A Day to Bare Our Souls - and Find Ourselves

PBS SUPRESSES DOCUMENTARY
"ISLAM vs. ISLAMISTS"

from CAMERA.org:
Last week, we sent an alert regarding PBS's suppression of an important documentary entitled "Islam vs. Islamists," that was supposed to be included in PBS's series "America at a Crossroads." "Islam vs Islamists" is an inspirational look at moderate Muslims in the West who speak out against Muslim supremacists, despite death threats and harassment. We further noted that PBS commissioned a film to replace "Islam vs Islamists," "The Muslim Americans," produced by series host Robin MacNeil's company, which was quite flawed.

PBS did include in the Crossroads series an excellent film, "Faith Without Fear," about Irshad Manji, a moderate Muslim woman who speaks out against fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, but that film focused mainly on women's issues. "Islam vs Islamists" involves a broader range of issues.

CAMERA members who wrote or called PBS have been getting either a phonecall or letter from PBS, insisting that PBS intends to broadcast "Islam vs Islamists" once the editing process is complete. Of course, this is nonsense. The filmmakers, who have editorial control over the content of the documentary, have firmly stated that the film is finished and to make the edits that PBS is insisting on would change the very message of the film and turn it into yet another apologia for Islamism.

For more details, see our original alert below.

CAMERA ASKS THAT WE:

Please continue to contact PBS and CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a government agency which provides funding to public networks).

* Call PBS President Paula Kerger: 703-739-5000
And/or submit your comment by going to the following PBS comment link.

Urge PBS to broadcast "Islam vs Islamists" as is, without editorial changes, during a prime time slot.

* Call/write CPB President Pat Harrison: 202-879-9600 pat.harrison@cpb.org
Ask CPB to give the filmmakers the right to broadcast the film elsewhere.

* Please let CAMERA know if you made calls or wrote letters: letters@camera.org

The original alert is below.

With thanks,
Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA

ORIGINAL ALERT
CAMERA.ORG, FROM APRIL 16, 2007

Is PBS now in the business of preventing Americans from learning about issues vital to our national well-being? The Public Broadcasting Service is airing an 11-part documentary series entitled "America at a Crossroads" from April 15--20, focused on themes and events related to 9/11, al-Qaeda, the war in Iraq and radical Islam.

But one of the films commissioned for the PBS series by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and given $675,000 in funding, "Islam vs. Islamists:Voices from the Muslim Center," is being withheld from the public for highly questionable reasons (see letters from the filmmakers below).

Please protest PBS's refusal to air this powerful documentary about the threat moderate Muslims (and non-Muslims) face from Muslim supremacists. Many terrorism experts believe a vital key to winning the war against Muslim radicals lies within Islam itself, that moderate Muslims must be supported and encouraged in challenging extremism in their own faith. "Islam vs. Islamists" shines a spotlight on the grave difficulties faced by moderate Muslims.

PBS - and PBS affiliate WETA - executives now refuse to broadcast the film, claiming its thesis is "incendiary", "alarmist", and "inflammatory," even though the film's thesis had gone through numerous reviews throughout the competition to win CPB funding.

A CAMERA Board Member who viewed the film termed it "inspirational" in its presentation of courageous Muslims speaking out despite threats to themselves.

PBS claims that it will air the film in the future - if substantial changes are made. The filmmakers (ABG), Alex Alexiev, Martyn Burke and Frank Gaffney, say that the changes PBS demands would alter the entire thesis of the film and are unacceptable. Furthermore, according to Alex Alexiev, their contract with CPB gives the filmmakers complete editorial control and they consider the film to be completed.

ABG charges PBS executives with suppressing the film on political grounds.
They cite numerous irregularities in the review process, including PBS enlisting Prof. Amina McCloud as an outside "advisor" to assess their film. McCloud, an admirer of Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Jewish former head of the Nation of Islam, about which part of the film was critical, then gave a rough cut of the film to Nation of Islam members to view. The NOI, needless to say, objected to the depictions and members have since threatened to sue the filmmakers.

In addition, as related by the filmmakers (see letter below), the PBS "Crossroads" producers went behind their backs and "commissioned another program, covering almost exactly the same ground as we were investigating on one of our major stories. Suddenly, our interview subjects became the subject of an embarrassing and unprofessional intra-PBS tug-of-war. We lost several key interviews because of this. It was about as destructive an act as can done to a team in the field."

This competing film, "The Muslim Americans," was not part of the rigorous competition that everyone else went through to get funding and to be on the short list for inclusion in the "America at a Crossroads" series. And, according to Alex Alexiev, the gist of "Muslims in America" is much less critical of the Islamists, amounting to an apologia for the extremists.

Another very disturbing aspect of "The Muslim Americans" being chosen over "Islam vs Islamists" is that "Muslim Americans" was produced in conjunction with MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, a company co-led by Robin (Robert) MacNeil, the host of the PBS "Crossroads in America" series. The film produced by MacNeil's company was commissioned by Crossroad's producers and chosen OUTSIDE the long and rigorous competiton process set up by CPB. How is this not a conflict of interest?

Please read the troubling letters (see below) written by ABG (filmmakers for "Islam vs Islamists") to the Board of Directors of PBS, in which they detail the unprofessional, biased conduct of the PBS (and affiliate WETA) executives who are apparently attempting to suppress or radically change "Islam vs Islamists."

ACTION ITEMS
Please protest PBS's rejection of "Islam vs Islamists" as part of the "America at a Crossroads" series and object to PBS's attempts to force the filmmakers to radically change the film.

* Call and write PBS to deplore suppression of this very important documentary. Be polite but firm. Urge the network to broadcast the film as is (without changes) during a primetime slot on PBS.

Voice your objections to the extremely biased and unprofessional conduct of Leo Eaton, Crossroads series producer and Jeff Bieber, executive producer at PBS affiliate WETA. According to the filmmakers, the edits that Eaton and Bieber are insisting upon seem to have more to do with their personal politics than with the quality and accuracy of the film. And since ABG has editorial control over the film, they shouldn't be forced to change their film. Question the role of host Robin MacNeil, who has a vested interest in one of the films in the series.

Call PBS President Paula Kerger: 703-739-5000

Share your thoughts with PBS's ombudsman Michael Getler. 703-739-5000

* Protest WETA's role in suppressing the film.
Contact Sharon Percy Rockefeller, President and CEO of WETA: 703.998.2600

*Contact your local PBS station. You can find their contact info by clicking here and putting in your zipcode. Urge them to broadcast "Islam vs. Islamists." Ask them to lodge a complaint to PBS executives regarding the censorship of this important film. To find your local station, go to www.pbs.org

* Call the President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Pat Harrison.

CPB dispenses tax dollars to public networks, such as PBS and NPR. CPB had been originally supportive of the project and was not involved in removing "Islam vs Islamists" from the list of documentaries to be aired. Express your concerns about PBS suppressing the film.

Ask Ms. Harrison to:

1) urge PBS to air the film without forcing the film-makers to change the documentary.

2) If that is not possible, ask Ms. Harrison to give the filmmakers the legal right to broadcast the documentary elsewhere.

Call CPB President Pat Harrison: 202-879-9600
(Be sure to distinguish between CPB and PBS. CPB funded the film. PBS prevented the film from being shown on the "America at a Crossroads" series. )

* Urge your elected representatives to get involved, since taxpayer's money is involved. To find your senators' or congressional rep's address, go to:

www.senate.gov
www.house.gov

*Thank Congressman Jim Walsh of Syracuse for his efforts to urge PBS to air the film as is, with no further changes. Ask him to keep up the pressure.

* Please send CAMERA a copy of your comments: letters@camera.org

The compelling letters to CPB and PBS from the filmmakers are below.

With thanks,

Lee Green
Director, National Letter-Writing Group
CAMERA
***************

MARTYN BURKE
ABG FILMS INC
1007 Ocean Ave #304
Santa Monica
California
90403

February 23, 2007

TO: PBS Board of Directors;
Pat Harrison; President; CPB.

I am the producer of a film entitled Islam vs Islamists, commissioned by both CPB and PBS for the America at a crossroads series.

During the course of producing this film we consistently encountered actions by the PBS series producers that violate the basic tenets of journalism in America.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for a full and open enquiry into this matter.

It was in no small part due to the involvement of CPB and PBS that I was able to attract world-class journalistic talent to work on this program. Included among these journalists are:

--a 2006 Pulitzer prize nominee (Sebastian Rotella of the Los Angeles Times) for his work covering Islam in Europe;

--the lead journalist (Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star) in a team profiled in the New York Times in June 2006 for the excellence of their coverage of Islamic stories in Canada; and

--the lead investigative reporter (Matias Seidelin) from Politiken, one of the largest, most respected newspapers in Scandinavia.

With them, we created a program subtitled Voices from the Muslim Center -a look at how Muslim moderates in the western democracies are often under attack, in one form or another, by extremists within their own religion.

Islamic extremists constantly attempt to silence these voices. Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them.

Examples of this are:

* While doing an investigative segment on an organization (the Nation of Islam in Chicago) which had received considerable funding from the wahhabis in Saudi Arabia --channeled through the Saudi embassy in Washington, we suddenly learned that a board of advisors had been appointed by the series producers to oversee our show and others. On this board was an outspoken champion, and supporter, of the very group we were investigating --The Nation of Islam.

* In a violation of journalistic ethics, this same advisor, took our confidential and unfinished rough cut version of the program and screened it for the nation of Islam.

* The series producers apparently saw no problem with this. They simply forwarded me an email from this advisor which stated the nation of Islam was not pleased and would sue us. The series producers then admonished us on our facts. (Which we stand by.)

* When I replied, informing them that this was a violation of journalistic ethics --as well as a serious conflict of interest by the advisor, they did not respond.

* When we protested this action to the president of the host station (WETA) we received a letter defending the appointment of this advisor

* We also encountered what was a form of blacklisting. During my first meeting with the series producers I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds. Having once produced a program on The Hollywood Ten, I was asked in that meeting, a question I never thought I would hear: Do you not check into the politics of the people you work with?

* When I would not fire my partners, our funding was held up for months, creating enormous production problems.

* One of these series producers informed me, in our first phone conversation, that his father was an Islamic convert in Britain, and was a noted Islamist thinker and author. He went on to say that he and his father had discussed the very topic we were doing in our show. I thought nothing of this conversation until we began to find ourselves constantly under attack by this series producer for the point of view we were taking.

* My concern in the above matter grew after a discussion with this series producer about one of our central premises in the show --that attempts by Islamists to create so-called parallel Islamic societies within the western democracies, complete with their own Islamic legal system, are both Dangerous and misguided. I was told by this series producer that these Islamic communities in the west were basically tribal societies and that having their own laws would not be a bad thing. It was the antithesis of everything our program conveyed.

* In the midst of production, we suddenly learned that the series producers had --totally unbeknownst to us, commissioned another program covering almost exactly the same ground as we were investigating on one of our major stories. Suddenly, our interview subjects became the subject of an embarrassing and unprofessional intra-PBS tug-of-war. We lost several key interviews because of this. It was about as destructive an act as can done to a team in the field.

* We came under repeated attacks by these series producers over the quality of our journalism -notwithstanding the fact that our award-winning team out in the field stood by the veracity and tone of the stories they were involved in.

We embarked on this program out a belief that the public in America -and other western democracies need to know some of the answers to an oft-repeated and vital question: Where are the Muslim Moderates? In our production we found Muslim men and women of courage and conviction, often persevering under both threats and hardship.

We have just learned that we have gone from being one of the shows chosen for broadcast before these series producers arrived in march of 2006, to being expelled from the series.

My questions are: Are these the kind of journalistic standards of conduct, ethics and judgment that PBS adheres to?

Or CPB? -does it simply funnel money into productions and then step aside as these kind of actions are allowed?

These are matters and issues that go far beyond, one show, or producer, or group of journalists. They are fundamental to practice of journalism in a free society.

I am asking for an open, public investigation into what has happened.

Yours truly,
Martyn Burke
martynb@earthlink.net
*************************

March 6, 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC
BROADCASTING SERVICE AND WETA

FROM: Frank Gaffney, Martyn Burke and Alex Alexiev

Re: Response to the PBS/WETA Critiques of "Islam vs. Islamists"

The ABG Films documentary "Islam vs Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center" has been critiqued on three separate occasions by producers retained by PBS/WETA to produce the "America at a Crossroads" series. (See the attachments.) These critiques took the form of "Notes" sent by Leo Eaton, Crossroads Series Producer on November 5, 2006 and December 22, 2006 to the film's Director and Co-Executive Producer Martyn Burke, and in a letter dated February 12, 2007 to the film's Co-Executive Producer Frank Gaffney from Jeff Bieber, Executive Producer at WETA.

The last of these essentially summarizes Mr. Eaton's first two critiques without adding anything new. For the purpose of this response to PBS/WETA, we will therefore concentrate on the more detailed Notes. Each of these missives makes plain that while they were signed by an individual, they reflect the views of both PBS and WETA.

The Notes convey an unmistakable impression - one that should be discernable even to those lacking a detailed knowledge of the topic - that, far from being constructive criticism, the PBS/WETA criticism of our film amounts to a hatchet-job based on a serious, perhaps willful, misinterpretation of both the message and the method of this film. The Notes also reflect a demonstrable lack of critical understanding and even basic knowledge of the subject matter of the film: radical Islam and its assault on moderate Muslims.

It is, moreover, difficult to escape the conclusion that the source of the unhappiness of the Notes' author and the institutions he represents is not ABG's ostensible inability to deliver compellingly the film's message, but the message itself. Indeed, the critique represents a wholesale and ill-concealed rejection not so much of the documentary itself, as of its subject and content. The PBS/WETA commentary amount to little more than an ideological diatribe, one that could have easily been written by an Islamist or a fellow-traveler, rather than an informed, collegial and professional effort to contribute to the successful completion of a serious film on a hugely important subject.

The seriously deficient source and substance of such criticism stand in stark contrast to the quality team that is responsible for and stands behind "Islam vs. Islamists." The film's director/producer, Martyn Burke, has a breadth of knowledge and experience in the subject of Islam going back nearly twenty years (including directing an award-winning documentary on the war in Afghanistan ). Other members of the team have published widely on the subject, been asked to provide expert testimony before congressional hearings, appeared at numerous scholarly conferences and as authorities in the national media.

Not least, our regional co-producers in North America and Europe include several of the most highly respected journalists in the world, individuals who work for world-class media organizations and who have been properly recognized internationally for their reporting on Islamism. For example, one was a Pulitzer Prize finalist last year for reporting on Islamic activities in Europe and another was profiled in the New York Times for the excellence of her work.

The Tone of the Notes
Before delving into the substance of the PBS/WETA critique of our film, a few observations about its tone are in order, as the latter is indicative of the bias driving the former.

Simply put, the entire PBS/WETA commentary, from beginning to end, is loaded with deprecatory and insulting phrasing and replete with outright accusations of a lack of objectivity on our part, without identifying convincingly even a single instance of our alleged bias. Thus, we are told on virtually every page that our story-telling engages in "dramatic hyperbole," "shoddy journalism," "subjective and claustrophobic terms," "menacing music," "sweeping generalizations," etc.

If these epithets were not enough, we are accused of advancing an "incendiary thesis," one that is "quite inflammatory," "alarmist and overreaching," "over-simplified," and that "failed the most basic Journalism 101 test," to name just a few. What is more, we are told time and again that we "need more objective testimony" and "more objective context" without pointing out - let alone documenting - actual cases of biased reporting. Instead, we are condemned with generalized accusations of "editorializing" and "point of view (POV)" film-making.

The Content of the Critique
With respect to the actual PBS/WETA criticism of ABG's handling of the conflict between moderate, mainstream Muslims and their radical, Islamist co-religionists in Muslim communities across the West, let us start with the numerous examples of gross and baseless mischaracterizations of the film that do not comport with its storyline.

For example, the film is accused of trying to make the audience feel "fear of all Muslim organizations that aren't liberal and Western," trying to "demonize Islam" and "constantly reinforcing the mantra be afraid of all these people" (meaning the Muslims).

None of these assertions is even remotely accurate. Far from demonizing Islam, the film's main objective is to show the audience to what extent the Islamic faith itself is being threatened by extremists that use a deliberately warped interpretation of the religion to impose their hate-filled agenda on mainstream believers. The documentary does not "advocate" so-called "liberal and Western" Muslim organizations. It simply contrasts the views and statements of moderate Muslims with those of the Islamists.

An indication of the ignorance of the author of the PBS/WETA critique is the fact that one group of moderates featured in the film, Sheikh Hisham Kabbani's Sufis, are part of an Islamic tradition nearly as old as Islam itself - one that is decidedly non-Western.
Similarly, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser's efforts to organize fellow-Muslims in Arizona to defend their faith from those that would falsify its teachings is neither uniquely Western nor especially liberal. Rather, it reflects the heartfelt reaction of people who feel that their religion is being hijacked - a reaction in evidence to varying degrees throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, to the extent that the film showcases a "Western" Muslim organization at all, it is the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir that is headquartered in the United Kingdom , where it has found a congenial base for its subversive activities in the West.

If one were to try to find a logical explanation for these completely unwarranted and intemperate attacks on the conceptual and cinematographic integrity of "Islam vs. Islamists," perhaps the first place to look is at the numerous instances in the Notes where the author demonstrates, at best, a limited grasp and, at worst, a willful distortion of the reality of Islamism. [As has been pointed out in correspondence from ABG Films to WETA President Sharon Percy Rockefeller, the latter may be explained by the influence Mr. Eaton has acknowledged is exercised over him by his father, Hassan (Charles) Le Gai Eaton, (a.k.a. Hassan Abdul Hakeem) who is a Muslim convert held in high regard in Islamist circles in Britain.] Either way, the sweeping condemnations of the content of our film served up by Leo Eaton on behalf of PBS and WETA discredit the critics, not the film.

Uninformed about the Facts
By way of illustration, consider a paragraph on page 2 of the November 5 Notes. It starts with what is intended to be a bold statement of fact: "Today's battle for the soul of Islam is all about history." The reality is exactly the opposite. The fact is that the battle for the soul of Islam is about the present and future of a fourth of humanity. That is why the subject of Islamism - a relatively contemporary political ideology - is of such paramount import, and why this film which explores it was selected over hundreds of others in what once was a rigorous competition managed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Elsewhere, we are taken to task for positing that there is a downward progression from fundamentalism to extremism to terrorism, a proposition described by Mr. Eaton as "an incendiary thesis." Indeed, throughout the PBS/WETA critique, the author seems to argue against the reality of such a continuum, as when he complains that we are lumping the terrorist Abu Qatada, the extremist imam Abu Laban and the "ordinary conservative imam" Aly Hindi together as "bad guys."

In fact, "Islam vs. Islamists" shows what the Notes claim is but an "ordinary conservative imam" as a man who has accused the Canadian authorities of being the real terrorists. He denounces a palpably moderate Muslim as an "extremist." And he insists that the most barbaric of capital punishments for marital infidelity are mandatory. Such thinking is used by the Islamists also to justify suicide bombings, beheadings of "apostates" and other acts of terrorism.

The Notes simply refuse to recognize a basic truth: Islamist terrorism is a symptom of the deeper malaise called Islamism, the murderous ideology that inspires it. If we use the author's logic, we would have to judge the likes of Hitler and Stalin as lesser criminals than their SS and NKVD henchmen, since the latter did the mass killing. Thus, the former would have qualified merely as "extremists" or perhaps "conservatives," rather than what they were: the precursors for today's ideologically-driven "terrorists." The enlightenment philosopher Dennis Diderot once remarked that it is but a small step from fanaticism to barbarism. Islamism is a perfect example of Diderot's insight, an insight that has obviously escaped PBS/WETA.

Another glaring example of the fundamental misperception of the nature of Islamist extremism on the part of PBS/WETA as expressed in the critique is the stated belief that with respect to Islam "moderation and extremism clearly depend on where you're standing." No, they do not! There are objective criteria that distinguish the two and arguing to the contrary is really tantamount to saying that there is no difference between perpetrators and victims: It is all a matter of opinion. This is exactly what the apologists for terrorism against innocent people and the terrorists themselves have been arguing for years.

There are many other examples of the distorted understanding of radical Islam exhibited in the Notes, but pointing out two more should suffice. The first deals with the "blood money" episode in the film, the second with shari'a.

"Blood Money": Leo Eaton contends that "blood money" is a tribal tradition - and implies that it is a positive one at that, since "it's a way of stopping bloodshed, not encouraging it." Actually, though undoubtedly of pre-Islamic, tribal origin, "blood money" is Quran-sanctioned and it is as a Quranic injunction that it is practiced in Muslim countries today and not as an "archaic tribal practice."

More importantly, and the real reason why this episode was included in the film, is that it demonstrates a momentous phenomenon: the efforts radical Islamists are making, sometimes successfully, to impose reactionary shari'a norms in the Muslim communities in the West - in total contravention of the democratic system of justice and to the detriment of both the Muslims themselves and society at large. The author of the Notes seems not to want this important insight to be imparted to the PBS audience.

Shari'a: The second point has to do with the religious "legal code" known as shari'a. The Notes contend that, for most Muslims and non-Muslims alike, "shari'a law comes from the Quran." Mr. Eaton could have added that, without exception, all Islamists believe it to be a God-ordained, divine law and panacea for all societal problems.

In fact, as one of the moderate Muslims featured in the film correctly points out, it is none of the above. The word shari'a is mentioned in the Quran only once - and not at all in the sense of a system of justice, but in its original Arabic meaning of "path to the source or well." There are a few specific punishments for transgressions enumerated in the Quran and some instructions on matters of inheritance. Shari'a as a code of law (to the extent that it is one at all), however, did not appear until nearly two centuries after the death of Muhammad. It is thus both post-Quranic and man-made.

A Question of Bias
The transparent bias exhibited in Leo Eaton's critique of "Islam vs. Islamists" in favor of the Islamist interpretation on the question of shari'a colors much of the PBS/WETA interpretation of our film's message. For instance, he insists that to be worthy of airing by PBS, our film is obliged to provide "objective clarity" on whether shari'a can co-exist within Western societies side-by-side with our democratic judicial system. This is a truly preposterous question given the basic tenets of shari'a that both extremists and moderates would agree include the following:

· A Muslim cannot be condemned to death for the murder of an infidel.
· A Muslim man can have four wives, a woman only one husband
· A Muslim man can marry non-Muslims, Muslim women may not.
· A woman needs four male witnesses to prove rape or adultery and could be stoned to death for adultery if she fails to find them.
· A Muslim virgin cannot marry without permission by a male guardian
· Muslims who leave Islam automatically get the death penalty. If not available for killing, their marriages are annulled and they are denied inheritance.
· Women inherit half of what a man does and their testimony is worth half of that of a man in business transactions.
· Judges in an Islamic state could only be Muslims. A non-Muslim judge can only adjudicate for infidels.
· Adoption is prohibited by shari'a.
· A man can divorce his wife instantaneously; women must pay the husband to have the marriage dissolved, provided he agrees.
· A man can "marry" a woman for a fixed time (even a few hours).
· A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife.

It is difficult to believe that any objective person would even question whether this kind of "law" is compatible with basic Western norms. Yet, PBS and WETA have allowed an individual whose objectivity is itself clearly questionable to speak for them on this and related matters.

Other Illuminating Demands for Changes
There are myriad other examples of ignorance or willful disregard for the evidence presented in our documentary dressed up as simple editorial adjustments, too many to enumerate fully here. A few further, illustrative examples warrant mention, however:

We are told we must alter our film to explain why "conservative imams describe [our] selected 'moderates' as extremists on the other [i.e., liberal] side" and why we call the radical Islamist organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir "extremist." Further, we are advised that we must explain what a Sufi is, since, "conservative Islam (especially Sunnis) consider Sufism to be heretical."

Anybody who has actually seen our film will find these questions to be, to put it charitably, naïve, if not actually ignorant. More to the point, they betray a sympathy for the Islamist viewpoint.

As our storyline makes abundantly clear, what Leo Eaton labels "conservative imams" are in fact zealous Islamists. What they all have in common - as the film explains time and again - is their unconcealed scorn for Muslims who do not share their zealotry. Whether the purportedly "conservative imams" depict their moderate co-religionists as atheists, apostates, munafiqin (hypocrites) or "extremists," they betray attitudes that are the very definition of extremism.

Furthermore, the film's narrative makes abundantly clear the extremist nature of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in both the statements of its leaders and the fact that the group is banned in many countries as a terrorist organization. Questioning that is tantamount to a complete disregard of the evidence presented.

Similarly, the documentary quite directly and unequivocally points out that the Sufis featured in the film practice a peaceful and moderate version of Islam of which the Wahhabis and other Islamists strongly disapprove. The only reason anybody would want a longer discourse on Sufism itself, which is peripheral to the main subject, would be if one really believed Sufism to be heretical.

Conclusion
In short, the PBS/WETA critique of our film as presented in Leo Eaton's Notes is, itself, a "point of view." Were this point of view - which amounts to an apologia for Islamist extremism - to succeed in preventing the airing by PBS of "Islam vs. Islamists," the American viewing public would be seriously disserved, $675,000 in taxpayer money possibly wasted and the Islamists' advantaged in their quest to suppress and dominate moderate Muslims.

No one should be under any illusion. The decision to exclude "Islam vs. Islamists" from the initial Crossroads broadcasts - and the threat not to air it later on unless the substantive and structural changes demanded by Messrs. Eaton and Bieber are accommodated - cannot be justified on the grounds that this film fails to meet PBS technical or editorial standards. It assuredly does.

Neither are these positions warranted by dint of an unreasonable refusal by ABG Films to incorporate constructive suggestions for improvements made by CPB, PBS or WETA. Actually, we did so repeatedly.

Rather, this documentary has been the subject of an ideological vendetta on the part of individuals responsible for this series at PBS and WETA who have, from the first, worked to prevent it from being aired by PBS. It is an indictment of the PBS and WETA Crossroads management team, rather than this film, that the former have gone to such disingenuous and even dishonest lengths to ensure that "Islam vs. Islamists" content and message are suppressed.

We at ABG Films call on every member of the Boards of Directors of the Public Broadcasting Service and WETA to view "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," to judge for themselves the critiques discussed above and to assess whether they are willing to stand behind such appalling behavior on the part of their respective organizations - let alone to defend that behavior as consistent with the public interest at this moment of America at a crossroads.

(Thanks again to "T.R." for the head's up on this one!!)


PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JBLOG ME