The UK Government’s Prevent strategy and the anti-radicalisation think-tank the Quilliam Foundation are both counter-productive to tackling the problem of “Islamic extremism”, writes Harith Armstrong.
Both the Prevent Strategy and the Quilliam Foundation share similar presumptions regarding the causes of Islamic extremism and the most effective way to respond to the ideological narrative that promotes terrorism. The first being that non-violent ‘extremist’ views need to be actively countered wherever present – in schools, universities and even on the internet. Teachers are given training in detecting these views in order to identify children at risk. This has extended to higher education (universities) where speakers promoting the ‘extremist’ narrative have the right to speak with the condition that they are challenged. Censorship of ‘extremist’ material on the internet is another key strategy put forward – all with the intention of diluting the mood music which could lead impressionable men, women and children to adopt fundamentalist views and prevent them from possibly carry out atrocities here in the UK or abroad.[1]
The obvious question here is what do the government and Quilliam define as extremism?
The government has defined extremism in the Prevent strategy as: “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”[2]
Even though Prevent prides itself on tackling all forms of extremism and not focusing just on the Muslim community – it mentions that the Islamist ideology poses the greatest threat – so clearly British Muslims are the central focus. Even though, there are great differences within the Muslim community and it isn’t fair to homogenize, I would argue all Muslims share a sense of victim-hood due to these unjust counter-extremist measures, so I’m going to continue to refer to the ‘Muslim community’ or ‘British Muslims’ throughout this essay in the collectivist sense.
The first definition proposed by the government holds that any “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values” – is by definition ‘extreme’ and needs to be challenged. The elastic and vague nature of this definition is very problematic.
What ideas like “individual liberty” actually mean in practice is subject to debate. The UK government’s intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan were carried out in the name of liberty and democracy at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.[3] It follows that any vocal or active opposition to this will render you an extremist according to the Prevent strategies definition.[4] Does this mean we must censor online videos which expose our government’s war crimes because it can be seen as being against fundamental British values or contributing towards the ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality? Or perhaps David Cameron feels such videos can lead to radicalization? The publication of the Prevent strategy is an easy way to shut down the debate about our foreign policy. Over-emphasizing the role of ideological factors and not addressing our own government’s collusion with radical Islam is a very effective way of diverting unnecessary attention to the British Muslim community and dissolving any sense of personal responsibility.[5]
A more specific form of extremism focused on by the Quilliam Foundation is Islamism which can be defined as: “the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as a faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that Shari’ah should be used as state law”.[6]
So Quilliam perceive Islamism (the ideology that seeks to impose Islam on society) as a form of extremism and that those who affirm any penal codes (punishment for adultery, apostasy and homosexuality) in their ideal Islamic state should be challenged and stigmatized for holding such views because they are unsavory and closely aligned to narrative of Al Qaeda and other Jihadist organisations.[7] So according to the ‘conveyor belt theory of radicalization’ the longer these views remain unchallenged, the more people will fall prey to violent extremism.[8] What this strategy presupposes is that the transition from being a conservative Muslim living in the UK who is focusing on improving themselves spiritually, taking care of their family and perhaps wanting a government where Islamic principles take predominance to then seeking to carry out suicide missions on innocents here in the UK or fighting for ISIS in Iraq is somehow inevitable or a natural follow on. This is an entirely incorrect assumption. Barrister Ibtihal Bsis highlights that “the government have produced no evidence of any sort that having supposed extremist views leads to terrorism”.[9]
Salafi mosques such as Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham or the Islamic Center in Luton are often accused by right-wing media outlets of being extremists, in spite of their opposition to the ideology of Al Qaeda and other violent Jihadi groups. In fact, they spend a significant amount of time disassociating themselves from these terrorists groups as do hundreds of other mosques.[10] Why should the responsibility fall solely on them to stop the spread of disinformation to non-Muslims? It’s the role of the government to educate themselves about the beliefs of its citizens and provide counter-extremist strategies which do not ostracize and isolate conservative Muslims based on unsubstantiated theories on what drives people to become radicalized.
Maajid Nawaz who is the director of the Quilliam Foundation has appeared frequently on media platforms with several prominent Imams and self-appointed Muslim community representatives. Frequently challenging them on their views from apostasy laws to the stoning of adulterers. He knows they won’t outright condemn these punishments as they are part of the shariah. He deems this ‘immoral’ and against human rights – he even rebukes them for suspending judgement.[11] These disputations are unsurprisingly commended by non-Muslim audiences.
I personally disagree with all the penal codes in Islam.
But ask yourselves these questions:
Does it really matter if a Muslim believes in the penal codes of their religion?
Are the vast majority of conservative Muslims seeking to apply this here in the UK? No.
Does them holding these views lead to more being radicalized? No.
Are they supporting the methodology with which ISIS or Al Qaeda apply shariah? No.
Are they just trying to get on with their lives without abandoning certain aspects of their religion (penal codes of Islam) which are in all probability going to be completely irrelevant in their lifetime? Yes.
What Quilliam are in fact doing by placing a disproportionate emphasis on Islamism as a factor which drives people to become radicalized is firstly; driving the discussion away from foreign policy, and secondly making conservative Muslims feel marginalized.
Many of the individuals which Nawaz engages with in the media are often bearded and wearing religious attire – so what Nawaz is actually doing when obsessively bringing up penal codes is associating those traditional Muslims who take seriously the injunctions to grow a beard with the most negatively perceived aspects of Islam.[12] How is that helpful or productive? Where is the talk of the aid-work Muslims are engaging in? Where is the talk of how Muslims are the most charitable religious minority in the UK?[13] In an environment where attacks on Muslim women wearing the veil or the scarf have become all too common and negative impressions of Muslims rampant.[14] Is what Quilliam are doing wise?
What true radical Islamist’s and Quilliam have in common is their binary focus on certain aspects of the Shari’a.
Most British Muslims even the hard-liners aren’t talking about the application of penal codes – they are more worried about getting up for the Fajr prayer, work-life, memorizing the Qur’an or finding out how they can help the refugees.
Coming back to the definition of extremism published by the government in the Prevent Strategy – there is a strong emphasis on “individual liberty” – and we can safely assume tolerance of homosexuality is most definitely part of this. Countless studies and polls suggest that the vast majority of British Muslims perceive it as unnatural – and if given the opportunity would not allow narratives which promote this gender preference to permeate.[15]
This would violate our traditional understanding of individual liberty which advocates the “do no harm” principle meaning we are free to act in the way we see fit so long as we cause no harm to others.[16] For most Muslims, homosexuality is perceived as something that does cause harm (in the spiritual sense) in that it’s displeasing to God.[17] So if we take this definition of extremism proposed by the government to its logical conclusion, most British Muslims are in fact holding an extremist view. Where do we draw the line between what is an extremist view and a valid contribution to the debate in an open secular society? Shall we also classify those who oppose incest (with the use of contraception) as extremists also seeing as the act in and of itself harms no-one? Secularism by its very definition should be inclusive of religious perspectives.[18] From my experience having someone ridicule or suppress your view only entrenches it- so what Prevent is in fact doing is solidifying the views of Muslims towards homosexuality. I bring up this example to illustrate how ineffective the strategy actually is and to highlight an unjustified sense of moral superiority many secularists and atheists have when discussing the views of Muslims.
Even if we assume the Tory government and the Quilliam foundation sincerely believe challenging Islamism is the most effective counter-extremism strategy – in what way does seeking to make people feel ashamed or scared to talk of practices that are embedded within Islam help? Anyone with an elementary knowledge of human psychology or experience with human relationships will know you do not change minds through censoring, surveillance or humiliation. You do so through civil discourse and the exchange of ideas. I recall Maajid Nawaz mentioning in a talk he gave that we need Islamism (political Islam) to be perceived like communism- basically implying that we need people to be ashamed of their beliefs in political Islam. The precise opposite needs to occur – people need to discuss what they believe and feel free to do so. There is so much irony in what the government and Quilliam are doing in their attempts to counter religious extremism. It’s very similar to what the Catholic Church did in the 16th century – making people feel ashamed for holding ‘radical’ views and actively seeking to suppress them. The former managing director of Al Jazeera has recently argued in an article for the Independent that the shunning of Islamist’s by Western news organisations drives recruitment for ISIS – and has highlighted the media’s general ignorance of the complexities involved when discussing political Islam.
Moreover, Dr Afshin Shahi – (Director of the Centre of Political Islam at Bradford University) has highlighted the serious PR (image) problems the Prevent strategy has, he points out that “those Muslims who are politically active see prevent as an extension of the British security forces.”[19] Hence, those who are susceptible to radicalization or are already part of extremist groups are going to be cautious and skeptical of any narrative or organisation which the government has funded.
If we analyse the effects of the Prevent strategy so far there is a worrying pattern – there have been numerous cases of teenagers being risk-assessed for merely asking for a prayer-room in their school. There have even been warnings from Sir Peter Fahy who believes the UK is drifting towards a “police state” in which officers have turned into “thought police” – as a former Chief constable he believes it’s foolish to expect the police to define what counts as extremism.[20] Quilliam societies have also been set-up in universities across the UK – with the aim of countering the ‘Islamist’ narrative, I think this is going to be another source of tension especially with the presence of so many Islamic societies who tend to invite speakers on Quilliam’s long blacklist of ‘dangerous radicals’.[21] These Quilliam societies aren’t going to do much more than rabble-rouse and complain about how gender segregation is against human rights.
Muslims not just in the UK but around the world are by default now required to prove they aren’t ‘extremists’ or associated with the ideology of Al Qaeda. Many UK Imams have accepted this gracefully without question, understanding the need to distinguish themselves for the sake of making non-Muslims feel more secure. Why? The followers of Islam aren’t second-class citizens. Just imagine asking a white atheist if they really condemn the crimes committed by Stalin? They will first laugh at you’re stupidity and then accuse you of being incredibly rude. Why can’t Muslims start responding in the same way? You don’t need to prove to people that you aren’t a murdering psychopath just because you have a beard or are wearing a veil. They should know better.
Another underlying assumption in the Prevent Strategy is that Muslims haven’t integrated or are having problems doing so – where is the statistical evidence of this? Have policy-makers ever entertained the idea that other communities disintegrated when they felt too many Asians were moving into their area? If so, it’s fair to conclude that white British people have problems integrating. There are so many embedded assumptions which have yet to be challenged.
Furthermore, Karma Nubulsi highlights that a recent government report cited the flying of a Palestinian flag by a borough council during the recent Gazan war was an illustration Antisemitism. Already a clear conflation between extremism and the Palestinian struggle for freedom.[22] This is a salient example of how this policy towards Muslims is being instrumentalized as a tool to silence political dissent. There have also been numerous cases that have been brought to Barrister Ibtihal Bsis which indicate that funneling money to specific Muslim groups has fuelled more sectarianism and created even more distrust and division in the British Muslim community.[23]
The same criticism regarding PR can be levied at the Quilliam Foundation. Its figurehead Maajid Nawaz has shared platforms with Neo-cons like Sam Harris & Douglas Murray and seem to agree on most issues relating to Islam and Muslims. In fact – a new book called Islam and The Future of Tolerance (co-authored by Harris and Nawaz) was published very recently. The problem of credibility is certainly a very real one when Quilliam’s main spokesman’s views are closely aligned with the author of The End of Faith (Sam Harris). What Muslim on the verge of radicalization is going to take Nawaz seriously? He was caught on camera in a strip club the day before marrying his wife.[24] I personally couldn’t care less whether he decides to go to a strip-club, but we must ask ourselves- is this really a person that a potential violent extremist is going to find charismatic or going to be influenced by? I highly doubt it. The fact he is David Cameron’s right hand man on issues relating to the British Muslim community also illustrates the naivety and real lack of effort our government has put into discovering an individual who is to some extent representative.
Maajid Nawaz has been caught out on many occasions making use of polls which have been carried out by right-wing think tanks like CSC (Centre for Social Cohesion). Notorious for their sensationalist-seeking headlines and vehement dislike for anything remotely Islamic. One poll aimed to assess the amount of Muslims in the UK who support the introduction of Shari’a or a worldwide caliphate and came to the conclusion that it was 33% based on interviews with 600 Muslim university students.[25] Nawaz sees it fit to extrapolate and generalize across all ages and sects, despite the fact there are over 2.6 million Muslims in the UK. I mention this because it’s important to see past his eloquence. He isn’t an expert on Islam or the British Muslim community. Just research into this poll he used in an Independent article.[26] It’s revealing – his research is incredibly poor – and yet him and his organisation have received over a million pounds in funding from tax-payers money. What has it all been used for?
I think the ‘elephant in the room’ when addressing radicalization, Islam and Muslims in the UK is that the government has a PR (image) problem which it alone is responsible for and needs to address with a more fairer and just foreign policy in the future- this will help dilute anger and prevent future terrorist attacks far more effectively than censorship. Secondly, on a more pragmatic note, critical thinking needs to be taught in schools and educational institutions across the UK – it is the perfect antidote to all forms of extremism, from far-right bigotry to violent Jihadist narratives. Banning an extremist speaker or an unsavoury video will only add to its appeal- equipping young people with the tools to discern between good and bad ideas is really the key.
To conclude, every single expert on the topic of radicalization has continuously referred to Western foreign policy as the underlying grievance which drives violent Jihadism. Attempts to obscure this by our government through the Prevent strategy or the support of think-tanks like the Quilliam Foundation who use the red herring of the Islamist narrative shouldn’t fool anyone. The government nor Quilliam want to bring about real change– they seem more intent on shifting the general public’s attention to the ‘dangers of political Islam’; diverting the focus from the primary cause of radicalization which is our irresponsible foreign policy – they do this at the expense of the security of their most vulnerable citizens.
Harith Armstrong is a student in Religion, Politics & Society at Kings College London. He has a deep interest in Islam and the affairs of the British Muslim community.
A new United Nations report published this February has criticised prevalent approaches to countering ‘radicalisation’ as ineffective, conceptually flawed, and more likely to reinforce extremist narratives than prevent them.
The report to the UN Human Rights Council is authored by Ben Emmerson QC, the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights.
Emmerson is a leading British lawyer, deputy High Court Judge, and British judge on the Residual Mechanism of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
His new report to the UN criticises “[m]any programmes directed at radicalisation” for being “based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way.”
Despite volumes of research and huge expenditures, he points out, “there are no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.”
To make matters worse, Emmerson concludes, “States have tended to focus on those [approaches] that are most appealing to them, shying away from the more complex issues, including political issues such as foreign policy and transnational conflicts.” This has led to a misguided “focus on religious ideology as the driver of terrorism and extremism”, and an escalating resort to repressive and discriminatory measures targeted at Muslim communities.
they may be ineffective in terms of addressing root causes of extremism and stopping people becoming radicals but they certainly are successful in promoting the narrative that islam is the problem and fueling the islamaphobia industry. being govt funded they just peddle the same narrative. they blame everything and everyone but the illegal wars they started, the supporting of despot leaders and unquestionable support for israhell.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah
