- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Is the BBC complicit in legitimising hatred?
If our chief state broadcaster is normalising public opinion towards 'radicals' - what chance do we have?
The Life of Muhammad is a recent BBC documentary series which has been described as the first full account of Muhammad’s life to be displayed on Western television.
To assist them in the momentous task of analysing the life of such an important historical figure the BBC called upon the services of one "Abdur Raheem Green".
Abdur Raheem Green throughout his career as a preacher has launched attacks on many of the prized values of liberal society. He has lambasted the idea of sexual equality stating that society “pressures our daughters to get degrees, to be doctors or engineers” describing this as “sick”.
Green also states that both homosexuality and adultery are “crimes” which should be dealt with “by a slow and painful death from stoning”. Most shockingly Green appears to sing the praises of violent jihad opining that “dying while fighting Jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure”.
The inclusion of Green in the documentary displays an act of gross negligence on the part of the BBC.
As is clear from the above quotations, Green holds many vile views, but these views are not only abhorrent, they are dangerous.
If one reads a BBC article which featured Abdur Raheem Green it is clear that they are aware of his credentials and thus it appears they are either not fully aware of the repercussions of giving this substantial platform to Green, or they simply don’t care.
What the BBC has facilitated is far too perilous to ignore. It represents the insidious movement of "radical" ideologies into the mainstream of British society and thus the beginning of their normalisation in the public consciousness.
This is a worrying trend of which Green is not the first manifestation. In February of this year, the BBC featured Sheikh Khalid Yasin who has stated that “The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing”.
By featuring these individuals the BBC builds their legitimacy when in fact they should be holding them to account as a public service (and publicly funded) broadcaster.
When institutions which have such a large influence on our society find no issue with these individuals they fail in their societal duty to challenge them. It is not easy for the Muslim population, who these individuals wish to represent, to cast out them out if Britain’s mainstream institutions draw them in.
The response to this criticism from the BBC is easy to predict. The claim that the documentary aimed to encompass the diverse opinions on Muhammad will be invoked, and that we might find Green’s views deplorable in some aspects but he is well versed in the many facets of the religion of Islam.
The need to display a breadth of opinion is of course important but the dangers accrued by sitting Green on a rather large pedestal should supersede this.
It would not have been difficult for the BBC to find an individual with similar opinions on the life of Muhammad who did not speak with such scorn about women and homosexuals.
British society has for far too long turned a blind eye and allowed itself to be weak in fighting hazardous perversions of Islam at home. Shamefully, the sobriquet "Londonistan" is well deserved.
The presence of radical individuals on our foremost television channels is a threat to our societal values.
Until we are willing to confront this and see these individuals for what they truly are, our enemies will not only remain in our midst, we will be aiding and abetting them too.
James Gourlay is a Researcher for Student Rights: Tackling Extremism on Campuses. He tweets at @JamesG8891
Print
To be fair, the programme also 'gave a platform' to Robert Spencer, the American anti-Islam writer who runs 'jihadwatch', to give his views on the bigoted nature of Islam. They also had Geoffrey Alderman on to talk very critically about Islam's attitudes to Jews.
I was watching the programme critically, but I actually do think that it made an effort to be balanced - given that it was always going to be sympathetic, not hostile to Islam.
Agreed that they should have found someone other than Green, but given that he didn't expound his extreme views on the programme, and given that most viewers wouldn't have known about them, I'm not sure how the programme would have helped 'mainstream' them.
james you are the opposite of green if he is extreme so are you because none of ur articles point to a single positive about islam which is clear that u didnt watch the programme and ur focused on pure hate and u r jealous cuz u want a bigger platform for ur extreme views but i can assure u hate is nt solution. greene is extreme but so r u if he is blinded by hate and cnt see reality u r the same just read ur previous articles and u will knw what am talkin about. I will put a safe bet u r member of EDL and by the way any views on the norwegian guy surely he is friend send a positive message. write article maybe
Omar chose to emphasise in part one of his series that Islam does not believe in compulsion in matters of religion. Why then the death penalty for Muslims who choose to leave Islam, validated by mainstream Muslim scholars such as Yusuf al Qaradawi and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, on the basis of authenticated saying of the prophet such as Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260 and put into practice in many Muslim countries with the enthusiastic support of local Muslims? Omar's first episode whitewashes over this in the name of political correctness
HCollins:
Yes - you're right. I concede. Fairly made.
And 'King', please write like a grown up, and not a twelve year old texting. It makes you look like an idiot. As soon as I saw the first 'ur', I stopped reading. So i have no idea what you said in the rest of it.
@King
Your spelling and punctuation are a disgrace. If your CV turned up to my company, it would go straight in the bin. I would much rather hire someone who is foreign.
Secondly, apart from your spelling you must be simple. I am afraid in a true liberal society, while I support free speech, this crosses the line: "..homosexuality and adultery are “crimes” which should be dealt with “by a slow and painful death from stoning”.
So everyone one who condemns homophobia, sexism, and Jihad is an EDL sympathiser?
Raza,
Did they refer specifically to the Koran with respect to 'no compulsion in religion?' (I didn't see the first episode). It does say that (2.256). But if they just mentioned the Koran, they're being sneaky. The later, reliable Bukhari Hadith says that the penalty for leaving Islam is death. "There's no compulsion to follow Islam, but if you're thinking about leaving, we'll kill you". Very clever, and it has the dualistic nature of Islam running right through it. Which do we go with? Well, considering that the Koran makes up only a tiny minority of the doctrine, Mohammed's word is more important. So we go with the Bukhari Hadith. God's word is just the starting point. Mohammed's is final.
Surely the inclusion of somebody with such hateful comments is more likely to bring viewers a negative view of Islam than promulgate his views?
At last some balanced reportage from the BBC. If they had chosen a more moderate muslim scholar then it would not be balanced. We need some of the more "out there" ideas of islam to be public knowledge. For too long critical comment on islam has not been acceptable but christians and christianity has been fair game.
At last some balanced reportage from the BBC. If they had chosen a more moderate muslim scholar then it would not be balanced. We need some of the more "out there" ideas of islam to be public knowledge. For too long critical comment on islam has not been acceptable but christians and christianity has been fair game.
The hateful Abdur Raheem Green IS a 'balanced' picture of Islam and comes from The London Central Mosque which is an extremist Saudi Muslim funded institution after all. A Sheikh there once told me that all male homosexuals should be burnt to death and that gay people were deliberately spreading HIV to 'innocent' heterosexuals.
What worries me is why oh why didn't Rageh introduce this man as having such homophobic misogynistic and intolerant views rather than allowing him to present himself as a 'reasonable' face of Islam? Would he have allowed a spruced up reasonable seeming spokesperson from a far right wing party without a hefty caveat?
Has anyone written to Points of View about this? - pov@bbc.co.uk
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
-
7/7: Why are we already forgetting?
-
So, Mehdi Hasan, can I call you an extremist (or at least a cab)?
-
A Pakistani Muslim woman attends a conference in Israel, and loves what she sees
By Raheel Raza
-
Talk of the “Arab Spring” just shows the West’s ignorance
-
A little to the left: Mehdi Hasan wants leftist democrats to challenge Obama. Why so delusional?
after giving a platform to this 'revert' clown who says “dying while fighting Jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure” (I don't expect to see HIM dying while fighting Jihad anytime soon), I expect to see the BBC give an opening to the norwegian shooter, you know, in the interests of balance.
cue tumbleweed.
The term 'radical' is bandied about liberally by the left. In short, anyone who disagrees with them is a radical. Anyone who agrees with their world view is not. And the world view is that everything is america's/the right's fault. Green is not a radical as far as they are concerned.