I sense that the signatories of this letter would rather perpetuate problems and grievances than find solutions
This is quite a difficult response to write, as I am guaranteed to be labelled ‘Islamophobic’. Both I and my organisation will receive a continuous stream of ad hominem attacks, most completely untrue, but peppered with elements that are publically believed, hard to disprove or irrelevant.
But regardless of how difficult this is, it is necessary because I think Wednesday’s joint statement, headlined ‘Muslim Community rejects the State’s criminalisation of Islam and condemns moves to silence legitimate critique and dissent’, is detrimental to integration, will worsen community cohesion and offers no progressive solutions to the challenging policy area of counter-extremism.
At best, the hyperbolic language – such as the claim that the UK has criminalised Islam and that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act is McCarthyite – is negligent, as it perpetuates the myth that there is institutionalised discrimination against Muslims in the UK and that we don’t respect Freedom of Religion here.
At worst, it is nefarious, as it serves to shut down debate, for such charged language will put Britons off speaking out and will make them feel anti-Muslim for doing so. It pushes naïve followers of the signatories to buy into a victimhood narrative, exacerbating the polarising ‘them-and-us’ construct that is so intrinsic to the radicalisation process, and a key part of its escalation to violent extremism.
But of course to say so has been pre-empted by the writers, and therefore the signatories, who have got their retaliation in first by saying “words like radicalisation and extremism [are] unacceptable”. This all shuts down debate about phenomena that clearly need to be tackled and is pretty commonplace for the self-styled anti-Prevent lobby, whose perpetual focus on the Prevent brand has added to its ‘toxicity’.
This is a difficult policy area for a number of reasons, and Quilliam is actively and independently working to improve and refine counter-extremism and present evidence-based policy advice for both the UK government and other governments internationally. Take my project to promote adherence to human rights in counter-terrorism legislation, for example, or another to work with the European Commission to improve evaluation, due diligence and cost-effectiveness of counter-extremism work across the EU.
Furthermore, look at Quilliam’s repeated calls for the separation of counter-terrorism from counter-extremism, both strategically and structurally, meaning that law enforcement agencies would have less interaction with educational institutions and stop the over-securitisation of this agenda. Or alternatively, see our pushing for a civil society approach to counter-extremism, which would involve adequate training for frontline workers who are better placed than the police to do effective values-based primary prevention work, and spot radicalisation as part of targeted prevention work.
Many of our findings and recommendations would improve the lot for British Muslims, but I sense that the signatories of this letter would rather perpetuate problems and grievances than find solutions. Only those whose currency is the politics of identity benefit from sowing tribal divisions. Moreover, improvements to counter-extremism policy are not desirable if you fundamentally oppose even the premise of counter-extremism like some of the signatories, who want to fabricate the illusion of, or indeed strive to create, critical mass in support of Islamism and in opposition to secular liberal democratic states.
The letter again pre-empts this accusation by suggesting that opposing “normative Islamic opinions” is a ploy to silence speakers. This is savvy positioning, as it simultaneously attempts to whitewash various views of its signatories that are antithetical to human rights as normative, and suggests that any opposition to this goes against our treasured liberal progressive human rights values.
In response to this, it is worth having a look at the particular views of some of the signatories, such as Abdurraheem Green’s anti-Semitism, Haitham Haddad’s support for female genital mutilation and suicide bombing in Israel or Iraq, or the views of Hizb ut-Tahrir, represented over 20 times in this 170-strong list, which include the stoning of adulteresses among the aims for their aspired-to caliphate.
I certainly don’t assume that everyone on the list shares those views, but I do question their judgement in aligning with such figures.
Here is the problem for the signatories – Quilliam has repeatedly insisted that the UK should not ban Islamist groups that stop short of committing, promoting, or preparing violent actions. Exposing and criticising bad ideas, logical fallacies, or an ideology that often creates an atmosphere conducive to terrorism, is a much better pursuit than legislating against them and does, in fact, uphold our ‘values and liberal freedoms’.
This does not mean that we should legitimise those who hold these views by giving them an unopposed platform, exposing vulnerable people to their poisonous ideology, or funding them from the public purse to counter violent extremism. Establishing the difference between legality and legitimacy is important, and recognises that non-legislative tools may be necessary to counter extremism of all kinds.
Lastly, we must remember that very often both the anti-Muslim far-right and the Islamist far-right see Muslims as a monolithic bloc. Sadly, the media often makes this mistake too and I don’t think it is helpful to assume that these 170 signatories speak for or represent the ‘Muslim community’, just as Quilliam never claims to.
Striving for representativeness feeds this fallacy for three reasons: firstly, it invariably prioritises religious identity over all others, perpetuating a central Islamist narrative. Secondly, the notion that Islamists might be representative is shattered when you consider their views towards women, gay people, and any Muslim who doesn’t absolutely agree with them, undeniably more than 50 per cent of the total Muslim population. Thirdly, a 2006 YouGov poll (p80) found the MCB, widely assumed to represent more British Muslims than any other group, only had 6 per cent support, and aren’t even included among the signatories.
Some newspapers, blind to such nuance, feed this with lazy headlines.
I too affirm my “commitment to robust political and ideological debate and discourse for the betterment of humanity at large”. My starting point is that Islam, secular liberal democratic values, and our work to counter extremism are all compatible.
Signed,
Jonathan Russell, political liaison officer at Quilliam
134 Responses to “Not in my Name: the ‘Joint UK Muslim Statement’ offers no progressive solutions”
SarahAB
He wasn’t discrediting Quilliam, just saying he believed it had little support from Muslims.
ronmurp
“So you’re not aware of what Muslims actually say.”
What a dumb question.
Many different Muslims say many different things. Which ones are you asking about? The ones that conveniently fit your bigoted agenda? See, it’s easy to play the takfir game – thought takfir is an actual ‘thing’ in Islam its methods have been applied to many ideologies through the ages – including fascist and communist systems of the 20th century.
I am aware of what some liberal Muslims say, when they acknowledge the problems in the content of the texts of Islam, where violance is required to keep people in the religion, to prevent criticism from outside the religion, to enforce rediculously ptriarchal laws for matters that are personal: adultery, homosexuality.
I am aware of what many ‘moderate’ Muslims say, when they denounce ISIS as unislamic in their barbarity, and yet themselves have difficulty rejecting the violence in the texts that the liberal Muslims do.
I am aware of extremists like ISIS who quote from the Islamic texts in doing what they do.
The liberals acknowledge the problem, and would reform Islam. The extremists follow the texts and denounce all other Muslims for not doing so completely.
Only the ‘moderates’ play the game of words, hiding behind ‘scholarship’, ‘nuance’, ‘context’ – all weasely words used to hide thet fact that in believing the inerrancy of the Quran, no matter how civil and peaceful they are personally, they simply cannot reject the barbarity.
“You’re indoctrinated in your right wing’s bigotry, as you oppose rationality and humanism.”
There you are, going all ‘takfir’ on me. I’m a liberal humanism, I’m a member of humanist organisations. Have you really not noticed that Islam is a conservative religion at its core? Have you not noticed that the texts are ideal for encouraging ‘right wing’ bigotry? You really think many many ‘moderate’ Muslims are not bigoted in their views of homosexuality, when their inerrant religion demands it?
“Your garbage is no better than that of any Islamist – not Muslim, Islamist.”
Islamists are a **subset** of Muslims, you fool. They are not the same as ALL Muslims, because Muslims are a diverse lot. Pretending some subset of Muslims are not Muslims because other Muslims feel it makes them look bad is down right stupid, and dishonest.
In the end, of course, you offered no argument, nothing to ponder, nothing that might make one think, oh, has ‘Guest’ got a point? Your’s was simply a rant.
Hey, ‘Guest’, whoever you are hiding behind that anonymity, you’re not Glenn Greenwald or perhaps Asim Qureshi, doing a bit of trolling, are you? Or is ‘Guest’ your actual name? Advice: use a better name.
Anyway, thank you for the prod that gave me an excuse to expand further, while not making any point at all yourself.
Trolls. Gotta take when they offer.
damon
What a tiresome person you are Leon Wolfeson. You’re skirting the issues the Quilliam guy raises by attacking others who say things you don’t want to admit.
When Muslim people say publicly that Quilliam has little support and they are not respected because they take money from a government that harasses Muslims I don’t dismiss that out of hand. It seems to have credibility. As does the wider Muslim opinion on the governments ”Prevent” strategy. It’s not supported.
But still you managed to have a pop at me for just stating that. (Because you are dishonest and obfuscate).
The key question is how representative the people who signed that letter are.
How representative are the people who go along to the Global Peace and Unity events that attract thousands, and have some very dodgy speakers getting big rounds of applause from those who attend?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_and_Unity
Is it good enough that they are still a minority, as most Muslims are not so interested in attending such things? And that because they are a minority its not a problem?
I think that’s your angle Wolfe.
damon
Hi Sarah. Don’t worry about him, that’s Leon and he’s bonkers.
Bob
Jonathan Russell: “Quilliam has repeatedly insisted that the UK should not ban Islamist groups that stop short of committing, promoting, or preparing violent actions.”
Quilliam’s founding figures were in fact divided over this issue. Maajid Nawaz opposed a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir. Ed Husain, however, repeatedly argued in favour. For example:
“Today, in our midst, Hizb ut-Tahrir calls for an expansionist, violent, totalitarian Islamist state – and we continue to ignore it. There is no quick fix to the problem of home-grown terrorism, but banning Hizb ut-Tahrir would be an excellent first step, sending a strong signal to aspiring terrorists that Britain has not changed the rules of game. We no longer play that game.”
Jonathan Russell: “a 2006 YouGov poll (p80) found the MCB, widely assumed to represent more British Muslims than any other group, only had 6 per cent support.”
A ComRes poll of British Muslims last month found that 55% of respondents agreed with the proposition that “The Muslim Council of Britain does a good job representing the views of Muslims” and only 28% disagreed.
Still, never let facts get in the way of your argument, eh Jonathan?