John Ware followed up his propaganda aired through the British Bias Corporation with a piece in the Independent. This piece sought to address, it seems, some of the contentions raised in my critique. It is only fitting I return the favour.
His documentary was an attack on Islam, and so is his continued assault in his article. Labelling his proxy that is Shaykh Haytham al-Haddad as a person fitting the government’s definition of a “non-violent extremist”, Ware attacks, for instance, the mainstream Islamic ruling on the prohibition of music. In doing so, he attacks a juristic ruling shared between the spectrums of Islamic theology from the Sufis through to Salafis and the Shi’a. If any definitive evidence was required that the “extremism” discourse is criminalising Islamic beliefs, look no further.
Ware continues with other snippets of “damning” quotes which have already been clarified by Shaykh al-Haddad himself. There is one particular aspect which is worth addressing. Ware seems to have a problem with a Muslim believing in the superiority of the “law of Allah”. A person of religion wouldn’t be a believer if he did not believe in the primacy of his Book. To highlight this as evidence of some form of “extremism” is absurd and minority discriminatory. David Cameron, slightly overselling himself, once called the Tory party, the “Torah party” . Is he too an extremist? The Beth Din Court, as alluded to in an earlier blog, has previously asserted the primacy of Judaic law over British civil law stating that,
“In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din.”
Where is Ware? Is this not “extremism”? This is but a rehash of an old demonisation method used by Ware. Medeleine Bunting, associate editor of the Guardian, addressing a similar “McCarthyite” documentary this time attacking the MCB in 2005, wrote that,
“First on the charge sheet… [was] the “conviction that Islam is a superior faith and culture which Christians and Jews in the west are conspiring to undermine”, and a “distaste for western secular culture”. This is ridiculous; I’ve yet to meet a member of any faith who doesn’t believe in the superiority of their beliefs, while fear of being undermined is similarly common. Since when has “distaste” become a cause for suspicion?”
The cheap shot mechanics used to try and muster some sort of legitimacy for his hand-selected, (Home Office-approved?) legion of “British Islam” architects, is nothing short of shameful. Much time was spent in the documentary on how “extremists” (normative Muslims) highlighting Muslim minority discrimination, the hypocrisy in the Western policies and actions abroad reinforce a “victimhood narrative” which is then supposedly exploited by terrorists. I dealt with this issue at length in the initial response to Ware’s propaganda. Islam Channel was attacked for touting itself the “voice of the oppressed”, despite being an international broadcaster (the fact that Ware assumes the voiceless are Muslim Britons, speaks of his own bias), whilst Adam Deen and Sara Khan exonerated Western foreign policy of any blame. Khan denying reality, describes the grievance narrative as “bogus”, because it causes victimhood which is “unhelpful”. I stated in my previous piece on this topic that “they are the first to play victim when critiqued of their behaviour by other Muslims”. No sooner was the programme aired, Adam Deen was Tweeting the BBC Panorama account decrying the backlash.
Poor Sara adds to the melancholia in Ware’s article, making her “grievances known”, and playing the “victim”;
It’s not my arguments they attack, but the way I dress… It’s because I don’t wear a headscarf or the fact that I’m not ‘a proper Muslim’ even though I am actually a practising Muslim.”
The “practising Muslim” part is debatable, but nevertheless I don’t see these newfangled deformists actually “practising” what they preach. John Ware in his article highlights a series of Tweets attacking Sara Khan and Adam Deen. Is this not a case of the white master exploiting the victimhood of those being subject to his exploitation? It seems government hypocrisy is contagious. For the record I cannot endorse the abusive Tweets. They are unconducive politically as can be witnessed in Ware’s prostitution of such acts, where “freedom to offend” is given way to reinforce the “extremism” narrative. More importantly, they are against Islamic etiquette.
Ware takes the opportunity to do something which in all honesty, I didn’t expect. He labels a Muslim journalist, who clearly does not toe the government line on Muslims, a “mouthy young Islamist”. It gives the impression of desperation, and highlights the level to which Ware will fall to defend his prized weapons in the attack on normative Islam. Of course, the illuminaries of the lucrative counter-extremism market are equally foul-mouthed when addressing others on Twitter. They simply cover their tracks by deleting such Tweets.
The question is, why the defence of such individuals? Is John Ware, “impartial” as required by the British Bias Corporation guidelines? Why is Sara Khan being given so much support in pumping the government’s PREVENT agenda?
All these questions will be dealt with in a follow-up piece.