The British government is planning to move its counter-extremism “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 nonviolent extremists (which the British government has apparently been doing) to tackle violent extremists simply legitimizes 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 Shariah 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-Qaeda to draft the manual on “How to categorize 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 Shariah 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-Qaeda’s definitions shows a government that has lost its marbles in pursuit of counterterrorism. The British 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 criminalize 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 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 de facto 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 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.
