Cameron and Anti Extremist Think Tanks

Politics

Murtaza Shaikh

Jun 16 |00:34

Last Updated on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:22

Cameron’s Review of the Prevent strategy showed that the impact of anti-extremist think tanks like Quilliam Foundation (QF) and Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) remains both far reaching and destructive in shaping state policy towards British Muslims. The Review affirms Cameron’s Munich speech in his focus on terrorism as a British Muslim problem...

Cameron’s Review of the Prevent strategy showed that the impact of anti-extremist think tanks like Quilliam Foundation (QF) and Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) remains both far reaching and destructive in shaping state policy towards British Muslims. The Review affirms Cameron’s Munich speech in his focus on terrorism as a British Muslim problem and the identification of a new public enemy, “non-violent extremists” (NVE), a group of Muslims, “who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview”. As to what this worldview entails, we are told “real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values” coupled with a rejection of “universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths, equality of all before the law, democracy and the right of people to elect their own government and encourage integration rather than separation”.

Throughout that speech, Cameron resorted to the loaded semantics coined by QF and CSC, even though their policy recommendations reveal agendas focused on misrepresenting and caricaturing elements of Islam, perceived as most discomforting by the majority. These are then conveniently said to blame for “violent extremism”, and thus labelled NVE. Despite other prominent think tanks, like Demos, warning against the NVE categorisation as early as April 2010.

On the one hand, QF presents an Islam strangely at ease with controversial state policy, sanitised of all discomforting elements. This is why QF is almost universally detested amongst the Muslim community for their selective understanding of Islam, which goes against what the majority of mainstream Muslims believe. In accepting their recommendations, the government risks opting for what appears more agreeable rather than confronting the reality of its differences with the Muslim community. On the other hand, CSC focuses only on the discomforting elements, presenting them out of context in order to demonise Islam. In fact CSC’s position, while overtly right-wing and Islamophobic, makes more sense when compared to the incomplete picture presented by QF. The “Islam is a religion of peace” debate convened by Intelligence Squared was an example of this damaging effect.

However both, QF and CSC, unite in the elements of Islam they wish to see boycotted from the public realm under the guise of NVE, which happens to be anything that contravenes their own brand of Islam. QF even goes to the extent, in one of its briefs, to identify those who reject theories of human evolution as NVE and “jihadists”. Other potential elements associated with NVE appear to be belief in the Shari’ah, Jihad, or the Islamic State.

Importantly though, violence against the state, especially the British state, is not inherent to any of these beliefs. And so if government policy is led by such think tanks in dealing with, for example, the notion of Jihad, they will adopt recommendations that are misleading, over-simplistic and dangerous. Government should instead begin by understanding the genuine Muslim perspective of Jihad as comparable to the legitimate use of force under international law. Furthermore they should come to terms with its essentiality to Muslim belief that cannot be omitted or overlooked. Coming to grips with its nuanced nature within Islamic law would promptly reveal that it does not legitimise the targeting of civilians. Crucially according to many Islamic scholars, brandished NVE by QF and CSC, even the targeting of British military objects is considered impermissible for British subjects. Herein lies one example of how essential Muslim belief and state anxieties can be reconciled without giving Muslims an either/or choice. Otherwise, devout Muslims will always choose their religion, which they believe to be a divinely decreed way of life.

Yet more disturbing is Cameron’s use of NVE to declare the failure of multiculturalism. What of the Sikh, Jewish and Hindu communities and the effect of multiculturalism on their integration into mainstream society? Do they not have an autonomous existence while also coexisting with society at large? Rather, the spectre of failed multiculturalism is only used to legitimise the project of cultural homogenisation, targeting solely Muslims and their beliefs.

It appears that Cameron is able to draw on the flawed thesis advanced by QF and CSC to impose his own agenda of constructing a British identity as a utopian solution to violent extremism. However to propose cultural homogenisation, let alone of a particular minority, as a means of reducing tension and preventing violence is to ignore the lessons of history. Recent events have shown undoubtedly that cultural/religious differences cannot be resolved by the imposition of a national identity. Many leaders have fallen victim to this mirage (and its bloody consequences) that in order to diffuse tensions, owing to such differences, we impose sameness. The disintegration and current precarious state of the Balkans is testament to this. In fact the most effective way to achieve a peaceful, tolerant and stable society is to allow for a plurality of cultures and it is through such accommodation and cultural autonomy that mutual trust and common identity becomes crystallised.

Astonishingly, this has been more or less the precise content of the multiculturalism that Cameron now seeks to smash, spurred on by the misinformed discourse of “anti-extremist” think tanks, whose commitment to a dynamic and inclusive British identity - ever-evolving and organically developing - remains questionable. They instead appear trapped by their own counter-terrorism agenda, which must constantly be overplayed and exaggerated in their desperation to survive.

The “British identity” referred to by Cameron is constructed around presumed majority sensibilities and is highly divisive as it unknowingly excludes essential Muslim beliefs. Such a project is bound to fail, if not simply because it is counter-intuitive to the very nature and fabric of British society and culture. Multiculturalism is a synonym for pluralism. Britain’s real and genuine identity is one that can only be most accurately described as a rich cosmopolitan plurality underpinned by consensual shared values. It is after all British to be different.

Notes:

Sources:

Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.

Bookmark

Email this

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry