The perils of preventing terror
With each terror attack, mainstream Britain looks at Islam and Muslims as a problem, while more Muslims become devout.
On the face of it, it makes perfect sense. The British government has said that it will no longer fund Muslim groups holding ‘extremist’ views. Announcing a new domestic counterterrorism strategy (the ‘Prevent’ programme), the home secretary said that to be eligible for financial support, organisations must sign up to safeguarding the values of democracy, human rights and tolerance. Calling for the death of members of the British armed forces will also be a deal breaker.
Home Secretary Theresa May said that money from the 63 million pound fund had been given to some “very extremist organisations” in the past and henceforth the Prevent programme would target not only violent extremism but also “the insidious impact of non-violent extremism”.
The programme was started by the Labour Party government in an effort to prevent the spread of ‘home-grown terror’. Believing that engaging with conservative/reactionary Muslim groups would prevent a ‘spillover’ to violent extremism, the Labour government ended up supporting some very dubious characters and turning them into spokesmen for the ‘Muslim community’.
It may appear logical to simply reverse this policy,but 10 years on from the events of 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, simplistic approaches to interacting with Britain’s Muslim minority can have unpredictable consequences.
Over the last 10 years, Muslims in the UK (mostly of Pakistani origin) see themselves increasingly in terms of their religious identity. While the older generation was culturally conservative, many from the younger generation have asserted Muslim identities as a form of protest, while still others are drawn to religion in a wave of ‘Islamic awakening’. As with each terrorist attack mainstream Britain looks at Islam and Muslims as a problem, more and more Muslims are drawn to the faith.
There is a danger that equating a wide range of conservative religious opinion with ‘extremism’ will further demonise a minority that feels under siege, and turn it more inwards. Stigmatising what for many is simply the observance of their religion not only adds fuel to the racist fire, it may well encourage further religiosity.
There is a problem, too, for so-called moderates. Government-backed ‘moderate’ groups already lack a certain credibility and the more open the British government’s support for their values the more vulnerable they become to charges of espousing a ‘state-sponsored Islam’. Groups that refuse to sign off on ‘British values’ may actually see a rise in their credibility. Conservative Muslims also argue that, at a personal level, only they can turn a radicalised person away from terrorism. When someone is considering violent action, they say, it would be a waste of energy to point to the rule of law and democratic values. The potential terrorist may, however, be swayed by their arguments that such action is not permissible in Islam.
While Britain’s strategy is in principle correct, whether it has the desired effect will depend on the degree of sensitivity with which it is implemented. In the short term, there must remain an engagement (if not financial support) with ‘extremist’ groups and support for ‘moderates’ needs to be nuanced.
At the same time, the hysteria surrounding the debate needs to be toned down. As part of Prevent, universities have been asked to refuse platforms to non-violent ‘extremist’ speakers, and doctors have been asked to report patients ‘vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist groups’. The British Medical Association has asked how doctors are expected to predict how patients may behave while university vice chancellors have rejected proposed restrictions on freedom of speech, arguing that the problem would simply go ‘underground’.
Ultimately, there has to be a longer term picture which stops looking at Muslims only in terms of their religious identities. Every problem a Muslim faces is not attributable to ‘Islam’ nor do their solutions lie in this or that interpretation of the religion.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 10th, 2011.
Home Secretary Theresa May said that money from the 63 million pound fund had been given to some “very extremist organisations” in the past and henceforth the Prevent programme would target not only violent extremism but also “the insidious impact of non-violent extremism”.
The programme was started by the Labour Party government in an effort to prevent the spread of ‘home-grown terror’. Believing that engaging with conservative/reactionary Muslim groups would prevent a ‘spillover’ to violent extremism, the Labour government ended up supporting some very dubious characters and turning them into spokesmen for the ‘Muslim community’.
It may appear logical to simply reverse this policy,but 10 years on from the events of 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, simplistic approaches to interacting with Britain’s Muslim minority can have unpredictable consequences.
Over the last 10 years, Muslims in the UK (mostly of Pakistani origin) see themselves increasingly in terms of their religious identity. While the older generation was culturally conservative, many from the younger generation have asserted Muslim identities as a form of protest, while still others are drawn to religion in a wave of ‘Islamic awakening’. As with each terrorist attack mainstream Britain looks at Islam and Muslims as a problem, more and more Muslims are drawn to the faith.
There is a danger that equating a wide range of conservative religious opinion with ‘extremism’ will further demonise a minority that feels under siege, and turn it more inwards. Stigmatising what for many is simply the observance of their religion not only adds fuel to the racist fire, it may well encourage further religiosity.
There is a problem, too, for so-called moderates. Government-backed ‘moderate’ groups already lack a certain credibility and the more open the British government’s support for their values the more vulnerable they become to charges of espousing a ‘state-sponsored Islam’. Groups that refuse to sign off on ‘British values’ may actually see a rise in their credibility. Conservative Muslims also argue that, at a personal level, only they can turn a radicalised person away from terrorism. When someone is considering violent action, they say, it would be a waste of energy to point to the rule of law and democratic values. The potential terrorist may, however, be swayed by their arguments that such action is not permissible in Islam.
While Britain’s strategy is in principle correct, whether it has the desired effect will depend on the degree of sensitivity with which it is implemented. In the short term, there must remain an engagement (if not financial support) with ‘extremist’ groups and support for ‘moderates’ needs to be nuanced.
At the same time, the hysteria surrounding the debate needs to be toned down. As part of Prevent, universities have been asked to refuse platforms to non-violent ‘extremist’ speakers, and doctors have been asked to report patients ‘vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist groups’. The British Medical Association has asked how doctors are expected to predict how patients may behave while university vice chancellors have rejected proposed restrictions on freedom of speech, arguing that the problem would simply go ‘underground’.
Ultimately, there has to be a longer term picture which stops looking at Muslims only in terms of their religious identities. Every problem a Muslim faces is not attributable to ‘Islam’ nor do their solutions lie in this or that interpretation of the religion.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 10th, 2011.