Counter-terror plans anger Islamic students

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uthman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 6
  • Views Views 2K
Uthman

Uthman

LI News Service
Messages
5,513
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Islamic students have expressed concerns over reports of proposals for major changes to the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy.

Information leaked to the press last week has led to claims that the plans, known as Contest 2, will broaden the classification of an extremist to include anyone whose views do not correspond to the government definition of shared British values.

Extremism would consequently encompass such standpoints as the advocating of a pan-Islamic state, the failure to condemn the killing of British soldiers and a belief in armed resistance, such as attacks by Palestinian groups against Israeli troops.

In response, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) has posted a press release detailing their fears that such a development would have ‘a detrimental effect on the Muslim community and would classify many Muslims as extremists’.

FOSIS spokesman Quasim Rafiq said, "The labelling of those individuals who hold what are deemed to be controversial views as extremist, muddy the water and undermine efforts to tackle the extreme ideology that lead to the tragic events of 7/7”.

Currently the official Home Office counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, is run on the principles of ‘Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare’.

The Prevent strand is concerned with tackling of the radicalisation of individuals. Government action is primarily focused on combating inequalities and racism, deterring those who facilitate terrorism and ‘engaging in the battle of ideas by challenging the ideologies that extremists believe can justify the use of violence’.

The new proposals, due to be unveiled next month, suggest that this ‘battle of ideas’ would extend beyond targeting just those who support violent extremism.

Even if their comments remain within the law, implications that Islam and the West are incompatible would leave a speaker at risk of becoming sidelined and being denied public funds.

Many feel that radical Islamic views, such as the belief that Muslims should not vote, the promotion of Sharia law and condemnation of homosexuals, are the root cause of the terrorism threat that Britain faces.

FOSIS believes that this attitude will only alienate British Muslims and deems the proposed plans counterproductive: “There is little or no evidence to suggest that these views lead to violent extremism.

It is crucial that we as a society discuss and debate controversial ideas across a whole range of issues, in a balanced and just way, as opposed to shunning those who hold or advocate them."

The Home Office has refused to comment on leaked documents.

Source
 
I wonder how many 'Freedom of speech is dead' or 'thought crime lives' or 'I could really do with a chicken biryani' responses this thread will get...
 
:sl:
Extremism would consequently encompass such standpoints as the advocating of a pan-Islamic state, the failure to condemn the killing of British soldiers and a belief in armed resistance, such as attacks by Palestinian groups against Israeli troops.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is dead

Thought crime lives

I could really do with a chicken biryani.
 
Comment by Inayat Bunglawala:

Labour's cricket test for British Muslims

The latest talk of a crackdown on 'extreme' ideas fails to distinguish between beliefs and actions.

So, almost 20 years after Norman Tebbit devised his famous cricket test for immigrants to the UK, we learn that the Labour government is seriously discussing how to set up its own modern version for British Muslims.

According to a report in yesterday's edition of the Guardian the government – as part of its Contest 2 counter-terrorism strategy – is considering proposals that would classify British Muslims as being extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As Richard Seymour wryly notes:
This raises some interesting questions: how observant would you have to be with the condemnations? Would it be adequate to issue a single generic condemnation, or would it need to be a daily ritual? Perhaps it is an oath to take before meals - but then, how would you keep your food down?
​
Asim Siddiqui observed yesterday on Cif that the government's "tests" were nonsensical and if pursued would destroy the already precious little credibility that its Preventing Violent Extremism (soon to be simply Preventing Extremism) agenda has. I would go even further and say that if these foolish proposals are adopted by our politicians then it will result in the government being viewed by the majority of UK Muslims as trying to actively undermine Islam and will do fatal damage to the hard work that has gone on in the last few years to try and build trust between Muslim communities and the police.

I am a subscriber to a number of Muslim email discussion groups in the UK and the following is a typical response to the government's not so bright idea that was posted on the IG-SOC (IG is the postcode for Ilford in Essex) group:
One point that is becoming clearer by the day is that the "extremists" as defined by Contest 2 are no longer a fringe element but rather those who believe in the fundamental aspects of Islam, ie the majority. Rather than engaging the Muslim community in dialogue, a ban on ideas is being proposed. Sounds like the traits of a police state.
​
Similar sentiments can also be viewed in the response to this story on the internationally popular Islam Online website and on Deenport, a UK Muslim portal.

The proposals are essentially foolish because they utterly fail to distinguish between what a person may believe and how that same person actually acts. It is perfectly possible for people to believe in the desirability of a caliphate in Muslim countries, the superiority of sharia law and to regard the practice of homosexuality as a sin, but as long as they are prepared to abide by UK law while they reside here and do not discriminate against gays, why on earth should the government classify them as extremists?

As Paul at A Progressive Viewpoint remarks:
... the government's proposed definition of extremism stigmatises mainstream Muslim beliefs and hands ammunition to those very Islamists who claim that Muslim beliefs and customs are inherently incompatible with western society.
​
Still, the government's proposals have been warmly welcomed by Melanie Phillips. Says it all really.

Source

Inayat Bunglawala is the former media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK.
 
Comment by Asim Siddiqui:

How to categorise every Muslim as an extremist

With its latest anti-terror code, the government is being driven by a short-term political expediency that won't make us any safer.

According to documents seen by the Guardian, the government is planning to move its counterextremism "prevent" strategy from targeting those that promote violent extremism to those that endorse extremist ideas in general but condemn violence. The idea being that there is a "conveyer belt" from people finding extremist ideas appealing to then becoming violent extremists themselves, and that by the government working with non-violent extremists (which the government has apparently been doing) to tackle violent extremists simply legitimises and emboldens the world view of said extremists and hence makes their followers easier prey for the violent extremists. Got it?

But who is an extremist? To provide us with the answer, the state will do your thinking for you and will apparently provide a checklist against which you can tick off the various criteria. Anyone calling for an Islamic state, who believes in Jihad, who thinks sharia law is important or who considers homosexuality to be a sin becomes an extremist. What about just going all the way and extending it to anyone who believes God is the sovereign of the heavens and the earth, and that Islam is his chosen religion? Or maybe it would be easier to just get al-Qaida to draft the manual on "How to categorise every Muslim as an extremist".

There is much debate in Muslim communities on what an "Islamic state" actually is or should look like in the modern world; what is the nature of Jihad; what does sharia law actually mean; how Islam and other Abrahamic faiths view homosexuality and so on. To circumvent and undermine the evolution of Islamic thought and simply opt for al-Qaida's definitions shows a government that has lost its marbles in pursuit of counterterrorism (fuelled by a threat that is being exaggerated, as Stella Rimington reminds us again today). The government is being driven by short-term political expediency than the longer term view necessary for our collective safety.

Rather than encourage Muslim groups and civil society to widen the space for young Muslims to discuss contentious issues and take the time they need to come up with their own answers, we have a state-sponsored proposal to essentially close down and criminalise perfectly legitimate and much needed debate. More and more young Muslims are getting politically active (not least because of events in the world) and want to do their bit to fight injustice. Civil society needs to be able to capture this dynamism and energy into the democratic framework where real change is possible. The government needs to keep out of debates on theology, it is not their role to interfere – we do not live in a theocracy – and keep their focus on those that peddle violence. They already have sufficient powers to use against preachers of violence without needing to start policing ideas and the terms of the debate too.

The excessive throwing around of the term "extremist" or "Islamist" by certain groups with such broad brush definitions will turn every Muslim activist into a defacto Islamist and render the word "extremist", an otherwise vital term, meaningless. Any Muslim active in community work is going to have derived at least some of that sense of community spirit from Islam. What on God's earth is wrong with that? Isn't that sense of faith-based decency a good thing?

The government already has precious little trust in grassroots British Muslim circles on their preventing extremism agenda – and if the suggested plans are true then that disconnect will simply extenuate the circumstances, making us all that much less safe.

Source

Asim Siddiqui is a founding trustee of the City Circle, a grassroots network of professionals established in 1999 which runs, in addition to educational and welfare projects, weekly public events providing an outlet for debate on issues of concern for British Muslim communities and wider society.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top