dangerous as it creates further conflict between different Islamic sects, particularly between mainstream Muslims and Wahhabis, with the Islam Channel being used as a platform for followers of one strand to criticise the intentions of the religious leaders of the other, with mainstream Muslim leaders often facing accusations of misleading their congregations for ulterior motives:
“...it has been noticed that many imams in many Masajids [mosques]... after every fard [obligatory] prayer the imam, he makes dua [prayers of supplication] and people also raise their hands... They know in their hearts that this is not from the Sunnah [examples of the Prophet Muhammed]. But they want to please the people. They don’t care whether it is Sunnah or not, but they do care - that they don’t want to upset their audience, so they will do it for the audience. And moreover, they also want to do it for the trustees. The trustees of the Masajid. If they don’t then they will be fired. And also they think that if they don’t do this then their ibadat [worship] is incomplete...”71
Similar accusations were made regarding leaders whose followers kissed their hands. Although such a tradition is observed by a large number of Muslims globally as a sign of respect to their Shaykhs, the practice was routinely condemned by presenters on ‘IslamiQA’:
“...touching the feet of the parents, or the Maulana Saab, or Pir Saab, or elderly people - this is not a regular Sunnah of RasoolAllah (saw)... people are deceiving other people... if we see today, that those people - if you see the personality who is being kissed, who is being - people are bowing to him - that personality and those people who are bowing to him, if you see that, subhanAllah, both of them, they are - one is happy for that what the people are doing to him, considering himself very high, very pious and all that x y z. And the people who are doing this, they don’t understand whether this is prostration, or the kissing of the feet, kissing the feet, or kissing the hand, is this allowed for this kind of thing? [sic] Whether they do it for the respect, whether they do it for an act of ibadat, like
69 Khan, Dr Khalid, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 29 September 2009,
27 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
worship? They don’t know... if you see the Hindus, if you see the Buddhists, they have this concept. And they do this with this intention; that if you want to reach to God, if you want to reach to God, then you have to take the way through the teacher [sic]. And bowing to the teacher is, according to them, is exactly [like] bowing to Allah (swt). And this is quite similar, the concept of Muslims today who do this to these personalities... if you open the door for this kind of an action, then there are so many other innovations [that could happen]. Kufr, shirk is happening...”72
Perhaps the most telling example of the Islam Channel’s hostility towards mainstream Muslims can be found during one particular episode of ‘IslamiQA’ in which the presenter was asked directly about his views on Sufism:
“...it [Sufism] has nothing to do with Islam... There is Hindu Sufis [sic]. There is Atheist Sufis [sic]. There is Buddhist Sufis [sic]. There is Christian Sufis [sic]. So Sufism [has] nothing to do with the deen of Allah (Azza wa jall). Just the aspect of Sufism. Because some people might think that Sufism is driven - or it is one aspect - of the Islamic teaching. It is not... Somebody might go and spend 40 days in seclusion. You know, in [a] cave. Or lock himself in a room. Trying to achieve higher wisdom. Or purifying his nafs [soul]. And eating no, any animal products, and never to wash himself [sic]. Ok. In order for him to reach to a certain station, or a certain level of, I don’t know, wisdom and hikma [knowledge] and devotion and so on and so forth. We say this is not from Islam...”73
It is surprising that such harsh condemnation and criticism is applied to adherents of even the most minor of mainstream Islamic practices. On one occasion a regular presenter on ‘IslamiQA’ even launched into an attack on some Muslims who insist on wearing a hat to pray:
“...there are some jahil, ignorant people, they are so extreme, that they have plastic hats in the Masajid”.74
It therefore becomes evident that, for the presenters on the Islam Channel, any Muslim who does not strictly follow their strand of Saudi influenced Islam is liable to harsh denigration and criticism; an astonishing feature for a channel that claims to serve the interests of all Muslims in Britain and be ‘recognized as a crucially prominent voice for Muslim communities worldwide’.75 The consequences of such criticism could be increased tensions within Muslim communities and the possibility of sectarian clashes between different Islamic schools of thought. Similar incidents have occurred in places such as Pakistan, where Sufi shrines have been desecrated by Islamic groups that consider them innovative and ‘un-Islamic’. These incidents often result in violence, as was the case in March 2009 when a Sufi shrine in Pakistan was bombed by what some believe were Taliban forces.76
72 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 30 October 2009,
Views on Shi’ah Muslims
‘A Sunni cannot pray with a Shi’ah’
On the Islam Channel condemnation and sectarianism are not only reserved for Sufism. Followers of Shi’ah Islam face even harsher criticism. Shi’ahs are described as having, amongst other things, ”many aqaid [beliefs] that are not acceptable”,77 despite the fact that the majority of Muslims regard Shi’ism as one branch of a diverse faith and the fact that a significant proportion of British Muslims are Shi’ah. Although some theological differences are to be expected between Sunnis and Shi’ahs, condemnation of Shi’ahs by presenters on the Islam Channel does not merely stop at criticising certain theological positions, as many of them advocate complete segregation between the two sects and forbid inter-marriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs. For example, when asked on various occasions whether it was permissible for a Sunni Muslim to even pray beside a Shi’ah all the presenters asked argued that it was impermissible and forbidden, with the implication of this being that Shi’ahs are not true Muslims like Sunnis and therefore their prayers are illegitimate:
“...You should not pray behind them. It is the consensus of the scholars that the prayer behind the Shi’ah is not valid... we are not concerned about whether their salah is valid or not; you as a Sunni Muslim I would advise you don’t pray behind the Shi’ah”.78
“...’is it allowed for a Sunni Muslim to pray behind a Shi’ah imam?’ I would say to you, no. Why? Because we are, completely, two different - not madhabs [schools of thought].... Shi’ah are completely different, they have [a] completely different method of understanding the Qur’an and Sunnah... the differences here, the huge difference, is that it doesn’t allow the Sunni Muslim to pray behind the Shi’ah imam. So it doesn’t mean that if a Sunni prays behind a Shi’ah imam he is declared to be a kafir [non-Muslim] and he has to renew his shahada [declaration of faith]. No. Not to that extent. But his salah is completely, to me, unacceptable and it has to be repeated”.79
Such intolerance is not only at odds with traditional Islamic opinion, which does not forbid the two sects from praying together, but also encourages separatism and hostility. A week later the same presenter even goes as far as to state that marriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs was impermissible because Shi’ahs were of a “different school of faith [that]... will never live in peace [with Sunnis]”.80 Imam Abu Hanifah also argued that Shi’ahs had supposedly invented stories for the purpose of undermining Sunni Islam, and that for these reasons their theology “cannot be tolerated...” although he does add that he is speaking “theoretically, [and] not... in the field of action”:
77 Khan, Dr Khalid, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 6 November 2009,
29 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
“...they will come with all of these fabricated stories which have no base, no source, at all in the field and science of Hadith or tradition, just to ugliphy [sic] and criminalise Abu Bakr and Umar [companions of the Prophet Muhammed]... indeed these can’t be easily tolerated. You cannot just say to somebody who is accusing your sources and says to you ‘I don’t believe in Qur’an’ and still say to him, well me and you are still - can come to a common ground’. You cannot come to a common ground and understanding of aspect if he is rejecting your evidences...”81
It therefore becomes clear that Shi’ah Muslims, despite forming a significant proportion of Muslims in Britain and around the world, and despite being an important and inherent part of a global Muslim fabric for over a thousand years, are not accepted by a large number of the presenters on ‘IslamiQA’, the majority of whom were unequivocal in their denunciation of Shi’ism and many of the practices that the Shi’ah perform. This is a position that could be based on educational training in Saudi Arabia; a country that is well known for its discrimination towards Shi’ah Muslims. The fact that the majority of presenters on the Islam Channel studied in Saudi Arabia therefore comes as no surprise, particularly when one observes the similarities between the Saudi discrimination of Shi’ahs and the anti- Shi’ah messages that are promoted on the Islam Channel. These similarities are worrying, especially since the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ahs remain a problematic issue for the large number of Islam Channel viewers who regularly asked questions about the topic. Although the Islam Channel is well placed to ease tensions between the two sects, our analysis has shown that, on the contrary, the channel has only espoused separatism and intolerance, and has therefore sowed further divisions between Sunnis and Shi’ahs.
For example, when talking about the doctrinal differences between the two sects and why it was forbidden for a Sunni to pray alongside a Shi’ah, one presenter found it hard to highlight similarities between the two sects and remained ambiguous as to whether he felt Shi’ahs could be regarded as true Muslims, since Shi’ahs -
“...do not have the same view; [they] do not have the same vision of the same deen [religion]. We both, subhanAllah claim, ok, [we are] Muslims. We are not saying to them that they are Kafirs, unless if somebody declares that”.82
FACT BOX
Shi’ahs constitute the second largest denomination in Islam, with many Shi’ahs forming communities in Britain [accurate figures are not available for the proportion of Sunnis and Shi’ahs in the UK]. Shi’ahs differ from Sunnis through the belief that the family of the Prophet Muhammad, the Ahlul Bayt [People of the House], have a special status in Islam and hold spiritual and political leadership. Despite being united on the core Islamic beliefs, there are a number of differences between the two sects, with the main difference being that after the death of the
81 Hanifah, Sh. Abu, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 18 October 2009,
FACT BOX CONTINUES
Prophet Muhammed, in AD 632, some Muslims supported his close companion, Abu Bakr, to succeed him. Other Muslims, however, felt that his cousin, Ali, was the rightful successor. Those who supported Abu Bakr became known as Sunnis, whilst the supporters of Ali later became known as Shi’ah.
On another episode of ‘IslamiQA’ made available online, one presenter, when asked to explain the origins of Shi’ism, refused to answer the question and then launched into a criticism of those who call themselves Shi’ah:
“...I will advise you brother please do not ask these kinds of questions to the person who does not actually - I cannot entertain this kind of question. I don’t know who has invented Shi’ism. Because I know from the Qur’an and the Sunnah that when RasoolAllah (saw) was teaching Islam, nobody was known as Shi’ah then... thirty years period of Khilafah we didn’t know anything at that time that anybody called himself a Shi’ah like that...”83
And when quizzed on another occasion on some of the key differences between Sunni and Shi’ah interpretations of Islamic history, and challenged on his own views regarding the historical origins of Shi’ism and the split within Islam between the two sects, the same presenter launched into a long diatribe against the Shi’ah caller and argued that Shi’ahs had an “illness” and were “enemies of Islam”:
“...this is how the illness of the people are [sic]. Those people who are enemies of Islam... who have got some sickness in their mind definitely they will speak about this and they will bring these kinds of quotations... my brother, for the sake of Allah, ask me something which will increase my iman [faith], which will help me to be successful in the Akhira [afterlife]... my brother, don’t fall into all these things, our scholars have already answered to that”.84
Marriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs is also prohibited by some presenters on ‘IslamiQA’, which is quite significant since the question was asked on many occasions and is therefore an important topic for many British Muslims. Prohibition of marriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs on ‘IslamiQA’ is also surprising when marriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs is common in places like Iraq and Lebanon, but yet deemed unacceptable for British Muslims.85 Without exception all of the presenters asked on the programme, however, argued that it was completely impermissible and forbidden for intermarriage between Sunnis and Shi’ahs:
83 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 15 August 2008,
31 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
“... the marriage of the Sunni and the Shi’ah, this is an issue of difference of aqaid [belief system]. It is important that, when a person marries, [he] takes care of who he or she marries. So I would not be happy... [Because the] Shi’ah madhab has many aqaid which are not acceptable. And they vary in their - in those things. Some less serious, some more serious. But as for the marriage is concerned, it is not recommended”.86
“...will they be raised as a Sunni, who would say upon Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) that they are the greatest companions of RasoolAllah (saw), may Allah be pleased with them? Or the Shi’ah, who would, for example, say that no, they [the Prophet’s companions] betrayed Ali (RA) and instead of giving him the Khilafah after RasoolAllah (saw) they betrayed him and they have taken his right so they are the two idols of Quraysh [tribe that persecuted the Prophet Muhammed] and may the curse of Allah be upon Abu Bakr and Umar. So this is [what] the majority of Shi’ah, especially the Ash’ari,87 believe. So there will be a big conflict within the family which is going to make the life of this Sunni sister, with that Shi’ah person that she gets married to, it will make their life very difficult... for that case, I would say no...”88
Anti-Shi’ah sentiment on the Islam Channel was not exclusive to the ‘IslamiQA’ programme, as other shows also featured sectarian opinions that could alienate Britain’s Shi’ah communities from Sunni communities, and thereby further sow inter-community tensions. A perfect example was the programme ‘The Sunnah the Better’, a theological show hosted by the controversial imam Abu Usamah at-Thahabi, in which it is argued by at-Thahabi that Shi’ahs had lied with some of their theological beliefs:
“... Some people [Shi’ahs] say that the sun also set for Ali bin abi Talib (RA) and I am here to say that’s kathib wa rabil kaba [lie by the God of the Ka’ba]. That is a lie. An outright lie. And it is ghulu [excess]. People have lied on Allah and His Messenger”.89
In this instance, rather than highlighting a legitimate difference in opinion between Sunnis and Shi’ahs on the topic, the presenter felt it more appropriate to argue that Shi’ahs had ‘lied’ in their theology, an accusation that is not only highly offensive but also harmful to cohesion between various Muslim communities. This is at a time when one could argue that tensions between the two sects overseas are high, in part due to the violent sectarian attacks that have occurred in many Muslim majority countries between Sunnis and Shi’ahs. The danger that such violence could spill over into Britain is made worse by the views expressed on the Islam Channel, which do nothing to address the potentially violent situation. The fact that the Islam Channel does not employ a Shi’ah presenter to address any of their religious programmes or questions is added proof that the channel does not at any time seek to be fair and balanced and at times even marginalizes Shi’ah Muslims.
86 Khan, Dr Khalid, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 6 November 2009,
32 Re-Programming British Muslims Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims
Our analysis has therefore shown that, rather than highlighting the diversity within Britain’s Muslim communities, easing sectarian divisions between Sunnis and Shi’ahs and aiding the integration of said communities into mainstream society, the Islam Channel has done the contrary. Islamic practices that do not fall in line with Saudi Wahhabi teachings are regularly denounced whilst other mainstream Muslim practices receive a large amount of criticism. Muslim women are encouraged to play a secondary role in public life with their actions and freedom of dress severely limited due to the religious advice that is provided. The Islam Channel’s ideal society would result in larger divisions between different Islamic sects, greater restrictions on the freedom of women and further isolation between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. This would have a major impact on the economic and social mobility of Muslim communities and their ability to build resilience against extremism, as more Muslim women would be unemployed and therefore financially unstable, less interaction and thus greater hostility could emerge between Muslim and non-Muslim communities and tensions would increase between different Islamic traditions. Such an environment, as seen overseas, becomes a perfect breeding ground for radicalisation and extremism.
33 Marginalisation of Mainstream Muslims Re-Programming British Muslims
STRUCTURE OF ISLAM CHANNEL LTD
Mohammed Ali Harrath is the founder and CEO of the Islam Channel, and is also named as the Executive Producer of a majority of programmes broadcast on the channel, including ‘IslamiQA’, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ and ‘Ummah Talk’, and therefore has a significant impact on most of the programmes on the Islam Channel. The day to day running of the channel is thus in the hands of Harrath and his Director of International Operations and Strategic Planning, Carl Arrindell.
The Islam Channel is partly funded through its ‘Dawah Project’, a fundraising scheme set up in 2009 in order to help the running costs of the channel. Viewers are encouraged to help fund the Islam Channel through partaking in the ‘Dawah Project’ and making a monthly subscription of as little as £1, which gives them a Dawah Card that entitles the holder to discounts at a number of businesses and restaurants. According to their website these monthly subscriptions are ‘crucial for the survival of the Islam Channel’ and allow the channel to ‘remain free to air [and] independent’.90 The ‘Dawah Project’ is therefore one of the most important sources of revenue for the channel, and during the time the channel was monitored a number of fundraising programmes were broadcast dedicated to attracting more ‘Dawah Project’ subscriptions. Other sources of revenue from the channel include sponsorships, money generated from advertisements and voluntary donations.
Despite the channel claiming to not want funding ‘from those who will dictate what [they] air’,91 a number of former Islam Channel employees have claimed that the channel is heavily funded by a Saudi businessman.92 According to Yvonne Ridley, another former employee on the channel, her relationship with the Islam Channel deteriorated when she refused to shake the hand of a Saudi Prince, who later had a major influence on the action taken against her by the Islam Channel and her subsequent dismissal.93
It is believed that the channel is in serious financial difficulties, with Harrath himself claiming that it is difficult for the channel to maintain running costs on what he calls a ‘barely adequate shoestring budget’.94
90 ‘The Dawah Project’,
34 Re-Programming British Muslims Encouraging Social Seclusion
Chapter Two: Encouraging Social Seclusion and Divisive Relations with Non-Muslims
Along with sowing intolerance between different Muslim communities and contributing to the marginalisation of mainstream Muslims through promoting one Islamic sect over another, it could be argued that the Islam Channel also contributes to the separation of Muslims from mainstream British society as Muslims are encouraged to distance themselves from what many of the presenters on the Islam Channel’s religious programmes refer to as ‘non-Muslim culture’.
Furthermore, for a channel aimed at English speaking Muslims it was surprising to find that many presenters on programmes such as ‘IslamiQA’ were not fluent in English, thereby making it difficult for them to connect to and understand their mainly British viewers. On numerous occasions during the time the channel was monitored viewers found that their questions were left wrongly answered or ignored if the presenters could not understand them. This is of great importance to efforts to counter extremism and aid the integration of Britain’s Muslim communities, for extremists have managed to succeed in places where older, traditional elements of British Muslim communities have been unable to convey a positive image of Islam due to deficiencies in the English language.
Lastly, our analysis shows that non-Muslims are maligned on a variety of programmes on the Islam Channel, with marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims highly frowned upon. Some of the views expressed regarding voting, joining the police and army and attending non-Muslim schools were also problematic. Rather than aiding the integration of Muslim communities into mainstream British society, the advice that is given to viewers on the Islam Channel at times risks leading to further segregation and thus harms relations between non-Muslim and Muslim communities in the UK.
Attitudes to Non-Muslims
“I had to move to London when I saw my children growing up in a white dominated area”
The treatment afforded to non-Muslims on the Islam Channel was particularly troublesome due to the large number of Muslims who watch the channel. On numerous occasions, however, non-Muslims are referred to disparagingly as ‘kuffar’ [rejecters of truth] and viewers are advised to “not imitate the non-believers” or wear clothes that “make us look like the non-believers”;95 the implication being that adopting what presenters on the Islam Channel refer to as ‘non-Muslim culture’ is undesirable. During one particular episode of ‘IslamiQA’ imam Abdul Qayyum states that a Muslim cannot give out Christmas cards and join in celebrations during the Christmas period for such reasons:
95 Bedair, Dr Reda. ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 26 October 2009,
35 Encouraging Social Seclusion Re-Programming British Muslims
“... I think it is better that we Muslims give in our festivals greetings [sic], or cards, or presents to them [non-Muslims]... don’t go to celebrate and participate in their festivals...”96
Such opinions were broadcast despite the fact that some Muslim organisations have held Christmas parties for non-Muslims in the past.97 Similar verdicts regarding the handing out of Christmas cards were given by other presenters on ‘IslamiQA’, some of whom went one step further and stated that organising a birthday party, or merely saying ‘happy birthday’ to a non-Muslim, was forbidden due to the fact that it equated with imitating non-Muslim culture:
“Wishing somebody [happy] birthday just to make him happy and you think that Allah (swt) will be pleased with you is not allowed...”98
“...To organise and celebrate a birthday, and organise [a] party on the birthday; that is something unprecedented in Islam... Muslims are doing this in following of the non- Muslim practice [sic]. Non-Muslims they do celebrate the birthday of Jesus, birthday of this, that, and birthday of their children and anniversary of their marriage etc. These have no relevance in Islam; these have no connection in Islam. Better to not do this...”99
“...This goes back to a matter of ‘wala wal bara’ [the concept of allegiance to Muslims and disassociation from non-Muslims] and it goes back to the matter of ‘tashabuh bil kuffar [imitation of non-Muslims]’. It goes back to the matter of imitation of the others besides the Muslims. Then most of the scholars of Islam are of the opinion that this is something which is not allowed... imitation of the non-Muslims in this matter will not be permissible. And that is the opinion I follow in the matter...”100
Furthermore, on another occasion it is also declared that the act of greeting a non-Muslim with the full traditional Islamic greeting of ‘Salaam Alaikum’ [peace be with you] could also be considered forbidden in Islam. Although one of the Islam Channel’s regular presenters acknowledges that there is a difference of scholarly opinion on the matter, with a majority of scholars allowing it, the presenter himself falls short of condoning the practice and leaves some ambiguity as to what his real beliefs on the matter were:
“...there are a few opinions... the scholars discuss sometimes if it is possible, in [a] very good Islamic country, to [not initiate the] salaam [greeting]. There is some of the Hadiths [that] said only to forbid yourself not to give salaam [sic]. But that hukm if it is forbidden or not, there is [some] discussion about this. But to give [an] answer, you don’t see any clear Hadith to say ‘no it is not allowed’, therefore giving [some kind of] answer is allowed. Giving [a] full answer or half... there [are] two opinions”.101
96 Qayyum, Sh. Abdul. ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 11 December 2009,
Muslims are therefore advised to not only refrain from giving out Christmas cards, or celebrating birthdays, but are also advised to be wary about greeting non-Muslims with a full Islamic greeting, especially in a Muslim-majority country. Such advice may point to an apparent desire amongst presenters on the Islam Channel to ensure limited interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, a theme that runs throughout the channel. The belief behind such advice is that interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims may result in the increased integration of Muslim communities, which the presenters on the channel regard as dangerous in that it may result in a decline in one’s Islamic character.
For example, during a particular episode of ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ it is argued that interaction between young Muslims and non-Muslims may be detrimental to ‘Islamic values’ and should therefore be limited or properly supervised by parents, even in schools. One guest on the show describes how she had to move from a predominately white area in the north of England to London for fear of her daughter being influenced by non-Muslims:
“It doesn’t matter how much you try to give your child [the] Islamic perspective, they still have to interact with society, engage with society. And when they engage with society they get so much pressure... I used to live outside of London, and I had to move to London when I saw my children growing up in a white dominated area, they can’t go to school with short skirts and things like that, so I moved to central London...”102
Advocacy of Segregation within Schools
“As long as my children are in school they don’t have to do un-Islamic activities”
Along with moving cities due to the pressure of living in a “white dominated area” the guest also advises viewers to make stringent demands on the schools that their children attend based on her experiences with the British school system. Viewers are told that non- Muslim teachers have the ability to take them “outside of Islam” through forcing Muslim children to partake in “un-Islamic activities” such as music, dance and sport, to such an extent that she felt the need to force a school to sign a contract that prohibited her child from engaging in mainstream school activities that were part of the national curriculum, an act that she encourages all Muslim parents to do:
“... when they went to secondary school I had a problem with jilbab and hijab, because as soon as my children started going to secondary school they started wearing jilbab, and hijab is not just a scarf. They have to wear a full dress code. [Sport], swimming, all these issues came up. Dance. I had to [fight] with the schools. It was a huge problem I had to face. On that time I found that if you are not strong, if you don’t know your Islam, even the teachers can take you outside of Islam. Because the head teacher was telling me that the mosque said dancing is allowed, like boys and girls. And then I had to go through the battle, and obviously they backed down and they signed a document with me. Even I still got the document signed. [It said that] as long as my children go to that school they don’t have to do un-Islamic activities...”103
102 Guest, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 27 September 2009,
CASE STUDY
At times it became increasingly evident that a lack of fluency in English hindered the ability of presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ to effectively answer questions posed to them by viewers. Below are two examples of the problems that this caused on the programme. In the first incident a woman rings in to ask whether hair extensions were permissible in Islam which the presenter, imam Abu Sayeed, does not understand and thus gives an answer that is completely unrelated to the question posed. The second incident features the same imam who is questioned on whether hair plaits were permissible for a Muslim male:
Incident One: Caller - “Are hair extensions allowed in Islam?”
Sheikh Abu Sayeed - “Are?”
Caller - “Extensions?”
Sheikh - “I don’t understand your word”.
Caller - “Hair extensions!”
Sheikh - “Hair? Hair?”
Caller - “Yes”
Sheikh - “For the boys or for the girls?”
Caller - “For girls... fake hair”
Sheikh - “Ok, now I understood your question...no. Why should a girl take some of her hair or shorten them [sic]? Is it for any disease? If so then it is allowed. But apart from that, she is allowed to take some hair from the front and back if they are too long, unusually long. Other than these two situations, she is not allowed to take her hair. Whatever beauty Allah (swt) has given her in her hair she should be content with that, she should be satisfied with that, without resorting to the so-called hair fashion designed by the people these days”.104
Incident Two: Caller - “...I wanted to ask a question regarding plaits in the hair... I just wanted to know if your salah [prayer] was valid if your hair was plaited, for men?”
Sheikh - “For men, if their hair? They put something on their hair?”
Caller - “No, plaits. Plaits”
Sheikh - “Plaits?“
Caller - “Yes”
104 Sayeed, Sh. Abu, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 5 October 2009,
38 Re-Programming British Muslims Encouraging Social Seclusion
CASE STUDY CONTINUES
Sheikh - “What is that?”
Caller - “um...”
Sheikh - “You cannot explain it?”
Caller - “No, it’s um... I heard the Prophet (saw) used to plait his hair?”
Sheikh - “But what is this? You explain to me”
Caller - “Uh, it’s... what it is you get...”
Sheikh - “You take some of the hair and don’t take some other, is it?”
Caller - “No. What it is, is um... is you get three lines of hair and you twist them together and it becomes a plait”
Sheikh - “Oh I see. Ok. No it is not allowed in Islam. It is prohibited, it is forbidden according to a Hadith of the Prophet (saw). Now whether someone’s prayer will be accepted by Allah (swt) while his hair is like this is another matter... but as [the Prophet] (saw) forbidden men or woman from doing this [sic], one must not do it and change it, make repentance to Allah (swt)”.105
Such advice is significant since it encourages Muslim parents to prevent their children from partaking in any school activity that they themselves deem to be ‘un-Islamic’; a tag that can lead to a parallel education system in schools with Muslim students undergoing separate lessons and not following the standard national curriculum if such activities went against their parents’ wishes. The show thus criticises Muslim parents who attempt to, amongst other things, “fit into society... [And] push their children to go to swimming because school required this”.106 Once again, the Islam Channel stigmatises and condemns a large number of Muslim parents in Britain who do not follow their interpretation of Islam and who do allow their children to participate in school activities. It is thus clear that even guests invited onto the Islam Channel are used to espouse a sense of separatism and segregation amongst Muslims whilst not challenged by presenters, encouraging a society where even schools are treated with intense suspicion for fear that they may have a “certain agenda” that attempts to change the “Islamic values” of a child:
“... We don’t know what is going on with children in the school with the children’s life. We just send them to school and think they are being educated. But we don’t know what kind of education they are doing... continuously you have to know what is going on in the classroom, what is going on in the playground, what kind of activity they are doing, what kind of lesson they are doing. You know in the lesson they have a certain agenda, certain
105 Sayeed, Sh. Abu, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 5 October 2009,
ideas that they are passing on to our children. It may be ok for others but as Muslims we have to understand that these ideas will change our children’s behaviour and affect them”.107
It is clear that such a description of schools, for example, becomes dangerous in that it encourages the disengagement of Muslims from mainstream British society, with Muslims being encouraged to move to areas with majority Muslim populations, ensure separate activities for their children in school and also be vigilant in preventing their children from being taught subjects and participating in activities in schools that the presenters on the Islam Channel deem ‘un-Islamic’. Once again, this goes against the stated objectives of the Islam Channel in promoting greater national cohesion and integration amongst Muslim communities.
Marriage with Non-Muslims
“Marriage to a non-Muslim is problematic”
Such disengagement is not only encouraged within the school system on the Islam Channel, but also in wider society as well, as viewers are advised on other occasions to completely separate themselves from the rest of society. Marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women is deemed unacceptable by the Islam Channel. In Europe and across the United States many Muslims have married outside of the faith and have had such weddings blessed by mainstream imams and scholars;108 however presenters on ‘IslamiQA’ have stated that marrying a non-Muslim was ‘problematic’:
“... according to this position, marrying a Christian or Jewish lady will be problematic in lands that the Shari’ah is not applied, so that is the lands that we live in. So I do not think that this is a wise move... I would not advise you to do this at all. I cannot say that the marriage is invalid because other scholars have allowed it, but I personally have refused to perform any such Nika in my life... I will not do this because I do not feel comfortable”.109
Similar advice was repeated on a number of instances, with the majority of opinion amongst presenters on the channel being that although marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim was justified in the religion, they did not advise it and would only recommend marriage between people of the same culture and creed:
“...please, you know, always look into [marriage] from the same culture, from the same community, from the same background. It is more, more giving it chances for that marriage to be - to work out, rather than subhanAllah going to others. It is not haram. There is no, in Islam, race. There is no colour, culture, there isn’t. But that’s, subhanAllah, always my advice”.110
107 ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, 27 September 2009,
40 Re-Programming British Muslims Encouraging Social Seclusion
Therefore, rather than encouraging British Muslims to find partners from outside their communities, which could help greater integration and better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the presenters on the Islam Channel state that it is unacceptable and inadvisable, contrary to popular Islamic opinion. Even during the odd instance when marrying non-Muslims is sanctioned on the channel, the presenter adds strict regulations to anyone thinking of marrying outside of the faith, such as making sure that they convert and making sure that they pray, due to an insistence that if a person is ‘not praying, then he is not a Muslim’.111
“I will always advise all my brothers who are having English women, or revert women, coming to Islam. My brothers and sisters, I would never say that your marriage is invalid, but I will advise you, inshAllah, that before you marry any women... you should teach her Islam properly... If you have married to this kind of a woman, your first duty is to teach them Islam and make them understand the importance and don’t let them ever be careless about the prayers...”112
The majority of presenters on the Islam Channel are thus against marriage between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, issuing advice and religious-based verdicts without any theological grounding to support their opinions whilst advising any Muslim male who has married outside of the religion to convert their wives in order for their marriages to be valid in Islam.
Ambiguity on Joining the British Army and Voting
“...I refer you to some Shari’ah Council, better you write to them...”
It should also be noted that presenters on the Islam Channel were obfuscatory when it came to addressing a variety of controversial topics. When asked whether it was permissible to join the British Army, for example, presenters dodged the question and advised viewers to pose such questions off-air:
“...I refer you to some Shari’ah Council, better you write to them. The board of Ulama [scholars] probably they will be giving you [a] better, well thought out answer”.113
A perfect example of the ambiguity that difficult questions generated amongst presenters on the Islam Channel can be seen in the reaction one presenter gave to a viewer who questioned whether Muslims should condemn the Taliban or condemn Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In response imam Abdul Majid argued that Muslims were obliged to only follow the laws of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and then follow the laws of society, so long as they did not contradict what he saw as ‘Islamic teachings’. This answer fell way short of condemnation of the Taliban and may have left viewers perplexed as to what the imam believed:
111 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 18 May 2008,
41 Encouraging Social Seclusion Re-Programming British Muslims
“...My brothers and sisters, we have to obey Allah and His Messenger. And, under this rule, under this rule, if we are in any country, even here, when we are under the ruling of Queen Elizabeth, even Queen Elizabeth, we as Muslims, we have to follow Allah and His Messenger. And we have to abide by the law which is not contradicting our religion. Then we have to, even, obey Queen Elizabeth. It is not Hamid Karzai or Taliban or this or that. The first thing is Muslims should obey Allah and His Messenger. Muslims should follow Islam. Muslims should follow Qur’an... don’t talk about Taliban, don’t talk about Karzai, don’t talk about this President or that President. Talk about Qur’an and Sunnah. You - our creator is Allah, and we should know what Allah has asked us to do. And we should be abiding by that. And that’s the end of the story”.114
Even the issue of voting and elections in Islam was not addressed sufficiently by presenters on ‘IslamiQA’, leaving viewers confused as to whether they considered voting a prohibited act or not. Despite arguing that “voting for somebody who understands the needs of the humans” was permissible, one presenter then goes on to argue that:
“...I cannot say that it is Shirk [polytheism], and I will not say that it is permissible, because sometimes people for whom somebody is voting, that person may not be qualified to be voted for him [sic]. And those people who are voting they themselves are not qualified to know whether they should vote for this person or not...”115
It is therefore evident that a sense of separatism exists on the Islam Channel, with viewers advised to distance themselves from mainstream society and view mainstream institutions, such as schools or the police, with intense suspicion for fear of harming their ‘Islamic culture’. Non-Muslims are also referred to negatively on the channel.
Furthermore, presenters on the channel also refused to answer important questions that could be of intense benefit to British Muslims unsure of the role they should play in society. Such rhetoric therefore does nothing to help the integration of Muslim communities into mainstream society, a dangerous development when one considers the problem of integration that plagues British Muslim communities today.
114 Majid, Sh. Abdul, ‘IslamiQA’, Islam Channel, 31 October 2009,
42 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
Chapter Three: Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
Along with producing religious advice to its viewers, the Islam Channel also attempts to address political issues that it believes affects Muslim communities in Britain. Topics such as anti-terrorism legislation, elections in Muslim-majority countries and creating Muslim voting blocs were all discussed on the network during the period the channel was monitored; however, it was the Israel-Palestine conflict that generated the most discussion, with the majority of political programmes on the channel focusing on this particular conflict. For example, during the month of October the Arab-Israeli conflict was the topic of discussion on three weekly political programmes on the channel on more than four different occasions, whilst a number of programmes on Bethlehem, Gaza and the Al- Aqsa Mosque were also broadcast and repeated on a weekly basis.
In isolation this is not essentially a problem, as many British Muslims are interested in events in the Middle East and have a strong interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The method of reporting on the conflict was, however, a major problem since it was significantly partial. This only serves to ignite additional anger amongst Muslims towards western countries through a biased portrayal of western foreign and domestic policy as unjust and purposely discriminatory against Muslims. Horrific images of war-torn areas were possibly used, pre-watershed, for such purposes. On the majority of these programmes alternative viewpoints that would have challenged the narrative of a western attack on Islam were rarely featured.
This is significant when one considers that Ofcom regulations demand that television channels observe due impartiality when reporting on controversial issues and refrain from giving undue prominence to one particular political viewpoint, a matter that will be discussed further in a later chapter. It is also important to note that, at a time when tensions between Muslim and Jewish communities are high, the Islam Channel only serves to make relations worse as anti-Semitic ideas, such as the view that Jews control the media, were also broadcast without challenge, as well as biased reporting on Israel and its policies.
43 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics Re-Programming British Muslims
Historical Portrayal of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
“The British Mandate tried to give more and more to the Zionists”
An example of the biased nature of political reporting on the Islam Channel can specifically be seen in its depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a topic that featured heavily on a variety of different political programmes and will therefore be the focus of this chapter. Programmes on the topic that were purported to be historical in nature were far from it, and on many occasions included personal opinions that were represented as facts and could only serve to increase resentment amongst Muslims towards America and its allies, particularly Britain and Israel. For example, the creation of Israel is linked directly to the Crusades during a ‘historical’ programme on the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem as the presenter, Abdallah Marouf, misrepresented a variety of personal opinions as historical facts in an attempt to portray the creation of the State of Israel as a conspiracy against Muslims. According to the programme the first diplomatic steps towards the creation of
An episode of ‘Beloved Al-Aqsa’ hosted by Abdullah Marouf.
44 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
The logo for ‘Politics and Beyond’, a weekly topical programme on the Islam Channel.
FACT BOX
Islam Channel and Politics
The Islam Channel broadcasts three topical political programmes a week: ‘Politics and Beyond’, ‘Media and Politics’ and ‘Ummah Talk’. During the three month period that the channel was monitored the Arab-Israeli conflict formed the basis of debate on nearly every topical political programme, with ‘Ummah Talk’ in particular disproportionately focusing on the conflict. Furthermore, the majority of guests invited onto these political programmes were of a similar political background. ‘Media and Politics’ is hosted by Salma Yaqoob, the leader of the Respect Party, and during the time period that the channel was monitored the majority of non-Muslim guests on political programmes were either from the same party or affiliated to the Respect Party. The predominance of members of the far-left on the political programmes on the Islam Channel had a major influence on the nature and the manner of debate on the aforementioned shows.
Israel were a result of the “Ummah [Islamic global community] becoming weaker” with incidents such as the Balfour Declaration being described as a message from God in order for Muslims to “wake up”:
45 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics Re-Programming British Muslims
“... There was a need for a punishment for this Ummah in order to wake up. So a very big incident happened in Jerusalem... which was the British Mandate. The British Mandate happened in 1917...”116
Along with describing the creation of Israel as a ‘punishment’ during an essentially historical programme on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the programme also makes a number of factual errors, refers on numerous occasions to “Zionist trials to take over Jerusalem” and describes British foreign policy at the time as purposely discriminatory against Muslims in order to create a state for Jewish people:
“The British army, the British Mandate, tried to give more and more for the Zionists and because of that... on the 2nd of November 1917 a declaration was given to the Zionist movement by Balfour, the British Prime Minister [sic] at the time. And unfortunately in this declaration he gave a promise for the Zionists to give them Palestine in order to establish a state for them, unfortunately. And from that time the Zionists started to work in order to take this country, or this land, unfortunately...”117
The above quotes are not the only examples of biased presentations on the Islam Channel regarding the creation of the State of Israel and the ensuing conflict, as the majority of political programmes that touched on the topic also repeated similar assertions seemingly in order to further ignite British Muslim anger towards Israeli and British foreign policy. During a programme on the Gaza conflict of 2008, for example, graphic images of the conflict were shown, including dismembered and decomposed bodies and pictures of injured women and children. Although the programme was broadcast post-watershed it did not include a disclaimer to warn viewers of the horrific images that were to be shown, and the programme also made no attempt at reporting on the conflict in an objective manner as the Israeli government’s point of view was not included.
116 Marouf, Abdullah, ‘Beloved Al-Aqsa’, Islam Channel, 31 August 2009,
46 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
Misrepresentation of Facts
‘The Israeli Army Helps Jewish Extremists’
‘22 Day War: The Untold Story’, a political programme on the Islam Channel based on the Gaza conflict, 2009.
The programme ‘22 Day War: Untold Story’ also represented a number of personal opinions as facts in a similar manner to the programme on the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Incidents that could not be verified were also described in such a way on the programme as to only deepen resentment amongst Muslims towards Israel. A typical example can be found during a description of an Israeli attack on the Islamic University of Gaza in 2008, in which the presenter makes the claim that the university was targeted on purpose by the Israeli military to prevent young Palestinians from gaining an education:
“... there was an attack on that university and there was a media attack, saying that university is being used to manufacture rockets and it wasn’t, the Israeli’s [inaudible] said this. The reason behind hitting the university was it was a very distinctive and good educational centre which the Israeli’s did not like, so they have hit it”.118
It remains imperative that a channel with a significantly large audience includes both sides of the story and reports on contentious issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict impartially. However, during this particular programme and others of a similar nature, the
118 Habeeb, Sameh. ‘22 Day War: the Untold Story’, Islam Channel, September,
47 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics Re-Programming British Muslims
Arab-Israeli conflict was treated as yet another attack on Islam by western powers, with Israel consistently depicted as malicious, dangerous and deceptive. The war in Gaza is thus referred to as “a war against civilians, not a war against militants” by the presenter, whilst it is also stated that the Israelis had a policy of targeting civilians which had been in place ever since “they had established their country of Israel on the ruin of Palestinians”.119 Other controversial issues tied into the conflict, such as the purposes of tunnels in Gaza and the recent conflict surrounding the Al-Aqsa Mosque, are also not treated objectively, with the Israeli government’s side of the story at one point being referred to as ‘a big lie’ by the presenter:
“... Israeli politicians started to speak on the media, and after they have failed in achieving many of their goals they have started to speak about the tunnels, and ‘there must be international forces in Gaza to bring security to Israel and to prevent smuggling weapons from Egypt to Gaza’. Which was a big lie. The tunnels were only used for smuggling food from Egypt, because simply the Israelis were closing all border points...”120
It is clear that such methods of reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict were not confined to one programme or presenter. For example, on another programme it was even argued that recent violence around the Al-Aqsa Mosque site in Jerusalem was all part of a Jewish conspiracy to demolish the mosque, which is the third holiest site in Islam, and replace it with a synagogue, a claim that would understandably provoke mass anger amongst British Muslims:
“...on Sunday the 27th settlers, or Jewish extremists, tried to storm Masjid Al-Aqsa, and obviously the Palestinians put up a resistance. However, what appeared was the Israeli army and the police were protecting the extremists and started firing upon the Palestinians. And really, this was really outrageous that the people that were trying to defend the Masjid were being under attack from the Israeli army and the police. And this has really alarmed us because this is the first time that something as drastic as this has taken place. And I think the Muslim community needs to be alert and aware of the facts on the ground... According to the Jewish calendar this coincides with the 9th AV which they [Jewish people] believe is the day their Temple was destroyed...so this is a day they try to rebuild the temple. So it’s a symbolic gesture. But it is no longer symbolic in that sense because now they are very serious about demolishing Masjid Al-Aqsa and re-building a synagogue there. This seriousness really needs to be considered in the light of the Israeli government’s defence of the settlers and the extremists”.121
Similar descriptions of Israeli policies were to be found on yet another political programme, entitled ‘Bethlehem: Hidden from View’, in which, amongst other things, it is claimed that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) conducted daily raids on the houses of innocent Palestinians in order to scare and terrorise the population. Yet again, the Islam Channel represented
119 Habeeb, Sameh. ‘22 Day War: the Untold Story’, Islam Channel, September,
48 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
these un-verifiable claims as facts, without a response from an Israeli government’s perspective, seemingly in order to whip up anger against Israel amongst its viewers and increase resentment towards western countries foreign policy. In the programme a former IDF soldier was able to make the unverifiable claim that the Israeli army purposely terrorised innocent Palestinians in order to “make [their] presence felt”:
“... While we are sitting here, with this beautiful view, there are at least three different IDF patrols that are invading randomly Palestinian houses in Hebron. These are not houses of wanted terrorists. These are not houses of people that we have intelligence of. No. These are random houses. The idea is to make our presence felt. A lot of what the IDF does is to make our presence felt. Military logic says that if the Palestinians will get the feeling that the IDF is all the time everywhere then they would be afraid to attack. So what do you do to make your presence felt? You’ll start your nightshift patrol from 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock. Bump into one house in one corner of the old city. Wake up the family. Men there. Women there. You know. Search the house. Go out to the street, shoot to the hills. Throw some stun grenades, light some fires. Knock on some doors. Run to the other side of the old city, invade another family. You know. In the morning, sun will rise; they will know the IDF was there, right?”122
An episode of ‘Ummah Talk’ featuring Azad Ali [left] as the host.
122 Shaul, Yehuda. ‘Bethlehem: Hidden from View’, Islam Channel, September,
49 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics Re-Programming British Muslims
FACT BOX
‘Ummah Talk’ is a weekly political programme on the Islam Channel hosted by Azad Ali. According to the Islam Channel website the programme aims to deal with ‘issues affecting the Muslim Ummah’, including ‘why [is the] Ummah divided instead of being under one Islamic government [and] why is there the absence of Islamic government in [Muslim] countries?’.123 The fact that the aims of the programme seem similar to the objectives of Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and Islam4UK is no surprise. Up until early 2009 the show was hosted by Basharat Ali and produced by Kaysar Sharif, both of whom are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The programme appears every Thursday and is repeated once a week.
Anti-Semitism and Support for Hamas
‘Jewish people control the media’
On ‘Ummah Talk’, a weekly topical programme that is aimed at young Muslims and also predominately discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Azad Ali,124 the host, reinforces this narrative of a western attack on Islam and Israeli deceptiveness in terrorising the Palestinians. The programme also makes the anti-Semitic claim that Jewish people have control over the media and are deceiving people regarding the extent of Israeli ‘war crimes’. Constant references are thus made, on many occasions, to ‘Zionist propaganda’ that has apparently managed to ‘cover the truth’ about the conflict. The programme also states that a sense of ‘duplicity’ exists amongst the media when reporting on Palestinian issues due to the fact that the media was anti-Muslim and ‘Zionist’ controlled:
“... When we look at the specifics of the Palestinian issue we realise that the word duplicity, what it means in the Palestinian issue. I mean, Palestinians have one Israeli prisoner, who the whole world is talking about. Even now after over a year his picture is on the front page of British newspapers. Over 12,000 Palestinians are languishing in Israeli jails. Their plight, their status, is ignored. It is not even mentioned...”125
“... I think it also highlights the Zionist propaganda. And how well it has managed to cover the truth. Like you said, almost the entire world knows of that one Israeli prisoner, but 12,000 Palestinian prisoners and the world’s media can’t even name a single one. It shows the duplicity”.126
123 ‘Programme Details – Ummah Talk’,
50 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
Similar sentiments were also heard on another political programme on the Islam Channel, ‘Politics and Beyond’, where it is also argued that Jewish people have control over the media and government, which has therefore led to duplicity when reporting and deciding on matters that affect Muslims:
“... We [Muslims] are 3% at least. The Jewish community are 0.3%. We are ten times the size of the Jewish community. The Jewish community [has such] influence that you [can] sense it. Within the papers, within the media, within the economy, within the government, within everything, it is more than clear...”127
Along with such assumptions, that arguably display an underlying hint of anti-Semitism, these two programmes have also signalled support for Hamas over other Palestinian factions. Azad Ali’s ‘Ummah Talk’, for example, is chiefly notable for the biased approach it has taken to the conflict between Fatah and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, as Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbass is regularly denounced on the programme for having ‘betrayed the Palestinian cause’.
“... We were talking about Mahmoud Abbas. How he has kind of betrayed the Palestinian cause, Palestinian people, by deferring this report which is trying to, attempting to, put war criminals on trial...“128
Once again, although criticism of President Abbas is a legitimate political opinion it is troubling that all of the political programmes on the Islam Channel during the three month period were of the same opinion and did not include one supporter of the Palestinian president; a factor that is particularly disturbing when one takes into account the fact that criticism of Fatah usually resulted in the promotion of Hamas, a terrorist organisation. It is even argued during one particular programme that President Abbas had been bribed by Israel to reject the findings of a UN report into the conflict in order to allow his son the ability to sell mobile phones in the West Bank, an unverifiable claim that has been rejected by the Palestinian Authority:
“... Mahmoud Abbas’s son wanted to have a contract to have a right for mobile phones within West Bank, the frequency of which is controlled by Israel, obviously. Initially they refused to give him that frequency to sell mobile phones in West Bank, but apparently they were told, or politically bribed, to say that if they vote or deferred Goldstone’s report they will be given this particular license. And obviously there is a lot of meat around that accusation...”129
Fatah are also accused of being western stooges and only serving the interests of Israel and other western powers, an accusation that is commonly thrown at the world’s Muslim leaders by extreme Islamist organisations:
127 Farjani, Saeed, ‘Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 23 September 2009,
51 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics Re-Programming British Muslims
An episode of ‘Ummah Talk’ featuring Ismail Patel [left] and Azad Ali [right].
“...I think the use [of the phrase] ‘Muslim world leaders’ is wrong because I believe these leaders are really playing the tune for Washington. We live in a world of a single superpower who is doing what it likes, the way it likes, and it’s just using a facade. And the leaders you mentioned, the Muslim world leaders, are doing the bidding for Washington and Tel Aviv”.130
On the other hand, Hamas are described on a variety of programmes as a legitimate ‘resistance’ organisation, with their methods of armed violence legitimised and described as acceptable reactions to occupation and comparable to French revolutionaries who had fought against the Nazis. The intentions of such accusations are clearly to lessen support for secular parties in the Palestinian territories and bolster support amongst British Muslims for Hamas:
“... The Gaza territory is occupied. Now what does this mean? It means that the people who are subjected to military occupation are entitled to resist, by whatever means possible, to free themselves from such occupation, [just] as the French had done when the Nazis were occupying their lands, their countries in the 1940s”.131
130 Patel, Ismail, ‘Ummah Talk’, Islam Channel, 14 October 2009,
52 Re-Programming British Muslims Arab-Israeli Conflict and Politics
“... If victims who are trying to use non-aggressive methods, non military methods, to resolve their problems, like going to court, are told well the courts are not there for you, you are shut out... [then] who can blame them, really, if they say well, non-violent means don’t seem to work, what is left for us?”132
Such legitimisation of the use of political violence by Palestinians is not caveated to exclude terrorism nor accompanied by the recognition of the number of innocent people that have died at the hands of Hamas. Thus, whereas Israel and Fatah are denounced and criticised regularly by the Islam Channel, presenters partly refrain from criticising Hamas and in many cases defend their acts of terrorism through arguing, for example, that their attacks do not target civilians and are therefore incomparable to the ‘indiscriminate’ killing that the Israelis allegedly perpetrate:
“...There is no evidence that Hamas deliberately set out to attack the civilian centres. On the other hand, there was ample evidence that Israel, you know, that the attack was planned, deliberate, and it was indiscriminate... in the case of [Israel] there was a clear, identifiable intent to attack civilian centres and in the case of [Hamas] and the settlements in the south of Israel that was not the case”.133
Whilst some of the opinions expressed above are shared with some on the far left of politics, most notably amongst members of the Socialist Workers Party, it is quite significant that such a fringe view features heavily on the Islam Channel without an alternative opinion, all the while legitimising attacks on Israeli civilians.
It therefore becomes evident that not only do the political programmes on the Islam Channel focus disproportionately on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but that they are also consistently biased in favour of one political opinion over others, with no room for alternative political viewpoints on topical political programmes like ‘Politics and Beyond’, ‘Politics and Media’ and ‘Ummah Talk’. Furthermore, anti-Semitic stereotypes and the legitimisation of political violence in Israel are all too readily featured on the Islam Channel, at a time when Jewish- Muslim relations in Britain are strained. The outcome of such reporting is dangerous in that it only increases resentment amongst British Muslims to western powers, furthers tensions between Jewish and Muslim communities and legitimises the use of political violence which, if seen as legitimate, can also be applied to political violence against British troops, and even on British soil.
132 Machover, Daniel, ’Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 16 October 2009,
53 Islam Channel News Re-Programming British Muslims
Chapter Four: Islam Channel News
An episode of ‘Islam Channel News’.
‘Islam Channel News’ reports are broadcast twice daily in half hour slots. The programme claims to represent significant Muslim stories which mainstream media outlets do not cover.134 Consequently, it claims to rectify a bias within mainstream media by presenting these allegedly intentionally omitted stories in an impartial and fair manner.135 However, this chapter is intended to demonstrate that both claims are spurious in that the ‘Islam Channel News’ not only fails to report on stories of great significance to British Muslims but they also fail to present the stories it does report on in a neutral format. Also, the majority of reports broadcast show some sort of conflict between Muslims and non- Muslims, both nationally and internationally. These criticised practices have the potential to inhibit the formation of a confident British-Muslim identity which may then lead to problems of national cohesion within Britain.
ISLAM CHANNEL NEWS AND CHANNEL 4 NEWS: A COMPARISON OF PRIORITIES
For the purposes of this report a number of episodes of ‘Islam Channel News’ were compared with the news stories of ‘Channel 4 News’ [12 January - 26 January 2010] in order to assess whether major differences were evident in the manner of their respective reporting and the type of stories that were mentioned. Channel 4 was chosen due to its credible reputation and official recognitions.136
134 ‘About Us: Islam Channel News’,
54 Re-Programming British Muslims Islam Channel News
Below is a day to day comparison of the two news programmes:
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
12th January: 12th January:
• Assassination of Iranian Nuclear • Alastair Cambell testifies at the Chilcot Scientist; Inquiry;
• Imminent trial of 3 Americans held in • MoD figures show that 1/5 of British Iran under charges of spying; soldiers are unfit for frontline duty;
• Lawyers of former Guantanamo • Imminent banning of Islamist group detainee say his case should be Islam4UK; thrown out as he was denied the right of a swift trial; • European Court of Human Rights declares unrestrained use of stop and • Palestinian scholar condemns violence search as illegal; in Malaysia; • Muslim Police commander facing • Watermelon festival in Morocco. charges over false arrest claims;
• Funeral of 2 soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Analysis
Despite the ‘Islam Channel News’ claiming to report on ‘issues affecting Muslims, wherever [they are] in the world’,137 the coverage of this day shows that this may not always be the case. For example, on the day outlined above the Islam Channel reported on a number of international stories instead of some domestic stories which may have had greater significance to British Muslims. In particular, the story regarding Alistair Campbell’s statement at the Chilcot Inquiry and the news that the extreme Islamist group Islam4UK were to be banned are of great significance to British Muslims but yet surprisingly absent from ‘Islam Channel News’.
Additionally, much of the coverage on this day seemed biased and one-sided. For example, the alleged assassination of an Iranian nuclear physicist implied that the attack was carried out by American or Israeli supported persons through linking the scientist’s death to increased tensions between Israel, the US and Iran. This is enhanced by the fact that the programme calls the scientist Iran’s “top” nuclear “professor”, thereby appealing to widely covered tension between Iran and the West over the former’s nuclear programme and consequently imparting a motive onto the US and Israel.138 This is despite reports released the same day which argued that the professor’s speciality was Quantum Theory and thus “highly unlikely” that he was involved in nuclear research.139
137 ‘About Us: Islam Channel News’,
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
13th January: 13th January:
• Turkey threatens to recall its • Earthquake in Haiti; ambassador to Israel; also mentions previous tensions between the two • Heavy snow fall in Britain; countries over the Gaza offensive; • Google pull out of China;
• Turkish man who attempted to • Further news on Muslim Met police assassinate Pope John Paul II commander’s case; condemns al-Qaeda; • Demonstrations in Afghanistan as • Pakistan complains over American coalition troops allegedly deface drone attacks; copies of the Qur’an;
• Bahrain to remove subsidies on gas • 9 killed in Pakistan after a train and fuel; collided with a bus;
• The Guinea military leader is moved • An alleged leader of al-Qaeda cell in from Morocco to Burkina Faso after an Yemen is killed. assassination attempt.
Analysis
Of significance on this date is the ‘Islam Channel News’ failure to report on the Haiti earthquake which is not mentioned until the 15th January, despite causing a large number of deaths and being the major news story all over the world. Although it must be acknowledged that the channel subsequently ran fundraising initiatives for the victims of the earthquake, it is incredible that the earthquake was not deemed important enough to warrant a report on the ‘Islam Channel News’ programme. This failure to report on such a significant event reinforces the idea that Muslims in Britain should focus primarily on Muslim-majority countries instead of other issues of international or national importance, and seems to subtly imply that a Muslim life is valued above those of other faiths on the Islam Channel.
56 Re-Programming British Muslims Islam Channel News
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
14th January: 14th January:
• Israel apologises to Turkey over alleged • Haiti humanitarian crisis; discourteous treatment to the Turkish ambassador to Israel; • 7 men and 2 youths being charged with conspiracy to commit GBH in • Court in Iraq sentences 11 people relation to the death of a 17yr old boy; to death by hanging for planning and carrying out a truck bombing in • Portuguese detective being sued by Baghdad; McCann family;
• Funeral of scientist assassinated in • British Government apologises over Tehran; use of Thalidomide.
• Group of 150 Yemeni clerics signing a statement supporting the use of jihad in the case of foreign military intervention;
• Pakistan Taliban deny that its leader was killed in US drone attack;
• A crowd of men in Algeria burn bibles and hymn books in attack on a Protestant church.
Analysis
Here we see a further example of subtle unbalanced reporting on behalf of the Islam Channel in their treatment of a diplomatic row between Israel and Turkey. They report that Turkey was threatening to recall its ambassador as a result of a row over his treatment by Israel’s deputy foreign minister. On the 13th of January the reporter stated that the argument stemmed from Israel “not placing a Turkish flag on the table” and how the ambassador “was seated on a lower sofa adding to the impression that he was being given a dressing down”.140 Furthermore, the programme uses the incident to link into previous tensions between the two nations in 2009 when Turkey criticised Israel for their Gaza offensive. Although this in itself is not significant, the manner of reporting was as it only outlined Palestinian casualties which, however important, was not necessarily in context with the rest of the report, thus potentially an attempt to make the viewer more hostile towards Israel. On the 14th of January 2010 the channel goes on to cover the Israeli apology to Turkey over the matter, however the wording of the report had changed to state that Israel had “removed the Turkish flag from the table” and “made him [the Turkish ambassador] sit on a lower chair”. Although such changes could be deemed minor it leads one to implicate insidious intent on the part of Israel, therefore potentially furthering anti-Israeli sentiment.
140 ‘Islam Channel News’, Islam Channel, 13 January 2010, [Clip Not Available]
57 Islam Channel News Re-Programming British Muslims
Analysis continued
Finally, the commentator refers to Israel as “the Zionist state”.141 It could be argued that this term comes with significant derogatory cultural baggage as ‘Zionist’ is a term used by many to signify perceived grievances with Israel and the Jewish faith in general. Although the term itself is arguably not offensive, in the context of the news story in which it was mentioned - i.e. in relation to perceived Israeli wrongdoing - and particularly in light that it is a Muslim channel which focuses predominantly on stories from the Middle East, one would expect an impartial news programme to not use a term that could possibly increase tensions between Muslim and Jewish communities. Subsequently the use of the term potentially leads the viewer to be biased against Israel.
141 ‘Islam Channel News’, Islam Channel, 14 January 2010, [Clip Not Available].
58 Re-Programming British Muslims Islam Channel News
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
15th January: 15th January:
• Rescue workers struggling to reach • Haitian humanitarian crisis; Haiti; • Member of the BNP who spent a • 15 people killed after deadly bombing decade building a cache of weapons is in Najaf; jailed for 11 years;
• 3 Israeli diplomats escape injury after • Togo national football team attend a bomb went off near their convoy in funeral of people killed in attack on Jordan; their team bus;
• A report on Shari’ah police in • China’s first gay pageant cancelled Indonesia; hours before it is set to commence.
• Rioting in Kenya as authorities try to expel an extreme Muslim preacher;
• Albania struck by flooding. Analysis
The ‘Islam Channel News’ discussion of a bombing in Iraq is significant as the reporter states that the city had been relatively quiet since a previous attack by a “human car bomber”. The question which must be asked is why they refrain from calling it a ‘suicide’ bombing? Through refusal to label the act a ‘suicide’ bombing one could argue that the Islam Channel intends to refrain from condemning the attack, since the act of suicide is forbidden in Islam and the description of such an attack as a suicide attack thus passes judgement on the attacker. This small change in vocabulary is potentially very important as it has the effect of sanitizing the act, avoiding the significant connotations attached to the term ‘suicide bomber’. Furthermore, it implies an underlying policy is in place on the channel (the use of this terminology is further evidenced in a news report on the 26th of January).
In the same news report ‘Islam Channel News’ also discusses the Indonesian Shari’ah police who have the job of “enforcing Islamic morals”, which we are told is the prohibition of unmarried men and women in public, Muslim women not wearing a headscarf, the wearing of tight clothes, the drinking of alcohol and gambling. Through stating that the police were “enforcing Islamic morals” it could be argued that the Islam Channel is implying that the “morals” listed are universal Islamic values which are to be observed if one is to be a true Muslim.
Lastly, the fact the conviction of a member of the BNP for terrorist-related offences was not mentioned on the Islam Channel is significant since the story directly affects Muslim communities in Britain but is ignored and side-lined for stories that had occurred overseas. As mentioned previously, such methods of reporting reinforce the perception that British Muslims should be more concerned with events overseas, even if the domestic stories directly affect their communities.
59 Islam Channel News Re-Programming British Muslims
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
20th January: 20th January:
• Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP, going on • Haiti aftershock; trial for comments he made against Muslims; • PM announces new security measures including the banning of flights from • A Pro-Palestinian group organises Yemen; an event to highlight the plight of Palestinians in wake of the Israeli • Muslim man who attacked a burglar offensive the previous year; has his sentence cut;
• more than 100 people killed in the • Mother who gave her son a lethal Nigerian capital as a result of fighting injection of heroin is given a life between Muslims and Christians; sentence;
• an aftershock measuring 6.1 on the • PM to appear before the Iraq inquiry Richter Scale hits Haiti; at any time;
• Malaysian police arrest 8 people • In the US a gunman suspected of they say were responsible for the shooting 8 people gives himself up to firebombing of a Pentecostal church in police in Virginia; Kuala Lumpar; • President Obama’s healthcare plans • a US trained Pakistani doctor accuses are under threat; the US of holding her in a secret jail in • British police are criticized for not Afghanistan; doing enough to catch the ‘taxi driver rapist’. • Indonesian immigration officials continue to send Sri Lankan asylum seekers back to Sri Lanka.
Analysis
A criticism can be levelled at the ‘Islam Channel News’ team on this day in regard to their coverage of the Pro-Palestinian event held in London. Although they do not actively support the cause they give significant airtime to the event which was attended by a relatively small number of people. Furthermore, at one point the news report refers to the “unfaltering resolve of Palestinians”;142 an extremely loaded and empathetic comment to make on a news programme. This is yet another example of the use of personal opinions in what should be an impartial news show, a comment which when taken in conjunction with the rest of the coverage on the Islam Channel of the conflict becomes a politically charged and explicitly pro-Palestinian one.
142 ‘Islam Channel News’, Islam Channel, 20 January 2010, [Clip Not Available].
60 Re-Programming British Muslims Islam Channel News
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
21st January: 21st January:
• More US troops sent to Haiti; • Obama starts a crackdown on US banks; • violence in Nigeria between Muslims and Christians leave more than 400 • Haiti suffers from hyper-inflation; dead; • Jack Straw admits to the Chilcot • PM Gordon Brown introduces new law inquiry that the decision to go to war to stop suspected terrorists from flying with Iraq was one of the most difficult abroad; he had ever made;
• Turkish police detain 33 people and • Foreign Office denies that it is cutting seize weapons in a raid targeting al- counter-terrorism operations in Qaeda; Afghanistan.
• a survey by the UN contends that corruption in Afghanistan costs roughly $2.5 billion dollars a year equalling the countries opium trade;
• Saudi authorities order the evacuation of the Kingdom tower after a bomb scare which turns out to be a hoax;
• Iraqi refugees in Syria and the Palestinian government launching a campaign to counter the sale of Israeli settlement products in the West Bank.
Analysis
Once again, ‘Islam Channel News’ fails to mention the Chilcot inquiry, which is particularly surprising on the 21st as Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, explained his motives for going to war in Iraq.
This episode of ‘Islam Channel News’ was also significant since it was the first time that a story related to the UK was broadcast during the week. The manner in which this story was reported, however, was not favourable to Britain, with the government in particular portrayed as potentially discriminatory towards Muslims in their attempt to prevent suspected terrorists from travelling abroad.143
143 ‘Islam Channel News’, Islam Channel, 21 January 2010, [Clip Not Available].
61 Islam Channel News Re-Programming British Muslims
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
22nd January: 22nd January:
• Gordon Brown to give evidence to the • pair of boys sentenced to an Chilcot inquiry before the next general undefined term behind bars for election; attacks on 2 young children;
• America potentially to provide Pakistan • Gordon Brown to give evidence to the with a dozen drone aircraft in fight Chilcot inquiry in public before the with Taliban; general election;
• the US envoy to the Middle East meets • airports in India put on high alert after Palestinian leaders in aim of restoring the arrest of a terrorist suspect leads the peace process; to intelligence which implies a threat;
• Russian officials state that Iran’s first • Story concerning private investigators nuclear power plant will open by in India. middle of 2010;
• America confirm that 2 Algerians held at Guantanamo have been transferred to their homeland;
• report on the contentious issue of women straightening their hair in Indonesia.
Analysis
22 January was the only day in our analysis that witnessed a correlation between the stories on ‘Islam Channel News’ and ‘Channel Four News’, who both focused on the fact that Gordon Brown is to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry before the next general election on his role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. However, a terror alert in India is ignored on the channel in favour of, amongst other things, the issue of women straightening their hair in Indonesia.
62 Re-Programming British Muslims Islam Channel News
Islam Channel News Channel 4 News
26th January: 26th January:
• 18 people killed after a “human bomb” • Interview with freed hostage Peter attack in occupied Iraq, bombings, Moore who was kidnapped in we are told, that come 3 days after Baghdad; a group of “human bombers” attack Baghdad hotels;144 • Britain officially pulling out of recession with a growth of 0.1% in the • Iraq inquiry told how Jack Straw last quarter; ignored advice which said invading Iraq violated international law; • 2 government law officers say that Jack Straw ignored advice that the Iraq • Islam channel CEO released without war was illegal; charge or condition after being arrested in South Africa in relation to • British Attorney General to consider if terror charges filed against him 20 the 5 year minimum sentence handed years previously in Tunisia; out to Edlington Brothers is sufficient.
• the search for survivors after a plane crash in Lebanon;
• a French parliamentary panel calls for a ban on the Niqab in public institutions;
• the UK holding a major conference on Afghanistan to discuss a framework for a transfer of security responsibilities to the Afghan government;
• Israeli blockade in Gaza failing to prevent some Palestinian businesses flourishing.
Analysis
During ‘Islam Channel News’ on this date we again see the use of the term “human bombers” to describe suicide attacks, the significance of which has already been discussed.
144 ‘Islam Channel News’, Islam Channel, 26 January 2010, [Clip Not Available].
63 Islam Channel News Re-Programming British Muslims
The majority of reports that the ‘Islam Channel News’ decide to broadcast depict ‘the Muslim world’ in some form of conflict with the ‘non-Muslim world’. On the days outlined, out of 51 stories covered, only 11 do not imply or depict conflict between Muslim and non-Muslims either literally, morally or theologically, whether this be in the medium of the diplomatic row between Turkey and Israel, the implied assassination of an Iranian scientist by Israeli and US forces or conflict in Asia over the enforcement of Islamic ‘values’. Furthermore, there were only 4 stories which could be classified as ‘British’ news.
Consequently, the method of reporting on issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, with references to Israel as “the Zionist State”, are coupled with a legitimisation of the use of suicide bombs through the description of such attacks as “human bombs” rather than ‘suicide bombs’. The use of such vocabulary clearly signifies an underlying agenda. Some extremist preachers in the past have also used the term ‘human bomb’ so as to not pass judgement on those committing the act, since the act of suicide is forbidden in Islam.145
Furthermore, the choice of stories covered by the Islam Channel display a potentially intentional neglect of issues and events that the Islam Channel does not agree with, which creates the impression that the news programme may have a specific agenda that it wishes to push to its viewers. For example, a fatwa [religious ruling] by a high ranking scholar in Pakistan that condemned terrorism was completely ignored by the news programme during this period, potentially due to the fact that the Shaykh who issued the fatwa was from a Sufi order that a presenter on the Islam Channel had previously criticized.146 For such reasons, therefore, ‘Islam Channel News’ becomes an important programme to monitor to assess the impact it may have on British Muslim communities.
145 Miles, Hugh. ‘Two Faces of One of Islam’s Most Important Clerics’, The Telegraph, 20 July 2005,
64 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
Chapter Five: Supporting Extremism
The gravest concern regarding the Islam Channel is its failure in combating extremism. A number of presenters with extremist tendencies were regularly given the opportunity to air their opinions on the network without a challenge or counter narrative from more moderate Islamic voices. Along with programmes that encouraged or aired extreme views, many adverts were also seen during the period that the channel was monitored which promoted the works of extremist preachers, with a notable example being Anwar al-Awlaki.147 To make matters worse radical Islamist organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, and controversial preachers such as Abu Usama at-Thahabi,148 are even given slots on the Islam Channel to host and produce programmes. Despite the fact that such organisations and preachers had recently been publicly exposed for their sectarian, homophobic views, the Islam Channel still permitted them to host programmes and deliver presentations on the network. Although in a perfect position to portray a moderate image of Islam that is comfortable in Britain and provide a platform for people to counter extremists, the Islam Channel therefore consistently allows space for extreme interpretations and views on its network, giving undue prominence to fringe minority organisations within Muslim communities whilst sidelining more moderate voices.
147 Anwar al-Awlaki is an American born imam who reportedly has close links to al-Qaeda. His sermons were attended by at least three of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan. He is currently in hiding in Yemen and is wanted by the Yemeni authorities for his close ties to al-Qaeda. 148 Abu Usama at Thahabi is an American born imam for the Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham. In 2007 he courted controversy on the Channel 4 programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ for a variety of statements that he made.
65 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
Providing a Platform for Extremism
Hizb ut-Tahrir
‘Muslimah Dilemma’ featuring Nazreen Nawaz.
A clear example of the extreme views and personnel that were sanctioned to appear on the Islam Channel can be found in the weekly programme ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, which is produced and hosted by members of the extreme Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir [Party of Liberation]. The vast majority of guests invited onto the show, according to our analysis, are also members of this group whilst topics addressed on the programme frequently cover concepts that are central to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s [HT] key ideology, creating the impression that they are a mainstream movement rather than a fringe organisation. Despite being banned by the majority of mosques in the UK and the National Union of Students (NUS) from holding events on their premises, the Islam Channel has allowed HT to use their services to promote their hatred of British society to a significant proportion of the Muslim population in Britain; an opportunity that would not exist without the platform provided by the channel.
The most troubling aspect of this is the fact that in many instances members of the organisation have hidden their political affiliations whilst appearing on the programme in an attempt to disguise the fact that they were addressing viewers as members of an extremist movement, as was the case in late August when the wife of a senior HT activist, Blerina Harwood (wife of Jamal Harwood, a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Executive Committee) was introduced on the show as an interpreter rather than as an affiliate of
66 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
FACT BOX
Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist, Islamist organisation that calls for violent revolution in Muslim-majority countries and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic state - what the party refers to as the ‘Khilafah’. The group is banned in most Muslim- majority countries and has recently been banned in Denmark and Germany due to the use of anti-Semitic literature. In 2005 the then Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to ban the organisation, and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling has also pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir if the Conservatives win the next General Election.149
An episode of ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, featuring Anila Malik [left] and Blerina Harwood [right], an affiliate of Hizb ut-Tahrir. the movement.150 Such concealment allows members of HT to wield significant ideological influence over Islam Channel viewers without their knowledge. Viewers are thus discreetly fed the group’s ideology and are advised to, for example, believe that “equality and justice, according to Islam, cannot be established unless we have all the Islamic laws”,151 and to
149 Grayling, Chris. ‘A No Nonsense Approach to Crime and Disorder’, Conservative Home, 7 October 2009,
67 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
consider notions such as freedom, liberty, democracy and capitalism to be dangerous, while at the same time detesting western society and advocating what the party refers to as ‘the Islamic system’ as the answer to all the world’s ills. These are all ideas that are central to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology and were regularly propagated on their weekly programme by both presenters and guests:
“... Living in the west we see some of the fruits of this idea of liberty and this idea of freedom, where people are free to have any relationship they want to. I believe that it has caused a lot of problems in the social structure... the cocktail between capitalism and freedom, I think, is a lethal one where even women’s bodies have been given a price tag... when [we] look at man-made laws, when [we] look at democracies and the parliamentary system, [we] feel at the mercy of whoever is in government, especially if you look at our countries today”.152
“...We have Saudi Arabia that is a monarchy - a kingship - where the king is above the law. He can choose whether he abides by the law, [or whether] he changes the law. This is not the case in the Islamic system, because in the Islamic system you have an elected ruler who has to be by the law, who has to live by the law, who is not above the law. You have examples of theocracies, examples of secular dictatorships - these structures of ruling have no association with the Islamic texts at all. Those people who have studied the Islamic texts can see...”153
The programme is therefore clearly used by the organisation for spreading propaganda and for ideological purposes as every social ill is blamed on the lack of what the organisation refers to as the ‘Islamic political system’, whilst on the other hand western political systems are routinely attacked and referred to as failures and harmful to Muslims. Furthermore, other political ideologies are dismissed as ‘un-Islamic’ due to the organisation’s insistence on representing Islam as a revolutionary political ideology that is superior to all others:
“...over the last 80 to 90 years women in the Muslim world have experienced almost every system under the sun. From Arab nationalism, to communism, to socialism, to theocracy, to secular democracies to military dictatorships. And each of these systems, regardless of what colour, of what shade, have failed to deliver”.154
A typical tactic that is used on the show is to begin addressing problematic issues that have been popularly reported in the media throughout the week, and then introduce their own ‘solution’ to these problems that tend to involve propagation of Islamist ambitions. So, for example, recent troubles in Afghanistan are legitimised by the organisation on the programme and blamed on the implementation of ‘western’ political systems and culture on the country, while at the same time the creation of a totalitarian worldwide Islamist state - what the organisation refers to as the ‘Khilafah system’, is presented as the solution
152 Nawaz, Nazreen, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 4 October 2009,
68 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
to Afghanistan’s problems. The predicaments that many Muslim-majority countries are facing are also blamed on the fact that they have not adopted the Islamist ideology:
“... Because all of the laws of Islam are not implemented, you have a bit of Islam, a bit of this, a bit of that, that is why you do not have a stable situation in Afghanistan”.155
Muslim-majority countries are also routinely attacked on the programme for their ‘selective’ implementation of shari’ah. This again is another recruitment tactic that the movement uses in an attempt to foster revolution in Muslim-majority countries and implement HT’s version of shari’ah:
“...If you talk to the majority of Muslims in Britain and globally, when they look at these states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh - the list goes on - Indonesia, the Arab world - many Muslims understand that these states do not represent the comprehensive implementation of the shari’ah laws. They represent selective implementation and even that selective implementation is distorted...”156
On more than one occasion female viewers have even been told that it is their Islamic duty to join Islamist organisations such as HT and work towards bringing about the creation of this Islamic State since the current political set-up in Britain is anti-Islamic and it is forbidden for Muslims to partake in. This is a clear example of the means through which this particular programme can be used as a recruitment tool by the movement; a dangerous precedent given the large number of viewers the programme reaches:
“... Women should be involved in politics and the mechanisms of an Islamic system, the Islamic State, or what we are working for as Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic khilafah state...”157
“... It is the system which is at fault in our countries, which needs to be looked at, and as Muslim women in Britain...we need to support this work [bringing about the Islamic state] in the Muslim world”.158
‘Muslimah Dilemma’ has also been used by HT to propagate its message that Islam and Muslims are under attack from the West, which once again is a typical tactic that the organisation uses in order to incite hatred against Britain and recruit Muslims to their organisation. For example, during a discussion on the niqab in October 2009 it was argued by guests on the programme that western governments were engaged in a sustained, divisive attack on Islam that had manifested itself in the banning of Islamic clothing; a view that is also propagated by violent Islamist groups like al-Qaeda and is surprising to hear on a supposed ‘mainstream’ network such as the Islam Channel. Such views were not challenged by the presenter on ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ and are dangerous since they
155 Durrani, Aamna, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 12 April 2009,
69 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
feed into the victim-hood mentality that causes a great deal of alienation within Muslim communities, creating the impression that there exists a war between Islam and the West and thus increasing the likelihood of Islamist radicalisation amongst Muslims:
“... There is a deliberate attempt by politicians, by scholars now we can see, to politicise an issue which is really to discredit Muslims, to divide Muslims, to make Muslims fall into particular camps, to make Muslims feel that they need to justify their position as to why they wear the niqab...”159
“... We can see that there is a deliberate attempt by some quarters, some quarters of the media, some scholars, some people within the government, to deliberately bring about some discussion about Islam which is very underhand... this is not really a discussion about the niqab. We can see that this is a discussion about the way that Islam is being treated and how it is under the microscope and how every single aspect of it is being, basically just torn apart”.160
An episode of ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, featuring Ibtihal Ismail [left] and Nazreen Nawaz [right], who are both members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst of Muslim Studies at Gallup, on the phone.
159 Pervin, Sultana, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 11 October 2009,
70 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
An episode of ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ featuring Nazreen Nawaz, the Women’s Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Perhaps the most telling example of the ways that ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ can be used as a propaganda and recruitment outlet for HT, and a platform for them to spread their extremist ideology and incite anti-western sentiment, can be seen during an episode broadcast in October 2009, which courted a large amount of international controversy. The programme was hosted by two leading female members of HT, Ibtihal Bsis Ismail and Nazreen Nawaz, the organisation’s media representative, and featured Dalia Mogahed, one of President Barack Obama’s faith advisors, as a special guest. Although Mogahed claimed that she was unaware of the political affiliations of the presenters of the programme and later stated that she did not agree with their ideology, the two HT members were able to effectively paint the picture that Mogahed supported the objectives of the Islamist organisation and that their beliefs, such as the rejection of western culture and the popularity of an Islamist revolution in Muslim-majority countries, were in line with Mogahed’s opinions, when in fact this was not the case:
Dalia Mogahed “...When we asked people what Muslims can do to help themselves, one of the most frequent responses is for them to unify and another is for them to follow Islam and make it a greater more authentic part of their lives”.
Ibtihal Bsis Ismail: Ok well, not too far from what you [Nazreen Nawaz] were saying but you are getting into the nitty gritty of it.
71 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
Nasreen Nawaz: I think this is the issue of what is the most pressing issue for Muslim women in the Muslim world. And I think the survey said the lack of unity between the Muslim countries - that they need to be more unified...”161
And according to Nawaz’s characterisation of Mogahed’s surveys:
“...Muslims are calling for a change, I think, of governance - this is the thing - of governance, of government, of structures of government, which they’ve been lacking for decades now. And they are looking for a system that is independent, that doesn’t rely on the West for money, for ideas, that can organize itself, that can lead the world in technology, in medicine. This is the kind of system that it is looking for and I think the Khilafah state makes these things a priority, not something which is second”.162
It is clear the such rhetoric is particularly dangerous when one analyses what HT as a movement mean when they call for more ‘unity’ amongst Muslim countries. According to a document written by HT’s second global leader, Abdul Qadeem Zallum, such unity had to be achieved ‘even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers’.163 The fact that a group with beliefs such as these are given access to Mogahed, and are successfully able to spin Mogahed’s findings to suit their own ideological agenda, indicates the danger that the Islam Channel finds itself in through its promotion of HT.
This particular episode was therefore understandably used by HT to advance many of their ideological beliefs and assertions due to the fact that it featured such a high profile guest; to the extent that one of the members attempted to use the programme to explain, in great detail, what an Islamic State under the leadership of HT would look like and why it was essential for women in particular to support the creation of such a state:
“... When people talk about a Khilafah state, it is not a theocracy; it is not a state where religious rulers make the laws. It is a state where the authority is in the hands of the people, where the people elect their ruler and hold him accountable. There are mechanisms of the state... for example, you have political parties underneath an Islamic Khilafah state. This is all defined by the Islamic state - this is all defined by the Islamic texts. You have political parties where women again are encouraged to be a part of. You have a mechanism called the majlis al-ummah, which is the consultative body that holds the ruler to account and advises the ruler. You have the Qadi Madalim, the court of unjust acts, where a woman can directly account the rulers of her society. These are some examples of the issue of governance and the principles of governance in Islam”.164
161 Nawaz, Nazreen, ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 4th October 2009.
72 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
These views were given a great deal of legitimacy due to the fact that Mogahed was unable to counter their narrative and, consequently, her mere presence implied support for their views. For example, the two HT members were able to make controversial statements, such as the affirmation that women were incompetent and unable to rule a country and that the ‘Khilafah system’ was the only solution for Muslim majority countries, without a rebuttal from Mogahed and thus the implication that her research concurred with such views:
“... There is evidence from Islam that says that the Muslim woman cannot be a ruler of a state, yeah. So this is from the Islamic text. In terms of this is wrong. The reality is we have had countries today in the Muslim world, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, in Indonesia, [where] you’ve had women leaders who have brought very little in terms of the lives and the standards of living of women in those countries”.165
“...Many people - including the organisation that I am working with, HT [Hizb ut-Tahrir] - are calling for a real alternative, and that alternative we are calling for, the Islamic Khilafah state - the West call it a Caliphate state - this is a state that is based upon specific principles and has a historic precedence of working - 1300 years - of working and at those times when Islamic governance was intertwined with state, those were the golden years of Islam”.166
The fact that HT were able to propagate these ideas on a platform with a prominent guest such as Mogahed, and then claim that Mogahed supported their ideology, is a clear indication of the risks posed when outlets such as the Islam Channel provide a platform for extremist organisations and afford them the links to prestigious politicians and public figures. A video of the show was put on the HT website a day after the programme was broadcast under the title of ‘What Do Muslim Women Want in the Muslim World’, and it was quickly represented as a major coup for the organisation to have a famous academic, who is an advisor to President Obama, backing up their claims on air and sharing a platform with a leading member of their group. Despite the fact that Mogahed later claimed that she was unaware of the extremist affiliations of the presenters of the show, and argued that had she known she would not have participated in the programme,167 the damage had already been done. The blame for this can be squarely laid at the door of the Islam Channel, who gave HT a weekly programme in the first place and subsequently legitimised its dangerous ideology.
165 Nawaz, Nazreen. ‘Muslimah Dilemma’, Islam Channel, 4th October 2009,
73 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
FACT BOX
Anwar al-Awlaki is believed to be an al-Qaeda affiliated theoretician who has had links to three of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan, who he recently praised.168 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged Detroit attempted bomber, has stated that Awlaki was one of his motivators in the attack.169 Amongst Awlaki’s publications include ‘44 Ways to Support Jihad’, in which he argues that ‘hatred of the kuffar [non-Muslims] is a central element of [a Muslims ] military creed’.170 The cleric is currently in hiding in Yemen where he is wanted by the Yemeni authorities for his close ties to al-Qaeda.
Controversial Preachers on the Islam Channel
Anwar al-Awlaki
An advertisement on the Islam Channel promoting the DVD collection of Anwar al-Awlaki
168 Murphy, Dan, ‘Fort Hood Shooting: Was Nidal Malik Hasan Inspired by Militant Cleric?’, Christian Science Monitor, 10 November 2009,
74 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
An advertisement on the Islam Channel promoting the DVD collection of Anwar al-Awlaki
Throughout 2009 the channel also promoted the speeches of extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is known to have had links with two of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 soldiers in 2009. Awlaki’s DVDs were advertised a number of times under the company name Al Qadimoon,171 and at least two events at which the preacher was due to speak via video link were also advertised on the channel.172 Despite the fact that the DVDs and events were based on the life of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and his companions, it still remains dangerous that a key al-Qaeda ideologue has had his speeches advertised on a prominent network thus giving him legitimacy and painting the extremist preacher as a mainstream Islamic voice.
Promotion of Awlaki through advertisements were, again, not an isolated incident on the Islam Channel as sermons by the same preacher, on topics titled ‘Stop Police Terror’, ‘Brutality Towards Muslims’ and ‘It’s a War Against Islam’ were also made available on the Islam Channel’s website. Despite the fact that Awlaki had been publicly exposed last year as having links to Al-Qaeda and other extremists, up until mid-January 2010 these sermons were downloadable free of charge on the Islam Channel website. In these sermons Awlaki
171 ‘Advert: Umar ibn Al-Kattaab with Imam Anwar Al-Awlaqi’, Islam Channel,
75 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
advises Muslims to, amongst other things, stop ‘doing nothing’ when Muslim lands are invaded and be united in the face of the West, which he refers to as ‘the enemy’:
“.... We are watching one Muslim nation fall after another. And we are watching, sitting back, doing nothing. When Palestine was taken, we did nothing. And then one nation after another is entering into problems - we have Kashmir, we have Chechnya, the Muslims in the Philippines. And now we have Iraq. And the Ummah is doing nothing. The Ummah is watching as Iraq is being devoured. It’s not going to end there... only Allah knows who is next... when we allow a Muslim nation to fall down”.173
In another previously downloadable clip available on the Islam Channel website it is argued that Muslims were prohibited from working with the British police even if one suspected a fellow Muslim to be planning a terrorist attack because, it is argued, the security forces were anti-Muslim and would come after ordinary Muslims next. Awlaki uses the analogy of a white cow that is betrayed by his fellow cows and subsequently eaten by a wolf to describe Muslims who hand over other Muslims to the police:
“.... A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not oppress him and he does not hand him over. You don’t hand over a Muslim to the enemies of Allah... they [the other cows] thought that by doing that they were securing themselves. They thought they would be safe if they handed over this white cow. This white cow was outspoken, it was causing a lot of trouble, it was accused of being a terrorist. “So let him go, we don’t want anything to do with him. Let him go to jail”. The thing that they didn’t realise was that they will be next. You will be next in line”. 174
Perhaps the most astonishing segment of the clips that were made available on the Islam Channel website can be found in one sermon by Awlaki on the perceived mistreatment that Muslims face around the world, which the preacher blames on Jewish people. He then goes on to argue that Jewish people share a permanent animosity towards Muslims; a startling claim that is presented on the website of a channel that purports to show a positive picture of Islam to non-Muslims and aims to promote greater national cohesion in Britain:
“... By wickedness, they [Jews] plotted to kill RasoolAllah (saw) more than once. And every time Allah (swt) will expose their plans. The one who tried to mobilise the Arabian tribes into fighting Muhammed (saw) and the one who was the dynamo and the mover of the coalition of Al-Zahad was a Yahudi [Jew]... if you look today in America, which is a Christian nation, and you see who are the ones who are leading the onslaught against the Muslims in this country, you can go through the names and look at their origins; Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis - and the list goes on and on. The tolerance that we have been treating the people of the book, the Yahudi, this is the reciprocal relationship
173 Awlaki, Anwar al. ‘Stop Police Brutality’,
76 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
we get from them. And now we are seeing how they are treating us in Palestine... this is the hatred they conceal in their mouths...“175
It was only after ‘The Observer’ had exposed these dangerous and anti-Semitic clips and put pressure on the Islam Channel for promoting an al-Qaeda inspired preacher that they were subsequently taken down and unavailable to download, with the channel claiming that it was unaware that their site had provided the links to Awlaki’s sermons.176 However, the negligence in allowing a well-known extremist preacher to be broadcast, promoted and even downloaded (free of charge) on their network is indicative of the ambivalent and irresponsible stance the Islam Channel has taken towards tackling extremism.
Abu Usama at-Thahabi
An episode of ‘The Sunnah, The Better’, a religious programme on the Islam Channel on the life of the Prophet Muhammed, hosted by Abu Usamah at-Thahabi.
Awlaki was not the only case of the Islam Channel providing a platform for extremist preachers. An additional example is Abu Usama at-Thahabi, an American born-preacher and imam at the Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham, who attracted a large amount of public controversy back in 2007 when he appeared on the Channel Four programme ‘Undercover
175 Al-Awlaki, Anwar, ‘Brutality towards Muslims’,
77 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
Mosque’ sanctioning violence against homosexuals and non-Muslims, praising Osama bin Laden and labelling women ‘deficient’ in their intellect.177 At-Thahabi later argued that his words had been taken out of context, and his case was taken up by West Midlands Police who also accused the documentary of taking at-Thahabi’s statements out of context. The police were later successfully sued by the makers of the documentary for libel.178 Despite this controversy, at-Thahabi continues to host a weekly programme on the Islam Channel called ‘The Sunnah, The Better’ - a Wahhabi inspired show that claims to ‘educate Muslim viewers about the importance of following the Sunnah [tradition]’ of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).179
Abdul Majid Ali Hasan
An episode of ‘IslamiQA’ hosted by Abdul Majid Ali Hasan.
Another preacher who has attracted controversy recently and yet remains a permanent fixture on the Islam Channel is Abdul Majid Ali Hasan, an imam from Luton. Videos of some of his lectures appeared on the internet in 2009 where he calls on Muslims to ‘wake up’ to prevent the ‘kuffar’ [non-Muslims] from humiliating Muslims further, arguing that recent
177 ‘Undercover Mosque’, Channel 4, 2007. 178 ‘Police Sued over Mosque Programme’, BBC News, 28 February 2008,
78 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
events in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine were all ‘punishments’ from God for Muslims who are more interested in material benefits than ‘fighting in the cause of Allah’:
“... Your wealth, your business, and your houses, your dwellings, if they are more beloved to you than Allah and fighting in his cause, then wait for Allah’s punishment to come. And Allah’s punishment came to us in Spain, Allah’s punishment came to us in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Allah’s punishment came to us in Kashmir, Allah’s punishment came to us in Afghanistan, Allah’s punishment came to us in Iraq, Allah’s punishment came to us in Palestine.... It is not because these kuffar are powerful. As I said, the match, heavyweight and lightweight [sic]. It’s not these kuffar - don’t ever think that these kuffar are supported and helped by Allah. They can’t do anything to Muslims! They can’t do anything to the Muslims. Allah is there with us all the time, but we are turning Allah away from us...”180
Despite these known statements, Majid is given a weekly slot on ‘IslamiQA’, the Islam Channel’s most popular programme, and is responsible for a large amount of anti-Shi’ah and anti-Sufi sentiment on the channel that has been documented earlier. Abdul Majid states on his personal website that he had previously left the Islam Channel for ‘personal reasons’, which included his opposition to the channels use of what he called ‘Haram ads [adverts]’, the use of music on the network and the ‘free mixing of men and women’. Furthermore, he also stated that he had previously left the channel because Sufi Shaykhs, such as Dr. Tahir ul Qadri, used to be promoted on the channel. He was only forced to return to presenting on the channel due to pressure from his students:
“I decided to leave this channel because there were some haram ads, music and mixing of women were shown. Also ads of Dr. Tahir ul Qadri and some others like him [Sufis] were promoted...”181
Adverts
Another example of the ways in which the Islam Channel has provided an outlet for extremist views is evident in many of the speeches and sermons that are advertised on the network. For example, during the month of Ramadan, 2009, the Islam Channel broadcast an ‘Interpal Appeal’ for Gaza that included a prayer in Arabic that was translated into English, mixed in with images of the war in Gaza. The video of the prayer featured graphic visual images of decomposed bodies (including a horrifying picture of a dead baby), glorified Palestinian fighters and called for God to ‘smash’ the ‘enemies of Islam’, against the backdrop of an image of the flag of Israel. The implication was that Israel was an ‘enemy’ of Islam that needed to be destroyed:
180 Majid, Abdul, ‘End of Time’, East London Mosque, 1 January 2009.
79 Supporting Extremism Re-Programming British Muslims
“...Oh Allah, strengthen Islam and the Muslims,
And disgrace Shirk and the Mushrikeen [polytheists],
And smash the enemies of this faith,
And protect the unity of Islam and Unite Muslims, O Lord of this World,
O Allah, rescue the weak among Muslims everywhere,
O Allah, better the conditions of Muslims in Palestine and Iraq and everywhere,
O Allah, spread benevolence between their hearts,
And guide them to the roads of peace,
And guide them from darkness into the light...“182
The Islam Channel has thus failed in tackling and preventing the promotion of extremism as known extremist preachers have been promoted on the show and, in the case of Hizb ut- Tahrir, an extreme Islamist organisation has even been allowed to host and produce a weekly programme. Furthermore, a number of extracts of videos have been shown on the channel and its website that could be interpreted as inciting violence against certain members of society, in particular downloadable clips of the extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. For a network that has prided itself on ‘conveying Islam in its true form to curious Muslims and non-Muslims alike’,183 this is a dangerous precedent. One would have expected the channel to use its position and influence amongst British Muslims to vehemently counter the extremist narrative at every opportunity, particularly when the potential numbers of Muslims that the channel has access to is considered. The channel, however, has done the complete opposite through the platform it has provided to extremist organisations and individuals, which in turn does no favours to confused Muslims unsure of their place in British society and the views they should hold of their non-Muslim neighbours. Through constantly presenting the narrative that Islam is under attack, that Muslims should separate themselves from western society and that liberal democratic values should be despised, it could be argued that the Islam Channel has inadvertently aided extremism in Britain.
182 ‘Interpal Appeal’, Islam Channel, 11 September 2009,
80 Re-Programming British Muslims Supporting Extremism
A selection of clips taken from an ‘Interpal Appeal’ on the Islam Channel seeking to raise funds for Palestinians in Gaza.
81 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
Chapter Six: Ofcom Regulations
In July, 2007, the Islam Channel was fined a total of £30,000 by the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the independent media regulator, for breaching a number of its broadcasting codes. This included the use of a number of local election candidates as presenters of programmes during an election period, the promotion of a mayoral candidate without equal representation of other candidates, and the lack of a ‘wide range of significant views’ when ‘dealing with matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy’.184 Such incidents were not isolated in nature as the severity of the fine was based on the fact that the Islam Channel had previously been issued ‘warnings and guidance’ about its conduct by Ofcom, to such an extent that it was forced to undergo a ‘special compliance workshop’ in April 2006 to ensure that it did not flout Ofcom regulations in the future. These offences occurred despite the Islam Channel ‘having been given special assistance and training to a degree not generally provided to Licensees’, and resulted in the channel being accused of showing a ‘reckless disregard for the important rules of the code’ and warned about its future conduct.185
This chapter will assess the compliance procedures that the Islam Channel has now put in place to guarantee that contraventions of Ofcom regulations do not continue to occur. What this analysis will show is that, despite continued warnings from Ofcom, the Islam Channel continues to ignore a number of broadcasting codes, particularly those pertaining to the impartial reporting of controversial topics. Furthermore the channel, whilst attempting to remedy some of its past mistakes through cancelling specific programmes and presenters, continues to use presenters with strong political affiliations that may influence the tone of a programme, with members of the Respect Party and the Socialist Workers Party gaining a great deal of exposure on the channel at the expense of other political parties. Such practice becomes even more problematic in instances where these political affiliations are not made clear throughout a programme. As will be shown below, such offences deserve to be taken seriously by Ofcom.
Below are a number of listed examples of the ways in which the Islam Channel may have contravened Ofcom regulations:
‘Muslimah Dilemma’ - September, October and November 2009
On many occasions ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ has been hosted by Ibtihal Bsis Ismail, a member of the extremist Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir. On every occasion Ismail appeared on the show her political affiliations were not mentioned, even though she has on many occasions used the programme to advocate and propagate Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology. The clearest example of this occurred on Sunday 4 October, in which the programme featured Dalia Mogahed, who in April 2009 was appointed by President Obama to serve on the US advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, as one of its guests. Dalia was, however, not informed of the political affiliations of the other people of the show.
184 ‘Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee’, Islam Channel, 31 July 2007,
82 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
7.3 Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme (except when the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor) they should normally, at an appropriate stage:
• be told the nature and purpose of the programme, what the programme is about and be given a clear explanation of why they were asked to contribute and when (if known) and where it is likely to be first broadcast;
• be told what kind of contribution they are expected to make, for example live, pre- recorded, interview, discussion, edited, unedited, etc;
• be informed about the areas of questioning and, wherever possible, the nature of other likely contributions;
• be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and which might cause material unfairness;
• be told the nature of their contractual rights and obligations and those of the programme maker and broadcaster in relation to their contribution; and
• be given clear information, if offered an opportunity to preview the programme, about whether they will be able to effect any changes to it.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.
‘Politics and Media’ and ‘Islam Channel News’ - 19 October 2009:
On 19 October 2009, ‘Politics and Media’ covered a report in The Guardian regarding the British Government’s PREVENT programme. The article made a number of claims, later refuted by the Government, which implied that PREVENT was being used to ‘spy’ on Muslims. The day after the programme was aired ‘Islam Channel News’ also reported on the issue. During these two programmes allegations were made that suggested that Quilliam was supportive of a policy of spying on Muslims, and an interview that Quilliam co-Director Ed Husain had given to The Guardian was also featured on both shows. Quilliam was not, however, invited onto either programme to explain their position on the issue
83 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
of PREVENT being used to ‘spy’ on Muslims despite issuing a press release that sought to explain their position and refute the allegation that they encouraged discriminatory surveillance on Muslims, and despite the fact that a large proportion of the programme was dedicated to discussing Quilliam’s stance on the issue.
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
7.1 Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.
7.8 Broadcasters should ensure that the re-use of material, i.e. use of material originally filmed or recorded for one purpose and then used in a programme for another purpose or used in a later or different programme, does not create unfairness. This applies both to material obtained from others and the broadcaster’s own material.
7.9 Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that:
• material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation; and
• anyone whose omission could be unfair to an individual or organisation has been offered an opportunity to contribute.
7.11 If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.
‘Politics and Media’ - 29 October 2009:
The programme discussed the current war in Afghanistan and whether British troops should be brought ‘back home’. The title of the show was: ‘British troops in Afghanistan: What Price?’ The presenter of the programme was Salma Yaqoob, the leader of the Respect Party, with guests including Tony Benn, a member of the ‘Stop the War Coalition’, Andrew Burgin, a member of ‘Military Families against the War’, Chris Nineham, National Secretary for the ‘Stop the War Coalition’, and Murtaza Ali Shah, a Pakistani journalist. The majority of guests on the show were from closely allied political movements (Respect and the Stop the War coalition), were anti-war and wanted coalition troops to be removed from Afghanistan immediately.
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations;
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
84 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
‘Politics and Beyond’ - 30 September and 16 October 2009
‘Politics and Beyond’ is a weekly programme hosted by Anas al Tikriti, who is a member and former president of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), an organization which has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and also the President and founder of the Cordoba Foundation. A number of episodes of ‘Politics and Beyond’ were therefore based on the Israel - Palestine conflict and were consequently highly biased. For example, during an episode on the recent Goldstone report into alleged war crimes committed by the Israeli army during the recent war in Gaza, only pro-Palestinian guests were invited onto the show, including Duad Abdullah (Muslim Council of Britain), Sarah Colborne (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), Ismail Patel (friends of Al Aqsa) and Frederick Abraham (Human Rights Watch).186 All parties were not only pro-Palestinian but closely allied with one another, thereby leading to the agreement of a number of controversial personal opinions that were presented as facts, including a defence of Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation:
Personal Opinions Presented as Facts
Ismail Patel - “Well on Sunday the 27th settlers, or Jewish extremists, tried to storm Masjid Al-Aqsa, and of course the Palestinians put up a resistance. However what appeared was the Israeli army and the police were protecting the extremists and started firing upon the Palestinians. And really this was really outrageous that the people that were trying to defend the Masjid were being under attack from the Israeli army and the police. And this has really alarmed us because this is the first time that something as drastic as this has taken place. And I think the Muslim community needs to be alert and aware of the facts on the ground...”
“... According to the Jewish calendar this coincides with the 9th AV which they believe is the day their Temple was destroyed... so this is a day they try to rebuild the temple. So it’s a symbolic gesture. But it is no longer symbolic in that sense because now they are very serious about demolishing Masjid Al-Aqsa and re-building a synagogue there. This seriousness really needs to be considered in the light of the Israeli government’s defence of the settlers and the extremists”.187
186 ‘Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 30 September 2009. 187 Patel, Ismail, ‘Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 30 September 2009
85 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
Defence of Hamas
Daud Abdullah - “... Gaza, in international law, is occupied territory. Israel exerts effective control over its borders, airspace and territorial waters. And because of this in international law it is an occupying power. And the Gaza territory is occupied. Now what does this mean? It means that the people who are subjected to military occupation are entitled to resist by whatever means possible to free themselves from such occupation. As the French had done when the Nazis were occupying their lands, their countries in the 1940s. So you cannot, the report does this. And this of course confirms what his (Goldstone) daughter Nicole said, that he is soft on the Israelis. But having said that it is also important to acknowledge that whereas Hamas co-operated, or the authorities in Gaza co-operated with the inquiry, the Israelis did not”.188
“... There is no evidence that Hamas deliberately set out to attack the civilian centres. On the other hand, there was ample evidence that Israel, you know, that the attack was planned, deliberate, and it was indiscriminate... there was an element of intent which the report, of course, distinguishes between Hamas and the Israeli government. In the case of the latter, there was a clear, identifiable attempt to attack civilian centres and in the case of Sderot and the settlements in the South of Israel that was not the case”.189
Although people are free to have their own particular views on this matter, it is important for a television station to have a certain degree of balance as required by Ofcom regulations. The fact that identical sentiments were found on the same programme during an episode on 16 October 2009, in which the topic of the show was the attempted prosecution of Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak, therefore becomes problematic. Guests on this episode included Andrew Slaughter, a pro Palestinian Labour MP and member of the Labour Friends of Palestine, and Michel Massih, the QC who was responsible for attempting to get Ehud Barack arrested in the UK. In one section of the show both Tikriti and one of the lawyers, Daniel Machover (Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights), imply that it is only natural, and therefore acceptable, if Palestinians used violence against Israelis since international law was not protecting them:
Machover - “... This long term hypocrisy, there is going to be political ramifications for that because then we are going to find it much more difficult to deal with cases where there is a political will to deal with them. And so, there is a backlash happening. And it is very dangerous. So - this needs to be understood politically and legally. And what we also need to remember, of course, is if victims are shown that in fact there isn’t justice. If victims who are trying to use non-aggressive methods, non military methods, to resolve their problems, like going to court, are told well the courts are not there for you. You are shut out. What message does that send to the families in Gaza that were involved in the case...?
Tikriti - “... What options does it leave them with?
188 Abdullah, Dr Daud, ‘Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 30 September 2009,
86 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
Machover - “And what’s the message that goes out to them? It is going to feed into the violence in the region. And again, very politically short sighted to not realise what you’re doing if you’re shutting victims out of court. You’re sending them the other way. And you know who can blame them, really, if they say well, non-violent means don’t seem to work, what is left for us? It is very dangerous”.190
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service... in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
190 Machover, Daniel, ’Politics and Beyond’, Islam Channel, 16 October 2009,
87 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
‘22 Day War: the Untold Story ’, a historical programme on the Islam Channel on the Gaza Conflict, 2009.
‘22 Day War: the Untold Story ’, a historical programme on the Islam Channel on the Gaza Conflict, 2009. 88 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
‘22 day war - Untold Story’ - October 2009
This programme showed extremely graphic images of the conflict in Gaza, including dismembered and decomposed bodies. In a topic as controversial as the Israel-Palestine conflict the programme makes no attempt to fulfil its legal commitment to objective reporting. For example, when describing Israeli attacks on the Islamic University of Gaza, the narrator makes the claim that the university was targeted on purpose by the Israelis to prevent Palestinians from gaining an education. Furthermore, Palestinian fighters were referred to as shaheeds [martyrs],191 Israeli politicians were accused of ‘lying’ without being given the opportunity to respond and the presenter of the programme, Sameh Habeeb, is the Editor of the Palestinian Telegraph Newspaper, a fact that was not made explicitly evident within the programme. Harsh criticisms of Israel were made throughout the programme with no reference to the Israeli government’s side of the story:
“... There was an attack on that university, and there was a media attack saying that university is being used to manufacture rockets and it wasn’t, the Israelis [inaudible] said this. The reason behind hitting the university was it was a very distinctive and good educational centre which the Israelis did not like, so they have hit it”.192
“... It was simply a war against civilians not a war against militants. They were doing the same as what they have done when they have established their country of Israel on the ruin of Palestinians. There was a woman who discovered that her son was killed... when she saw his photo with the other shaheeds [martyrs] photo in the area, she never knew that he was killed until she saw his photo on the wall”.193
“... Israeli politicians started to speak on the media, and after they have failed in achieving many of their goals they have started to speak about the tunnels, and ‘there must be international forces in Gaza to bring security to Israel and to prevent smuggling weapons from Egypt to Gaza’. Which was a big lie. The tunnels were only used for smuggling food from Egypt, because simply the Israelis were closing all border points...”194
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.
191 ’22 Day War: The Untold Story’, Islam Channel, September,
89 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.
5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signaled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above)in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
‘Return to Palestine’ - 8 September 2009
In a similar vein to ‘22 Day War: Untold Story’, this programme also deals with the Israel-Palestine conflict in a prejudiced manner. Many views of the presenter are also misrepresented as facts, whilst the Israeli government’s side of the story remained absent. For example, when discussion turns to Israeli security walls in Jerusalem the presenter tells us that they cause Muslim communities to be divided and to be “severed off, like lifeless limbs”.195
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations;
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service... This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
195 ‘Return to Palestine’, Islam Channel, 8 September 2009. [Clip Not Available]
90 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
‘Beloved Al-Aqsa’ - 31 October 2009
Hosted by Abdullah Marouf, ‘Beloved Al-Aqsa’ attempts to detail the history of the Al- Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Once again, however, the programme features a number of the presenters personal opinions represented as facts:
“...the British army, the British Mandate tried to give more and more for the Zionists and because of that let’s see here we can see how did they, in this picture we can see how did they siege Jerusalem many times. And not only that. In [sic] the 2nd of November 1917 a declaration was given to the Zionist movement by Balfour, the British Prime Minister [sic] at the time. And unfortunately in this declaration he gave a promise for the Zionists to give them Palestine in order to establish a state for them, unfortunately. And from that time the Zionists started to work in order to take this country, or this land, unfortunately...“196
“... At the beginning of the 20th century another king came who was Abdul Hamid II... now we know that historically Abdul Hamid II was well known for his patient and very strong resistance against Zionist trial to take Jerusalem from when he was Caliph at that time...”197
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service...in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
196 ‘Marouf, Abdullah, ‘Beloved Al Aqsa’, Islam Channel, 31 August 2009,
91 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
‘Bethlehem: Hidden from view’ - September 2009
This particular programme reports on the current situation in Bethlehem. Whilst it makes similar offences to other political programmes on the Islam Channel, the programme is even more significant due to the method in which people are represented. For example one of the shows guests, Yehuda Shaul, is the co-Founder of ‘Breaking the Silence’, an organisation of veteran Israeli soldiers which conducts tours of the West Bank and documents possible human rights violations perpetrated against Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army in the area. Shaul is initially referred to as an ‘Orthodox Israeli Jew’ by the narrator and a ‘former IDF soldier’, with no references to his current role and occupation. Although he is later referred to as ‘the co-Founder of ‘Breaking the Silence’, this occurs some time after he is introduced to the viewer. Furthermore, some of his personal views are again misrepresented and treated as facts, whilst once again all the opinions featured on the programme were anti-Israeli without due impartiality:
“... While we are sitting here, with this beautiful view, there are at least three different IDF patrols that are invading randomly Palestinian houses in Hebron. These are not houses of wanted terrorists. These are not houses of people that we have intelligence of. No. These are random houses. The idea is to make our presence felt. A lot of what the IDF does is to make our presence felt. Military logic says that if the Palestinians will get the feeling that the IDF is all the time everywhere then they would be afraid to attack. So what do you do to make your presence felt? You’ll start your nightshift patrol from 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock. Bump into one house in one corner of the old city. Wake up the family. Men there. Women there. You know. Search the house. Go out to the street, shoot to the hills. Throw some stun grenades, light some fires. Knock on some doors. Run to the other side of the old city, invade another family. You know. In the morning, sun will rise; they will know the IDF was there right?”198
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service... This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.8 Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service...in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
198 Shaul, Yehuda. ‘Bethlehem: Hidden from View’, Islam Channel, September,
92 Re-Programming British Muslims Ofcom Regulations
5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.
Adverts
A selection of clips taken from an Interpal advert on the Islam Channel called ‘Gaza Under Attack’.
On the 29 October 2009, just after 3pm, Islam channel broadcast an Interpal advert titled ‘Gaza Under Attack’, which appealed for funds to help the Palestinians in Gaza. The advert did not include a disclaimer and featured images of, amongst other things, a dead baby, wounded civilians, and people in distress.199
Possible violations of following Ofcom regulations:
1.1 Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.
199 ‘Interpal Appeal: Gaza under Attack’, Islam Channel, 29 October 2009,
93 Ofcom Regulations Re-Programming British Muslims
1.2 In the provision of services, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen. For television services, this is in addition to their obligations resulting from the Television Without Frontiers Directive (in particular, Article 22, see Appendix 2).
1.3 Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.
1.4 Television broadcasters must observe the watershed.
1.11 Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening and must also be justified by the context.
The fact that such a large number of offences seem to have occurred over the relatively short period of time that the channel was monitored indicate that the Islam Channel has failed to learn from its prior dealings with Ofcom and continues to defy their regulations a year after being fined by the television regulating authority. After having been forced to attend a workshop by Ofcom, and then being fined by the same body, the Islam Channel should have paid special attention to ensuring that further violations did not continue to occur.
Our analysis has shown that the channel, however, continues to ignore rules pertaining to due impartiality, consistently portrays matters of political controversy in a biased manner, allows guests with strong political affiliations to appear on their programmes without notifying the viewer of such affiliations and also includes graphic, disturbing images without disclaimers or warnings for viewers. It therefore seems that prior dealings with Ofcom have had no bearings on the compliance procedures that the Islam Channel has now put in place. If such offences were to continuously happen on a mainstream television network one would expect Ofcom to investigate thoroughly. The Islam Channel should not be exempt from similar scrutiny.
94 Re-Programming British Muslims Recommendations
Chapter Seven: Recommendations
Despite many of its failings, the Islam Channel has the potential to become a major positive influence on the trajectory of Islam in Britain in the coming years. This chapter will therefore seek to outline possible ways in which the channel can ensure that its content and output has a positive impact on British Muslims through fostering the formation of a British- Muslim identity, aiding the integration of Muslim communities into mainstream society and ensuring that extremist groups and preachers are rejected by Muslim communities.
Below is a list of recommendations that the channel should follow to guarantee that the aforementioned objectives are reached. Such changes can only be made on a managerial and policy level, starting from the top at Islam Channel Ltd.
Religious Programming
1.0. The Islam Channel should ensure that its religious programming reflects the diversity within Islam and within Britain’s Muslim communities. A wide selection of Islamic traditions should therefore be represented on the channel either during one episode or through a selection of episodes of a programme. In particular, Muslims from a Shi’ah and Sufi background need more representation on the channel through the use of their imams and scholars on religious programmes. Such action would help by easing sectarian divisions within Muslim communities.
1.1. The Islam Channel must guarantee that sectarianism is not given a platform on the network. Attacks on alternative Islamic practices should be avoided whilst not stifling legitimate religious debate. The channel should ensure that religious programmes do not discriminate against one particular ethnic or religious group.
1.2. Views and opinions that do not further national cohesion and the formation of a British-Muslim identity should not be given undue prominence. The Islam Channel is in a unique position to aid the integration of Muslim communities into mainstream society and should therefore dedicate a larger proportion of its programming to this cause. More programmes on the theme of being both British and Muslim should be produced and a greater use of non-Muslim guests and hosts [not just those from the far-left] may also help contribute to issues of integration and national cohesion.
1.3. Presenters who preach segregation from ‘non-Muslim society’ should either not be invited on to the channel or should have their advice contrasted with more inclusive opinions on the role of Muslim communities in British society. This includes opinions on issues such as marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims and the legitimacy of attending non-Islamic schools or colleges.
1.4. Clear guidelines should be provided, and training should be arranged, for preachers and presenters on the Islam Channel to ensure that their religious verdicts do not violate British law, Ofcom rules or ‘Equal Opportunities’ legislation.
1.5. Derogatory usage of the term ‘kafir’ or ‘kuffar’ should be avoided when possible (except in drawing legitimate theological distinctions) with the use of the term ‘non-
95 Recommendations Re-Programming British Muslims
Muslim’ instead better placed to foster relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Furthermore, controversial topics such as joining the army or police should not be avoided by presenters on the channel, particularly since issues such as these affect large numbers of British Muslims who wish to protect and serve Britain’s national security.
1.6. Cultural attitudes that limit the rights of Muslim women should be rejected in favour of Islamic opinions that can ensure women play an active role in their respective communities. The use of female scholars in religious programmes could also play a major role in this, as would the creation of more programmes that feature positive female role models and focus on women’s issues.
1.7. Preachers and presenters with extreme views, especially those who have been exposed publicly for extremist opinions, should not be given a platform on the Islam Channel. This is not a case of limiting freedom of speech but rather one of ensuring that hatred of minorities and the encouragement of non co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims does not occur. Extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir should also not be invited to host and produce weekly programmes on the Islam Channel. In isolated cases where members of extremist groups do appear their extreme political affiliations should be made clear from the outset in order for viewers to be aware of the extremist opinions of guests and hosts.
1.8. In instances where the Islam Channel have claimed to be unaware of the extremist tendencies of a particular preacher or group, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, an internal monitoring system should be put in place by producers on the Islam Channel that will review all preachers and presenters that are given a platform on the channel.
1.9. Advertisements that are submitted should be scrutinised of their content before being aired on the Islam Channel to ensure that the works of extremist preachers such as Anwar al-Awlaki are not promoted.
2. Anti-Semitic and racist views should be deemed unacceptable at any time on the Islam Channel. The legitimisation of political violence in Israel should also be avoided as it creates the impression that terrorism is acceptable.
2.1. Islam Channel presenters need to be better trained in dealing with controversial, contemporary issues. Far too many issues which were of contemporary importance were ignored by the presenters on the Islam Channel, leaving viewers confused as to whether they could, for example, join the police or vote in a non-Muslim country.
2.2. The Islam Channel should make greater use of presenters who speak fluent English, or alternatively employ a larger number of British born presenters on their religious programmes. On many occasions viewers’ questions were left unanswered as either presenters could not answer them coherently or could not understand them.
96 Re-Programming British Muslims Recommendations
Political Programmes
1.1 The Islam Channel needs to ensure that political programmes are not disproportionately in favour of one political party or movement, and are not used to promote one political party or movement over another. A diverse range of political parties should therefore regularly be represented on the channel, particularly when dealing with matters of political controversy.
1.2. Presenters and hosts who have political affiliations that may disproportionately affect their neutrality towards a number of topics should not be allowed to consistently host and/or produce political programmes.
1.3 When inviting guests to debate a specific topic the Islam Channel should ensure that a wide range of political opinions are present, thus ensuring that debates are not stifled and monopolised by one point of view or opinion.
1.4. The Islam Channel needs to be more aware of the difference between presenting facts and opinions. The channel should therefore ensure that personal opinions and unverifiable incidents are not presented as facts to viewers.
1.5. A greater deal of responsibility when reporting on foreign affairs need to be observed. The divisive idea that there is a ‘war on Islam’ needs to be refuted, and not reinforced, on the Islam Channel. Whilst political programmes should not ignore the various conflicts that are occurring in Muslim-majority countries, the manner in which these conflicts are reported on need to be carefully addressed to ensure that frustration with western foreign policy is not manipulated into outright hostility against ‘the west’.
1.6. Political programmes on the Islam Channel need to pay more attention to domestic, rather than foreign, events. In particular the ‘Islam Channel News’ should ensure that, if it is to focus entirely on Muslim-related issues, it should place equal weight on stories that affect Muslims in the UK as well as those overseas. Through doing so the Islam Channel can claim to aid the formation of a strong British Muslim identity that is as concerned with domestic issues as it is with foreign ones.
1.7. The Islam Channel should cease to use the term ‘human bomb’ to describe a suicide bombing. Through the use of the term ‘human bomb’ the Islam Channel is essentially legitimising the use of such bombs through a refusal to label them suicidal.
1.8. The Islam Channel needs to work closely with Ofcom to ensure that further examples of violations of Ofcom regulations are not evident. In particular, rules regarding methods of reporting on issues of political controversy need to be strictly followed.
97 Glossary Re-Programming British Muslims
Glossary
Adab Manners
Akhira Afterlife
Alhamdullillah Praise be to God
Aqaid Belief systems
Ithna Ash’ari Twelver Shia’ahs, the predominant group within Shi’ism.
Awliya pl. Wali refers to a revered, pious scholar.
Barelwi [also Barelvi] is a movement of Sunni Sufism, of the Hanafi school, in South Asia that was founded by Ahmed Reza Khan of Bareilly in India.
Bayah Oath of allegiance
Bid’a Innovation
Dawah Invitation to Islam
Deen Religion
Deobandi A Sunni Islamic revivalist movement, of the Hanafi school, which started in India and Pakistan.
Dhikr Remembrance of God
Dua Prayers of supplication
Fard Obligatory
Fitnah Discord
Ghulu Excess
Hadith Narrations originating from the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammed. Hadiths are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of thought as important tools for understanding the matters of Islamic jurisprudence.
Haram That which is forbidden in Islam, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Hikma Wisdom
Hizb ut-Tahrir Literally means ‘the party of liberation’ - Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Islamist organisation.
98 Re-Programming British Muslims Glossary
Hukm Ruling
Ibadat Worship
Iman Faith
InshAllah God willing
Jahil Ignorant
Jannah Heaven
Jilbab Long loose fitted garment
Juz Section of the Qur’an, the Qur’an is made up of 30 sections.
Kafir Literally means ingratiate and insincere disbelief in God and denial of the truth. Commonly used to refer to non- Muslims.
Khalifah Caliph
Khatib Person who delivers the sermon during Friday prayers
Khilafah Caliphate
Khitba Marriage proposal
Kufr Disbelief in Islam
Madhab Schools of thought in Islam
Mahram In Islamic terminology the term refers to an unmarriageable kin with whom sexual intercourse would be considered impermissible.
Majlis al-Ummah People’s Assembly
Masajid Mosques
Mushrikeen Polytheists
Maulana Literally means ‘our master’ and is used to precede the name of a respected Islamic figure.
Eid Milad an-Nabi/Mawlid A festival designed to commemorate the birth of the Prophet Muhammed.
Mazar Grave shrine
Nafs Soul
Naqshbandi One of the major orders within Sufism
99 Glossary Re-Programming British Muslims
Nikah Marriage contract
Niqab Full face veil
Qadi Madalim Court of unjust acts
Quraysh The dominant tribe of Mecca during the time of the Prophet Muhammed, who was also a member of the tribe. The Quraysh initially led the opposition against the Prophet Muhammed and his followers.
RasulAllah Prophet of God
Salaam Alaikum An Islamic greeting. Literally means ‘peace be upon you’.
Salah Prayer
Shahada Declaration of faith
Shaheed Martyr
Shi’ah One of the two main branches of Islam that regards Ali, the fourth caliph, as the Prophet Muhammed’s first true successor.
Shirk Polytheism
SubhanAllah Glorious is God
Sufi Muslim ascetic or mystic; an adherent of Sufism. Sufism is a major influence on mainstream Islam.
Sunnah Literally means ‘usual practice’ but in Islam refers to the examples of the Prophet Muhammed.
Sunni One of the two main branches of Islam.
Tariqa Literally means ‘way’ or ‘method’ and refers to an Islamic religious order.
Tashabuh bil kuffar Imitation of non-Muslims
Wahhabi A conservative revisionist Sunni movement, which was founded by Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century. It is popular in Saudi Arabia and retains a non- ideological, socially conservative, austere and literal interpretation of Islam.
Wala Wal Bara The concept of allegiance to Muslims and disassociation from non-Muslims
Yahud Arabic term for Jews
100 Re-Programming British Muslims Appendix
Appendix
Profiles of Presenters and Guests on the Islam Channel
Sh. Abu Hanifah - Sh. Adam Abu Hanifah is an Eritrean born imam who appears on ‘IslamiQA’ every Sunday. He is renowned for being an ‘expert’ in exorcism.
Abdullah Marouf - Abdullah Marouf is a former Media and Public Relations Officer of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. He runs a website dedicated to the mosque, and hosts and produces a weekly programme on the Islam Channel called ‘Beloved Al-Aqsa’.
Sh. Abdul Majid Ali Hasan - Sh. Abdul Majid worked as a researcher with Dr Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips at the Dar al-Fatah publishers, and later co-founded the Islamic Studies programme at Preston University in Ajman. He currently resides in Luton, where he regularly appears at the Al-Jalal Masjid. He is a regular presenter on ‘IslamiQA’ and appears every Saturday.
Sh. Abdul Qayyum - Sh. Abdul Qayyum is currently the chief imam at the East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre. He obtained his Islamic qualifications from the Mohammed Ibn Saud University in Riyadh, and is a regular presenter on ‘IslamiQA’.
Sh. Abu Sayeed - From 1978 to 1990 Sh. Abu Sayeed served as the chief imam at East London Mosque. He was also the principal of the Islamic College of London up until 1997. He is currently the President of the Islamic Shariah Council, and is an occasional presenter on ‘IslamiQA’.
Abu Usamah at-Thahabi - Abu Usamah at-Thahabi is a graduate of Medinah University and an imam at Green Lane Mosque. In 2007 he appeared in a Channel Four documentary called ‘Undercover Mosque’ in which he appears to be sanctioning violence against homosexuals and non-Muslims, praising Osama bin Laden and labelling women ‘deficient’ in their intellect. He hosts a weekly programme on the Islam Channel called ‘The Sunnah, The Better’.
Azad Ali - Azad Ali is a former President of the Civil Service Islamic Society and a member of the Islamic Forum Europe, a front group for the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami [Party of Islam]. He courted recent controversy for a number of statements he had made on his personal blog in which he appears to support acts of terrorism in the Occupied Territories whilst also appearing to justify attacks on British troops in Iraq.
Sh. Bilal Ismail - Sh. Bilal Ismail is a South African born graduate of Medinah University (Saudi Arabia). He is currently the academic head of the students guild at the Al-Kauther Institute, and is an occasional presenter on ‘IslamiQA’.
Sh. Fraz Farhat - Sh. Fraz Farhat is an engineering graduate of Leeds University, and also studied at Medinah University (Saudi Arabia). He recently joined the Al-Kauthar Institute as a lecturer, holds classes on Islam in south London and is a regular presenter on ‘IslamiQA’.
101 Appendix Re-Programming British Muslims
Ibtihal Bsis Ismail - Ibtihal Bsis Ismail is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. She is a barrister by profession and is a regular host on ‘Muslimah Dilemma’.
Ismail Patel Ismail - Patel is the Chair of the Leicester based Friends of Al-Aqsa group. He is also a spokesperson for the British Muslim Initiative, and a regular guest on a number of programmes on the Islam Channel.
Dr Khalid Khan - An imam that specialises in giving rulings related to the Hajj pilgrimage, Dr Khalid Khan appears every Friday on ‘IslamiQA’.
Mohammed Ali Harrath - Mohammed Ali Harrath is the CEO and founder of the Islam Channel. A Tunisian national, Harrath was responsible for helping to set up the Islamist Tunisian Islamic Front, an outlawed party, which resulted in Harrath being convicted in absentia of numerous criminal and terrorism related offences by the Tunisian authorities. Harrath has been subject to an Interpol ‘red notice’ since 1992 for his alleged activities.
Dr. Nazreen Nawaz - Dr Nazreen Nawaz is the media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir and also the organisation’s women’s representative. She is a regular contributor to ‘Muslimah Dilemma’.
Dr Reda Bedair - Dr Reda Bedair is an Egyptian born imam who currently works for the Al-Maghrib Institute. He also appears regularly on ‘IslamiQA’.
Sh. Sulaiman Ghani - Sh. Sulaiman Ghani is an imam at the Tooting Islamic Centre and also the head teacher at the Risaala Primary school. He is a regular presenter on ‘IslamiQA’.
Sultana Pervin - Sultana Pervin is an affiliate of Hizb ut-Tahrir and has regularly appeared on platforms as a spokesperson for the organisation. She also regularly contributes to ‘Muslimah Dilemma’.
102 Re-Programming British Muslims References
References
‘al-Awlaki, Anwar, 44 Ways to Support Jihad,( NEFA Foundation, February 2008),
Grayling, Chris. ‘A No Nonsense Approach to Crime and Disorder’, (Conservative Home, 7 October 2009),
Institute of Community Cohesion, ‘Understanding and Appreciating Muslim Diversity: Towards Better Engagement and Participation’, ( ICoCo, April 2008),
Ofcom, ‘Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee’, (The Office of Communications, 31 July 2007),
Shakir, Imam Said. ‘The Social Involvement of Women in Islam’, (Zaytuna Institute, 2004),
Yusuf, Shaykh Hamza. ‘Women, Shari’ah and Islam’ (Dar al-Islam/ Islam on Demand, 1997).
Zallum, Abdul Qadeem. ‘How the Khilafah Was Destroyed’ (Al-Khilafah Publications, 2000).
News Stories
Doward, Jamie, ‘UK Muslim TV Channel linked to Al-Qaida Cleric Awlaki’, The Observer, 10 January 2009,
Dowell, Ben, ‘Islam Channel Fined £30,000’, The Guardian, 31 July 2007
Dowell, Ben, ‘Ridley Wins Payout from Islam Channel’, The Guardian, 21 April 2008,
Kerbaj, Richard and Kennedy, Dominic, ‘Unanswered questions about a ‘man of peace’ on Interpol list’, The Times, 15 December 2008,
Leppard, David, ‘Chief Prosecutor Keir Starmer Advised by Radical Muslim’, The Times, 1 November 2009,
Miles, Hugh. ‘Two Faces of One of Islam’s Most Important Clerics’, The Telegraph, 20 July 2005,
103 References Re-Programming British Muslims
Murphy, Dan. ‘Fort Hood Shooting: Was Nidal Malik Hasan Inspired by Militant Cleric?‘ Christian Science Monitor, 10 November 2009,
Salmon, Jacqueline. ‘Obama Faith Advisor Says She Was Misled’, The Washington Post, October 23 2009,
Zarnosh, Adil, ‘Exclusive Interview with Mohammed Ali’, Ummah 2,
BBC, ‘Quick Guide: Sunnis and Shias’, BBC News, 11 December 2006,
BBC, ‘Police Sued over Mosque Programme’, BBC News, 28 February 2008,
BBC, ‘Israel and US Behind Tehran Blast - Iranian State Media’, BBC News, 12 January 2010
BBC, ‘Sufi Shrine Blown Up By Taliban’, BBC News, 5 March 2009,
CBS, ‘Did Abdulmutallab Talk to Radical Cleric’, CBS News, 29 December 2009,
Minhaj ul-Qur’an, ‘Merry Christmas Celebrations 2008: Minhaj ul Quran’, 18 December 2008
104 Re-Programming British Muslims
Designed by cogent-design.com 105