Ataul Fatir Tahir, London
Despite constant vows by world leaders to “end” extremism, its spectrum continues to broaden. Right-wing attacks now spread across America to New Zealand, stern governments exercise unjust control, world leaders are seeking to divide between “us” and “them” and extremist religious preachers are gaining support.
Understanding the causes and solutions to
extremism remains a vital discussion and debate. The Democracy Forum, a
non-profit NGO aiming to promote ideals of democracy, pluralism and tolerance
through public debate, held a seminar on Extremism in the UK: A discussion of
threats and challenges.
The seminar took place at the heart of
London at Senate House, London University. The day consisted of two sessions
where researchers, professors and lecturers detailed their studies on various
elements of extremism in the UK. The
whole event was duly chaired by Humphrey Hawksley, former BBC foreign correspondent.
Barry Gardiner MP, Shadow Secretary of
State for International Trade welcomed those invited to the seminar and read
out a message Lord Bruce had written for the forum attendees, as he could not
attend himself due illness.
His message encapsulated the threat of
extremism and its causes, calling it a “parasite that feasts off fear and
hatred”. Next, Lord Bruce quoted Edward Said’s views (known as the cornerstone
of post colonial studies) about modern fragmentation of knowledge on the
internet and media that “our students” use. He was also quoted to have said how
regrettable statecraft in Washington was, writing, “It is quite common to hear
high officials speak of changing the map of the Middle East as if ancient
society and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar”.
Next, Humphrey Hawksley spoke of his own
experiences as a BBC Asia correspondent. Recalling two occasions, he said that
he once covered a massacre by the Sinhalese government of a Tamil village. The
government justified the slaughter saying that if they had not done so, the
Sinhalese people would have been taken over by the Tamil Tigers. On another
occasion, he read a news report of a Sinhalese village massacred by the Tamil
Tigers. Upon interviewing the Tamil Tiger representatives in London, the
answers he received were similar, they said, “Don’t you understand we have to.
We have to show them that they can’t massacre our villages and we won’t
massacre theirs”.
Hawskley then mentioned a demonstration
several years later by the Tamil representatives in London. He said that he
observed the very man who he had interviewed, shoulder to shoulder with British
MPs. Acknowledging the human rights concern of the MPs, Hawskley also noted
that the MPs needed Tamil votes and funding for their election campaigns.
Hawksley opined that extremism develops
when one feels the system does not work for them anymore and then the vested
interests at work “will find those people who think the system does not work
for them” and then make them into a militia force.
“Masculinity and the UK’s radical right”
After these introductory observations, the
first speaker to present her research was by a lecturer at the Cyber Threats
Research Centre. The speaker’s identity was to be kept anonymous. The topic was
“Masculinity and the UK’s radical right”.
Throughout this insightful talk, the
speaker described the “culture” and “motives” behind supporters of populist
groups like the English Defense League (EDL) and Britain First (BF), who oppose
Islam. She explained how extremism amongst men stems from “toxic masculinity”,
a term coined in the 1980s. It describes stereotypical norms of masculinity and
manhood and the expectation from boys and men to be aggressive, tough, daring,
dominant and have self-reliance. These traditional cultural masculine norms can be harmful to society at large.
The talk examined research suggesting
members of the EDL and BF are often “angry, white, damaged and vulnerable” men
who seek to protect themselves and use the “other” as a scapegoat. EDL
demonstrations are noisy, vibrant and full of people who are “passionate about
the problem of Islam”.
Right-wing members live in a niche of
specific cultural traits and habits. Research indicates that 70% of British
right-wing members have a football hooligan culture, assertion of ownership and
a deep attachment to protect “their space”. Therefore, the loud and aggressive
demonstrations allow them to express their emotion – a prime example of toxic
masculinity.
The lecturer drew on right-wing extremism
to also reflect the social psychology of men joining extremist religious group
like Daesh. Though toxic masculinity serves as an essential piece in
understanding extremist psychology, it is not all-inclusive and other factors
play a role.
“Good news, bad news and agendas: extremist venues in
the UK”
The second talk was by Dr Paul Stott,
research fellow at the Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism,
the Henry Jackson Society. The talk was titled, “Good news, bad news and
agendas: extremist venues in the UK”.
Dr Stott described the rise and fall of
radical Muslim preachers in the UK and their influence. Further, he detailed
the kind of places that have bred extremist cultures and ideologies. Venues
included: Mosques, Islamic centres, fitness centers, street stalls, tables
outside mosques, book shops, university campuses, houses and madrasas. The
Muslim terrorists who carried out various attacks on British soil were found to
be misled and radicalised in such venues.
These venues were also and to some extent
still are, within their own bubble. However now “visit my mosque day” events
have enabled interaction with the wider Muslim community and the British
public, Dr Stott noted.
Dr Paul Stott took his discussion a step
further and spoke on the politicisation paradox between political figures and
mosques. He said that mosques in the UK have now become key political players
for political figures to gain votes and funding. Mosques and organisations that
have previously preached extremist ideologies were still used by politicians to
gain support.
University campuses have been venues where
radicalised actors may have met. Dr Stott explained how university lecturers
will bar and discourage if people are from the right-wing. However, they are
less comfortable doing so with Islamic actors. Though universities have
struggled with these issues they are better than they were, Dr Stott said.
Dr Stott mentioned the release of a book,
The Qatar Papers that detailed very significant funding of Islamist terrorist
groups and individuals across Europe by Qatar, including Britain. Articles
about the findings appeared in most European countries, however, they nearly
did not appear in the UK. He said it was in the public interest to know that
funding comes from Qatar to the UK and then is sent to extremist groups around
the world, however this was not reported. This, Dr Stott said was another
example of how discussions have narrowed over the years about discussing
radical trends.
“A strategic overview of the UK’s early post-9/11
counter-terrorism policy”
The third talk of the first session was by
Dr Edgar Tembo, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Centre for
Conflict, Security and Terrorism, University of Nottingham. His talk was to
investigate the strategies and the effectiveness of the UK in reaction to 9/11.
He said that it is not easy for a
government to develop a counter terrorism strategy as they need to find a
balance between acceptability and effectiveness. For example, do we have to
accept a certain level of terrorism in order to “maintain the civil liberties
and political rights that we cherish?” Or do we want to “sacrifice some
democratic substance in order to be effective against terrorism?”
He said this problem was perhaps
encapsulated by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) statement after their failed
attempt to assassinate Margret Thatcher. The IRA declared, “Today we were
unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once. You will always have to
be lucky.”
Dr Edgar Tembo then spoke of the United
Kingdom’s counter terrorism strategy, CONTEST. He explained the positive and
negative elements of this multi-layered strategy. The talk went into information sharing
between security agencies within the UK and their problems while also speaking
of the weaknesses of the Prevent strategy, a strand of CONTEST. Intelligence
agencies can share more information with local police authorities, he
explained. However, now law enforcement
and intelligent agencies are now working much better.
“The importance
of engaging with theology in countering violent extremism”
Dr Usama Hassan, Head of Islamic Studies,
Quilliam and gave a talk on tackling extremism through changing the theology of
extremists. He spoke of case studies where Muslims have reverted away from
extremist beliefs after they were taught the true teachings of Islam. He
referred to a quote of Hazrat Alira, who said the following about
the Khawarij (extremist Muslims who opposed Khilafat-e-Rashidah): “They are our
brothers who have transgressed against us”. Dr Hassan said that Hazrat Alira
would often use dialogue to convert the Khawarij back.
He detailed his childhood and how he was
bought up with a large map on a wall of his house that showed Muslim countries.
He said this made him think it was “Muslims versus the rest”. In a similar
manner, other Muslims are bought up with such beliefs which lead them towards
extremism.
Caliphate was discussed and Ibn Khaldoon’s
and Ibn Taymiya’s views about the Caliphate being about “good governance” and
that there was no problem in having multiple Islamic states were expressed. Dr
Hassan said that extremists have other views and present Caliphate as a
super-state ruled by a dictator.
“The problem begins at home: domestic cultural drivers
and alienation of extremism”
Prof Bill Durodie, Chair of risk and security
in international relations, University of Bath spoke of his concerns about the
lack of freedom when it comes to speaking about extremism. Prof Durodie said
that people, in our current discourse, are “walking on eggshells” when engaging
in their own beliefs regarding religion, politics and community. He said people
have “paralyzed their views” for fear of “hurting others”.
Dr Durodie said that history teachers in
France are afraid of saying certain things as it may hurt the Muslim
students. He said that we are in an “age
of bad faith”. Younger people are energetic, passionate and looking something
to believe in, however it is our inability to provide them with something to
believe in, the professor said.
Prof Durodie also criticised the policy of
“Run, Hide and Tell” as an official response to an attack or terrorist event
for the public, taught by the police. He said that such a teaching highlights
the problem within our discourse. He emphasised that problems should be openly
talked about without care of hurting others.
“Extremist ecosystems: how do Islamists create power
and influence?”
The final talk was under Chatham House
Rules. The insightful talk detailed how extremist Muslim groups use Muslim
television channels as platforms for support and funding. She explained that
personalities who regularly appear on such channels have had direct links with
promoting extremist ideologies.
The overall forum was certainly insightful
and informative – a wealth of research was presented. Insights, through imperative
data, into why and how extremist ideologies form gave the forum credibility and
legitimacy
However, Dr Hassan’s quotes about
Caliphate being only “governance” did not resonate too well with me, as the
spiritual element of Caliphate was totally ignored.
After all, the true understanding of
Caliphate and its purpose was unveiled to the world at the advent of the
Promised Messiahas and his Khulafa.
Prof
Durodie’s continuous assertive view of not caring about the sentiments of
others seemed a bit obnoxious. Personally, I felt his opinion that society is
“walking on eggshells” was exaggerated, as the media is saturated with hurtful
discourse towards other groups; including anti-Islamic rhetoric. Not caring
about the sentiments of others leads one to erase all lines of respect and
honour. Yes, having open discussions is essential and vital but a sense of
dignity and respect should follow.
