Home / Current Affairs / In response to last night’s shocking BBC Panorama

In response to last night’s shocking BBC Panorama

Last night my phone wouldn’t stop buzzing as I received message after message that apparently the BBC  were caught trying to subliminally smear a large segment of British Muslims. “Islam21c is on Panorama!” I already knew, but I was rewinding it again and again, making sure I was actually awake. I saw Muslim friends on social media expressing a similarly dazed disbelief at their own newfound otherness: “I can’t believe I was on Panorama…” Apparently we are non-violent extremists whose goal is to take over the country. And then the world. The cherry-picked interviewees, misquoted sound-bites and the ominous music had even me afraid of myself.

complain bbc

“Non-violent extremists”. There’s that phrase again, I didn’t think anyone had the gall to use such a comprehensively refuted notion anymore, but there you go—conveniently just as the government is trying to rush through the most repressive legislation we have seen since 2006, as Dilly Hussain pointed out this morning in the Huffington Post. [1]

I saw several Muslim community figures and scholars being painted like real villains, in a similar fashion to whenever we are about to have some of our freedoms taken away from us—in order to protect freedom. [2] In fact, it was done in such an almost comedic fashion that it is as though they are not even trying anymore when misrepresenting someone’s views. It felt like the BBC had finally lost the plot, so here is my brief post mortem of how they got themselves into such a mess, in the form of a useful list for anyone else who wants to follow suit.

How to lose your credibility:

1) Provoke an irrational fear of Islam.

Firstly, try and introduce your whole programme with reference to some horrible, shocking event that—although largely irrelevant—will prime your audience to crank up their internal terror alert at the first sign of a hijab.

Try and paint benign statements of mainstream Islamic theology and practices in the light of terrorism, national security and scary pictures of ISIS. Use undefined terms like “extremism” to refer to ISIS, and then again to refer to peaceful Muslims that wouldn’t hurt a fly but hold opinions you don’t like. That way, although the ignorant and foolish among your audience will presume some kind of link—without evidence, of course—you are guaranteed to lose any credibility with intelligent viewers.

In addition, avoid ANY representation of mainstream Islamic beliefs and practices at all cost. This way you can paint whatever opinions you don’t like—or rather, their correct depictions—as belonging to a fringe, bloodthirsty minority of Muslims, regardless of how canonical they might be. This includes any Muslim or even non-Muslim with an academic interest in what mainstream, orthodox, normative Islamic beliefs actually are on those matters. Tomes on Islamic theology and jurisprudence have existed for hundreds of years in the English language, so traditional Islamic values are well known to them.

2) Unabashedly support prevalent but academically disproven narratives about terrorism to stoke more fear.

For extra loss of credibility, try as hard as you can to build all of the fear and xenophobia on a premise that is not only lacking of empirical evidence, but actively disproven empirically by academics. This is the theory that somehow “extreme” beliefs that are perfectly legal and non-violent (again, careful not to actually show that by “extreme” you mean views you personally don’t agree with) somehow cause violence and “terrorism”.

As mentioned, this will fall apart completely if you have any balance, so whatever you do, do not have any annoying experts that may inject some credibility by referring to evidence. Especially not prominent terrorism experts like John Horgan, director of the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University, who says things like:

“The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research… [First], the overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And second, there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don’t necessarily hold radical beliefs.” [3]

Take special precautions to exclude from your programme people like Professor Arun Kundnani who wrote a whole report on this fallacious “conveyor-belt theory” invented and perpetuated by neocons and other ideological Islamophobes. He said, in commenting on one of the only few empirically sound studies on terrorism (you know, with actual control groups and reference to statistical significance rather than anecdotal scaremongering), that:

“specific kinds of extremist ideology associated with Islamism appear incidental rather than essential to the turn to violence.” [4]

In fact, don’t at all mention that this report was released just last week in the House of Commons to a room filled to the brim with academics, policy makers, journalists, community leaders and counter-terrorism experts. [5]

As you can see, in order to lose your credibility you must make sure that none of the vast numbers of academics studying terrorism, or journalists, broadcasters or even members of parliament, are able to get onto your programme to highlight those annoying, counter-productive facts.

3) Misquote, misrepresent, and if all else fails – just make it up.

Portraying mainstream Islamic beliefs in-between video clips of ISIS beheadings is not enough. To lose maximum credibility you have to target some of the most influential and widely-accepted leaders and scholars of the Muslim community and try your best to misquote, misrepresent and make things up to smear them as evil, terrorist sympathisers.

An excellent example of this is Shaikh Dr Haitham al-Haddad, someone well-known for propagating beliefs and practices that enjoy a unanimous consensus among classical schools of Islamic thought, which most Muslims ostensibly claim to follow. Quote-mine some statements out of context and then portray them to mean the 100% opposite of what he was actually saying, whilst carefully avoiding representing his actual, clearly and explicitly articulated views on those matters. [6]

Instead of mentioning his PhD from SOAS on the topic of Muslims living peacefully as minorities, paint him as promoting a clash of civilisations thesis, which he explicitly has refuted on many occasions. Instead of referring to his weekend seminars on how the fundamental notion of democracy can be argued as compatible with Islamic values, and how Muslims in the west should live as active members of society; find some clips of his sarcastically and ironically referring to it “filthy” and “evil”, clearly out of context.

Then after all of that and more, just lie. Mention that he “declined to comment,” even if in fact he categorically did not. [7] Understandably, if you would let him speak then obviously you would not as easily be able to smear him, so overall an excellent decision for someone wanting to lose their credibility.

If you want to portray the people you don’t like as “unpatriotic” with an “us and them” worldview, then do so by skilfully misrepresenting their critique of the political, security and media establishments as unpatriotic, and an ideological hatred of “the west”. Granted, this did not work very well for the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger when he was quizzed, “Do you love your country?” by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the wake of his publication of Edward Snowden’s revelations of some rather unwholesome activities of the British government. [8] But he was not a member of a despised minority, so you can certainly get away with using this fallacy against Muslims, again by losing your credibility in the process. Especially since you can easily splice it into some clips of ISIS lunatics saying they want to behead everyone. Easy.

And last but not least, to really lose any and all credibility:

4) Get John Ware to do a programme about Muslims, due to his notable success in calculatedly mastering all of the above and more throughout his career.

This will practically ensure all of the above is achieved, and more. This is someone who most Muslims in the UK would detest, due to his ideologically motivated attempts at doing the same thing again and again in the past. [9,10,11] The poisonous neoconservative ideology that sees him continually try and push the tired, evidence-free narratives of a “Muslim takeover” of schools, the country and now the world, is actually why most Muslims routinely reject his offer to unconditionally be recorded for sound-bites for his programmes. And it’s not just Muslims that have caught onto his particular “journalistic” approach, if it can even be called that, as Dave Hill has summarised in the Guardian:

“The method is well established and widespread: one, identify your target; two, use every fact and quote you can dredge up to assemble the case you want to make (the word ‘links’ often comes in handy here); three, ignore or downplay any material that complicates or dilutes that case; four, make your language as dramatic as possible (frequent use of ‘secret’, ‘plot’, ‘fears’ and so on); five, get as much of it as past the lawyers as you can. This insulates you against claims that you’ve told lies. But your story is a distortion just the same.” [10]

Using Ware has actually shown an almost unprecedented cooperation between most grass-roots Muslim organisations across the whole spectrum, to collectively boycott his fear-mongering film, effectively leading to an astonishing lack of balance and representative voices. The only participant from a Muslim organisation that actually constitutionally represents Muslims, Dr Omar Hamdoun of the Muslim Association of Britain, gave such unsatisfactory answers to Ware’s agenda that most of them were not even included, apart from a few half-sentences. Again, spliced nicely with some ISIS fan footage.

One final caveat.

If you have a burning, ideological hatred of Islam and Muslims then do not make it come across that way. This is no longer popular on television. Instead, take a page out of your ideological ancestors’ bigotry book, under the chapter, “I don’t hate all black people; I have many Pakistani friends!” Make sure you show some “good” Muslims that will agree with everything you say, tow the establishment line on “extremism”/political dissent, and paint those you don’t like as some kind of minority. Of course, with absolutely no reference to facts, evidence or statistics.


Link to the Panorama episode:



Also see


[3] John Knefel, “Everything You’ve Been Told About Radicalization is Wrong”, Rolling Stone (6 May 2013). Available here:

[4] Professor Arun Kundnani, “A Decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalisation and Extremism”, Claystone (6 January 2015). Available here:



[7] Dr al-Haddad’s willingness to be interviewed was constantly expressed to the programme makers, unfortunately due to both parties being unable to schedule a meeting, the interview didn’t take place.



[10] From Islamophobia Watch: Dave Hill has provided a helpful summary of the sort of journalistic approach adopted by Ware and Panorama in preparing their documentary on Lutfur Rahman’s administration:

“The method is well established and widespread: one, identify your target; two, use every fact and quote you can dredge up to assemble the case you want to make (the word ‘links’ often comes in handy here); three, ignore or downplay any material that complicates or dilutes that case; four, make your language as dramatic as possible (frequent use of ‘secret’, ‘plot’, ‘fears’ and so on); five, get as much of it as past the lawyers as you can. This insulates you against claims that you’ve told lies. But your story is a distortion just the same.”


About Dr Salman Butt

Salman studied Biochemistry at Imperial College London followed by a PhD in Chemical Biology, carrying out research into photosynthesis. During his years at university he became involved in Islamic society da'wah and activism, and general Muslim community projects. He is the Chief Editor and a regular contributor at Islam21c, and also has a blog on the Huffington Post.


  1. so dr butt studied chemistry. so he has to believe in the theory of evolution. something that refutes islams creation myth.

  2. Ghulam Esposito Haydar

    Adam Deen, real name Hakkan Cerrah is a person who is simply a bitter person.

    He’s a person that has desperately tried to make a name for himself as a Muslim figure in the UK. After somehow landing himself a position as a presenter on Islam Channel, he started putting himself out there as a Muslim debater after reading one or two books on philosophy. There weren’t many Muslim debaters around at the time so he’d often get invited by universities up and down the country but people quickly found him out. He wasn’t any good. He was with the Muslim Debate Initiative for a small while but they also dropped him. He tried to join iERA but simply didn’t have the credentials as a Muslim orator or debator.

    As a result of these unfortunate rejections, he’s held a bitter grudge and subsequently set up his own organisation which he named it after himself. The objective was to give himself a platfor to reinvent himself as a revolutionist and in the process defame those who he blames for rejecting him labelling them as “puritanical” and other things.

    He is especially bitter towards certain organisations like iERA, the MDI and their affiliates.

    This trait of Hakkan Cerrah isn’t surprising considering he’s had no traditional training or a mentor. He was formerly a part of the Al-Muhajiroon (Muslims against Crusades/Shariah4UK). His teacher then was Omar Bakri Muhammad. Hakkan would stand at stalls cursing non Muslims to the hell fire as well as Muslims who in the eyes of his cult were sellouts. Though he left this dangerous cult, his instability clearly hasn’t along with his desire to be known and heard. His thinking & beliefs yo yo back and forth. When challenged in a very respectful way about certain beliefs and values he holds, he simply lashes out by name calling or in my opinion even worse, blocking a person who he does not have the ability to respond to.

    His organisation in which he claims to have all of these national and international speakers but in reality, these speakers have at the very least done one or two events with him. By naming them in his organisation, he wishes to portray some level of credibility.

    Don’t get me wrong, he could have been dealt with in a better way by some of the ‘puritanical’ Muslims who simply couldn’t find any room for him, but this isn’t an excuse for his behaviour. His behaviour simply exposes a great disease in his heart.

    His fb posts and tweets with the hastag #Sufi are a disservice to the Sufis who in reality have very little to do with him and his attention seeking crusade.

    May Allah limit his damage and guide him to the truth.

  3. Salaam.

    You should be complaining about BBC breaching their own guidelines by showing an insulting picture of Prophet Muhammed (watch Panorama 0:33 seconds in).

  4. Dear Dr Butt

    You probably realise by now that all perceptions are created by social norms, beliefs and values which are formed through our environments. Your pointed and largely pointless response to this insightful television programme shows a worrying level of ignorance from somebody with a PhD.

    The fact you cannot relate to the show, which was a mild representation of what most British people really think, is not surprising given the opening paragraph (…your phone won’t stop buzzing and your Muslim friends on social media are dazed ….), you are clearly disconnected from society and have no other friends or confidantes than those who share the same beliefs as you. This does not surprise me either as only those who share your beliefs could engage in a real conversation with you. Why not ritually challenge your beliefs and viewpoints, why do you think what you think? Are all Muslim states perfectly run. NO. Are all Muslim people moral. NO. Are all Muslim women pious. NO. Is all Muslim TV fair and representative of your viewpoints. ERM NO.

    All this hatred from you and your disciples suggests deep unhappiness with ones self and suggests your faith is not making you happy. Seems to a casual observer your faith, family and upbringings have made you deeply pessimistic, insecure, judgmental and oppressed. Therapy and counselling should be sought. I am very sorry you have not managed to form a comfortable identity in Britain but many of us have and viewpoints like this can only lead to the conclusion you should stop watching Western tv, hop on a flight and live in an Islamic state (most likely you do not want because you enjoy freely voicing your opinions too much!)

    • @Ambreen – Why get so personal? Can you not put forward a viewpoint based on facts as opposed to personal attacks? Prehaps you are the one who sought seek counselling. Your comments are immature and full sell admiration. Who are you to comment on this brothers family or upbringing. Grow up and wise up. Your post is pathetic. #Yawn

      • What do you why so personal? This a personal article written by a person expressing his personal views? Is his article based on facts?… no. Who am I to comment? Well who are you to comment on my comments? #Hypocrite

    • back during slavery. There was two kinds of muslims. There was the house muslims and the field muslim. The house muslims – they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ’cause they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house quicker than the master would. The house muslim, if the master said, “We got a good house here,” the house muslim would say, “Yeah, we got a good house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house muslim.

      If the master’s house caught on fire, the house muslim would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house muslim would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?” We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house muslim and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,” the house muslim would look at you and say, “Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?” That was that house muslim. In those days he was called a “house muslim.” And that’s what we call him today, because we’ve still got some house muslims running around here.

      This modern house muslim loves his master. He wants to live near him. He’ll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about “I’m the only muslim out here.” “I’m the only one on my job.” “I’m the only one in this school.” You’re nothing but a house muslim. And if someone comes to you right now and says, “Let’s separate,” you say the same thing that the house muslim said on the plantation. “What you mean, separate? From the west? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?” I mean, this is what you say. “I ain’t left nothing in the muslim countries,” that’s what you say. Why, you left your mind in the muslim countries.

      On that same plantation, there was the field muslim. The field muslim — those were the masses. There were always more muslims in the field than there was muslims in the house. The muslim in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The muslim in the field didn’t get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call ’em “chitt’lings” nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That’s what you were — a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

      *The field muslim was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house muslim loved his master. But that field muslim — remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field muslim prayed that he’d die. If someone come to the field muslim and said, “Let’s separate, let’s run,” he didn’t say “Where we going?” He’d say, “Any place is better than here.” You’ve got field muslims in the west today. I’m a field muslim. The masses are the field muslims. When they see this man’s house on fire, you don’t hear these little muslims talking about “our government is in trouble.” They say, “The government is in trouble.” Imagine a muslim: “Our government”! I even heard one say “our soliders.” They won’t even let him near the base — and “our soliders”! “Our Navy” — that’s a muslim that’s out of his mind. That’s a muslim that’s out of his mind.

      Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house muslims, to keep the field muslims in check, the same old slavemaster today has muslims who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That’s Tom making you nonviolent. It’s like when you go to the dentist, and the man’s going to take your tooth. You’re going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they’re not doing anything to you. So you sit there and ’cause you’ve got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don’t know what’s happening. ‘Cause someone has taught you to suffer — peacefully.”

    • Glory of Islam

      The one point that stood out was “Therapy and counselling should be sought”.

      Fortunately there is a spiritually section which he can resort to amid all this hysteria Islam has the cure for peoples heart
      in knowing and glorifying their Creator.

  5. “In addition, avoid ANY representation of mainstream Islamic beliefs and practices at all cost. This way you can paint whatever opinions you don’t like—or rather, their correct depictions—as belonging to a fringe, bloodthirsty minority of Muslims, regardless of how canonical they might be. ”

    So, John Ware dishonestly pretended that it is not a “fringe bloodthirsty minority of Muslims” that hold some of the more horrible Islamic beliefs and practices, but “mainstream” islam.
    Good to have that confirmed.

  6. Many many Thanks for this article, which I will be forwarding on.
    This whole murder in France does not sit right with me.
    Firstly the photos of the two Algerians were posted up immediately, even though the gun mne are clearly shown as having their face covered up and as far as I know no statement was released from them during the time they remained alive on their identity. The press coverage of who they were and where they were form was just too fast for something that was unexpected.
    Secondly some of the witnesses reported that the killers had blue eyes. The two brothers shown clearly have brown eyes.
    Thirdly, If you are aggrieved about drone bombing in Yemen why would you say you trained there and risk more bombing there?
    Fourthly, the authorities it is claimed knew of these people and say they were disturbed individuals. If they are disturbed then how does this have anything to do with Muslims. Are Muslims now responsible for Psychopaths?
    Algeria it is said warned of an attack the day before. Where does the Yemen come into this?
    Fifthly The paper was under threat of closure because it was not making enough money and only had a readership of 60K. If these people were crack agents of Al Qaeda then surely they would have known that and just let time take its course, they only had a few weeks to go before they closed.

    I knew Sara at Uni and at that time her appearance was different. Seems like if we abandon articles of our faith we can get accepted anywhere. And no she has no credentials on Islam as a scholar.
    Interesting comment on Adam Deen.

  7. Mustafa Bulgu

    So what do we as Muslims do about a program such as this airing by a publicly funded BBC ? Do we complain to BBC or our MPs?
    Can people portrayed in this program such as Dr. Haddad file a law suit?

    • Don’t have a TV and don’t FUND the BBC with your TV license fee. We don’t have a TV and we are a family who actually spend time chatting and interacting. I have a BA in Islamic Studies and we are not uneducated Muslims, we are Muslims who make a CHOICE to spend our time doing more constructive things, we were not created to sit in front of a box. And as Muslims we should know our religion, so that we can stand firm, we should not be like a weak branch of a tree, a bit of wind we go this way and that way. No. This is not the way of the believer. Shaykh Haitham knows who is he is, so when you have strong sense of identity/worth as a believer, the whole world could label you, but the Haqq will always be the Haqq. Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah was made to ride a donkey backwards through the streets of Damascus, but 700 yrs later millions of Muslims when mentioning him, say Shaykh Ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah said this or that. Allah will always honour the righteous. Don’t look short term, look long term as this is the way of Allah Ta’ala. Shaykh Haitham doesn’t need a law suit, Muslims love him for the sake of Allah. And In’sha’Allah after his death his name will be mentioned with reverence.
      But going back to the TV programme which I made a point of watching on IPlayer, we need to remember all of these “anti extemist” Institutes/Programmes are state funded and their staff are VERY well paid, just like Majjid Nawaz. Money talks, always has done. Their are some whose objective is money and lifestyle and their are some who are happy to live peacefully, but Islamically and look forward to all the Allah Ta’ala has promised his righteous servants. And when I use the term “Islamically” that means that we make being a Muslim that Allah is pleased with, our priority. That doesn’t mean that we are not polite and respectful to the broader society, no, but neither do we have to sacrifice our values to gain their approval. Where is their so called “Liberty” in that case? I mean is not this whole Je Suis Charlie Campaign riding on the back of their so called Liberty? Where is the liberty of Muslim schoolgirls who in France the land of Liberty cannot attend school if they wear a headscarf? The examples can go on and on and be quite exhaustive.

      And it’s interesting to see the “real” face of the Honesty Campaign…. With their fancy positions and Institutes. And all state funded!! What a surprise!
      And Muslims act as though, the Haqq is difficult to determine in these times, but that is not the case, keep it simple, and listen to words of the best man whoever walked the earth who said sallallahu alayhi wa salaam said: “Verily I have left with you two things, if you hold unto them you will never go astray! The Book of Allaah and my Sunnah!”

      May Allah Ta’ala keep us all steadfast and upon that which please Him. Ameen

      • I totally agree with not having a TV, we have been without for about 3 years and much happier for it. With what is on there its hypocrisy to try to teach our children Islamic values then invite much of what is on TV into the house through a TV. You can keep the box and boycott the BBC by unplugging it and attaching the TV to the internet to watch catch up, what you want (hardly anything anyway IMO), when you want it and no legal need to have a TV license.

        On the main point i didn’t watch the Panorama program deliberately as i can guess enough. The question is which lobby group or advisors are behind the initiative to claim orthodox Islam is a step before extremism when in fact it is the cure? Time and again we see previously non-practicing Muslims acting with a response they imagined would be pleasing to Allah (SWT) without seeking guidance from the religion. Orthodox scholars are very much needed to educate Muslims on the true message and example of our beloved Prophet (SAW) so it is a travesty and very unwise that they are being hounded in this way instead of being encouraged and facilitated to teach the message properly. It leaves me wondering if there is a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between our communities, a very sad thing if true and something we must do everything in our power to overcome.

        Be aware when you are thinking of how to secure our place in this country that while central government advisors might have more sway, at a community and local government level the feeling might be a lot more receptive to bridge building. Make sure there are good links between your council and mosque, if not start talking to them and see if you can work together to combat islamophobia.

  8. Firstly I would like to send all praises and thanks to Allah. Allah is a witness to all affairs, and so we ask Allah to preserve our religion and enable the truth of al Islam to shine brightly for us.

    I would hereafter like to thank the author for this swift and timely response to counter the despicable narrative of Mr Ware.

    Please will the BBC and all other media outlets for that matter, provide the viewers of the world a clear, unbiased and well researched narrative rather than the poorly devised and ill thought out programme that was aired yesterday.

    Moreover I would like to bring to attention a previous article found on this very website written by Sh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad clarifying his position regarding previous media lies and bias that was spewed against him, in which his words were edited and taken out of full context.

    So if you intend to malign someone without any due respect into finding out what that individual truly believes or his thoughts, then in fairness you should refrain from including said person in any of your programming.

    Given the sensitive nature of the topic at hand please could the BBC and others take greater care and consideration into their research. Even more so given current affairs.

    Finally I would like to say that such ill devised and poorly thought out programming is destroying any relationship that Muslims may have in trying to integrate into British society. It is programming such as this that is marginalising the British Muslim community. And one of the main reasons for this is due to a breakdown in communication.

    If you would truly like to understand what British Muslims think, speak to us. Speak to Dr Haitham Al-Haddad. Arrange a meeting, for an unedited script in which you allow us to put forth our views and stop alienating us.

    We dont bite.

  9. Benjamin Levy

    Word on the street is that the chap Adam Deen isn’t whom he seems, what the Beeb decide to cover up about him is that his real name isn’t Adam Deen.

    He is of Turkish descent and had an ethnically Turkish name Hakan Cerrah, which he changed to Adam Deen to make himself more attractive to the masses and media etc. He is one of those careerists trying make it in the Muslim community, he has been with Al Muhajiroon then MPAC, he quit MPAC to get a job at Islam Channel as a presenter. Go back and check his biography from 2009 etc, that was his claim and credentials of being able to deliver talks at University Islamic Societies, not showing what academic credentials he has rather that he was a former Islam channel Presenter.

    Once he established himself as an Islam Channel Presenter he then has worked the university circuit trying to deliver lectures even though he has no actual Islamic qualifications, and he also dropped out of Uni after one year of studying Philosophy, only to return recently. Yet all this time lecturing students who were more educated than himself. The irony being he attacked Islam Channel yet it was Islam Channel that gave him is big break…seems rather ungrateful which really exposes the character of the man.

    What is the Islamic ruiling on an individual or a person that denys an element of the Shariah or says its an henious crime and irrational?

    The question that is being begged to ask is that is he on the Prevent gravy train, where does the Deen Institute get its funding from, has he had many meetings with Govt Depts and Civil Servants, is he going to turn out to be a lite version of an Quilimite?

    • @ Benjamin “The question that is being begged to ask is that is he on the Prevent gravy train, where does the Deen Institute get its funding from, has he had many meetings with Govt Depts and Civil Servants, is he going to turn out to be a lite version of an Quilimite?”
      That would be my guess. Same with Sara Khan, Director of Inspire, her organisation is getting funding from somewhere. And plenty of money available for these types of ventures. And plenty of people with Muslims names or not as the case may be standing in line for the £££££££

      • Is that fact – if not, make tawbah – Slander is a great sin indeed

        They are not the only Muslims standingin line for that ££££££, have you seen the lines outside the benefits office lately? Not short of a few niqabis and brothers with long beards

        I think this demonstrates exactly what the likes of Sarah Khan was trying to say there, the bigotry and senseless judgement coming from practicing Muslims is not helping anyone

        You will also be surprised to learn that many Masjids seek and are granted help from the government and the same can be said about certain Muslim community programs – trying to discredit a sister based on nothing more than bias and hatred for their opinion is whats killig us really

        As a strictly practicing Muslim I do not agree with their overall direction as they lump anyone with a beard or hijab in the extremist fringe, however I can see why the conflict is perpetuated – too many sly attacks like the one above and not enough respect and husnul-dhaan

        As for Adam Deen and his past – this is directed at the sherlock holmes above, please tell us what you have done in the name of Islam up until now.

        There is not law banning a man from changing his views as he grows in age and experience, few people have a past they can be proud to put out there – perhaps you have always been perfect and never had to change your views on anything, but I doubt it seeing that you feel no shame in slandering and backbiting the man so openly and without any attempt to at least mention 1 single act of benefit to the community or a single achievement to his credit

        I take it you only posted that comment out of spite or jealousy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend