East London Mosque: BBC puts Bari on the spot

[Teddy Bear]

It makes a HUGE change for the BBC to challenge Islam in any kind of way that I felt this interview reported by Andrew Gilligan at the telegraph deserves inclusion. While I don't expect this to be the 'norm' as the subject deserves, it's still a welcome event, which I'll think of as a Christmas present. It's just the fact that this kind of confrontation to the mindset of so many Islamic leaders in this country is so rare by the BBC, that when it happens it's a big deal.

East London Mosque: BBC puts Bari on the spot

By Andrew Gilligan Politics Last updated: December 23rd, 2010

As you know, I’ve previously criticised the BBC’s repeated PR offensive on behalf of the hardline East London Mosque. But last week they made up for it. The mosque’s chairman, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, who is also a former president of the Muslim Council of Britain and of the Muslim supremacist group, the Islamic Forum of Europe, which controls the mosque, was interviewed by the News Channel’s HARDtalk programme. The interviewer, Stephen Sackur, asked all the right questions.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dr Bari pressed so hard about the blatant lies and evasions which this self-proclaimed “centre of moderation and tolerance” has used to spin its hosting of terrorist and extremist preachers, such as Anwar al-Awlaki. He looked distinctly uncomfortable, as he indeed should have done. To the last, Bari doggedly persisted with the fingers-in-the-ears defence that nobody knew Awlaki was a bad guy at the time of the mosque’s last hosting of him. By the time Sackur was finished, this defence looked the absurdity that it is.

View the full show (for the next year) here. A transcript of the relevant section is below:

Stephen Sackur: It’s one thing to express worry [about terrorism] but keep it within the community, and quite another to go outside the community, to go to the state authorities. That is the key decision. And I want to know when exactly you would make that leap.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari: I know individuals who have gone to the police, informed the police. And if situation like that occurs, when someone talks about action, and talks about violent action, then definitely that individual should go to the police and inform. Because at the end of the day, protecting our society and community from atrocities is our collective responsibility. And it’s our responsibility as well.

Sackur: If I may say so, Dr Bari, a very clear statement just there. How does it square with the decision taken by your own East London Mosque just two years ago to invite to speak, via live telephone linkup, one of the most dangerous extremist clerics in the entire world, Anwar al-Awlaki?

Bari: Can I clarify this. We have been clarifying this again and again. He spoke in 2003 in many mosques, including the East London Mosque. He was not known as a terrorist or extremist then.

Sackur: Let’s not focus on 2003. Some would dispute that and would say that something was known about him even then. But let’s bring it up to date, to January 2009, when the [London] Muslim Centre, which is a part of the complex of buildings which is the East London Mosque, when that Muslim London Centre decided to invite him both to present a video, a taped video, and then, as I understand it, to contribute a contribution on a [live] telephone link-up. Now this is a man by that stage who was being described by a senior US official as a significant player in al-Qaeda who had links to at least three of the 9/11 bombers.

Bari: We tried to clarify this. Two years ago, we didn’t know that. What happened –

Sackur: Well, I’m telling you that you did. Partly because the Daily Telegraph told you [several days in advance of the event], but also because the US official had put this on the record.

Bari: The Daily Telegraph came [out] on 27 December 2008. I was on holiday in Bangladesh with my family at the time. My management, when they got information from the Daily Telegraph, they talked to the police. They talked to the organiser. He [Awlaki] was not invited by the mosque. It was a pre-recorded video, er, er, talk by a third-party organiser. Our management talked to the police, our management talked to the organiser, and they just allowed this to go [ahead]. When I –

Sackur: Wasn’t that a terrible error? In retrospect, now that we know what we know – and you knew some of it beforehand – was it a terrible mistake?

Bari: With hindsight, I feel that was a mistake, that shouldn’t have been done. But at that time Awlaki was not known as Public Enemy Number One, or it was not that much.

Sackur: He was known. He was known as a pretty serious public enemy.

Bari: At least our management didn’t know at the time. So it was an error, and we made that correction later on, and we strengthened our booking procedure and vetting procedure, and we are very very strong about this now.

Sackur: Yeah, well, I hear the regret in your voice. But I just wonder whether there is a problem here of, of sort of wanting to have it both ways. You don’t want to be ordered around, you don’t want to be told what to think and what to do, that’s understandable. But when, for example, that same event was put on in your Muslim Centre, was advertised with posters which showed the Statue of Liberty in ruins, which appeared to show sort of fireballs landing on New York City – how could you ever believe that was appropriate, given what happened on 9/11? I just don’t understand, given everything you’ve said during this interview.

Bari: That was a stupidity at the time. What happens, people – when it comes to the Day of Judgment, you know the Biblical and Islamic, they put something very spectacular. And the mosque management at that time, because the history was not fully known, they didn’t realise that will be linked up with the 9/11 things.

Sackur: No, no, no. Come on. That’s simply not acceptable. You know – I’ve seen online the pictures – you know anybody looking at that poster would immediately have in their heads the terrible attack on New York City on 9/11. It’s impossible not to make the association. And given your ringing words today about your commitment to rooting out extremism and everything else, I simply don’t understand how you, as a senior figure in that mosque, could allow it to happen.

Bari: It’s a public – it’s community organisation, and we work with the local police. Our management has been working with the local police. And I am not an executive person in East London Mosque. And as I said, I was on holiday. So we made that error of judgment, it shouldn’t have been done, and it was done because, I discussed with the management, because there was no public information available to East London Mosque of his views [phon] at the time. And we regret that that happened, and we really are trying to streamline our booking processes and vetting processes.

Tomorrow, in my last post before Christmas, just how much the East London Mosque has “streamlined” its vetting processes.

[steevo]

He didn't expect this from a member of an organization who are most likely perceived as that 5th column world-wide ally and supporter.

It is very possible al-Awlaki wouldn't have spoken there had the BBC, upheld their responsibility over the years to vet out facts and truth regarding the dangers of radical Islam.

Something like this can be refreshing to see but given their proven track record year after year after year I have no illusions they've even pondered the possibility of change. In fact I would bet a considerable sum of my assets this is merely one of those occasions allowed because of growing public awareness, outcry and criticism in the hope of persuading some they don't have an agenda. Look at it. The big story here is about the BBC not East London's Mosque. Has Sackur found the light that seemingly everyone else has seen for a couple of years?

We know in this forum and elsewhere the threats of home-grown terrorism would be substantially reduced if left-wing media held Islam to account and shame with the same rigor they do Christianity. Instead they've willfully created a culture with a lack of judgment and individual liberty through inducing multicultural guilt and prompting government toward greater and greater control over society.

Sorry. I understand the desire and maybe even perceived need to give praise but I'd just assume left-wing media did not give their every-once-in-a-while reality check in the hope of letting us, and to whatever extent those within their own organizations, believe they get it. It's always been easy to get, just as it's increasingly easy to understand such media have an agenda and genuinely don't care. The only hope we have is to continue to grow in ability to disseminate information as more rely on alternative sources, leaving them less... and less, significant.

Merry Christmas

[Teddy Bear]

Merry Christmas Steevo

I'm sure you're right that this Muslim was not expecting a hard time from the BBC. I've seen other Hard Talk programmes, traditionally only hard against those the BBC perceives as 'from the other side' of their usual agenda, that has given even recognized militant Muslims a free and easy ride in interview. Back in the early part of this decade when I used to watch the HardTalk programme, and I was naive enough to try writing to their complaints department about some outlandish bias on their part, I picked up on a few of these interviews.

Here's a couple of them:

Can you confirm if the BBC understanding of Palestinian terrorism against Israel followed settlement building on Palestinian lands, or whether it began prior to this? I ask because twice recently in interviews with Michael Terrazzi, one by Tim Sebastian on Hard Talk, and the other on BBC Radio 4 news at 6pm this evening 23.05.03, he was allowed to go unchallenged when he stated this. It is understandable that the Palestinian spin desires to link their terrorist attacks as a response to Israeli occupation of THEIR land, but every UN mandate that specified what THEIR land was going to be had the provision of a cessation of terror and belligerence as a pre-requisite. It is no more THEIR land, than someone who wishes to buy a house has a right to it before they pay the necessary deposit and arrange a mortgage.

Can you also explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the Palestinians have accepted the ‘Road Map’ – which your Middle East ‘expert’ stated in the BBC2 10:30pm News? There is a clear provision to crack down on terrorism and violence against Israel in this Road Map. He inferred that Sharon was stalling by not meeting with Bush following a ‘few terrorist attacks’. There were actually 4 major suicide bombings inside Israel killing and wounding numerous innocents. This in the same week that the Road Map was made public. Of course if similar terrorist attacks happened in this country, naturally the BBC would expect the government to dismiss concern and continue to negotiate with the perpetrators, and of course you would recommend trusting Abu Mazen, Arafat’s newly chosen PM, to fight terror.

Finally, what differences do you see between the BBC and the militant Muslim world?

Both hate and vilify Israel, together with Bush and Blair, and were against the Gulf War. Can there be a reason for these common interests? Might the fact that the BBC holds press offices, cable and satellite networks, and radio stations throughout the Arab and Muslim world have something to do with it? I fail to see what British interests you represent at all anymore, unless you propose that they are the same as the Muslim world. Maybe then you should have the courage to come out and state it, instead of hiding behind your media cloak of ‘balanced reportage’ to maintain your deceit and aid the militant Muslim spin.

and this one shortly after:

In Tim Sebastian's interview, aired this morning with Dr Abdul Rahman Al-Matroudi, Saudi Arabia's deputy minister for Islamic Affairs, he questioned him about teachings that "Judgement Day will not come till after good and faithful Muslims kill the Jews". The Saudi minister's response implied that the Jews have a similar instruction in their religious teachings. Instead of challenging this false assertion Mr. Sebastian's response was to ask "whether two wrongs make a right".

If Mr. Sebastian is really so ignorant of Jewish teachings that he is not able to refute such statements he should stick to topics that he has more knowledge about. As it is, he has done grave damage to Jews by leaving the implication that they also call for death to Muslims or any non-believers as a precursor to reaching their paradise. This is totally outrageous since the Jews have very clearly as one of their 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill". Is Mr. Sebastian not familiar with this, or does he serve a dual purpose to spread anti-Semitic garbage?

Too be fair to Sackur, he also did give BBC boss a tough time on HardTalk over his and the other execs inflated salaries a little while ago as we commented on here.

Let's hope he keeps this kind of honesty going and he doesn't get the 'SACKur'

[steevo]

No doubt you and I are more on the same page than at any previous time. No doubt we have more like-minded company also.