at the end of last week there were many, many Beeboid references to ‘the Prophet Mohammed’, as if Mohammed was generally accepted as being a, or even the, prophet.
The BBC would, quite rightly, never refer to Jesus in their coverage as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’, so I’m at a loss as to whether it’s plain laziness or multiculti-zeal that permits such reverential treatment of Mohammed. Mercifully, Martha Kearney on Newsnight showed the rest of the BBC how it should be done, as shown in her introduction of the clip below from Friday’s programme. Note how the correspondent, Andy Tighe, then lazily refers to Mohammed as ‘the Prophet Mohammed’.
Martha Kearney correctly denotes Mohammed as ‘the Islamic Prophet’,
rather than the usual lazy BBC acceptance of him as ‘the Prophet’.
BBC Religion and ethics: Christianity
“It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago” – – not Our Lord JC,
but
Islam “Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).”
This is one of the cases where I don’t understand what the “bias” you are claiming is.
It is standard to add (PBUH) to the name of Muhammad, because that is how Islam refers to him in the written word. It is a reverential addition to his name.
It is standard to refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, because Christ is a title variously translated as “Annointed One” or “Messiah”. It is a reverential addition to his name.
Martin, this blog is called ‘Biased BBC’, but those of us who contribute to it are perfectly free to write about whatever we wish, usually about the BBC though, touching upon a wide range of BBC issues and problems, including, but not limited to, bias, incompetence, ignorance, laziness, self promotion, monopolisation, anti-competitive behaviour, etc. etc. I didn’t use the word ‘bias’ in my post – the words of note are ‘lazy’, ‘multiculti’ and ‘zeal’. I hope that clears up your confusion!
Fausta:
Nice post. You slipped up in your link to the BBC page on Christianity. Here it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/
Martin Belam:
Though no great Christian I go to church maybe once a fortnight. I assure you Jesus Christ is most certainly addressed as “Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Well, whatever you want to call it Andrew, the fact is that Christ is an honorific title (as is Prophet) not just a name, and it’s just that people don’t recognise it as such because they don’t speak a lot of classical Greek. The BBC don’t call Jesus, “Jesus, the Christian Christ” so why should they call Muhammed, “Muhammad, the Islamic Prophet” ?
Assuming, for the time being, that in a nominally Christian country, one should treat each religion in the same way, the solution would seem to be to refer to Muhammed as “Nabi Muhammed” • ie with the honorific in Arabic.
Persuant to Fausta’s relevant comment:
“Jews believe that God appointed the Jews to be his chosen people in order to set an example of holiness and ethical behaviour to the world.
The Jewish relationship with God is a covenant relationship.”
“Christianity is the world’s biggest religion, with about 2.1 billion followers worldwide.
It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago.”
“Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those who follow Islam are called Muslims.
Muslims believe that there is only one God. The Arabic word for God is Allah.”
While “Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity”
and
“Christianity is the world’s biggest religion”
Judaism is not referred to, likewise, as a religion, but rather as some bizarre notion of chosenness that that “Jews” believe in.
Note, too, that while both Mohammed and Jesus are placed within their geographical place of ministry, no such information is provided about the origin of Judaism. Sloppiness, yet again? Is this an oversight? Is there a doubt in the BBC’s mind about the whereabouts of Jewish origins?
Interesting.
Bias is an inclination for favouring or disfavouring by either addition or omission, in order to inhibit impartial judgment. In this case, the favouring was done by addition: prophet, revelation to humanity, pbuh, and the disfavouring by ommission (no “Judaism” only “Jews”, no place of birth, only some bizarre beliefs).
And another thing: “prophet” and “Christ” are perfectly acceptable in my opinion, since, on top of being a form of respectfulness about beliefs, they also provide a clarification and a designation. However, the addition of “PBUH” goes beyond the form of respect that’s called for when discussing defferent systems of faith. It actually calls for a participation in the devotion to the said prophet.
Sorry. The anonymous is me.
There is another point to this – how many times do you hear “Christ!” used as a curse on television? As in “Christ Almighty”, “Jesus!!” etc. The problem with the BBCs reverence to anything to do with Mohamed, actually brings this into focus, which probably would not seem all that noticeable to many but the deeply religious Christians. If they can be respectful to one religion – why not to all?.
Noga: I don’t favour any of those religions, and I agree with you that the presentation of them is absurdly unequal – almost childishly so, in fact – like something out of a schoolchild’s attempt to write a report on the matter. If the subject matter were something other than religion, and the sentences occurred in one of the mediocre situation comedies of which the BBC is so proud, the studio audience would laugh, as they would immediately perceive the bias in the presentation. That sort of situation, where a character is making a clumsy, reluctant, effort to speak of something impartially but cannot hide his bias, is a staple of British comedy writing, and never fails to get a laugh.
It is standard to add (PBUH) to the name of Muhammad, because that is how Islam refers to him in the written word. It is a reverential addition to his name.
Martin Belam | 08.01.07 – 10:32 pm
Why isn’t the same reverence shown to Jews when talking about the deity and Judaism?
Jews may not write the name of the diety in full – it is always written “G-d”, that’s a ‘standard’ too.
Therefore, following your reasoning the BBC should have written, “Jews believe that G-d appointed the Jews to be his chosen people in order to set an example of holiness and ethical behaviour to the world.
The Jewish relationship with G-d is a covenant relationship.”
(no “Judaism” only “Jews”, no place of birth, only some bizarre beliefs).
Noga | 08.01.07 – 11:16 pm
No Jews either, see here, I’ve been hammering on about it all day:
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2007/01/the_other.html
Lee Moore | 08.01.07 – 11:03 pm |
you are correct, lee, most people probably don’t recognize that Christ is a title, and probably consider it just part of the name
which surely detracts from your point? otherwise, you seem to be saying, since people give Jesus the title Christ in ignorance, it is just as fair to make a deliberate decision to call Muhummad the Prophet out of respect?
the equivalent to me would seem to be to call Jesus either the Son of God or the Saviour or (translating Christ) the Anointed (One)
or even Jesus THE Christ!
of course, you will never hear any of this on the bbc, now, will you?
to conclude, i do hope you are not saying the bbc consciously add the word Christ to the name Jesus out of respect!
BTW, i wonder if someone could help me out here. sometime back on this site i posed a question which never appeared – i hope through technical error as i don’t imagine it was offensive.
anyhow, my question was, if the Islamic phrase “There is but one God, Allah, and Muhummad is his Prophet” is correctly translated, and if the arabic word for God is Allah, shouldn’t that be, ‘there is but one God, God’, or ‘there is but one Allah, Allah’, or is it not indeed the case that Allah is not the word for God but the actual NAME of the muslim God?
if there are any arabic speakers here, i would appreciate the enlightenment
and sorry for botching the italic on and off in previous posts !
one more comment re the bbc articles on religion:
it seems to me that the bbc took the trouble to ensure the islam article was approved by a muslim editor, but the christianity article was ‘just another entry’…wouldn’t this explain at least some of the differences being discussed here?
“….wouldn’t this explain at least some of the differences being discussed here?”
It wouldn’t even begin to explain the BBC’s entry about Judaism, unless it was written or approved by the same Muslim editor who approved the Islam article…
Anyway, if such courtesy you speak of was indeed extended to the Islam article, the same should have been extended to the Christianity and Judaism articles as well. Wouldn’t you say?
Noga | 09.01.07 – 2:43 am |
why, yes, i would! that was indeed my point, although rereading my post i fear i left it too much to be a matter of inference: that the bbc apparently made sure to find a muslim to “approve” the islam article, but did not do the same for the christianity article.
and i won’t mention again how they published an article on the holocaust which initially made no mention of jews! i won’t be rude and suggest who i think might have written/edited that one!
Morning amimissing something
I agree that calling Jesus Christ “Jesus, the Anointed One” would be similar to calling Muhammad, “the Prophet Muhammad.” But in each case, that seems too deferential to the doctrine of the practitioners of each religion, and insufficiently deferential to the scepticism of unbelievers. But, as I suggested, there is another way. Just as most people think Christ is just part of Jesus Christ’s name, because they don’t speak Greek, most people (in this country) don’t speak Arabic. So calling Muhammad “Nabi Muhammad” would solve the problem of treating him similarly to Jesus Christ. He would not be being advertised as “the Prophet” since people don’t know that that’s what Nabi means.
Hey, why not actually READ the website instead of speculating? All is explained here:
Throughout the BBC’s section on Islam you will see peace be upon him or (pbuh) after the name Muhammad.
Muslims say peace be upon him after every mention of Muhammad’s name, as a mark of respect. Muslims do the same when they write the Prophet’s name, adding pbuh.
The Arabic translation of peace be upon him is sallallahu alayhi wa sallam which is usually abbreviated as saw.
Use of pbuh on bbc.co.uk/religion
The BBC uses pbuh in the Islam section out of courtesy, and we would do the same for any other religion if they had a similar phrase that was universally used as a sign of respect.
When the site refers to the Prophet on pages that are not in the Islam section, we do not use the phrase. The phrase is only used on the first occurrence of the Prophet’s name, and not throughout each article.
We chose this position after much debate over what would be a truly impartial way to write about different faiths. The problem we faced was that religions can be so different in their underlying philosophy and world view that it could be impossible to understand them properly if we approached them from a single consistent point of view.
We decided that a less biased and more consistently fair approach would be to write about each faith from the point of view of that faith – so that our explanatory pages were in essence, a particular religion explaining itself to the reader. From that position it made sense to use pbuh on pages explaining Islam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/pbuh.shtml
biodegradable:
I emailed them, but received no reply. And still no change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenpanel.shtml
the previous comment was mine. Apologies
Nice post Andrew.
In the Youtube link I was amused to hear Andy Tighe quote Anjem Choudary as saying “this is a terrible blow for freedom of speech”.
Ironic, eh? At the protest in question placards saying “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL!!” were brandished (and these were some of the more moderate expressions used)…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1701518,00.html
Replace the words “Freedom of Expression” with “Anjem Choudary” for a much more satisfactory slogan.
Noga:
No, however Palestinian officials have often stated that sites of particular significance to the Palestinians (e.g. the Old City of Jerusalem) were never inhabited by Jews. Read the Wikipedia article.
The BBC and half a story.
deeqee
I went round the Temple Mount with my wife in 1999 and into the Dome of the Rock.
The things that struck us most was:
1. The unpleasant aggressiveness of the Arabs there.
2. The propaganda that they pumped out about Solomon’s Temple and its successor never having been there. (And in some cases, never existing – so Josephus was making it up then)
Notwithstanding that prior to 1967, the Arabs did not allow Jewish worship at the Wailing Wall or at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, post 1967 the Israelis were magnanimous in allowing the Arabs continued access to the Dome of the Rock.
Things never referred to by Bowen’s bbc.
Hettie, your email seems to have had an effect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenpanel.shtml now includes “Jewish”.
Did you receive a reply from the BBC? I’m curious to know what their excuse was.
We decided that a less biased and more consistently fair approach would be to write about each faith from the point of view of that faith – so that our explanatory pages were in essence, a particular religion explaining itself to the reader. From that position it made sense to use pbuh on pages explaining Islam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/re…ices/ pbuh.shtml
John Reith | 09.01.07 – 10:55 am
So why do the pages “explaining” Judaism not refer to “G-d”as is the Jewish custom?
For the record I have no problem with the use of “God” or Jesus without “Christ” or “Our Lord” as long as Mohammed is similarly not consistently referred to “The Prophet” (capitalised and [deleted])
Edited By Siteowner
BTW The BBC profile for Israel and the Palestinian territories not only glosses over any Jewish connection to the area Jews scattered all over the world following the Diaspora but totally ignores Christianity’s connection to the area or even that any Christians live in either Israel or The Palestinian Authority.
The failure to mention Jewish connection to Israel is clearly informal policy
PS I am quite aware that the creation of the Diaspora predates the end of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel in AD 136 by about five hundred years although I’m not sure how much the anonymous profile writer knew.
Amimissingsomething: though I do not speak Arabic, I know what the answer to your question is. Allah in Arabic is the word for God plus the definite article, The-God. Hence what the Muslims say is: There is no god but The-God, and Muhammad is his prophet. Oddly enough, the same idea appears in Italian, which has two words, Dio and Iddio. Dio can be any divine being, although it is mostly used for the Christian God; but Iddio is only ever the Christian God, and was originally, as in Arabic, Il+Dio – The+God.
Noga asked: Is there a doubt in the BBC’s mind about the whereabouts of Jewish origins?
Deegee said:
No, however Palestinian officials have often stated that sites of particular significance to the Palestinians (e.g. the Old City of Jerusalem) were never inhabited by Jews. Read the Wikipedia article.
—-
Well then, so the BBC, in its failure to mention the connection between Jews and Jerusalem is pandering to Palestinian mythology and ignores recorded history. Thus it is doing violence to Jewish history.
What does this make the BBC?
An unreliable source of information, a willing disseminator of half-truths and historical revisionism.
I get the feeling, reading BBC’s articles and references to the Middle East and Muslims, that the BBC simply entrusts the job to highly partisan writers and then leaves it to John Reith to try and come up with the necessary creative apologetics to explain away these continual lapses from the norm of honest reporting.
Since the evidence of bias, indifference to truth and sloppy journalism is so glaringly obvious, why are they not dealing with the problems instead of providing these convoluted explanations about sloppiness and oversight? Somehow BBC’s sloppiness seems to work in one direction only. How come?
Perhaps “The alleged prophet and author” ? Jesus could be “The alleged messiah”, and so on…..
(alleged, adj: Presumed and claimed, but not proved, to be as stated.)
Andrew:
Martin, this blog is called ‘Biased BBC’, but those of us who contribute to it are perfectly free to write about whatever we wish, usually about the BBC though, touching upon a wide range of BBC issues and problems, including, but not limited to, bias, incompetence, ignorance, laziness, self promotion, monopolisation, anti-competitive behaviour, etc. etc. I didn’t use the word ‘bias’ in my post – the words of note are ‘lazy’, ‘multiculti’ and ‘zeal’. I hope that clears up your confusion!
Hi Andrew, yes I’m a regular reader of the blog, though not so often a comment-maker. Sorry, I think the confusion was caused by me – I was specifically referring to Fausta’s post about the text of the website, not the broadcast issue you were highlighting. Apologies that wasn’t clear.
beachhutman:
Perhaps “The alleged prophet and author” ? Jesus could be “The alleged messiah”, and so on…..
(alleged, adj: Presumed and claimed, but not proved, to be as stated.)
I like this idea, the whole of the BBC’s religious output could then resemble an edition of HIGNFY once the lawyers have put all the required “allegedly” into it.
There are quite a few Moslems in the BBC system for whom prophet Muhammad or even PBUH comes naturally
Sort of “Have I got Jews for you”?
“We decided that a less biased and more consistently fair approach would be to write about each faith from the point of view of that faith – so that our explanatory pages were in essence, a particular religion explaining itself to the reader. From that position it made sense to use pbuh on pages explaining Islam”
Neither the Christian nor the Jewish entries seemed to be from the pov of believers. I seem to recall weasel words like ‘claimed’ and ‘believed’ in those entries.
“I seem to recall weasel words like ‘claimed’ and ‘believed’ in those entries.” — must have been written by someone in the Church of England.
Many moons ago, a post was posted on the incisive pages of this blog directing our attention to a revisionist article on the “history” of Gaza by Alan Johnston, the BBC’s chief Palestinian apologist. He completely omitted any reference to a Jewish presence over the centuries in Gaza.
And on the World Service in The Interview we have Owen Bennet Jones asking ex-Shin Bet head, Ami Ayalon, what he thinks of the Israelis muscling in on the Palestinians “who have been there for thousands of years.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/the_interview.shtml
That’s how completely Bennet Jones has bought into the Palestinian falsification of history. I wonder if he knows that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian? Silly question.
And a few days ago World Service newsreaders were calling the flight of refugees from Iraq “the biggest movement of refugees in the Middle East since the Palestinian flight at the time of the establishment of Israel.” This was subsequently amended by omitting “Palestinian.” Perhaps someone tapped the BBC on the shoulder and informed them that there was another flood of refugees of about the same number at about the same time: The flight of Jews from Arab lands with only the shirts on their backs.
Will the BBC ever explore the fortunes of these refugees? Will it ever bother to look at the fact that they made something of their lives through sheer grit and hard work rather than sitting with outstretched hands palm upwards to the UN? Of course not. That would play havoc with its pro-Palestinian bias.
Will the BBC – Pees Be Upon It – ever explore why the Arab world has never taken in these Palestinians living in “refugee camps” for 50 years? Have they investigated why Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, for starters, import Christian and Hindu maids and workers from Sri Lanka, rather than their said brothers and sisters round the corner from Palestine? And Christian maids and workers from the Philippes rather than the Palestinians who share their languag and their faith and have been stuck in these “refugee camps” for three generations?
Why not hire them rather than exagomists? They speak your language, they share your faith, they share your customs. So… why not give them refuge in your overwhelmingly oil-rich countries?
A puzzle, honestly, don’t you think?
Their own Arab kin left in picturesque, filmable “refugee camps” in Palestine while Christian Filippinos and Tamil Sri Lankans get in to earn big dollars in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and so on.
Jes’ sayin’ is all.
biodegradable: I didn’t receive any reply. I would have liked to see an explanation myself, too.
Verity,
Too true.
Verity:
They used to bring in Palestinians, even dock their wages and send the money as ‘taxes’ to Yasser Arafat. That all stopped, as the Beeb gently put it, Relations between the Gulf states and the Palestinians deteriorated after the Palestinians were perceived to back Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait.
One week in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians, reducing their numbers from about 30% of the population to no more than 3%.
Racial profiling?
deegee | 10.01.07 – 9:05 am
One week in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians, reducing their numbers from about 30% of the population to no more than 3%.
Racial profiling?
Not to mention Ethnic Cleansing
Further, de facto slavery is very much alive in the Arab world, including the Gulf States.
The United Arab Emirates is a destination country for men, women, and children trafficked from South and East Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East for involuntary servitude and for sexual exploitation. An estimated 10,000 women from sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, South and East Asia, Iraq, Iran, and Morocco may be victims of sex trafficking in the U.A.E. Women also migrate from India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ethiopia, and the Philippines to work as domestic servants, but may have their passports confiscated, be denied permission to leave the place of employment in the home, and face sexual or physical abuse by their employers. Similarly, men from India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan come to the U.A.E. to work in the construction industry, but may be subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude as they are coerced to pay off recruitment and travel costs that can exceed two years’ wages, sometimes having their wages denied for months at a time.
http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/UnitedArabEmirates.htm
So much for the ummah.
Hmmm, the discussion on this does rather seem to have had a life of its own.
I just thought it might be appropriate to point out that the BBC coverage of Javed’s conviction, like almost all coverage, has softened what he said quite considerably. It focusses on the ‘Bomb Bomb Denmark’ rubbish, wholly ignoring the more outrageous things which were quite central to his conviction:
“You have declared war against Allah and his Messenger. You have declared war against the Muslim community, for which you will pay a heavy price. Take lesson of Theo van Gogh. Take lesson of the Jews of Khaybar. Take lessons for what you can see, for you will pay with your blood. Denmark, you will pay. Denmark, you will pay, you will pay. With your blood, with your blood, with your blood. Bomb, bomb Denmark. Jihad is the path of God.
“Democracy, hypocrisy. Democracy go to hell. Denmark go to hell. Freedom go to hell. Bomb, bomb Denmark. Denmark watch your back. Zarqawi is coming back. Bomb, bomb USA. Bomb, bomb Denmark.”
For the BBC to completely ignore the anti-semitism, glorification of murder and murderers, not to mention the blood blood references, could quite conceivably be seen as an almighty bias. Then again, what do I know.
Daniel
John Reith | 09.01.07 – 10:55 am | #
somewhat late, i know, but, jr, there really is nothing in the section you quote that indicates the bbc would be disrespectful if they did NOT use “pbuh”. after all, it’s not a title, it’s not a name, it is “something muslims do to show respect”. so what?
and, as has been pointed out more than once, it is clear that not all articles in the section are written from the point of view of believers. it just is not so.
deegee,
Yes, I’d forgotten for the moment about the expulsion of the Palestinians from Kuwait.
The expulsion of the Palestinians, and their replacement with thousands of Christian Filippinos, Sri Lankans and so on is important, because it demonstrates a muslim determination to keep the Palestinians under their heel for publicity purposes.
Why hire Sri Lankans and Filippina Christians, who don’t speak your language, when there are tens of thousands of Palestinians who speak your language as their own, know your islamic customs as their own, know how to live in an islamic household, adhere to your religion as their own ….?
To keep a running sore open as a weapon against the West.
We need to call them on this.
Regarding honorifics, if the Beeb says Mohammad (PBUH), they should, with equal rigour, say, “Jesus Christ” and we should insist upon this, otherwise they are promulgating a religion.
BTW, illiterate BBC editors, after you learn to write Jesus Christ rather than Jesus with no honorific, please understand that one never,never capitalises prepositions. Therefore, it’s Mo'(PBuH). For God’s sake, get your prepositions right. Capitalising a preposition is so infra dig.
The expulsion of the Palestinians, and their replacement with thousands of Christian Filippinos, Sri Lankans and so on is important, because it demonstrates a muslim determination to keep the Palestinians under their heel for publicity purposes.
There are two separate issues here. I doubt that the Palestinians were working as domestics in Kuwait, so the Filippinos and others would not have replaced them. They were probably in jobs like construction.
The other issue is that it’s a given that the Arab world wants to keep the Palestinians in a state of bondage – but this is not only to ensure the flow of money from the UN and the West but also to keep the Palestinian point of the Arab terror spear sharp to ensure the spilling of Jewish blood.
There are lots of Hindu Indians who work in convenience stores and petrol stations. All these are jobs the Saudis don’t want and they import anyone who desperately wants to work and earn money to send home. Indians, Sri Lankans, folks from the Philippines. Anyone except their fellow Arabs and co-religionists who are living in squalid refugee camps and have been doing so for FIFTY YEARS.
They keep them in picturesque poverty because it makes for good anti-Western and anti-Israel TV propaganda. (Yes, Beeb, I’m looking at you.)
Of course, I don’t know for a fact, but at a guess, there must be tens of thousands of Palestinians who would welcome a chance to earn some money, even if they are over-educated for the jobs, for two or three years. And live in a Muslim environment.
This is deliberate on the part of the Saudis and the Gulf states.
One reason that Kuwait expelled its Palestinians was because of the significant support in the Palestinian controlled territories for Saddam and his butchering hordes.
If only the UK was as firm with its fifth columnist immigrants.
test