Islam Channel: Islamist TV Evangelism


by Sid (Faisal)
30th April, 2009 at 11:41 am    

The Islam Channel is the largest satellite channel aimed specifically at British and European Muslims. The Islam Channel says it is committed to giving a platform to a range of views from across Britain’s Muslim and non-Muslim communities. This is a complete fiction.

What it is has done is to give an un-due prominence to Islamist voices that represent only a small minority of British Muslims. This over-representation has also led to other voices – for instance from the UK’s Shia community or from non-Islamist Muslim groups – being under-represented on the channel.

Many of its speakers are Islamist extremists from organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir who use the channel to promote intolerant and bigoted interpretations of Islam. Others are Wahhabi graduates of Saudi universities who have denied the Holocaust and promoted hatred of Shia Muslims. Other presenters are Islamists who have been suspended from their jobs in government due to their extremist statements or who are from organisations that the government has broken ties with due to their leading members’ alleged support for terrorism.

One of the most worrying aspects of Islam Channel is the promotion of its extremist agenda via the views and politics of its presenters. Amongst these have been the Wahhabi cleric and anti-semite Yasir Qadhi, and Azad Ali of the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), who was suspended from his position of civil servant earlier this year, following the publication of extremist jihadi literature on the IFE blog.

The Quilliam Foundation reports:

In recent weeks the Islam Channel programme ‘Ummah Talk’ has been hosted by Azad Ali, a civil servant who has been suspended since January for writing blogs on the website of Islamic Forum Europe (a Jamaat-e-Islami front-group) which have been interpreted as condoning terrorist attacks on British troops in Iraq – as well as other blogs supporting Hamas and advocating the re-creation of the Caliphate. Ali is also a trustee of the East London Mosque and in 2008, despite his extreme views, he was elected to the council of Liberty, the human rights pressure group.

Yasir Qadhi, a Wahhabi graduate of the University of Medina who has denied the Holocaust, is also a regular presenter on the Islam Channel’s religious programmes. Qadhi has said that “Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews”, calling conventional accounts of the Holocaust “false propaganda” and adding that Jewish depictions of Hitler were “not correct”. Qadhi has also denounced Shia Islam as “the most lying sect of Islam” and said that “the Shias are allowed to lie and it is their religion to lie”.

Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), is frequently a presenter on the Islam Channel’s ‘Politics and the Media’ programme. The government recently broke off relations with the MCB after Daud Abdullah, its deputy-chairman, signed a statement that denounced the Palestinian National Authority as “not eligible to represent the Palestinian people” on account of “giving up” jihad against Israel and which also potentially authorizes jihadist attacks on the Royal Navy. Earlier this year, Bunglawala complained to the BBC after they referred to the pro-jihadist cleric Abu Qatada as “an extremist”.

Several presenters on the Islam Channel are also active members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global movement which is dedicated to establishing a totalitarian state in which women and religious minorities would be systematically deprived of their basic human rights.

Many of these speakers regularly use their shows to promote Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology. Islam Channel presenters who are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir include Sajid Varda, the host of last season’s ‘Saturday Night Live’ programme on the Islam Channel, Ibtihal Ismail Bsis, Aamna Durrani and Basharat Ali. Ironically, Basharat Ali and Ibtihal Ismail Bsis, despite HT’s rejection of the British legal system as “un-Islamic”, are both practicing lawyers.

This imbalance in favour of extremists on the Islam Channel and at its Global Peace and Unity Festival acts to the detriment of British Muslims. The Islam Channel is ideally placed to help foster the development of a British Muslim identity that contributes to wider society and which is comfortable in a secular, democratic and liberal country. This year’s Global Peace and Unity Festival should be a platform for showcasing the diversity of modern British Islam rather than becoming an occasion that creates more controversy and suspicion toward British Muslims. The Islam Channel can do better.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Islamists,Media






177 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Islam Channel: Islamist TV Evangelism http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4425


  2. Islam Channel: Islamist TV Evangelism « Full Fat Mocha

    [...] Cross posted at Pickled Politics. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Hargey wins against Muslim WeeklyMuslims on the InternetThe Jesuit Who Inspired the Pope’s Ideas on Islam [...]


  3. Greg Ryan

    Pickled Politics » Islam Channel: Islamist TV Evangelism http://bit.ly/DYtRH




  1. David T — on 30th April, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

    Isn’t the problem the fact that – even if you discount the Interpol terrorism alert – its CEO is An Nadha/Ikwaan.

    http://www.interpol.int/Public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1992/85/1992_27585.asp

    Who funds the Islam Channel, btw?

  2. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

    In the interests of transparency, and general citation standards, could you mention that this is a reposting of a Quilliam alert?

  3. platinum786 — on 30th April, 2009 at 1:18 pm  

    Who watches it? They spend most of their time demanding money don’t they?

    If you want to watch religious TV, watch QTV (sky 804) or Noor TV (Sky 819), top religious programming, which i’m forced to tolerate by mum.

  4. riazat butt — on 30th April, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

    @Naadir – you beat me to it. This is, almost word for word, a cut and paste job from a Quilliam warning (“watch out – here come Ed and Maz”) I got this morning

  5. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    In the interests of transparency, and general citation standards, could you mention that this is a reposting of a Quilliam alert?

    You mean, this Quilliam alert? Yes, this is a blatant case of plagiarism, since Sid did make a few modifications and tried to pass it as his own without giving any sort of credit to the original authors. But this is just a blog, do we really expect authors to follow minimum standards of transparency and journalism ethics?

  6. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 1:59 pm  

    Sorry, forgot to add the Quilliam Foundation citation in my rush to make it to lunch with Ed Husain.

    Yes, it is a blatant case of plagiarism, since Sid did make a few modifications and tried to pass it as his own without giving credit to the original authors.

    I think I just have. So careful with that axe, Eugene.

  7. platinum786 — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

    Sid and Faisal are the same person?

  8. Jai — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:12 pm  

    Yes, “Sid” unmasked himself sometime last week, I think.

    Faisal, would you prefer everyone to call you by your real name from now on ?

  9. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:12 pm  

    Yes they are.

  10. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:12 pm  

    I think I just have. So careful with that axe, Eugene.

    Not good enough, Sid. Your whole article, not just the red section, borrows heavily from the original Quilliam article, sometimes whole sentences.

  11. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

    Ravi, fuck off. You’re a small-minded little prat.

    Word from Ed:

    Please plagiarize as much as possible!

    It’s about ideas and content – not sources.

  12. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    Faisal, would you prefer everyone to call you by your real name from now on ?

    Jai, Sid has been my ventriliquist dummy. But I have decided to retire him. You can still call me Sid, since he has a life of his own.

  13. riazat butt — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    boys, boys!

  14. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 2:21 pm  

    Riazat

    Who do you think funds the Islam Channel?

  15. Humpty Dumpty — on 30th April, 2009 at 3:47 pm  

    The government needs to grow a spine and close the channel down. Maybe even arrest the people in charge if they can find an excuse.

  16. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

    Sid – “Yasir Qadhi, a Wahhabi graduate of the University of Medina who has denied the Holocaust, is also a regular presenter on the Islam Channel’s religious programmes.”

    Again this is a gross distortion Sid as his Professor at the University of Madinah has warned against listening to him and said he is a devaint in his methodology.

    Again you are choosing to sensationalise when the majority of senior Wahabi scholars have denounced The Muslim Brotherhood, OBL and Al-Qaradawi.

    In addition despite your allegations its does give voice to other Sunni creeds including brailwee and sufi’s.

    What you also fail to highlight is the fact that others also have their own channels and push just their own agenda like Noor TV.

    Also Qaradawi is funded and lives not in Saudi but Qatar!

    Again the sensationalism betrays the facts that the Global Peace and Unity event actually has a greater balance towards Sufi and Brailwee speakers as well as non-Muslims so that Policy Exchange linked charge isn’t true.

    Also Sid with the Million plus pounds burning a hold in “Ed”‘s pocket there is nothing stopping him setting up his own TV channel and event is there now?

    He can easily do mmore than again sensationalise and try and be productive. By the do you work for QF yet?

  17. mk1 — on 30th April, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

    How can a man with an interpol red notice for links to a terrorist organisation be deemed fit and proper to hold a broadcasting license in this country?

  18. fugstar — on 30th April, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    they arent the same person. different kinds of sadcase entirely.

    the saudi-centrically named faisal ‘gazi’ (which isnt unkown in the vocabularly of jihad) and the coconutified ‘ed’.

    oh what inelegant yet symetrical snivelry!

  19. Adam — on 30th April, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

    Ravi, fuck off. You’re a small-minded little prat.

    Is this the standard we are to expect from PP writers when they make a mistake or pretend to post something copied from others, and then don’t acknowledge they made a mistake? Shame, thought PP was better than that.

  20. Leon — on 30th April, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

    Play nice please, there are real issues to be discussed here and throwing infantile remarks about isn’t helpful.

  21. riazat butt — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/22/islam-terrorism

    The Islam Channel isn’t paid for by the license fee or the government is it? If you don’t like it then don’t watch it. Turn over or switch off. If you want to get other Muslim voices out there, why not launch a channel of your own? Channel Q?

  22. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:06 pm  

    Dave T – As you well know the Tunisians haven’t requested extradition when the story broke and indeed these are allegations and no evidence has been presented to the UK to proceed with extradition within the law.

    Hence this is why he can hold a broadcast licence.

    As regards views then the views of the people are not acceptable but equally they are not sayign such things here and thus can’t be banned.

    There are may unsavoury people on TV and as usual the focus is narrowly on just Muslims. Some TV programmes present the views of skinheads but you don’t get QF reports and hysteria on those.

    The easiest way to smear someone these days is to call them Islamist and then people will say ban them.

    Islam Channel also hosts Tahir Ul-Qadri who is a well known Brailwee and despite the hype there is quite a spread.

    Lets not get bogged down by right wing and neocon hysteria and it is a known fact that this is just a rehash of Policy Exchange’s report commented on by Nick Clegg amongst others:

    http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-attacks-policy-exchange-for-offensive-and-underhand-briefing-5064.html

    Who is leading “Ed” in these so called exposes which are costing us taxpayers one million pounds per year!

  23. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:08 pm  

    Some questions

    Since this is an “alert”

    1. Why the current timing? Is it something that has just been discovered and the world (read anyone who receives emails from the QF or reads pickled politics) must know, or linked to the fact that the QF have released no “alerts” for about 2 weeks

    2. Didn’t Nawaz praise Qadhi in the Doha Debates in a response to a question raised? I at least remember him saying that “you are not an Islamist” to him. Why the change now?

    3. What is the actual point of the alert? Is the Islam Channel a government organisation or is there some other public interest involved?

    4. Why has only the middle quote been attributed to the Quilliam when the whole article looks like a cut and paste

    Most importantly -
    5. What is NEW in this alert?

    Is it just me or does the whole thing seem very petty?

  24. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:08 pm  

    Faisal, good to see the article clarified (a bit), though I think telling someone to f. off for saying something which isn’t entirely untrue is a bit out of order.

    Anyway, moving on, what do people propose to do about the Islam Channel? What’s the figures on actual viewership? Presumably, it’s not Sky’s business to police the content of channels that broadcast on their satellites.

  25. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:13 pm  

    Also it is interesting that “Ed” championed the right of Geert Wilders to freespeech but is then creating a hysterial response to deny freespeech to others.

    We also need to know the agenda here of QF as they are either for freespeech or not or is it just of frespeech for people they approve and Muslim bashers?

    Also “Ed” promised to debate such issues and yet no debate just alerts which Sid loves posting here as something new when in fact Policy Exchange have already done this one and were exposed for the way they did it!

    Sid – did you go to the secret hush hush briefing by QF or was the location so secret that like “Ed” name it couldn’t be revealed!

  26. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:18 pm  

    God, I thought the Ed saying plagiarism on PP is good was Sunny. My heart doesn’t have to sink now.

    I don’t think we should beat up QF too much over their seemingly illiberalism. They’re merely “heightening the contradictions” inherent to liberalism itself. Beat up QF for not actually realising that instead.

  27. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    Here is what Yasir Qadhi actually wrote only LAST YEAR.

    I wonder whether he can sue Pickled Politics and the QF for defamation?

    “I was a young, budding, twenty-something undergraduate at Madinah when I gave that talk, during my very first cross-Atlantic dawah trip (I must have done over thirty by now). Its been almost a decade since that one-time mistake; I admit it was an error and an incorrect ‘fact’ was propagated. But even in that talk, I did not deny the actual occurrence of the Holocaust, or express any support or admiration for Hitler, or claim that all Jews were worthy of being despised or hated.

    Just to clarify: I firmly believe that the Holocaust was one of the worst crimes against humanity that the 20th century has witnessed. Such a crime did not happen overnight, either. Rather, the systematic dehumanization of the Jews in the public eye of the Germans was a necessary precursor to this event. (As a side, all of this is food for thought, especially in the times that we live in, where some elements are trying to dehumanize all Muslims as well.) And while I as a Muslim believe that, on a theological level, the Jews are mistaken for having rejected the prophethood of Jesus and Muhammad (as are Christians for rejecting the latter), I most certainly do not call others to despise them, support massacring them, or otherwise discriminate against them! In fact – and my students can attest to this – I have stated many times, and firmly believe, that Muslims in the West have a lot to learn from the experiences of Judaism. Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, are the closest religious group to Muslims in terms of practice and legal code. There’s a lot to be gained from how they coped and survived in the Western environment.”

    http://muslimmatters.org/2008/11/10/gpu-08-with-yasir-qadhi-when-islamophobia-meets-perceived-anti-semitism/

  28. Refresh — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:35 pm  

    ‘Is this the standard we are to expect from PP writers when they make a mistake or pretend to post something copied from others, and then don’t acknowledge they made a mistake? Shame, thought PP was better than that.’

    No its not the prevailing standard, but its guaranteed for every Sid thread. Not sure about Faisal though, we will have to wait and see.

  29. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    Ed – Does he admit that suicide bombing is an error as well when the leading scholars who taught him at Madinah have quite clearly said that this action is outside of Islam.

    I am afraid that Yasir Qadhi and his views are a distortion of Islam. Although Sid will hate me saying this the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has refuted much of what Yasir Qadhi preaches and further he has warned Muslims against such extremes.

    Although I don’t like the inaccuracy of this alert, Yasir Qadhi isn’t a reputable scholar when so many senior scholars have warned against him.

  30. Refresh — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:51 pm  

    What is a Quilliam Alert?

  31. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

    Also it is interesting that “Ed” championed the right of Geert Wilders to freespeech but is then creating a hysterial response to deny freespeech to others.

    To be fair, the Qulliam article is not proposing to shutdown the channel, but are rather asking the channel to provide a more balanced view of Islam. And they finish off their article with “The Islam Channel can do better.”

    Though the “alert” status of their article sounds sensationalist.

  32. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:57 pm  

    I posted this in my own name and intentionally left Quilliam off the post to see if we could have a discussion on Islam Channel without it degenerating into another round of “But Quilliam does not represent British Muslims” horseshit.

    But that didn’t work. Instead we’re still hearing the same tired line *and* I get repeated accusations of plagiarism, which is not something I take lightly. If you accuse me of plagiarism, you can be sure you’ll get back the same from me in kind.

    This material, as Ed (Quilliam) has said, is about information, ideas and content, not sources.

    I think the charges made by Quilliam against Islam Channel are serious and worthy of some debate and analysis. But if you think that my badly formatted blog post is even more serious than that, that’s your call.

  33. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

    The Islam Channel isn’t paid for by the license fee or the government is it? If you don’t like it then don’t watch it. Turn over or switch off. If you want to get other Muslim voices out there, why not launch a channel of your own? Channel Q?

    I wouldn’t watch a white-supremacist satellite channel which broadcasted racist, anti-black and anti-Asian content. But what I certainly wouldn’t do is excuse it and pretend it spoke for the welfare of all white people and tolerated it because I had fooled myself into thinking that the vast majority of white people secretly felt that way and it should therefore be tolerated.

    So why should you do that for an Islamic religious supremacist channel which purports to speak for Sunni Muslims like the Islam Channel?

  34. Arif — on 30th April, 2009 at 5:59 pm  

    The post argues that the Islam Channel’s claim to offer a platform to a range of views is a fiction. Perhaps this is the key point that needs to be tested.

    The Quilliam Foundation should write to offer to discuss Islam on the channel and share with us the response of the channel. That may be more powerful evidence than naming what seems to me a range of disparate people who appear on the channel in different ways.

    When I’ve stumbled across the Islam Channel I have sometimes found it a tad uncritical and do find it embarrassing to watch some of the sanctimonious preaching. But I have not done an analysis of how that compares with other religious or secular channels!

  35. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    Sid at 1:49PM (#7)

    Sorry, forgot to add the Quilliam Foundation citation in my rush to make it to lunch with Ed Husain.

    Sid at 5:57PM (#33)

    I posted this in my own name and intentionally left Quilliam off the post

  36. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    Sid – First of all there is no justification for telling someone to F off if they highlight your error and it is just as easy for you to explain as you did do eventually.

    “I think the charges made by Quilliam against Islam Channel are serious and worthy of some debate and analysis.”

    Sid again QF has an extremely poor formula whihc goes somethign like – we don’t agree with so and so so we’ll label them Saudi Wahabi’s and Islamists and demand action.

    It isn’t a way to address issues. So “Ed” has discovered sufism following his earlier encounter with whoever and suddenly anyone he dislikes is a raving Saudi funded Wahabi Islamist extremist and is to be banned.

    Its just a poor way to discuss issues and one you used to be partially guilty of.

    If there are issues with Islam Channel then he can lay those out without the labelling and then it can be discussed.

    As I said what QF fail to even acknowledge and if they were in touch with the Muslim community as they claim then he’d know that Yasir Qhadi has been warned against by his teachers at Madinah.

    Equally Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has been also declared a deviant by his Professor at Madinah.

    Hence implying that their thinking came from Madinah when its senior Professors have warned against these people publicly is just poor research from a publicly funded think tank.

    Islam Channel is a private channel and people can choose to watch it or switch over and equally there are other religious channels whose own goal is tehir religious supremacy so if you want to shut Islam Channel then do those also qualify?

    Come on even the Ahmadiyya have their own channel.

    The Brailwee’s have their own channels.

    Tell me when Qf claim to speak for Muslims of the SMC claim to speak for the silent majority you are mute and when someone you don’t like or approve of does the same then you let loose.

  37. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 6:32 pm  

    Sid – “Sorry, forgot to add the Quilliam Foundation citation in my rush to make it to lunch with Ed Husain.”

    Lunch with “Ed” Husein – suprised he gave you a location mate or did you have to wait at some agreed location so it could be determined you were not followed before being given a top secret location of a sandwich shop!

    What is your relationship with 00Ed? Is he your friend or mentor?

    I am interested just for appropriate background because you do promote a lot of QF.

    Was this a job interview for work at QF ;-)

  38. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

    Ravi – One was pre-lunch and one was post lunch. Maybe “Ed” told him to keep it a secret.

    Telling you to F Off was completely out of order but no one will say anything to one of “Ed”‘s protoges!

  39. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 6:37 pm  

    Sorry, Faisal, but sources do matter. No, I’m not particularly pro-QF, but I am attempting to engage with what they’re saying. So are others. Don’t shut us out just because we’re skeptical, and we’re not all using a “tired line”

    There’s a basic question: If the information’s accurate, what can be proposed to resolve it, and others have articulated a response:

    1. Ignore it.
    2. Challenge the Islam Channel directly.

    Are there other options to be considered?

  40. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

    @Imran – one of the main charges against Qadhi in the alert is that he is a holocaust denier.

    This is inaccurate. Also – isn’t the claim that he is a holocaust denier actually accusing him of a criminal act according to several europoean countries? This is very serious surely?

    It highlights either the lack of serious research or the evidence of ill intentions.

    Anyway, the Qadhi issue is simply symptomatic of the whole piece is it not? Twist things around and make them sensationalist as possible to fulfil a certain agenda.

    Poor.

  41. Jai — on 30th April, 2009 at 7:28 pm  

    Observation:

    Thread about the devastating conflict in Sri Lanka = 8 posts.
    Thread about the escalating conflict in Pakistan = 28 posts.
    Thread about the Islam Channel = 41 posts (so far) in less than 12 hours.

    Interesting.

  42. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 7:33 pm  

    Sid – “This imbalance in favour of extremists on the Islam Channel and at its Global Peace and Unity Festival acts to the detriment of British Muslims.”

    Qf – “Later this year, the Islam Channel will organise its annual ‘Global Peace and Unity’ festival in London which will be attended by tens of thousands of British Muslims. Previous events (which have been partly funded with taxpayer money) have featured anti-Semitic speakers, Holocaust deniers and supporters of terrorist violence and gender apartheid – as a well as a range of hardline Wahhabi speakers – while moderate, tolerant Muslim voices have been sidelined.”

    Now is this claim true or is it yet more sensationalism?

    Looking at the speaker line up which was criticised we see:

    http://www.theglobalunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=49

    35 speakers are listed.

    19 are Muslims and 16 are non-Muslims. Thats a fair balance at just over half Muslim and just under half non-Muslim.

    Of the 19 Muslims there is a wide range of creeds and people ranging from Sheikh Yusuf Estes to Yusuf Islam.

    Now Yusuf Islam is hardly the typical Wahabi that Sid and Qf imply and is more Sufi than Wahabi!

    We then have Jermain Jackson, Lord Sheikh, Shahid Malik, Zareen Roohi Ahmed, Salma Yaqoob, Sadiq Khan, Imran Khan. None of these can be said to be Wahabi.

    So even amongst the Muslims there is a wide range of opinions which is contrary to what is claimed.

    amongst the non-Muslims we have Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev Riah Abu El-assal (Bishop in Jerusalem), Tony McNulty, Jack Straw, Simon Hughes, Nick Clegg, Sir Ian Blair, William Rammell, Steven McLaughlin, Dominic Grieve, Ramesh Kallidai, Tony Benn, John Rees, Stephen Timms, William Rodriquez (Survivor of 9/11), Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss (Netuei Karta).

    Come on Sid this is hardly an Islamist event and in fact there is a good spread of Muslims and non-Muslims and even amongst the Muslims there is a wide range of views from various creeds.

    In addition there are Nasheeds which are more sufi/brailwee oriented than Wahabi. There is arts and exhibits etc.

    It really is an unfair and sensationalist piece that lacked foundation when Policy Exchange did it and still does now.

    You can’t label every event Muslims do as Islamist and scream. Its becoming more right wing headlining than thought out research.

    It isn’t doing QF any favours and they need to adopt a better approach. I’ve read their new FAQ and its far better than the earlier ones which were just more creed bashing.

    Next time you do lunch with “Ed” let me know and I’ll give him a few ideas but please forgive me if I don’t make up a name!

    But seriously have a word with “Ed” and tell him this is just not going to help QF develop as it needs to and just when they were getting a bit better. This is more Mel Phillips style or is he trying to make friends with her again after their little spat.

  43. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 7:49 pm  

    Man, it’s terrible that Faisal posted a press release.

    You never, ever see the MSM doing that with press releases.

    You’d… you almost think that was what press releases were for.

  44. qidniz — on 30th April, 2009 at 7:56 pm  

    Jai,

    Interesting.

    No. Predictable, par for the course. This is PP.

  45. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:04 pm  

    Katy – “Man, it’s terrible that Faisal posted a press release.

    You never, ever see the MSM doing that with press releases.

    You’d… you almost think that was what press releases were for.”

    Yes that explains why he had to tell someone for F Off then does it? That a way to defend his actions huh?

    Is there any action of his you won’t defend?

    Come get a grip, when people were rude to you and you didn’t like it. But here is an editor telling people to f off and making up silly claims about why he did and didn’t post his source.

    A press release has a source and now you are saying people are wrong for highlighting an issue with his posting.

    You know full well that isn’t a way to treat people so it isn’t worth trying to defend his handling of the situation which everyone can see is poor.

  46. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:20 pm  

    Telling you to F Off was completely out of order

    Actually, in my view, telling me to fuck off was the most sensible thing Faisal wrote in this thread.

    His two rather convoluted and contradicting excuses for not citing or sourcing the material, on the other hand, is far more troubling. It would be nice to know that the articles that appear in PP come from the authors themselves, and any material borrowed is properly cited, sourced and linked.

  47. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:28 pm  

    Interesting

    Nothing out of the ordinary, Jai…

  48. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:29 pm  

    Sid – Did you know that Yasir Qhadi also signed the Unity Pledge calling on the various Muslim creeds to unite and stop their in-fighting so yes he really is a Wahabi isn’t he!!!!

    Looks like QF didn’t do their research very well.

  49. fug — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:33 pm  

    42. Its a function of faisal al saud’s dissentry and his new erotic adventures with ‘ed’. can you imagine what their spawn would look like?

    Most funny is they employment of ‘the alderman’ swinger. suddenly they give a stuff about the shi’i?

  50. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:36 pm  

    Ravi – “Actually, in my view, telling me to fuck off was the most sensible thing Faisal wrote in this thread. ”

    Thats true!

    “His two rather convoluted and contradicting excuses for not citing or sourcing the material, on the other hand, is far more troubling. It would be nice to know that the articles that appear in PP come from the authors themselves, and any material borrowed is properly cited, sourced and linked.”

    Don’t worry the fan club is being mobilised as we speak and soon a familiar name will also arrive to back him up.

    You don’t stand a chance. The first fan clubber has already posted and the unit is being marshalled as we speak.

  51. Rumbold — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    Look, Faisal has corrected the piece. Now let’s get back to discussing its implications (as Imran Khan and others were doing).

  52. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:41 pm  

    Has he?

    This is the last paragraph from the QF PR –
    “This imbalance in favour of extremists on the Islam Channel and at its Global Peace and Unity Festival acts to the detriment of British Muslims. The Islam Channel is ideally placed to help foster the development of a British Muslim identity that contributes to wider society and which is comfortable in a secular, democratic and liberal country. This year’s Global Peace and Unity Festival should be a platform for showcasing the diversity of modern British Islam rather than becoming an occasion that creates more controversy and suspicion toward British Muslims. The Islam Channel can do better.”

    Look familiar?

    [Note - that was a copy and paste from the QF PR, not a copy and paste of the last paragraph from the article above, which is claimed as Sid's own work]

    In fact the article is more deceptive than before because it gives the impression that only some of it was copied and pasted from the QF PR

  53. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:45 pm  

    It would be nice to know that the articles that appear in PP come from the authors themselves, and any material borrowed is properly cited, sourced and linked.

    The question is, if I wanted to plagiarise Quilliam, why would I do it on a blog I know they read? :D

    Tell you what Ravi, don’t let it stop there. Write Quilliam a splenetic email informing them of my crime. It would be completely in keeping.

  54. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:45 pm  

    But back to discussing the piece –

    Imran has really pointed out a lot of inaccuracies and sensationalism in the piece

    I question the motives behind it as well, and it looks like a lot of slandering is going on, which makes the plageurism above even worse

    Unless it was Sid that actually wrote the initial PR?
    Sid?

  55. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:46 pm  

    Naadir

    There’s a basic question: If the information’s accurate, what can be proposed to resolve it, and others have articulated a response:

    1. Ignore it.
    2. Challenge the Islam Channel directly.

    Are there other options to be considered?

    Depressingly little, it would seem.

    Given the apathy and what passes for the defence of liberal values today. If this thread and the capitulation to racism and religious bigotry is anything to go by.

  56. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

    Bless you, Imran. It is very unpleasant when someone tells you to fuck off, but Ravi and Faisal have been winding each other up for ages and I’m sure they can resolve it between themselves.

    My point is slightly different. All I’m saying is, press releases are created with the intention and understanding that they will be reposted in the MSM and on the web with very few changes under the name of the journalist or blogger who found them. 9/10 articles that you see in magazines and newspapers on health, technology, makeup and fashion under writer bylines are minimally altered press releases. If an article says something like “The Home Office today announced” it indicates that the writer is regurgitating a press release from the Home Office.

    I don’t see this as plagiarism, myself, because plagiarism involves reprinting something as your own work without the permission of the author, whereas press releases are distributed in the very hope that various influential people will adopt them and thereby attract publicity to whatever the press release is publicising.

    Basically, a press release is the article that a PR person would like someone to write about their product. What they hope will happen, and what often does happen, is that a journalist who’s pressed for time or needs space will bung the press release in as a quick fix.

  57. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:49 pm  

    Don’t worry the fan club is being mobilised as we speak and soon a familiar name will also arrive to back him up.

    Heh. You are good. #52 came two minutes after you posted. :)

    Did you know that Yasir Qhadi also signed the Unity Pledge calling on the various Muslim creeds to unite and stop their in-fighting so yes he really is a Wahabi isn’t he!!!!

    Do you use the terms Salafi and Wahhabi interchangeably? (Not trying to make a point, I am ignorant on this issue)

  58. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:52 pm  

    “I don’t see this as plagiarism, myself, because plagiarism involves reprinting something as your own work without the permission of the author,”

    This is not really true though is it.

    It is about using other peoples work without citing them, irrespective whether they give permission or not,

  59. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:52 pm  

    I would also like to out myself as a Faisalette, though.

  60. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:52 pm  

    @Katy Newton
    “I don’t see this as plagiarism, myself, because plagiarism involves reprinting something as your own work without the permission of the author,”

    This is not really true though is it.

    It is about using other peoples work without citing them, irrespective whether they give permission or not,

  61. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:53 pm  

    And I’m a Newtonian.

  62. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:57 pm  

    Sid – what is your opinion of what Imran posted at 43?

  63. Sunny — on 30th April, 2009 at 8:58 pm  

    The question is, if I wanted to plagiarise Quilliam, why would I do it on a blog I know they read?

    Huh? So it just happens that you and QF both independently decided to write about the Islam Channel on the same day, using the same points?

    Let’s be clear – I have no problem having QF stuff being posted here as long as writers make it clear it’s from them, and people can then judge the content on its own merit. However, you initially forgot or didn’t mention it, and then later added. Fine. But now you seem to be backtracking and saying it had nothing to do with, while at the same time swearing at commenters and also writing some crap about how we’re now excusing liberal values?

    And to be clear, I have no love for the Islam Channel and agree with the view that they are basically Islamist Channel.

  64. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

    @faisal, what would you do? I’m always a little uneasy when by the recourse to liberal values, because what follows then is often an illiberal response in honour of those liberal values that sought to be protected.

  65. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

    Huh? So it just happens that you and QF both independently decided to write about the Islam Channel on the same day, using the same points?

    No this is a Quilliam Alert. I reformated the wording and re-posted it. Quilliam know I’m repurposing it. I didn’t mention QF because, so help me, I wanted a post without a useless, timewasting sidetrack discussion thread on the “representiveness” of Quilliam. Boy was I wrong, because obviously, as we can see, the whole thing has taken quite a farcical life of its own.

  66. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:09 pm  

    Sunny – “And to be clear, I have no love for the Islam Channel and agree with the view that they are basically Islamist Channel.”

    Afraid that isn’t true and in fact the channel made itself unpopular when it opened out to more creeds.

    Its more of a hotchpotch trying to please everyone rather than an Islamist Channel.

    The reason they are portrayed as such is due to the coverage given to Palestine as an issue so they are being targeted by the right and neocon movements.

    Its sensationalism and everyone knows that.

    The facts are short on the ground and are going by unquestioned.

  67. Ed — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:11 pm  

    I really really want a response to what Imran wrote

    “Qf – “Later this year, the Islam Channel will organise its annual ‘Global Peace and Unity’ festival in London which will be attended by tens of thousands of British Muslims. Previous events (which have been partly funded with taxpayer money) have featured anti-Semitic speakers, Holocaust deniers and supporters of terrorist violence and gender apartheid – as a well as a range of hardline Wahhabi speakers – while moderate, tolerant Muslim voices have been sidelined.”

    Now is this claim true or is it yet more sensationalism?

    Looking at the speaker line up which was criticised we see:

    http://www.theglobalunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=49

    35 speakers are listed.

    19 are Muslims and 16 are non-Muslims. Thats a fair balance at just over half Muslim and just under half non-Muslim.

    Of the 19 Muslims there is a wide range of creeds and people ranging from Sheikh Yusuf Estes to Yusuf Islam.

    Now Yusuf Islam is hardly the typical Wahabi that Sid and Qf imply and is more Sufi than Wahabi!

    We then have Jermain Jackson, Lord Sheikh, Shahid Malik, Zareen Roohi Ahmed, Salma Yaqoob, Sadiq Khan, Imran Khan. None of these can be said to be Wahabi.

    So even amongst the Muslims there is a wide range of opinions which is contrary to what is claimed.

    amongst the non-Muslims we have Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev Riah Abu El-assal (Bishop in Jerusalem), Tony McNulty, Jack Straw, Simon Hughes, Nick Clegg, Sir Ian Blair, William Rammell, Steven McLaughlin, Dominic Grieve, Ramesh Kallidai, Tony Benn, John Rees, Stephen Timms, William Rodriquez (Survivor of 9/11), Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss (Netuei Karta).”

    Please? Anyone?

  68. Sunny — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:12 pm  

    No this is a Quilliam Alert. I reformated the wording and re-posted it. Quilliam know I’m repurposing it.

    Hmmm.. sure I understand the motivation for it, and I don’t think its good practice. But you admitted the mistake, and that’s fine, except I don’t think there was any need to swear at Ravi or imply that this wasn’t a re-wording of a Quilliam alert.

    Back to the actual article – was anyone actually under the impression that the Islam Channel people weren’t Islamists?

    The only time I went on there, I was in a debate with someone from HuT, MPAC UK and the presenter, who also happened to be from MPAC UK. Pure farce.

    but then I find The Sun and Spectator magazines also quite farcical. That’s the nature of the media industry for you.

  69. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:12 pm  

    I can’t help feeling that there are a few people on this thread who don’t like Faisal’s take on Islamism and are trying to smear him by making him out to be a plagiarist for reposting a fricking press release. It’s a great way of avoiding the subject though, people, so well done there.

    Sunny, I’m pretty sure you’ve been known to swear at commenters yourself and that you’ve frequently had to go back and correct inaccuracies in things that you’ve posted, so maybe you could turn down that righteous indignation just a notch or two? :-)

  70. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:14 pm  

    Sid – “No this is a Quilliam Alert. I reformated the wording and re-posted it. Quilliam know I’m repurposing it. I didn’t mention QF because, so help me, I wanted a post without a useless, timewasting sidetrack discussion thread on the “representiveness” of Quilliam. Boy was I wrong, because obviously, as we can see, the whole thing has taken quite a farcical life of its own.”

    Your own words don’t lead to that conclusion and the expletives lend weight to the argument. It hasn’t taken a life of its own and we’d just l;ike you to be clear now on your relationship to QF.

    You post a QF alert and say its your work then maybe not then you want a discussion on a QF alert without QF then it is a QF alert.

    Ok so how do QF know you did that – you must have sought approval surely? Which means you are discussing what is posted here with QF and frankly this is a discussion area and its not their business what we discuss is it?

    Whats going on?

    Sunny with respect this needs to be clear. Is this an independant blog or are editors discussing what is being posted with with think tanks?

  71. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:18 pm  

    Sunny,

    I’m not claiming it to be my own work. Nor do Quilliam regard this as plagiarism because I already have approval from them to re-use their press releases. If you think this compromises the standards of this blog, you’re free to take it down. It’s your show.

  72. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:22 pm  

    Katy – “I can’t help feeling that there are a few people on this thread who don’t like Faisal’s take on Islamism and are trying to smear him by making him out to be a plagiarist for reposting a fricking press release. It’s a great way of avoiding the subject though, people, so well done there. ”

    Please get real. If thats the case then why pretend it was and then wasn’t and then was again? How fricking difficult is it to say “QF Alert” – oh look 8 letters and thats difficult to make clear – who are you trying to kid?

    Also the smearing is on the channel and you are diverting the subject.

    I’ve clearly shown who the speakers are at one of the events QF moaned about and in fact the majority are not Islamists.

    Not everyone who opposes Israel and is Muslim can be called an Islamist – thats just plain lazy research and you know it.

    The smear is based on innuendo and what people said years ago and have since said it was a mistake. I suppose you and Sid don’t make mistakes do you?

    In youth people make mistakes and as long as the person is no longer in denial about the holocaust then its desperate to pull out something said years ago.

    If people do it about “Ed” from a few months ago Sid complains but he sees no problem in quoting someone from 20 years ago when in the years past they have said they were wrong.

    Come on you are normally a fair minded person so at least be fair here.

    The issue is being distorted. Its not a brilliant channel but its not Islamist – its a faily widespread channel creed wise so accusations of Islamist are off the mark.

    As I said the usual manner of such organisations is to label people they don’t like unfairly as Islamist.

    You wouldn’t like an unfair label so why accept one so quickly for others?

  73. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:25 pm  

    Oh Imran. I just don’t think it’s a big deal to repost a press release.

    I do respect the fact that you’ve actually been trying to bring the thread back to the question of the Islam Channel, which I’ve never watched and can’t really comment on.

    In short, I am also an Imranette, even if we frequently disagree on things :-)

  74. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:37 pm  

    Sid – “I’m not claiming it to be my own work. Nor do Quilliam regard this as plagiarism because I already have approval from them to re-use their press releases. If you think this compromises the standards of this blog, you’re free to take it down. It’s your show.”

    Bit late for that.

    Did QF agree that you could use without mentioning them?

    Maybe the best way forward is to make a clear statement on whose work it is and which bits are your work/words.

    Then please make clear why you asked QF and not the blog owner for approval?

    Also what future discussions are you having with QF regarding this post? I’m not saying that you are doing something wrong but lets just be clear if you are feeding back opinions on what is said

  75. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    Also what future discussions are you having with QF regarding this post? I’m not saying that you are doing something wrong but lets just be clear if you are feeding back opinions on what is said

    You can take the tin-foil hat off now mate. They can read what is being said.

  76. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    Sid – @73 I am not having a go at you and am trying to help you clear things up :-)

  77. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:51 pm  

    Sid – “You can take the tin-foil hat off now mate. They can read what is being said.”

    I don’t mean it like that. What I mean is will you be giving feedback in general tersm like some people think you are right or some people think you can do this better etc.

    Like I said their FAQ has gotten better and I don’t think they helped themselves by repeating Policy Exchange.

    I don’t mind that being fed back.

    I also think what they said was sensationalist and didn’t actually reflect the facts of the direction of the Channel which I also think can do better. Like I said the speaker list and events clearly show that the QF statement about bias is incorrect.

    Also the channel did invite the Israeli Ambassador to speak.

    If QF want to progress then they don’t need to copy right wing think tanks.

  78. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 9:54 pm  

    Yvonne Ridley who took Islam Channel to court for unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination, and awarded £25k, might know more about the culture operating at the Islam Channel.

  79. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:03 pm  

    Is that enough to say they are Islamist? I think not.

    As I said the term is being used by various groups to label other groups and it doesn’t help the situation.

    The focus on Islami Channel without equally asking the other channels such as Noor and QTV etc. is biased.

    So is QF claiming that Sufi/Brailwee channels are ok and anyhing else is wrong?

    I know Ed has found Sufisim but blaming the ills of the Muslim world on everyone else is poor sectarianism and is therefore no good.

    This just seems a poor way to address a serious community issue that of tackling extremism.

    It smacks of jingoism to please politicians and simply drives another wedge between QF and the Muslim populace.

    I’ve already seen their press release going round websites and blogs and it isn’t being well received.

  80. Imran Khan — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:09 pm  

    Sadly this is just a twist of the old fairy tale Jews control the media to Islamists control the Islamic media.

    It lacks factual basis and accuracy on the issues it is trying to address.

    Even the claim that the GPU event is Islamists is wholly wrong when the majority of speakers and entertainment is far from what is being claimed.

    This labelling of of people that organisatiosn such as QF disagree with as Islamist is smear and is causing more problems and actually stopping people from their legal rights to free speech.

    If someone breaks the law then they should be prosecuted but they can’t be stopped from speaking because of smears and its happening.

  81. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:14 pm  

    I can’t help feeling that there are a few people on this thread who don’t like Faisal’s take on Islamism and are trying to smear him by making him out to be a plagiarist for reposting a fricking press release. It’s a great way of avoiding the subject though, people, so well done there.

    Who are these people, Katy? Would that be Platinium and fug again?

  82. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:17 pm  

    Didja see the words “a few people”, Ravi?

  83. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:17 pm  

    If it’s any consolation, I know that your problem is less Faisal’s take on Islamism and more a personal thing.

  84. faisal — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:18 pm  

    Sadly this is just a twist of the old fairy tale Jews control the media to Islamists control the Islamic media.

    Well that’s if you think Islam Channel constitute “Islamic media”. They’re just a nasty little satellite channel. Well oiled, from Doha with love.

  85. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:43 pm  

    I can’t help feeling that there are a few people on this thread who don’t like Faisal’s take on Islamism and are trying to smear him by making him out to be a plagiarist for reposting a fricking press release. It’s a great way of avoiding the subject though, people, so well done there.

    Didja see the words “a few people”, Ravi?

    I did see them. Is that your way of saying that you won’t name names?

    If it’s any consolation, I know that your problem is less Faisal’s take on Islamism and more a personal thing.

    You usually do not say things like that to people you barley know. It makes you look presumptuous.

  86. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:45 pm  

    @Sunny & Faisal, actually I think it’s quite positive that whilst we expect the MSM to repurpose press releases as their own, we have higher expectations from our ‘community’ of sites.

  87. Katy Newton — on 30th April, 2009 at 10:55 pm  

    You usually do not say things like that to people you barley know. It makes you look presumptuous.

    Oh now. You told him you’d had enough of him on the other thread. It wasn’t that presumptuous.

  88. Ravi Naik — on 30th April, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

    Oh now. You told him you’d had enough of him on the other thread. It wasn’t that presumptuous.

    Heh. But I have said that to many of the regulars here, it doesn’t mean I am out to get them. In fact, whenever I read an article from Sunny or Rumbold which I believe is below standard, I tell them. Whenever I see an article that is exceptional, I also complement the authors – as I have done with Faisal.

    So, why should I not criticise this particular article in the harshest of ways by how it was originally presented? You may disagree with the reasons given, but I do not think it is right for anyone to assume that people write out of resentment or something personal. Otherwise, we will turn every thread into a soap opera.

  89. Andrew — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:02 am  

    I take the view that any group or individual that is FULLY funded by the government is highly suspect. The Quilliam Foundation – with it’s Million Pound a year budget – falls into this category as far as I,m concerned. This QF alert doesn’t look much different to what you would expert from a neocon think-tank like the CSC.

    There do seem to be issues to be raised about Islam Channel, but I doubt that QF is the one to do it.

  90. American Muslim — on 1st May, 2009 at 4:04 am  

    Disclaimer: I’m a student of Yasir Qadhi, so yes, I’m biased.

    Apart from the fact that this entire charge against him (the Holocaust issue) has been refuted on his website (in a very enjoyable read), the constant ‘badgering’ of how his own teachers have warned against him is in fact ridiculous. If you listen to the clip and know the internal politics of what is going on, he is actually being criticized by ultra-conservative Salafist factions (including some of his teachers, yes) for reaching out and establishing good relations with other (non-Salafist) Muslim groups.

    This is an internal matter that is well-known to all those associated with the movement; this ultra-conservative movement views many other groups to be outside the fold of Islam or extremely heretical.

    In other words, Yasir is viewed as a liberal by these teachers because of his intra-faith work. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or al-Qaeda or anything like that, for Yasir has never been associated with such movements, and it is well-known that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies in the US have consulted with him and availed themselves to his knowledge.

    If you have any questions or concerns about specific people, it would make sense to contact them directly rather than assume things, no? The website that he blogs on is http://www.muslimmatters.org – you can leave a comment and they usually respond within a day (at least that’s been my experience)

    All the best,

    A student

  91. qidniz — on 1st May, 2009 at 4:45 am  

    Brailwee

    Ouch!

    It’s Barelwi or Barelvi, literally meaning “of/from Bareilly”, a major town of the region known as Rohilkhand in Uttar Pradesh, India. The founder of the sect, Ahmad Raza Khan, was from there.

  92. ENGAGE — on 1st May, 2009 at 6:05 am  

    http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/319

    ENGAGE’s response to the QF ‘alert’.

  93. douglas clark — on 1st May, 2009 at 8:54 am  

    Anyways,

    It would seem to me that the question of how and why the Islam Channel is funded has become the elephant in the room. The only comment that appears to address that is Faisals’ ‘from Doha with love’.

    So, why does anyone take propoganda at face value? It’d be a little like seeing Fox News as a serious news channel and not a rabid collection of nutters.

    Me?

    I’d ban all religious broadcasting, but that’s just my Stalinist side coming out.

  94. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 9:43 am  

    ENGAGE’s response to the QF ‘alert’.

    ENGAGE is actually InayatGAGE isn’t it? Bunglawala’s little vanity project.

    The article is complete eyewash, a weak counter-attack of the QF alert. It’s a personal attack of the Quilliam Foundation, yawn. Not interested.

    How about countering QF’s direct accusations of the political affiliations of the presenters and the ideas they are claimed to be disseminating.

    Let’s see if they are in tune with the “liberal values” you’re pretending to be in tune with.

  95. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 9:46 am  

    So, why does anyone take propoganda at face value? It’d be a little like seeing Fox News as a serious news channel and not a rabid collection of nutters.

    Spot on douglas.

  96. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2009 at 9:56 am  

    We then have Jermain Jackson, Lord Sheikh, Shahid Malik, Zareen Roohi Ahmed, Salma Yaqoob, Sadiq Khan, Imran Khan. None of these can be said to be Wahabi.

    salma yaqoob and imran khan are both part of the “respect” tendency, aren’t they? you know, that whole islamist-trot hookup? so far this isn’t exactly sounding like “moderate non-islamists” to me, apart from the MPs, who should frankly be ashamed of themselves.

    Rev Riah Abu El-assal (Bishop in Jerusalem)

    gosh, i wonder what subject he’ll talk about to these 10s of thousands of muslims. i expect he’ll be terribly moderate, given his stance on I/P.

    Tony Benn

    hah! yes, it’s moderation all round.

    Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss (Neturei Karta).

    HIM? WHY is this man taking part, imran? why are the islam channel promoting neturei karta? could it be that he thinks that:

    a) the state of israel is a “satanic entity”
    b) the holocaust was a punishment for non-observance of jewish law and daring to move back to israel before the advent of the messiah
    or could it be c) his views on “gender apartheid” are indistinguishable from those of islamists.

    obviously, these are views which *must* be promoted by the islam channel as ‘this is what “proper” jews (look, he has a black hat and a beard and sidelocks) think’, which is NK’s usual modus operandi. NK are the islamists’ willing stooges and are persona non grata in the jewish community. there are only 10,000 of them in the whole world. i am sure the organisers will make *sure* that they’re not presented as representative. and i wonder what subject he will speak on? i am sure it will contribute to moderation and community cohesion.

    Come on Sid this is hardly an Islamist event

    it can hardly be understood as anything else.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  97. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:33 am  

    I’ve yet to see Faisal/Sid or the fan club counter Imran Khan’s #43 post.

    It seems QF and their supporters are all snear and smear. When it comes to presenting tangible proof (of which they have none) they resort to linguistic trickery, denials and doublespeak.

    It is quite apparent that Islam Channel offer a platform for many groups and are a mouthpiece of none.

    It’s funny to see that Ed/Faisal and the fan club aren’t attacking Press TV. Maybe that’s because Majid now recognises them as a legitimate organisation and is willing to “debate” (more like rant!)on there???

  98. douglas clark — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:40 am  

    Tobias,

    Admittedly it doesn’t directly address issues about the Islam Channel, but surely bananbrains post that immediately preceeded your own casts at least a little doubt on their vaunted independence. No?

    And it does seem to me to directly address Imran Khans’ post @ 43. Which is what you claim to have been looking for.

  99. riazat butt — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:46 am  

    Oy vey. I go back to my point. If you don’t like it, switch off or switch over. Or, if you think you can change from within, come up with some programming ideas or launch your own channel, maybe one that is web-based. I have never thought, for one minute, that the Islam Channel is representative or that it claims to speak for all Muslims.

  100. douglas clark — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:51 am  

    riazat butt,

    Och, I dunno. Clearly they have a good conceit about themselves. It’s kind of intrinsic in the name don’t you think?

    Wonder what sort of audience share they have amongst their target group.

  101. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 10:55 am  

    Douglas,

    Hhmm…I still don’t think it does. It addresses a few speakers and points out their individual affiliations and then a rather weak attempt is made to make the entire organisation appear as “extreme”.

    bananbrains scant criticisms of 5 out of 35 speakers, is hardly the basis for any meaningful analysis. I think we can all agree upon that.

    If we are to follow bananbrains’ skewed logic then Jesse Jackson, Yusuf Islam, Outlandish and Dawud Wharnsby Ali are all “extreme”. So are Tony McNulty MP, Jack Straw MP, Simon Hughes MP, Sadiq Kahn MP, Nick Clegg MP and Sir Ian Blair!!

  102. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:00 am  

    riazat butt

    Your take on this seems to be a disapproval of any kind of critical discussion of Islam Channel.

    Nowehere on the QF PR does it suggest that the channel be closed down.

    So why are you presenting this squeamishness about criticism of religious bigotry when you know it goes on on the Islam Channel?

  103. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:07 am  

    “This imbalance in favour of extremists on the Islam Channel and at its Global Peace and Unity Festival acts to the detriment of British Muslims.”

    Faisal will you be addressing post #43 at anypoint?
    Or will you just skirt around the issue and scream “extremists!!” all day long?

    There is no shame in admitting you’re wrong and rectifying your mistake. Their is shame in knowing you’re wrong and continuing down that path….

  104. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    I made a silly spelling mistake on post #103!
    I meant to say: “THERE is shame in knowing you’re wrong and continuing down that path…”

  105. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:22 am  


    Now Yusuf Islam is hardly the typical Wahabi that Sid and Qf imply and is more Sufi than Wahabi!

    We then have Jermain Jackson, Lord Sheikh, Shahid Malik, Zareen Roohi Ahmed, Salma Yaqoob, Sadiq Khan, Imran Khan. None of these can be said to be Wahabi.

    Come on Sid this is hardly an Islamist event and in fact there is a good spread of Muslims and non-Muslims and even amongst the Muslims there is a wide range of views from various creeds.

    Yeah, but carefully excluded from Imran Khan’s list on #43 are Yasir Qadhi, Lord Nazir Ahmed, Salma Yaqoob and John Rees (!), and worthies from the MCB: Iqbal Sacranie and Muhammad Abdul Bari. And then there’s Stephen Timms MP, who has graced other Islamist events such as IslamExpo and is very sympathetic to Islamist causes.

  106. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:35 am  

    Is that it?
    Is that all you can muster?

    A few names coupled with claims of “Islamism”…. From the list of names you provide, none of these pople are extreme, they simply have chosen to follow a political path different to your own.

    Are you claiming that the Respect Party are extremists?
    The same of Lord Nazir Ahmed, Muhammad Abdul Bari and Sir Iqbal Sacaranie?? So people who partake in the democratic process in the UK are now extremists?

    What happened to the gutsy claim:
    “This imbalance in favour of extremists on the Islam Channel and at its Global Peace and Unity Festival acts to the detriment of British Muslims.”

    Come on faisal/sid.
    Forget the smear campaign come out with some solid proof that there is an imbalance in favour of extremists.

    PS. If you look carefully, you can see that Salma Yaqoob is mentioned in post #43.

  107. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    You might even find Salma Yaqoob mentioned in the snippet you quote from post #43!!

  108. fugstar — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:42 am  

    were the fairground rides at GPU ‘islamist’?

    and the centre piece stalls devoted to promoting that book by Ms Hai that shariq’s just reviewed?

    were all the parents and grand parents who attended ‘islamist’ and hence undeserving of contact officialdom.

    were the pretty definately post-islamist project stalls their ‘conveyorbelts to terror’?

    and the assimilated american state department muslim yaar type banging on about how backwards the britslims are, was she ‘islamist’?

    really your ‘south asian religion ishoos’ are startlingly skewsome. you are about as convincing as your stable masters.

    but i suppose its ok, ed’s ‘a mate’.

    blueblood.

  109. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:42 am  

    Is that it?
    Is that all you can muster?

    What, are we haggling the price of potatoes here?

    Quantitatively and in addition to bananabrain’s comment, that’s more than enough, thanks very much. And since was it a criterion that “quantity” of Islamists trumps their qualitative influnce on this Global Peace & Unity event?

    If we are going discuss the influence of these Islamists, let’s get definitions out of the way. Asim Siddiqi wrote a superb definition of the term ‘Islamist’ :

    Let’s get the definitions out of the way with first: my definition of an Islamist is someone seeking political power to impose, to varying degrees, their interpretation of Islam on society. Some British Muslim activists are obviously Islamists by virtue of being supporters of overseas Islamist political parties. Then there’s the genre of the very small number of high-profile ex-Islamists, whose experiences are unique and thus don’t resonate with most Muslims. You then have a huge range of grey in between where it gets rather more complicated.

  110. fugstar — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:44 am  

    and Saudi Sid, erm have you ever listened to islamophonic. anti-critical? hmm

    you’re just crap, embarassingly so. thats all.

  111. Ravi Naik — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    The problem with QF, in my view, is that it lacks nuance and is engaging in the sort of language that is divisive and polarising, and unnecessary alienating moderates and conservatives.

    Here is a clip of Yasir Qadhi talking to the Islam Channel. Is this the evil Yasir Qadhi that makes Islam Channel an extremist channel? This is what prompted a special alert from QF?

  112. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    and you, dear fugstar, would be out of your depth in a puddle of piss.

  113. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:54 am  

    Let’s talk quantitive here, you said “Many of its speakers are Islamist extremists from organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir who use the channel to promote intolerant and bigoted interpretations of Islam.”

    How many are Islamists? Doesn’t many = a large proportion/majority?
    5/35 (those mentioned by bananabrains) is not “many”. Of those 5 how many are “islamists” (by you’re definition”. NONE!

    Let’s talk about your assertion of there being an imbalance.
    I want to see proof of this.
    You provide no proof, you have simply made inane claims.

    According to your (and A. Siddiqui’s) definition is Lord Ahmed an Islamist?

    Ever thought about working for The Sun?

  114. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    According to your (and A. Siddiqui’s) definition is Lord Ahmed an Islamist?

    By Siddiqi’s definition? Totally.

    Ever thought about working for The Sun?

    No. Why do you have shares in the Islam Channel?

  115. fugstar — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:02 pm  

    Not really IT boy, I avoid puddles of urine because inevitably folks such as yourself inhabit them. I suppose you and ed make a nice confusing couple, for now (you should find out about their employee churn).

    Dont tag yourself to Asim’s colours, he has a cultural capital as he has contributed constructively to institution building. You do little but poison people with your bile and rather lame parrotings.

    Its good that you exist though, purely as an anti-example.

  116. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    You do little but poison people with your bile and rather lame parrotings.

    gosh, that’s almost intelligible.

  117. fugstar — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

    Mir Jafar, ever thought of evolving beyond a poisoned tongue?

  118. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

    ‘The problem with QF, in my view, is that it lacks nuance and is engaging in the sort of language that is divisive and polarising, and unnecessary alienating moderates and conservatives.’

    That was my observation on day one of the Quilliam launch, further bolstered by Sid’s ultra-defensive approach. And I also share the suspicion of anyone funded to the tune of £1 million pound, that buys a lot of propaganda.

    Now, will someone answer my question:

    What is a Quilliam Alert?

    Should we take them as seriously as a severe weather warning? Is a Quilliam Index similar to the Beaufort Scale or Richter magnitude on the horizon? Or will they use DefCon?

  119. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

    Nope, no shares in Islam Channel. Do they do shares?

    So, faisal when are you going to stop peddling these lies and myths? You have provided no empirical proof and you have been proven wrong.

    Ain’t it about time you come out with some evidence or stop your claims?

  120. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

    Bananabrain,

    There is nothing wrong with Tony Benn. A fine chap.

    Its just such a shame Robin Cook is no longer with us, I believe he too would be on the platform.

  121. Ravi Naik — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:27 pm  

    Mir Jafar, ever thought of evolving beyond a poisoned tongue?

    Is that all you can do, fugstar? Personal attacks? Focus on faisal’s article as others have done, and let him respond (or in this case be silent) to the many relevant questions put on to him. You are just giving him an opportunity to move the focus from the article to infantile personal attacks.

    If you are unable to debate then get out.

  122. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

    Oh I don’t know.

    Mir Jafar, for those who don’t know, is the Bengali Mughal figure analogous to the figure of Benedict Arnold, from US history.

    But the question is, being traitorous to fugstar’s vile, racist bigotry can only be a positive confirmation, surely.

  123. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 12:47 pm  

    Sid,Faisal,

    I could do a far better job than Quilliam ever could.
    Its taxpayers money down the drain. Are you receiving any of it; is there a prospect of you financially benefitting in the near future (within the next year or so)?

    Transparency would be helpful to you and us, especially given you initially avoided attributing the material as you felt the Quilliam watermark would damage the message. Which of course is you acknowledging that Quilliam may not have the credibility it needs to be heard uncritically. The corollary is that Sid/Faisal does.

  124. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2009 at 1:22 pm  

    Hhmm…I still don’t think it does. It addresses a few speakers and points out their individual affiliations and then a rather weak attempt is made to make the entire organisation appear as “extreme”.

    no. i simply picked the 5 out of 35 speakers that i do actually know something about and consider to be either:

    a) misguided at best (the MPs)
    b) professional encouragers of the politics of grievance who romanticise islamists as revolutionaries whilst ignoring their positions on other “progressive” issues (tony benn)
    c) part of the extremist islamist-trot student-politics marriage of convenience (yaqoob et al)
    d) there for the sole purpose of stirring up anyone who hears them about how evil israel is (el-assal and weiss)

    in particular, any muslim organisation that gives a platform to NK is revealing itself to have a highly unpleasant, anti-jewish agenda, for which the likes of weiss provide a figleaf (it doesn’t bother him and his co-sectarians, because they think they’re the only real jews left) – answer that if you can. this is a man that attends iranian holocaust denial conferences and is photographed hugging ahmedinejad.

    If we are to follow bananbrains’ skewed logic then Jesse Jackson, Yusuf Islam, Outlandish and Dawud Wharnsby Ali are all “extreme”. So are Tony McNulty MP, Jack Straw MP, Simon Hughes MP, Sadiq Kahn MP, Nick Clegg MP and Sir Ian Blair!!

    except i didn’t actually say that, did i? i chose to stick to people that i actually know something about and you would be well advised to do the same. i then drew the understandable conclusion that the organisers know *exactly* what they’re doing; weiss alone is evidence of that.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  125. riazat butt — on 1st May, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

    @ Faisal – I don’t have to watch the Islam Channel and I don’t know why you’re getting so worked up about it. I am no more a fan of the Islam Channel than I am of QF. I don’t have to pay attention to either. End of. I also think that adults can make their mind up about what they will and won’t watch. My point to you – which you repeatedly ignore in favor of attaching baseless inferences to my comments – is what do you suggest as an alternative? If the tone and content of the Islam Channel is so displeasing, how do you propose to change that? I won’t be revisiting this thread, partly because Faisal seems to know me so well and partly because I can’t understand why the simple “switch it off” mantra isn’t getting through.

  126. Tobias — on 1st May, 2009 at 1:43 pm  

    So bananabrain, it seems that your issue is that the Islam Channel is not that it hosts a variety of people with differing political opinions but rather your issue with them is that they are willing to host people with critical opinion of Israel.

    You mention misguided MPS. All of those who are listed are misguided? Nick Clegg, Tony McNuluty…..etc
    Are they misguided because they don’t share your opinion of Israel?

  127. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    perhaps because they are getting to take over trafalgar square and represent themselves as “islam”? this is the issue really, it is the same problem as weiss or any of his NK co-quislings calling themselves “jews against zionism”, rather than “tiny sect of extremist nutter jews against zionism”; if you like, it’s “small number of islamist propagandists attempting to set the agenda for the whole of british islam”. this is the issue, clearly that the quilliameen have with it, it seems also to be the issue that i have with it and also that faisal also has with it. at least, that’s how i read it.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  128. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 2:08 pm  

    I won’t be revisiting this thread, partly because Faisal seems to know me so well and partly because I can’t understand why the simple “switch it off” mantra isn’t getting through.

    I don’t know you at all and have not suggested that I do. I *am* questioning why you’re advocating a “closed eyes/closed mouths/closed ears” approach to the Islam Channel.

    I don’t listen to your Guardian Islamophonic podcast, but if this is the approach you take towards Islamist issues affecting the Muslim community, I can’t say I’m particularly impressed.

  129. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

    Bananbrain

    ‘it’s “small number of islamist propagandists attempting to set the agenda for the whole of british islam”.’

    That’s a nutty argument. Quilliam are saying they should be the ones setting the agenda.

    Whereas I think I should be the one to do it, given the time, energy and resources. And you want to do it by proxy.

  130. Sunny — on 1st May, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    I don’t know you at all and have not suggested that I do. I *am* questioning why you’re advocating a “closed eyes/closed mouths/closed ears” approach to the Islam Channel.

    Well, because riazat’s point is quite simple. It’s a bit like the MCB – you can either ignore them or you can listen to them. but one shouldn’t pretend they represent the entire spectrum of opinion. I don’t think anyone is saying the ISlam Channel represents everyone.

    Now, assume the ISlam Channel are nutty like the MCB. Are you proposing you join the MCB to change them? Do you want the Islam Channel to give you a show? Or perhaps you could set up your own alternative?

    Incidentally, Islamophonic is an alternative and Riazat has done some excellent discussions and pieces on there – way better than what the Islam Channel could manage, despite my initial scepticism. So rather than sniffing your nose up at it – perhaps you could engage with the points she’s making. What exactly are you arguing for?

  131. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

    Well, because riazat’s point is quite simple. It’s a bit like the MCB – you can either ignore them or you can listen to them. but one shouldn’t pretend they represent the entire spectrum of opinion. I don’t think anyone is saying the ISlam Channel represents everyone.

    No, no one is, so why mention it? Fox News isn’t the only channel on TV, nor does it represent the full spectrum of the US right wing demographic. Does that mean we don’t criticise it, we apply the “switch it off mantra”?

    Is it something to do with the sentiment that its ok to critique white, right wing politics. But criticism of brown religious right-wing politics and media outlets isn’t such a pressing requirement?

  132. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:07 pm  

    So bananabrain, it seems that your issue is that the Islam Channel is not that it hosts a variety of people with differing political opinions but rather your issue with them is that they are willing to host people with critical opinion of Israel.

    nope. my issue is that they are willing to actively inflame and distort the situation by presenting a representative of NK before a large muslim audience as the “authentic voice of judaism”, which is what they always seek to show themselves to be, whereas they are about as representative of this as you would be. you don’t seem to understand what these people mean to the jewish community – if you want to cause conflict between the jewish community and the muslim community, then appoint NK as your guide to all things jewish. at best this could be described as ignorant, at worst downright pouring oil onto a fire.

    You mention misguided MPS. All of those who are listed are misguided? Nick Clegg, Tony McNuluty…..etc. Are they misguided because they don’t share your opinion of Israel?

    no. people are entitled to their own opinions on israel of course, however deluded. but anyone who gives a platform to NK or shares it with them should be ashamed of themselves. is anyone pointing out to jack straw or any of these other people that they’re sitting with someone who attended a holocaust denial conference in tehran?

    If the tone and content of the Islam Channel is so displeasing, how do you propose to change that?

    That’s a nutty argument. Quilliam are saying they should be the ones setting the agenda. Whereas I think I should be the one to do it, given the time, energy and resources. And you want to do it by proxy.

    Now, assume the ISlam Channel are nutty like the MCB. Are you proposing you join the MCB to change them? Do you want the Islam Channel to give you a show? Or perhaps you could set up your own alternative?

    well, can anyone suggest any other strategy beyond “ignore”, “criticise / compete” or “subvert from the inside”, as sunny (i think) may have said earlier? quilliam are doing “criticise/compete”, as i think faisal probably is as well. riazat is suggesting “ignore”. and as for my “trying to do it by proxy”, i’m more than happy to get involved in person, speak directly if there’s an alternative platform. i’m not entirely sure why anyone would want my opinion, however, i’m not a communal professional, a scholar or a journalist, just an interested lay person.

    and perhaps we could do it without insulting each other?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  133. riazat butt — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

    Having said that I wouldn’t reappear on here, I have. But only because a senior research fellow at the QF – James Brandon – cut and pasted my comment (no. 126 for those of you keeping count) and sent it to me. As a reprimand? I don’t know. He has not copied anyone in – although he may have done a BCC. Here is my response to James:

    “wow, talk about rapid response.
    My point was that I wasn’t biased towards the Islam Channel or “squeamish” about criticising it. Nor was I online to have a pop at the QF, as other posters were doing. I have repeatedly asked Faisal/Sid what he would do at the Islam Channel, given the chance, or what alternatives he would propose. It is relatively easy to get some sort of vlog online, providing alternative content about Islam and politics.
    I find it odd that you’ve emailed me my own comment. Are you going to make a complaint to my editor? Is this intimidation? What is this?”

  134. riazat butt — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:34 pm  

    James Brandon from QF has just written to say that he didn’t mean to email me my own comment. He meant to email it to someone else and apologized for the mistake.

  135. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:36 pm  

    riazat,

    i thought it was probably a friday-afternoon-after-3pm-before-a-bank-holiday moment. although faisal in my experience is a pretty sensible chap, i think your challenge:

    I have repeatedly asked Faisal/Sid what he would do at the Islam Channel, given the chance, or what alternatives he would propose. It is relatively easy to get some sort of vlog online, providing alternative content about Islam and politics.

    is a fair one. but isn’t that kind of what the quilliameen are about? i’m not sure i am really following what you are all disagreeing about, given that you all (apart from our resident islamist trolls) seem to agree that:

    a) the islam channel is not that representative
    b) the islam channel is not terribly moderate either
    c) quilliam (and, presumably your podcast, though i’ve never listened to it myself) both, i have an idea, seek to present an alternative view to what i generally refer to as monolithic-neo-traditionalist-generally-saudi-funded islam, or “microsoft islam” for short.

    or am i completely missing the point here?

    either way, stick around, i for one would appreciate your involvement.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  136. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:41 pm  

    riazat

    Now that you’ve drawn attention to your comment at #126

    I am no more a fan of the Islam Channel than I am of QF. I don’t have to pay attention to either. End of.

    What exactly are your criteria for placing the Islam Channel and QF in your “not a fan of” category?

  137. fugstar — on 1st May, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

    135.
    You’d think they’d have better hired help.

    quilliam electronic flatulence must really annoy those whitehall mandarins who are laughing at us.

  138. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

    ‘given that you all (apart from our resident islamist trolls) seem to agree that:

    a) the islam channel is not that representative
    b) the islam channel is not terribly moderate either
    c) quilliam (and, presumably your podcast, though i’ve never listened to it myself) both, i have an idea, seek to present an alternative view to what i generally refer to as monolithic-neo-traditionalist-generally-saudi-funded islam, or “microsoft islam” for short.’

    Stop putting words into people’s mouths. My guess is the majority of commenters have never seen it. They can only go by what Sid posts. And as Imran has pointed out Sid’s take (ie Quilliam’s take) lacks substance to put it mildly. Worse, its regurgitating Policy Exchange material which had already been damned.

    Those are the issues that get in the way of this debate. The least the guys can do is get their facts straight and stop using guilt by association as a means. Too stalinist for my liking.

  139. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    Bananabrain – a bunch of Muslim bashers is not representative of Muslim opinion and the Jewish Community also can’t pick and choose who speaks for them at all events especially when they are so especially quick to label any critic of Israel as Islamist and rapidly call for them to be boycotted.

    If you don’t like NK representing you then also stop the way you engage with Muslims which is systematic of your approach above.

    QF are rehashing Policy Exchanges earlier piece which was roundly denounced and prehaps instead of paying “Ed” and co so much money they can use their million to do what they are telling others to do or would that dent the nice offices and media hype they generate?

    What other community has to put up with lectures from government funded think tanks? You’d scream anti-semitism if this was done tot he Jewish Community to make them accept a European view on Israel.

    This is a nonsense report and full of innuendo rather than proper research.

    Its been clearly highlighted that The Global Peace Event has a wide ranging representation within and from outside the Muslim community so your claim about Holocaust denial is silly. Does every Pro-Israel event have such representation as everytimje I have seen one people come to appalud all that Israel do. Where is the criticism there?

    Pot – Kettle – Black.

  140. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

    Bananabrain – a bunch of Muslim bashers is not representative of Muslim opinion and the Jewish Community also can’t pick and choose who speaks for them at all events especially when they are so especially quick to label any critic of Israel as Islamist and rapidly call for them to be boycotted.

    And the Islamist community can no longer have free pass as purporting to wholly represent the Muslim community in the UK either. Sorry you can’t have it both ways.

  141. Andrew — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:02 pm  
  142. faisal — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    On which Mehdi Hasan writes

    I do find it odd, in an era of such depressingly unprecedented Sunni-Shia bloodletting and internecine strife, that such a bigoted, intolerant and sectarian individual turns out to be a regular and prominent speaker on Britain’s Islam Channel.

    Unless, perhaps, they are planning to rename themselves only as the “Sunni Channel”.

    Or perhaps more accurately, ‘The Salafi Channel’.

  143. Naadir Jeewa — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:17 pm  

    I’m afraid that people prefer the ‘switch it off mantra’ because it is an inherently British way of performing liberalism.

    Because once we attempt to do stronger things with the wrong “types of” Islam, then the question needs to be asked, what do we need to do with Christian churches-monitor evangelical churches who wish to impose Christianity on Britain? Why are we so sure what Islam imposed on Britain means vis-a-vis other religions? Seems like there’s some very powerful rhetorical moves going on.

    There are just so many assumptions on each side(?) of what people are saying here, that it doesn’t really get resolved by being patronising, condescending, swearing, etc…Perhaps, PPers should reflect on their underlying ideals of citizenship.

  144. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

    Sid – “And the Islamist community can no longer have free pass as purporting to wholly represent the Muslim community in the UK either. Sorry you can’t have it both ways.”

    Sid you are back to your nonsense. You can’t label everyone you don’t like as Islamist. If Islam Channel were Islamist then they wouldn’t be showing Bralwee shows now would they.

    “Or perhaps more accurately, ‘The Salafi Channel’.”
    Did “Ed” tell you to say that or do you do that by yourself. Again this is a smear and its part of the nonsense that is rearing its ugly head here again in your writing.

    If it was a Salafi Channel again they wouldn’t be showing known Sufi’s like Harun Yahya and Brailwee’s like Tahir ul-Qadri.

    This is a blatent attempt to mislead the readers here from someone who cleared his article with QF and not the blog owner as then wasn’t clear on why he did or didn’t name his source.

    This false labelling that you are being given free reign to perform is in fact falsehoods and is has been going on far too long.

    It isn’t the best channel in the world but it does give voice to a wide range of Sunni Muslim creeds and the report is simply an attempt to whip up hysteria.

    You apply a less rigid set of standards to QF than you do others why?

    The proof of speakers and indeed shows highlights that the report is in fact incorrect and there is a wide spread and no dominance.

    What the report is saying is that it wants to decide who is allowed to speak for Muslims and thats based on a check list from whom?

    For an organisations that has been awfully cagey about its own backers, links, foreign influence and funding its a bit rich that they are lecturing others.

    Also your own links with QF haven’t been made clear. You were quick to check with QF about posting but fail to extend the same to people here.

  145. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

    Wil QF now release a report on QTV, NoorTV etc. demanding they give voice to the Salafi’s – will they hell.

    Will they say that they need to give a voice to the Shia – will they hell.

    It highlights the selective nature of the report in that it is telling Islam Channel to do something it isn’t telling other channels to do.

  146. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:46 pm  

    For Katy and Bananabrain who almost always accept what Sid says here is a non Wahabi view of the Channel which is quite different from what QF and Sid portray and is more accurate than the nonsense being peddled:

    “As a viewer who also happens to be a British Muslim, I do therefore tune into the Islam Channel myself, on occasion, and – to be quite honest – have yet to see a single example of incitement to violence or terror. To suggest or imply otherwise, as the Quilliam Foundation does, is rather asinine. At worst, there may be the odd rather somnolent phone-in show, featuring a rotating bevy of Muslim scholars from the subcontinent, some with a tenuous grasp of the English language – but none of this comes even close to promoting or condoning Islamist extremism, violent or otherwise.

    The Islam Channel also takes great pains to ensure critics of Islamism, and even Islam, appear on its discussion shows – when I agreed to go on one such programme last summer to talk about a Channel 4 Dispatches film that I had commissioned on Islamophobia, I found myself debating the self proclaimed “neoconservative”, Douglas Murray, director of the rightwing Centre for Social Cohesion and a critic of the channel and its presenters, as well as the very concept of Islamophobia.

    Such discussions and debates, in which a multiplicity of diverse views are expressed on the channel, including those that challenge both Islamism and Islam itself, are curiously not mentioned at all in this week’s Quilliam alert – despite the fact that the Quilliam Foundation staff currently includes former Centre for Social Cohesion researcher, James Brandon.

    Does that mean that the Islam Channel is entirely innocent of the charges levelled by Ed Husain and co?

    Does that mean that the Islam Channel is entirely innocent of the charges levelled by Ed Husain and co?

    Not quite.

    Scanning the names of the various presenters and guests highlighted in the Quilliam alert, one name in particular set off alarm bells in my mind: Yasir Qadhi.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/01/islam-channel-quilliam

    The report is the latest in an ongoing set of smears designed to basically limit what Muslims can and cannot say. It is intimidation and thought control using tax payers money.

  147. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    Would the government dare to fund a thinktank which singles out say The Jewish Chronicle in such a way?

    To say that its support of Israel is not in line with European thinking. Never.

    Would it do the same for any other community?

    No and yet people here are applauding such action against Muslims.

    Why is no-one questioning the backers and funders of Quillian and who they are influenced by?

  148. Refresh — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    ‘Wil QF now release a report on QTV, NoorTV etc. demanding they give voice to the Salafi’s – will they hell.’

    No Imran. The issue is will QF be transparent about who it syndicates its thinking from. That is of primary import.

    Here is why its so important. We are led to believe that with Obama now in the Whitehouse, the neocon agenda is on the wane. Whereas I think the opposite is probably the case. After the Iran-Contra affair they went into overdrive with plotting and thinktanking; and they are doing so again. If you can no longer do it with direct governmental intervention, because you’ve been booted out, then you get the minions to drip-feed the poison with increased regularity.

    The Islam Channel is neither here nor there. The syndicated thinking that is represented by Quilliam is what needs deep excavation. And what lurks beneath needs a wooden stake.

    An aside, please don’t call these missives reports, that gives it more credibility than they deserve. Propagands pieces is what they are. They do not even come close to convincing any muslim, but its enough to keep non-muslims wary. Just consider who they are aiming their material at.

  149. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

    This site sadly is now more under the control of QF than the free debating area it used to be and sadly it is peddling a biased view of Muslims from a tiny minority who have been given editorial control and are using it to simply and unfairly portray people they dislike as Islamists despite evidence to the contrary.

    They are being joined and encouraged by people who go on about free speech but who are simply allowing freespeech to be used to unfairly criticise without proper evidence.

    Its becoming a site I may not want to comment at for much longer unless we have a proper balance.

    Surely pumping the QF agenda isn’t good for this site as a blog and debating area and a sense of fairness and balance need to be restored.

    I don’t like the ongoing smears and there needs to be a fair analysis and not a QF biased alert which is based on a Policy Exchange report which is already discredited here so why the need to repeat it.

  150. Imran Khan — on 1st May, 2009 at 6:03 pm  

    Refresh – Excellent and wise words and a warning to all.

    I’ve been raising this issue for a while now and given the ongoing smear which is consistent with neocon policy its shame that PP is being used to peddle neocon thought unchecked and without proper control to verify facts.

    I’d like to know what the linkage is between PP and QF and why QF propoganda is posted here and people then accept it as fact and unjustly attack people who have legally done nothing wrong.

    The neocons are in overdrive and all policy made by these types of thinktansk is based largely on neocon thought.

  151. Naadir Jeewa — on 1st May, 2009 at 9:36 pm  

    @149 – need to be careful about straying into conspiracy theory here, but you can certainly draw a line from USAID/RAND Corp.’s “Muslim World Outreach Project” to QF.

    Interestingly, Anne Philips who chaired a USAID seminar on MWO strategy for civil society and Tahir Abbas, who spoke at the QF anniversary event both point to structural socioeconomic problems as key to reducing extremism.

    I was also struck at how much of QF’s talk about outreach was oriented at identifying and removing extremists, rather than reducing the life chances that lead people to turn to extremism. This really does strike me as a prime example of the securitisation of immigrants.

  152. fug — on 1st May, 2009 at 11:35 pm  

    lol at james brandon’s ex role at the centre for social cohesion. i wonder if thats a step down in the world of gutter snipe think tankery.

    makes sense though QF used to use ex-soas-ex-ht minnions, before even the most idiotic and self-loving of them couldnt take any more.

  153. Andrew — on 2nd May, 2009 at 2:38 am  

    With James Brandon working for the Quilliam Foundation, I would put QF in the same category as the Centre for Social Cohesion. At least CSC is self-funding and doesn’t use taxpayer’s money, unlike QF!

  154. qidniz — on 2nd May, 2009 at 3:40 am  

    i then drew the understandable conclusion that the organisers know *exactly* what they’re doing; weiss alone is evidence of that.

    Yep. Neturei Karta gave the whole show away. I mean, really.

  155. qidniz — on 2nd May, 2009 at 4:04 am  

    Is it something to do with the sentiment that its ok to critique white, right wing politics. But criticism of brown religious right-wing politics and media outlets isn’t such a pressing requirement?

    It’s absolutely verboten. Get with the program, dude!

  156. Gsirrah — on 2nd May, 2009 at 9:13 am  

    Andrew and fug – That logic doesn’t really work if, when James Brandon left CSC, he wrote a strong attack on Douglas Murray, describing him as a right wing “preacher of hate” and explaining why he had to leave CSC. Which he did.

  157. imran khan — on 2nd May, 2009 at 9:53 am  

    The problem is that the extremists of the right have managed to convince people thye are cuddly defenders of the western liberal society and yet their rhetoric is increasingly calling for measures which are far from liberal.

    Their interests are solely America and Israel and their influences come from shadowy organisations from abroad.

  158. imran khan — on 2nd May, 2009 at 10:07 am  

    “Yep. Neturei Karta gave the whole show away. I mean, really.”

    But herein is the problem if Neturei Karta are denied a voice and the Jewish Community wants to dictate who is and isn’t allowed to attend events isn’t that a denial of free speech? In fact the organisation itself has been subject to intimidation and there is no discussion on this issue.

    Here is the hypocracy that Islam Channel is being told who it can and cannot invite but alongside that it is being told it can’t give the right to speak to anti-zionist movemements which is itself a denial of free speech. On the one hand they are being told to invite a wide spread of Muslim opinion which they do and then on the other they are being told to invite a narrow pre-approved section of the Jewish Community – is that a double standard?

    It is interesting that the right and sadly the Jewish Community called for a boycott of IslamExpo as well because they were not friendly to Israel. So why wasn’t that denying freespeech but bullying to voice one side.

    Are Pro-Israeli rallies asked to provide a wider ranging and counter view? No.

    The fact is that labelling events by Muslims as Islamist and denying them the right to be heard is self-defeating and allowing self appointed government funded think tanks to act as self proclaimed guardians of who is and isn’t to be spoken to in fact denies the very rights that they claim to uphold!

    As I said QF itself is acting like right wing think tanks where it is taking much of its approach and also its policy from.

    People need to step back and see the double standard in the approach to Muslims and other communities.

    Even here we have an editor who checks with QF about publication but not with the owner or the readership about how a Press Release is to be discussed and some people are quite content that a government funded think tank is able to set the agenda here.

    So the questions is what are Pickled Politics links to QF and are they are now acting as an outlet for QF propoganda as much of what QF is releasing is coming here and that is biased and doesn’t allow for a balanced debate.

    If you highlight the methods used then you are subject to expletives which again lead to no action against editors. In any other publication if an editor did this they would be subject to dismissal but not here and not even an apology.

  159. chairwoman — on 2nd May, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

    “But herein is the problem if Neturei Karta are denied a voice and the Jewish Community wants to dictate who is and isn’t allowed to attend events isn’t that a denial of free speech?”

    I have no objection to them being anywhere, I would just like it made clear that they, and their opinions, and interpretations of the law, are not only unrepresentative of the Jewish community generally, but the completely orthodox in particular

    Here, as usual, I speak entirely and only for myself and hold no brief from other Jews to represent them.

  160. Sam — on 2nd May, 2009 at 3:33 pm  

    We may not know who funds Islam Channel, but we certainly do know who funds Quilliam and in whose interest (the govt.) it actually works for:

    “Govt. Gives 1 Million Pounds to Quilliam”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5549138.ece

  161. Tobias — on 2nd May, 2009 at 10:54 pm  

    Does anyone know which dept. they get their funding from?

    I’d like to see on paper how much they get and for what reason. I’m sure many others do too.

  162. Andrew — on 3rd May, 2009 at 2:26 am  

    This is what Ed and Maajid admit to receiving:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/uksecurity-terrorism

    “In reality, we have received £514,000 for this and last year from the Home Office; and £139,000 from the Foreign Office for the work we do in countering extremism in Muslim-majority countries. Much of this is used to support 18 full-time staff across three continents to tackle radicalisation.”

  163. Naadir Jeewa — on 3rd May, 2009 at 10:47 am  

    Seems like QF is persuing an ideological entryist strategy, much like the ex-members of the Revolutionary Communist Party – UK (Spiked Magazine, Battle for Ideas, Policy Exchange).

    If you do suspect QF to be part of some wider agenda, I’d look at those links, as well as the “Muslim World Outreach Project”.

  164. Tobias — on 3rd May, 2009 at 2:04 pm  

    Andrew, I don’t believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the QF.
    The numbers they cite are different to those found elsewhere. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5549138.ece)

    Maybe James Brandon could come on here and let us know how much money QF get from the public purse.
    If the QF has nothing to hide then they can come on here and provide us with accurate figures and reasons as to why they have been allocated such large sums of taxpayer money.

    Come on Ed, Majid, James….

    BTW what happened to the “rehabilitation centres/programmes” that you promised during your launch party??
    Didn’t you receive a tidy sum for that idea??

  165. Sam — on 3rd May, 2009 at 8:34 pm  

    >BTW what happened to the “rehabilitation >centres/programmes” that you promised during your >launch party??

    Probably pocketed and spent on booze, drugs, and women.
    Not likely that there is any serious financial accounting for where the money is going if they are already lying about how much money they are taking from the public anyhow.

  166. Abdullah — on 4th May, 2009 at 7:42 pm  

    Faisal/Sid

    You are contradicting yourself! First you said – you left the QF citation off by accident, you were rushing etc. Then you said Ed told you to plagarise all you like. And now you say – you left the citation off deliberately…? Which is the correct version? Why do all our critics of alleged extremists turn out to be frauds?

  167. bananabrain — on 5th May, 2009 at 10:23 am  

    Stop putting words into people’s mouths.

    refresh, i was simply trying to summarise where i thought we’d got to. obviously we haven’t got to there after all. there is no question of “putting words into people’s mouths”. honestly, we’re never going to get anywhere with these discussions if we continually presume intention to misrepresent.

    imran:

    why don’t you try forgetting that i’m jewish for a moment when i make these comments, or is that just too hard for you? why is it impossible for anyone to make a point about the islam channel without you attempting to divert it into what the jewish community may or may not have done? we’re talking about a specific group here trying to make out that it represents a larger community. the jewish community has only *one* representative body and that is the board of deputies. anyone else who claims to speak for the community is either kidding themselves or trying to make themselves look more impressive. i am not calling for a boycott of NK. i am saying that holding them up as the SOLE REPRESENTATIVES OF JUDAISM, as this event does, is PRECISELY WHAT I WOULD EXPECT ISLAMISTS TO DO, BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE THE “REAL JEWS”. it is wrong. it misrepresents judaism. does the board of deputies invite ayaan hirsi ali or geert wilders over to give “the insider viewpoint on islam”, from a jewish platform? you would be the first to complain if they did and rightly so. that is the only thing i am doing here – pointing out how the participation of NK on a supposedly islamic platform is a prima facie case for it being not an islamic platform, but an islamist one. your whataboutery is now obscuring your ability to understand the point i am making.

    Its been clearly highlighted that The Global Peace Event has a wide ranging representation within and from outside the Muslim community so your claim about Holocaust denial is silly.

    what was my point about holocaust denial? only that this event chose to invite, as its sole jewish speaker, a man who publicly embraced ahmedinejad at the tehran holocaust denial conference. you have to see that sends a very clear message.

    i am not proposing that NK be “denied a voice”, as you say. they are very effective at getting their point of view promoted, as it is so popular with jew-haters and anti-israel regimes all round the world. they show up at every demo and conference because islamists of all stripes have them on speed dial as their pet dhimmis. i despise them and everyone else in the community, even the ultra-orthodox community, does as well. now the islam channel are absolutely free to promote them – that is the nature of free speech – but they must take the consequences, which is that it demonstrates that their only concern with the jewish community is how much they can drive a wedge between it and the majority muslim community, who will have little idea of how small NK is or the disgust and contempt in which they are held by the rest of the jewish community.

    On the one hand they are being told to invite a wide spread of Muslim opinion which they do and then on the other they are being told to invite a narrow pre-approved section of the Jewish Community

    NO, imran. they are not being told to do that. they are being criticised for promoting as their sole jewish interlocutors, a group which represents 1/1200th of the jewish community worldwide and is also regarded as a stooge of our greatest enemies. how is widening their jewish interlocutors to include more than this tiny extremist sect to be considered a “narrow pre-approved section”?

    look, i don’t have to analyse the funding, personalities and policies of quilliam (or the jewish community such as it is) to make this very simple and straightforward point about NK and to infer from it the position of the people at the islam channel. stick to the argument for a change, rather than shooting the messenger, if you can.

    Seems like QF is persuing an ideological entryist strategy, much like the ex-members of the Revolutionary Communist Party – UK (Spiked Magazine, Battle for Ideas, Policy Exchange).

    i’d also like to know more about this, but i don’t see it as a reason to dismiss my criticism of the islam channel.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  168. faisal — on 5th May, 2009 at 10:29 am  

    i am saying that holding them up as the SOLE REPRESENTATIVES OF JUDAISM, as this event does, is PRECISELY WHAT I WOULD EXPECT ISLAMISTS TO DO, BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE THE “REAL JEWS”.

    It’s like talking to a brick wall.

  169. faisal — on 5th May, 2009 at 10:36 am  

    The Wahhabis on MuslimMatters seem more than a little vexed by this post. See here.

    Still, Ravi gets a favourable name check for pointing out my “plagiarism”. Of course they don’t copy my comment about why I should plagiarise stuff from the QF on a blog I know they read.

    Can’t say much for their counter-arguments though, most of which take the form “How dare those evil neocons calls us names!”

  170. bananabrain — on 5th May, 2009 at 10:44 am  

    yes, i don’t exactly see them rushing to address my point about NK.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  171. Ravi Naik — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    The Wahhabis on MuslimMatters seem more than a little vexed by this post. See here.

    Still, Ravi gets a favourable name check for pointing out my “plagiarism”. Of course they don’t copy my comment about why I should plagiarise stuff from the QF on a blog I know they read.

    Hey! Don’t bring me back to this topic – blame yourself for this clumsy post and putting yourself in such a vulnerable position. It is clear that you didn’t plagiarise, but you purposely pretended that your post had nothing to do with QF – as if two independent sources alerted Britain about the Islam Channel. I do not find that acceptable.

    Furthermore, this “alert” was debunked by several people here and by MuslimMatters – and a lot of questions raised here you offered no answers. I can summarise the questions you didn’t answer if you wish, as I believe the credibility of QF is on the line here, and it would be nice to see a correction or even a retraction of this “alert” if you can’t back it up.

  172. faisal — on 6th May, 2009 at 11:41 am  

    It is clear that you didn’t plagiarise, but you purposely pretended that your post had nothing to do with QF, and then when confronted, you said it was because you had “just” forgotten.

    Accusing someone of plagiarism is a serious insult where I come from. If you now claim it’s “clear” I didn’t plagiarise, you owe me an apology at the very least.

    I can summarise the questions you didn’t answer if you wish, as I believe the credibility of QF is on the line here, and it would be nice to see a correction or even a retraction if you can’t back your accusations.

    That’s if you think the MuslimMatters refutation isn’t another weak ad hominem job, which it is. But in any case, I think you should. None of these issues are going away and they will all be dealt with in due course.

  173. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    I’m more exercised about the Islam Channel than I am about the source of the critiqué.

    What say you Ravi, about addressing that question?

    You know what I think, what do you think?

  174. fugstar — on 6th May, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

    An Ode to Sid

    faisal bin saud,
    was a bit of a toad,
    brown face, white masked,
    with jionijom he was tasked.

    what irony of irony,
    being named after the dynasty,
    at which he throws shoes,
    and south asian religion ishoos.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.