After the biased, pro-Israeli documentary aired on Sunday 21.08.05, MPACUK issued an ACTION ALERT urging all Muslims to lobby the BBC. To date, the BBC have recieved over 600 complaints. However, MPACUK have noted that the BBC have responded to readers complaints without actually answering any of the specific concerns raised. It seems that everybody who complained recieved a generic response which was both dismissive and denied the appaling, inaccurate Panorama documentary.

MPACUK then decided that enough was enough and this blatant attack on a Muslim group and Islam was not going to be brushed away by the media. We tried, in vain, to talk to someone at the BBC headquarters who could not only note our complaint and respond to our concerns, but also ensure that this kind of reporting would never occur again. However, the BBC were unable to divert our call to the appropriate people(s) and so again we have emailed a more detailed and specific complaint, urging that our complaint is seen to. (We will keep you updated on the response.) We urge all Muslims to use the below email as an example, and continue to apply pressure on the BBC. Email and call them again! Once is clearly not enough!

Phone the BBC: 08700 100222

Email a complaint:

and cc to panorama@bbc.co.uk

See here for previous article with more details:

---------------

Re: Panorama ‘A Question of Leadership’, 21/8/05.

It is extremely disappointing that the BBC’s response posted on the BBC website on 24/8/05, and sent to correspondents has dismissed complaints against Panorama ‘A Question of Leadership’ without answering any of the specific concerns raised. We kindly request that you fully investigate and answer the detailed examples of inaccuracy, omission and lack of balance listed by complainants, including:

1) A quote from the Islamic scholar Mawlana Mawdudi was presented out of context, distorting the meaning to suggest the exact opposite of the original text and misleading the viewer.

[A quote was shown from Mawdudi saying that an Islamic state bears "…a kind of resemblance to the fascist and communist states…".

However the full context clearly shows the opposite conclusion: "Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. But you will find later on that, despite its all-inclusiveness, it is something vastly and basically different from the totalitarian and authoritarian states. Individual liberty is not suppressed under it nor is there any trace of dictatorship in it. It presents the middle course and embodies the best that the human society has ever evolved." (Islamic Law and Constitution, Chapter on The Political Theory of Islam, 9th edition, Lahore, 1986, p146)]

2) The programme suggested the MCB is "in denial" about extremism, but omitted the fact that following the Madrid bombing they wrote a letter to every mosque and Islamic organisation urging vigilance against the terror threat and cooperation with the police and subsequently produced a ‘Pocket guide on rights and responsibilities’. This omission results in a lack of balance.

3) One voice who is quoted approvingly is Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui who is described as the ‘Director of the Muslim Institute’. We are told that ‘a decade ago he believed Islam and politics should be fused. Now he thinks the only way Muslims will join the mainstream is if that link is broken.’ Why does John Ware not inform his viewers that Dr Siddiqui is also the head of the ‘Muslim Parliament’? Surely this fact is relevant if he is commenting on the relationship between Islam and politics?

4) The documentary showed an inadequate knowledge of Islam and the British Muslim community.

a) Mr Ware says that Muslim women covering themselves (the footage illustrated women in headscarves) is an overt sign of "separateness". However the headscarf is worn to protect a woman’s modesty while enabling full participation in public life. British Muslim women wearing headscarves include doctors, teachers, politicians etc, so it is completely inaccurate to equate covering with separatism. Would Panorama call the Jewish skullcap or Sikh turban signs of separateness?

b) Mr Ware goes to a mosque in Birmingham and says that ‘Muslims here follow the Sufi stream, like most in Britain. They do not politicise their faith, theirs is personal and spiritual.’ It is indeed true that many Muslims admire Sufi teachings. However, Ware does not provide any evidence to show that ‘most’ Muslims believe that Islam should not influence their social and political beliefs.

The idea that Sufis only follow a ‘personal and spiritual’ Islam is another common misconception and shows insufficient research on Ware’s part. Muslims who follow the ‘sufi way’ as well as others are both in the same Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) coalition party as the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan. This is the same Jamaat-i-Islami that Ware attempts to portray as extremists. The primary anti-colonial jihadist movements of the 19th century were all sufi-inspired. For example, Imam Shamil in Daghestan belonged to the famous Naqshbandi order, Umar al-Mukhtar in Libya to the Sanusi order, Amir Abdul Qadir in Algeria to the Qadiri order and so on.

5) Mr Ware wrongly associates the problem of violence and terrorism with all Muslims whose political and social beliefs are inspired by their faith. He ignores the fact that many Muslims, including groups such as MPACUK and MCB, are trying to contribute to the struggle for human rights worldwide and a better society in Britain through peaceful and democratic methods. He also ignores the fact that political and social activism inspired by religious belief is already an integral part of British society and there is no absolute separation of religion and state. For example The Archbishop of Canterbury regularly comments on social, economic and major political events. There are members of the Christian clergy in the House of Lords and Britain has an established Church. Ruth Kelly, the cabinet minister, has made no bones of her commitment to Opus Dei, remarking "I am a practicing Catholic. Clearly I have strong personal principles. I would have to abide by them in my political career if they are strong personal principles." (The Guardian, 17th December 2004).

6) The programme showed double-standards against Muslims, e.g:

a) Mr Ware portrayed Muslim identification with the Ummah (worldwide community of Muslims) as part of an extremist ideology. Many British Jews show political support for Israel – would Mr Ware also see this as extremist?

b) Many non-Muslims, including the judges in the British Court of Appeal supported Shabina Begum’s right to wear jilbab – does Mr Ware consider them extremists?

6) Mr Ware’s description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict omits all mention of the Israeli Occupation and violation of UN resolutions, the independently documented abuse of human rights by the Israeli military, the imbalance of power and the vastly greater number of casualties endured by the Palestinians. The omission of these facts distorts the audience’s understanding of the context in the Middle East.

These concerns, in conjunction with additional points listed on the Muslim Council of Britain’s website, raise a number of questions. How were shocking inaccuracies such as the misleading use of a quote from Mawlana Mawdudi included in the programme? Was this through incompetence or was Mr Ware seeking to present ‘evidence’ to support his own agenda? Was any advice sought from Muslim organisations and experts on Islam about the accuracy of the content of the programme? Was the impact on community relations considered at this sensitive time and was any consultation carried out on this aspect?

We feel strongly that the Panorama team should issue corrections and an apology, and that the BBC should ensure policies are enforced to ensure viewers can rely on the high standards of accuracy and objectivity we expect from the BBC.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

MPACUK

{moscomment}

---