Last night’s Panorama documentary outlined what is at stake in the ‘Battle for British Islam’. Predictably, some have tried to discredit the programme. Roshan Salih describes it as ‘scaremongering’, as ‘the targeting of the weak by the rich and powerful’. He claims to be affronted by its representation of Islam:
It was unbalanced, it lacked context and it reduced the rich, deep tradition that is Islam to tabloid, emotive issues such as the “killing of apostates” or “stoning to death.”
One day I might make a documentary that reduces Christianity to the Spanish Inquisition[.]
The problem with that analogy is that Christians do not routinely, or even rarely, defend the horrors of the inquisition. By contrast, it is not too difficult to track down Muslims who support hudud punishments.
Someone new to these debates might reasonably assume from his rhetoric that Salih himself must oppose stoning. But, if that is the case, why does he complain that hate preacher Haitham al-Haddad was treated badly by the programme? Haddad’s own views on hudud punishment are unambiguous (12:50).
Another complaint was that the programme placed too much emphasis on theology as a vector for violence, overlooking the impact of foreign policy. But that still doesn’t get over the problem that ‘non-violent extremism’ is an utterly loathsome ideology whether or not it leads to terrorism.
And it’s telling that whereas Salih does condemn outright terrorism and calls to join ISIS – he doesn’t tell us what his views are on apostasy punishments. This is what he does say.
As for those who simply promote a political or a conservative brand of Islam – but who denounce terrorism and are committed to staying within this country’s laws – they should be left alone by the authorities and should play a full part in the national debate.
I don’t think people are falling for this one any more.
Salih’s sidekick Dilly Hussain (not to be confused with Dilwar Hussain) has also posted on Panorama. He provides a helpful template for viewers who wish to complain to the BBC but who are (understandably) unsure on what grounds to do so.
Hussain is also preoccupied with alternative causes for violent extremism. Now this is an argument worth having, but it does not invalidate the most worrying moments in the programme, such as its coverage of a conference at which all hands shot up when asked if they thought stoning the correct Islamic punishment for adultery.
He goes on to claim that kuffar doesn’t mean non-Muslim (when in normal usage it clearly does) and that some of those put under the spotlight by the programme do good work for charity. So what? Would he be impressed by the fact Tommy Robinson has raised money for sick children through a charity walk?
And does he express any concern at the suggestion that many Muslims think stoning the correct punishment for apostasy? No – he completely glosses over that topic. The Muslims who are the real problem, the ones whose presence most affronted Dilly Hussain, were people like Sara Khan and Manwar Ali.
The programme used fringe Muslims who have no standing in the mainstream Muslim community
For most of us – including the majority of Muslims interviewed on Panorama – the real concern is that people like Haddad and his slipperier supporters on 5Pillarz have any standing whatsoever in the mainstream Muslim community.
