Tackling the Islamists

Several British groups stand accused of acting as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood. Should the stat

Yes, says Bob Lambert, a former senior Met officer

Britain can be proud of how it has provided a safe haven for members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood during the past three decades. Many escaped imprisonment and torture in countries run by corrupt dictators strongly supported by the west until the Arab spring. Now some are returning to their countries of origin to help build new democracies and bulwarks against future dictatorships in the Arab world.

In my book, Countering al-Qaeda in London, I document the bravery and success of Muslim Brotherhood activists in tackling al-Qaeda influence in Britain. This previously unheralded success is well illustrated by the removal of al-Qaeda influence from the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, a partnership project in which the local Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn, played a leading role. Interestingly, my own role in that story, as head of the Met's Muslim Contact Unit, has been criticised by Policy Exchange and other neoconservative think tanks as giving legitimacy and kudos to the Muslim Brotherhood, which they claim is "fascist".

David Cameron, influenced by, among others, his Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has adopted the neocon argument that police forces and civil servants should not partner British groups or individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and accuses them of being akin to the British National Party (BNP).

I agree that the police should not, under any circumstances, partner the BNP with a view to "deradicalising" violent extremists in groups such as Combat 18. However, I have found no compelling evidence to convince me that my former Muslim Brotherhood partners are similar to the BNP, and much to refute the claim. For example, the new management of the Finsbury Park Mosque works effectively with local Christian and Jewish groups. It is therefore wrong to characterise my approach as wittingly granting status and legitimacy to non-violent extremists - to set a thief to catch a thief, as some of my critics put it.

Instead, I have found the overwhelming majority of Muslim Brotherhood figures in Britain to be similar in outlook to Rachid Ghannouchi, head of Ennahda, the Islamist party that was victorious in Tunisia's elections last month. Having gone from a modest home in north London to the plush new headquarters of Ennahda and the levers of power in Tunis, Ghannouchi is a good example of the compatibility between the political ambitions of many British members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood and democratic norms.

To ignore their notable civic achievements and demonise them as a subversive threat is unfair, ill-conceived and serves to divert precious resources better deployed against real threats to public safety.

Dr Robert Lambert is the former head of the Metropolitan Police's Muslim Contact Unit

 

No, says Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist activist

Until recently the domestic approach to the "Muslim Question" - involving issues of identity, citizenship, integration, extremism, immigration and religious freedom - could be caricatured as being populated by the "good", the "bad" and the "ugly". The "good" - patronising, self-righteous liberals, full of the very thing they riled against, colonial baggage - held that "the Muslim community" should appoint a "chief" to speak on behalf of his (for it was always a he) "savage" community, which could obviously not speak for itself or establish any form of identity beyond the collective "Muslim" label imposed on its varying cultures and sects.

The "bad", being the inverse of the "good", ironically carried the same baggage and insisted that, to integrate into western society, all Muslims must completely assimilate and shed any heritage from their "alien" culture, or "go home". From this simplified, post-colonial polarisation emerged the "ugly". These were politicised, agenda-driven Muslim umbrella groups that leapt at the chance of being chiefs for the Muslim "savage" and simultaneously claimed to defend Muslims against the "bad".

The "community groups" naturally emerged from those who self-identified as exclusively Muslim in politics - the Islamists - and the UK-based Muslim Brotherhood affiliates were the most organised of these. Through such bodies as the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), or its south Asian counterpart, the Islamic Forum of Europe, the public face of Muslims became increasingly associated with politicised religion. By acting as a front for the political agenda of their parent Islamist organisations abroad, these so-called community groups hijacked the progress of Muslims as Britons by taking stances embroiled in the bitter politics of the Middle East.

I refer here to the likes of the former MAB spokesman Azzam Tamimi and his statement that, were he in Palestine, he would engage in a suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. I also refer to the recent, rather flippant posthumous praise that the MAB founder Kamal el-Helbawy heaped on the late leader of al-Qaeda: "I ask Allah to have mercy upon Osama Bin Laden, to treat him generously, to enlighten his grave and to make him join the prophets . . ."

My stance takes nothing away from the brutality of the Arab despots in contention to whom these groups emerged, or their right to claim asylum here, and does not detract from the many excesses of the Israeli government. I also do not restrict my concerns to Islamist groups. How one should engage with the Brotherhood inside Egypt is one thing - I shared a cell in Egypt as a prisoner of conscience with its current global leader and consider him someone I can talk to - but propping up such groups as Muslim "representatives" inside the UK provided the perfect scapegoat for the "bad" to tarnish all Muslims with the terrorism libel.

I would appreciate not having as a political interlocutor the imam of my local mosque; worse still an Islamist spokesman who is unable to see me as much more than a member of the Muslim Internationale in Britain, awaiting the return of the Caliphate somewhere else. My identity is made up of more than my faith alone.

I am a proud Muslim, but I am also a liberal, a Briton, a Pakistani, a Londoner, a father, a product of the globalised world who speaks English, Arabic and Urdu. And yes, I am even an Essex boy, with a distinct gait. Just as we refuse to be viewed solely through the narrow lens of "terrorism", so we should refuse to be viewed only as Muslims. And we would appreciate not being patronised.

Maajid Nawaz is the director of Quilliam. He tweets as @maajidnawaz

A longer version of his article can be read here.

This article first appeared in the 28 November 2011 issue of the New Statesman, The rise of the muslim brotherhood

Picture: David Parkin
Show Hide image

The humbling of Theresa May

The Prime Minister has lost all authority. The Tories will remove her as soon as they feel the time is right.

Being politicians of unsentimental, ruthless realism, the Conservatives did not linger in the grief stage of their collective disaster after the general election. Disbelief, too, was commendably brief.

Currently, their priority is to impose some sort of order on themselves. This is the necessary prelude to the wholesale change that most see as the next phase in their attempt at recovery, which they all know is essential to their career prospects – and believe is vital to a country whose alternative prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn.

For that reason, talk of Theresa May enduring as Prime Minister until the end of the Brexit negotiations in two years’ time is the preserve of just a few wishful thinkers. Some sort of calm is being established but the party is far from settled or united; there is a widespread conviction that it cannot be so under the present leader.

Elements of the great change have been executed, as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, May’s former advisers, will testify.

However, this is only beginning, as shown by the debate in the media about how long May can survive in Downing Street. There is dissatisfaction about elements of her recent reshuffle, but it is quieted because few believe that some of the more contentious appointments or reappointments will last more than a matter of months. Her colleagues are also alarmed by the meal she has made of doing what was supposed to be a straightforward deal with the DUP.

The climate in the party at the moment is one in which everything – jobs, policies and, of course, the leadership – will soon be up for grabs. Debate over “hard” and “soft” Brexits is illusory: anyone who wants to be Conservative leader will need to respect the view of the party in the country, which is that Britain must leave the single market and the customs union to regain control of trade policy and borders. That is one reason why the prospects of David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, are being talked up.

Some of May’s MPs, for all their hard-mindedness about the future, speak of feeling “poleaxed” since the general election. Even before the result changed everything, there was dismay about the bad national campaign; but that, it was felt, could be discussed in a leisurely post-mortem.

Now, instead, it has undermined faith in May’s leadership and credibility. “The social care disaster was key to our defeat,” an MP told me. “It wasn’t just that the policy damaged our core vote, it was the amateurishness of the U-turn.” A more seasoned colleague noted that “it was the first election I’ve fought where we succeeded in pissing off every section of our core vote”.

The limited ministerial reshuffle was inevitable given May’s lack of authority, and summed up her untenability beyond the short term. Most of her few important changes were deeply ill judged: notably the sacking of the skills and apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow in Essex, and a rare Tory with a direct line to the working class; and the Brexit minister David Jones, whose job had hardly begun and whose boss, Davis, was not consulted.

George Bridges, another Brexit minister, who resigned, apparently did so because he felt May had undermined the government’s position in the negotiations so badly, by failing to win the election comprehensively, that he could not face going on.

Much has been made of how Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, was marginalised and briefed against, yet reappointed. Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman, suffered similarly. Conservative Central Office was largely shut out from the catastrophic campaign, though no one got round to briefing against McLoughlin, who kept his head down – unheard-of conduct by a party chairman in an election.

As a political force, Central Office is for now more or less impotent. It has lost the knack of arguing the case for Conservatism. MPs are increasingly worried that their party is so introspective that it just can’t deal with the way Corbyn is spinning his defeat. “An ugly mood is growing,” one said, “because militant leftism is going unchallenged.” That cannot change until May has gone and the party machine is revived and re-inspired.

***

Nobody in the party wants a general election: but most want a leadership election, and minds are concentrated on how to achieve the latter without precipitating the former. One angry and disillusioned ex-minister told me that “if there were an obvious candidate she’d be shitting herself. But most of us have realised Boris is a wanker, DD isn’t a great communicator and is a bit up himself, Hammond has no charisma, and Amber [Rudd] has a majority of 346.”

On Monday a group of senior ex-ministers met at Westminster to discuss next steps. It was agreed that, with the Brexit talks under way, the most important thing in the interests of restoring order was securing the vote on the Queen’s Speech. Then, May having done her duty and steadied the proverbial ship, the party would manage her dignified and calm evacuation from Downing Street.

Those who agree on this do not always agree on the timing. However, few can make the leap of imagination required to see her addressing the party conference in October, unless to say “Thank you and goodnight” and to initiate a leadership contest. Many would like her out long before then. The only reason they don’t want it this side of securing the Queen’s Speech is that the result, as one put it, would be “chaos”, with a leadership contest resembling “a circular firing squad”.

That metaphor is popular among Tories these days. Others use it to describe the ­apportioning of blame after the election. As well as Timothy and Hill, Lynton Crosby has sustained severe wounds that may prevent the Tories from automatically requesting his services again.

Following the Brexit referendum and Zac Goldsmith’s nasty campaign for the London mayoralty, Crosby has acquired the habit of losing. And then there was Ben Gummer, blamed not only for the social care debacle, but also for upsetting fishermen with a vaguely couched fisheries policy. These failings are becoming ancient history – and the future, not the past, is now the urgent matter – yet some Conservatives still seethe about them despite trying to move on.

“I haven’t heard anyone say she should stay – except Damian Green,” a former minister observed, referring to the new First Secretary of State. Green was at Oxford with May and seems to have earned his job because he is one of her rare friends in high politics. He is regarded as sharing her general lack of conviction.

Older activists recall how the party, in 1974, clung loyally to Ted Heath after he lost one election, and even after he lost a second. Now, deference is over. Most Tory activists, appalled by the handling of the campaign, want change. They would, however, like a contest: annoyed at not having been consulted last time, they intend not to be left silent again.

That view is largely reflected at Westminster, though a few MPs believe a coronation wouldn’t be a problem, “as we don’t want a public examination of the entrails for weeks on end when we need to be shown to be running the country effectively”. Most MPs disagree with that, seeing where a coronation got them last time.

With the summer recess coming up, at least the public’s attention would not be on Westminster if the contest took place mostly during that time: hence the feeling that, once the Queen’s Speech is dealt with, May should announce her intention to leave, in order to have a successor in place before the conference season. It is then up to the party to design a timetable that compresses the hustings between the final two candidates into as short a time as compatible with the democratic process, to get the new leader in place swiftly.

Some letters requesting a contest are said to have reached Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers. One MP told me with great authority that there were eight; another, with equal certainty, said 12. Forty-eight are needed to trigger the procedure. However, engineering such a contest is not how most Tories would like to proceed. “She has had an international humiliation,” a former cabinet minister said, “and it is transparently ghastly for her. Then came the [Grenfell Tower] fire. There is no sense our rubbing it in. I suspect she knows she has to go. We admire her for staying around and clearing up the mess in a way Cameron didn’t. But she is a stopgap.”

MPs believe, with some justification, that the last thing most voters want is another general election, so caution is paramount. None doubts that the best outcome for all concerned would be for May to leave without being pushed.

Her tin-eared response to the Grenfell disaster shocked colleagues with its amateurishness and disconnection. “I’m sure she’s very upset by Grenfell,” someone who has known her since Oxford said. “But she is incapable of showing empathy. She has no bridge to the rest of the world other than Philip.” Another, referring to the controversial remark that torpedoed Andrea Leadsom’s leadership ambitions last year, said: “You would get shot for saying it, but not having had children hasn’t helped her when it comes to relating to people. Leadsom was right.”

***

May was quicker off the mark on Monday, issuing a statement condemning the appalling attack at Finsbury Park Mosque swiftly after it occurred, and going there shortly afterwards to meet community leaders. No one could fault her assurance that Muslims must enjoy the same protection under the law as everyone else, or the speed and sincerity with which it was made. She is learning what leadership entails, but too late.

Her administration has become unlucky. This happened to John Major, but, as in his case, the bad luck is partly down to bad decisions; and the bad luck that comes out of the blue simply piles in on top of everything else. Grenfell Tower, lethal and heartbreaking for its victims and their families, was merely more bad luck for the Prime Minister because of her slow-witted response and failure – presumably because shorn of her closest advisers – to do the right thing, and to do it quickly.

But then it turned out that her new chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, had in his previous incarnation as a housing minister received a report on improving fire safety in tower blocks and done nothing about it. That is either more bad luck, or it shows May has dismal judgement in the quality of people she appoints to her close circle. Form suggests the latter.

The idea aired last weekend, that May had “ten days to prove herself”, was a minority view. For most of her colleagues it is too late. It was typical of Boris Johnson’s dwindling band of cheerleaders that they should broadcast a story supporting Davis as an “interim” leader: “interim” until Johnson’s credibility has recovered sufficiently for him to have another pop at the job he covets so much.

They also sought to create the impression that Davis is on manoeuvres, which he resolutely is not. Davis has been around long enough to know that if he wants to succeed May – and his friends believe he does – he cannot be seen to do anything to destabilise her further. It is a lesson lost on Johnson’s camp, whose tactics have damaged their man even more than he was already.

Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary and a close ally of Davis, told the Guardian: “. . . it is simply untrue that he is doing anything other
than focusing on his incredibly important brief and giving loyal support to the Prime Minister. Anyone suggesting otherwise is freelancing.” That summed up the contempt Davis’s camp has for Johnson, and it will last long beyond any leadership race.

There is a sense that, in the present febrile climate, whoever is the next leader must be highly experienced. Davis qualifies; so does Hammond, who before his present job was foreign secretary and defence secretary, and who has belatedly displayed a mind of his own since May was hobbled. Hugo Swire, a minister of state under Hammond in the Foreign Office, said of him: “He’s got bottom. He was very good to work for. He is an homme sérieux. I liked him very much and he would calm things down.”

But, as yet, there is no contest. Calls for calm have prevailed, not least thanks to Graham Brady’s steady stewardship of the 1922 Committee, and his success in convincing the more hot-headed of his colleagues to hold their fire. Yet MPs say the 1922 is not what it was 20 years ago: ministers have become used to taking it less seriously.

However, many MPs expect Brady, at a time of their choosing, to go to Downing Street and deliver the poison pill to Theresa May if she is slow to go. Some who know her fear she might take no notice. If she were to play it that way, her end would be unpleasant. As the old saying goes, there is the easy way, and there is the hard way. Remarkably few of her colleagues want to go the hard way but, like everything else in the Tory party at the moment, that could change.

Simon Heffer is a journalist, author and political commentator, who has worked for long stretches at the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He has written biographies of Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Enoch Powell, and reviews and writes on politics for the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496