Over a decade after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - and seven years after the London bombings - questions about Islam, Muslims and their place in the wider Western world continue to foment strong debate. One only needs to look at Mehdi Hasan's recent observations on the daily racist vilification he receives as one of only two Muslim columnists in the national media.
So just how much of a problem is anti-Muslim reporting in the British media - and what is its social impact? I set out to answer this question in my new report, Race and Reform: Islam and Muslims in the British Media, submitted to the Leveson Inquiry last week.
The report, commissioned and published by Unitas Communications Ltd. - a cross-cultural communications consultancy specialising in Islam-West relations - draws on interviews with a range of media professionals across print and broadcast media in the UK, including journalists and editors from the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday, Daily Star, the Telegraph, the Independent on Sunday, The Guardian, The Times, Channel 4/ITN and BBC World TV.
My aim was to find out exactly what the existing research to date says about this problem, and how it has tangibly affected the lives of British people - and our conclusions were deeply worrying.
Specialist studies of media coverage on Islam and Muslims over the last two decades demonstrate an overwhelming trend of negative, stereotypical and inaccurate reporting. As Jason Beattie, political editor of the Daily Mirror, told us: "In general, though not exclusively, the portrayal of Muslims in the mainstream media has been unsatisfactory... [including] sloppy and sometimes stereotypical reporting."
But this isn't because all media outlets sing from the same 'Islamophobic' hymn sheet - far from it. Rather, poor journalistic standards in the populist tabloid press generate inaccurate reporting which tends to set the wider news agenda in print and broadcasting by framing the 'big stories' of the day.
This was the case both before and after 9/11. One study of British broadsheets in the late 1990s, for example, found that they consistently associated the Muslim world with "extremism and terrorism", "despotism", and "sexism"; while reporting of British Muslims focused primarily on "Muslim violence in the public sphere", including terrorism, faith schools, and crime.
Another study of two liberal and conservative British broadsheets between 1994 and 1996 found that 88% of articles on Islam reported the faith as a foreign phenomenon; and that British Muslims were most commonly linked with "fundamentalism".
After 9/11, and 7/7, this trend accelerated. A study commissioned by the Greater London Authority of 352 articles over a randomly selected one week period in 2007, found that 91% of articles about Muslims were "negative". A wider Channel 4-commissioned survey of 974 British press articles from 2000 to 2008 found two thirds of them to portray British Muslims as a "threat" and a "problem", with references to "radical Muslims" outnumbering references to "moderates" by 17 to one.
A further big-picture University of Ottawa study of British press representations over the last 15 years found that the biggest shift in reporting after 9/11 was to associate British Muslims with terrorism and extremism; and to associate acts of terrorism with Islamic belief. In all articles on terrorism, the study concluded, the "Muslimness" of perpetrators of terrorism is emphasised.
So there is no question about it. Reporting on Islam and Muslims in the British media has been predominantly inaccurate, false and racist.
But there is another side to this picture which is, perhaps, even more disturbing. Correlated with the rise in negative media reporting on Muslims, my survey of opinion poll data over the last decade illustrates a rising trend of anti-Muslim sentiment in wider British society. Professor Julian Petley of the Campaign for Press & Broadcasting Freedom points out that, "if non-Muslims are led to believe that Muslims and Islam pose an existential threat to the 'English way of life', then this cannot but seriously damage community cohesion." Thus, from 2001 to 2006, the number of UK non-Muslims who said they felt threatened by Islam rose from 32%t to 53%. By 2010, a further survey found that 75% of non-Muslims now believe Islam is negative for Britain, and that Muslims do not engage positively in society; with 63% not disagreeing that "Muslims are terrorists."
This has had a double-whammy impact. On the one hand, media discrimination has contributed to the alienation of some British Muslims. In 2007, 63% of British Muslims felt that UK media portrayals of Muslims were "Islamophobic" - and 72% of those reported that they "don't feel a sense of belonging" to Britain. As Julian Bond, Director of the Christian Muslim Forum, explains, "even the most engaged, integrated, and inter-faith Muslims" finds such negative media portrayals to be "wearying, frustrating and irritating".
On the other hand, anti-Muslim hate crimes have risen steadily over the last decade, and are now at record levels. Since 1999, racist offences in general have increased by fourfold - but Muslims are overrepresented as victims in these crimes. The latest Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) figures record a rise of 45% in the number of cases referred to the CPS by police on grounds of religious hostility, and that over most of this decade Muslims accounted for more than 54% of religiously aggravated offences, and are the largest faith group experiencing hate crimes. As of 2010, though only 3% of the population, Muslims represent a massive 44% of those who have died in lethal racist attacks since the 1990s. And police data from two regions over the period 2009 to 2011 documents a total of 1,200 recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes.
And so we come full circle: the predominantly negative and racist reporting on Muslims in the media has promoted an increasingly dangerous anti-Muslim mindset in British society, which in turn has led to an escalation of violent attacks on British Muslims. As former Daily Star reporter Richard Peppiatt observes, "False and inaccurate stories about Muslims routinely put out by the press are, in turn, routinely used as tools by far right groups to legitimise their case and gain followers. The internet is full of forums using mainstream newspaper reporting as proof that their hateful views about Muslims are true. Unfortunately, newspapers refuse to recognise their role in that."
In this context, doing nothing is not an option - to secure a peaceful and cohesive British society for our children, it is imperative that the media be held to account for racist reporting that feeds into the machinations of far-right criminals. Based on input from the media professionals and community leaders we consulted, my report thus makes eight key recommendations to the Leveson Inquiry, among which included: more robust enforcement powers for the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to deal with third-party complaints, with a more equal right of reply and harsher penalties for violations of the press code of conduct including fines; a better press code of conduct revised with assistance from the Equality & Human Rights Commission to ensure media compliance with existing equalities legislation; establishment of a PCC advisory panel on issues relating to Muslims and minorities; greater engagement between media agencies and minority groups, including measures to improve diversity in employment; protection for journalists from editorial pressure to generate inaccurate stories.
We are not demanding any form of censorship. What we are demanding is very simply that journalists be tasked to report real news - not fake it. Is that too much to ask?
A brief look at the bbc world news page today reveals; JEM fighting in Sudan (goal islamification)
; Islamic movement of Tajikistan fighting government forces (same goal)
; Scores dead in Iraq (my islam is better than your islam)
;Afghan troops defect to Taliban (no prizes for guessing what they want)
; Suicide bomber in Bulgaria atomizing jews
Just a taste of one days (bad) news, i could go on, say Somalia, Yemen (AQ ) ....
Islamophobia ? No bleeding wonder, when every other bad news story, home & abroad comes with the word islam attached.
Why isn't that surprising to me.
Also the GLA report referenced as showing 91% negative stories about Islam, the week it studied was the first aniiversary of the 7/7 bombs, and the official report into same and the week with a huge surge in Iraq sectarian killings.
4.3% of the stories in the report are about a high profile boxer caught speeding in his car! His religion is not referenced in the stories but it is included because it had been previously. The report was paid for by GLA but was just a political act authored by the MCB.
Ahmed's puff lacks rigour and seriousness.
There is no doubt that there have been major spikes in anti-Muslim reporting specifically after terrorist attacks like 9/11 and 7/7. This is stated clearly in our report.
The other things you've said about the GLA report are simply absurd. The GLA report conducted by an independent education research consultancy known as Insted (www.insted.co.uk), founded in 1993. It had nothing to do with the MCB but the fact that you assume this perhaps says a lot about your own biases.
You also say bizarre things like "the group that suffers the most per capita" - do you even have the slightest inkling what "per capita" means?
You're right it wasn't the anniversary of 7/7, it coincided with 2 government reports into 7/7. So are you saying there should have been a balance of pro islam stories to change the %?
Insted co-ordinated the report, they didn't conduct and the three muslims involved were all major players in the MCB.
It would be interesting to see what Chris Allen thought about the rigour of including Prince Naseem's speeding tickets, especially as he seems to have fallen out with Inayat Bunglawala, having opposed iEngage's secretariat of the APPG on Islamophobia.
Mr Ahmed wrote:
"I am not condoning the stance of those particular councillors, which despite my own critical perspective of our role in recent wars"
Well sir, you do. By stating a falsehood which I corrected from the website of one of councillors you play the victimcard for. You stand guilty of using the media for your own political purposes. Nothing wrong with that, however as i mentioned earlier its a little rich berating the media when you too are guilty of same crime you accuse them of.
Up my way Indians,Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have their own versions of Islam. While playing the "we are all Muslim line' the biggest fights are between the different countrymen who all belong to the same faith.
When I see Muslims protesting on the streets of the Uk about grooming, suicide bombing and Syria. Then I may listen to what you have to say.
Honour killings, suicide bombings, relgious bullying, slavery, warmongering ,paedophilia etc..
Funny enough when those same critics target other faiths that is deemed acceptable but when the spotlight is on Islam then its ..Islamophobia.
If you want to be treated like all others then you must participate fully in what is happening in this country. You cannot choose stories and play the victim.
But that doesn't excuse completely false and inaccurate stereotypes, ungrounded in fact, designed to tarnish whole communities in their entirety. Honour killings are a cultural phenomenon, not religious, and the prevalence of sexual abuse is unfortunately a horrifying reality that afflicts people across ethnic communities in this country - they have nothing to do with Islamic faith (which explicitly and utterly condemns such crimes unequivocally), and cannot be justified under Islamic tenets.
Did you know that a quarter of young adults, and 1 in 6 kids (aged 11-17) in this country have experienced sexual abuse? http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html
We all need to stand firm against these crimes against vulnerable people, not racialise them into a reason to hate the 'Other'. And in terms of blogs by Muslims against such crimes, yes I have seen some e.g http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/honour-based-violence-deep-wide Should there be more, can we do more? Yes, always
And add to your comment the following.
The age range of the vast majority of sexual abusers is 15 to 25. They are almost always known well by the victims.
But the old white guy in the raincoat is the stereotype! You're not alone being stereotyped.
If you read the report and our recommendations carefully, you'll realise that we are not calling for restrictions of the press. Could you please clarify where and how any of our recommendations constitute a form of censorship?
On the contrary, our recommendations have been largely derived from journalists and editors themselves - some very senior - and they purely concern how to ensure the media actually reports real news - rather than passing off false/inaccurate stories as 'news'. Many of our interviewees/consultants specifically told us that they felt that the press should of course be perfectly free to report on controversial issues relating to Islam and Muslims, including negative stories, as long as they are factual. That didn't stop them recommending an overhaul of the regulatory system and media culture.
Of course, Muslims can always do better to engage constructively (and critically) with the media, and in society.
Some of the recommendations, such as number 8, a conscience clause for journalists, are a reasonable idea. However many of the others would limit the freedom of the press. That freedom is not limited to the freedom of respectable papers like "The Financial Times" to publish sensible articles. Freedom of the press requires trashy newspapers to be free to print tendentious material of the type mentioned in your report, subject to a right of redress for individuals who are defamed. A right of redress for groups such as Muslims (as opposed to legal persons), is something I do not support because I see it as part of a process intended to restrict the press's freedom to publish.
I did not use the word censorship in my previous comment. Censorship means advance prohibition; Unitas has not called for that. However as explained above, some of the redresses Unitas has called for would end up curtailing the press's freedom. I have never forgotten Thomas Jefferson's view that a free press is more important than a government.
However I would rather have a free press that prints things I don't like, rather than a muzzled press. If Islam gets a bad press in the tabloid newspapers, that is primarily because some Muslims (no names, no libel actions) present a deplorable image of Islam, and repeating those negative messages sells newspapers.
Ultimately truth drives out good, but it is up to Muslims to present the positive aspects of Islam, assisted by non-Muslims who also understand the positive aspects. Calling for restrictions upon the freedom of the press does not help improve the image of Muslims one iota.
firstly, there really is no need to shout :) non-capitals are fine, and still get ur point across.
I agree that many Muslims - a vocal minority however (as proven by multiple opinion polls and surveys) - do behave in a reprehensible way on issues such as freedom of speech, religion and open debate.
For the record, I disagree, on religious and ethical grounds, with their behaviour.
One thing that you don't seem to have realised is that Islam is not a monolith - it is a very, very diverse faith tradition, with a huge variety of different schools of thought. To say that "Islam" and western democratic values are mutually exclusive is simply to miss the point. There is no monolithic "Islam" - there are extremist interpretations, to be sure, which certainly are mutually exclusive with western values (if not most ethical values). However, there are also progressive interpretations of Islam, which the vast majority of Muslims hold on to, which do advocate democratic values.
Indeed, some see Islam as supporting a secular democratic state. One of our interviewees was Tehmina Kazi, Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. So, it's not really fair or accurate to paint all Muslims and Islam as a whole with one brush
On the issue of integration, British Muslims are very integrated on the whole, and feel more loyal to the UK than even their non-Muslim counterparts. Food for thought there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/muslims-integrated-britain
IN ENGLAND WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT .
MUSLIMS DO NOT BELIEVE THIS.....
WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME ONE WERE TO DRAW A PICTURE OF MOHAMMED. ?
WHAT HAPPENS IF A MUSLIM WANTS TO CONVERT AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN ?
WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME ONE WERE TO CRITICISE THE KORAN?
SO YOU CAN SEE ISLAM AND WESTERN DEMOCRATIC VALUES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
IN THE LONG RUN; BECAUSE YOU TAKE RELIGION TO SERIOUSLY.
HOWEVER THAT SAID I DO THINK THAT MUSLIMS GET A HARD TIME FROM THE BRITISH RIGHT WING PRESS IN SOME RESPECTS.
HOWEVER SOME THINGS REPORTED ARE TRUE WITHOUT A DOUBT.
SOME MUSLIM MEN TARGET UNDERAGE WHITE GIRLS FOR SEX...FACT
MUSLIM WOMEN DO NOT INTEGRATE WITH WHITE NON MUSLIMS VERY OFTEN .YOU
HARDLY EVER SEE THEM OUT DOWN THE PUB.
ISLAM DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EQUALL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN...THEY DON'T HAVE FEMALE IMANS AT ALL. IT IS BY ITS NATURE A SEXIST RELIGION.
YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ISLAMOPHOBIA BUT ACCEPT HOMOPHOBIA AS PART OF ISLAM.
ISLAM IS A RELIGION NOT A RACE.YOU CAN NOT BE RACIST AGAINST A RELIGION.
I BELEIVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY.
SHARIA LAW HAS NO PLACE IN ENGLISH SOCIETY.
IF YOU WISH TO PRACTICE SHARIA LAW : I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST YOU RETURN TO
MUSLIM LANDS.
THIS LAND IS OUR LAND.....
peace be upon you...............
Many Muslims have rejected their religion - and no fatwa has been issued. In the Victorian Age converting to Islam was an Act of Treason. It's not so now, but people are being attacked and killed because they are Muslim.
Criticism of the Quran happens all the time. Muslims constantly have to defend the same references - often by saying "Did you not read the verses before that bit?"
Is the fact that the men are Muslim motivating their sexual desires? Do they approach them for marriage first?
Not sure why you say 'White non-Muslims'. Try visiting a mosque, if it bothers you - preferably sober. Are you also forgetting that there are many White Muslim Women?
You don't want any Imams at all. Yes, there are differences, like there are differences in salaries in the modern labour economy, child custody law and abortion.
Nafeez Ahmed might not necessarily - and I assume does not - personally accept homophobia. The crime in Shariah is Sodomy. Two men would have to be caught in the act. The modern identity crisis of 'Am I gay?" is not an issue.
Sikhs have been attacked because they 'look Muslim'. It's racially profiling Islam, and then confusing religions based on race.
If Freedom of Speech suppresses one group of that people then there has to be a response, because that is not democracy.
Shariah Law has some place in current English Society - where it does not contravene British Law. Beyond that, some aspects are allowable by being framed in contractual law.
Check the UK rich list to see who owns this 'land'. http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list/
The report contains detailed analysis of the research to date from the 1990s to 2011, including mentioning some case studies, as well as insights from the journalists, editors and community leaders we consulted.
P.S. "SecondTime" for what? For the sun to never set on the British flag?