This piece is a response to a BBC TV programme called The Muslim Premier League and an article on that programme – again by the BBC (‘Premier League: Premier League: How Muslims are changing English football culture’).
The BBC at least came clean on the propagandist purpose of this programme. It stated:
“In recent weeks the political spotlight has once again been on the Muslim community. When it comes to Islam, British society needs positive messages of integration now more than ever.”
So by showing us the lives of Muslim players in the Premier League, and how many Muslims there are in that league, the BBC is showing or telling us… what, exactly? It’s not really showing or telling us much about Islam.
The BBC, in portentous tones, also informed us that ‘twenty years ago there were no Muslims in the Premier League’. But now, lo and behold, ‘there are nearly forty - enough for three football teams’. What sort of reaction to this is the BBC expecting? What’s the point? Are they – if implicitly - telling us about Islam and how great it really is - despite all our terrible 'misconceptions' and evil 'myths' about that religion?
The Sharia League
The ‘Muslim Premier League’ is exemplary in how it ‘accommodates’ Muslims and how it does so all too often.
The BBC says that ‘clubs have adapted to accommodate a diversity of faiths’. Of course they don’t really mean ‘a diversity of faiths’. They mean, as usual, Islam. Only Muslims demand and expect ‘accommodation’. I’ve never heard any demands from players of other faiths. Indeed what could other faiths, by their very nature, demand of - or from - the Premier League?
Those Muslim or Islamic demands, and the predicable accommodations, are all part and parcel of the Islamic game. Muslims know that they’re making many demands and in many ways. That’s the whole point. When a Muslim soccer player, or a nurse or a student, makes a demand, he or she knows that’s how Muslims, and therefore Islam, assert themselves and therefore how they chip away at the ‘unbeliever’s’ system and culture.
There have already been many ‘accommodations’ in the Premier League. I suspect more so than in most other professions precisely because the League is so much in the public eye and so prone to scrutiny from professional Leftists, career anti-racists and so on. There’s already been many accommodations concerning Muslim holidays, halal produce, fasting, prayer times, expressions of Christianity in the vicinity of the players, ‘un-Islamic behaviour’ in their presence and so on. As usual, the list is endless precisely because Islamic demands, within a non-Islamic country, are designed to be endless.
The BBC itself is very explicit about the demands of - and accommodations to - Islam. It says that
‘Muslim footballers are provided with halal food, have the option to shower separately from the rest of the team and are given time and space for prayer’.
And it’s goodbye to champagne too. Or, as the BBC puts it: ‘Until recently, all Premier League players named man of the match were awarded a bottle of champagne.’ But not now – at least not at the clubs which have Muslim players. The BBC solemnly tells us that ‘for Muslims, alcohol is forbidden’. As a result of this,
‘when Manchester City midfielder Yaya Toure politely refused to accept his award on religious grounds during a television interview, the competition organisers were forced to sit up and take notice’.
Yes, you guessed it - there was yet another accommodation to Islam in an non-Islamic country. An accommodation to Islam in that most English of things – football. Or, as the BBC expressed it: ‘Champagne was phased out and now all players receive a small trophy instead.’
It goes on. Now even Muslim team doctors are getting in on the act. When Liverpool won the League Cup final in 2012, ‘players had the sensitivity to move the clothes of their team doctor, a devout Muslim, out of the changing rooms so that alcohol wasn't sprayed over them’.
Nevertheless, Muslims demand far more from the Premier League than what they’ve already been given. For example, BBC says that ‘[s]ponsorship deals have also been a source of tension’. It goes on to say that
‘[t]eams who advertise gambling and pay day loan companies on their shirts put their Muslim players in a difficult position, as it means they are being used to promote activities which contradict Islamic teaching.’
More specifically, the BBC says that
‘last month [Djibril] Cisse said he planned to talk to Newcastle and their new sponsors, Wonga, because he was worried his Muslim beliefs would be compromised if he were seen to promote the company.’
And Crewe Striker, Nathan Ellington, has also made demands but he has also graciously accepted that his team may not give in to each and every one of them. For instance, he is upset about some of the sponsors his club chooses. He said:
"I think that's usually out of the hands of the Muslim. Although he's not allowed to gamble, that's something you cannot affect really."
The BBC also asks us this question:
“But how has a profession, with a reputation for nightclub brawls, boozing and excess, dealt with teetotal players who value prayer and fasting?”
Has the BBC simply assumed here that all the Muslim players are ‘teetotal’ and don’t go to night-clubs or have brawls? Big Sam Allardyce (in the BBC 1 programme) certainly didn’t think so. He stated that the Muslim players he knows do some or all of these terrible kuffar-like things.
At the beginning I mentioned how the BBC was explicit (if not honest) about the propagandist purpose of this programme. At the end, too, we also have an explicit statement of the BBC’s Islamophile agenda:
“They [the kuffar] may not completely understand what it means, but it's a sign that Muslim practices are becoming a more familiar part of popular British culture.”
Muslims are Not Islam
Muslims are Not Islam
One of the most fatal and common mistakes of all Islamophile commentators is to conflate particular Muslims with Islam itself.
We don’t care that much about what individual Muslims do. We care primarily about the nature of Islam. The same is true of National Socialism (Nazism). It doesn’t really matter what individual Nazis do or did; it's National Socialism that we're against. More particularly, there could have been, or was, a sincere and card-carrying Nazi who never joined the Gestapo, the SS, manned a concentration or labour camp, never took part in Kristallnacht, etc. Nonetheless, he was still a Nazi. Hell, he may have been a nice family man too.
There are many actual examples of this phenomenon of conflating individuals with the religion or ideology they follow. And again Nazism provides a good example.
Werner Heisenberg (a great physicist), Martin Heidegger (a great philosopher) and Richard Strauss (a great composer) were all Nazis (to a greater or lesser extent). Does that mean that Nazism itself, like Islam, was responsible for these great achievements of German science, philosophy and music? No. These physicists, philosophers and composers were people who just happened to have been Nazis too. And, like the Premier League’s Muslim footballers, do these great people also ‘represent’ Nazism; just as the Muslim soccer players are supposed to represent Islam?
If every Muslim somehow expresses Islam, then the jihadists, Islamists and terrorists express Islam. Yet the BBC, and all the other Islamophiles, categorically rejects that (despite the utter ignorance, in nearly all cases, of Islam). The BBC was implicitly expecting its readers and viewers to conflate these football-playing Muslims with Islam. That displays double-standards. We are always told that terrorists, and even Islamists,‘don’t represent Islam’. However, this programme was trying its hardest to show that these Premier League Muslim footballers do represent Islam. How is that? Why is that? Why, again, the double-standards and even the inconsistency?
Despite all that, it’s the terrorists, and certainly the Islamists, who truly abide by Islam and who have the Koran on their lips when they kill, agitate and work. The soccer players in the Premier League don't, on the whole, strictly abide by Islam (although the BBC chose to feature only the ‘good Muslims’) when they go to night-clubs, buy sports cars, date non-Muslim women, listen to highly sexualised R ‘n’ B and so on.
So the BBC overemphasises these Muslim soccer players and implicitly says that terrorists and Islamists aren’t representative of Islam – but these soccer players are! No. It’s the other way around. It's the soccer players who aren't expressing – or being representative of - Islam.