Whitewashing Sex Gangs (II)

Following on from Sue's Whitewashing Sex Gangs post, the closing section of Radio 4's Sunday dealt (as Sue pointed out) with the same highly controversial issue of child grooming by Muslim gangs in the wake of the Oxford abuse trial, where several men with backgrounds in several Muslim countries (not just Pakistan) used and abused a number of under-aged white girls in the most degrading and cruel ways imaginable.

For a programme that has exhaustively pursued the Roman Catholic Church over the particular issue of clerical child abuse in recent years, this is a subject the programme needed to tackle. There is a perception among some viewers and listeners that the BBC treads far too gingerly around this issue. Sunday has not exactly ignored it over the past few years, though it had dealt with the issue far less frequently than it has dealt with the issue of abuse by Catholics. You can read the detailed evidence for this contention here - a complete survey of 93 editions of the programme in 2011 and 2012 which found that the issue of Muslim paedophile gangs, child abuse by imams and within Islamic institutions and other such matters was discussed on just three editions (3.2%), as compared to the 26 editions (28%) featuring discussion of Catholic clerical abuse.

Many people believe there's a link between the teachings of Islam and this specific form of child abuse against non-Muslim girls, however hotly denied this may be by the police or the Children's Commission. 

As Sue said, this edition of Sunday closed with a debate between Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain and Dr. Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation. Like Sue, I found Dr. Hargey's contribution magnificent -  "Good man!" was my (somewhat old-fashioned) exclamation on hearing him - and Sheikh Mogra's disgraceful attempts to undo the damage turned out to be a complete disaster (for him). Dr. Hargey won, all hands down. Sheikh Mogra sounded like a creep.

This was partly down to Edward Stourton's evident surprise at and refusal to accept Sheikh Mogra's feeble and blindingly obvious attempts to slip and slide in order to evade the point of Dr. Hargey's comments. "Good man, Ed!", I thought (stroking my whiskers, and sipping on my breakfast pint of port). 

Here is a transcription of that discussion, I hope you find it as interesting as I do.

Ed: Dr. Hargey, in what sense do you think the religious background of men in a case like this predisposes them to commit this kind of crime?

Dr. Hargey: Well, it's the mood music from the mosques and the madrassas, the drip-drip effect over many decades that says that women of another culture and another race, especially British women who are immodestly dressed and who are, therefore, impure and immoral, and they are fair game. They don't say that directly, but I think that they have juxtaposed that Muslim women wear the hijab, the niqab, the headscarf and the face mask and, of course, our women are better; other women, by an unspoken subtext, not so good. And I think this is what we need to address. I think we cannot bury our heads in the sand and say this is not an issue that effects the Muslim community. It does. Most of the perpetrators - whether Rochdale, Telford, or Derby, or wherever - are Muslim men and whether they are Pakistani, it doesn't really matter. What is important is that they are Muslim. So where do they get this idea about women? Where does this misogyny about women and patriarchy come from? 

Ed: Your answer to that question is very clear. It comes from the mosques?

Dr. Hargey: Not just from them, but from the madrassas, from the community. It's pervasive. I mean, just to blame the mosques would be unfair, but I think we need to examine Islamic theology and especially certain fatwas and so forth that denigrate women, that patronises them, that regards them as chattels, as possessions; for example, Saudi Arabia, looked upon as the so-called leader of the Islamic community, they don't even allow the women to travel unaccompanied by male relatives. So we have a whole mindset that needs to be combated. I think that what we are trying to do is to solve the problem at the end of the production line. It's never going to work. We need to go to the beginning of the production line and see how women and men...how women are objectified in Muslim society.

Ed: Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, two very clear points: The first being that that's the message that comes through in all sorts of ways in the Muslim community; and the second that that's directly related to this kind of case. What's your response to those two...?

Sheikh Mogra: I totally disagree with most of the assessments and analysis of Dr. Hargey there. The mosques and the madrassas would be the last place where encouragement would be taught for sexual misbehaviour...

Ed (interrupting): That's not what he's saying though. He's saying that a view of women comes across that leads to that.

Sheikh Mogra

Sheikh Mogra: The teachings of Islam and the theology of Islam is very, very clear. Sexual relations can only be between a male and a female who are married to one another. The fatwas that are issued are very, very clear about that and this idea of suggesting that a distant country is influencing us here, how our youngsters have behaved on the street is absolutely...something very difficult to connect with this issue. When the specific example of women not being allowed to travel alone..I'm just thinking if these young girls, who have been exploited and have been pounced upon, had been accompanied by a male then they would have  been safer. But let's not go into the situation of distant countries. For me the issue here really is 'What can we do now to ensure that this menace is eradicated from our societies and from our communities.

Ed: But, forgive me, you didn't quite address the point - or at least I didn't think you did - which was not to do with the teaching on sexual relations in Islam, it was to do with the attitude to women that comes across in all sorts of different ways.

Sheikh Mogra: Well, let me share with you what Islam teaches about the attitudes that Muslims should have towards women. Their is very, very categoric teachings within the Koran and within the Kadith traditions that the woman is to be honoured, is to be given respect and dignity. We cannot allow cultural practices to be packaged as if they were Islamic teachings. They is Islam, and the teachings of Islam, which is very clear and there is the cultural behaviour which is be condemned because it is does not fit with the teachings of Islam. 

Ed: Let me bring in Dr. Hargey there. Your response to that?

Dr. Hargey: Yes, we due respect, what the sheikh is talking about is about Muslim attitudes towards Muslim women, not to non-Muslim women. This is the issue....

Sheikh Mogra (interrupting): Absolutely not!...

Ed: Just a second, Sheikh Mogra, please, Sheikh Mogra, do forgive me, Let Dr. Hargey finish.

Dr. Hargey: And for the sheikh to talk about Saudi Arabia as some distant country is very disingenuous. Thi is the country that brings a Wahhabi type of Islam right to our shores. so we can't just dismiss that. But the issue here is really how Muslim society, whether it is the imams, whether it is the mosques and madrassas or elders, whatever, how they view women of the other - the other meaning 'the kaffir women' - OK, the kaffir women, the non-believing women...

Ed (interrupting): ...the kaffir women are the non-believers?

Dr. Hargey: Yes, the non-believing women are fair game, they are easy meat...

Sheikh Mogra (interrupting): Absolutely not! Absolutely not!

Ed: Sheikh Mogra, I'll come back to you in a moment.

Dr. Hargey: ...because they are are not fit, because the way they dress they are inviting this kind of thing in their mindset...

Taj Hargey

Ed (interrupting): All right, let...Sheikh Mogra, you've told us how things should be but Dr. Hargey is presenting us with a picture of how he thinks thinks actually are.

Sheikh Mogra: That is not true. Muslims have been living in this country for six, seven decades or more and  

non-Muslim women have been dressing in the way that they have been dressing for all that time. So this is not an issue of Muslim men looking at non-Muslim women and the way that they are dressing to say they are fair game. The law is the law. You can not have any relations, you can not... 

Dr. Hargey (interrupting): So why...

Ed (interrupting): Just a second! 

Sheikh Mogra: There is no space and room in the teachings of Islam where Muslims have got license to abuse other non-Muslim women just because of the way they dress, the way they live, or whatever their lifestyles are. The bottom line here is that we have an issue in our country where young women are being abused, just because...

Ed (interrupting): Forgive me, we're running out of time. I just want a quick response to that from Dr. Hargey.

Dr. Hargey: So why is it that all the victims are non-Muslim white women, young girls? There isn't a single Muslim girl that's been groomed and abused by a Muslim gang. So clearly there's an issue of race, religion, culture, whatever, and we should stop burying our heads in the sand and talk about the wonderful hadith and talk about what Islam says, because the reality is very different on the street.

Ed: Forgive me, I'm going to have to end it there. It's fascinating stuff. Thank you both very much indeed for coming in to talk to us this morning.

....and thank you Ed for hosting it!

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra v bigoted British people

The paper reviewer on BBC Breakfast this morning was Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra. 

He was captioned 'Iman and Scholar' rather than 'Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain'.

BBC Breakfast invited him to discuss the aftermath of Paris, especially its impact on British Muslims. The silky shaykh duly engaged in his usual slipping and sliding, inevitably shifting the focus onto the suffering of Muslims and the failings of Western foreign policy. 

Towards the end, however, even the BBC's Roger Johnson sounded rather uneasy about Shaykh Ibrahim's sincerity...

...and that came after the following question and answer, where Ibrahim Mogra characteristically side-stepped what seemed to me to be an attempt (on the BBC presenter's part) to get him to speak about the suffering of the people of Paris and moved straight back to his preferred theme of the plight of Muslims instead:

Roger Johnson: But give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims.

Anyhow, for your interest, here are some extracts this morning's BBC Breakfast paper reviews:

*****

Naga Munchetty: Ibrahim Mogra, imam and scholar is here to tell us what's caught his eye. Good morning.

Ibrahim Mogra: Morning.

Naga Munchetty: Before we start...we will go through the front pages, but you can imagine what's on them now is what happens with Syria, what happens in the battle against Islamic State - all of this, of course, just over a week on from Paris. Can you just give us your thoughts on how you feel...if you feel...the world has changed now in terms of interactions between groups and attitudes amongst people when it comes to Islamic State and how this has reflected on the Muslim community.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's been devastating for us on many fronts. I mean, as human beings we feel the pain of loss of innocent lives. And then to know that it's co-religionists, fellow Muslims, who have been responsible for these horrendous murders and killings. It's even more painful that they've falsely then claimed to have been doing it in God's name.

Naga Munchetty: Hmm.

Ibrahim Mogra: Far from it. This is the work of Satan. They're doing the Devil's bidding. So we distance ourselves from their evil actions. And sadly many of our innocent British Muslim citizens who go about their daily lives are now the target of bigoted people's inability to make a distinction between the 3 million plus law-abiding Muslim citizens of our country and maybe a handful...of course a handful too many...who have perpetrated these crimes.

Roger Johnson: Have you heard...sorry to labour the point, but as you mention it...have you noticed a noticeable increase in hostility towards your community in the last week?

Ibrahim Mogra: Right. I...to be fair, there is a mixture. I think the British public has been wonderful. And we saw that in the aftermath of the London bombings and how people really rallied around and stood with us in solidarity and made that distinction between us and these evil terrorists. And I think the same is happening. And this is one of the, if you like...I hesitate to use this phrase...but the silver lining on this dark cloud that looms over us - that each time these terrorists have perpetrated an act of terrorism it has actually brought us closer together, despite our diversities. So there's a lot of solidarity with Muslims. But at the same time we hear more and more cases of, for example, Muslims who are visibly Muslim, particularly women who wear the head scarf, have been spat at, have had bottles thrown at them. One's been pushing in front of a moving tube train, etc. So we need to be alert to these things and stand up against these bigoted people, otherwise we will be driving more and more people into the hands of the ISIS and terrorist recruiters.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Where do we go from here? Well, we know where we've been before. The question is do we want to go back there again. And there is a big call once again to use bombers in Syria and, of course, we're already bombing in Iraq. We've done that before in Afghanistan, we've done that before in Iraq, and more than a decade later we know exactly where we are. Those places are still really in turmoil. So is bombing the right strategy? There is a lot of anger, for example, with regards to drone attacks. Drone attacks cannot be as precise as you want, and this horrible phrase 'collateral damage' is something that we, perhaps, sitting here can afford to use but for the people on the ground...the terrorists themselves have said, 'You kill one through a drone attack, you are creating a hundred others who will replace that one person you've killed'. And then whether we are willing to put boots on the ground, to use an American phrase, whether we will commit our troops to fight on the ground, because following a bombing campaign there's got to be something else done there. ....

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: It's something strikingly different between Muslims and Christians. For example, many of my Christian clergy friends without any hesitation will say they doubted the existence of God and they questioned 'Where was God'?, etc. It's very different for us as Muslims. We have kind of this absolute faith in the presence of God, in good times, in bad times. For Christians...I guess many have said to me it's a sign of their faith if you like to be able to question this.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Yes, we're really up against it because I've had young people say to me, "Shaykh Ibrahim, forget all the fatwas, all the rulings that you're giving us from your theological arguments. What do we do when we see innocent people also being killed?" So, in a way, the more force and violent means that we are using to tackle this problem the more we are alienating younger people. And just to add to this complex issue is the fact that we are beginning to see society turning on Muslims who've made this country their own and now are being seen as a threat or as an enemy within. And this can further alienate them and disenfranchise them.

Roger Johnson: Interesting point. And for those not watching an hour ago, we talked at great length about the experience of the Muslim community in the last week and as you say...backlash is too strong a word, but the way in which reactions have come your way, Just, if you can...you kind of touched on it...but give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims, People I hope are finally able to hear our loud condemnation. We have condemned terrorism over and over again, despite the fact that many young people are saying to us "Why are you apologising for things we haven't done? Why are you taking responsibility for something that we haven't done?", but we do it as our religious duty. It is our obligation to condemn these things. At the same time we find alongside the solidarity of the British communities there are numbers of bigoted British people who are targeting innocent Muslims on our streets, on public transport, and that is totally unacceptable. This is yet another way in which these young people will feel that if they're not welcome here, if they're not trusted here, then they might as well go over there and fight.

Naga Munchetty: Again though, as you've said, it's a handful, and a tiny numbers of Muslims who have claimed it's in the name of Islam that they are committing these atrocities and again it's a handful of Britons who are turning on..,and not reflecting the bigger picture that actually there has been a show of solidarity and community in the wake of Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's always a handful of people who spoil it for the rest. In all walks of life we find...I mean if you look at our football stadiums, it's always only a handful who give football a bad name.

Roger Johnson: Ibrahim, can I just pick you up on one word you used before? You said, "It's our duty to condemn it." You're not saying...you're not saying you're only doing it because it's your duty? You're saying it because it's a genuine heartfelt condemnation?

Ibrahim Mogra: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. As human beings...I mean before I'm a Muslim I'm first a human being, and I feel for the loss of life. And at the same time it's a duty to God. The Koran calls on Muslims to speak out against injustice, even if it's against ourselves, our parents and our relatives. So we do it not because there's an expectation from the government or an expectation from the British public or the world that Muslims will condemn this. We do it without being called upon.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra on Turkey joining the EU

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain was the paper reviewer on this morning's BBC Breakfast. Here he is discussing Turkey, the EU and racism:

Sally Nugent: In the Observer, you've picked a story about the referendum, Vote Leave campaign. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I mean, the nation has to have this debate. We need to have the referendum and the people will speak for themselves as to which way we should go. But I'm just very, very concerned about the fear-mongering and the headlines that suggest we'll be flooded by Turks coming into this country. Let's put everything into perspective.... 

Roger Johnson: That's if Turkey joins the EU, and that's a huge 'if' anyway, isn't it? 

Ibrahim Mogra: It is a huge 'if' but it's a very exciting 'if' for me, because it's very rich for us as Western nations to have Turkey as part of NATO, to defend our borders, to defend us against any potential attacks or threats and the like, and at the same time we're very reluctant to even consider having them as part of the EU. I think having Turkey within the EU would be a wonderful thing I believe. We already have significant contributions from our Turkish communities within the United Kingdom, hard working people, and dare I say Turkish places are very, very popular with British people to go and have a meal. And how many of us regularly holiday in Turkey? We see Turkey is a very, very safe place... 

Roger Johnson: Although the numbers are going down. People are more wary about travelling to Turkey. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I think the recent terrorism that has peaked in Turkey has been a major reason why maybe numbers have fallen. But prior to that it's been one of the most favourite destinations. We've holidayed in Turkey several times ourselves. You feel very safe going out at night. No fear of being mugged. So to suggest that Turkish people inherently when they come to Britain will be more prone to criminality, etc, I think it not only borders racism, but I think it is quite racist suggestions. Turks have proved to be hard-working contributors to our country and our society. And, of course, there's always going to be movement from one country to another. So why should it be any different if Turkey does join the EU? I think it would be great.

The Pollyanna of the MCB

Using the blurb on the Sunday website, here's what was on the menu on this week's Sunday, hosted by Edward Stourton: 

- We discuss the religious implications in the upcoming Syrian elections with Seyed Ali Alavi, Middle Easter [sic] Politics Analyst from SOAS.

- It's been more than ten years since the launch of the Street Pastors. Trevor Barnes has been out on a night patrol in Brixton with the founder of the movement - Rev Les Isaac.

- The stoning of a pregnant woman outside a court in Lahore this week has led to renewed concerns about the passive acceptance of this extreme action in Pakistan. Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra explains the religious law that allows stoning.

- This week the Church of England announced three pilot schemes in an attempt to 'compete' Wonga out of business. Kevin Bocquet visits a scheme at St Andrews Church in Liverpool and asks can the church really be a serious competitor?

- Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill will have its first reading in the House of Lords on the 5th June. Rabbi Jonathan Romain and Peter Williams, Executive Officer Right to Life, discuss.

- Three new musical settings of the "Stabat Mater" - the 13th Century Catholic hymn reflecting on Mary's suffering at the crucifixion - are about to receive their world premiere. We speak to the man who commissioned them: John Studzinski.

- Edward talks, to Gabriel Wani, the brother in law of Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, jailed for apostasy in Sudan, and asks, how she is coping following the birth of her daughter in jail this week.

I've not got much to say about any of this, other than to note that Sunday's 'Wonga' fixation continues unabated and that the 'assisted dying' discussion was balanced - though Ed Stourton did ask the anti-'assisted dying' guy from Catholic Voices to admit that he was "on the wrong side of history".

The interview with Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, however, calls for more attention though. 

Shaykh Mogra is one of Sunday's go-to 'Muslim Community spokesmen'. Sue calls him "the BBC’s favourite kindly moderate Muslim" and "the Pollyanna of the MCB".

The Sunday blurb promised that he would "explain the religious law that allows stoning". Of course, being Shaykh Mogra, he did no such thing. He tried to explain it away instead. 

Such practices are "unIslamic", he said. "This has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever", he reiterated before citing Mohammed telling his followers to "treat women well". He blamed it instead on "patriarchal societies", "religious misinterpretation" and "pure ignorance". "The Koran calls on us to respect human life", he continued. 

Now, Ed Stourton did ask him about sharia law and the sharia principles often cited as justifications for such extreme acts of punishment. "This incident has no relation with those concepts", asserted Shaykh Mogra. 

Ed then asked him about the lack of denunciations for this barbarity from Islamic scholars in Pakistan. The Pollyanna of the MCB said, oh no, Pakistan's Islamic scholars are just as disgusted as he is about it. It must be the media's fault for not reporting them. Oh, and such crimes against women go on in India and in Britain too. 

Ed did ask him some good questions but he didn't press him anywhere near hard enough. Indeed, Ed's showed something of a passive acceptance for his slippery, Pollyannaish answers.

Foreign affairs

The BBC is reporting more and more Muslim-related news, so they must be aware that something’s up.  Al Qaeda is flourishing in Iraq, Prince Charles has noticed that Muslim extremists are persecuting Christians in the Middle East (who knew he was so observant) Marks and Sparks has made some impracticable concessions to “Muslims” and Anjem Choudary has been “given a platform” on the Today programme.

Remember the ‘yes/no” game? You know, someone asked a load of quick-fire questions and if the contestant said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ a gong banged and the contestant had his head chopped off. Not really, but it was almost impossible to win. Such fun for the audience. 

I think that was what John Humphrys was trying to do the other day when he failed to trick Anjem Choudary into saying  ‘condemn’ and ‘condone’ on the Today programme. Chouders knew he must not do so. They wasted a hell of a lot of airtime on this futile panto, when Humph should have been asking some penetrating questions that could easily have led to  Choudary hoisting himself on his own foreign policytard.

Instead Humph was trounced, and all because of a childish Paxo-tactic, forcing the issue into the siding of terminal futility.

What’s more, Humph must have known Choudary would never cave in, owing to the fact that he had demonstrated the same intransigence and stated his position clearly and unequivocally on another BBC’s platform - Hardtalk with Stephen Sackur  in May; only the particular atrocity he refused to condone or condemn at that time was different, namely the “London bombings”. 

Humphrys’s fruitless pursuit of something that was never gonna happen wasted precious air time; time in which anyone with an ounce of gumption would have probed the precise nature of “the Muslims’ “  objections to “the government’s foreign policy”. 

‘Foreign policy’ is blurted out tediously and predictably by angry Muslims because they know that citing it always seems to floor their BBC interlocutors or at the very least it put them on the back foot. Humphrys sank into defensive mode, started spluttering and all was lost.

Apologists for Islam use foreign policy blindly and uncomprehendingly to justify doing what the hell they like. Foreign policy, foreign policy, foreign policy. There! All they have to do is wait for the gong denoting victory.

It’s time the BBC’s ‘heroes of the devil’s advocate’ started deconstructing it rather than swallowing it whole. It should not be beyond the wit of a jobbing devil’s advocate to demolish this meaningless excuse of a grievance by thrashing out the specifics robustly and in detail. There are so many flaws and illogicalities to pick from that flinging a couple back should be a doddle.  

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, the BBC’s favourite kindly moderate Muslim gave the self same excuse to Ed Stourton on Sunday. Foreign policy. 

“Rather than talking about the causes [the West killing Muslims] we seem to be talking about the symptoms of this difficulty.” says Mogra in silky tones. “Muslims see these things [the West killing Muslims] on the internet, and they get angry.”  (I paraphrase)

“We’ll talk about foreign policy later” Ed assured us, “But right now we’re talking about the mosques.” 

“There is no radicalisation in mosques. Move along now, nothing to see here.”   says the good Shaykh.

Dr Brooke Rogers from King’s College agrees.  Back to foreign policy. At last Dr Rogers addresses the issue:

“When you actually engage with individuals who are expressing this anger and these grievances against foreign policy, if you start drilling down to the policy issues themselves they actually struggle to name the leaders in the conflicts and they are very very weak in their understanding of the history of the conflict as well.” states she, boldly.

“Interesting Ibrahim Mogra, essentially the foreign policy question is a vehicle for something else.”  ventures Ed.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. But “no,”  purrs Mogra. “When Muslims see pictures on the TV where there’s drones killing hundreds and thousands of innocent Muslims it’s bound to anger them....”   WTF? questions the listener.

“Do forgive me. I’m very sorry, but now we must ask some passers by where they think Jesus would be born if he were born today.” interrupted Ed with an abruptness that could genuinely be described as spooky. 

This is a major issue of our times and yet what does Ed Stourton do? Cut it off just when it’s getting to the nub of the matter. Cut it off just so they could broadcast some inane vox-pops?

Did someone in the edit suite (is there one?) pull the plug, or was it down to Ed’s discretion? Was the interview pre-recorded?  The mind boggles.

"The BBC is too Christian", says BBC

Here's something  from The Sunday Times's Social Affairs Editor Nicholas Hellen - an article called BBC says it is too Christian and must diversify:

The BBC is too Christian in its religious output, according to an internal review, and should increase its Muslim, Hindu and Sikh programming. 

Lord Hall, the director-general, is considering findings that show there is a disproportionate amount of programming by the corporation on Christian matters compared with other faiths. 

Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, told a Commons meeting on religious literacy he had written a report for Hall that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were underserved.

The paper quotes Mr. Ahmed, the BBC's Muslim head of religion and ethics, saying:

We do look at the number of hours we produce, and measure that against the religious make-up of society. We also carry out checks to give us a better understanding of how we represent the different faiths across the various BBC channels and services. 

Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths. Our output in this area is not static, though. It has evolved over the years and we regularly assess it.

(I thought they didn't believe in measuring things like that? That it isn't useful to do so? Well, that's certainly what they keep saying about their EU referendum coverage.)

And it also quotes some helpful suggestions from our old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (who, curiously, doesn't have any suggestions that involve a religion he doesn't share):

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the BBC might televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction. But he added: “We would not wish Christians to have any less exposure.”

I suspect Shaykh Mogra isn't going to be waiting too long for such things.

The same coin

This morning's Sunday ended with a discussion about Islam in Britain, following criticism of a Muslim association in Blackburn by Justine Greening for saying that women should not travel over 48 miles without a male guardian.

Sunday invited on two of its Muslim regulars, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain and Lancaster University's Dr Shuruq Naguib. Both of them prevaricated over whether the call should be condemned and refused to condemn it, despite some pushing from Ed Stourton for them to clarify their positions. The professor was much more willing though to condemn Miss Greening, instantly describing her comments as "problematic". Ibrahim Mogra hinted at 'Islamophobia'  as a possible justification for such Islamic guidance, what with Muslim women facing attacks on public transport (at which point he alluded to his favourite story about an attack on the Tube - an attack, he always forgets to mention, that was carried out by a homeless Asian immigrant). The professor also explicitly mentioned 'Islamophobia' in her reaction to Sadiq's triumph in London. Both were delighted at Sadiq's success.

I'd have preferred to have heard a much wider range of views.

Update: Come to think of it, this is a very good point:

Friday prayers on the BBC?

Daily Express headline

Back in May the Sunday Times, under the headline BBC says it is too Christian and must diversify, reported that Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s (Muslim) head of religion and ethics, had written a report for Lord Hall "that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were underserved". 

In that article, Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, was reported as saying that the BBC might televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction.

Fast forward to today and the Times, under the headline BBC revamp will counter Christian ‘bias’, is reporting that Lord Hall is now acting on Mr Ahmed's internal report and that the BBC will, indeed, diversify its religious output in the interests of multiculturalism:

The BBC will increase its coverage of more religions and could broadcast Friday prayers after complaints that it was too Christian, The Times has learnt.

Ibrahim and Justin

That article quotes Shaykh Ibrahim of the MCB again:

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that the BBC could televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid, the holiday marking the end of Ramadan, or children attending Koranic lessons.

I'm still not sure, even after reading all the articles about it, whether the Friday prayers call actually derives from a BBC source or whether it's merely the newspapers hyping the MCB's wishful thinking for the sake of a dramatic angle/headline...

...but, regardless of that, the direction of travel at the BBC has been very clear for some time. 

The journey is now well underway and the accelerator is being applied ever more strongly. 

And I suspect that Shaykh Ibrahim's prayers will be answered and that Muslim Friday prayers will be broadcast by the BBC in the not too distant future. 

So much for multi-culturalism then!

A few years ago the Independent reported that Hindu and Sikh groups were concerned about pro-Muslim bias at the BBC:

Hindu and Sikh leaders have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain's Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions. 

A breakdown of programming from the BBC's Religion and Ethics department, seen by The Independent, reveals that since 2001, the BBC made 41 faith programmes on Islam, compared with just five on Hinduism and one on Sikhism.

Critics say the disproportionate amount of programming is part of an apparent bias within the BBC towards Islam since the attacks of 11 September 2001, which has placed an often uncomfortable media spotlight on Britain's Muslims.

Ashish Joshi, the chairman of the Network of Sikh Organisation's (NSO) media monitoring group, which obtained the numbers, said many Hindu and Sikh licence-fee payers felt cheated. "People in our communities are shocked," he said. "We are licence-fee payers and we want to know why this has happened. The bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming and appears to be a part of BBC policy."

It sounds like they have a case, doesn't it?  It probably won't surprise many of you though that the BBC was having none of it, rejecting the criticism out of hand:

In a letter sent in July to the NSO, the head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics, Michael Wakelin, denied that there was any bias. He said the demographic makeup of Britain meant that Britain's 1.6 million Muslims outnumber Hindus and Sikhs by two to one. "Therefore," he wrote, "if Muslims get 60 minutes a year, the Sikhs and Hindus should share 30 minutes each." Further content on Islam, he added, was "no doubt sparked by the interest in the faith following 9/11". 

A spokesman for the BBC said the broadcaster was committed to representing all of Britain's faiths and communities. "We reject any claims of bias," he said. "In our religion and ethics content alone, we have covered Hindu and Sikh issues this year on The Big Questions, Sunday Life and Extreme Pilgrim. In the autumn we will be covering Diwali from a Sikh perspective and we have a major new series for BBC Two in early 2009, including features on Hinduism and Sikhism."

OK, so who's right, the Sikh and Hindu leaders or the bigwigs and spokespersonages at the BBC? 

If there were ever a case for using Sunday, BBC Radio 4's flagship religious and ethical current affairs programme, as a test-case, this is surely it.

Have Hindus and Sikhs been under-represented, as they claim, or was Mr Wakelin, then head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics Department (since replaced by Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim), actually correct in saying that they get proportionate coverage? We can certainly test his bold - and very specific - claim to impartiality, that "if Muslims get 60 minutes a year, the Sikhs and Hindus should share 30 minutes each." Is that what really happens?

How are we to count items featuring Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs on Sunday? Do we count all those many, many, many Sunday items on political events (revolutions, civil wars, elections, etc) in Muslim-majority countries, mostly reflecting some aspect or other of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Clearly that should be a 'no', unless the feature in question is specifically focused on examining Islamic aspects to the story. Obviously, however, disentangling these two strands is far from easy in many stories from that part of the world, where religion and politics are often very closely entwined. Still, I will reject most of these items from the list, despite there being dozens of them. 

Getting an absolutely precise, unambiguous, incontrovertible total for all Islam-centred features is, therefore, going to be much harder than getting one for Hinduism and Sikhism. On top of which there's the question of whether we should include guests who are Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, even when they aren't talking about religion or religiously-derived ethical matters?  I'll say 'no' to that one too. (So that's a good number more chucked out!). Again, it's very difficult to mark hard-and-fast rules for what to count and what not to count, so I'll let you chuck out any of the remainder which you feel shouldn't be there and I'll place in brackets any others I doubt should be there. 

Still, absolutely precise figures may not even be necessary - as you'll see! Better, perhaps, just to let your eyes scroll their way down the following lists.

Right, here goes!

Transcript: Opening debate on 'The Big Questions', 12 Feb 2017

NICKY CAMPBELL: On Tuesday, Mrs May held talks at Downing Street with her opposite number in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Increasing trade and investment with Israel was high on the agenda. The day before, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, passed a bill legalising settlements on privately owned Palestinian land on the West Bank, in direct contradiction of a UN Security Council Resolution. Mrs May was clear that Britain opposes settlement activity and believes the two-state solution is the best way to bring peace to the region. Should we trade with Israel now the settlements have been recognised? Well, I've been doing debates on this issue for 30 years now. And it's never that quiet. It's very, very impassioned on both sides. We shall attempt to proceed in a civilised direction. Now, Ryvka from War on Want, many would say, "Are you serious? Come on! We've had trade deals with Saudi Arabia, with China, with Russia, with the United Arab Emirates, some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet - none of them a democracy like Israel is. How can you possibly justify this?"

RYVKA BARNARD (War on Want): Well, I think there's a major issue with the UK. The UK should be putting human rights and international law at the centre of all of its trade negotiations with all countries. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): Should we stop trading with all those countries? 

RYVKA BARNARD: I think it's a question to be brought up. I think we can't talk about trade without talking about human rights and international law. That's why it's important for the UK to take action right now, move beyond words and suspend its trade relations with Israel because of its systematic violations of international law. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): If we stop trading with countries with human rights abuses, at a time when we need friends, we'd go out of business.

Ryvka Barnard

RYVKA BARNARD: I think what happens when you continue trading with human rights-abusing regimes like Israel, you're basically incentivising human rights abuse and you are giving a green light to say that violations of international law, doing things like building settlements, demolishing Palestinian homes, is OK. We might say on the side, we don't like it when you do that, as Theresa May did, but incentivising them with trade and especially things like the arms trade - the UK Government has approved over £100 million worth of arms exports to Israel in 2016 alone - those arms are used in violence against Palestinians. So it's a real double standard to say 'no settlements' on one hand but then to be no settlements but giving arms to the country that is building them. 

NICKY CAMPBELL: You refer to Israel. Paul, good morning Paul, chairman of the Zionist Federation, former tank commander with the IDF, there's a couple of things I need to ask you and then we'll throw it out. I want to hear from the audience, because, of course, hands going up already. Ryvka referred to, in unequivocal terms there, Israel as a human rights abuser. How would you respond to what she said there? 

PAUL CHARNEY (Zionist Federation): Well, that needs to be qualified. Israel, certainly by Freedom House, is recognised as the only free country in the Middle East. It has a very strong democracy. It has a Supreme Court. It is not subservient to the executive. It will look at this legislation and it will decide whether it's legal or not. There is a huge social housing crisis amongst the Palestinians and among the Israelis, and these towns that are expanding need to expand. So, it is a controversial issue and you can disagree, but the same time, if the UK disagreed with every country, with every political decision, it certainly wouldn't be dealing with China, it wouldn't be dealing with India over Kashmir,wouldn't be dealing with Turkey over Northern Cyprus, and the opposite would be true. It's not like Spain would cease dealing with the UK over Gibraltar, or Argentina would cease dealing with the UK over the Falkland Islands. What we need is to understand to put this into perspective, that the settlements are an issue but they're one issue, since 1967, that needs to be dealt with in the much larger framework of a peace agreement which the Palestinians require and when they want to build a home in a state for themselves more than they want to destroy and boycott Israel. When that priority changes then peace can be achieved. 

Of Dubya and coffee

Let me take you (and me) back in time...

Waking up and smelling the coffee on Saturday 10 September, Radio 4 listeners would have been treated to a Prayer for the Day from our silky old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain. (His prayers continued on Radio 4 for several days after).

He talked about 9/11 and, unusually for such an uncontroversial programme, used the opportunity to criticise George Dubya Bush for using the phrase 'war on terror'. It was, he said,  "controversial...especially for many Muslims, which has also had great cost to diverse individuals and communities." He then prayed to his God.

Well, it comes to something when even Prayer for the Day is used for political purposes by an Islamist!

What next? Tweet of the Day on the nightingale by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?:

The nightingale's melodious song has infiltrated the heart of poets and Islamic scholars for many centuries. Its song, contrary to what is said in the decadent West, is not to do with courtship or territorial marking. The nightingale is simply singing what every true believer knows in his heart: "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

A few hours later came The Muhammadan Bean: The Secret History of Islam and Coffee, presented by journalist Abdul-Rehman Malik. 

Being a tea-drinker, I wasn't inclined to listen to it.

Abdul-Rehman's Twitter feed is interesting but much as you'd expect - left-leaning party-politically, strongly pro-Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election, anti-Prevent,  backing criticism of Maajid Nawaz for trying to engage with Tommy Robinson, supportive of an anti-Israel activist, etc.

His personal page says that his:

“Pause for Thought” radio column airs regularly on BBC Radio 2’s weekday morning programme. 

Well fancy that!

I supposed I ought to listen to his coffee programme, as it would be wrong to just derisively imply that someone's a typical BBC choice without listening to their programme first. After all, it could be completely free of proselytising.... 

Could I be bothered though? Wouldn't I much prefer to have a cup of tea and do something else instead? 

Oh, the dilemmas of a blogger!

Well, I listened, and what happened?

He begins by telling us that he's of Pakistani heritage and is now describing how he's long been "hooked" on the "intoxicating...wine of Islam". (I much prefer the intoxicating wine of Asda). Coffee-drinking spread from Ethiopia to Yemen. Mystical Sufi Muslims then spread it further. Coffee houses eventually became stylish meeting places (like Starbucks?), and coffee as "a culture, an art and a cultural force" peaked in the Ottoman Empire, arriving in Constantinople in 1544 via Syrian merchants from Greater Syria. They achieved a global monopoly on coffee. Exports of coffee seeds and plants from Yemen was punishable by death. The likes of the Dutch East India Company eventually got round that. Pope Clement VIII in 1600 is said to have liked the Satanic Mohammedan brew so much that he said he wanted to baptise it. It came to London in 1652 (Cromwell's time) when Pasqua Rosée, the Greek servant of a British Levant merchant, established the first coffee house there. By 1659 two more opened up. By 1663 (post-Restoration) there were 82 coffee houses within the old walls of the city. By the turn of the century there were 3,000. Etc. 

As they say on BBC Two: QI. Well done Abdul-Rehman! 

Sunday morning viewing

I couldn’t help spotting irony in kindly Sheikh Mogra’s contribution to the Sunday programme featuring the Pew report. 

In the context of the projected rise in Europe’s Muslim population (to 18% by 20150) the good Sheikh said it will work out fine if WE stop invading MUSLIM Countries. 

Who’s invading whom?

*****

I listen to Andrew Marr on Start the Week occasionally, and he always impresses with his grasp of the issues discussed, sometimes extremely complex ones, such as  this morning’s episode. Russia, religion and the Middle East.

Andrew Marr has many talents, but I don’t think presenting the Andrew Marr show is one of them.

I was just thinking, in view of Rob Burley’s wry Twittering, why not swap jobs? Burley presents the Andrew Marr Show and  Andrew Marr produces it. Win-win.

Further to Craig’s astute observations about the paper review 

“Andrew Marr was trying to conduct an interview with Nigel Farage during the paper review, challenging him about those Trump tweets, Britain First and his EU pension - something that would have been much better done as a proper interview not during a supposedly relaxed paper review with two others leaping in to 'help' in harrying the ‘interviewee’.”

(admittedly, Rob Burley would have had to undergo even more flak had Farage been invited as an interviewee proper.) 

Craig referred to Ayesha Hazarika’s (and Nigel Farage’s) verbal incontinence  as 'a shouty affair', but Ms Hazarika was the one  throwing out ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ like there was no tomorrow. 

Isn’t it odd that certain female pundits (men don’t do this so much) show their disrespect, nay, disgust, by gurning and squirming during an opponent's  attempt to “finish their point”. Ayesha gurned like a demented Yasmin Alibhai Brown, and (Craig politely referred to it as a hubbub) she and Farage continually interrupted each other, effectively drowning each other out. Andrew Marr didn’t seem to have the will nor the way to put things back in order.

Presenters! Take back control!

I spotted that tell-tale  'at last we agree on something’ from Andrew Marr as he signed off Jacob Rees Mogg, and I do think Rob Burleys’s retort was a tad glib:

“Well you don't know anything about Andrew's views. Think it was a jocular end to the interview which shouldn't be taken seriously really.”  

As Tweeter  “Tesh” remarked, I can’t see him saying that to “a leftist”, even in jest.

Still on Sunday viewing, Alan Milburn has resigned from something or other...

but when did he quit producing “One Big Family” for the BBC?

“On” a lot more?

I heard a snippet of the Media Show (about 20 minutes in) yesterday afternoon. I understand the topic was bias in the media with regard to the referendum, or the Scottish Spring as I like to think of it. 

One of the guest experts was Greg Philo, (Glasgow Media Group) and, as is his wont, he had to drag the Israel-Palestine issue into it all of a sudden. 

He said:  “It’s clear the Israelis are ‘on’ a lot more than the Palestinians”

I mean WTF?  What-planet-is-he-on? 

Now, let’s ask, just for one second, what evidence does Philo (what an apt name) have for that statement? First of all, how many Israelis make regular appearances on T.V? 

Mark Regev, Daniel Taub and occasionally Peter Lerner. Danny Danon was on HardTalk the other day. So was Yuval Steinitz.  Not Israeli, but “philo-Israel,” Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are on quite a few panels. Maureen Lipman?

Then there are some Israeli lefties that are harsh critics of  the Israeli government. Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappé and  people who write for the Guardian. Mira Bar-Hillel. (Only joking) Is Philo including these?

So how many Palestinians? Well, if not actual Palestinians, there are certainly a fair few pro-Palestinians. (PhiloPalestinians)

Mustafa Barghouti, on at least as many times as Mark Regev during O.P.E.  Hanan Ashrawi ditto. Dateline’s top contributor ’arry Batwan, and we saw quite a bit of Manuel Hassassian. Regular guests on programmes like “The Big Questions”: Mehdi Hasan, Mohammad Shafiq, Mo Ansar, Ajmal Masroor, Myriam Francois-Cerrah. All there to have a dig at Israel at the slightest opportunity.  Yasser Abed Rabbo, Fawaz Gerges, Chris Gunness, Dr. Mads Gilbert,  guests on HardTALK. Regular talking heads: Chris Doyle,  George Galloway, Ghada Karmi and Owen Jones, always ready willing and able to propagandise on behalf of Israel’s enemies.

Lucy Winkett, John Bell, with their infamous anti-Israel sentiments,  all contribute to religious broadcasting. Sheihk Ibrahim Mogra, Yasmin Alibhai Brown,  frequently brought in to speak on behalf of the religion of peace, not to mention dozens of Middle East experts that are never off our screens; last but not least, the BBC’s own staff pro-Palestinian advocates and activists - Jon Donnison, Orla Geurin, Zeinab Badawi and Yolande Knell, Jeremy Bowen and the entire cast list from BBC Watch, and the many regular experts who outweigh by far pro Israel spokespersons on current affairs programmes like Dateline, Newsnight, and don’t forget Greg Philo himself. 

I know, I know, I’ve left out hundreds of them. But how can Greg Philo just get away with saying, in passing, in that  there are more Israelis ‘on’ than Palestinians? 

********

For your edification, here’s a small transcription of the snippet.

Steve Hewlett

Steve Hewlett

"What about the basic allegation that the “Yes” is being under or  mis reported in some ways?"

Greg Philo, sounding like a down-market Will Self with a smigeon of Ken Livingstone,  responded:

“Well yes, Salmond was on as far as I can see, as I understand it Salmond and the SNP were on a lot, but the issues were not bein’ discussed. It was being personalised whatever and I mean my own view, I mean I don’t want to comment or not because I haven’t studied it but my own view is that if you said to Alex Salmond “Look we’re not going to have you on so much ” (chuckle) I don’t think he’d be very happy. And I would guess that, I mean it’s very difficult to argue, um prima facie anyway, that someone who’s on such a lot, wall-to-wall, that is in some way puttin’ ‘im down. You know, it’s clear that if you look at the Israel Palestine stuff, it’s clear that the Israelis are on a lot more than the Palestinians, you know, and that fits the map.....it’s..”

SH

"But it hasn’t happened in this case..."

GP 

"No. I would have thought, I haven’t counted it, but you don’t get that impression."

Islam is not feminist enough

I have not read the 199 page Casey Review, but I know some people who have. Well, I assume the BBC have. Has.

This morning the BBC were still in a seemingly never-ending loop, obsessing about sexual abuse in football, while Sky News wheeled in Haras Rafiq and Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra to discuss the matter. But it was short and sweet. Rafiq looked disconcerted when ‘time ran out’ before he was able to finish a point. I can’t remember what was said, but it was largely a case of Muslims wondering why the British expected Muslims to adapt to the British, rather than the other way round. They couldn’t quite understand the problem. It baffled them.

Not to worry, a little later, the BBC was on the Casey; that is Dame Casey herself appeared, followed by some extremely defensive Muslims.

Let’s just recap. When the debate about mass immigration first raised its head in public, people couched their concerns in the only terms they could, to avoid being (or being seen to be) racist. Surely, they asked each other, there’s nothing racist about objecting to mass immigration as long as we stick to the rules. That is, we do it in terms of numbers - especially as we’re already struggling to house, employ and educate our own. Charity begins at home, does it not? A-a-a- am I being racist?

Douglas Murray: 

“In order to cope with immigration at the current rate, this country needs to build a new house every few minutes.  The ‘housing shortage’ in Britain is talked about as though it is a native phenomenon – as though the British people just keep needing more and more houses.  In fact we only need to keep building on green-belt land and covering over our beautiful countryside with new houses because we keep importing more and more people.  Why do we do this?  Why do we need to keep doing it?  What is the cultural enrichment that we failed to get from the first few million Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants which we will only be able to really enjoy from the next few million?”

As if all that weren’t bad enough, there’s the underlying problem - that shamefaced ‘stranger in my own town’ feeling, which was swept under the very rug that people felt was being pulled from under their feet. Whole neighbourhoods transformed. People walking round in strange and alienating garb. Out with familiarity and its concomitant sense of security and in with uncertainty and not being quite sure what it all amounts to or where it's going.

Eventually everyone was talking openly - about numbers. Pressure on schools, surgeries, wages. In other words they spoke about mass immigration alright, but strictly in terms of anything but you know what. Unspoken, but ominously present and jumbo sized — i.e., creeping Islamisation and the BBC’s relentless attempts at normalising all those regressive cultural abnormalities.  Also, the persistent promotion of diversity and the denigration of anything dangerously resembling patriotism.

Even when the grooming scandal broke, and even when the Trojan Horse affair hit the headlines, still, full and frank debate about Muslim immigration was hobbled by political correctness and the ever present fear of being outed as a racist.

Now it looks as if Dame Louise Casey has fallen victim to a very similar type of deflection. Or perhaps it’s merely the BBC’s (and Sky’s) selective spin. They’ve homed in on the one aspect of the report with which they’re pretty sure there will be no dissent. It’s women’s lib. The feminist angle. 

They’re actually criticising Islam, but not for its homophobia, nor for its appalling antisemitism. Not for its medieval attitude to practically everything, including apostasy and blasphemy. No, it’s the one thing they feel sure everyone will approve of. That a woman needs the permission of a man to do anything remotely independent. They even pretend it’s only Muslim men who are at fault, when although the religion itself is indeed fatally misogynistic and patriarchal, many Muslim women are usually just as dictatorial, rigid and unforgiving when it comes to enforcing all that mumbo jumbo they like to live by.

This goes to show that even when someone comes near to the crux of the matter, they deflect at the very last moment and retreat to a position of safety. The safe space. "We’re not racists. It’s just that Islam is not feminist enough, and anyway the country is full." 

Well, they’re quite right. Islam is not feminist enough and the country is full, but that’s not what scares me most about mass Muslim immigration.

See? I’m openly Islamophobic. maybe I should be a football fan after all. I’m ‘racist’  and that’s the way I like it.