Mainstreaming Extremism

Abdullah Hasan writes his views on how the government can tackle Islamic extremism on the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE) blog:

The ways the government can eradicate extremism is by acknowledging that their foreign policy and their draconian laws against Muslims play an immense part in radicalising Muslims. They need to work with mainstream Muslim organisations such as MCB, IFE, MAB etc. These organisations are working at the grassroots level and have the support of many Muslims. They need to be provided more resources and room to carry out their work. They also need to allow the existing mainstream Imams in Britain to do their job effectively by providing them resources and platforms to preach a balanced Islam.

Hasan’s views are not particulalry novel or unique or even mildly groundbreaking. His statement is important, however, because Hasan is himself a textbook Islamist and here he is articulating an Islamist’s view of the political lay of the land. His explanation of how “extremism” can be eliminated, if deconstructed, amounts to:

1) Islamist extremism is caused by the government’s foreign and domestic policies and laws directed at Muslims both here and abroad.
2) This extremism can be eradicated by upgrading radical extremist organisations from their current level of minority status to bear on government policy making on civil society.

Of the first of these, there is no doubt that a sense of grievance and victimisation is widespread amongst Muslims, coupled with a belief that consecutive governments, particularly the Labour party, at best no longer cares about them and at worst conspires against them. Islamists will be the first and the loudest to play on this sense of grievance with little or no nuance about the actualities of their motivations other than to claim they represent mainstream Muslim views. Many Muslims buy into the illusion that Islamists share their language and, worse, speak on their behalf.

But the question that must be asked is, ‘Will radical Muslim extremists suddenly abandon their ideology of religious supremacism and communal exceptionalism if the British government were to align foreign policy to their way of thinking’? Doubtful.

A useful analogy can be drawn here with the BNP. For BNP voters, immigration remains the dominant issue of failed government policy. They too feel a deep-rooted sense of victimisation and abandonment by the government, coupled with feelings of economic insecurity. However, there is no getting away from the fact that their alienation from mainstream politics is nurtured by shocking levels of racism and white supremacism. A new survey into the attitudes of BNP voters showed that 31% of them believed there was a difference in intelligence between the average black Briton and the average white Briton. Only 4% of BNP voters believed that recent immigration had benefited the country. And most startling of all, 44% (compared to 12% of all voters) disagreed with the statement: “non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”. The BNP now have two elected members in the European Parliament.

This being the case, does that mean that the BNP should hold the government to ransom over it’s extremist views on immigration policy? Would it be a justfiable strategy for tackling the BNP for the government to shut down immigration to zero levels and begin a program of repatriation of Blacks and Asians?

Likewise when Islamists, like Abdullah Hasan, claims that Islamic extremism will diminish if British foreign policy is changed to suit their views is fallacious nonsense.

On the second of Hasan’s agenda points of the need for “acknowledgement” of certain Islamist organisations and their representative-ness of mainstream and grassroots Muslim viewpoints, nothing could be further from the truth. Specifically he suggests the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the Islamic Fourm Europe (IFE) and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Why these particular organisation and what do they represent exactly?

The MCB, once the darling of the British political establishment, set up under the aegis of the Conservatives and funded by consecutive governments, fell from grace after Daud Abdullah, in a bout of group-hysteria and radical ennui, unwisely signed-up to the pro-Hamas and anti-British document known as the Istanbul Declaration. Coupled with the advent of the directive of PVE funding, developed by its own network of mosque committees, the government now has multiple agencies and departments it uses to interface with Muslim communities at grassroots level, making the MCB appear for what it is: a redundant relic from a bygone age of Muslim policy making. The irony is that if it were not for the government-funded structure known as MINAB, architected by the dearly departed Hazel Blears, whom Islamists revile, the MCB wouldn’t have a credible leg to stand on.

The IFE are a front for the Southasian clerical fascist organisation of Jamaati Islami. Currently jostling for community representation in Tower Hamlets, they are a very nasty little group of entryists. The IFE and its affiliates, the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre (LMC) shares the ideology of the Jamaat. The mosque is no fringe organisation; it was at the centre of the campaign that helped elect the local Respect party candidate, George Galloway, in the 2005 general election.

The MAB was set up in 1997 by Kemal al-Helbawy who was then the London-based spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood thus making the MAB directly linked to the Islamist tradition of the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Today the Brotherhood claims more than 70 affiliations with branches in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is presented as a “moderate” scholar but has supported the religious necessity of putting homosexuals to death. They are still affiliated to the Jamaati-Islami. However, they distance themselves from al-Muhajiroon and Hizb-ut-Tahrir not because they are particuarly less radical than these amateur nutters, just much more politically canny. The MAB are religious supremacists who endorse the notion of the ideal Muslim society and state based on what they consider to be true Islamic culture, true Islamic philosophy and true Islamic custom.

Anas Altikriti replying in The Times (17 August 2004) to allegations that MAB is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood replied:

“MAB is an independent British organisation. Links with others extend simply to shared ideas, values and expertise, in which the Brotherhood is indeed rich, with around eight decades of experience”.

In short, the MAB is blessed by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and contexualised by the PR skills of  Anas Altikriti.

None of these organisations are either “mainstream” or representative of British Muslims any more than the BNP is representative of the white population of Britain. And nor should they ever be no matter how much they claim to be.

If the BNP were to say:

“In order to reduce racial attacks of Muslims and Jews and the fire-bombing of mosques and synagogues, the government needs to work with mainstream British organisations such as the BNP, the National Socialist Movement, Combat 18 and the White Nationalist Party. These organisations are working at the grassroots level and have the support of many Britons.”

We would know that for the blatant and dangerous lie that it is. It should not be any different when radical Muslims claim the mainstream respectability they crave for Islamist organisations.