Registered user login:

Extremism is going unchallenged

Shiraz Maher

Published 03 April 2008

Government efforts have no impact

We shouldn't be equivocal about it. Since the events of 9/11, Britain has faced a unique and unprecedented threat from al-Qaeda against our society, citizens and way of life. It is not overstating the case to say that we have been under constant and sustained attack, more so than any other country in the western world. More startling, however, is the realisation that every one of those plots has involved our own citizens: invariably men born and raised in Britain, whose experiences have been shaped, not by the madrasas of Lahore, but by the mullahs of London. And, in that sense, the government's attempts to engage young Muslims have been woefully inadequate so far.

In October last year I broadcast a documentary for the BBC's Panorama and travelled to inner-city Bradford to meet a group of young men and women aged 14-18 at the Khidmat Centre, which provides young Muslims with a space to socialise away from the mosques. This is the key demographic the government has identified as being particularly vulnerable to extremist recruitment. But, more than two years on from 7/7, and after £6m had been spent on a "Pathfinder" scheme for preventing violent extremism, no one in the group was successfully able to rebut even the most basic extremist ideas, when asked if they could do so. One of the participants told me, "I was interested in reading up about an extremist group because I thought, 'Yeah, that's right.'"

The government's initial efforts gave way last month to a Preventing Violent Extremism fund (PVE), with £45m of investment. It has already been riddled with difficulties and has made little impact on the ground. Local councils are unwilling to adopt the performance indicators that accompany the money issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Where money has been allocated there is already evidence it is being used in nonsensical ways.

Tower Hamlets Council has backed the Cordoba Foundation, which runs the Muslim Debating Society, with money. It then promptly invited in Dr Abdul-Wahid from Hizb ut-Tahrir and Makbool Javaid, a "legal observer" for the now banned al-Muhajiroun, who told young Muslims that political participation in Britain was futile and that democracy is forbidden in Islamic law. Their supporters flooded the room, drowning out other voices. Herein lies one of the government's biggest problems: communication. It has thus far failed to communicate its vision to young Muslims effectively, allowing extremist movements to spread their separatist agenda unchallenged.

Of course, the government cannot enter the theological debate which drives Islamist terror. That is a battle that needs to be fought by the Muslim community, and there are grounds for cautious optimism. Since the publication of Ed Husain's remarkable book The Islamist last summer, a network of former Islamists has emerged who are, for the first time, uniting behind a common project - to challenge the extremist ideology they once helped proliferate.

Their group, the Quilliam Foundation, will be launched later this month, and is led by Maajid Nawaz, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir's executive committee in Britain who was imprisoned in Cairo for trying to inspire an Islamist revolution there, before he renounced extremism. The Quilliam Foundation has ensured its independence by raising money from private Muslim donors, while, paradoxically, the government is inadvertently undermining it by funding separatist agendas through the PVE fund.

While it's not the government's place to offer a commentary on the Quran, it can ensure that it does not empower the wrong groups of people. And it needs to ensure its reasoning is effectively communicated to young Muslims on the ground. Without that, a perception has been created that the entire community is under siege and that the war on terror is actually a smokescreen for a war on Islam.

There are signs that this is changing, with the creation last year of a new cross-departmental unit in Whitehall, the Research, Information and Communications Unit. Just how successful it will be remains to be seen. If the debacle surrounding PVE is anything to go by, don't hold your breath.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

JamesBate
03 April 2008 at 10:43

MalcomX once said while being interviewed on the television that there are two types of slaves, house slave and a field slave (those who do not know what I am talking about please Google). What he is written in the above article is nothing different from what is written by all the x-extremist who are only relevant to the debate and survive on the backdrop of fear mongering about a monster that is waiting to eat us all.

Their bread and butter is writing about their former organizations to keep them relevant to the debate.

Shiraz Maher along with his cohort i.e. those belong to Quillium Foundation which is privately funded by dictators in the Middle East backed by British and US governments are doing nothing but helping the government to curtail our freedoms. They conveniently belong to the earlier version of the slaves in MalcomX interview.

Their articles are pushing an agenda, bias and absent of intellectual vigour. They make no reference to British foreign policy, Iraq war, occupation of foreign lands etc which is the real cause of radicalisation of youth in Britain.

I have written in my comments earlier that New Statesman need to distance themselves from these characters, who are only helping the government draconian practices.

apocalypse76
03 April 2008 at 14:32

I believe that the speech in Question can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zUIjP4KWok

It should be noted that Malcolm X delivered this speech in front of Coretta Scott King and was NEVER invited to speak in front of the NAACP or "civil rights" groups again.

Similarly, his description of house slaves and the use of the term "we" when referring to their slavemasters homes seems pretty apt given this article above.

regards,

V

Iftikhar
03 April 2008 at 16:50

Muslim community needs state funded Muslim schoos with bilingual Muslim teachers as role model. There is no extremism among Muslim youths. The British society and Establishment must learn to accommodate Muslims. They have been victim of racism in all walks of life

writeon
03 April 2008 at 21:41

This is really neo-conservative propaganda served up to justify Western military agression aime at securing control of the Middle East for two primary reasons that overlap; the conitinued Israeli occupation of Palestine and our unfettered access to the regions energy reserves, perhaps the greatest 'prize' in history.

How exactly is the 'threat' form al-Queda 'unique' and 'unprecedented'? How exactly is our 'sociey', 'way of life' threatened? Compared to the two wars against Germany, al-Queda is merely an irritant of marginal importance. Hasn't the author heard of the Blitz when thousands of citizens were killed, and our cities were burning, night after night?

This article is so anti-historical, so much so one is almost driven to dispair when reading it, is this rubbish really influential? Do people take it seriously?

What's dangerous is the absurd idea that the world somehow changed after 9/11. The world that existed before 9/11 is conveniently forgotten. 9/11 was an act of revenge for decades of Western agression aimed at the Middle East, but when we kill, we fool ourselves that somehow are hands are still clean and unblooded. 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost. Finally, for a change, someone decided to bring the killing home to us and rub our noses in death and destruction.

This sounds brutal and heartless, but we cannot delude ourselves that our actions in the Middle East in some magical way, have no consequences, that we can remain aloof and insulated and safe, whilst others suffer and die because of our policies.

We are not being 'attacked', though after Iraq and Afghanistan it's debatable as to who is really doing the real attacking; because people hate us for our freedoms and democracy. We are being attacked because our policies deny freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Middle East. In the region we support, arm and train, tyrants and dictators, because they serve our interests. We've been doing this for decades. We've been attacking and occupying the Middle East for decades. What about the invasion of Palestine, doesn't that even count, are people supposed to just sit back and take it and shrug? Have we even decided to take away their legitimate right to resist and fight to regain their country?

If it is 'legitimate' to take Palestine by armed force, why is it illegitimate to attempt to resist the occupation by armed force? A country captured and emptied by 'terror', and then we suddenly decide that terror is wrong, once we are finished utlizing it. How can we be so hypocritical?

Two things, above all, characterizes official Western attitudes to the Middle East, our monumental and our lies. But who are we attempting to fool, it can only be ourselves, because most ordinary people in the region, apart from their corrupt leaders who are our slaves, understand what's really happening on the ground while we pontificate about 'peace'. What's really going on is that we are busy taking Arab land peice by peice.

I think we need to examine what's causing Christian and Jewish terror in the region. Maybe we should our Christian offensive against Islam and withdraw all our forces and support for the tyrants, kings and despots throughout the region, and impose economic sanctions on Israel until it withdraws from the occupied territories and allows the millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land which they were ethnically cleansed from.

What's fundamentally extraordinary about the article is this completely bogus idea that we in the West are innocent, neutral, bystanders, that have been viciously attacked by terrorist madmen for absolutely no reason whatsoever. That the terrorist hate us because we are so good, like demons hate the good. This kind of argumentation and ideology is so absurd, so far from the truth, that I believe it's close to insane. It serves a dirty ideology and hides the truth, but that doesn't mean it isn't crazy and very dangerous at the same time.

We will never 'win' the war on terror, because the more 'Arabs' we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine, the more of them will vow to strike back at us, it'll just continue decade after decade, until we won't even rememer why we're fighting anymore. What a wonderful prospect!

We could of course choose another course altogether and end the fighting. We could call a truce and withdraw our armies from the region and the oil-fields, and withdraw support for Israel until it begins withdrawing from the occupied territories, stops attacking the Palestinians, and begins honest and meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian people on an equitable basis.

But the problem is a truce, a ceasefire, withdrawal and negociations, would imply that the enemy isn't just mad, but has justified and ligitimate grievances, that need to be taken seriously and that we are not innocents with clean hands at all, but are partial and involved in a long and bloody conflict, that 9/11 has a history behind it. Clealy our current corrupt political leadership cannot accept such a thesis. In order to hide and justify our agression we have to pretend that the invasion of Palestine never happend, that the refugees simple don't exist, that don't support dictators over the entire region who trample on the democratic ideals we claim to support. It would mean us getting off the drug of ignorance and amnesia, and opening our eyes and minds to the cold, stark, truth about ourselves and our actions for a change, some chance!

Saqib Bukhari
04 April 2008 at 20:44

This is simply the latest episode by an 'ex-extremist' who is now siding with the British government, and thus, has lost all credibility amongst the Muslim community. The same goes for the likes of Majid Nawaz and Ed Hussain, who often jump on the band wagons of Panaroma and Newsnight.

The problem with your appraoch, Shiraz, is that all your ideas, which are ideologically opposing to the ones you previously used to hold, have no intellectual weight and many are questioning the entire construct of capitalism, secularism and the values they espouse. It is clear that these values are creating mass insecurity and havoc on the streets of London, to the point where many are questioning the entire British way of Life! I suggest, Shiraz, that you have a re-think on your position and study the Shariah as a guide for the whole of life's affairs, be it social, economic and yes -political. Muslims are gaining greater confidence with Islam and are increasingly shunning the solutions posed by the liberal elites and your attempts at appearing on TV and writing articles will not achieve your objective.

jimdenham
04 April 2008 at 22:11

|Well done, Shiraz. And just ignore islamo-fascist ignoramouses like Saqib Bukahari . You're on the progressive and winning side, now. We'll beat the fascists!

KB Player
05 April 2008 at 17:49

"It is clear that these values are creating mass insecurity and havoc on the streets of London"

The greatest insecurity and havoc of recent memory was the July 7 bombing - carried out by the Islamists that Saqib Bukahari seems to extol, going by his following paragraphs..

"study the Shariah as a guide for the whole of life's affairs, be it social, economic and yes -political. Muslims are gaining greater confidence with Islam and are increasingly shunning the solutions posed by the liberal elites and your attempts at appearing on TV and writing articles will not achieve your objective."

And what's Saqib Bukahari's objective after all that studying Shariah politics and economics as far as Britain is concerned? The whole of the nation under Shariah or an Islamist separate part of Britain under Shariah?

Saqib Bukhari
05 April 2008 at 18:21

In order to address both KB Player and jimdenham, I will briefly elaborate on my views as far as shariah etc is concerned. Firstly, I do not extol nor condone nor praise the actions of 7/7 and have just as much anger towards these actions as you. Such acts of violence are strongly prohibited under shariah.

Secondly, I do not think it is wise to refer to me as an Islamo fascist. This is totally unjustified and I will give my reasons now. As far as shariah's application is concerned, I would not go out of my way to have it implemented in Britain so I do not believe that Muslims should be focusing on creating a shariah state in Britain. However, what I strongly would say is that Muslims should extol their efforts in attempting to implement shariah in their own lands, in the Muslim world. I say this for 2 reasons. Firstly, their heritage is based on Islam and subsequently, their values. Secondly, the Muslim world has experienced nationalism, socialism, secularism and many other isms and they all have created anger and frustration amongst its populaces. In light of this, Muslims need to apply Islam and if that creates a shambled result, then I will be the first one to admit that it too was a failure. So, based on my view, would you still call me an Islamo-fascist?

knave
06 April 2008 at 20:08

Brilliant writeon.

Much better than the article.

"Muslim community needs state funded Muslim schoos with bilingual Muslim teachers as role model. There is no extremism among Muslim youths. The British society and Establishment must learn to accommodate Muslims. They have been victim of racism in all walks of life"

As a secularist I feel the way to break down barriers is through an education system based on understanding and respecting different cultures but non religeous and secular in nature.

KB Player
09 April 2008 at 22:44

Saqib Bukhari

"Such acts of violence are strongly prohibited under shariah. "

And under ordinary common decency as well.

"the Muslim world has experienced nationalism, socialism, secularism and many other isms and they all have created anger and frustration amongst its populaces"

I suppose Iran is the closest to your ideal Islamist state. And all is contentment and serenity there?

"In light of this, Muslims need to apply Islam and if that creates a shambled result, then I will be the first one to admit that it too was a failure"

The word "shambled" seems apt considering the original meaning of the word "shambles" was "slaughter-house".

javK
26 April 2008 at 03:29

It is interesting that all the negative comments against Bukhari rest on tabloid journalism and the propaganda they push day in day out.

Guys, sharia is a general term covering criminal and civil law - it is not about chopping hands off.

I would say that the Legal system (as well as political/economic/social systems) need major reforms.

The economic disparity we see in this country, the yob culture, the injustice fathers see in divorce matters etc all are indicative that Shariah and Islam can contribute something to the debate - at least a debate should happen rather than sticking the head in the sand and ignoring it all.

Finally, Shiraz et al advocate an Islamicised form of politics, albeit one that is informed by a purely token form of utilitarian form of ethics whilst the rest of the Muslims whom they are arguing against prefer to advocate a mix of Islam and Politics, unadulterated.

(PS sorry you did not get an offer to study your PHD cos of your links to HT - must be disappointing!)

javK
25 June 2008 at 06:46

Two interesting takes:

One is a detailed intellectual critique of all these ex-activist characters and their new secular ideology: http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/

Secondly, an amusing satire for those of you the above critique is too deep:

I have a revelation to make. I too was a member of a very dangerous political party and used to attend secretive party meetings and talk about many party philosophies. But when i discovered that this party would and eventually supported the killing of millions of innocent people around the world in order to promote their ideology i had to leave. I then had to decide how i could give back to society what is owed to them i decided to join the conservative party. But i have heared that Mr Cameroon was a raving loony and was no different from my ex-party; and often make crazy remarks just like the facist BNP, so i decided that conservative party was not for me. My ex party leader, Mr Blair and now Mr Brown wants to shut me up by censoring me. They claim that i am an extreemist because i do not support them in their dangerous mission to take over the world by any means necessary. They want me to insult other people's prophets, force then to give up their values, and not allow them to decide their political destiny. They claim that this is democracy. Yes, i had to leave Labour party and their cult like structure.,.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will power sharing work in Zimbabwe?