From BBC Watch:
BBC CoJ debates the use of the term ‘Islamist’
The College of Journalism’s own article:
BBC Urdu’s Aamer Ahmed Khan gives rise to the suspicion he may not be a reliable witness:
“The confusion is where you use [Islamist] interchangeably with the words ‘militant or extremist’. It’s just plain wrong – as wrong as calling a tortoise a coconut,” he argued colourfully.
Besides, not all militant groups are Islamist. The Taleban in Pakistan? Yes. It would be inaccurate to describe the Taleban as just a militant organisation, Aamer believes. But al-Qaeda? In his opinion it is not necessarily an Islamist militant group because its driving political focus is anti-Americanism.”
Al Qaeda not Islamist? And the Pope’s not Catholic.
Osama Bin Laden is pretty clear what drove him, he attacks America but only as part of his aim to restore Islam to its rightful place:
‘It is clear to us that the solution lies in adhering to the religion of God…and installing a strong and faithful leadership that applies the Qur’an among us and raises the true banner of jihad.’
Pretty clear….the irony of course is that that was from a BBC report….they just don’t want to admit the truth it seems as seen from this part of the debate:
‘Ian Jolly, the BBC newsroom’s style guide editor, offers this guidance to BBC journalists; he starts by distinguishing between ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’:
“The first simply refers to anything related to the religion. The second is derived from Islamism, defined in the dictionary as ‘Islamic militancy or fundamentalism’.
“Our own view is that an Islamist is someone who derives a political course from Islam. But it’s vital that we make clear what sort of course that is. For instance, there are Islamist political parties in various countries and Egypt has an Islamist president.
That pinpoints exactly the problem with the BBC and its attitude towards Islam:
‘Our own view is that an Islamist is someone who derives a political course from Islam.’
For the BBC most Muslims are not ‘Islamists’ because they don’t belong to a specific group such as the Muslim Brotherhood or indeed Al Qaeda. But that is the wrong way of looking at Islam and Muslims…. Islam IS politics….it guides every move a Muslim makes…..the Koran’s essence is political, at its heart the demand on Muslims to make Islam the dominant ideology across the World. If the BBC cannot define the real meaning of Islam it cannot define what an ‘Islamist’ is.
From ‘Islamic Thought’ by Abdullah Saeed:
‘Islam requires more than a spiritual commitment; Muslims are required to commit to a structure and framework of law and governance that fits within the teachings of the Qur’an and the Prophet….Therefore it is important to recognize that politics is not subsidiary to Islamic thought and Law; rather it is a central component.’
So every Muslim is an ‘Islamist’…there should be no separation between State and Religion.
Sayid Mawdudi, the founder of Jamaa’at Islami, a fundamentalist group, said :
‘Islam is a revolutionary ideology which seeks to alter the social order of the entire world.’
Bertrand Russell believed Islam was more about politics and domination than religion, most like Bolshevism:
‘Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world’.
Osama Bin Laden himself reminded us that God’s Law is sovereign, man made laws have no significance and Islam should guide a Ruler’s decisions and actions:
‘The gist here is that the absence of a comprehensive understanding of God’s religion as a system for all walks of life, including Islam’s way of holding the Rulers accountable…because if they follow God’s religion things become good for the country and its people…’
and…..‘Many of us understand Islam to mean performing some acts of worship, such as prayer and fasting.
Despite the great importance of these rituals, the religion of Islam encompasses all the affairs of life, including religious and worldly affairs, such as economic, military and political affairs, as well as the scales by which we weigh the actions of men – rulers, ulema and others – and how to deal with the ruler in line with the rules set by God for him and which the ruler should not violate.’
Islam is then more Revolution than Revelation.
As said before if the BBC is unprepared to examine Islam, the Koran, its interpretation and meaning, and what Islam means to Muslims and the effect it has on their decisions how can it possibly define the meaning of ‘Islamist’?
Channel 4 broadcast historian Tom Holland’s research into the origins of Islam as he set out in his book: In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World.
‘The themes it explores are currently the focus of intense and escalating academic debate.’
The BBC is as yet to participate in that debate, one which is of ever increasing importance.
And it should be noted that having broadcast the programme C4 is still up and running, no one has been killed and the world keeps turning. The BBC’s refusal to broadcast similar investigations whilst remorselessly delving into Christianity’s origins and history is a complete failure on its part to fulfill its obligations…either from fear or a misplaced intention to ‘protect’ the Muslim Community from anything ‘adverse’.
The very fact that Mark Thompson gave this as part of the reason for not examining Islam is telling:
“Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’”
That must raise some questions.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew how the truth is suppressed. He said:
“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.”
The BBC is ‘lying’ to us about Islam if only by omission…it is censoring the debate…..
The New Statesman is braver:
The New Statesman Special Report – The great Koran con trick
‘Censorship that plagues the Middle East seeps into every corner of intellectual life. Nowhere is this more true than in the study of the origins of Islam, where some of the conclusions being drawn are potentially even more explosive than the argument that Israelis and Palestinians have common ancestors.
‘…So why is it that, in the acres of newsprint and during the hours of television time spent discussing Muslim issues since 11 September, there has been no debate on the Koran and the origins of Islam?’
Only when we get what is one of the world’s most powerful and influential broadcasters to join in the debate will a serious and rigorous examination of the consequences of having such large Islamic/Islamist populations growing inside Christian or secular societies be possible….and there are consequences whether you want to admit them or not. It may also influence the possibility of eventual reform within Islam and a consequent change in the relationship between the Religion and State just as Christianity eventually reached a ‘balance’ in its role within the State in which it was separated from the politics…. a few Bishops in the House of Lords excepted…and the occasional turbulent priest given airtime on the BBC.
