3.1.1. Security Threat
Noticeably, both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph allocate more space and coverage to unpopular and self-styled Muslim Islamic scholars who were often presented as hate preachers, such as Anjem Chaudhary and Abu Hamza. Moreover, controversial figures and self-appointed experts on Islam and Muslims, such as former Muslims Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain, receive extraordinary space that presents them as scholars of Islam. In turn, such patterns of reporting emerged to build a highly negative image of Islam because of these hate preachers’ and self-appointed scholars’ narratives of Islam. Such reporting had more to do with agenda-setting and was less concerned with presenting reality. Notably, in most types of journalism published in both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, the discussions and debates surrounding Islam, such as radicalisation, extremism, and the role of mosques were largely based on the views and opinions of the above-mentioned self-proclaimed experts and scholars.
Thus, narratives come into view suggesting that Islam advocates violence and hatred of non-Muslims and non-believers. For this article, I include Abu Hamza’s portrayal in
The Guardian and
The Daily Telegraph, both of which presented him as a hate preacher. Abu Hamza was accused of “inciting murder and racial hatred” and “maintained he never helped al-Qaeda or other militant groups” (
BBC 2014). The dataset shows that the sub-theme code “Hate preachers, Abu Hamza, Finsbury Mosque promote anti-Western feelings and radicalisation” appears 20 times in a total of 274 stories, with a frequency of 7.29%. In other words, in all the mosque-related stories published in both newspapers, Abu-Hamza appeared in 20/68 × 100 = 29.41%. In the main, these reports suggest that Abu-Hamza, during his time at the Finsbury Park Mosque, radicalised youngsters and spread hatred of Britain. He propagates his own version of Islam, denounces British politicians, and discredits Britain’s system and its foreign policies. Particularly, the media reporting presented a blend of statements made by Abu Hamza and the authorities, which means a mixture of facts and assumptions.
Reviewing the press reporting on mosques, this study finds that the press establishes a link between ‘extremists’, ‘fundamentalists’ (including all other troublemakers) and the mosques. In the database, hate preachers appeared to receive more media attention and space compared to moderate voices. An example is the image of Abu-Hamza and his cemented connection with Finsbury Park Mosque. Both broadsheets described Hamza as a hatemonger and anti-Western, using derogatory language such as “hook.” In one of
The Telegraph comment pieces,
Denis MacShane (
2006) quotes David Blunkett’s diaries in which “he refers to the arrest of the Finsbury Park radical Islamist imam, Abu Hamza, in January 2003” (
The Daily Telegraph, 17 October 2006). Further, MacShane notes that:
For months! For years, every other politician in Europe had been complaining about the failure of Britain to act against Hamza and the other ideologues of hate who were turning young Muslim minds-long before 9/11 or the Iraq conflict-into cauldrons of hate against democracy, and some, tragically, into self-immolating killers of innocent men, women, and children.
(The Daily Telegraph, 17 October 2006)
Overall, press reporting gives the impression that mosques harbour extremists and that people who go to religious schools are suspicious. Several scholars point out the creation of an environment that presents or perceives Islam as a ‘threat or fear’ and depicts its followers as ‘terrorists’, ‘extremists’, and ‘fundamentalists’ who attend mosques, which, according to many media outlets, spread hatred and extremism and propagate separation and violence in society (
Baker 2006, pp. 90–95;
Esposito 1999, pp. 45–50).
Apart from my own findings at a national level, Finsbury Park Mosque and Abu-Hamza generate a large volume of news stories in the broadsheet and tabloid press to an extent that ordinary people begin to see the mosque as a threat to security because it harbours radicals and extremists. In such different narratives, Finsbury Park Mosque was associated with “Londonistan”, “Paris Metro bombings”, and other terror-related activities. Consider one of several examples in which mosques are directly linked with extremism, terrorism, and other related wrongdoings.
Steven Swinford (
2011), a
Daily Telegraph reporter, published a story under the headline:
WikiLeaks: how Britain ‘became a haven for migrant extremists’: When Finsbury Park Mosque opened nearly 20 years ago,
it was intended to be a centre for peaceful worship,
feted by the Prince of Wales and seen as an emblem of multi-cultural Britain. He further refers to Guantanamo
WikiLeaks files claim that
By the late 1990s, the mosque in North London had become a “haven” for extremism, where disaffected young men from around the world were radicalised before being sent to al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. At least 35 Guantánamo detainees passed through Finsbury Park…Regent’s Park Mosque, East London Mosque….
(The Daily Telegraph, 25 April 2011)
However, these broadsheets also reported several incidents that mentioned British anti-terror police stop and search activities and arresting of Muslim youths near mosques. Hence, the British media may not have a direct role in stirring up hatred and prejudice against mosques, but the reporting approach and methods of representation clearly indicate that most of those political groups and individuals who are hostile to mosques are in fact somewhat misled by the media. In addition, several studies raise concerns over the media representations of Islam and Muslims in Britain, particularly after the 9/11 and 7/7 incidents, such as
Akbarzadeh and Smith (
2005),
Kabir (
2010), and
Sian et al. (
2012). In my own study, the sub-theme code suggesting British mosques’ linkage with the 7/7 bombers who used mosques as meeting points appeared in a total of 16 different types of journalism in the original dataset, i.e., 16274 × 100 = 5.83%. A similar number of news stories relating to the image of mosques regarding the 7/7 incident can be expressed as 16/68 × 100 = 23.52%.
Notably, in the aftermath of the 7/7 incident, both broadsheets presented mosques using various problematic labels, such as platforms that promote extremism and radicalisation among young British Muslims. Most importantly, the overall dataset shows that approximately 25% (68/274 × 100 = 24.81%) of all types of journalism talked about British mosques in the context of the 7/7 incident. Notably, the database results are evident of how broadsheets play an essential role in shaping public opinion of British mosques. Relatedly, several studies have noted the considerable influence of the press on the public’s view of mosques in particular; these include (
Baker et al. 2013;
Haji et al. 2021;
Sian et al. 2012;
Hoskins and O’Loughlin 2010). Soon after the 7/7 bombings, Muslim images were typecast which evidently aided in the rise of anti-Muslim hatred, and Muslims were treated with suspicion in society (
Ameli and Merali 2015).
Despite worrying negative media portrayals of Muslims, one might say that, of course, not all sections of the British media are responsible for stirring up hatred of and bigotry against Muslims. Notably, on a few occasions notable journalists have resigned from their news organisations because of those organisations’ anti-Muslim hatred, and some news organisations acknowledge the positive roles played by Muslims. Examples include the following story: “Daily Star reporter Richard Peppiatt resigns in protest at what he says is the newspaper’s anti-Muslim propaganda” (The Guardian, 4 March 2011). In the same vein, the British press offered a very positive portrayal of ‘race murder’ victim Tariq Jahan, father of 19-year-old Haroon Jahan, who appealed for calm in August 2011 at the height of tension between communities in Birmingham resulting from the racially motivated murders of three Muslim teenagers outside a mosque.
Simran Jeet Singh (
2014) has compiled various data sources and writes that the ignorance of Islam is a prime reason for the shocking increases in hate crimes against Muslims in the West and America in particular (
The Guardian, 9 September 2014). Singh’s views are worth considering because, unfortunately, most sections of the mainstream press and broadcasters have failed to understand and educate people about the role of the mosque. The result is growing bigotry and opposition to the building of new mosques in various countries across Europe, including Britain, because some people see this as a sign of Muslims taking over Europe (see
The Economist, 30 August 2007). This fear is becoming institutionalised in the sense that responsible people are using different political and media platforms to air such thoughts. Inayat Bunglawala quotes Alison Ruoff of
Premier Christian Radio:
If we want to become an Islamic state, this is the way to go. You build a mosque, and then what happens? You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops will then become Islamic, all the housing will then become Islamic and as the Bishop of Rochester has so wisely pointed out, and that will be a no-go area for anyone else. They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen.
The most disturbing aspect is that many members of the media and politics constantly view mosques as a threat to secularism, even though many British people are not actively religious. While this article sheds light on the media portrayal of mosques, particularly in the aftermath of the 7/7 incident, it also includes a few illustrations of recent political campaigns in Europe and America to demonstrate how this threat is perpetrated. Instead of advocating a crackdown on those engaging in hate speech, the media has in fact singled out the “mosque” as an institution that harbours extremists and spreads hatred of the West. This foments extremism among some young British Muslims.
Most of the reporting in
The Guardian and
The Daily Telegraph about mosques reflects problematic narratives that create panic and fear of mosques among the public by suggesting that these places are sources of increasing radicalisation and extremism. This belief receives a great deal of currency in both broadsheets’ reporting to the extent that Tablighi Jamaat has been accused of promoting extremism. Jamie Doward’s report describes, “Tablighi Jamaat, an evangelical Islamic group which each year sends hundreds of young British Muslims to fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan”, and states that “two of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, attended Tablighi Jamaat mosques. Counter-terrorism sources say it is more likely that radicalised young Muslims are attracted to Tablighi Jamaat than the other way around” (
The Observer, 5 November 2006). However, many scholars view Tablighi Jamaat as a harmless and peaceful spiritual movement, such as
Coward and Smith (
2004),
Horstmann (
2007), and
Zubaida (
2003). The newspaper assumptions of Tablighi Jamaat are mistaken, as it has millions of followers around the world, including Britain, and evidently, they are not involved in acts of terrorism.
Notably, George W. Bush and Tony Blair publicly admitted that God had asked them to invade Iraq (The Guardian, 7 October 2005). Surely, they used religion as a pretext to legitimise their massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does Allah SWT (God) allow His creation to be killed? For argument’s sake, if we reverse this position, are those terrorists serving the mission of their God not equal to the Western politicians? In fact, the West is not the only victim of terrorism; more Muslims are on the losing side. Another point is that Western politicians have played a huge role in promoting and sponsoring terrorism in the shape of state terrorism; the West is thus not just on the receiving end but is also contributing to terrorism. Again, a philosophical question arises: If terrorists have attended madrassas, isn’t it also fair to point out the connection between warmongers and their institutions?
Paradoxically, most of the press reporting on mosques established links between the London bombers and mosques at home and abroad. Both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph writers and contributors assumed that the London bombers had travelled to Pakistan and attended madrassas, (mosque schools) there. Furthermore, The Daily Telegraph published several stories claiming that the London bombers were radicalised in Pakistani madrassas for example, (The Daily Telegraph, 4 September 2005 and 9 September 2006). Notably, British broadsheet reporting of madrassas comprises terms such as “terrorist factories”, “terror schools”, “Jihadists”, “Wahabbis”, and “radicalism”, along with notions that “they teach hatred of the West.” All these labels suggest that mosque schools are behind global terrorism. In the dataset, both The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian articles about madrassas and Tablighi Jamaat included derogatory language such as “Army of Darkness”, and their numbers were often exaggerated (see The Daily Telegraph, 20 August 2006; The Observer, 24 September 2006). However, it is important to note that newspaper reporting is presumably based on statements and opinions and hence merely factual.
The fear factor is the key to the media representation of mosques and mosque schools, linking all social ills and troubles such as terrorism and radicalisation with these places. In recent years, several scholarly studies have observed the increasingly negative portrayal of madrassas and mosques (
Bergen and Pandey 2006, p. 117;
Cherti and Bradley 2011;
Poole and Williamson 2021). As mentioned earlier, most of the anti-mosque campaigns have been a result of the negative portrayal of mosques: examples include (
Ahmanideen and Iner 2024). As a result of negative media reporting, mosques are facing growing abuse, vandalism, threats, violence, and hate crimes (
ITV, 2023). The Iram Sawar report found “Almost 90% of mosques across the UK have experienced acts of hate crimes” during the year 2022 (ibid.). Given the constant deceptive anti-mosque trends, it is relevant to consider two comic-strips that reflect how anti-mosque sentiments are prevalent among right-wing parties and individuals.
3.1.2. Incompatible
British mosques are often linked with controversial and sensitive issues such as radicalisation, extremism, cartoon controversies, veils, and sharia courts, bringing these places of worship and spiritual institutions engaging in several community-related activities into the media spotlight. Following the 7/7 incident, the belief that mosques are incompatible with the secular British way of life has gained considerable popularity. This has occurred mainly because of the negative and biased image of Islam that floats around in the media, politics and public spaces. In the last decade, several opinion polls, surveys, and think-tank reports have disclosed public perceptions that view Islam as negative and incompatible with British values.
Mehdi Hasan (
2015) puts it as follows:
Depending on which poll you believe, a majority of Brits believe “Muslims create problems in the UK”, link “Islam with extremism”, and would be “bothered” by the building of a big mosque in their neighbourhood. Since 7/7, anti-Muslim hate crimes have soared. Mosques have been firebombed while headscarf-clad women have been physically attacked.
(The Guardian, 5 July 2015)
Drawing upon the dataset (see
Figure 1), it is evident that the sub-theme code “Islam preaches peace and harmony and has no link with terrorism”, which suggests an open-minded view of Islam, appears a total of 16 times, meaning that 16/274 × 100 = 5.83% of the items of journalism in
The Guardian and
The Daily Telegraph portray Islam positively. Notably, of these 16 types of journalism reflecting a positive image of Islam,
The Guardian has published 11 stories, while
The Daily Telegraph has published only five stories presenting a constructive image of Islam. However, within the period 5 July 2005–8 July 2007, I noticed that the sub-theme code “Islam link with terrorism, extremism, radicalization and women’s issues”, which is reflective of closed-mindedness, also appears 16 times, accounting for 5.83% of the total reporting in both broadsheets.
In the aftermath of the 7/7 incident, the focal point of the split and conflict of interest between Muslims and non-Muslims, there was great emphasis on the point that the Islamic values or way of life are incompatible with British values. Here, this means that a tiny minority of Muslims, such as veiled women, bearded men, and mosquegoers are often described as backward, outdated, and illiterate. Drawing on the database, it became evident that certain events, such as the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) cartoons controversy, the veil, sharia, and suicide attacks, immediately brought mosques into the media spotlight.
In February 2006, a few British Muslim organisations staged protests outside the Danish embassy in London while others gathered in local mosques to discredit the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which published disrespectful and distasteful caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.). At this point, both The Guardian and The Telegraph ran a series of articles, special reports, comment pieces, and editorials mostly suggesting that British Muslims do not endorse criticism of their religion because they are not moderate and open-minded in comparison to their non-Muslim British fellow citizens. Further, a few writers and contributors of these newspapers suggested that British Muslims hate freedom of speech and are anti-Western and anti-democratic. Such views were perhaps due to the presence among the protestors of Omar Khayam, a drug addict dressed like a suicide bomber who was on parole and whose filthy behaviour terrified ordinary people. Moreover, his malicious behaviour resembled and equated to an incitement to murder in Victorian Britain.
In its editorial on 5 February 2006, The Daily Telegraph deplored the attitude of a handful of Muslim protestors who were chanting slogans such as “Freedom go to hell” and “Britain you will pay—7/7 is on its way.” It wrote that those protesting were in fact in many ways “abusing—the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished” (The Daily Telegraph, 5 February 2006).
Admirably, the British press, including The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, declined to reprint those repulsive cartoons in a solidarity campaign to defend freedom of speech alongside European newspapers. However, The Daily Telegraph writes in its editorial that it regards those images “as vulgar and fatuously insulting. However—and this is the crucial point—we reserve absolutely our right to make our own decision, free of threat and intimidation” (ibid.). Further, The Daily Telegraph criticises the attitude of Jack Straw, who condemns the Danish newspaper cartoon publishers but fails to discredit Muslim protestors (ibid.).
Despite The Daily Telegraph’s view of the protestors, it states: “There is no excuse for gratuitous offence…some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women’s rights, theocracy, and Western practices [are]…The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers” (The Daily Telegraph, 5 February 2006). It is important to note that The Guardian’s investigative report published on 11 February 2006 discloses that “A key role in organising the demonstration was played by an Islamist sect whose supporters have repeatedly been linked to violence and terrorism…Al-Ghurabaa, the organisation that takes credit for the protest” was a known problematic group (The Guardian, 11 February 2006). In addition, both newspapers defended freedom of speech and opposed the British government’s idea of closing some mosques used by hate preachers to spread anti-Western feelings and the proposal to ban Hizbut Tahrir.
Overall, the cartoon controversies raise two important issues of concern to the West. The first is freedom of speech, and the second is the place of religion in secular Western societies such as Britain.
Keith Laybourn (
2024) pointed out that although such notions are true, Christian religion in Britain has also been subjected to frequent mocking and attacks. Laybourn mentioned George Jacob Holyoke, who coined the term secularism and was convicted of Blasphemy, felt that social order separated from religion (
Laybourn 2024). Perhaps for some individuals, this situation reflects similarities between pre-modernism and postmodernism. For example, today in many societies, including the UK, it is considered inappropriate to kill someone for apostasy because many people considered religion
10 as a private matter, but it is generally considered appropriate to kill someone for treason because it is a political matter. Similarly, in some places, it is not considered to invade a country for religious reasons, but it is considered appropriate to invade a country in the name of democracy. Moreover, in pre-1960s British society, public display of affection was seen as a bad practice, but it is now an accepted norm. Thus, British society has enormously changed its moral, social, and cultural norms and accepts others following them, whether right or wrong
11.
However, in the broader debate on the cartoon controversy,
The Guardian also provided a platform to Muslim writers and contributors such as Fareena Alam, who condemned the cartoon protestors, arguing that their distasteful actions do not match the teachings and characteristics of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.).
Alam (
2006) writes that “the principles on which the Prophet stood are much more generous than that…” (
The Guardian, 12 February 2006).
She argues that the editors of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have shown the worst form of ignorance of Islam as well as hostility to it because the fact that they had “rejected cartoons lampooning Jesus three years ago on the grounds that they would offend their readers made their protestations of free speech seem cynical” (The Guardian, 12 February 2006). Hence, Alam concludes that “freedom of speech is not absolute. It has to be in service of something, such as peace or social justice. How have these cartoons, and the hypocritical defence of them, served these ideals?” (The Guardian 12 February 2006).
According to scholarly studies, it is evident that most media narratives on Islam in fact reflect what George Orwell called “Double Speak”, meaning different standards of representation for different sets of people. As
William Blum (
2006) writes, “The Western world was shocked when Iran condemned Salman Rushdie to death because of his book they called ‘blasphemous’. But the United States has also condemned blasphemers to death—Castro, Allende, Sukarno, and a host of others…” (
Blum 2006, p. 40). Essentially, in all these debates, such as those on the veil and freedom of speech, which bring modernity into the discussion, the key point is ignorance of Islam. To be fair, the reverse of this assumption is also true.
3.1.3. Social Space
In contemporary Western societies, religious places play a significant role in bringing together people of faith communities. Several notable studies acknowledge that religious institutions and places such as mosques, churches, gurdwaras, temples, and synagogues provide social spaces for local faith communities and help people of other faiths integrate and socialise with groups and individuals from dissimilar cultures, religions, and social classes (
Biddington 2021, p. 179;
Numrich 2023, p. 157;
McAndrew and Sobolewska 2015, p. 62). Overall, the types of journalism within the dataset published by both
The Guardian and
The Daily Telegraph show that these broadsheets and their contributors, albeit to a diminishing degree, recognise the fact that mosques can play a significant role in community building and fighting extremism and radicalisation.
In the dataset, the sub-code theme “Mosques are promoting community cohesion” appears only three times, that is, 3/68 × 100 = 4.41% types of journalism in both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, with a ratio of 2:1 talk of mosques as a social space and community-bonding platform. Furthermore, within the dataset, only 1.1% of the journalism presents open-minded and positive views of British mosques. For example, mosques foster community cohesion and provide spaces for different groups within the community to mix.
In the aftermath of the 7/7 incident,
The Guardian ran a two-part G2 special report called “One Friday”, published on 1 November 2006. It featured 40 British Muslim men and women of different professional backgrounds around the country, including politicians, activists, teachers, imams, and doctors, exploring their experience of being Muslims in the wake of the July bombings in London. All the participants were asked to share their experience of a particular Friday and how it felt to be Muslim in Britain today. Almost everyone mentioned the mosque and its significant role in their personal lives. Life for ordinary Muslims has become more challenging since the 7/7 incident, and it continues to be difficult with mosques being constantly accused of radicalisation and extremism. However, overall, the participants agree that the mosque is not just a place for prayers at Friday gatherings; it is in fact a platform that facilitates a sense of community. To clarify, this study uses “community” in a broader sense that includes Muslims of dissimilar ethnic backgrounds, non-Muslim neighborhoods, and includes interfaith work. Relatedly, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra shares his experience of a particular Friday:
I dealt with media requests. I went to a mosque for Friday prayer, where I had discussions with people about the veil and Iraq. I act as a point of contact in a community. Muslims are worried that their lives will become harder.
(The Guardian, 1 November 2006)
In addition, at the government level, it has been acknowledged that mosques do have an influential role in community bonding, which might help to combat problems such as the growing sense of disengagement among young British Muslims who feel ignored and alienated within the broader society. A report published in October 2002 by the “Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales” finds that mosques that serve as “religious centres” in fact undertake several different roles and offer a variety of services, such as “being simply a place to perform the ritual prayers to a comprehensive service to the local community encompassing religious education, social service, counselling, and adult education. Such mosques play an important part in the life of the local community” (Parliament Reports, 2002). Notably, several recent studies also identify similar recurring trends about the role of mosques in facilitating education, health, social, and economic welfare for Muslim communities, as well as fostering interfaith dialogue among Muslims and non-Muslims (
Betul 2022;
Mustafa et al. 2017;
Karimullah 2023).
The Imam of Leeds Makkah Mosque,
Qari Muhammad Asim (
2011), writes that “the mosque is uniquely positioned in British society to offer guidance and practical assistance regarding real issues affecting the lives of young Muslims” (
Asim 2011, p. 10). Asim went on to explain the growing importance of the mosque as a social space provider by fostering interactions among young people. He noted:
As the Muslim community has changed and grown over the last 20 years, so has the role of mosques. The younger generation expects mosques to assume a more central role, moving away from a simple centre of prayer to a social space in the community with a role in helping Muslims integrate into the community and fight marginalisation. As a result of the changing needs of young Muslims, there are increasing numbers of mosques in the UK that are providing extensive services to the Muslim community.
In present circumstances, most mosques acknowledge the need to provide a social space for the local community. In the aftermath of the London Bombings, Leeds Makkah Mosque and Leeds Grand Mosque are two of the best examples of social spaces available to local Muslims. In addition, most mosques offer a place for weddings, social gatherings, funerals, sports such as indoor badminton and table tennis, and evening classes for elderly people as well as children. More importantly, most mosques organise exhibitions, seminars, conferences, and cultural events designed to benefit local communities. In this regard, the Leeds Grand Mosque and the Leeds Makkah Mosque
12 in the Hyde Park area of Leeds are two relevant illustrations.
In this way, most mosques provide social space to people of different backgrounds and assist in the formation of interest groups within broader communities. In post-7/7 Britain, politicians and religious leaders have emphasised the need to develop a close-knit community that not only fosters cohesion but also shapes a much more cohesive society. From David Cameron’s “Big Society” (2010) election manifesto to government policies such as “community cohesion”, the idea is to develop cohesive communities (
Dillon and Fanning 2011;
Jones 2013;
McCabe 2010). Unfortunately, some of the best efforts of the British government to develop a strong sense of shared community have not produced the desired results. In the aftermath of the August 2011 London riots, several leading political and religious figures stressed the need to fix a broken society (
The Guardian, 11 August 2011). Fairly speaking, the 1980s riots in Bradford and contemporary problems of disengaging Muslim youths also signal the breakdown of community. Hence, despite the positive role of religious institutes, there are emerging challenges for them to counter. Other religious communities, including Christians, Jews, and Hindus are facing the same challenges.
Indeed, a sense of belonging and a shared common goal can achieve cohesive community bonding. In this regard, on a broader level, the principles of Islam such as Salah (prayers), Zakat (charity), Hajj (pilgrimage), and Brotherhood are basically designed to bind all Muslims together, regardless of tribe, race, colour and ethnicity, into one
Ummah or nation. The concept of one
Ummah, derived from the Quran is in fact the best example of community cohesion (
Ahmed 1975;
Saleh and Baqutayan 2012). It is here that the Islamic principles together with the fine principles, of Christianity and Judaism, can help bind a society together based on shared and common goals, as occurred in Medina and medieval Spain. The historical archives indicate that this model was successful in Muslim Spain, Mughal India, the Ottoman Balkans, and Eastern Europe. Members of the world’s major faiths, such as Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists have all lived together peacefully.
The Historical Contextualisation and implications of Mosque coverage debates: Past to present (2005–2024).
This study is based on the representation of mosques in British broadsheets The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian report of the tragic event of 7/7, which occurred on 7 July 2005. Nearly 20 years on, this study’s findings and observations within the historical context and the implications of the British media reporting of mosque debates emerged since then and have shown similar reoccurring patterns and trends. Given the ongoing concerns about rising Islamophobia and the excavating of Muslim exclusionary discourses in Western Europe, which revolve around issues of identity, belonging, religion, culture, and multiculturalism, as well as concerns about terrorism and counterterrorism, once again mosques have become a dominant feature of the media reporting. Notably, about 20 years ago, the British broadsheet press reporting on mosques reflected a focal point that Islam is a threat to Britain. The key debates that emerged were “modernity”, “British Islam”, “modern Islam”, “moderate Muslims”, “Sharia law”, “jihadists”, “radicals”, and “caliphate”. Relatedly, the word “Islamist” appears as a synonym for ‘violent ideology’ ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and Hizbut-Tahrir to Al-Muhajiroun in Britain. Within the dataset, the phrase “Islamist” denotes hate preachers, radicals, and extremists, such as Abu-Hamza al-Masri, Anjem Choudary, and Omar Bakri Muhammad, who have been accused of making hate speeches.
Despite considerable differences in the interpretation, presentation, and argumentation in reporting, both broadsheets held similar views of mosques that harbour radical imams and hate preachers to promote “Islamic ideology” and “anti-Western values”. In various other articles and reports, The Daily Telegraph published the views of several commentators who repeatedly raised this concern that British radicals intend to replace secular values with Sharia law, which would happen under a caliphate. The fear of a caliphate was a prominent feature of both broadsheets, probably the London bomber’s ringleader, and even today, al-Qaeda and ISIS radicals and terrorists wear a black band on their forehead, describing the coming of the caliphate which was a hallmark of the coverage of 7/7. Alongside the fear of radicals’ attacks on public and defense infrastructure, their aim of establishing a caliphate frequently appeared in both newspapers.
The Dataset:No. | Color | %Age Share | Sub-Theme-Code |
1 | Sky blue | 15% | STC 46, “Britishness is our culture; our British values must be adopted” |
2 | Blue Lapis | 11% | STC 39, “British Muslims have created social ghettos and live in parallel lives rooted in their cultural and religious beliefs/ideologies such as separate schools, veils, this leads to radicalisation” |
3 | Blue sapphire | 9% | STC 32, “British Government promotes the idea of British Islam/Modern Islam/moderates (Sufi Islam, Council of Imams) to counter Islamic radicalism” |
4 | Orange carrot | 9% | STC 49, “Engaging with Muslims include government initiatives such as road shows, reaching out in the community, combating Islamophobia, listening to Muslims leadership etc.” |
5 | Orange apricot | 7% | STC 41, “Hate preachers, Abu Hamza, Finsbury Mosque promote anti-Western feelings and radicalisation.” |
6 | Purple | 7% | STC 44, “British Muslims do not endorse ‘Freedom of Speech’ and criticism of their religion for example Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) cartoons” |
7 | Green | 7% | STC 52, “British Muslims are victims for example bad press etc.” (Sympathetic view) |
8 | Purple Orchid | 6% | STC 24, “British mosques link with 7/7 bombers, meeting point, promoting extremism and radicalization, problematic labels, non-English speaking imams, etc. (close-Views)” |
9 | Red | 6% | STC 6, “British Islamists, Sheikh Omar Bakri and his associates such as al-Qaradawi and Abu Izzadeen are anti-Western hate preachers who must be denounced and banned” |
10 | Light sky blue | 4% | STC 29, “Hate preacher such as Anjem Chaudhary’s statements” |
11 | Blue Cerulean | 4% | STC 54, “Problems within the Muslim community for instance widely acknowledged leadership, imams and mosques, sectarian divide etc.” |
12 | Purple violet | 4% | STC 62, “Jack Straw veil controversy fuel Islamophobia in the British society” |
13 | Blue azure | 3% | STC 20, “Londoners showed strength after bombings” |
14 | Blue arctic | 2% | STC 4, “Islamist extremists and white imperialist racists are two identical troublemakers” |
15 | Orange yam | 1% | STC 25, “Mosques are promoting community cohesion etc. (Open-minded Views)” |
16 | Green pear | 1% | STC 33, “Radical Islam and Militant Muslims are also a challenge to Muslim regimes therefore the West must make an alliance with modern Muslims” |
17 | Green lime | 1% | STC 40, “Representing Livingstone as hate preachers Qaradawi friend who hate gays, Jews, etc. closed views, anti-Semitic” |
18 | Pink | 1% | STC 58, “Government select, promote and engage with like-minded British Muslims” |
19 | Red cherry | 1% | STC 59, “Freedom of speech boundaries should be drawn in order to avoid confusion and conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims” |
The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph mainly presented the British mosques as negative. These newspapers associated mosques with extremism, radicalism, and terrorism and suggested that mosques are ideological warehouses that export violence and anti-Western sentiments. Overall, both newspapers offer mixed portrayals of British mosques in two sub-theme codes (STC 24, “British mosques link with 7/7 bombers, meeting point, promoting extremism and radicalization, problematic labels, non-English-speaking imams, etc. (close-minded view)” and (STC 25), “Mosques are promoting community cohesion, etc. (open-minded views)”. Despite the two newspapers’ diverse opinions on mosques, the negative portrayals of mosques outnumbered the balanced views. The notion of mosques as places of community cohesion, which is an open-minded view of Islam, accounts for only 1.09% of the reporting in comparison to approximately 9% of the reporting space that links mosques with the 7/7 incident. In turn, much of the reporting on mosques in this dataset reflects closed views of Islam.
On a positive note, both newspapers recognise that extremists were banned from their local mosque committees on various grounds, including clashes with elders and imams. They also accept that mosques promote community cohesion by providing a space for different groups of Muslims such as Arabs, Asians, Africans, and white Muslims. Additionally, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph reported government officials and non-Muslim members of the community have visited mosques to foster social cohesion. Soon after the London bombings, most sections of the media, including these two newspapers, linked a few local mosques in Leeds and London with the bombers, suggesting that they had visited these places, and turned them into suicide bombers. Since then, the government has described Leeds Makkah Mosque and Cambridge Mosque as ‘role models’, suggesting that these two mosques are modern.
Almost, twenty years on, the findings of this study have become more relevant and valid as recent waves of attacks on mosques have increased following the 2024 UK riots. Once again, sections of the British media blamed Muslims for the troubles in Leeds and the killing of three innocent girls in Southport. Later, it appeared that the Roma community was behind the Leeds rioting, and an African Christian was involved in the barbaric slaughter of white girls. Coincidentally, the violent mobs attacked mosques in Southport, Liverpool, Belfast, and London, smashed windows, vandalized mosque buildings, threatened imams, and physically attacked bearded Muslim men and hijab-wearing Muslim women (The Guardian, 11 August 2024; Daily Sabah, 8 August 2024). Initially, soon after the 7/7 bombings, violent mobs attacked mosques in Leeds and London on the assumption that mosques nurture anti-Western discourses, host hate preachers and imams, and back radical and extremist ideologies that fuel hatred among young Brits. Initially, this study detected a systematic anti-mosque campaign within British broadsheets, the tabloid press, and sections of politics. Now, almost 20 years have passed, and the 2024 UK riots affirm how the British media’s negative reporting aims to distort, demonize, and discredit Islam and Muslims by endorsing deeply rooted Islamophobia and anti-mosque narratives leading to attacks on mosques.
This study proposes that policymakers rethink their policy on Islamophobia and treat it equally with anti-Semitism to protect future generations of British Muslims and mosques. Additionally, this study argues that the British broadsheet and tabloid press narrative of mosques has played a huge role in shaping public opinion, especially among the youngsters (Gen Z), who were children at times during the 7/7 bombings. Nearly 20 years later, following the UK riots of 2024, they attacked mosques, believing that what they had been told about mosques—namely, that they are hubs of radicals and extremists who hate Britain—was true. Since 7/7, every incident has brought mosques under attack, even though the perpetrators are not Muslims but Christians, and no one has dared to attack churches. Notably, the British press was wrong and racist about the Iraq War, and once again, it is wrong on mosques.