What kind of religion?

Large parts of the third generation are finding religion in a way that few predicted. Some have attempted to explain it all away as something foreign and dangerous. I have understood it as something familiar, once one gets behind the veneer of difference. Is it strange that spiritual discipline should be attractive to those who were raised in the same North that welcomed Methodism? Is marching for social justice so foreign in a place that gave rise to the labour movement? Is believing in more than the material really that problematic in ‘Wuthering Heights’ country? Behind the veneer of difference, therefore, is a familiarity that can become obvious to those who lend a listening ear to the souls that are discovering their religious selves.

Religion is here, not arriving from outside, but developing from within our own local traditions. But what kind of religion is it? I am struck by the Muslim capitalist spirit that is present in Bradford. It is a religious spirit that bases itself on moral chauvinism, prides itself on the show of external symbols of religiosity and is linked closely with a capitalist spirit that seeks to exhibit the trophies of success to all those who are also engaged in this game of mutual rivalry. They have become religious and financially successful. But how moral is this position on religion? Is this why the moral voice in the community is seldom heard and why many very wrong things continue to be tolerated in the name of a chauvinism that pretends that God does not see everything?

There is another way of being religious that is also emerging. It is value-driven. Shami Chakrabarti came to Bradford recently and she is admired by many in the Muslim community. She has spoken out on issues even though she is not from amongst us. Are our convictions like her’s or are they driven dare I ask by a selfish individualism or perhaps even a selfish communitarianism? As the Sufis say, people wrapped up in themselves make small packages.

There is another kind of religion that is becoming evident: it is one of integrity, dignity and service to others; it seeks the Divine Mercy while also recognising that it is perpetually under the scrutiny of the Divine Gaze. Religion is about worship, contemplation, prayer and remembrance. It is also about our relations with each other: family, friends, colleagues, neighbours and fellow city-dwellers. Does the Prophetic tradition on relationality – as this is how it could be described – encourage us to give or to take from others? The encouragement is to give to everyone, and continuously, because the consequence of possession (of time, wealth and health) is generosity, for those who understand the true nature of things. Hence, as the moral energy is gathered, so it should be distributed, if we are minded so. Wordsworth said, ‘Blessed are they who in the main, this faith even now do entertain’. It is time that we began to feel this.

Another big mistake by pursue

Yesterday, Greater Manchester Police released Shaykh Asif Hussain Farooqui after he had been arrested on counter-terrorism related offences the week before. Four others who were arrested at the same time have been charged. The police have been in their words investigating this case for the last fifteen months.

There is a lot of anger in the community about the arrest of the respected Sufi Shaykh. Years ago, when there was no prevent, and hardly any linkages between the community and the police - this kind of mistake could have been explained away. Today, when prevent is anywhere and everywhere, and there are hundreds of police officers employed to know about the community, how the police could have arrested the Shaykh is totally beyond me. That they spent fifteen months investigating this and then released him within seven days after searching his house just beggars belief. It confirms one of my greatest worries - that is there is too much focus including from the Muslim community on prevent and not enough on pursue.

From the policing perspective, the damage to the credibility of British counter-terrorism is immense. Some mistakes are just too big, and this is one of them. How are we supposed to take the pursue strand seriously? Let it be remembered that this is the same force that arrested the Pakistani students earlier this year.

Our problem as a community is that we react. Instead, we should be proactive and organised. We need to know:

Which officer was responsible for the decision to arrest the Shaykh. He has some serious explaining to do, on the very specific question of the arrest of the Shaykh himself - why was it necessary?

Who trains and has trained the counter-terrorism unit in North West (CTU NW)?

Which Muslims were responsible for advising on this arrest, if any?

How many Muslims do GMP or CTU NW employ or have in scrutiny positions?

If we wish to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again, then we need to ask questions of those who are employed by us to protect us. Also worryingly, if the police are still arresting innocent good people then are they also missing the potential criminals?

Four Stages of Prevent

The Guardian's recent reporting of examples of bad practice in the implementation of prevent are currently being investigated by the Home Office. Before I write about what I consider to be the core problems at present, I'd like to provide some context.

There are four stages in the development of the prevent strategy as it is currently in place.

The first stage was pre-prevent, if you like. If we take 9/11 as the beginning (this could be disputed, because there was some activity in this area in the 90s), then there was a period which I find most astonishing upto July 7 2005 in which there was no prevent. There was a leaked memo from Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary of the time, to John Gieve, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office at the time, in 2004 which gave indications of what prevent could look like in its embryonic stages.

The second stage began after the bombings in July 7 2005. This included the forming of seven working groups of Muslims that were called to advise the government in different areas including regeneration, youth, education, mosques, extremism, women and security and policing. Many recommendations were presented to government and some of them were taken up. The government was criticised for not taking up more of the recommendations, the response was that many of the recommendations could not be taken up by government because it remained for the community itself to take them up. A couple of succesful projects took off during this period including Radical Middle Way which was aiming to support the counter-radicalisation argument in the community.

The third stage was a response to the second stage. The problem with the second stage was that it involved activities at the national stage and there was not enough devolution of the prevent strategy to the local level, There needed to be productive partnerships at the local level for the prevent strategy to work thoroughly. Councils with large Muslim populations were therefore chosen and given small amounts of money in the first trial year to examine how this process would play out. The problem was that many councils were distant from their local Muslim communities and their youth, sometimes due to exclusion and sometimes due to history. The government decided to roll out a three year programme of funding for Muslim community groups to work together with the local councils on the prevent agenda.

This led on to the fourth stage. The police had a counter-terrorism remit which focused on the second strand of the contest strategy: the pursue strand which was about actually apprehending people who were about to commit terrorist attacks. It was about this time when counter-terrorism was refashioned with local counter-terrorism units and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office being constituted (I'm still not sure whether this was not an elobarate form of musical chairs). The fourth stage of prevent involved the funding of prevent strands specifically in police forces, sometimes aligned with the neighbourhood policing agenda. This was announced by government at the time.

There are several problems with prevent at present. But perhaps before I proceed I should state my position on prevent as a whole. Is prevent necessary, that is, if Britain has a counter-terrorism strategy, then should it have a prevent aspect to this strategy which is specifically about positive linkages with the Muslim community? I think it should, indeed, it must. Otherwise contest is left to senior CT officials who tend to be Home Counties, Oxbridge and clueless. There needs to be a corrective element which adds to the strategy and comes from the Muslim community itself, at least in principle. I don't know if there remains a major terrorist threat to this country, but if there is, then the CT prevent strand must be Muslim-focused and inclusive. This is how most effective policy responses to social problems work.

About the problems. First of all, it is not clear to me whether the walls between the community aspect and the policing aspect are Chinese enough. If they are not, then this is a major problem. The cases referred to by the Guardian indicate that there are problems in this area. The key problem being that funding is being provided to community organisations who are then leant on to provide information for pursue.

Secondly, there is this whole problem of ensuring the the whole community is represented in the prevent strategy to reflect the diversity of the community. This mixes the objectives of prevent and dilutes the effectiveness of the strategy, as is happening in several projects. The only justification that I can think of for prevent money from a state perspective is if it leads to actually making Britian safer, but this requires some strong-mindedness from the officials. For example, a non-practising Muslim with hardly any activist history will simply not have any effect on deradicalisation of extremists, but a practising one can. But the government and officials are too worried of the Daily Mail factor and so instead are more willing to fund meaningless projects which help no-one except those that are funded. Here. the government should I think call Paul Dacre in and explain what this strategy is about, what they are doing and why and then ask for some slack from the Daily Mail in the interests of the security of the country.

The third problem is recognising the difference between community cohesion and prevent. One positive aspect of prevent has been that it has helped community cohesion in one way - there are many succesful projects - by linking up Muslim communities that were previously excluded from police services and local councils to those same bodies, by force. This has been attritional and many have resisted, but it has brought more co-operation and therefore more cohesion where it matters most, between officialdom and the local communities. Others (in the South) that previously had good relations were upset by stigma associated with prevent but the honesty of their convictions can be tested by looking to see how they have involved and employed Muslims throughout the rest of their organisations.

The fourth problem is Muslim involvement itself. This has been a big failure and the fact that there is this current attrition between the OSCT and the community and the fact that many Muslims have simply not cared enough about the recent reporting are indications of the distance that remains between officialdom and serious leadership in the community. This is a disaster and I can only put it down to cowardice on the part of officialdom - to take on characters who would have given them a hard time, but for a good purpose. Something to do with comfort zones? Does this explain why so many clearly dodgy characters are hanging around the prevent agenda?

The Tories have stated that they will keep with Contest but review Prevent. The DCLG select committee is also reviewing prevent. Is the community itself at a different place now than where it was five years ago? Is prevent as important now as it was then? Is something else required now? Could streamlining prevent (making it fit for purpose), ringfencing police involvement in prevent and mainstreaming Muslim community participation and involvement in public services a surer way to make this country safer?

J'Accuse le BBC

Nick Griffin, if you haven't noticed already, is due to appear on this week's BBC's flagship political programme 'Question Time'. There is much concern and commentary across the media about this as a key moment in the growing acceptability of the BNP. It is their moment of arrival. The first point that I'd make is that the narrative of the steady upward climb of the far-right is (like the fear of the Muslim take-over) exaggerated and complicated. Many places have seen the rise and fall of the BNP vote already. Other places are still experiencing a rise, but for different reasons - mostly to do with the fracturing of the Labour vote. The BNP tends not to be as succesful in Tory areas and this may be due to 'a class thing' - ex Tory voters tend to vote Lib Dem or UKIP, whereas ex Labour voters tend to vote BNP.

This issue to me is more about the BBC than it is about Nick Griffin, and it is more about the content than it is about personalities. Many commentators have noted a shift in BNP rhetoric over the years to focus on anti-Muslim arguments - the same arguments that we are all familiar with. He will no doubt refer to them on the programme. The problem for me is that it is not the case as far as anti-Muslim prejudice is concerned that Nick Griffin is the prejudiced one, and all the rest are not prejudiced. Rather, sadly, it is the case that the opinions that Nick Griffin would wish to put forward are indeed shared by many in the 'respectable political establishment' especially when it comes to Muslims. The accumulative result is that there may appear in fact to be some truth in what Nick Griffin is saying, because as in Venn diagrams there is too much overlap with 'mainstream politicians'. It will be in these moments when the nation will collectively gulp as they recognise that they are in agreement with the leader of the BNP. (J'Accuse le BBC). The anti-Muslim narrative will begin to assume an air of truth.

Let's look at the people that have been reported as being approached to attend this Thursday: Richard Littlejohn, Douglas Murray and Michael Gove. Unfortunately in relation to some of their views on Muslim communities, there is much overlap between these individuals in their opinions. Hence the opportunism of the BNP.

Even of those that have been selected: Sayeeda Warsi and Jack Bhai, there is still unfortunately some overlap. I still haven't got to the bottom of Jack Bhai's comments on the niqab when Minister after Minister followed Jack's lead to lay in to the Muslim community and off their own personal portfolio. That was just wierd. One day we'll find out. Sayeeda Warsi has to engage in the politics of compensation in which she has to celebrate her success as a leading Muslim politician and compensate for it at the same time by saying the kind of things that could be agreeable to a BNP voter.

I blame the BBC. If the boundaries of acceptability have been widened, and content has been added to the narrative, then the appearance of Nick Griffin on the BBC is not one huge leap for freedom, but rather another small step in the direction of support for anti-Muslim prejudice by the nation's broadcaster.

Those who follow this blog will know that I have been chasing the BBC on its continued inclusion of Melanie Phillips on the Moral Maze as a panellist even on Muslim related issues when many Muslims have had to put themselves in a position of vulnerability to someone who has called for the use of torture in the war of terror and that the problem with the British government's policy on counter-terrorism is that they are not taming Muslims like we used to do in the Raj (I'll leave it for you to put two and two together).

The BBC's flagship religious discussion programme is called 'the Big Questions' and has recently invited Douglas Murray as a panellist on Islam and Muslims when he has said in the past that 'Islam is an opportunistic infection in Europe' (why is he calling us opportunistic?). Again, there is overlap between people who have been given prime-time space to make their anti-Muslim comments and some of the things that Nick Griffin says.

I used to think that the BBC was left-wing and pro-minorities. This is until I heard Greg Dyke as CEO describe it as 'hideously white' and then began to come across people in public life as former BBC employees: Rod Liddle and Anthony Browne are two examples of people who have had very influential positions in the BBC and also hold extreme views on Muslims and multiculturalism. This has made me wonder. Perhaps the BBC is not the airy-fairy, nicey-daisy organisation that some make it out to be. Perhaps its active encouragement of the anti-Muslim position over the years is just the simple context for this next step to be taken this week.

Which returns me to my title: I accuse the BBC of neglect and the systematic devaluation of its Muslim community.

If I was in the BBC in the months after 11 September 2001 and I had a position of responsibility, I would have immediately called in three lieutenants and said: 'Right, we need Muslim journalists, Muslim producers, Muslim editors and Muslim writers - and I don't want people who know nothing about the community - we need to know what's going on, what they're thinking etc. Bring them in'. Instead, as many people who keep an eye on the BBC know, there has been very little inclusion but plenty of objectification of this over-represented minority. Even til today, while the anti-Muslim voice gains ground. I can give examples here, one is the recent radio 4 programme on Muslim identity by Kenan Malik which was really poor and boring. (Some will point to the appointment of Aqeel Ahmed as head of commissioning for religious broadcasting at the BBC as a counter-argument - all that this does is put the burden of representation on to one individual who has to champion and compensate at the same time within the above kind of environment. The BBC would be on much stronger ground if it can bring ten practising Muslims who are succesful and achieving producers/writers/journalists to the fore).

I don't have a problem with freedom of speech, I think Nick Griffin, Melanie Phillips and others do have a right to their freedom of speech, but, crucially, so do we. Sorry, so did we, during the Bush years.

And this brings me to the final point. It was Emile Zola who wrote the famous riposte 'J'Accuse' against the French state for the false imprisonment of a Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus for treason. This cultural moment in French anti-semitism became known as the Dreyfus Affair. Some cultural commentators have in their more inspired moments contrasted the similarities and differences between the Dreyfus affair and the Rushdie affair. To me, the key difference seems to be that the Dreyfus affair was about the false imprisonment of an innocent Jew which then lead to a fairer treatment of Jews as a whole. The Dreyfus affair disrupted the anti-Jewish narrative. The Rushdie affair is about the fatwa but it was also slanted against the differentiated community rather than for it as in the Dreyfus affair. The Rushdie affair compounded the anti-Muslim narrative. The BBC played an important role in the Rushdie affair (I have studied this matter for my PhD). It helped then to increase the distance between communities. That was in 1989. Today, twenty years on and amazingly despite the Bush years (the volume and the intensity), the BBC - despite the odd exceptions - stands at a place in relation to the Muslim community which is discriminatory and prejudicial.

There is an alternative narrative - there is nothing inevitable about the anti-Muslim argument - there is another way to talk about what is happening in our cities, but it will require the BBC to find the tolerance, the courage and the will to find those ten Muslims that I referred to earlier.

And my question for Nick Griffin on the day?

How many colours in the rainbow?

Regenerating the Heart of Bradford

Visitors from outside of town when driving through Bradford may have noticed a huge hole in the centre of the city. This is because several buildings were knocked down a few years ago to make way for a new shopping centre which is to be built by Westfield - a leading construction company in this area. Bradford is basically looking to develop a mini-shopping centre like Meadowhall just outside Sheffield or Trafford Centre just outside Manchester, only smaller. There have been difficulties getting enough tenants for the centre and the recession managed to slow things down before they had got started. I would like to call for something completely different.

If we want to revive Bradford's city centre, then we have to ask why would anyone want to shop in Bradford when they can shop online, go to White Rose shopping centre in Leeds, or Leeds city centre itself (with Harvey Nichols etc.), or Meadowhall or Trafford Centre, or Manchester city centre which has come on leaps and bounds as well. Most people that I have spoken to have said that if they want to go shopping then they will visit one of these areas, not a lesser version in Bradford and I can't see how having a couple of the usual tenants (BHS, M and S) would attract a greater proportion of shopping public that is now more mobile and that has the ability to shop from home.

If we want Bradford city centre to work then we have to sell it as an experience, a multicultural experience - in fact, this is why many people from outside of Bradford come to Bradford - to 'have a curry'. Bradford on the street looks very different to what it did in the nineties. Great Horton road, Leeds road, White Abbey road... these roads are alive and one could argue that Bradford has become the eating out capital of the North overtaking Wilmslow road in Manchester of yesteryear. Clothing outlets like Atique Textiles and Bombay Stores have also developed and attract many visitors from outside.

This is where the regeneration chiefs need to make their presence felt - they need to bring these and individual parts of Bradford's economic life into one whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The way to do this is to change the design of the city centre - as is already currently being planned but bring everything into one place: a park at the heart that is surrounded by the leading high street stores, the best Asian restaurants and fast food joints and the best Asian clothing outlets -who knows there may even be some intercultural fusion in this kind of set up so Bombay Stores could start selling goods that are Eastern and Western at the same time. That would be genuinely exciting. I know that the creative flair exists in Bradford to do this, it just needs some creative and decisive leadership from the regeneration wallahs so that they can begin to see a vision in which a family may decide to spend a Saturday afternoon in Bradford where they can pop in to Next and BHS but also stroll through a park to Mumtaz's for lunch before buying some ethnic Westernwear from Bombay Stores on their way home. This could make Bradford stand out from the crowd and draw in numerous customers from outside of the city.

Farewell to the Bush years - Part 8

What did you find shocking and unbelievable?

Like I have hinted at earlier, the Bush years were one long surreal moment in which it seemed that anything could happen. This moment began with a terrorist attack that could have never been imagined and ended with the election of a young African-American President which was also previously unbelievable. The attacks in Madrid were unbelievable. The anti-war March in London on 15th February 2003 in which 1 million people marched was unbelievable. The invasion of Iraq was unbelievable. It was as if we were in some world or realm in which the impossible became possible. This is how it felt at the time, but at the same time the calmer voice within me urges me to resist ‘the Bush years as exceptional’ argument. There had been a previous Gulf war. The US had previously attacked Grenada. The Irish experience of internment was much worse than what the Muslim community experienced during the Bush years. So in many ways, the Bush years can be characterised by a series of unbelievable events, but also it was in many respects business as usual.

The other aspect of the Bush years which was genuinely shocking was the widening of the boundaries of acceptability in relation to what one could say about Muslims. ‘Islam as an opportunistic infection in Europe’, ‘Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics’ and we should tame the Muslim community as we did during the Raj (I have paraphrased this) have all been written by anti-Muslim spokespersons during these times. That they passed without wider comment is shameful and that it remained for Muslims to question this language is also shocking. Reading material like this, I did feel at times that I couldn’t believe that this was happening. These kinds of statements about any other community would have been regarded as unacceptable and condemned but they appear acceptable when ascribed to the Muslim community.

This makes me think that there were some that used the Bush years as an opportunity. I can think of two sectors here that had close but troubled relations with the Muslim community prior to the Bush years. The first is the race industry. Within the race industry there has been a variety of response. Commentators like Gary Younge of the Guardian and Karen Chouhan of the 1990 Trust have been at the forefront of support for the Muslim community whereas activists like Trevor Philips have used the Bush years to criticise the Muslim community for adopting a segregationist approach. His speech ‘Sleepwalking to segregation’ just after the 2005 attacks was probably one of the greatest acts of brinkmanship against the Muslim community in this period. The Anglican Church has been an institution that has developed relations with the community but this did not prevent leading members of the Church such as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali from criticising the Muslim community through arguments that again presented the community as a problem, seeking to isolate itself and refusing to engage. There certainly was some opportunism during this period and it was revealing as to the true intentions of those who previously had painted themselves as friends of the Muslim community. Please note the links being made by anti-Muslim spokespersons from terrorism to politics through culture to religion.

What has changed and what will be the long-term impact of the Bush years?

Thinking about the Bush years I am taken back to the Rushdie affair. The main event was the issuing of the fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie in 15 February 1989. The book burning which is something associated with the fatwa is something that gathered significance retrospectively. At the time (early January 1989), it didn’t receive that much coverage in the press. The Rushdie affair though has been described as the origin of the ‘Islam problem’. Some commentators have attempted to force this narrative. For example Kenan Malik has titled his new book ‘From Fatwa to Jihad’ as if there is some clear link between the two. There may be, but only in the minds of those who wish to construct a powerful anti-Muslim prejudice that preys upon the deepest fears of an already fearful Western population. The Rushdie affair can’t really be described as the origin of the ‘Islam problem’. The halal meat episode and the Honeyford affair are perhaps important first experiences of the tensions around multiculturalism and the war in Bosnia was the formative event in the development of the more radical trends in British Islam rather then the Rushdie affair. ‘From Bosnia to Jihad’ would be a more credible account of the narrative and it makes much more sense: the jihad movement gained strength directly because of the weakness that many Muslims felt as a result of the murder and rape in Bosnia.

The Rushdie affair at the time though seemed to last for eternity and many of us who were there then felt that it was a really bad period to live through. However, as in the Sufi understanding, reality may contradict appearances. The Rushdie affair became a time of great soul searching within the community and considerable discussion as to the future of the community itself. Out of the Rushdie affair emerged therefore an approach towards understanding Muslim identity that was strident and yet focused on the naturalisation of a Muslim presence within Britain. Many people discovered themselves as Muslims thereafter and found ways to contribute towards such a natural Muslim presence within Britain.

The Bush years I think will have the same kind of effect and in fact I have already seen it happening. There is a large proportion of the third generation that is now politically focused, aware and strident. The difference between now and then is that then – twenty years ago - many of us had to make do with poor resources, many questions were left unanswered and we had very little means to figure out what we were going to do next. This is no longer the case. In publishing, the books that are available now are an amazing source of information and guidance. In terms of lecture series, there are many, many educational products available for Muslim young people which can help them through faith spiritually, intellectually and practically. These services rendered by leaders like Sh Hamza Yusuf, Dr Umar Abdallah, Sh Zaid Shakir and Sh Abdal Hakim Murad are a great service to the Muslim community and have been incredibly helpful. The internet through youtube and e-mail contact and online shops also makes all of these resources instantly accessible. The facilities and resources are therefore great and I sometimes marvel at the lack of appreciation from some 18 year olds that I have come across to the resources that they have available and that we never had then.

The other main difference between now and then is that the move in the nineties was towards cultural isolation and political oppositionalism. The move today is towards cultural and political engagement. The politicisation of the Bush years has therefore rapidly speeded up the development of a Muslim identity in Britain and the West in general and it has done so by politicising Muslim youth, that is marking their identity, which has then forced them to explore this identity through a much wider variety and better quality of resources that are now available and in the direction of engagement. This means that today and henceforth there is a much greater presence in the public sphere than before. That is to say, that where the doors have been opened such as in the Guardian’s comment pages, then there is a sizeable Muslim presence that is seeking to respond to the various challenges that we face and where the doors have been closed such as in the Telegraph’s comment pages, then Muslims are few and far between. One example of this shift from protest towards engagement is the Muslim student body FOSIS, the Federation of Students Islamic Societies. The nineties were a time in which FOSIS was either excluded from the deliberations of the National Union of Students or engaged in some antagonistic altercation with the NUS. Today, FOSIS representatives have been elected on to the national NUS body and there is in the main a strong and mutually beneficial and constructive relation between the NUS and FOSIS. In this sense, one could say that Muslim politics is maturing.

If there are several layers of representation: academic (e.g. university professors), media (e.g. journalists and commentators), policy (policywonks and civil servants) and political (members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the representation has been continuous and intense then the story of engagement is very far from complete. There are only four Muslim members of parliament, the Muslims members of the House of Lords are not as strong as other members (their contributions to debates are lacklustre), there are very few national Muslim commentators and also very few professors in the human, social and political sciences. But the numbers are slowly increasing.

The extent to which this period has had a transformative effect upon the community can be envisaged by the changes that have occurred to some its leading individuals. Sadiq Khan began this period as a lawyer working with Louise Christian on cases that were taking the government to task on its counter-terrorism strategy. Sadiq Khan then became an MP and then a Minister for the Department of Communities and Local Government which leads on race equality and cohesion matters. Salma Yaqoob was transformed through her experience of anti-Muslim prejudice and has since become a leading political voice for the community, appearing on national television and speaking in front of thousands in numerous occasions. Majid Nawaz began this period as a leading member of Hizb ut Tehrir. He was arrested in Egypt and then found guilty. He was released, returned to Britain and began to appear on satellite Muslim television and then announced his departure from Hizb ut-Tehrir to lead a counter-extremism think tank that is heavily backed by government.

It’s still too early to tell what all of this will lead to and this is probably why we are currently engaged in a war of positioning and have been so since 9/11. What is clear though is that where there is under-representation of Muslims in public life, it’s not because of a lack of ambition or aspiration or even talent, it is instead due to the fact that the doors through which one has to enter in order to gain a foothold in any of these arenas are firmly shut.

There has been real resistance from policy makers and commentators to respond to the terrorism question simply as a political issue and there has instead been a real readiness to move towards defining the problem as a cultural problem and so policy makers and commentators have lead on the war of positioning by putting forward the examples of Ed Hussain, Anjum Choudhury and even Shami Chakrabarti as leaders for the community to contend with. Salma Yaqoob, Inayat Bunglawala and others have also fought to carve a political position that retains some critical edge while remaining integrationist in principle. That Ed Hussain has been actively supported by the government and Anjum Choudhry is given instant access to the mainstream media – something which is almost impossible for most intelligent, coherent, sound, decent and generally persuasive Muslims – shows that the matter of the future of Muslim identity is actively being contested by several actors. The Muslim community has to keep a close and perceptive eye here on developments and the kinds of people that receive patronage and why. This story though is still in the making.

Farewell to the Bush Years - Part 7

Who did badly in the Bush years within a British context?

When one begins to think about who did badly in the Bush years and who did well, then it is clear that of those on the national scene it was those who were able to provide some kind of persistent leadership through example which represented good judgment and political nous that came out as winners in the Bush years. Lord Nazir Ahmad was for example the de facto Minister for Muslim affairs in the first Blair administration but his influence declined in the second administration. This was because he was perhaps a bit too vociferous against the government of which he was a member. His political position was in effect right in my opinion i.e. that someone had to take a critical stance towards what the government was doing from 2002-2004, however his manner of execution was too abrasive and risky. Tariq Ramadan was also a voice that was poised to become an influential player in the Bush years but he has not been able to attract a mass following perhaps because his interventions have been too general. Leadership during the Bush years too often centred and depended upon the specifics and outlining a response to specific developments. The Muslim Members of Parliament Muhammad Sarwar and Khalid Mahmood also lost ground during the Bush years. They were unable to articulate any vision for the Muslim community which the community could adopt and follow.

The Muslim Council of Britian has also emerged weaker from the Bush years. Their initial position prior to 9/11 was as Labour’s only Muslim interlocutor. Word had it that Iqbal Sacranie the Secretary-General of the MCB had a direct line to Tony Blair. However, the influence of the MCB began to decline as the Bush years wore on. This is for two reasons. The first is the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ultimately, the MCB took a position against both wars (though it was slow to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan) and this included being part of a huge coalition against the invasion of Iraq. This soured relations between the MCB and the government. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly the MCB was slow to respond to the needs of the government. From 9/11 onwards the government needed a partner with which it could work and upon which it could rely for the delivery of key policy objectives. The two key areas were community cohesion (or the integration debate) and counter-terrorism (and what later became the prevent strand). On both agendas, the MCB didn’t really respond in any way that could be regarded as offering some form of direction to government and leadership to the Muslim community. If the government was frustrated uptil July 7, the terrorists attacks of July 7 2005 highlighted this great absence and the government effectively decided to instigate its own proto-Muslim leadership through the establishment of seven working groups themed around key policy areas. In one step, the MCB was sidelined and it was perhaps necessary at the time for a government whose priority was the safety of its citizens. Rival organisations such as the British Muslim Forum (headed by former Labour activist Khurshid Ahmad) and the Sufi Muslim Council (headed by former Labour activist Azhar Ali) were formed and these began to challenge the MCB on the national stage. In effect though, the MCB remains the main player because of its large number of affiliates and the other two organisations remain weak. The MCBs influence has however declined and with the advent of the prevent strand in full measure across the country and the formation of the Young Muslim Advisory Group and the Muslim Women’s Advisory Group by the DCLG, the MCB has been sidelined altogether. This could have been regarded as a price worth paying if the MCB had gained concomitantly in its support within the Muslim community but this hasn’t happened either.

Other people whose influence has declined are the anti-Muslim extremists. Straight after 9/11 there was a great deal of interest in the anti-Muslim position, however, as the years have gone by the positions of the anti-Muslim extremists have begun to appear more and more absurd, especially because the solution that they offer is of further polarisation. Since the moderating tendency within the Muslim community has increased and become more vociferous during the Bush years, their position seems less accurate and therefore more paranoid. Their influence has certainly declined.

Who did well in the Bush years? Who came out as winners?

The Bush years have been very good for Muslim moderation (unfortunately, they have also been very good for extremism). This was for two reasons: the first is the moral repugnance that many Muslims felt towards the terrorist attacks and their justifiers. This did genuinely move many Muslims to realise that we had a problem within the community. Secondly, Muslim moderation became a political necessity in response to terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks lead therefore to a strong revival of moderation simply because the opposing path was too politically fraught with danger. Those who therefore articulated a Muslim moderation with a clear and consistent approach emerged as winners from the Bush years. The Muslim community was seeking some direction and further polarisation was not a part of it so those leaders and spokespersons that articulated a moral response and political direction that exhibited some spine and some substance were those that were held in high regard. Sadiq Khan and Salma Yaqoob emerge here as two important voices that articulated this position very clearly.

One point that I’d like to add here though is that the Bush years were a very challenging time for people who were leading the Muslim community in that the Bush years had this habit of throwing up scenarios which most people were not prepared for and probably had never thought about. Immediately, we, as a community, would be thrown into the eye of a major storm and we’d have all of three hours to respond with conviction and good judgement. This was asking a lot of most people and the first generation shied away from this responsibility, probably because they didn’t have a clue as to how to respond. Many in the second generation stepped forward and I commend them for their bravery. Many have also made the occasional mistake. And this is where I think we should provide some breathing space for those who were brave enough to stand up for the mistakes that they may have made during this period. Which brave soul is going to suggest that they could have done a better job? Perhaps, he who is without fear should cast the first stone, but I’m sorry to note that most people were afraid, but not too afraid to criticise. Having noted this, I would also state that internal criticism is a very useful corrective measure if it’s done in the right way. We need internal criticism (of individuals), but we also need bravery and good judgement.

Where do you think Quilliam foundation fits into this?

I think the Quilliam foundation has been a real disaster. This is not because I disagree with their political position, in essence I agree with their political position. That is that we have to question some of the influences upon British Muslims and ensure that we help develop an approach that is conducive towards the preservation of Muslim identity as well as outreach towards the wider community. The problem during the Bush years was that internal critique (of aspects of the community) became almost impossible during times of heightened politicisation. The community was on the defensive though it had and has many issues that it needs to face head on. We were coming from a point of political oppositonalism and cultural isolation at the same time. To help lead or navigate the community from this point towards one in which the community is politically engaged and culturally confidant is a delicate, sensitive process. There were several Muslims who were leading this trend and it was moving slowly but surely. However, the Quilliam foundation has almost totally discredited this position not because of the position itself (or what it means) but because of their tone and approach. The community could be seen as a young teenager that was being coaxed out its teenage rage by a loving parent towards a mature take on the world. The Quilliam foundation instead appeared as the angry parent who belittled the teenager and moralised against him. The teenager at this point of course walks out of the house. If the community does need some form of leadership which seems very similar to a kind of paternalism, then it should be a form of paternalism that helps the transition not one that confounds it.

I have been talking a lot about positionality and this is because the Bush years did in one sense foster a war of positioning in the Muslim community. This can be seen time and again as major players such as government departments like the DCLG or think tanks like the Policy Exchange or commentators like Timothy Garton Ash have spent much of the Bush years engaged in some exploratory anthropology-like exercise towards the Muslim community. Timothy Garton Ash’s search has been for a liberal Muslim that can be reconciled with his version of liberalism. He began by extolling the virtues of Ayaan Hirse Ali as ‘the new Voltaire’, then moved on to Tariq Ramadan who now works with him in Oxford university and Ash is now an advisor to the Quilliam Foundation. Similarly, the Policy Exchange has published a policy paper on ‘being careful as to who one chooses as friends’. This leading think tank for the new conservatism feels the need to help map out a pathway for conservatives in their relations with the Muslim community.