INTERVIEW Prevention better than cure?
By Mahan Abedin
The British government's counter-terrorism policy and its broader agenda of
containing so-called violent radicalization and extremism have come under
closer scrutiny in recent weeks. The London Guardian [1] ran an article on
October 16 alleging that the government's "Preventing Violent Extremism"
strategy ("Prevent" for short) is being used to gather intelligence about
innocent people's political views and other information related to their
personal circumstances.
In light of these revelations, Mahan Abedin spoke to Dr Abdul Wahid, one of the
key players in the British Muslim community. Wahid is the chairman of the
executive committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in Britain. He has been on HT's
executive committee in Britain since 2004. He was born in 1967 in London and
has been
working with the HT since 1996. He is a medical doctor by profession.
Mahan Abedin: How do you assess the British government's
"Preventing Violent Extremism" strategy in light of media reports that it has
been a cover for mass spying on the UK's Muslim communities?
Abdul
Wahid: It comes as no surprise that the "Prevent" strategy has
been used to spy en masse on the Muslim community. From the outset, this
strategy had sinister aims and an ideological agenda, not a security one. Seen
from the local level it is clearly about gaining control over the Muslim
community and pushing them to adopt Western liberal norms.
MA: The director of Liberty, Sami Chakrabarti, has in the wake of
the reports labelled "Prevent" "the biggest spying program in Britain in modern
times"; do you concur with this statement?
AW: I think that's probably correct. I hadn't heard of anything
like this in my adult life - though I am aware that people were systematically
spied upon during the Cold War era. But these are not new revelations as
encouraging teachers to spy on children and neighbor to spy on neighbor has
been quite openly encouraged for some years.
What's more, it's yet another example of how the British government has made
Britain a "police state" for Muslims since the start of the "war on terror". In
Britain, they have detention without trial for up to 42 days for Muslim
suspects; they have had control orders where Muslims can be put under house
arrest without any right of defense in a trial or even any right to see the
evidence alleged against them.
MA: What are the immediate practical implications of these
revelations insofar as the Muslim community's relationship with the government
is concerned?
AW: In the short term, these measures will rightly make Muslims
more suspicious of the government. But there is already evidence that "Prevent"
will be re-engineered, re-named and re-launched - probably to counter so-called
"extremist" threats from Muslims and right-wing extremists. This will make the
policy more palatable to some Muslims because of its seeming even-handedness.
But, in my view, it doesn't make the policy right.
The fear is that as time goes by, our community leaders will become more
complacent and forget this recent experience. The government has offered large
sums of money in this program - over ฃ70 million [US$116 million]. Many
of our leaders sincerely believe it's their duty to accept this money on behalf
of the community. But when you understand what it is for, and what strings are
attached, you realize how wrong and dangerous it is to accept money like this.
MA: Considering the impact of the terrorist bombings on July 7,
2005, was it not inevitable that the government would try to improve local
resilience and capacity to detect and deter future bombers?
AW: You could argue that in such circumstances any government
would take law and order measures to protect the public. But that was not what
has led to the "Prevent" strategy.
Within two to three weeks of the July 2005 bombings, the British government saw
the public mood of anger and fear, and realized the climate was ripe to push
through a more far-reaching set of objectives. This is where the more draconian
and persecutory policies emerged. The same thing happened in the US after 9/11
with the introduction of the Patriot Act by George W Bush.
We should be clear, "Prevent" is not a policy that will detect and deter
future bombers. It is an ideological agenda built on the false premise that the
more Islamic a person is, and the more politicized, the more chance they have
of becoming a security threat. This may sound utterly ridiculous, but that is
actually the strategy.
Earlier this year, a leak to the Guardian newspaper exposed that the
government's definition of "extremism" which should raise suspicions includes
belief in the implementation of sharia or Khilafah/Caliphate - anywhere in the
world; belief that it is legitimate for the Muslims of Palestine, Iraq or
Afghanistan to resist occupation; and belief that homosexuality is a sin. So
you can see its real aim is to start a coercive assimilation of Muslims -
"converting" them to Western values, and subduing them to the will of the
state.
MA: In recent years, the government and its allies have tried to
diversify leadership poles in the community - specifically sidelining the
Muslim Council if Britain. How successful have they been in this endeavor?
AW: Their attempts have been most energetic at a local community
level than at a national level. It seems, at a national level, they only want
to engage with "yes men" - meaning, people who tell them what they want to
hear. As soon as you disagree, they close the door.
At a local level, there is evidence that the older generation of Muslim
community leaders can be bullied by the police and councils.
But they have been most dynamic in setting programs for Muslim youth and Muslim
women. And these seem to filter off the most motivated young people and filter
them off into circles where they are groomed - in much the same way that
"elites" in Muslim countries are filtered off and groomed in the West for
future leadership - so that when they return they serve Western interests. In
fact, there are many parallels between Britain's colonial foreign policy and
its domestic policies towards the Muslim community.
MA: How united are Britain's Muslim communities on the important
issues of the day; namely, counter-terrorism, integration versus assimilation
and foreign policy?
AW: Looking at the response of Muslims to major events you can
certainly draw some conclusions. There has been loud opposition from Muslims
over the draconian anti-terror laws that target Muslims and Islamic beliefs -
though the same Muslims opposed the killing of civilians in events like 9/11
and 7/7.
On the assimilation/integration agenda, I think Muslims by and large live
peaceably with their neighbors, but when expected to be silent about insults to
the Koran or the Messenger of Allah [sallahu alayhi wasallam] they
refused - and were very vocal in their condemnation of these insults.
Similarly, you will hardly hear a Muslim voice that will agree with British
policy towards Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine. Indeed, there was outrage from
Muslims at the British government's silence during the Israeli massacre of Gaza
in 2009.
MA: There is now even a think-tank [namely the Quilliam
Foundation] that markets itself as the first counter-extremism center in the
UK. What long-term objectives is the government pursuing through the work of
the Quilliam Foundation?
AW: The government's long-term objective is to manufacture a
compliant, subdued, secular Muslim community in Britain. They have used many
people and styles to push through this anti-Muslim agenda over the years. Some
have been high profile, and some low profile. But, almost all have been
ineffective, and so end up being replaced eventually.
MA: Can the community build up resilience against terrorism
independent of government direction and interference?
AW: Your question pre-supposes that terrorism comes from
something endemic and systematic in the Muslim community, which I would
dispute. It isn't the Muslim community that has caused terrorism. Whatever the
wrong actions of some individuals, the much bigger question is how to deal with
the major terrorism of our time, which is the foreign policy of colonial
nations such as Britain and the US.
They have launched wars, imprisoned without due process, and tortured many
Muslims in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. They have supported dictatorial
regimes which are their first line of defense against Islamic revival. This
means that they are the major source of terrorism internationally, and any
reactions have to be explained in that context.
MA: How do you explain the emergence of single-issue far-right
groups such as the English Defense League, which purports to counter the growth
of "Islamic extremism" in the UK through concerted street action?
AW: Such far-right groups have emerged in a climate created by
mainstream politicians of all parties. Through their war propaganda related to
Iraq and Afghanistan they have systematically demonized Islam and created
suspicion of Muslims.
Their activity presents a challenge for Muslims, who will be caught between
being bullied by them into apologizing for Islamic values (which is what they
want), or reacting in a rash, immature or violent way (which only plays into
their hands and reinforces their false stereotype).
MA: How should Muslims react to the steady rise of the British
National Party [BNP]?
AW: The BNP are a fringe party and their support base is small.
This means their success in European and local elections can't be replicated in
any serious way on a national level. Moreover, most people in general society
despise them. Hence we should not overreact to them.
Rather, Muslims should be wary of politicians who come to them saying "support
me or else the BNP will get in". It was not the BNP who led Britain into two
wars of occupation in the Muslim world. It was not the BNP who first raised the
hostility to Muslim women's dress. These were done by the Labour Party who
largely compete for Muslim support.
Muslims must not let themselves be fooled by Labour and Conservative
politicians who play the "BNP card" whilst propagating anti-Muslim policies.
MA: Even mainstream British politicians have declared
"multiculturalism" to be as good as dead; how will this impact British Muslims
at local and national levels?
AW: I think the demise of the policy of "multiculturalism" has
made it easier to vilify Islam. Things can be written and said about Islam and
Muslims that could never be said of other races or religions. The net result is
that more of the wider society, who are fed this diet of lies and
misinformation, view Muslims as a suspect community or with hostility.
MA: Do you believe a future Conservative government will act any
differently towards the community? Discuss primarily in the context of
counter-terrorism and multiculturalism.
AW: The Conservative party is very open about their anti-Islamic
agenda! They supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been equally
vocal about denouncing mainstream Islamic ideas and Muslim opinions as
"extremist". Some of their leading politicians are self-confessed
neo-conservatives and have taken policy advice from right-wing US think-tanks.
MA: What is your advice on young British Muslims who want to
change British foreign policy peacefully?
AW: Sadly, British foreign policy has a very bad track record in
the Muslim world for a couple of centuries - with the occupation of India,
their attack on the Ottoman Khilafah, the division of Muslim land and the
establishment of Israel. This is to say nothing for their support for brutal
regimes in the Muslim world for decades.
Realistically, this belligerent approach by military and diplomatic means is
likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Britain views the rise of Islam
in the world - in particular the return of the Khilafah - as a threat to its
corporate interests and ability to exploit resources in the Muslim world.
Our advice to young or older Muslims living in Britain or elsewhere regarding
British foreign policy is to follow what the sharia obliges and stay away from
that which it prohibits.
Islam teaches we are one Muslim ummah [community] across the world. So,
if the policies of the country where you live harm Islam and Muslims, you
should expose and denounce those policies - even if you live, work or have
friends and family there.
Furthermore, Muslims should try to convince the ordinary non-Muslims of the
truth and correctness of our position on these issues, so they also oppose what
is plainly wrong. Also we must redress the vile anti-Islamic propaganda that
goes with the foreign policy.
Finally, we always urge Muslims to support the work for the Khilafah in Muslim
lands. Until our ummah is unified under one leader, as Allah and His
Messenger commanded, we will be prey for others to attack. Until a ruler
implements the Islamic sharia, which commands that the ruler looks after
affairs of the ummah, not Western governments, we will remain open to
exploitation. There is a growing call in the Muslim world for this Islamic
governance, and those of us living in the West are in a position to articulate
what many of our brothers and sisters elsewhere cannot.
Mahan Abedin is a senior researcher in terrorism studies and a consultant
to independent media in Iran. He is currently based in northern Iraq, where he
is helping to develop local media capacity.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
Abdul
Wahid: It comes as no surprise that the "Prevent" strategy has
been used to spy en masse on the Muslim community. From the outset, this
strategy had sinister aims and an ideological agenda, not a security one. Seen
from the local level it is clearly about gaining control over the Muslim
community and pushing them to adopt Western liberal norms.
