By
This past week has seen the arrest of hate preacher Anjem Choudary — which has led to a debate about whether the media gives people who spout hate too much of a platform.
In the case of Anjem Choudary the answer is simple and is a resounding: yes. For 20 years, Choudary has been using his voice to incite hatred and violence with the authorities finally deciding to shut him down.
He recently made headlines when arrested for inviting and encouraging others to support and join militant group Daesh.
The Huffington Post reports, “The 49-year-old and his co-defendant Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, 33, were found guilty of inviting support for the group, also called Isis, Isil or Daesh, after a trial at The Old Bailey. Choudary urged people to obey IS in a series of videos posted to YouTube and also urged them to travel to Syria to live there. He was warned to expect jail.”
While many of us living in the U.K. know of him and ridicule his views, he also managed to gain a platform in the U.S., through Fox News with Sean Hannity repeatedly having him on as the voice of Islam.
For years, news sites would give him a platform, some going as far as to invite him on for an interview in which he would speak on his misguided view of Islam.
While many of us living in the U.K. know of him and ridicule his views, he also managed to gain a platform in the U.S., through Fox News with Sean Hannity repeatedly having him on as the voice of Islam.
While Hannity previously called Choudary “evil and pathetic,” he would call him back whenever his news network needed a voice to speak on behalf of Muslims knowing all along that their viewers would eat Choudary up and use him to further their anti-Islam agenda.
Using Choudary and his views to come to the conclusion that all Muslims think like this is wrong and by doing so the irresponsible news anchors who allowed him on their shows became a big part of an even bigger issue: making radical views accessible to everyone.
Now while the average knowledgeable viewer would watch Choudary and realize that they are not watching an average Muslim man speak, but rather a radical voice, we must consider the other viewers: the young, the impressionable and the lost.
Allowing him to preach hate is a failure that falls on the media. Far too many outlets gave him a platform he in no way deserved while others used him to further the agenda of a hateful religion, advertising him as the face of true Islam.
As young Muslims, we often feel misunderstood, removed from wider society. As society seems to fear us and our communities judge us, many young people look to the media for any signs of validation and belonging.
Then along comes a man like Choudary, with a stern voice which could appeal to that lost individual — and this is why we cannot allow them to become social figures and have them on our shows and constantly in our faces.
Allowing him to preach hate is a failure that falls on the media. Far too many outlets gave him a platform he in no way deserved while others used him to further the agenda of a hateful religion, advertising him as the face of true Islam.
It is a logical and obvious correlation to make; the more radical voices you allow on your shows, the more people they become accessible to. Allowing these people on your shows can result in dangerous consequences and puts forth a very wrong perception of Islam as a whole.
It may be obvious that news outlets such as Fox News used Choudary to reinforce their idea of Islam, but others had him on simply to see what nonsense would leave his mouth that day.
Having Choudary on in many ways was a sure way to get views as people would tune in simply to watch the spectacle.
Choudary encouraged people that his voice was the right voice, that his views were the right views; he encouraged people to stop thinking for themselves and instead to blindly follow him and his warped views.
And I understand views are important in television — but the lives and overall livelihood of the majority should come first. Allowing radical speakers to have a platform is a huge irresponsibility.
People like Choundary are in many ways the most dangerous of them all. They don’t need guns or bombs; all they need are their voices and enough people to listen and they’ll do irreparable damage to the public.
Choudary encouraged people that his voice was the right voice, that his views were the right views; he encouraged people to stop thinking for themselves and instead to blindly follow him and his warped views.
The last straw came when Choudary made a fatal mistake; he made his allegiance to the Islamic State public. He told others that joining the militant group was the way to go — while not doing so himself.
As always happens with wars, we have a man here who will encourage the youth to go and fight but not put himself forward to do so. After all, men like Choudary are cowards, using their voices to influence the youth in such a way that people will lose their lives, all the while sitting in their houses not being on the front line.
Although his arrest is a great step — since it shows that we are no longer allowing radical voices to feel validated in their hate — we must acknowledge that Choudary only got this far because the media gave him a platform.
Why did we allow him a place in our homes and on our screens? Why did we allow him to feel he could continue? And why did it take so long for him to be held accountable for years of hate speech?
People would turn on their TVs and see a man spout hatred under the guise of Islam, which should never have been allowed — it gave him and others like him confidence that they can reach a wide array of people.
Choudary and others like him must not be given validation or media acceptance. Don’t use people who hold radical opinions for network views. Don’t allow them to feel welcome. This only encourages the message — call them out when they spout hate, spread love and acceptance instead.
Many groups in the U.K. have denounced Choudary from the very beginning, such as the advocacy group Hope Not Hate. They describe Choudary as “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.” They also said he has “facilitated or encouraged” many Muslims to join the anti-Assad militants in Syria.
Yes, we are allowed to revel in the knowledge that he is behind bars — but we must ask ourselves the following questions. Why did we allow him a place in our homes and on our screens? Why did we allow him to feel he could continue? And why did it take so long for him to be held accountable for years of hate speech?
—
Written by Muslim Girl staff writer Iqra Mehdi.