Bismillah. Some thoughts:
1) Editorial balance
The programme was understandable perhaps, given the anxiety about Islam in UK society. But for editorial balance, maybe the BBC should also investigate other faith schools and communities, e.g.:
a) Judaism. The most senior Rabbi (Sephardi) of the Shas movement in Israel appears to have revolting, bigoted views: for example, recently wishing plague and death on all Palestinians (retracted later after an international outcry, it seems) and declaring that Goyim (Gentiles) exist only to serve Jews. (Both stories are from the Jerusalem Post.) The Shas is part of the Israeli coalition government. Just as we in the UK are right to question the impact of overseas-based Islamist (political Islam) groups such as AQ, HT, JI & MB in Britain, we should also be worried about the influence of Shas’ leading rabbi amongst British Jews. We assume and hope that such influence is minimal.
Further, the ideology of right-wing Israeli settlers needs to be explored and challenged, along with its connections in the UK. Some of these settlers appear to be violently extremist and racist, wishing to live “a pure way of life according to the Torah” in such a way that they must live in Jewish-only neighbourhoods and settlements, i.e. making peaceful coexistence with Palestinian, mainly-Muslim but also Christian, neighbours extremely difficult. The settlements are a major obstacle to ME peace as is well-known, and it’s about time that settler ideology and its UK links was examined more closely. See Robi Damelin, a brave Israeli woman, challenging some of these Jewish extremists in the remarkable film Encounter Point that also features Ali Abu Awwad, an equally-courageous Palestinian man. (Watch the trailer on the film’s website, and excerpts here.)
Oh, and a US-based rabbi and Tea Party activist (enough said) spoke recently at an EDL rally in London.
b) Christianity. Children attending fundamentalist churches in the UK have been spotted wearing T-shirts glorifying Terry Jones, the infamous US pastor. Not good.
c) Hinduism. The problem of Hindu extremism is well-known in India, with the Gujarat massacres (2002) a recent example. Some Hindu extremists are even known to argue that their worship of Shiva, their god of destruction, entails using nuclear weapons on their enemies, such as Pakistan. Again, Hindu and Sikh communities in the UK are known to reflect subcontinental problems here, just like Muslims of South Asian origin.
It’s fair to say that over the last decade, Muslims have been at the forefront of tackling the extremism within. We have been setting an example in that regard, and would encourage friends of other faiths to follow suit.
2) On fundamentalism
I was surprised some years ago to find Sheikhs such as Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad talking about “Muslim fundamentalists.” The Prince of Wales also talked about fundamentalism at the opening ceremony of the Tent at St. Ethelburga’s in London. After years of reflection, I realised that I had been a fundamentalist for most of my life and that Muslim discourse is often dominated by fundamentalism. (Hey, YM even used to have T-shirts saying, “YM – Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism” :-)) I came up with my “definition” of fundamentalism that was quoted by the Daily Telegraph last year (31 Dec 2009) and by Panorama: “reading scriptures out of context,” i.e. out of their historical and normative-faith context. Note that this applies to all faiths, not just Islam, as shown by the examples given above.
3) On the term kafir (pl. kuffar), meaning non-believer
The Panorama quote said it all. I also took part in a 1-hour discussion with Prof. Tariq Ramadan and others on Press TV last year. As I said there, and to Panorama (not shown), many Muslims don’t realise how offensive the term “Kafir” can be to Westerners: many are immediately reminded of the white racists of apartheid-era South Africa who used the Afrikaans term “Caffer” for coloured people, and “Caffer” seems to have been borrowed from the Arabic.
By the way, the Jewish community has exactly the same issue with the Hebrew word Goy (pl. Goyim) meaning Gentile or non-Jew. Just over 20 years ago, I was part of a group of 4-5 young activists led by Abu Muntasir who tried to attend an Israel Expo at Alexandra Palace in between our Sunday circles at various London venues. We were dressed in Arab robes and turbans and were correctly prevented by security from entering the Expo, on the grounds that our presence would have probably provoked serious disorder. We had a polite chat with the security and police about the matter, but a group of Jewish youths chanted “Goyim, Goyim” at us. Who taught them that?
4) Advice to the Saudis
Please learn more about the Ahl al-Kitab and stop writing nonsense in your school textbooks. So, for example, please stop distorting the Qur’anic criticism of Bani Israil (Children of Israel or Israelites) into your vilification of all Jews. So, for example, “list the reprehensible qualities of the Jews” should read, “list the reprehensible qualities of the Israelites” (in the Qur’anic account). You could also teach in that section that the Qur’anic account echoes the Ahl al-Kitab sources themselves (the Old and New Testaments), where the faults of the Israelites are exposed by Isaiah, Jesus and other prophets, peace be upon them. Of course, the Qur’an also praises the merits of the Israelites, such as the large number of Prophets that were chosen from them. More below on the specific Qur’anic criticism of Judaism & Christianity.
5) A major error by Panorama
It is unfortunate that you relied on your undercover Saudi, whose English was clearly poor, for translation of a complex passage written in neo-classical Arabic, about 23 min into the programme. He totally mistranslated it as “Jews look like monkeys and pigs” which became headline news around the world. The failure to check his translation with experts is an error of judgment on your part, which perhaps merits an apology and/or a correction from the BBC, due to the highly-inflammatory nature of the mistranslation. What do you think the reaction would have been, had you broadcast a mistranslation of a Hebrew text used in Jewish schools to say that “all non-Jews are dogs” or such like? The only mitigating factor in this case is that the correct translation of the Arabic text is not pretty, although it is nowhere near as bad as the mistranslation broadcast to millions of viewers.
The two paragraphs are almost entirely visible in the Panorama close-up, and my translation of the relevant parts is as follows:
The Jews were given knowledge of the Book of God (The Torah and Gospel) … yet they believed in falsehood such as the worshipping of idols, fortune-telling, magic, following Satan, opposing the Truth out of envy and transgression. In this there is condemnation of them and a warning for us, not to do as they did.
… [In reference to Qur’an, 5:60] God Most Glorified says to His Prophet: shall I inform you of those who will attain the worst reward with God on the Day of Resurrection? They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and will never be pleased with them. Those who violated the Sabbath amongst them were punished by being transformed into apes and pigs.
In both paragraphs, “Jews” should read “Israelites,” as discussed above. The word “Jews” does not occur at all in the relevant Qur’anic passages, but the Saudis have used it instead of “Israelites” due to their ignorance about the Ahl al-Kitab. The “worshipping of idols” is a reference to the golden calf, another story that is found in all Abrahamic sources. The Ashab al-Sabt (lit., “People of the Sabbath”) is a famous Qur’anic term for those who violated the Sabbath in the well-known story (Qur’an 2:65, 4:47, 4:154, 7:163-6).
Once one is well-grounded in the Qur’anic discourse, it is relatively easy to present these Qur’anic stories in an authentic and balanced way. By the grace of God, I was able to present the easily-misunderstood “apes and pigs” Qur’anic story on the Guardian Comment Is Free online forum earlier this year, where I wrote the following:
As an example, take the story about an Israelite fishing village tested by its local fish only coming near on the Sabbath (2:65, 5:60, 7:163-167). Some of the villagers fished indirectly on the Sabbath and thus mocked the law by sticking to its letter whilst violating its spirit. They were punished by “becoming apes and pigs”. The traditional commentary is that they were literally transformed into lower animals. However, Asad follows the rationalist commentators and has them becoming like apes and pigs, i.e. losing their intellectual capacities and becoming dominated by greed.
The above was written on an overwhelmingly leftist, anti-religious, secularist forum but not a single one of the commenters, who are usually harsh and aggressive, could even claim that this was objectionable, xenophobic or anti-Semitic.
6) On the Qur’anic criticism of Jews and Christians
Yes, there is plenty of this. The Qur’an and the Prophet (peace be upon him), echoing Isaiah, Christ and other prophets (peace be upon them) set out to critique the errors of Judaism and Christianity, seen as having departed from the true path of submission to God. A major aim of this critique is to regain the balance between the Mosaic Law and the Christian Spirit, between the outer and inner aspects of faith, i.e. between exoterism and esoterism.
And yes, the opening chapter of the Qur’an (al-Fatiha) mentions “those who receive anger” and “those who go astray.” To refer these two terms to the Jews and Christians respectively is well-known in Qur’anic commentary, and is transmitted from many of the Followers, Companions and even the Prophet himself (peace be upon him). But the Prophet (pbuh) famously also prophesied that Muslims would follow Jews and Christians in their mistakes, every step of the way. Therefore, to quote such verses and commentary in a xenophobic way, in our times, is arrogant and pathetic, and forgets the warning to us, not to repeat the mistakes of others. In fact, it should be noted that all the Qur’anic criticism of the Ahl al-Kitab (“People of Scripture”) applies also to Muslims, who are Ahl al-Qur’an or People of the Qur’an, which is also Scripture, of course.
The great Qur’an-commentators understood this well: Imam al-Alusi, when discussing verses mentioning Jews and Christians, usually if not always, gives the deepest or innermost meaning as “exoterists” (ahl al-zahir) and “esoterists” (ahl al-batin), respectively, including those amongst the Muslims. In other words, religion must not be reduced to hollow, soulless and pedantic legalism, ritualism and literalism, nor must it become a vague “spirituality” without practical form and social order. These verses must therefore be read as internal criticism of Muslims as well as external criticism of religious mistakes in general, and this has always been the enlightened Islamic way. Balancing the inner and outer aspects of faith is the supreme achievement of the great men and women of God, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus Christ and Muhammad, peace be upon them all.
7) Advice to those exposed on British TV as preachers of hate (or HaTe)
This includes Riyad-ul-Haq, Murtaza Khan and others. Please read the points above on understanding scripture, and take them to heart. I have more years and experience than you in such matters, especially inter-faith discussions and Scriptural Reasoning. I have met some of you since the media first described you as “hate-preachers”, and trust that you have retracted your comments, learnt from your mistakes and moved on. What you should do is issue public statements, e.g. via your websites, blogs, organisations, press releases etc., stating that you regret and retract any offensive comments made in the past. There is no humiliation or loss of face in admitting one’s mistakes, and we have the example of Prophet Moses in this regard. When the Pharaoh reminded him of his accidental killing of an Egyptian, Prophet Moses replied, “I did that then, when I was amongst those away from the path.” (Surah al-Qasas, of course)
I have been through this process. Soon after 9/11 and the subsequent, illegal NATO invasion of Afghanistan, I wrote a strident article, “Recapturing Islam from the Pacifists.” I retracted the extremist and offensive parts of that later (and repeat the retraction here, since the occasional hostile people still mention the article), most notably when I chaired the RMW event in London after 7/7 where Shaykhs Hamza Yusuf and Abu Muntasir were the guest speakers. Detailed interviews with journalists such as Paul Cruickshank and Johann Hari also helped to clarify publicly the fact that I had moved on. (Sheikhs HY and AM had already made their own public retractions after 9/11 and 7/7).
Unfortunately, there are also hate-preachers who appear not to have retracted their offensive views and/or comments. To those who defend such people by saying that they are religious and good people, consider this: many people who support the BNP, EDL and other dubious organisations are otherwise decent, family-oriented, hardworking people. However, they may have some racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic views which they sometimes state in public. There are other people who pray and fast, are otherwise decent, family-oriented and hardworking people who have xenophobic (anti-“kuffar”) views, including towards Jews, Hindus, etc., which they sometimes state in public. What is the difference, if any, between the two cases?
8. Contact the BBC
If you’d like to have your say, do contact the BBC. The Complaints page is here, see also their short response about the above programme. Or you may wish to write to John Ware (Reporter) or Mark Alden (Assistant Producer). BBC email addresses are well-known to be of the format: forename.surname@bbc.co.uk
May God grant us the courage to engage in difficult dialogue and deal with thorny issues with objectivity, truth and fairness in these troubled times.
Usama Hasan
London, 1st December 2010
UNITY 
December 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm |
Visit now http://islamic-world.bplaced.net/forum/ and we will discuss about this and any other thema over the world not only Religion rule the world my Brother and Sister 😀
December 1, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
Dear Usama
Thanks for pointing this out. We were already aware that our Saudi undercover man was summarising what he was able to read at first glance having just emerged from the weekend school. We then took the full text to Neal Robinson who put it in its proper context. He even went as far as to say that he personally would have been happy to teach this text but emphasised the importance of taking great care over it, in a way that the Saudi text book has not.
Here’s the relevant part of the film:
COMMENTARY
Saudi officials often complain these are Qu’uranic passages taken out of their historical context.
So we showed the lesson to an academic known internationally for his expertise on the Qur’an.
Prof. Neal ROBINSON SYNC
Q: “Is it wise to draw the attention of children to these passages?
A: I would do it, but I would spend a long lesson talking round this. To present it cold as it seems to be here just part of the teaching of Islam, no it’s not wise.
In the wrong hands I think it is, yes, ammunition for anti-Semitism.”
Furthermore, when we showed the passage in its full and accurate context to Michael Gove he was clear that this text was unnacceptable in a British classroom.
Michael GOVE SYNC
“You could have a long theological argument in which you say um, that these things should be seen in an historical context. Fair enough, that’s a matter for other countries. To my mind it doesn’t seem to me that this is the sort of material that er, should be used in English schools.”
Whilst I accept there is a difference between Jews who “look like monkeys…etc” (Our Saudi U/C’s translation)and Jews being “transformed into apes” I’m not sure this difference constitutes what you have described as a “major mistake”.
It’s also important to set this passage into the context of the Saudi national curriculum as a whole. For example,as we set out in the film, the same text book asks children to list what it describes as “the reprehensible qualities of the Jews.”
It is because several speakers (e.g. Sheikh Hussein Yee, Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Saleh Al-‘Athimein to name but some) have adapted the historical texts referring to apes and pigs to make racist remarks about Jews today – likening Jews metaphorically to apes, and sometimes even literally – that Prof Robinson emphasised that unless taught in the right hands, the passages are fuel for anti Semitism. Presumably this also explains why the Secretary of State concurred and said that it was better not to have them in any British classroom.
In any event, as you can see, in the commentary we dealt squarely with the view – as advanced by the Saudi ambassador – that such texts can be taken out of their historical context, though in this case we do not accept that we did because of the nature of the questions to the children at the end of the lesson. It seems to us and others that the questions were designed to have a contemporary relevance.
This is further butressed by other parts of the Saudi curriculum where, (as you yourslf acknowledged in the translations you kindly did for us), there are racist references to Jews where no “historical” or “contextual” claim could possibly be made because the passages refer to 19th, 20th and 21st century. For example, in Grade 10 Students are told that Zionists are plotting to take over the world for Jews, with 15 yr old Saudi schoolchildren being taught that the “plot” continues to the present day. There are “many proofs” of the Protocols’ “veracity” the text book says.
That said, I’d like to put on record Usama how genuinely grateful we are to you for your important contribution, your generous time and your advice.
With every good wish
John
December 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm |
Asalaamu alaikum Usama,
Are you a Salafi? Kindly provide a detailed answer so that people can be clear on your understanding of a Salafi and whether you are one or not.
Thanks
January 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
wa alaykum as-salam, brother. I address 7-8 important issues around the Panorama programme, and all you can come up with is, “Are you a Salafi?” You remind me of my shallow self about 20 years ago, although I didn’t ask people that silly question. 🙂 The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “A believer is the mirror of a believer.”
December 2, 2010 at 1:22 am |
Dear Dr. Usama Hasan
– i get the image that your “secular muslim” and that you look down upon muslims who dont buy into your ideas. i find this hard to believe for a number of reasons.
-you came to “great” britan only because your father sh. suhaib hasan was send there by the “BIG BAD” saudi relgious authorites (darl ifta) , if it wasnt for that you would never be exposed to the west,
– your own grand father allamah abdul ghaffar hasan taught in the big bad madinah univeristy,
-your uncle dr. suhail hasan is also saudi educated from madinah ibn saud , from ba ma and phd, when i asked you uncle about studying in a certin islamic institute he said “dont go there because there are to many securlists there”.
-your own father is secraty general of the islamic sharia council
there is alot of irony here!!
note- i have the utmost respect for your father and uncle and grandfather and no way did i try to speak ill of them.
allah knows best
January 2, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
Dear muslim1, as-salamu ‘alaykum. Are you aware that my translation of my grandfather’s major work on Hadith in Urdu, the Intikhab-e-Hadith, was published in 2009 by the Islamic Foundation, entitled “Way of the Prophet” (pbuh)?
December 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm |
Dear Mr Hasan, I have a something I’d like you to comment upon.
The (non-forced) conversion rate between religions is what? It must be minuscule, at least relative to other forces (births, deaths, sheer apathy!).
Once someone has been indoctrinated from a young age into a religion the probability they will later convert to the ‘one and true’ religion is, well, isn’t it fairly non-existent?
Bit static isn’t it? How does that make sense to someone with a rational theistic world view? One is trapped to their parents’ religion practically as a matter-of-fact and one will likely interpret all the ‘religious’ parts of their personality from that prism. For instance, I would happily wager £5 your father was a Muslim.
The singular impression I’ve gotten from my Muslim friends and acquaintances is that never mind how pleasant, witty or intelligent they are (and they frequently are all those things), they seem to have never been taught a critical thinking ability (such as might spring from parents who have challenged their child’s reasoning as they’ve grown up). Instead any question that touches something sensitive appears to be immediately passed through some kind of filter that seeks referral to an external authority. Instead of an internal critical capacity they look to “wiser” authority figures or tomes to answer hard questions. Is that a fair criticism? Perhaps this is caused by faith schooling.
Interesting observation on the word “Kuffar” by the way, if convoluted. I think most people would assess it as a pejorative because the people who use it frequently have perfected spitting the word out as though it’s left a palpably bad taste on their tongue. Probably the most equivalent word would be the antiquated term “Mohammedan”!
In any case, thanks for your time.
January 2, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
Dear Hugo, Thank you for your comment. I don’t have time to comment on the interesting matter you raise, but I hope readers will reflect on it themselves.
btw Like most Muslims, I follow the strong Qur’anic advice and don’t bet – besides, I would lose that wager if I accepted. 🙂
December 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
You say you have more years experience in scriptural reasoning. But its only been the last few years you have completely done a 180 degree turn – so you can hardly claim that your understanding has been strengthening year on year – in which case the claim to years of experience is pretty much nonsense.
I assume this was written with you in mind. The phrase medieval text gives it away as this was the phrase you used on the panorama program
http://www.islam21c.com/editorials/1813-the-hypocrites-of-our-community
“And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their friendship, saying: “We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us.” Perhaps Allah may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves. And those who believe will say: “Are these the men (hypocrites) who swore their strongest oaths by Allah that they were with you (Muslims)?” All that they did has been in vain (because of their hypocrisy) and they have become the losers.”
January 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
As-salamu alaykum. Sorry to disappoint you, but my father asked Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad about this and he said that he wrote that article before the Panorama programme. I also had a civilised discussion with Sheikh Haitham about the Panorama programme last week, which is more than what is possible with anonymous, possibly cowardly and hate-filled, blog commenters. 🙂 Furthermore, you seem to be so far behind and so off the pace that you cannot possibly tell the difference between a U-turn and the tricky task of navigating complex journeys!