| | The Quilliam Foundation, unfazed by its pathetic Islam Channel alert in April of last year, has produced a report on the Channel, ‘Re-programming British Muslims: A study of the Islam Channel, accusing it of ‘promoting backward attitudes to women, intolerance towards other sects and religions and promoting extremism’.
|
Like much of the QF’s steady output of drivel, the report is poorly researched with causal relationships established on the flimsiest of empirical data. What follows is ENGAGE’s critique (not exhaustive) of the report, its many howlers, and some recommendations of our own for the Foreign Office and Home Office, the sources responsible for the QF’s financial viability. The financial and other support of these offices for the QF renders neither impervious to criticisms of complicity in this latest smear campaign.
QF accuse Islam Channel of ‘…failing to represent the diversity of political thought within British Muslim communities,’ and '...sharp denunciations and criticisms of followers of both traditions [Sufi and Shi’a] by presenters on the channel.'
QF claims to investigate the following in the report:
‘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?’
And uses this by way of methodology to do so:
‘…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.’
The key charges leveled against the channel are that it:
‘…failed in its claim to represent all of Britain’s diverse Muslim communities, with mainstream Islamic movements largely under-represented and maligned
‘…programmes of a political nature were found to be largely biased and onesided, 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’.
‘…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 guidance for views on key contemporary issues, made contentious by extremists in Britain, such as the permissibility of voting or joining the British army.’
This latter claim is particularly specious given that the Channel broadcasts a number of programmes which feature Muslims involved in various initiatives of political import as well as having previously aired the ENGAGE documentary on media awareness and political participation. As for joining the British Army, perhaps one might well ask whether the MoD, whose advertisements on army recruitment play on other channels, has considered running its advertisements on army recruitment on Islam Channel?
The report is divided into sections that purport to demonstrate Islam Channel’s contribution to the ‘Marginalisation of mainstream Muslims, 'Encouraging social seclusion and divisive relations with non-Muslims', biased portrayal of the ‘Arab-Israeli Conflict’ and ‘Supporting extremism’.
On the ‘Marginalisation of mainstream Muslims’, the QF report argues:
‘On numerous occasions Wahhabi teachings were promoted at the expense of other Islamic views, particularly those of Sufi and Shi’ah Muslims,
‘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.’
In a footnote QF qualify their definition of ‘mainstream Sufi’ as referring to ‘Barelwism [which] is a Sufi-based religious affiliation found in the Indian sub-continent…the majority of Muslims in the UK hail from families linked to Barelwi networks....The Deobandi network [forms the] second largest Islamic denomination in the UK and are also a Sufi-linked network’.
A qualification that is not without questions of its own, not least in relation to the politics involved in advancing one denomination over another. The QF’s predisposition towards ‘Sufi’ inspired expressions of Islam are well known and well understood for its gravitating towards the privatisation of religion that QF and its supporters would much prefer. And so the report goes on to make this ridiculous claim:
‘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. 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.’
Which will no doubt come as some surprise to the ‘large number of Muslims in the UK’ the statement alludes to!
The report goes on to document instances where scholars have advanced socially conservative views on the role of women in society and infer from these few instances that Islam Channel is guilty of exhorting patriarchalist views – with little regard for many other programmes aired on the channel that would give the lie to such claims.
There are numerous instances of weak reasoning lending itself to establishing causal relationships that simply do not hold water. For example, the report claims that:
‘Islam is contrasted with western culture, thereby implying that the two are incompatible.’
To contrast something with something else is not to suggest the two are incompatible at all – contrasting is to recognise difference, not infer incompatibility.
The report also takes issue with scholars denouncing practices which are observed by Muslims but which derogate from Islam’s prohibition on idolatry and saint-worship. The report tendentiously argues that:
‘Despite a large number of British Muslims seeing such visitations [saint-worshipping] as praiseworthy, many of the presenters on the Islam Channel denounce the same acts as ‘shirk’ [polytheism] and ‘bida’ [innovation] claiming that such practices went ‘against Islam’ 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.’
This sort of weak analysis and reasoning in order to establish a linkage where none such exists pervades throughout the entire report. It is incredulous that from a scholar’s denunciation of practices which are considered unIslamic according to doctrine, QF should surmise that these scholars are somehow advocating intolerance, excommunication and violent extremism.
Among the many hilarious comments contained in the report is this one:
‘…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 Islam Channel state that it is unacceptable and unadvisable…’
The inference that integration is aided by Muslims marrying ‘outside their communities’ is an insult to the many Muslims who are unimpeded in their ability to be and live as British Muslims irrespective of the faith identity of their spouse. This sort of social engineering project would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous in its implications.
The report also accuses Islam Channel of biased coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of disregarding the ‘Israeli government’s point of view’ during the assault on Gaza.
Quite apart from the fact that even BBC coverage was criticized as biased, in favour of Israel (according to the majority of complainants), the allegation that Islam Channel neglected to incorporate views from Israeli spokespeople is unfathomable.
The Glasgow University Media Group have found that Israelis spokespersons appear on news channels disproportionately higher than Palestinian representatives. One would think, with IC’s commitment to presenting alternative perspectives, the sourcing of viewpoints currently overlooked by mainstream broadcasters would be a plus point, not a negative one.
The allegation that IC news also presented the Israeli Defence Forces as wantonly engaging in the destruction of civilian infrastructure, eg universities in Gaza, is not far fetched at all given the reports produced by Breaking the Silence and the UN Goldstone Report, which document the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure by the IDF.
What the OSCT and Foreign Office, who fund the QF, surely need to ask themselves, in response to this latest smear campaign, is whether their association with a body that British Muslims find abhorrent for its half-baked analysis and laughable policy prescriptions, and which derails the other benign efforts by government departments to fully engage British Muslims in debates on integration and belonging, is a price worth paying?
|
