Executive Summary
1. In order to defeat the ideology of radical Islam, its ambitions need to be properly understood.
For those of us that believe that Islamism- an ideology parading as a religion- is the greatest threat facing Britain in the 21st century, there have in recent times been developments both disheartening and encouraging. Disparate yet significant elements within Britain seem to increasingly agree upon its existence, although perhaps not the root cause or remedy. The idea that moderate Muslim discourse needs to be encouraged and elevated at every opportunity is taking root. Yet at the same time, there is still a worrying propensity for the government to fudge the issue. According to the recent National Security Strategy, unpleasant weather- not unheard of in England- has been ranked as big a domestic threat as terrorism. This is somewhat concerning, and raises questions as to whether the extent of the terror threat’s ideology is properly understood.
To effectively tackle this ideology, we first need to acknowledge the endgame of the extremists; a global Islamic state with a literalist interpretation of Koranic law. Radical Islamists may interpret how this caliphate would govern in different ways, yet most would accept that Islam is in a cosmic struggle with the kuffar. In response, we in Britain we should be looking to stress the ways in which Western cultures and values are worth protecting and championing, and that the Islamists will not gain concessions from the UK by violence, intimidation and agitation.
It has therefore been disappointing to see the content of certain public statements by people who really should know better. Back in September 2007, Defence Secretary Des Browne quite openly talked of negotiation with the Taleban in Afghanistan because “they are not going away.” One can only imagine what substance Browne intended these negotiations to consist of. Can one reach an acceptable compromise on cutting off the hands of thieves, or women being publicly stoned to death for accusations of adultery? This was a disastrous own goal by Browne. It served genuinely no benefit to Britain while providing a tremendous morale boost for the Taleban who, incidentally, have shown no desire whatsoever to negotiate a settlement.
Jonathan Powell, a top aide to Tony Blair, outdid Browne by recently proclaiming that were he in government he would “want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al Qaeda.” One would imagine that were Powell in government, he would find little time to achieve anything else such would be the amount of time spent fraternising with terrorist groups. Security minister Lord West, swiftly backed up Powell’s view, believing it “silly” not to at least consider being in communication such organisations.
Notwithstanding the fact that if negotiation were to ever take place with terrorists, it would be done on our terms, not theirs- i.e. from a position of overwhelming strength- these statements sends out all the wrong messages regarding our stomach for the fight. The statements of Messrs Browne, Powell and West raise unrealistic expectations that we can negotiate our way out of an ideological struggle.
These are matters pertaining to foreign policy, yet are merely manifestations of a malaise that appears alarmingly common in Britain. This was epitomised by incidents such as our acquiescence to Islamist demands over the Danish cartoons controversy, Jack Straw being pilloried as an Islamophobe for trying to discuss the veil, and the Archbishop of Canterbury discussing the possibility of sharia law in Britain. An atmosphere is developing unreceptive for those in Britain who are trying to foster awareness of a genuinely tolerant Islam; real and perceived Muslim grievances are being exploited effectively by the Islamists to ensure that the centre ground is forever being shifted in their direction. Notions that would surely be dismissed as preposterous pre 9/11 are being given ill-deserved credence.
As a result, those Muslim groups we should be paying attention to in this country- for example the soon to be launched Quilliam Foundation (QF)- are able to be portrayed as not being of mainstream Muslim opinion. Recently the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the largest (if somewhat discredited) British Muslim organisation, dismissed the notion that the QF could be described as “moderate.” Amongst other things, the MCB derided the QF’s call for Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) to be banned. HT are a radical Sunni group that actively recruits in Britain and openly calls for the overthrow of the government on the way to establishing an Islamic caliphate. The MCB also says that QF cannot be regarded as moderate while it supports the British visa ban on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaradawi has openly praised Palestinian suicide bombing and called for homosexuals to receive the death penalty. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the MCB’s stance considering its Secretary General, Muhammad Abdul Bari, feels stoning can be justified depending upon the “sort of stoning and what circumstances.”
Clearly then it is vital that we in Britain do not become so keen to negotiate with the Islamists and their sympathisers- both at home and abroad- that we institutionalise their brand of extremism. Unfortunately however, there is a danger that where the middle ground lies in issues relating to Islam is becoming increasingly murky and distorted.
Robin Simcox is the Henry Jackson Society Section Director for Britain in the World.