Shooting the messenger – reactions to “Undercover Mosque”

The MCB website thoughtfully carries the written responses of some of the organisations implicated in Channel 4′s Dispatches exposé of Saudi-trained radical imams preaching hateful nonsense at some of the country’s leading mosques. They are case studies in denial and aggressive victimhood.

Shouaib Ahmed (PDF download) of Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith actually threatens C4 with legal action:

if I or any member of my staff or anyone who worships at the Green Lane Mosque or the Mosque itself are subjected to any form of physical attack as a result of your programme then you, HardCash Productions Ltd and Channel 4 will all be liable to prosecution for incitement to commit a criminal act.

Right. Channel 4 report the hateful words of a loony, and any backlash resulting from it is Channel 4′s fault?

Safiq ur-Rahman (PDF downlaod) of the UK Islamic mission also writes a long and angry whinge, highlight of which include:

But given our predilection for gratuitous Islamophobia and sacrilege of the highest Islamic – and Christian – sanctities, under the holy doctrine of absolute freedom of speech, it seems a little rich for anyone making so much fuss about some intemperate words blurted here and there by someone feeling hurt and angry.

And…

The Saudis did not need to buy British Muslim support. It was worth little and yet had this been possible, considering the trillions they contribute to the British economy, the Saudis were very well placed to buy up the British establishment itself.

The MCB link to the letters here. They make remarkable reading.


4 Responses to “Shooting the messenger – reactions to “Undercover Mosque””

  1. Dan Factor says:

    “But given our predilection for gratuitous Islamophobia and sacrilege of the highest Islamic – and Christian – sanctities, under the holy doctrine of absolute freedom of speech, it seems a little rich for anyone making so much fuss about some intemperate words blurted here and there by someone feeling hurt and angry.”

    Oh yes because daring to criticse Islamic belief is sacrilage and Islamaphobia isn’t it.
    Islamic and Christian sanctities? Thankfully the British media doesn’t belief that relegious belief are sanctities and isn’t bound by law to believe that beliefs based on fairytales are sancities.
    These beliefs are sanctities only to the people who CHOOSE to belief them. The rest of us should not be forced to regard them as beyond reproach!

  2. Andy A says:

    Anyone interested in the full transcript can find it at http://4symbols.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C97D2C379282BFB3!796.entry

  3. Jim Zackey says:

    A responsible media does not ask an arsonist for instructions on a fire safety video or a paedophile to advice on safe neighbourhoods. Why then marginal, disbalanced and unrepresentative people with irrational and irresponsible views are much sought after for their views in news programmes on BBC and documentaries on ITV? This certainly goes against the principles of fair representation, consistency, evenhandedness and the right to objective reporting.

    Do the news channels (ITV Undercover Mosque, BBC Newsnight, CNN The War Within) really need to give a platform on news and documentary programs to elements driven by either xenophobia or zealotry? Do certain sections of media purposely seek rant-bites to attract viewers’ attention?

    The media has a clear choice when venturing to inform viewers on delicate but important matters.

    Ask any scholar, student or observer of Islamic Studies if they ever saw any contribution by Abu Izzedin or Anjum Chaudary in a mainstream publication. Check Index Islamicus or participation list of academic conferences in US, al-Azhar,Aligarh University India or Islamia College in Pakistan. No recognized and credible forum ever invites their views.

    It is the irresponsible media that retains their favourite fringe fanatics on the oxygen mask of publicity when it accords them undeserved and unjustifiable attention on prime time without which the rantagogues are far feeble than a fish without water.

    If opinions are not solicited by the networks for a few weeks those loudmouths who survive on soundbites with no following will be reduced to their actual size – trivial, insignificant and unworthy.

    Hence, there is no wisdom in bringing people on the media who are unwilling and unable to offer a way out of dilemmas that we encounter and the consequences that we face?

    By giving undue coverage to extremist expression, we will make the real issues hostage to militancy and mulishness.

  4. Monitor says:

    A responsible media does not ask an arsonist for instructions on a fire safety video or a paedophile to advice on safe neighbourhoods.

    So if there there are asonists in the fire sevice and paedophiles in the neighbourhood watch, the media should just pretend they are not there in the hope that they will go away.