Saudi-funded TV channels continue to radicalize Muslim youth

With billions of petro dollars to fund their global clout, the Saudi lobbies have simply brought off opposition to their continued efforts to spread Wahabism worldwide.  In failing to confront Wahabism, North America and Europe remain paralysed by a combination of political correctness and a racism of lower expectations while in muslim majority countries, the Saudi lobbies have used the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Ikhwan to infiltrate every level of the State.  Together this ensures that the relentless radicalization of millions of urban, upper and middle class Muslim youth is going on at a relentless pace in only Pakistan, India, Middle East, Egypt, Somalia, Indonesia and Malaysia but also in North America and Europe through the concerted efforts of Saudi-funded Islamic TV channels. Examples of such channels include: Dr. Zakir Naik’s Peace TV (English and Urdu), Islam Channel, Iqraa TV and a few others.

In her book titled ‘Reconciliation’, late Benazir Bhutto offers a bold and critical description of Wahhabi Islam and its home, Saudi Arabia. She recounts the history of Wahhabism, with its repeated destruction of the mosques, monuments and lives of other (moderate) Sunni sects, as well as its war on Shiites. According to Fareed Zakaria, given that Saudi Arabia has been a generous patron to Pakistan, it is striking that Bhutto was willing to write things that would surely have caused her difficulty had she become prime minister.  This threat materialized in reality with the Saudi regime actively opposing the democratic PPP-lead government and its President Asif Ali Zardari as evidenced by both wiki leaks and this New York Times article which both highlight how the Saudis prefer dealing with the ISI and pro-Taliban politicians instead of those like the PPP who have the mandate of the nation.

The very fact that Benazir Bhutto and several other leaders and workers of her party (PPP), and thousands of innocent Pakistanis, Afghanis and nationals of other countries of diverse faiths, sects and ethnicities  have been martyred by the radicalised Jihadis is an indication of the violent and intolerant Salafi-Wahhabi ideology at play.

It is possible to identify three goals of the Saudi-funded Islamic TV channels.

1. The first goal of these channels is to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims and create a narrow, sectarian binding identity for Muslims, brainwashing them towards a Saudi version of Islam;
2. The second goal is to strip away the diverse and rich cultural heritage of Muslims world-wide by condemning and ridiculing their syncretic spiritual practices. The aim is to create a stark, monochromatic and intolerant version of Islam as per which all other faiths or sects are deviant or heretic;
3. The third goal of these channels is to encourage hatred and physical violence against alls those diverse sects of Islam, e.g., Sufi / Barelvi, moderate Deobandis, Bohras, Isna Asharis, Ahmadis etc, which do not conform to the official Saudi version.

Zakir Naik and dozens of his clones currently being produced by the Saudi-funded Peace TV network are a classic example of how thousands of moderate Muslim youth, women and men, are being subconciously and silently being radicalized by Saudis.  Through a sectarian, decontextualized and selective misinterpretation of the Quran and the Hadees, Zakir Naik is creating divisions and hatred not only between Muslims and non-Muslims (Hindus, Christians, Jews etc) but also between different sects of Islam. Naik’s bigoted propaganda and insensitive diatribe against Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and also against Sufi, Shia and Ahmadi sects of Islam is completely opposite to the tolerant and the inclusive practices of the Prophet Muhammad.

Similarly, the Islam Channel is known for promoting a narrow sectarian version of Islam wiping out moderate Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims from its programs and discourse. According to a media commentator:

What Islam Channel has done is to give an un-due prominence to Islamist voices that represent only a small minority of British Muslims. This over-representation has also led to other voices “ for instance from the UK’s Shia community or from non-Islamist Muslim groups” being under-represented on the channel.

Many of its speakers are Islamist extremists from organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir who use the channel to promote intolerant and bigoted interpretations of Islam. Others are Wahhabi graduates of Saudi universities who have denied the Holocaust and promoted hatred of Shia Muslims. Other presenters are Islamists who have been suspended from their jobs in government due to their extremist statements or who are from organisations that the government has broken ties with due to their leading members’ alleged support for terrorism.

One of the most worrying aspects of Islam Channel is the promotion of its extremist agenda via the views and politics of its presenters. Amongst these have been the Wahhabi cleric and anti-semite Yasir Qadhi, and Azad Ali of the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), who was suspended from his position of civil servant earlier this year, following the publication of extremist jihadi literature on the IFE blog.

Iqraa TV channel is yet another Saudi-funded channel aimed at redefining an Islamic identity among Arab viewers. The channel is owned by Saudi billionaire Sheikh Salah Kamal’s Arab Media Corporation.

According to Abu Haiba: Two easily identifiable media discourses in the Islamic media environment today are: the visibly Saudi-influenced one, which are clearly embodied by the Salafist ideology. Though narrow in their scope, Salafi stations focus on rituals and spirituality, where women and music are virtually non-existent on the airwaves. Furthermore, political quietism is another characteristic of these stations. However, there is also presence of relatively moderate, more refined and subtle Saudi-Salafi channels which are characterized by a contradiction of statements both in style and content stemming from their ostensibly moderate inclinations. Some shows have expanded their range of issues covered, beyond Islamic laws and spirituality. For example, they not only addressed issues pertaining to ethics and values, but also featured women as anchors, guests, or among the general public presenting media stories. However, political quietism and wiping out of diverse sects of Islam remains their key characteristic.

Another example of an exclusive and intolerant agenda of such TV channels is their policy of wiping out Karabla and Imam Hussain from their transmission even during the first ten days of Muharram when Muslims across the world, notwithstanding their particular sect or belief, mourn the great sacrifice of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Millions of Sunni and Shia Muslims in India, Pakistan, North America, Europe and other countries pay homage to Imam Hussain, which is also evident on moderate Islamic channels such as Noor TV, ARY QTV, Hidayat TV, Takbeer TV etc.  However, the mention of Imam Hussain andthe  family of the Prophet is completely censored on Saudi-funded Peace TV, Iqraa TV and Islam Channel. It must be acknowleged that the great sacrifice of Imam Hussain has been acknowledged and apprecaited by Muslim and non-Muslims alike who treat the revered Imam as a symbol of humanity and truth.  All Islamic TV channels are paying homage to Imam Hussain except Saudi-funded, OBL & Yazid apologist Zakir Naik’s Peace TV and other Saudi-financed channels.  While both Muslims as well as Hindus, Christains, Sikhs, Jews etc. respect the timeless Karbala paradigm, the Saudi hate lobby, lead by the likes of Zakir Naik ensures that Imam Hussain is ignored or that the tyrannical caliph Yazid who murdered the Prophet’s family is eulogized.

A similar censorship is enforced by the Saudi-funded channels on the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (known as Mawlid or Eid-Milad-un-Nabi), which is observed by a dominant majority of all Sunnis and Shias except those belonging to Saudi-Salafi interpretation of Islam. From a Saudi-Wahhabi perspective, the majority of moderate Sufi/Barelvi Sunnis are ridiculed as mushrik (polytheists) and Shias are reduced to kafir (infidels).

Such Saudi-funded TV channels are also being facilitated by other pro-Saudi preachers such as Dr. Farhat Hashmi and other Taliban and Al Qaeda apologists. Previously activists and scholars such as Sarah Khan, Tarek Fatah, Farzana Hasan and Raheel Raza have written on the potential threats posed to peace, tolerance and Islam itself by pseudo-Muslim scholars such as Zakir Naik and Farhat Hashmi.

To see the creeping Talibanization and sympathy for Al Qaeda initiatives Farhat Hashmi, refer to Salon’s “The Taliban’s ladies auxiliary” , this Daily Times report and the a collection of various newspaper articles, reports and comments that have has been compiled by LUBP.  These accounts painstakingly highlight how Wahabi proselytizers have made significant strides in creating rejectionist and misogynist mental ghettos amongst muslim communities worldwide, especially in Canada and Britain.

The progenitors of Zakir Naik and Farhat Hashmi are 20th century ideologues like Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Mawdudi and Hassan Al-Banna.  The last is the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood/Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen and grand-father of Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss acadamic whose subtle Wahabi-lite activism needs greater intellectual scrutiny.  These are the ideologues who have been the biggest promotors of a global Wahabist agenda that rejects both moderate muslim opinion as well as the rights and values of other faith traditions.  This Wahabist agenda justifies the horrendous violence against both muslims and non-muslims.  It is the reason why the many brainwashed upper-middle class muslim urbanites of Europe and North America are completely silent about the violence that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of muslims from Somalia to Indonesia.  This is the specific violence committed by Al Qaeda and its Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi affiliates while moderate muslims, especially the Ahmedi, Sufi, Sunni and Shia sects are the primary victims of this violence.

I am painfully aware of the fact that millions of Muslims not only in India and Pakistan but also in the US, Canada, UK and other countries across the world are allowing themselves and their families to be gradully brainwashed by watching the Saudi-Ikhwan sectarian propaganda of such TV channels.

It is a sincere warning to all those persons who are allowing themselves and/or their family members to be exposed to and brainwashed by the Saudi-funded TV channels: you might have a future Faisal Shahzad, Major Nidal Hasan or Muhammad Ata currently being groomed right within your own house.  Through your subscription or donation to the Saudi-funded TV channels, you may be, at least indirectly and subconsciously, contributing to the spread of Al Qaeda, Taliban and Saudi-ization of moderate Muslims. It is time to reflect on ways to discourage and impede the ongoing Saudi-ization (Wahhabi-ization) of moderate Muslim youth.

List of Saudi-funded Wahhabi-Salafi TV networks

Name	Language(s)	Established	Type	Notes
Islam Channel	English	December 2004	Wahabi Islam	Saudi-funded; Available throughout  UK and Western Europe via Eurobird.  Available throughout Europe and Middle East via Hotbird 6 and throughout Africa  via EutelsatSesat and Eutelsat W4.
Peace TV	English	September 2007	Wahabi Islam	Saudi funded; Owned by Zakir Naik.
Peace TV Urdu	Urdu	July 2009	Wahabi Islam	Saudi funded; Owned by Zakir Naik.
IQRAA TV	English / Urdu	April 2009	Wahhabi Islam	Saudi funded; IQRA TV is owned  and run by Al Khair foundation under  the supervision of Imam Qasim. Mainly  in English but also runs some Bangali  and Urdu programming. Has strong links with PEACE TV and recently hosted the Al-Khair Peace  convention jointly in UK. On Sky in the  UK and can be receivedin Europe via  Eurobird 1.
Al Resalah	Arabic	2006	Wahabi Islam	Saudi funded; Owned by Prince Waleed bin Talal.

Arabization of Pakistan: Bringing the desert home

By Suleman Akhtar

By Suleman Akhtar

Abaya was an unknown word in Urdu language PHOTO: AFP

There was a land of cavaliers and cotton fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their ladies fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a civilization gone with the wind.

– An introductory foreword to the film Gone with the Wind (1939)

Civilizations can never be made up, this is all hitherto history has to tell us, but yes they can be ruined to irretrievable notwithstanding. Societies are never absolute in their very essence. This is the natural organic flow of events that weaves the edifice of a society over the time period by encompassing the divergent customs, languages, dogmas and traits. The final synthesis, what we call a society, is the one to impart the distinguishing identity to its adherents. The more firm the foundations of society, the more preeminent will be the identity yielding out of it. Societies are prone to decadence only when they cease to embrace the extrinsic flavors or when become the subject of deliberate acculturation. Later is the case with ‘the land of pure’ which, as for some, is yet to be more pure.

Pure is the word and Arabization is the synonym.

Pure of what?

Pure of the specter of the pre-partition Indian identity that was the congenital inheritance of Indian Muslims bestowed on them by the indigenous society that had evolved over hundreds of years by the commingling of various cultures and civilizations.

Plagued by quandary, the Pakistani state, after the partition, was quick to embrace the pan-Islamic identity embellished with salient features of Arabian Peninsula whilst cunningly blending it with religion in order to render it more acceptable for the local populace. The identity engineers considered it the last resort to homogenize the diverse local cultures and vernacular languages by binding them in a construct emanated from religion based identity. That was fall of Dhaka that led to expedition of the Arabization process.

Eminent historian Dr Mubarak Ali explains the predicament in the words:

“Since its inception Pakistan has faced the monumental task of formulating its national identity separate from India. Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world. ..The tragedy of 1971 [when Bangladesh separated] brought a shock to the people and also a heavy blow to the ideology of Pakistan… More or less convinced of their Islamic heritage and identity, Pakistan’s government and intelligentsia consciously attempted to Islamize the country.”

History itself has been the cardinal victim since antiquity in the hands of plunderers who deem it their foremost target for their ulterior motives. That’s what happened here. History, taught in public schools, starts from the arrival of Muslim Arabs and ends at carving a Muslim state out of Hindu India. Everything else has been rendered smokescreen.

The past, prior to Muhammad Bin Qasim, is a direct threat to the engineered Arab identity as it was obviously Hindu-Buddhist so omitted. The puritans, Aurangzeb Alamgir and Ahmad Sirhindi, get all praise since they are in line with the unyielding version of Arab Islam whilst heretic Akbar is accused of creating a new religion ignoring the fact that people were far better off in Akbar’s era. There’s not even a single mentioning of inter-faith harmony Dara Shikow had been preaching given that there’s no space whatsoever for trans-religious approach in a society aimed for adherents of single creed.

Plunderer Mehmud Ghaznavi has been denominated as ‘idol-breaker’ merely to glorify the unified Islamic triumphalism over the misbeliever India. This systematic maligning of young minds is not confined to only government educational institutes but by an act of parliament, passed in 1976, all private schools are also required to follow this curriculum.

Rubina Saigol, an expert on education says:

“Our state system is the biggest madrasa. We keep blaming madrasas for everything and, of course, they are doing a lot of things I would disagree with. But the state ideologies of hate and a violent, negative nationalism are getting out there where madrasas cannot hope to reach.”

Over the last three decades Pakistan has seen some drastic changes in societal demeanor and etiquettes ranging from language to customs. Dissemination of construct based on the Arab identity is bearing fruit.

Abaya’ that was an unknown word in Urdu language has now become the benchmark of the fictitious morality that is the ultimate result of deliberate assimilation of arid Arab culture. Even the moderate ones are obliged to wear Abaya to meet the newly contrived moral standards of society. ‘Chaadar aur Char Dewaari’ (veiled behind high brick walls) policy of dictator Zia-ul-Haq is turning out to be the worst kind of oppression of women, along with the laws like Hudood ordinance enacted during his regime.

Even the language has not been spared amidst this whole drivel of purification. Article 31/2 (a) of Constitution of Pakistan states:

“The State shall endeavor, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language.”

 What’s that?

A pathetic attempt to make Arabic lingua franca for Pakistan where less than 1 per cent population can understand Arabic?

What about the divergent local languages or even the so-called national language?

The most common but glaring example that may be put forward to underline the predicament is gradual replacement of the Indo-Persian ‘Khuda Hafiz’ with Arabic ‘Allah Hafiz’ implying that Arabic Allah is the only proper word for God.  Khuda is an Indo-Persian term to say God. It is built on the same building blocks that other Indo-European languages use. The English say God, Germans say Gott or Gutt, Persians say Khuda. The G is a variation of Kh and the utt or od is a variation of “uda”. They’re very similar. On the other hand, Arabic is Afro-Asiatic language. By taking a look to other Semitic languages such as Hebrew, they are very near to Arabic flavor. As for instance Jews say Elohim that sounds very familiar while reciting the word ‘Allah’. Where do the attributes of God come into the matter from? Some of the 99 names of God have their origins in classical Hebrew instead of Arabic. So in the view of this logic should those be abandoned too?

Renowned scholar Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy sheds the light on the issue:

“Persian, the language of Mughal India, had once been taught as a second or third language in many Pakistani schools. But, because of its association with Shiite Iran, it too was dropped and replaced with Arabic. The morphing of the traditional “Khuda hafiz” (Persian for “God be with you”) into “Allah hafiz” (Arabic for “God be with you”) took two decades to complete. The Arab import sounded odd and contrived, but ultimately the Arabic God won and the Persian God lost.”

An interesting aspect of this whole phenomenon is the puritanical version of Islam i.e. Salafism/Wahabism that is predominately a phenomenon traces its roots to Arabian Peninsula and has been instrumented by the identity surgeons to homogenize the cultures that have not even an infinitesimal thing in common – consequences are horrible. This unyielding interpretation of Islam puts great emphasis on rituals and codes of conducts than on substance quite contrary to the Indian version of Islam that is marked with local customs evolved over the centuries through intermingling of diverse doctrines.

All religions have two aspects that are theological beliefs related to one’s relationship with divine reality and sociological beliefs comprising of social behaviors dealing with human society. The former remain more or less absolute in their very nature while the later do change with the passage of time when religions go trans-regional.

Problems predominately start erupting when the sociological beliefs are subjugated by state to implement and propagate hidden agendas. These sociological beliefs then lay the bases of hatred, bigotry and misogyny. This is what has been done in land of the pure in the name of purifying religion by escalating a particular expression of religion to the stature of only-viable-interpretation-of-Islam. God has been portrayed as some Arabic speaking deity who is restricted to ethno-linguistic boundary which is clearly in contradiction of message of religion.

As the Holy Quran says:

“Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and color. There truly are signs in this for those who know” (30:22). There is also this famous verse: “O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, so that you may know one another.” (49:13)

As for elaborating further the above discussed phenomenon take the example of Madrassas in Pakistan. They are the social sites for the reproduction of Islamic orthodoxy. Hence, to say that the ideological orientation of madrassa education is conservative is to state the obvious.

The madrassas in Muslim South Asia teach a curriculum known as Dars-i-Nizami, first introduced by Mullah Nizamuddin Sihalvi (d.1747) who was a scholar of some repute in Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy in Lucknow. But this was only during the last two decades of twentieth century when they became involve in militancy despite having the two hundred years apathetic history.

The curriculum of madrassas has been the same for about 150 years which is most pacifist in nature. Its approach to Islam is ultra-conservative, literal, legalist and sectarian, but definitely not revolutionary or militant. If it were the militant tendencies of madrassas could have been observed during the most volatile events like: partition, fall of Dhaka and Indo-Pak wars.

What happened during the last two decades of twentieth century?

A classic example of importing doctrine is not-so-secret now and the answers lie with the diplomats and generals who were power brokers in Islamabad, Kabul, Riyadh and Langley, VA at that time.

Kamal Azfar, a Pakistani writer, states the dilemma in words:

“There are two concepts of Pakistan: the first empirical and the second utopian. The empirical concept is based on solid foundations of history and geography while the utopian concept is based on shifting sands. Utopia is not an oasis but a mirage… Samarqand and Bukhara and the splendors of the Arab world are closely related to us but we do not possess them. Our possessions are Mohenjo Daro and Sehwan Sharif, Taxila and Lahore, Multan and the Khyber. We should own up to all that is present here in the Indus Valley and cease to long for realities not our own for that is false-consciousness.”

To conclude, I will take liberty to speak for the third generation, who has the privilege to breathe in the air of this still-not-so-pure-land and is Pakistani now.

I’m not going to mourn the Indus Valley civilization, but what is the substitute they offer me if it is not desert?

The bitter reality is that I don’t have a clue of half of indigenous literature that has been written in Persian.

I have nothing whatsoever against religion, but how would they justify the attacks on the shrines of my land?

I’m all for endorsing their policies, but what is the vindication they have of myriads of dead bodies of my country-fellows?

I’m ready to relinquish Khusro, Ghalib, Bhittai, Bullah, Rahman Baba and Gul Khan, but can they introduce me to an equivalent of this stature?

I shall not question them, but will they care to tell me, ‘who am I’?