John Ware does hatchet job on Muslim schools

Last night, BBC1 broadcast a Panorama programme presented by John Ware, purporting to expose “extremism” being promoted through private Islamic schools in the UK, both full-time schools and Saudi-run weekend ones. He starts off by showing al-Furqan girls’ school in Birmingham, which makes a big thing of teaching its pupils to understand and respect other religions, but apparently other schools don’t make such an effort. He was unable to find the slightest bit of evidence that any of the schools, other than the Saudi-backed ones which were using Arabic-language textbooks, were teaching anything of an extremist nature, so he resorted to picking a few sentences off fatwa websites loosely linked to the schools, or to statements by scholars who had spoken at school fundraising dinners. (More: Zaufishan, Osama Saeed.)

His first target was a girls’ secondary school in Leicester, which is run by the Leicester Jamia mosque which also runs the Darul Iftaa website. Among the shock-horror things he finds at this school is that the niqaab is a compulsory part of the uniform from age 11. Unusual, but not illegal. He finds the content of the Darul Iftaa site to be “pretty hardline”, among them that women should stay in their homes unless it is necessary, that Muslim lawyers should not help Muslims fleeing Shari’ah punishments to get asylum, and that music is a “direct ploy by the non-Muslims”, to which Ware adds “to undermine Islam” (which is not in the original). I would not concur that music is any sort of ploy or conspiracy; it is a normal part of western culture (and pretty much every other culture, actually) and the purpose of it is largely for some people to enjoy themselves and others to make money. However, the impermissibility of musical instruments is a mainstream position in Muslim law, and if there is a punishment in a Sacred Law, it should follow that helping people evade it is also unlawful, and similar provisions exist in non-sacred laws, actually. None of this consitutes extremism, even if some might find it distasteful.

He mentions that the website uses the term “kuffar”, which it does on six out of several hundred pages, almost always in the context of “imitating the kuffar” in clothing and hairstyle. In this, the website contradicts itself, on one page telling women that they should not style their hair in a manner that resembles non-Muslim women’s hair, but on another saying that it refers to dress deliberately intended to resemble non-Muslims or which is particular to other religions. In none of them is the word used in a derogatory fashion; rather, it is used in its correct Arabic form to mean non-believers, as the verb “kafara” in Arabic means not to believe something, which in itself carries no moral judgement. Ware then interviews Usama Hasan who alleges that the term “kuffar” as used in the Qur’an refers to people who were persecuting Muslims, as if any other use was to take it out of context. He clearly has a very limited knowledge of the Arabic language, because although some of those who did not believe in Islam at the time of the Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) persecuted the Muslims, not all did, and the classical Arabic textbooks of Islamic law invariably identify non-Muslims collectively using the term kuffar.

He then criticised an Ofsted report for saying that the school taught girls to “appreciate diversity” while the fatwa bank linked to it supposedly did the opposite, but Ofsted would have noticed what was being taught in the school and if such material was in the school’s textbooks, they surely would have noticed. The programme then runs through a selection of statements culled from various Islamic schools, among them “Our children are being exposed to a culture that is in opposition to everything Islam stands for”, as if this was a condemnation of the whole of western culture, when it most likely refers to the excesses of popular culture. He quotes a statement that “birthdays … are all practices of disbelievers and immoral people”, as if this came from a site linked to a school; it actually comes from Darul Ifta Birmingham, whose website gives no indication of any link to a school. (However, the bit about “disbelievers and immoral people has very recently been removed from the article — it is available in the Google cache as I write — here is a screenshot — but not on the existing page.) Following these statements, there is a sequence of images with a backing that includes the sound of gunfire, when none of the statements he quoted have any reference to violence.

He then attacks Shaikh Riyadh-ul-Haq, an imam in Birmingham trained at the Dar-ul-Uloom in Bury, Lancashire, showing him making various speeches, one of them apparently condemning western wars as “terrorism” and a “crusade” (GW Bush’s own word), giving a speech in which he relates two verses of the opening chapter of the Qur’an (referring to those on whose Allah’s wrath descended, and those who went astray, as referring respectively to Jews and Christians — the standard scholarly interpretation, in fact), and telling listeners not to “befriend the kuffar” and “align yourselves with the kuffar”, the last phrase indicating that this refers to allegiance rather than to personal friendships or to any command to hate non-Muslims. Ware demanded to know why the Tooting Islamic Centre (known locally as Bank of Baroda, which shares the building, to distinguish it from another nearby mosque in a side street) had allowed him to address Friday prayers while the students at the school associated with the mosque would be in attendance; the school, rather than just telling him to clear off, made excuses that the mosque was not the same as the school (even though they share the same building and several of the same trustees) and that he had not said anything inflammatory in front of the children.

Why would a mosque invite Shaikh Riyadh-ul-Haq to address Friday prayers anyway? The reason is that, however distasteful Ware may find some of his views, he is one of the most sought-after speakers in the Deobandi community throughout the UK; he is a “household name” and most of the children who heard him speak would have heard his lectures on tape or attended a few of them. While I do not personally like his manner of lecturing, there is a lot of useful content, including powerful defences of traditional Islamic belief and law and some of his harsher lectures (such as “The Status of the Hijaab”) have been withdrawn over the years. Ware is then shown interviewing Michael Gove and suggests that “it is a free country, we believe in free speech; I mean, you can’t really do anything to stop schools inviting people like Riyadh-ul-Haq if they want to, can you?” Gove responds, “You’re absolutely right, but it seems to me that anyone who’s running a school has a responsibility and a duty to ensure that they don’t allow that school to be linked with those who have extremist or anti-integrationist views”.

The problem here is that, if freedom does not include the right to tell people things they (or others who might be listening) do not want to hear, it means absolutely nothing. There is a big difference between “extremist” views, which might include encouraging Muslims to hate non-Muslims, and “anti-integrationist” ones which might encourage Muslims to socialise and marry among themselves, which might not sound ideal to some people, but is not necessarily a recipe for mistrust, let alone violence. In my experience, the Deobandi communities (particularly in London) are much better integrated than some of the strictly orthodox Jewish ones, which do not come in for anything like this level of scrutiny and there has been no violence there (except some directed at the Jews by various racists, and this has also been part of the recent Muslim experience). This is less true of Muslim communities in other parts of the UK, but they still meet others at work.

Ware then quotes a statement from the al-Risaala school trust’s management that says that their schools (in Tooting and Balham) are “fully committed to community cohesion”, and opines, “the dangers of not being committed are profound”, cutting to footage of the Oldham riots in 2001. Ware interviewed Prof. Ted Cantle, author of the report into the riots which concluded that they were caused by segregation of Asians from whites, not only in where they lived but in where they worked and went to school and with whom they socialised. However, the segregated schools for Asians were not faith schools at all, but simply run-down state comprehensives which happened to be located in a predominantly Asian area. What is to say that the young men who rioted were mosque regulars? It is well-known that there is a criminal class among Asians in many parts of the UK who reguarly appear in the news as drug dealers or pimps (as with this story in today’s BBC news). If they have been listening to Shaikh Riyadh-ul-Haq, it is unlikely that he has had much impact on them. I would add that many white, middle-class (non-Muslim) parents would not even think of sending their own children to some of the white-dominated schools in those towns, so it is a bit hypocritical for Ware to demand their integration with any other group.

He visited one school which had been 100% Asian in 2001, but was now “only” 89% Asian, with a headmaster who had grown up under Apartheid in South Africa, who claimed that he saw “similar patterns of residential segregation” in northern England. He said that “it would be a real shame if we were to sink into a voluntary form of Apartheid”. However, Apartheid and segregation refer to legally enforced regimes of separation in which a dominant racial group excludes others and pens them in (usually to inferior or even slummy housing) by law. None of that has ever happened in the UK and there is no danger of it happening, so the use of these terms to describe separate communities of working-class whites and Asians in some northern towns is irresponsible scaremongering. It is impossible to “sleepwalk into segregation” or “sink into voluntary Apartheid”. Both are imposed from above, and northern England is not northern Ireland, let alone South Africa or 1950s Mississippi. It was not faith schools that brought about any of these realities; it was politics and racism.

He then criticises the Bridge Schools Inspectorate (BSI), an organisation of Muslims and evangelical Christians which inspects some faith schools (but not all, excluding for example the aforementioned al-Furqan in Birmingham), and gave an “outstanding” rating, in most respects, to a school called Apex Islamic School in Ilford. Ware then accused him of “giving a platform” to Haitham al-Haddad, who had given a “provocative” speech which included the words, “… always say that the conflict between Islam and the enemies of al-Islam is an ongoing conflict, and we should pay the price of this victory from our blood, and Muslims are ready to do so”. The beginning part of this sentence was not included in the clip, so we are left unaware of who always says or say this. Further investigation reveals that he was talking about the people of Gaza who fought with Hamas, so he was not encouraging, for example, British Muslims to go and fight, let alone launch a fight here, and no doubt he talks about many other topics in his sermons at al-Muntada in Fulham besides jihad and Palestine, and might find more appropriate matter for a school fund-raising dinner — which was his connection to the Apex school — than this. The BSI responded that it was not in their remit to vet speakers at a school’s fundraising dinners and that it was bizarre to suggest otherwise. It is also no right of Ware or his friends at Policy Exchange, one of whom he interviewed in regard to Haitham al-Haddad, to dictate who a school should be “linked” with. They have a responsibility not to promote hate or violence, and as long as children are not being exposed to such material during school time, they have fulfilled their responsibility.

He then moves onto the issue of weekend and part-time Islamic schools which exist outside the inspection system altogether, in particular “one network” which runs over 40 clubs and schools teaching more than 5,000 schools, with Saudi connections. Panorama’s spy (supposedly a Saudi, claiming to be seeking books for his sister) approached one school in an un-named provincial town for textbooks and was told they were ordered according to how many students enrolled, and that the textbooks came from London. He found the source in west London, and found rooms with stacks and shelves of books, and was told his sister would have to study the whole book, which turned out to be the Saudi national curriculum. The spy, whose voice was disguised, alleged that the book (aimed at 12 to 13-year-olds) read that Jews looked like monkeys and pigs, which cannot possibly be true — there is a story in the Qur’an about one group of Jews who broke the Sabbath using trickery and were turned into said creatures, but that’s not the same thing.

The rest of the material contains harsh words about non-Muslims (probably no harsher than what evangelical Christians might say about Muslims, or even other Christians, however), and diagrams illustrating amputations of the hand for theft — hardly necessary to be taught to teenagers. However, this material is in Arabic, the students are almost certainly mostly Saudis whose parents intend to take them home, and one expects that some of those involved have diplomatic immunity, much as when they break sex discrimination laws. The British government has always been remarkably lenient to the Saudis due to the reliance of our arms industry on contracts with their government. Whatever the government does about what British Muslim schools teach British Muslim children, it is unlikely to interfere in this.

As Osama Saeed points out in his critique, Ware has previously accused the controller of BBC1 (on which Panorama appears) of being “as shallow as a paddling pool” and said she should stop “patronising BBC1 viewers by assuming that a range of bolder subjects hold no interest for them”. As I have pointed out before, Panorama usually lasts only 30 minutes and in that amount of time, you cannot do much investigation, and you often end up with a shallow and sentimental human interest story like this one ([1], [2]), which fails to ask important question about such matters as the abuse and poor treatment of the person who was the subject of the programme (but I’ve done that, so paid, professional journalists like Jeremy Vine didn’t have to); but on this subject, they can appear to be doing “serious investigation” by employing a spy who then presents his findings incorrectly or dishonestly and getting briefings from a Tory think tank (Policy Exchange), and when they find no evidence whatsoever that Muslim schools are really “preaching hate” (possibly because they did not look, possibly because the schools — quite rightfully — refuse to let them in), they look for the “connections” and give them as evidence, regardless of how relevant, or otherwise, they are. Osama also makes the point that there are serious problems with the state of some Muslim schools and madrassas which were not even discussed in the programme, which went all out for sensationalism — again, par for the course with the 30-minute Panorama.

Possibly Related Posts:


You may also like...

52 Responses

  1. africana says:

    Salam Alaikum,

    The accompanying photo sems a bit odd and slightly offensive, if you don’t mind me saying.

  2. Indigo Jo says:

    It’s a screenshot from the programme, about 8 1/2 minutes in.

  3. Salaam Alaikum,

    Masha Allah. What a thorough and comprehensive analysis. How I wish this could reach a wider audience.

    I strongly recommend you submit this for wider publication. I’m sure Comment is Free would be interested. Even if the comments are vile there, the chances are your piece would draw the attention of the BBC and start a wider dialogue.

  4. Noora says:

    I agree this with safiya this should be put out to a further few organisations . Its time this demonisation of muslim communities and anything to with muslims stopped most of it is down right islamphobiac.

  5. Yakoub says:

    Excellent deconstruction. Shock horror - Saudi kids taught Saudi curriculum. Yikes! Some Muslims want to teach their kids to live according to traditional Muslim values. Ware is genuinely pathetic.

  6. Maryam says:

    I third the above comments and would like to link this on my blog please!

    You have broken the shambolic reporting down so well that all I can do is clap my hands in agreement.

    On a side note, a sister I know who is reasonably new to Islam, was planning to enrole her child into Al Furqan and was going to decided whether to continue with the application or not based on the Panorama “report”. Not wanting to influence her decision, all I could do was advise her to do what is in the best interest of her child and research better into any school she wished her child to attend. Members of her family also watched this and my, where their response to the programe very interesting to put it “kindly”.

  7. africana says:

    A message from Ghulam Esposito Haydar, on Abu Eesa Niamatullah’s FB page.

    “My bro is a teacher at Oldham Academy..

    The BBC came into film with the pretence of filning the new academy role in promoting community cohesion.. but after filming they wrote back saying “the format of the programme has been changed and they will be editing the footage for the new programme”.. They did not inform the …school of the programme..They have used this footage in their BBC panorama programme

    Oldham Academy is a non religious school.. The BBC deliberately targeted the school using false pretences to show Bengali majorities and pass it off as a “Islamic School” with non white majorities.. Nothing to do with Islam, Muslims

    Oldham Academy have reported this to Ofsted and Ofcom

    Please make people aware of this”

  8. africana says:

    I haven’t seen the programme. What were her family’s responses, Maryam? What did they find objectionable?

  9. Indigo Jo says:

    Maryam: feel free to link - after all, if I didn’t want it read, I wouldn’t have published it.

  10. Ibn adam says:

    Excellent ! We had Usama Hassan, Neil Robinson who are known to be connected to neo con supported projects. I was waiting for Abdul Hakim Murad and that would have been the “fruit on the cake” :) Notice that Neil Robinson claims he is a Muslim . Why does the Steven Schwartz Muslim type ring a bell?

  11. Indigo Jo says:

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    I notice Taj Hargey wasn’t present this time round — there’s only so much garbage you can cram into a 30-minute programme, of course, but perhaps they got wise to the fact that he had absolutely no credibility.

    As for Abdul-Hakim Murad, perhaps he realised what he was involved in last time. I suspect he does actually believe in traditional Islamic education.

  12. Maryam says:

    Asalamu alaykum Africana,

    Hope you and yours are all well insha Allah.

    The family minus the usual stuff, mentioned that to send a young child still under five to an Islamic school is like sending them to a boot camp to train them to kill. That their main concerns would be that the child will grow up to reject their familial roots and country. These are some of the points which I believe they may have a valid reason to say that they are worried about. The rest of the points they raised were the same things we have all read/ heard or written about. Most of their vocab involved a lot of swearing and verged on xenophobic/ racist rubbish aimed mainly at Asian Muslims so it was a case of pointing out to them that Islam is for all races. The Muslim populations here cover a very wide range of races and cultures so a fear over a particular section of the Muslim populace does not sit well within the context of arguing against Muslims as a whole (my thoughts). The conversation was not very productive in all fairness and in the end, all I said is that, as a family, they have to remember that their child and grandchild have a very solid relationship with them therefore, trusting, advising and supporting them would be healthier for all concerned than an out right rejection of her decision. Further more, having raised their child, they should (a) trust her intelligence to do what is right by her child (b) ask more questions to find out her mind set (opinions) are and judge that versus what other people do and tarnishing her with the same brush just because of the school her child goes to.

  13. Noora says:

    No but Taj Hargey was in the Daily mail shooting of his mouth about extremist saudi dressing hijab and the burka

  14. Yakoub says:

    I’ve taken the liberty of posting a link this review on Talk Islam:

  15. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Hey, Ibn Adam, what’s the problem? Don’t like it when Sh Abdal Hakim tells the truth? Let’s not be disingenuous, Smith, I’ve heard a number of people extrapolate the Sabbath-breakers to include all Jews.

  16. Ibn adam says:

    Tells the truth ? What are you talking about ?

  17. Ibn adam says:

    Are you a student of this man ?

  18. Indigo Jo says:

    Mush, I don’t appreciate being called “Smith”, I do have a proper name you know. I know some people call Jews “sons of pigs etc” but the point is that the context of that textbook was being mistranslated and generalised.

  19. africana says:

    “My bro is a teacher at Oldham Academy..

    The BBC came into film with the pretence of filning the new academy role in promoting community cohesion.. but after filming they wrote back saying “the format of the programme has been changed and they will be editing the footage for the new programme”.. They did not inform the …school of the programme..They have used this footage in their BBC panorama programme

    Oldham Academy is a non religious school.. The BBC deliberately targeted the school using false pretences to show Bengali majorities and pass it off as a “Islamic School” with non white majorities.. Nothing to do with Islam, Muslims

    They used background footage of school kids congregating, all asian bengali kids wearing Hijaabs and what not..And whilst this was playing, the person doing the programme talk over was talking about the how “Islamic Schools” contribute to disintegration

    My and Oldam Academys point is, it is obvious they came with false pretences to record at the school. It is obvious now that all they wanted was footage of asian kids who “dressed” as muslims who were non white to include in their programme. To sensationilize and incorrectly make out and give the impression that Islamic Schools are predominantly low income ghettofied south asian hubs that do not mix with other races.

    All about imaging. A non Muslim watching that programme that knows nothing about Islam would think

    1) Islam is a “brown” religion. Its foreign and non integrating. Partisan

    2) Islam is antisemetic

    3) Islam is evil and barbaric

    4) Islam teaches/trains this barbaric religion from a young age to brainwash

    The BBC quite cleverly used selected images, selected words (out of context, or incomplete text), selected music and sound effects, camera work etc all to attack Islam

    And filming in Oldham Academy was for one reason. To get a predominantly brown faced school and to use this image in their documentary when it had nothing whatsoever to do with it “

  20. africana says:

    Above is from a message from Ghulam Hayder Esposito.

  21. africana says:


    Salam Alaikum Many thanks for responding. I’m always curious as to the extent that the mainstream media’s depiction of Muslims affects actual peoples’ outlooks. It’s shocking that their daughter whom they would most likely have seen as mature is suddenly brainwashed and ill able to act in her child’s interests where anything to do with islam is concerned. I agree with your advice given.

  22. M Risbrook says:

    Intelligent Nationalists, like myself, fully well know that the BBC is no more a friend of Muslims as it is a friend of Nationalists.

  23. africana says:

    So, just whose side is Aunty on?

  24. M Risbrook says:

    So, just whose side is Aunty on?

    The establishment. Always liberal. Always Zionist.

  25. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    @ibneadam: No, I’m not a student of his. You, on the other hand, are the type of chump that brings down the average IQ of the nation. @Indigo Jo: I’m a tad surprised you let the “fruitcake” comment pass without any complaint: I wonder whether you would have been so sanguine had it been Sh Nuh about whom it was made!

  26. Ibn adam says:

    Ok, you have an art in evading questions on par with a school boy. I ask, what did Abdul hakim Murad say in this context ( he was not even on the documentary this time. Did you actually see it? ) and you call me stupid! Brilliant, you are such a “wit”. Have I touched a raw nerve ? Why don’t you be brave and tell me what I am “scared” of

  27. Ibn adam says:

    I assume the comments have been deleted because it is drifting away from the topic.?

  28. Indigo Jo says:

    That and because I don’t want the whole thread to become a slanging match between you and Mushtaqur Rahman.

  29. Ibn adam says:

    Inshallah khair but as you can see ya Yusuf I did not really insult him. Ok I said his insults were not that witty. May Allah forgive me if that was a sin. What is more important to me is the appearance of the “Schwartz traditional Muslim” over the last number of years. Something that the Quilliam foundation used. This has made a mockery of our Deen and has ,in fact, made it very difficult to tackle the genuine extremists.

  30. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Who is the Schwartz traditional Muslim in relation to this programme that you are referring to? And how does that relate to your interpolation of SAHM?

  31. ibn adam says:

    First, before I even go into any discussion with you, I need to ask you something.

    I think this is fair to the host i.e. the owner of this blog Yusuf. We are his guests and inshallah we should therefore behave in a civil manner. This the first ground rule

    We do not engage in any insults.

    Accept? I do not think that insulting someone with an opposing view helps your cause. If I have insulted anyone, then forgive me and let us move on with the discussion

    Inshallah, then Yusuf may allow us to change the topic of this thread.

    Once you accept the rule, I will go on if the host allows it.

    This is Stephen (sorry about spelling it as “Steven” initially) Schwartz by the way

    You do know him, right ?

  32. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    I know of him, but what does that have to do with SAHM? Furthermore, what does Schwarz have to do with the programme? You seem to be throwing a lot of mud indiscriminately.

  33. ibn adam says:

    Sorry about getting back late. Yusuf would you allow us to have a constructive discussion on the views of Abdul Hakim Murad ?

  34. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Oh, I’m looking forward to this, but I don’t see it ending very well. I would also like to know the blog owner’s views on the matter.

  35. africana says:

    Ibn Adam, Mushtaqur Rahman, Ibn Adam, Mushtaqur Rahman…

    Shaytan seeks to stir enmity up between Muslims in order to divert people from more important matters.

    Is Abdel Hakim Murad that important that you’re willing to live with the stress that always ensues from these sort of heated debates for the next so many days?!

  36. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Stress? What stress? Interestingly, Matthew J (Yusuf) Smith has remained silent on the point I made in an earlier post comparing the responses one would expect had negative references been made towards Sh Nuh.

  37. Safiya Outlines says:

    Salaam Alaikum,

    Mushtaqur - Long time readers of this blog will know that there have frank discussions here about Nuh Keller. When the whole K town story hit the blogosphere, this blog had one of the biggest discussions and just about the only one that is`still freely available.

  38. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    I am aware of that discussion, but the thread itself was detailed; whereas here SAHM’s name popped up apropos nothing. The accuser was disingenuous when it came to his exact meaning of his phrase “fruit on the cake” and this was my point of contention with MJYS: why say nothing about this, not any sensitivity on my part towards criticism of SAHM. I will readily admit that there was a lot of discussion on the K-Town Crash and that MJYS took a very even handed approach to it.

  39. Ibn adam says:

    Sorry, to get back late. If I get permission from Yusuf then I am happy to go ahead. By the way, AHM has been one of the favourite experts for people of the Neo-Con leaning variety. So my comment was well placed. Still that is not the main issue for me when I will comment on his views

  40. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Please tell me you’re not about to embark on a guilt by association trip!

  41. Indigo Jo says:

    Pretty much all the attacks on AHM since the John Ware documentary have been based on precisely that.

  42. Ibn adam says:

    No that is not the main case, I agree, but it shows that my comment was well placed. Neo-Cons do use AHM. Sorry, but it is true. Do you know who Paul Goodman is ?

  43. Ibn adam says:

    I assume Yusuf that you will allow me to go inshallah because you have not deleted the comments so far . Ok then are you ready for the points for my main case. In other words, issues that need clarification

  44. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    Your comments are far from well-placed and if that is the tenor of the comments that are to follow then they are frankly risible. Btw given you choose to hide behind a nom de plume what is your background?

  45. ibn adam says:

    What comments? I haven’t even made my case. All I have said is that the Neo-Conservatives like to use Abdul Hakim Murad as an “alternative” voice, if you so wish. Here is what Paul Goodman thinks

    Look at how he tries to play certain “Islamists” (this is my understanding) against what he claims are alternative voices. He thinks these voices are one’s that the Government should listen to. These include

    The Quilliam Foundation, Centri, Policy Exchange, Shiraz Maher, the CST, Tahir Qadri, Abdul Hakim Murad, and some Barewli Pirs (as he puts it)

    Now, my comment was saying that he is a favourite reference point for people like that. Note this is a comment was in response to iengage! Hardly an extremist Jihadi Islamist organisation!

    Anyway, this is not an argument from guilt by association, more a statement of fact. They do like to use him as a voice. This does not imply that he is being “used”. Get it?

    I have other issues with him anyway, but this is a sensitive issue as Yusuf latest post shows.

  46. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    So Son of Adam, I know it’s not fashionable to be in that group of hormonally intense men known HT, but do you have any links to them? That might explain the ire towards SAHM.

  47. Ibn adam says:

    Not from HT, not Wahabi, certainly not from al Muhajiroun or Jihadi and not barewli. Sorry you cannot pigeon hole me

  48. Ibn adam says:

    Oh, forgot. Do you seriously believe that a Professor of Ottoman History who translates documents from that period as part of his research does not know The Ottoman Turkish language ? Why don’t you read the references and come back. That would be more reasonable

  49. Mushtaqur Rahman says:

    The important point in any academic discussion is whether any criticisms appear in peer-reviewed journals, not on a blog. And I’ve already pigeon-holed you, but not into any one of the above groups.

  50. Ibn adam says:

    The references are in peer reviewed journals

  1. 24th November, 2010

    […] differing opinions from leading bloggers and columnists. I take the best of Yahya Birt and Yusuf Smith as exemplars. The blogs I most despise are not those who opinionate prejudice, with insufficient […]

  2. 25th November, 2010

    […] over at Indigo Joe Blogs, Yusuf Smith has given a very eloquent break down of how flawed the program content and just what kind of […]