"BBC claims of hadith reworking unfounded"

Salam alaikum,

Some of you might have seen an article / heard a report on the BBC which suggested that the Turkish Government is preparing to “revise” Islam. I think this article in today’s Zaman (a mainstream Turkish newspaper) sheds some light on the BBC claims:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=135202

Speaking with Today’s Zaman on Wednesday, Dr. Mehmet Görmez, the directorate’s deputy director, said: “Our project is not aimed at effecting a radical renewal of the religion, as is claimed by the BBC. Our objective is to help our citizens attain a better understanding of the hadith. Though I underlined several times during our interview with a BBC reporter that our project cannot be considered a reformation of Islam, he distorted the facts, saying Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam — and a controversial and radical modernization of the religion.”

The hadith texts are not considered by Muslims to be God’s word, as the Quran is. Regardless, they are seen as qualified attempts to collect a body of reliable texts for Muslim scholars to use in adjudication. Scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim traveled throughout the Muslim world gathering and evaluating oral reports that had been passed down through generations from the Prophet Mohammed and his contemporaries. Each of these scholars then evaluated the chain of transmission of each saying, taking into account each individual reporter’s reputation, memory, etc.

All of which underscores the pre-eminent wisdom of the Qur’an once more:

“O ye who believe! If an evil liver bring you tidings, verify it, lest ye smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what ye did.” Qur’an 49:6

“O man, follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart–of each of these it will be asked.” Qur’an 17:36

In other words we ought always to verify our facts when news comes to us, lest it cause others harm. May Allah forgive us all.

Kindest regards, salams and duas,

Zeynep

Man bites dog

My email to Eddy Mair on Radio 4’s PM programme this evening:

Can you prove to me that the huge crowds witnessed on the streets of Khartoum after Friday prayers today were because of the teddy bear insult? If you go to any Muslim city anywhere in the world after Friday prayers you will witness massive crowds. Indeed, you will witness them even outside the mosques up and down this country? Virtually every Muslim attends the Friday prayer – clearly they have to go somewhere when the prayer ends and in the absence of a teletransporter the first thing they will do is pour onto the street.

You may not care about this, you may not know about it or you may be enraged by the behaviour of Muslims, and not want to read these few short thoughts of mine. That is fine – you can simply pass over this post.

But here we are, I have been “enraged” – yes, by media hype – what hypocrites they are given that they constantly attack the government with accusations of spin. I have always defended “the media” against claims of bias: they report the news, they do not make it.

But here I sit amidst my “enraged” fellow countrymen – lambasting the Muslims, demanding that they be deported, that they deserve no respect, that their religion is barbaric and inhumane – listening to interviews on the radio and reading newspaper articles all covering this same ground, and I ask myself a question.

Why do you not know about 138 Muslim leaders and scholars from around the world reached out to Christian leaders in an open letter to the heads of all Christian churches just a month ago, emphasizing, “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.”

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Common-Word/Christian-Response.html
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Common-Word/Muslim-Response.html

Why too do you not know about the Amman Initiative which saw 170 Sunni and Shi‘a religious scholars and Muslim intellectuals from 40 countries gathering to condemn terrorism in absolute terms in July last year?

Why is it that you nothing about these? Where was the media coverage? Where the vast acreage of opinion pieces? Where the journalists demanding that Muslim’s reaction? Where?

Yes, dog bites man – not news; man bites dog – news. But some of us have to live with fallout.

Moderation

There is a section on the BBC News website called “The Editors”. Last Thursday Matt Morris published an interesting commentary entitled, “Too many Muslim stories?” Well, as you know I have an opinion on this, and so I submitted a polite, quite reasonable comment, questioning why the veil story occupied the headlines on BBC Online all day Friday, while that other story – the former members of the BNP found in possession of vast amounts of bomb-making equipment – went totally unreported. But comments are moderated and my question clearly didn’t pass the board. Don’t tell me it’s because I went off topic; half the comments are vering off course. Don’t tell me it’s subjudice – criminal charges are constantly reported in the news. What is going on? Somebody tell me please.

It’s Friday…

…which means it’s Muslim Anger Day on BBC Online. Today it’s an apparent storm over Jack Straw’s comments about the face veil worn by some Muslim women. Right now it’s the main article on the website, with two sub-articles immediately underneath, plus a video clip and photo, then a link to “Have your say” in the right hand column, a link under Video & Audio news and a heading under Features, Views & Analysis. Forget 17,000 people told to flee the explosion at the chemical plant in the US: boring. Tonight’s PM on BBC Radio4 gave it impressive coverage, but something was clearly amiss because they had to get Melanie Philips on (columnist for the Daily Mail, author of the book Londonistan and regular Moral Mazist) to contribute to the debate — but even she was rather thrown when the presenter asked what they were doing (sitting in two parts of London and discussing the matter) when she insisted that communication is impossible when you cannot see the other person’s face. She stuttered: it was like a bolt from the blue. The Road to Damascus moment when she realised what telephones were. The programme ended with several letters from people tired of one-way Multiculturalism, of Muslims not respecting our culture, of how we respect their culture when we go to “their” countries (except when sunbathing on Egyptian and Turkish beaches) and so “they” should do the same, about how they have to take their shoes off when visiting mosques (and my house) etc. etc. No angry Muslims though. Even the one Muslim woman who wears the veil they had on the programme only sounded mildly peeved. Yes, it’s multiculturalism gone mad! Um, well it’s not. It’s an excessively hyped story which is already falling flat — and the only people talking about it are obsessive it’s-multiculturalism-gone-mad-ists and bored journalists, oh, and me. But that’s only because I’m looking forward to the next installment, same time next week. “Muslim anger about ban on parking on double-yellow lines – shock”.

Once again

I have just glanced at BBC News Online as I often do when the digital clock in the corner of my screen reaches midday, the rustle of packets of crisps awaking me from my spreadsheet slumber. Wonderful, it’s another Muslim Anger day. The main item, spanning two columns and in prominent text, tells the whole nation that Muslims are Angry again.

The Pope, apparently, has said something which has offended Muslims everywhere. Before my blood gets to boil about whatever it is he has said, however, something else is driving me round the bend. BBC Online, why do you do this? Yes, it’s the way these stories of “Muslim Anger” are reported that irritates me every time, much more than the original words. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and a man who considers Roman Catholocism the only true religion; this is a man who has said before that The Church of England is not a real church. Must I really bother myself with his words, or his quotation of another’s words?

To my mind, the complaints are hardly news-worthy — why is it that every time we are offended by something, journalists believe everyone should know; they never give this much attention to the Church of England’s General Synod? No, I don’t think the complaints are news-worthy at all, but the BBC insists on putting it as the main headline on their website, along with the obligatory link to “Your views”. The 200,000 person death toll in Darfur, the 50 corpses found on Bagdad streets yesterday, NHS hospital closures: these are all an aside.

I will watch. By the time I leave work this evening, it will be a major item on PM and before we know it the “anger” will be getting widespread coverage, lasting for the next few days. Just like last time.

I remember 2 February well. On the One O’Clock News on BBC1, Darren Jordan introduced the package about the Cartoon crisis in sombre mood: we listened as the reporter told us that another clash of cultures, like that seen with the Satanic Verses, “was developing fast”. Then Darren turned to the other camera with a smile and told us how to contribute to the debate online. Yes, contribute and tell those ignorant Muslims what silly fools they are for their disrespect for free speach – especially those foolish Muslims who’ve been busy all day and weren’t aware of the brewing storm.

I won’t be drawn into this one, I tell myself, just as I refused to be with the last one. That’s not a commentary on any offence caused, just a declaration that I refuse to have my agenda driven my people I do not know. But then, here I am, telling you how irate I am. Hypocrite. But no, I won’t be drawn in by the swinging carrot inviting me to make a fool of myself, so that the nation can look on with shaking heads at the backward, illiterate Muslims in their midst.

January ended with the news that a tanker loaded with ten thousand tonnes of phosphoric acid had sunk off the French coast, threatening to leak eighty tonnes of fuel oil into the English Channel. It had all the makings of a major news story. As the British Press focused on the House of Commons vote over the controversial religious hatred bill, news that Danish firms were seeking an end to a boycott of their goods was receiving scant attention. But by the end of the week everything had changed; the tanker was long forgotten and we all know which story was dominating the headlines.

I don’t expect things to change. Soon enough we will see the rage on the streets, the burning flags and the trampled effigies. We will because this is how it goes. Unless we have the good fortune to witness a military coup in China or a hurricane in Washington. If it doesn’t last the week, it will be proof that miracles happen. Still, all I know is that the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Forbearance is the best of traits” and “Do not get angry.” One day I hope we remember.

A very poor show

In general I enjoy listening to programmes on BBC Radio 4. I don’t own a TV and only buy a newspaper about twice a month (usually The Independent, for my sins), so the radio is my main source when keeping abreast of current affairs. A pretty good job it does too: not least Start the Week for literature and the arts, but also the nature, politics, ethics and technology programmes.

Every so often, however, you hear a programme that makes you wonder what has happened to British “quality” journalism. I heard one such programme on Saturday night (15/10/05) entitled A War Against Prejudice, repeating an edition broadcast earlier in the week. The focus of this programme was a Jewish organisation known as the Community Security Trust and its alleged role in exaggerating claims of anti-Semitism in British society. I must confess that I know very little about either subject, but it seemed quite clear to me as an outsider – an English Muslim of Anglican stock — that the programme had been made with preconceived ideas. Listening to this documentary it was impossible to ignore that feeling inside, that the programme maker had begun with a conclusion and had proceeded to build his case around it.

When Gerry Northam interviewed members of the Jewish community – and Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain – who would lend support to his thesis, he used blatantly leading questions. By contrast, when he interviewed Melanie Philips – whose frequent anti-Muslim views turned me away from listening to The Moral Maze – he probed her fear of anti-Semitism without the impartiality one would expect of a journalist. When Philips recounted her experience of a woman telling her that she “hated the Jews, because of the way they treated the Palestinians”, the journalist embarrassingly offered his own explanations for this. Why?

This is not to argue that the premise of the programme was incorrect; two rabbis and a Jewish sociologist lent some support to his case, if not entirely voluntarily (although the programme did make the Community Security Trust sound like a secretive organisation akin to the BNP, but with links to the Metropolitan Police a better likeness would probably be the Muslim Council of Britain, albeit a more advanced version). Instead, my complaint centres entirely on what looked liked a most imbalanced form of journalism.

What concerns me is that we are likely to turn a blind eye to this sort of journalism – for 1) it does not affect our community and 2) it does affect someone we don’t like very much. Yet as a community that is commanded to speak the truth even if it is against our self, is this the right attitude? I wonder if we would find more success in our campaigns against distorted media presentation of Muslim issues if our own vision were not so closed. If our mission is to fulfil the role of being a mercy for mankind, is it not time that we put aside the dreadful claim to be the chosen people that has crept into our communities and instead stand up as witnesses to the truth?

It was back to business as usual on BBC Radio 4 yesterday afternoon, with Libby Purves chairing an excellent discussion in the last fifteen minutes of The Learning Curve on the effect the proposed Anti-Terror Legislation may have on Universities. Well worth a listen.
Quite separately, does “PM”, the title of their rush-hour news-hour, stand for “Permanent Moan”?
Posted by: The Neurocentric October 19, 2005 07:23 AM

Just found your excellent site. Whilst being an unbeliever I have immense respect for sincerely devout believers of all religions. You are reflecting the side of Islam that is sorely missed in our media. Most of my Moslem freinds and colleagues share the “moderate” (for want of a better word) interpretations of Islam you are promoting – more power to your elbow! However on the specific issue of Anti-Semitism in Moslem communities, I am often disturbed by the willingness of some Moslem friends to use offensice language about Jews. I have also noticed also a tendency to believe in “conspiracy theories” about “Jewish Control of America”. The evils committed against Palastinians are obviously at the root of this as is the American incabability to criticise israel. But this does not justify some of the Anti-semitism that I hear (generally from Pashto speaking Moslems- so maybe this is a cultural thing), who confuse Jewishness with Right Wing Zionism. We need to see a wideranging and open debate on this.
Posted by: chris October 19, 2005 09:52 AM

“I don’t own a TV and only buy a newspaper about twice a month (usually The Independent, for my sins), so the radio is my main source when keeping abreast of current affairs.” You what? How the hell can you be a blogger and be so cut off from all that information?!? I assume you must read some online news right?
Posted by: leon October 19, 2005 01:44 PM

Leon, you’re right of course. Do I have to do the backtrack thing (someone will have to explain it to me if I do)? Yes, I browse BBC online when I get to work at 8am every day and (I forgot about this) I watch a wide range of news programmes on Broadband via the wwiTV portal (http://mediahopper.com/portal.htm). A slight oversight, but you have to make allowances – it’s Ramadan, we’re fasting, low blood sugar. In any case, you get the drift – I listen to Radio 4 an awful lot. Why is it the afternoon play is always really good when I’m late coming back from my lunch break? I could sit in the car park all day.
Posted by: The Neurocentric October 19, 2005 05:22 PM

Hi Chris, thanks for your feedback, tho I certainly wouldn’t categorise myself as a devout believer. Personally I dislike the term “Anti-Semitism” as “Racism” would do, although (note the contradiction) I always thought Muslims (as followers of a Semitic religion) would have been better cottoning onto this phrase than coining “Islamophobia” — but there we are. In any case, I wouldn’t deny that the tendency you mention exists in the Muslim community. I asked a Spanish Muslim about this when I was a new Muslim about seven years ago; his view was that it is a recent phenomenon which has its roots in colonialism and the Israel-Palestine problem, and is not historical.
But there is another thing to consider. The Islamic narrative insists that the Children of Israel were Muslims, thus much is said about them in the Qur’an which recounts tales of those who went before us in order that we might reflect and not repeat past errors (alas we fail to understand). It is often said that such passages are “Anti-Semitic” — I think contemporary Muslims often miss the point when they lament “Islamophobia” — we now fulfil the role that the Children of Israel fulfilled before us. We wouldn’t call the Qur’an “Islamophobic” of course – sadly, we just ignore it instead.
Posted by: The Neurocentric October 19, 2005 06:03 PM

I regret that it is not true that Anti-Semitism is caused mostly by the Palestinian-Israeli situation. When working in the Gulf some years ago someone asked a Syrian colleague (a friend of ours) why he did not trust the Israelis. He gave an answer which I did not expect-”because the Jews of Medina did not keep their covenant with the Prophet.” I have heard this many times since. There is something more deep-seated than the easy Palestine explanation here. The publication of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Arab World-the making and broadcasting widely of “Horseman Without A Horse” based on this forgery, plus all the conspiracy theories about how the Jews run everything show quite clealy that there is a deep seated problem about accepting an Israeli Jewish state in the middle of the Muslim World. Posted by: Frank October 19, 2005 09:46 PM

On a related topic does anyone else feel uneasy about the nature of the “anti-semitism discourse”? It seems to be presented more as a genetic defect than a prejudice. For example calling it “the oldest hatred” seems to imply something primordial about it. Most significantly of course is the fact that it’s given a seperate title whereas hated towards all other races is just classed as racism. Another worrying aspect is that the target of the “anti-semitism discourse” in the west is mainly muslims and people on the Left in countries like France, Britain and Germany. In Russia and Ukraine you’ve got members of the governments there making openly anti-jewish remarks yet places like that come far down on the list of the most anti-semitic places.
Posted by: Shamilaskov October 19, 2005 10:17 PM

My grandmother – who is Anglican – when reconciling herself to the fact that I am Muslim recalled that she had been told as a child not trust Jews and Roman Catholics; but, she said, when she finally met both a Jew and a Roman Catholic they were the nicest people she had ever met. She told me, despite all the things people say about Muslims my Muslim friends were absolutely lovely. Prejudice comes in all forms and sometimes it’s because people isolate themselves that it persists.
Posted by: The Neurocentric October 20, 2005 05:16 PM