It is also about confronting the ideology that feeds extremism, demonises the pluralism of democratic societies and fosters the victimhood and grievance that justifies mass murder.
This cannot be done only by the government. This argument has to be fought and won within the Islamic community itself. Voices within Islam who take on those who would justify terrorism have an impact that government agencies do not.
That is why Quilliam is important. Since the organisation was founded a few years ago it has been unequivocal in its condemnation of terrorism. It has condemned suicide bombings, not tried to justify them. It has exposed the arguments of the apologists for violence. And it has also taken on the argument, put forward by non-Muslims as well as some Muslims, that the threat we face is all our own fault. Or as Nick Cohen succinctly put it in his book, the view that says ‘kill us, we deserve it’.
Quilliam is led by former supporters of violent jihad. They know the language, ideology and theology of that which they now fight, because they were once part of it. The terror threat we face is justified on ideological and theological grounds. It has also to be confronted on ideological and theological grounds.
What Quilliam has done has required no small measure of courage. Consider for a moment the level of denunciation and attack its leaders must be under from those who seek to either explain away or even support violent extremism. And yet, despite that, Quilliam has taken these arguments on head-on. And in so doing it has given confidence and strength to others who may have questioned support for these acts but didn’t hear others questioning it, did not hear it being systematically opposed.
Now, the government proposes to end core funding for the organisation and to restrict it to bidding for project funding on a case-by-case basis. Quilliam predicts that, if this happens, it will fold, and do so very soon.
Let us just consider for a moment what the debate about terrorism would be like if Quilliam was not part of it. Do we really want to return to the time when this organisation was not there? Where are the other voices that will be as unequivocal as this one?
Capacity is not easy to build. Courage is not easy to find. If the government allows this organisation to go under, who do they really think will step forward to play the role Quilliam has played?
This question and others were put to the government during a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall this week organised by Labour MP and former Home Office minister Paul Goggins. But answers came there none
The government will save around £150,000 as a result of the ending of this funding. Given the important of the threat we face, this seems a complacent, risky and potentially dangerous decision.
Read also… Lucy James on How should the British left engage with Islamists? and Ghaffar Hussain on the civic challenge that faces us
This is an organisation whose pure purpose is to be the brown-faced cover for a policy which sets out to create a timid, obedient and meak Muslim community which does not in any way seek to challenge the murderous policies of government abroad.
I agree with Pat wholly on the need for outright condemnation of acts of violence and murder. But unlike him I have heard it from hundreds of Muslims up and down the country. Ordinary people like you and me who care about their children’s education, worry about the state of the economy, who pay their bills and attempt to live life to the fullest whilst abiding by the laws of the land and the cultural norms of their multiple identities, like all of us. It saddens me to think that after all that has happened with Prevent under Labour, the Party has yet to learn any lessons about the issues we face in this area. Both in terms of policy and the need to work with ordinary Muslims as citizens rather than alien communities that we need a ‘fixer’ to negotiate with. This Eurocentric idea of talking to the natives via government established and financed structures is far from ‘progressive’ and does not reflect the reality on the ground. The Muslim communities are too diverse to be represented through ‘leaders’ like Quilliam whose moral authority is totally lacking in these much dissected communities. It is assumed that because they were ‘former Jihadis’ and Muslim then they must be able to reach and understand Muslims much better than others. This assumption could hold true if it weren’t for one of their media darling director approaching an organisation working with Muslim nationally to give the Quilliam staff ‘diversity training’ into the Muslim community. What people also fail to forget is that the personal experience of Quilliam’s spokes people, whilst important and insightful is very much dated and access to the new thinking and networks of these radicalising ‘middle men’ is virtually non existent. Those who are bent on creating destruction and murder in the name of anything are going to evolve with the times and the new environment in which they operate in i.e you cannot solely rely on the jihadi experience and recruitment structure of the 1990s to combat terrorism in 2011 and beyond. It like using the Cold War model to explain new emerging global terrorist threats. I have always been a Labour supporter and worked closely with the Labour government on the issue of PVE but have found myself disillusioned and let down by the mis-analysis and disconnected policy thinking in this area not only because it does not reflect the reality of how communities live and feel about being British and living with multiple identities but in some cases policies have led to further isolation and a reinforcement of the sense of victimhood that we wish to combat. This has led to a disastrous sense of arrogance within Whitehall, a substantial waste in tax payers money and the shelving of some very fundamental values of liberty, democracy and right of expression that I never thought we would see under a Labour government. One of the best ways of dealing with the problem of terrorism is to engage and talk with people directly. Empower them to voice their concerns, views and exercise their rights as citizens. Make them proud to be British rather than label them as ‘isolated’ or ‘hard to reach’ communities that we need an interpreter (who does not have their authority or speak their language) to communicate with. Terrorism is far too serious an issue to be left to short termism and media courting professional Muslims.
Interface is of course badly needed between Muslim and non Muslim extremes.Mosaic, a Prince of Wales charity I think, announces the 3 week Cambridge Interfaith Program for 30 young people from Muslim,Christian and Jewish backgrounds this July,this type of thing and perhaps more discussion groups like it I feel would be a great help. There is much common ground theologically ideologically and socially that can be explored .I do think even Labour Councillors at local level could lead some of this , many already do of course. I worry that this latest notion mooted by the Tories of buying a place in this country for 5m or 10m (fast tracking immigration) could deliver to Saudi Arabia an even bigger opportunity to try and veer British Muslims towards separatism as they fund many schools, media companies and so on, so I understand. Does Sharia law for example require young people to spend a certain amount of time being instructed in Islam at their Mosque? is there any protection for children in terms of how much time they must be made to study beyond school?