Britain: Muslim TV Hate Preachers "Inciting Murder"

by Soeren Kern
August 26, 2013 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3947/britain-muslim-tv-preachers

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

"Disrespectful people should be eliminated." — Allama Muhammed Farooq Nazimi, presenter on UK's Noor TV, May 3, 2012

An Islamic television channel has been hit with a hefty fine after a Muslim hate preacher told viewers, live on air, that it was the duty of all Muslims to murder anyone who shows disrespect for the Prophet Mohammed.
Noor TV, a British-based Satellite Television Channel that broadcasts programs about Islam throughout Europe, was fined £85,000 ($115,000) by the British broadcasting regulator known as Ofcom for inciting people to commit murder.
Ofcom said the fine imposed on August 21 was so large due to "the serious nature of the breaches of the Broadcasting Code." It said young Muslims watching Noor TV could become "radicalized" and take "violent and criminal action as a result of watching videos of Muslims with extreme views."
The program in question, Paigham-e-Mustafa, a talk show aimed at young British Muslims, was broadcast on May 3, 2012. According to an "enforcement bulletin" published by Ofcom in December 2012, the program featured a presenter named Allama Muhammad Farooq Nazimi, who answered questions about a wide range of issues and personal conduct relating to Islam and Islamic teachings.

Allama Muhammad Farooq Nazimi.

The questions were provided by people who called in live from various countries, including the United Kingdom, countries in Western Europe such as Holland and Germany, and Pakistan.
At approximately one hour and 18 minutes into the program, Nazimi answered a question from a caller who asked, "What is the punishment for the individual who shows disrespect for Prophet Mohammed?"
In response to the question, Nazimi delivered an impassioned monologue, saying:
There is no disagreement about this [the punishment]; there is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one [among the Islamic scholars] disagrees about this. No one disagrees about this. The Koran, hadith [orally transmitted quotes of Mohammed], the actions of the companions of Prophet Mohammed, all testify to this [punishment] and there is no room for doubt in it. Whoever shows disrespect for Prophet Mohammed will be given the death penalty.
...
We salute those who protect the sanctity of our Lord [Mohammed] and we pray for ourselves too, "O Allah, accept us among those who protect the sanctity of our beloved Mohammed." There is no privilege in the world greater than this: that the Exalted Allah should select and accept one to [kill to] protect the sanctity of our beloved Lord [Mohammed].
Speaking directly into the camera, Nazimi concluded his remarks this way:
One has to choose one's own method. … No one can be more fortunate than the one who loses his life, wealth and children for the sake of glorifying our beloved Lord [Mohammed] whom Allah praises and protects. I say the aim of establishing Noor TV, and the slogan of the founder of Noor TV, is the protection of the sanctity of Prophet Mohammed. … In the whole world, there should be slaves of Mustafa [Mohammed] everywhere, and disrespectful people should be eliminated. … The mission of our life is to protect the sanctity of our beloved Lord [Mohammed]. May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer].
According to Ofcom, Nazimi's comments raised issues under Rule 3.1 of the Broadcasting Code, which states that, "Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services."
In addition, the material complained of raised issues under Rule 4.1: "Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programs which are religious programs."
In its decision (pages 22-31), Ofcom wrote:
In this case, statements were broadcast that it was acceptable, or even the duty of a Muslim, to murder any person thought to have shown disrespect to the Prophet Mohammad where the relevant government had failed to take any action. We therefore assessed whether these statements were likely to encourage or incite criminal action against individuals who might be deemed to have criticized or insulted the Prophet Mohammed; or to lead to disorder. As part of this assessment, we considered whether the presenter's statements in the program included any direct or indirect calls to action.
According to Ofcom,
We considered that the broadcast of the various statements made by the Islamic scholar outlined above was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime. A number of the remarks in Ofcom's opinion amounted to direct calls to action. In particular, we interpreted some of Mr. Nazimi's comments to be a generic call to all Muslims encouraging or inciting them to criminal action or disorder by unambiguously stating that the appropriate penalty for showing disrespect to Mohammed was the death penalty. … We believe that on a reasonable interpretation of the presenter's remarks, he was personally advocating that all Muslims had a duty to carry out the actions he suggested.
Ofcom also said it considered the remarks to be so inflammatory that they could have inspired a repeat of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was killed after Islamic clerics condemned his film which criticized the treatment of Muslim women.
Lawyers for Noor TV's parent company, the Birmingham-based Al Ehya Digital Television, said that Ofcom's ruling amounted to Islamophobia.
Al Ehya -- whose corporate motto is "Spreading Love, Peace and Harmony across the Globe" -- said that there was "nothing new or unknown" in the statements made by the presenter relating to the implementation of Islamic law: they are set out in the Koran and it is a requirement that they are taught to young Muslims.
Al Ehya also accused Ofcom of unfairly picking on Muslims and referred to various instances of violence and sacrifice in the Bible. Al Ehya suggested that Ofcom was approaching "this situation in quite a different way in that which it might if any Priest of the Christian Church was reading segments of the Bible that contained such remarks."
Ofcom countered by saying that
the purpose of Rule 3.1 is not to prevent material being broadcast which includes discussion or recital of passages from ancient religious scripture and sacred texts that refer to acts of violence and retribution. However, broadcasters transmitting material under an Ofcom license (who must therefore ensure compliance with UK broadcasting rules) must ensure that such material is not featured in a way that would be likely to incite or encourage viewers to undertake criminal acts and thereby be in breach of Rule 3.1.
Ofcom added that it
is of course aware that there are some texts in the Koran and related documents, well known to Muslims, suggesting that those who blaspheme against or show disrespect towards the Prophet Mohammed should be severely punished, including by execution. … Precisely however because some extremist Muslims have sought to use various passages from these Koranic texts to seek to justify taking very violent action against those whom they deem to have insulted the Prophet, an important responsibility lies on Ofcom licensees to take due care in providing appropriate balance and context to any discussion of those passages.
In its ruling, Ofcom also criticized Al Ehya for not taking the comments seriously enough after concerns were initially raised by the broadcast watchdog:
The Licensee [Al Ehya] has not at any point broadcast any form of apology for, or condemnation of Mr. Nazimi's remarks, and neither on air nor in correspondence with Ofcom has the Licensee expressed its unequivocal regret that these comments were broadcast. The Licensee regretted only in its submissions that the presenter's comments "may have been misinterpreted" and that he expressed his own political views during the program. Taking all these factors into account, Ofcom was concerned that the Licensee has still not recognized the gravity of the statements made by Mr. Nazimi.
The television network has not broadcast an apology for the comments, and it took six months to air a "clarification."
This is not, however, the first time Ofcom has fined Al Ehya/Noor TV for broadcasting code violations.
In September 2011, Ofcom fined Al Ehya £75,000 ($100,000) for repeated breaches relating to Noor TV's Saturday Night Special program, which features presenters taking calls from viewers who donate money to the channel in return for prayers.
The regulator said (here and here) the program offered "inducements" for donations of up to £1,000 ($1,300), such as special gifts and prayers that were claimed to improve the health, wealth or success of donors.
More specifically, Noor TV had appealed for viewers to make donations of £1,000 in return for the receipt of a "special gift" of dirt from Mohammed's tomb.
According to a transcript of the program, the presenter of Saturday Night Special said:
I want to tell all those brothers who have offered £1,000 each to give us their numbers because I, this humble man, would like to send them a gift which is the earth from the holy tomb of our Lord [Mohammed], whom Allah praises and protects. May you be blessed by this; it is a special gift for you. Our perfect sheikh will send this special gift of the earth from the holy tomb of our Lord, whom Allah praises and protects. Allah willing. All those brothers and sisters who have donated £1,000 each, it is a special gift for you which Noor TV is presenting to honor you. We will send this special gift of the earth from the holy tomb of our Lord.
According to Ofcom, the deception "carried the risk that susceptible members of the audience may have been persuaded to donate money to Noor TV when they would not otherwise have done so." At least 20 viewers fell for the scam.
In a separate case in July 2013, Ofcom ordered DM Digital Television to pay a fine of £85,000 ($115,000) after it broadcast a speech by an Islamic scholar who said Muslims had "a duty to kill" anyone who insulted the Prophet Mohammed.
The Manchester-based channel, which says it has a worldwide audience of 30 million, describes itself as bringing "Asian and English cultures closer by integrating its people, the cultural diversity, communities and the economy.
In its ruling, Ofcom cited a program called Rehmatul Lil Alameen, which was broadcast on October 9, 2011, and featured a live lecture it said was "likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder."
Ofcom stated that some of the scholar's comments could be seen as "a generic call to all Muslims encouraging or inciting them to criminal action or disorder, by unambiguously stating that they had a duty to kill anyone who criticizes or insults the Prophet Mohammed and apostates."
DM Digital TV had also previously been fined £17,500 ($27,200) by Ofcom for perpetrating a series of financial scams in which it misled viewers into investing in phony real estate projects.
In January 2013, Ofcom said that Takbeer TV, based in Nottingham, was guilty of violating the broadcasting code twice in 18 months for programs that incited hatred and violence toward the Ahmadiyya community, a minority Muslim sect.
In November 2012, Radio Asian Fever, in Leeds, was fined £4,000 ($5,400) for breaching broadcasting rules in programs involving a presenter named Rubina Nasir. Also known as Sister Ruby Ramadan, Nasir told listeners that homosexuals should be beaten and tortured.
In a program broadcast on August 17, 2011, Nasir said: "What should be done to those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture."
She added: "Allah states, 'If they do such a deed [homosexuality], punish them, both physically and mentally. Mental punishment means rebuke them, beat them, humiliate them, admonish and curse them, and beat them up. This command was sent in the beginning because capital punishment had not yet been sent down."
In its ruling, Ofcom found that Nasir's statements were in breach of Rule 3.1 and likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder. Ofcom said it considered that the statements could be objectively and reasonably regarded as not only condoning but encouraging violent behavior against homosexuals.
According to Ofcom,
Acts of violence and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation are prohibited by UK law. We considered that the broadcast of these two statements made by the presenter was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime, i.e. violence or other unlawful acts motivated by hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. For the same reasons we concluded that these statements were likely to encourage others to copy the sort of unacceptable behavior towards homosexual people described by the presenter, in breach of Rule 2.4 of the Code.
In another broadcast, Nasir said that that any Muslim who marries a non-Muslim was on "the straight path to hellfire." She asked rhetorically, "What happens when a Muslim man or woman get married to a Mushrek [an Arabic term meaning polytheist, but which refers to Christians, who, Muslims say, are polytheists because of their belief in Jesus Christ]. Listeners! Marriage of a Muslim man or woman with a Mushrek is the straight path to hellfire. Have my sisters and brothers, who live with people of bad religions or alien religions, ever thought about what would become of the children they have had with them, and the coming generation?"
"Where the filth of shirk [the sin of following another religion] is present," Nasir added, "where the dirt of shirk is present, where the heart is impure, how can you remove apparent filth. How many arrangements will you make to remove the apparent filth? We are saying that Mushreks have no concept of cleanliness and uncleanliness."
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Related Topics: United Kingdom | Soeren Kern

Destroying Islam's Holiest Shrine for Assad?

by Irfan Al-Alawi
August 26, 2013 at 4:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3948/destroying-mecca-mosque

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

They treat Mecca as if it were comparable to Las Vegas or the London City Financial Centre, rather than a focus of faith.

In mid-August, the Muslim world was shocked when Fayez Shukr Sraha, regional head of the Ba'ath Party in Lebanon, declared in an interview with the Lebanese OTV television channel that he would be willing to "destroy the Ka'bah for the sake of Bashar Al-Assad."
The Ka'bah, a black stone cube at the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, is Islam's holiest shrine. It is that location, called the qibla, to which all Muslims turn when they pray. In addition, millions of pilgrims in the Islamic hajj pilgrimage, which takes place during four days in Dhu'l Hijjah, the concluding month of the Islamic lunar year, walk around the Ka'bah as a central event of the experience.
Participants in the regular hajj are supplemented by millions of Muslims who participate in umrah, a briefer religious excursion that may be undertaken at any time of year, but in which circumambulation of the Ka'bah remains a required practice.

Fayez Shukr Sraha, regional head of the Ba'ath Party in Lebanon.

The Lebanese Ba'athist, Shukr, as he is generally known, is notorious for his provocative demeanor. In 2011, defending Al-Assad, he engaged in a physical fracas on another Lebanese station, MTV – different, obviously, from the Western pop-music network – with a former member of the Lebanese parliament, Mustafa Alloush, who represented the non-sectarian Future Movement.
The year before, Shukr tried to incite Lebanese Muslims against Christian leaders. And he sought to obstruct the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The Tribunal has also been denounced by Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah terrorists – four of whose members have been indicted in the murder of Hariri. Hezbollah forces have been fighting alongside Al-Assad's troops in Syria.
In the recent OTV interview, Shukr proclaimed that the Ka'bah is a mere pile of rocks and that its value is inferior to that of a human – in this case, presumably, Bashar Al-Assad – but without acknowledging that in Syria, some 100,000 people have been killed because of Al-Assad's tyranny.
Following the Iranian propaganda line – according to which the combat in Syria is controlled through Saudi Arabia by the U.S. and Israel – Shukr further warned that Syria and its supporters would destroy the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the Saudi commercial metropolis, Jedda.
Historic preservation of the Ka'bah and the Grand Mosque in Mecca is already a major issue in the Muslim countries; the Saudi Arabian monarchy has altered the architecture of the Ka'bah and redesigned the district around them.
A gigantic clock tower now overshadows the Grand Mosque, in comparison with which the Ka'bah is reduced to a tiny object. In addition, the Grand Mosque is now surrounded by skyscraper hotels and malls. Before the takeover of Mecca by Wahhabis in 1924, down through centuries of Ottoman rule over the holy city, the walls of the Grand Mosque were no higher than the Ka'bah. But in the years since, the Saudis have expanded the Grand Mosque ambitiously and heedlessly, and destroyed important elements of the Islamic architectural and cultural heritage in its structure and surroundings.

An aerial view of the Grand Mosque of Mecca and its surroundings.

Mecca is being commercialised, in a perverse form of modernisation through which the Saudi kingdom seems to want to prove its progress by emulating the least prudent and most vulgar excesses of Western entertainment and commercial design. They treat Mecca as if it were comparable to Las Vegas or the London City Financial Centre, rather than a focus of faith.
During the 1930s, Wahhabi hardliners were rumoured to desire the demolition of the Ka'bah and Grand Mosque. In their bizarre, ideologized version of Islam, which despises tradition, preservation of the Ka'bah and the Grand Mosque had transformed them into "idols," thereby meriting their destruction. They were prevented from so extreme an action mainly by the outcry of Indian Muslims. They did, however, uproot the grave markers, and level the shrines in the two cemeteries of Jannat ul-Baqi in Medina and Jannat al-Mualla in Mecca, based on the consistent Wahhabi condemnation of grave-markers, tombs, and shrines also as "idols."
The Wahhabis further succeeded in "renovating" such buildings as the house in which Muhammad was believed to have been born, which was turned into a cattle market and then covered by a library, as well as many similar buildings associated with Muhammad's family and companions, and a group of historic mosques dated back to Muhammad's lifetime.

17th-century Ottoman porticos in Mecca's Grand Mosque (foreground), before they were demolished this year.

17th-century Ottoman porticos in Mecca's Grand Mosque, during the construction that demolished them.

In some Muslim lands, Wahhabi vandalism of cultural monuments has become common. The world was shocked by the Wahhabi invasion of Timbuktu last year, in which the ancient mosques, shrines, and libraries of one of Africa's most distinguished cities were demolished, and many of their precious manuscripts destroyed. The Wahhabi outbreak in Mali was preceded by bombings and arson against Muslim sanctuaries and memorials in Pakistan, other South Asian countries, Egypt and Libya, and even in the European country of Macedonia.
In addition, Wahhabis have committed such acts against non-Muslim historical heritage as the artillery bombardment of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan in 2001. Recently, adherents of Egypt's deposed Islamist president, Muhamed Morsi, have attacked churches in that country, while Morsi's allies had earlier called for "covering up" the Pyramids and other pre-Islamic components of the country's past.
Shukr's outrageous bluster against the Ka'bah expresses more than the intense zealotry of Al-Assad's supporters, and the growing probability that the Syrian civil war will renew the conflict that tormented Lebanon from 1975 to 1990. Western media describe the Syrian Ba'athist dictator and his hardcore defenders, members of the "Alawite" or "Nusayri" sect, as an offshoot of Shia Islam; the Shia clerical regime in Tehran backs Al-Assad. Yet Shias, no less than Sunnis, are concerned with protecting Mecca and the Ka'bah, and for years Shias have been among the most strident protestors against Wahhabi vandalism of the Islamic legacy in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Given the large body of Shia rhetoric against Saudi-Wahhabi cultural vandalism, the hypocrisy of the "Alawites'" rhetoric, warning that they may wreck the Ka'bah, should be obvious. Until the 20^th century, however, the "Alawites" were not even considered Muslims. Their beliefs were regarded as originating in pre-Islamic cults; they included the doctrine that the universe, humanity, and Muhammad were created by Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib – the cousin and son-in-law, and fourth caliph (successor to Muhammad as leader of the global Muslim community) – who was assassinated in 661 CE.
The "Alawites" now ruling Syria, drowning it in blood, and seeking apparently to spread their war throughout the Middle East, were argued to be Muslims in the interest of Arab unity in the 1930s, but were officially accepted by Shias (but not by Sunni authorities in any country) only in the 1970s, during Lebanese war.
In bloodshed and ruination, the "Alawites" presently seem to be exceeding the Saudi-inspired Wahhabis and other fundamentalists claiming the mantle of Sunnism. The Al-Assad regime has already devastated the city of Aleppo, including its Umayyad mosque, where the minaret was leveled. Aleppo's Umayyad mosque housed a shrine to Zechariah, honored as a prophet by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and believed by the latter two communities to have been the father of John the Baptist.
The Al-Assad regime has also seriously damaged a synagogue that is more than 2,000 years old and was built to honor the prophet Elijah – like Zechariah, praised by Jews, Christians, and Muslims – in Damascus.
Although we do not yet know who might replace the Al-Assad dictatorship if it is overthrown, the threat of Al-Assad's Lebanese subordinate, Fayez Shukr, should not be ignored or viewed as trivial. It nevertheless expresses the grave danger the Syrian regime continues to pose to the region, if not the world.

Related Topics: Saudi Arabia, Syria | Irfan Al-Alawi

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Gatestone Institute