This March saw the unveiling of the UK government’s latest anti-terror strategy – Contest 2. It detailed various initiatives to be undertaken across the UK that reflect an emphasis of not simply preventing “Violent Extremism” and “Terrorism” but challenging so called “Extremism” within the Muslim community.The strategy, entitled “Taking a new approach to counter-terrorism”, reads, “As part of this strategy we will take action against those who defend terrorism and violent extremism. We will also continue to challenge views which fall short of supporting violence and are within the law but reject and undermine our shared values and jeopardise community cohesion. Some of these views can create a climate in which people may be drawn into violent activity.”
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary defined these “shared values” as tolerance and belief in democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. A draft of the strategy leaked to the Guardian newspaper and BBC Panorama programme in February highlighted the government’s view of “Extremist beliefs” that undermine these “shared values”, apparently jeopardise community cohesion and may act as stepping stones to violence. According to the draft, Muslims would be considered extreme if they advocate a Caliphate, the Islamic system of governance; if they promote Shariah law; if they believe in Jihad or armed resistance anywhere in the world - including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military; if they argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah; and if they fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK and across the globe recognise such views as “core Islamic beliefs”.
One would think that this extensive 176 page document, boasted by Jacqui Smith to be the most comprehensive anti-terror strategy in the world and that deals with a subject as serious as the security of people’s lives, would not be riddled with assumptions, superficial judgements and irrational conclusions. Unfortunately not so!
The strategy suggests that the rejection of democracy and the embracing of specific Islamic political and social views that are at odds with western secular liberalism are threats to community cohesion and can be a precursor to violence. This claim is as absurd as suggesting that a staunch belief in atheism and zealously rejecting religion can act as a precursor to individuals blowing up their nearest mosque, church or synagogue.
Contest 2 alludes to the fact that Muslims who do not have allegiance to Britain and its forces or who have loyalty to another entity (such as a global Ummah), pose a threat to the state. Are we then to believe that British expatriates in the Muslim world who continue to have allegiance to Queen and country despite being residents or citizens of those countries are a threat to their neighbouring Muslims? In truth, the “loyalty card” is a convenient one to play to silence opposition to unjust government foreign policy. Therefore, should loyalty to the British government and its army take precedence over truth and justice?
The strategy claims that rejecting British secular liberal values and promoting specific Islamic beliefs such as the need for a Caliphate or the Shariah can “create a climate in which people may be drawn into violent activity”. Is it then true that current discussions regarding the failings of capitalism and advocating an alternative form of economics and governance are responsible for the violence committed by some in the name of anti-globalisation? Should non-violent ideas not be separated from violent means adopted by a few to achieve their objectives?
Furthermore, the idea that good community relations can only be achieved if all citizens hold the same political and social views, reads like the manual of communist and fascist governance - a reflection of how secular liberal states cannot claim immunity from totalitarian trends.
It is overtly clear that stigmatising the values of a community and forcing them through state pressure to accept views that contradict their deeply held religious convictions only serves to create resentment and alienation within the society. It is this that “jeopardises community cohesion”.
The strategy, by labelling mainstream Islamic ideas as “extreme” such as such as the promotion of the Shariah, which are the day to day laws extracted from the Qur’an and Sunnah that Muslims live by, or by describing the support of resistance to occupation in the Muslim world – a view held by Muslims worldwide - as “creating a space” where people may be drawn into violence, simply places the whole Muslim community under the umbrella of “extremism”. It gives them a status of “suspect community” with its mosques, schools, youth and even dress codes viewed with suspicion. It is this that harms community relations by playing directly into the hands of right-wing extremists such as the BNP and providing fuel for the fire for their xenophobic rhetoric that immigrant cultures and values are a problem for British society. Consequently, such labelling increases the discrimination, prejudice and victimization faced by Muslims in the UK.
It is not differences of religious values and beliefs that create barriers between people but ignorance, prejudice, assumptions, and misunderstandings of different cultures alongside the hysteria and fear-mongering regarding “difference” being peddled by certain politicians and the right-wing press. These misunderstandings can only be eradicated through dialogue and engagement between people of different faiths and beliefs rather than the vilification of communities and their values. It is quite ironic that under the Caliphate and according to the Shariah laws – “extreme” ideas according to the government - non-Muslims are not expected to embrace the Islamic values to be considered good citizens but simply to abide by the laws of the state.
Moreover, only a defeated mind believes in changing ideas through coercion and labelling rather than the power of conviction. Therefore, Contest 2 is evidence enough that the government has failed to convince the Muslim community intellectually of the superiority of secular liberal values. Not surprising, considering the carnage that Muslims witness from the fallout of these values upon Western societies. What exactly are the “shared values” that the UK government wishes the Muslim community to embrace and tolerate? Is it the liberty, ‘follow your desires culture’ that has led to massive rates of adultery, single mothers, broken families and teenage pregnancies - the same freedom that led 13 year old Alfie Patten to father the child of his 15 year old girl friend? Perhaps it is the same liberty, ‘do as you please culture’ that has led to soaring levels of anti-social behaviour, drug addiction, binge-drinking, and knife and gun crime amongst the youth – the same freedom that led to the horrific murders of Jimmy Mizen, Rhys Jones and Damiola Taylor. Or maybe it is the same freedom, ‘lack of responsibility culture’ that allows people to neglect elderly parents and relatives, leaving the old to die alone in their homes while individuals pursue their own self –interests.
Does the “tolerance” or acceptance of these liberal secular values really make for a Muslim to be a good British citizen as opposed to the sublime values of Islam defined by the Shariah - values such as respect for people’s lives, property, honour and beliefs; values such as justice in the treatment of those of other faiths; values such as strong marriages and family units, of care and concern for our parents, relatives, neighbours, elders and for the community in which we live; values that take individuals away from a self-gratifying culture of drugs and binge-drinking to a sense of accountability and responsibility for one’s actions and the society in which we live. Is it really the case that adoption of these Islamic values and the rejection of the self-gratifying, irresponsible, and individualistic behaviour driven by secular liberalism, make Muslims a threat to British society?
The flawed narrative of Contest 2 indicates a government more concerned about stemming the rejection of Western secular liberal values by Muslims globally, including those in the West and quelling the tide of support for Islamic governance and implementation of the Shariah in the Muslim world, rather than earnestly tackling issues such as terrorism and community cohesion. It is reflective of a government playing politics with security in order to maintain influence in the Muslim world to protect economic interests.
[Extracted from the Article ‘The Flawed Narrative of CONTEST 2’, written by Dr Nazreen Nawaz]
No comments:
Post a Comment