Re the positions you’ve listed, again you’d need to know the context and framework for most them [I particularly exclude the killing of the cartoonists as that is not a ruling but a random opinion by one guy as far as I’m aware]. They say text without context is pretext – and there is a lot of wisdom in that.

Prejudice and misunderstanding is formed from knowing little yet thinking we have it figured, rather than from knowing absolutely nothing. Your opinion on fatwas rather reflects this. Trust me, from Islamophobia to outlandish fatwas, they come from the same root cause – limited knowledge and understanding of Islam.

To answer your questions, you’d have to go into a whole Islamic Studies course, so it’d be a lot easier if you just went and read up on it yourself. From credible sources – not the media, nor Wikipedia. Nor even my ‘micro-grounding.’ You may want to speak to someone trained and credible too.

As for Andrew Gilligan’s programme, it is the point that Dispatches often display commendable journalism yet were willing to put their credibility on the line by airing that program that jarred me most – which I made clear in my complaint to them.

Thank you for the micro-grounding in the Islamic Legal system.

In fact, I was thinking of medieval churchmen who used Latin to protect their position as interpreters of religion.

From what you say, it is perfectly possible for the issues I mentioned – the ease with which a Muslim man can get a divorce compared with a woman, domestic violence, stoning to death, and murdering people for drawing cartoons – (and similar important matters) to be ruled (advised) upon in totally different ways from one country to another.

This is crazy, in my opinion.

And, what happens when there are competing scholars in a country? That seems to be the case in the UK. Are Dr Suhaib Hasan and the Islamic Sharia Council (who charge a woman more for a divorce than a man because her word has to be corroborated) of no account?

I’m glad to hear that the fatwa I referred to about executing people for allowing different sexes to mix is unpopular even in Saudi Arabia.

I think fatwas must be like buses, if you miss one another one (opinion) will be along in a minute.

For example: ”A PROPOSAL to introduce prison terms for men who beat their wives goes against the Koran and the teachings of the “prophet” Mohammed, according to the head of Algeria’s Superior Islamic Council.” [Reported in Ansa.it (not the British media, as far as I know)]

‘Right and wrong are not that complicated’ – yes, really! And, I completely agree that circumstances are important in making and applying laws.

I see the sense in the statement “The intricacies in the Islamic legal system, in relation to the scope and means of interpretation and reinterpretation, the need for qualification, etc are all there to ensure the competent adaptability of laws to changing circumstances and times” but then I read, for example, this statement from a senior Islamic “scholar” who says “The role of the ulama is only to teach and to explain the meaning of the Text and not to change the very meaning by interpreting and re-interpreting over and over again.”

It really is very odd that Andrew Gilligan / Dispatches who are renowned for their investigative journalism and who have dealt with issues such as Islamophobia (Dispatches, ‘It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim’, which is mentioned in the article about press balance you asked me to look at), have got it so wrong, in your opinion, in the case of Tower Hamlets.

A fatwa is not a religious edict. It is merely an informed legal opinion by a qualified Muslim scholar – ie it is not binding. Scholars are not like the Pope. In the Islamic Legal system, context is a major consideration. Whereas in RC, Rome and Papal authority are important considerations, in Islam legal qualification and contextual awareness is important. Hence, while those scholars may be top scholars in the land of the two holy sites, they are scholars of their region particularly in relation to such smaller legal opinions such as segregation. In the UK, we would apply to the top scholars of our region and context. People like Dr Abdullah Judai of Leeds, Dr Timothy Winter of Cambridge, etc. So yes, I would recommend you go to your local Imam if he’s a qualified one. These scholars I’ve named, btw, would undoubtedly disagree with this Saudi opinion. Yes, I’m opposed to it too. Also the Saudi press, which has been opposed to the fatwa, has had to admit that only a few scholars backed this opinion. So it isn’t a big issue, much as you may like to make it, and will not have practical impact. With the many 1000s of scholars out there, brandishing the view of two dozen hardly stands.

‘Right and wrong are not that complicated’ – really? Is that the simplistic way the British legal system is governed? Somehow, I don’t think so. The intricacies in the Islamic legal system, in relation to the scope and means of interpretation and reinterpretation, the need for qualification, etc are all there to ensure the competent adaptability of laws to changing circumstances and times. This is something that Prof Mashood Baderin discussed elsewhere in this site, I believe. Had it been simplistic, you’d have been stuck with a set of monolithic, rigid and dated laws.

Re Andrew Gilligan’s programme – I have watched it and have read most of his articles in the run up and wake of it. His journalism is awful to say the least. The evidence was weak and he convincingly proves nothing yet shamelessly claims everything. The organisation in question addressed much of his claims too here: http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=1107
along with some others: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/03/muslims_found_i.html and http://iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/780-review-of-gilligans-islamic-republic-c4-documentary-about-the-ife

Re Anjem Chaudary, he was hardly only covered by the Mail and Express. BBC and many other more respectable outlets covered him. It is therefore symptomatic of a broader imbalance in reporting. You may find this article interesting: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-shameful-islamophobia-at-the-heart-of-britains-press-861096.html

I don’t know what would happen to the kissing couple in an Islamic state. But feel free to ask your local Imam if you really want to know.

# “the number of Islamic scholars out there, the nature and complexity of Islamic law and the sheer breadth and scope for interpretation and opinions” IS part of the problem.

This (typical Muslim) response to criticism is feeble. I do have some time, but not that much that I can “get a grounding” in the field. Why should I? Right and wrong are not that complicated.

The news items covered grim but straight-forward matters such as the ease with which a Muslim man can get a divorce compared with a woman, domestic violence, stoning to death, and murdering people for drawing cartoons. What do Muslims do? shop around until they find a ruling to their liking?

The fatwa I referred to came from a top scholar supported by other top scholars in Saudi Arabia, the home of the two holy places. What should I do, listen to what the iman down the road says?

And what, BTW do you think of the fatwa? If you think it’s nonsense, why don’t you say so.

# I didn’t quote randomly or out of context. The quote putting sharia in place of democracy was in line with and supported by all the evidence the Andrew Gilligan programme convincingly brought to light.

# Regarding the claims of patriotism have you read the report itself rather than just the MCB press release? There is a good analysis of it here: http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/british-muslims-most-patriotic-in.html

# I have read the Gallup Coexist report (as well as the Gallup publicity you linked to). There is also a good analysis of it here. http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/gallup-coexist-study-2009-headlines-you.html

# Anjem Chaudary is a red herring. A lot of people don’t read the Daily Mail / Daily Express and most of us are a quite able to recognise him as an extreme nutter and unrepresentative of British Muslims.

# What would happen to the kissing couple in an Islamic state?

I also feel there is pressure for muslims that go on media channels to not do anything to compromise Islam. I believe Islam has been tarnished somewhat by the media. To just comment on LibertyPhiles first comment “most of the time they are reporting what people actually did or said” I do not think is accurate. Majoriy if not all media does not have their central focus to be an account of what happened without having first and foremeost an idea of how they wanted to be portrayed or the angle of which they are comming from. This task is almost impossible, although many like BBC try. Many newspapers are somewhat open about this and are aware that if they did not have subtle spins or an agenda behind their journalism- it would be boring and not sell. Similarly we have a responsibiliy to be fair and present the truth. Many Muslims claim in some cases the truth is being under represented and being sacrificed for a more interesting untruthful story or for alternative negative portrayals of the subject matter.

There is an interesting quote

Malcom x:The media is the most powerful entity on Earth. They have the power to make the innoscent look guilty and to make the guilty innoscent. Because they control the minds of the masses”

-Dubai is not an Islamic state. It is a Muslim state. There is a difference.
-If you knew the number of Islamic scholars out there, the nature and complexity of Islamic law and the sheer breadth and scope for interpretation and opinions, you’d realise half your other points are not points but are merely a reflection of a seriously simplistic understanding of the Islamic Legal System. Please get a grounding in the field first if you wish to comment on it. And please take the rest of the British media with you when you do.
-Quoting randomly out of context ala Andrew Gilligan proves nothing.
-British Muslims are in fact the most patriotic in Europe: http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=380
And as you’re quoting Gallup, please feel free to read this: http://www.gallup.com/press/104209/Who-Speaks-Islam-What-Billion-Muslims-Really-Think.aspx

The media portraying a community one way or another is not a case of not relating what people actually said or did. It is more about relating what some people said or did, and doing so frequently to make it seem that those people reflect the majority view. Like Islam4Uk’s Anjem Chaudary. No one is denying what the man said. But the British media gave him unbelievable attention as if his insignificant group of a handful of ill-thinking individuals represented anything more that 0.000001% of the Muslim community. Meanwhile the rest of the normal thinking British Muslims and their protests against Chaudary weren’t given anything near as much attention.

The old excuse that they fail to report “good news” doesn’t stack up either. In the analysis of news stories carried in the study commissioned by Ken Livingstone while he was mayor of London, “The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media”, the Guardian had a similar proportion of negative stories about Muslims as the rest of the British Press. [The Gaurdian even had a member on the team that carried out Mr Livingstone's study!]

Consider the following:

# A British businessman facing jail in Dubai after he was accused of kissing a woman in public.

# Over two dozen Saudi religious scholars have come out in support of a fatwa (which) called for the death of those who promote gender mixing in workplaces and educational institutes.

# statement recorded on prime time TV of a senior official of the Islamic Forum of Europe in a programme about Islamist infiltration of the British Labour party. “Democracy, if it means not implementing the sharia, no one’s going to agree with that.”

# Faisal Siddiqi of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) criticism of the British media for its obsession with beheadings and other extreme punishments. “They constitute only 10% of sharia.” he says.

# Dr Hasan, of the Islamic Sharia Council, views on the desirability of the cutting off of hands and flogging. His views are the relative ease of divorce initiated by a man

# Current thinking by some Muslims on the matter of death for apostasy: Muslim chaplain at Harvard toying with idea of executing apostates?

# Indonesia’s Aceh to stone adulterers under Islamic law

# Iran court upholds death by stoning verdict for two Azeris

# Why the evidence of a woman is worth less than that of a man. Explined on the Islamic Sharia Council website.

# British Muslims are the least integrated in Europe, only one in 10 is integrated. Gallup Co-exist survey.

# A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man. [Apparently 51% of British Muslims agree with this]

# German Mosques Raided Over Wife-Beating Manual

# Muslim prisoners ‘refuse to take part in rehabilitation programmes’

# After Attack on Danish Cartoonist The West Is Choked by Fear

All this is the small tip of a very large iceberg.

But at the same time, the Muslim community and it’s perception within the wider community is not like other communities. There is a major difference in the way Muslims are spotlighted and [mis]understood, which I don’t think merely embracing the entertainment genre of the period will sufficiently serve to address. The media is a source of information also, and that must continue to be addressed and dealt with.