Politics 
Preventing ‘Non’-Violent Extremism: naive and self-defeating
Preventing ‘Non’-Violent Extremism: naive and self-defeating
Preventing ‘Non’-Violent Extremism: naive and self-defeating
Murtaza Shaikh
Jul 05
|00:34
Last Updated on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:05
...views deemed to be insulting, or even those which challenge the form of government or the nature of state law itself are permitted under the current state of national and international law, as long as they are expressed through peaceful democratic means. However it would seem corresponding beliefs grounded in Islamic tradition such as in Islamic law, or a unitary Islamic state would certainly be labelled examples of “non-violent extremism”.
The recently published Review of the Prevent Strategy portrays a disturbing and confused attempt by Cameron’s coalition to tackle “home-grown” terrorism by essentially pinning the blame on diversity, specifically of the Islamic variety, as accommodated under the state policy of multiculturalism. Indeed in Munich, he emphatically pronounced the failure of this very British approach to managing the kaleidoscope of identities that have come to co-exist in Britain.
Cameron’s flawed approach for dealing with “Islamist extremism”, as duly noted by Lambert and Githens-Mazer, emanates from his conflation of two distinct perceived problems. The first of course is that of “violent extremism” - an issue of security that should be dealt with as such. All indications or intelligence pointing towards a probable attack against the state should be “prevented” at all costs. Similarly if someone is promoting such acts then they too must be dealt with punitively under the law.
The second perceived problem is of ideas that Cameron believes to be precursors to “violent extremism”: what he calls “non-violent extremism”. He has however conveniently characterised attributes, which fall within the legitimate bounds of freedom of thought, conscious and religion, but at odds with perceived majority sentiments as “non-violent extremism” without any discussion as to the precise content or link between the two.
Although legally, views deemed to be insulting, or even those which challenge the form of government or the nature of state law itself are permitted under the current state of national and international law, as long as they are expressed through peaceful democratic means. However it would seem corresponding beliefs grounded in Islamic tradition such as in Islamic law, or a unitary Islamic state would certainly be labelled examples of “non-violent extremism”.
Of course, yet more damaging to Cameron’s rhetoric is that while purporting to be objective, he in fact targets only Muslims. The Munich speech’s mention of other forms of terrorism was only token and it was axiomatic Cameron’s sole focus was the Muslim community. He made clear that he saw multiculturalism as the root of “violent extremism” but strangely blamed only Muslims. Surely if multiculturalism was the problem, then there would be elements of the Sikh, Jewish and Hindu communities also seeking to violently threaten the state. After all, it is yet to be established whether elements of the Muslim community are any more isolationist or separatist than highly insular contingents of Sikh, Jewish or even white working class communities.
In reality, the genuine reason behind the occurrence of “violent extremism” in the Muslim community is two-fold. Firstly, there is resentment owing to UK involvement in war and occupation of Muslim lands, further exasperated by a barrage of daily reports of collateral loss of innocent Muslim civilian life as well as the deplorable and inhumane spectres of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo, and the “Kill Team”. Secondly, undoubtedly, an ideology exists grounded in religion and fuelled by the former which legitimises the targeting of civilians. In other words fellow Muslims dying elsewhere with perceived British complicity is a major motivator for “violent extremism”, rather than Muslims somehow taking on distinct identities, which imply an overt hostility towards Britain as pointed out by Craig Murray. Despite this, the Review’ lack of attention to the link between foreign policy and “violent extremism” is striking and described by Mehdi Hassan as its “most egregious aspect”.
Indeed it is worrying and difficult to explain how anti-extremist think tanks, who have proved at times to be highly divisive, like the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), have managed to play such a significant role in the formulation of the Prevent Review. After all the CSC’s Douglas Murray, now Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society, sings from the same ideological hymn sheet as Geert Wilders: both espousing a similar overtly Islamophobic rhetoric. Wilders famously proclaimed in February 2008 “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam”, while Murray argued that Islam is a religion of violence at a debate in October 2010. Peculiarly enough, one is undergoing trial for his incendiary views while the other is relied on as a credible and compelling authority on tackling “Islamist extremism”, numerous times in the Prevent Review.
Sadly the lessons of history seem to be lost on or ignored by a growing number of Western European leaders; Cameron now eagerly jumping on the shoddy Merkel and Sarkozy bandwagon, boldly pronouncing the failure of multiculturalism. The lesson is stark and simple should they heed it; that minorities compelled to homogenise with the perceived majority culture often react with yet more hostility. Such a reaction is further accentuated when the subject matter is religious in nature, as it often presents a choice to the devout adherent between immutable belief and state writ.
Thus the forecast is bleak. Cameron’s attempt to construct a British identity as a means of preventing “violent extremism” is bound to be a self-defeating endeavour. It will serve only to further alienate those he seeks to win over: “the vast, often unheard majority” of Muslims, while, it remains likely that a “violent extremism”, principally driven by resentment towards British foreign policy, will remain largely unaffected.
Notes:
Sources: www.islam21c.com
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (4)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Answering Ken
written by Asim Zafar, July 13, 2011
written by Asim Zafar, July 13, 2011
@Ken
1. How much do you know about Islam from its scripture? Islam is about peace, harmony and humility.
2. Yes, Muslims do need to think of others. And as with any other religion, not all Muslims represent Islam to the fullest. So dot confuse actions of some Muslims highlighted by media, with the actual teachings of Islam
3. Same could be said about christians. i.e. the number of christians killed by their own people are far more than the one's killed by any other people. Mankind needs to learn few lessons here, not just Muslims.
4. Yes, Muslims should stick to the real teachings of Islam and put our own house in order first. I agree with you there.
5. Muslim "countries" dont invite invest. Its the puppet dictator and the sold out leadership in opposition which invites. West creates situations by buying off people, and then invade Muslim lands for natural resources, oil and to gain strategic positions to keep tap on other regional powers.
6. To your last 2 points. No. You need to study some more before you claim that you know "each muslims group"!
1. How much do you know about Islam from its scripture? Islam is about peace, harmony and humility.
2. Yes, Muslims do need to think of others. And as with any other religion, not all Muslims represent Islam to the fullest. So dot confuse actions of some Muslims highlighted by media, with the actual teachings of Islam
3. Same could be said about christians. i.e. the number of christians killed by their own people are far more than the one's killed by any other people. Mankind needs to learn few lessons here, not just Muslims.
4. Yes, Muslims should stick to the real teachings of Islam and put our own house in order first. I agree with you there.
5. Muslim "countries" dont invite invest. Its the puppet dictator and the sold out leadership in opposition which invites. West creates situations by buying off people, and then invade Muslim lands for natural resources, oil and to gain strategic positions to keep tap on other regional powers.
6. To your last 2 points. No. You need to study some more before you claim that you know "each muslims group"!
-
- +4
-
-
How come MINAB are fine with 'Prevent'
written by Osman9876, July 07, 2011
written by Osman9876, July 07, 2011
MINAB seem fine with it: The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) welcome the refocused Prevent Strategy. This Strategy correctly highlights that Mosques can play an important part in supporting those vulnerable in society and in particular those who are being groomed for terrorism. The Prevent Strategy includes interventions to stop people moving from extremism into terrorist-related activity.
-
- -1
-
-
Write comment
I an inviting all member's of world to accept the religon of Holy Islam.