MEDIA: Scary Muslims in The Times of London

Two weeks ago the Times of London printed a special section that is a textbook example of how not to cover a minority concern, in this case the beliefs of Muslim clerics in Britain.   

The key issue is that plans are in the works to construct the largest mosque in Europe near the East London site of the 2012 Olympics. According to the Economist, the Abbeymills mosque would have space for 12,000 worshippers, far surpassing the largest Anglican structure in Britain, St. Paul’s cathedral in central London, which has room for a paltry 2,500 faithful. The largest religious structure in Britain already is a mosque, the Baitul Fatah mosque in Surrey, which has space for 10,000 worshippers. However, Baitul Fatah is not as conspicuous presence as Abbeymills, with its sweeping modernist design and a completion date of just before the Olympics, would be.

Of course there is significant scope for debate — as the 281,685 people who signed a petition opposing the mosque’s construction would attest — but the Times decided not to cover the debate fairly but rather to offer innuendo. The paper ran this headline: “Exclusive: Islamist sect taking over UK mosques” and explains “An investigation by The Times has found that almost half of Britain’s mosques are controlled by a hardline Islamic sect.” (For the record, I hate this use of the word “Islamist” because it makes the headline sound like a tautology, like “Catholics worship in Catholic Churches.” The problem is that just twenty years ago, Islamist could only mean “a scholar of Islam” and today the word has lost this neutral sense and almost exclusively means “scary, hyperconservative Muslim.” It’s practically a synonym for “bad guy” and clearly that’s problematic from the perspective of good journalism.)

ifWho are these dreaded “Islamists” destroying Britain from within? Well, they’re Deobandis, which probably means little to non-Muslim Britons. The Deobandi movement is an Islamic revivalist movement founded in the northern Indian town of Deoband in the mid-nineteenth century in reaction to the failure of Indian society to mount an effective opposition to British colonialism. (This failure was dramatically manifest in the 1857 uprising, which the colonial authorities brutally crushed.) The Deoband movement remains very influential in South Asian Islam and some 80% of Muslim clerics trained in Britain follow curricula derived from the movement.

As someone who studies South Asia and knows something about Islamic revival, I don’t think there is cause for concern over the fact that many Muslim scholars in Britain have Deobandi affiliations. Among the diverse group, there are liberals and conservatives, radicals and centrists. Instead of recognizing this, the Times latches on to Deobandi influence as a convenient explanation for radicalization of British Muslims.

The worst offender is Andrew Norfolk, whose article “A movement fostered by the fear of ‘imperial’ rule” describes the rise of the Deobandi movement and shifts from a restrained, historical tone to unsubstantiated accusations against the British Muslim community. By playing up the opposition to colonialism, the lede implies that if the Deobandis were hostile to British colonial rule once, then they should also be hostile to modern “British values.” Does he really believe that opposing colonialism was about opposing “British values”?  I quote the last three grafs here:

Because they are free to practice and preach their religion in Britain, Deobandis are told that they should obey the laws of the land. Yet when it comes to how they should view their adopted country, the message is one of almost unremitting hostility.
Parents who allow their children to attend a non Muslim school, teenagers who wears Western clothes, clean-shaven men, women who do not wear the hijab – all such practices are condemned as a detestable imitation of the ways of the kuffar (unbelievers).
Many Deobandi clerics view any attempt to engage with the deviant, nonMuslim majority as a threat to the pure faith. Steps towards integration are perceived as a betrayal; Muslims are told to steer clear of nonMuslim neighbours.

Norfolk’s ideological bent is painfully obvious: British freedom is invoked in contrast to “unremitting hostility” (the trope of the ungrateful immigrant, which is shockingly common in accounts of British South Asians). A passage about how Muslims have no interest in integrating into society because they do not want to associate with unbelievers — and here he uses an Islamic term for maximum scare effect. Lastly, a sweeping generalization about what Deobandi clerics believe, and note that this is not what the clerics say but what they believe. Norfolk is either clairvoyant or has proved himself not a very good journalist.

The other articles one can read in this section have pornographic headlines, like “Exclusive: sinister sect recruits in Pakistan” and “Muslim group behind ‘mega-mosque’ seeks to convert all Britain.” The latter article invokes Tablighi Jamaat, a reform movement associated with the Deobandi school, as a sinister cult, just as the Freemasons or the Jews were once seen as shadowy figures destroying society from within. The sensationalistic quote about conversion makes little sense because the Tablighi Jamaat has always billed itself as a reform movement for Muslims and has claimed to have no interest in proselytizing non-Muslims. Although it’s not politically correct to say so many Christian denominations still believe it is their duty to convert as many people to their sect as possible; it’s hypocritical to suggest that only shadowy Muslims allegedly trying to overthrow Western society are thinking about conversion.

The Times’s coverage reads like an unsourced case study of every petty dread that exists in the White British population. The unavoidable conclusion is that the paper either exploited fear to sell copies or did not have the journalistic rigor to rise above fear, and no one’s interests are served.

Comments

[Steve]

People in the UK have a legitimate concern.

Check this video out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816

[Arthur Dudney]

Steve, you're missing the point. This piece is about bad media coverage and not about whether radical Islam exists in the UK. Radicalism exists in the UK, case closed. That doesn't mean that we can countenance bad journalism. In order to carry this conversation forward, you're going to have to respond to specific facts I present and address the problems I find with the coverage in the Times of London.

[panditjugalkishoreshastri]

arthur:

most literature is not read and most journalism is unreadable. But given that the London Times is reporting it gives this piece much credence over your skepticism. Between your objections and the story I would rather read him than 'countenance' your protest.

The article is not about theosophy or theology.....it's about reporting a virulent religious phenomenon turned into a foreign policy tool by its practioners. If the outline of the story stretches beyond the islamic world it will justifiably include the social and cultural milieu of its host. It's not a scholarly treatise on Islam, for pete's sykes. Deobandi sect of Islam is seen as the subcontinental version of ultra sunni wahabbi islam of Saudi Arabia. It is inevitable that even best efforts can't turn a journalist into a lawyer who needs to put a fine point on distinction between what a cleric 'believes' and what he actually says. The writer must have a lot of mitigating evidence to uphold the choice between options available to him. In this case, between 'belief' and what the cleric actually said. He is not an islamic scholar, neither the cleric's mouthpiece. He has the credentials to make the judgment and choices on behalf of his reader.

Any contemporary conversation about Islam must of necessity include the political debate it has generated within the muslim population across the globe.

All I can tell you is that your skepticism is the beginning of your faith.

[Eugene]

That's a really good article. But the Economist report that you cite is itself of questionable accuracy. See http://tinyurl.com/2jydqy

[Steve]

The biggest problem with these Muslim Immigrants in Great Britain is that they fail the Cricket Test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_test

[Jaya Kamlani]

When I arrived in the U.S. almost four decades ago, only the professionals were permitted to migrate to the U.S. However, in the last two decades, I have seen crowds in the U.S that you see on the streets of India: taxi drivers, cooks who work at Indian restaurants and other laborers. So the Indian demographics in America has changed radically, especially when their kith and kin are also permitted to migrate and many of them cannot even speak English. I know it must sound awful to talk about the people from the country I originated. But the truth is that many, many Indians have also voiced this concern to me. They would prefer to see only the educated ones migrate to the U.S. Another reason India's economy has been growing rapidly is due to the remittances sent home by the migrants. So, in other words, the immigrants don't spend all their money in the U.S., but rather send it back home to India which helps boost the country's economy, because then the people of India have more money to spend on consumer goods.

On the other hand, distance-wise, England is closer to India, so it is easier for people of India to do business in London, or go there on vacations. But when I visit my home in Bombay, people tell me that London is another Bombay, and England has become an Indian colony (pardon the expression, because only sixty years ago India was a colony of Britain). But I am just telling you the attitude of the people in India. London is second home to many Indians, especially since the economy of India has been doing well these last few years. The Indians feel comfortable in London as there are more Indian restaurants than Western restaurants. They are also buying off many companies in England. So yes, the Indians talk as if they are ready to take over England, leave alone beating them in cricket matches as well.

Jaya Kamlani

[Steve]

The problem I see in England especially with the Pakistanis is that even those of Pakistani descent that were born in England, grew up in England, many of them are still loyal to Pakistan. I am not talking about only immigrants but 3rd and 4th generation as well. They simply refuse to integrate.

No clearer can this be seen than when the Pakistani Cricket team comes to play the home team.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/5296056.stm

When you have native born citizens cheering for a foreign team then you have big problems.

[Arthur Dudney]

Pandit, you make an interesting point about Deobandis being seen as the "subcontinental version of ultra sunni wahabbi islam." You could perhaps cite the fact that many of the Taliban considered themselves Deobandis to back up your claim. The problem is that the logic is so reductive as to be meaningless. There are radical Deobandis and there are non-radical Deobandis. Radical Hinduism has exactly the same relationship to the mainstream as radical Deobandis do. The fact that Hindus slaughtered Muslims in Gujarat and elsewhere under the banner of Hindu Nationalism does not mean that I can conclude that all Hindus are bloodthirsty chauvinists whose religious doctrine is inherently menacing.

Steve, why bring up the so-called Cricket Test? If the expression of one's roots is so pernicious then shouldn't we fear second-generation Dominicans who cheer on the Dominican national soccer team and shouldn't we worry about the subversiveness of the St. Patrick's Day parade? You are applying a different standard to South Asians and that to my mind is racist.

And lastly, we should be clear about what this forum is about: It is a site for media criticism and not for debating social policy. The only comments about the Times article (I'm paraphrasing) imply that it's ok for the paper to break journalist conventions of evenhandedness and truth in order to highlight the existential threat of Muslims living in the West. If you don't like what I've said here then read the Times unquestioningly. The moderator will delete any more off-topic posts.

[Srinivasa Raghavan]

Here Here Mr. Dudney. Well said. But I think the last paragraph about this forum being restricted to media criticsm isn't my understanding. I like these forums as they provide a constant stream of news to ponder and discuss on these forums. Sometimes the conversations go outside the original topic, but life is like that. If one wants to post on social policy related in some way to the topic at hand, then why not? It gets us to develop a habit of discussing news items with others and trying to place them within a larger social context and analyze them critically. This at least gets people beyond blindly accepting whatever Dan Rather happens to lather on about on the 6 o clock news. I agree that when the posts turn into nothing but a mudslinging contest, that it's a good idea to delete some posts.

[Jaya Kamlani]

Srinivasa,

I have decided to stay out of SAJA Forum discussions for a while. I have my own projects to catch up with: Reading and research for my next book. Even though we have not agreed on many issues, I just wanted to acknowledge that I agree with what you stated to Arthur Dudney. This forum should be open for discussions on social, political, economic and other issues, so long as we are all respectful of each other. The editor should monitor the forum more closely. Meanwhile carry on without me. I may pop in from time to time to post excerpt of some articles that are relevant to the forum.

Jaya Kamlani

[Bilal Patel]

Arthur, I totally agree with you.

I am a mainstream, orthodox Muslim whose parents migrated from India in the 1960's and I live in East London, near the site of the proposed masjid.

I don't understand why the media deliberately makes out that the Tabligh is a sect which has a secret plan to convert everyone. It's a bit like saying that Christianity is a cult. I grew up with TJ, as did most Muslims here and most in the subcontinent will be in it, know of it or know someone who is involved with the Tabligh. It is quite simply the biggest group of Asian Muslims there is, and so no wonder that TJ will be planning to build big masjids, and that is because they have big attendances.

The racist nature of the campaign against Muslim in Britain (because TJ is representatives of most Muslims) should not be understated. Imagine if the largest organisation of Jews in the US were denied permission to build a synangogue on land which they owned, and were forced to put up with ramshackle temporary accommodation on land which was chemically poisoned, and all around them the biggest development that New York has ever seen was happening to host the Olympics. Wouldn't there be an outcry of international dimensions? Yes there would.

Yet this is exactly what Muslims in East London have to put up with. They own the land on which they will spend their own money to build a masjid and clean up the polluted land. In the meantime, the surrounding environment is being developed to host the Olympics in 2012. Under the circumstances, it would be criminal not to allow the development. Imagine visitors coming to London for the Olympics in 2012 and being greeted not with a modern enviroment, but a run-down site of chemically poisoned land which the owners were not allowed to develop just because they were Muslim. I simply cannot see this scenario happening.

[smithsan]

Sohail, an ambitious law student who is comfortable with his identity as a second-generation British Pakistani, joins Britain's domestic security service MI5 and is involved in spying on extremist cells. Medical student Nasima is a political activist, demonstrating against British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and former prime minister Tony Blair's close allegiance with US President George W. Bush.
-----------
smithsan
Vacation Packages