Should the British Government Be Worried About Islamist Participationists

There has been a significant amount of discussion of late with regards to counterterrorism measures in the United Kingdom following the William Shawcross Review of Prevent, the U.K. Government’s flagship policy of prevent individuals from being drawn into radicalization and terrorism. This comes against a backdrop of significant terrorist incidents, such as the murder of Sir David Amess MP on 15 October, and also the terrorist incident in Liverpool. While the former has been declared as Islamist related, the latter hasn’t—yet. However, this should not detract from the fact that the principle threat the U.K. currently faces is from Islamists.

Much of the focus so far has been about the far-Right with regard to the PREVENT strategy, instead of radical Islam. One reason for this diversion is the role Islamist participationists play in the debates, policies, and initiatives aimed at reducing the risk of violent extremism and hate. Given that Islamist participationists operate in plain sight, it is perhaps worth considering whether the British government should be worried about them.

There are three types of Islamists who can be found in the United Kingdom: violent Islamists, non-violent Islamists, and Islamist participationists. Violent and non-violent Islamists do not seek to involve themselves within the machinery of democracy, the rule of law, and the customs of Western societies. They see these as antithetical to their way of life, which are based on the sharia (Islamic law). The third type of Islamists, the participationists, do not see democracy as necessarily inimical to their way of life, but, rather, an instrument to be used to pursue their goals. But what are these?

Damon Perry—senior research fellow for the think tank Policy Exchange—explored this question in 2019 by publishing the academic paper, Mainstream Islamism in Britain: Educating for the “Islamic Revival”, for the Commission on Countering Extremism. Perry posits that whilst Islamists during the 1960s saw their role as one of representing and advocating for communities of Muslims that share a particular ethnic background and language, this is no longer the case. As time has moved on, so has the make-up of British Muslims—thus their goals have also evolved, and are now predicated on the promotion and protection of Islam.

To achieve this, Islamist participationists have embedded themselves into the fabric of modern Britain. They have set themselves up with charities, schools, and various media outlets—both print and broadcast. Furthermore, they have also created advocacy groups to pressure the government and other political parties to accept their demands, which they see as essential to their identity as British Muslims. One example of this—which stretches back over three decades—is what can and cannot be said or shown with respect to the Prophet Muhammed.

The late 1980s is when Britain was introduced to the power of Islamists. The author, Salman Rushdie wrote the novel, The Satanic Verses. In it, he explores a Qur’anic dispute through fiction and introduces the reader to the character Mahound, based on the Prophet Muhammed. Infamously, Iran’s then-leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in February 1989 calling for Rushdie to be killed. Not everyone was quite that upset but the level of Muslim offence taken to it was in general not only disproportionate, but surprising. Here we had a diverse Muslim community in the United Kingdom getting on with their day to day lives, only to ditch it all in protest over a book. This episode demonstrated an apparent level of sensitivity among British Muslims that no one thought was possible.

Thirty years on, the saga of sensitivities remain on the agenda for these Islamists. The debate around blasphemy reached the foundation of liberal democracy earlier this year, the British Houses of Parliament. Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, stood up and raised the point that if the public could be emotionally hurt by the illegal removal of statues, then why can’t the same be true for Muslims when depictions of the Prophet Muhammed are made? With such “emotional harms, can there and should there be a hierarchy of sentiments?” she asked. Whilst prima facie it seems to be a reasonable comparison, on closer examination it is far from it. The common law offence of blasphemy was officially dropped in 2008. There was never and will never be any social acceptance of illegally removing statues of problematic figures. However, critiquing religion through free speech must be protected.

Naz Shah herself may not be an Islamist participationist, but her role as a Member of Parliament and her intervention does carry weight with them. It provides Islamist participationists a route to realizing their ambitions and goals of promoting and protecting Islam—and stamping out free speech. That they appear to have an MP advocating for shared goals should worry the government.

Sir David Amess was murdered and terrorism was brought to the streets of Liverpool in the space of a month, so we need to talk about why that happened, not be diverted away by Islamist participationists. If our MPs are not worried about them, then what hope do we have of protecting free speech and tackling the threat of terrorism?

Source » eeradicalization