How President Trump could accidentally play into the hands of Islamist extremists

5143yxrfvrl-_sx330_bo1204203200_Back in 1990, the historian and commentator Bernard Lewis opined that the Muslim world was gearing up for a clash of civilizations with the west. At that time, the flashpoints of concern were Iran and Lebanon as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya remained a constant thorn in the US’ side throughout this period and into our era with or without Gadaffi at the helm.

With the Iranian revolution still fresh in his mind, Lewis believed Muslims were returning to a binary view of the world divided between the House of Islam and the House of War. A war to be prosecuted against all unbelievers.

This he saw as a one thousand five hundred year clash between Islam and Christianity. Up to the 17th century, Islam had been in the ascendant. After that, it retreated miserably in the face of western expansion. The result of this humiliation was burning hatred that Lewis believed was turning to outright hostility. Hence the rise of what was termed ‘fundamentalism’ in the 90s and early 2000s and is being termed ‘radical Islam’ now.

fullsizerenderBut even Lewis conceded that fundamentalism wasn’t the full picture when it came to Islam. And his rather doom laden analysis ignored the efforts by secular governments in the Middle East to modernise their societies in the 20th century. It also portrayed Muslims as irrational and messianic – prone to red mist moments that sent them over the top. This orientalist view was rightly seen as insulting by a majority of law abiding Muslims.

Worse, the clash of civilizations view mirrors the ideology of extremist Islamists who tell Muslims that the west is engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam. Daesh, AQ and Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood depict western democracies as utterly hostile to Islam. It is impossible, they claim, for Muslims to live under such conditions and they must strive to create a caliphate that will eventually dominate the world.

President Bush, after 9/11, realised that it was important to separate out Islam from Islamism. He said the following:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism, others militant jihadism. Still others Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.

Obama also realised that it was important not to bolster the jihadi narrative of a war by the west against Islam. Words had to be chosen very carefully. Trump’s circle dislike Obama’s refusal to recognise the influence of Islam. But there is a path that can be trodden between those who want to attack Islam in its entirety and those who refuse to recognise the role of theology. That is to say that yes, indeed, the building blocks of Islamist and jihadi ideology can be found in Islam – it’s just that most Muslims have chosen to build something very different with the building blocks on offer.

By all means recognise the theological influence in Daesh propaganda. Dabiq, the terrorist group’s magazine, is littered with Quranic references. Then ask yourself whether Michael Flynn, the new national security adviser, is going to exercise a positive influence on Muslims round the world when he says something like this:

We’re in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people, most of them inspired by a totalitarian ideology: Radical Islam. But we are not permitted to speak or write those two words, which is potentially fatal to our culture.

This is pure Bernard Lewis and music to the ears of Islamists everywhere. The binary choice is being forced on Muslims by Daesh on one side and the political right on the other. In the middle, the “grey zone of compromise” is being extinguished. That phrase was dreamt up by Daesh and they rejoice when the middle path of reason and hope is squeezed a little narrower.

 

 

Advertisements

Anger at a list of alleged “most dangerous anti-Muslim extremists”

On October 27, 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center published what it claimed was a “field guide” to the fifteen “most dangerous anti-Muslim extremists”. A post on the SPLC website website explained:

Ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001, American Muslims have been under attack. They have been vilified as murderers, accused of conspiring to take over the United States and impose Shariah religious law, described as enemies of women, and subjected to hundreds of violent hate crime attacks.

It went on to allege that a network of anti-Muslim extremists and their “enablers” had been demonising the entire Islamic faith, characterising Muslims as terrorists and determined to undermine the US constitution. The SPLC got together with three other organisations – Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community and ReThink Media – to compile this field guide primarily aimed at journalists.

A stated aim of the guide was to encourage newsrooms not to use these voices as they would spread falsehoods about Islam and encourage hate based violence. The fifteen names included anti-immigrant voices like Ann Corcoran as well as high profile blogger Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, both of whom have attempted to forge links to Europe’s Far Right and have been banned from entering the UK. But more contentiously, the field guide listed Majid Nawaaz, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir member who has campaigned in the UK against the Islamist ideology he once adhered to.

Nawaaz works at the Quilliam Foundation, a group that takes a strong position against both Islamist ideology and the salafi-jihadism of Daesh and Al-Qaeda. Its anti-Islamism and support for the UK government’s counter-terrorism strategy has earned Quilliam the ire of Islamist-inclined groups who reacted very favourably to the field guide and bated Nawaaz with his inclusion in the list of anti-Muslim extremists.

The problem with the field guide is that while Geller and Spencer are undeniably hostile to Islam as a faith, Nawaaz is a practising Muslim. He opposes Islamism as a regressive ideology within Islam as opposed to denigrating his own faith. He wants Islam to be reconciled with liberalism and western values, a far cry from the implied allegation that he seeks to provoke hate crime against his fellow Muslims.

So what was the evidence against Nawaaz from the SPLC?

  • Nawaaz reportedly claimed: “The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics”. This is an argument about the tactics employed by Islamists but makes no general statement about Muslims as a whole.
  • He called for the niqab to be removed in “identity sensitive” areas like airports and banks. Many feminist Muslims would take issue with this intrusion into women’s rights and in light of events in France, where niqab bans have been championed by the Far Right, one hopes Nawaaz would drop this suggestion in future
  • He tweeted the infamous Jesus and Mo cartoon, leading to death threats against himself. Here, the SPLC falls into the Islamist trap of defining Islamophobia beyond attacks on Muslims and their property to calling for blasphemy laws, the like of which were scrapped a hundred years ago in Europe and have been viewed as undemocratic and unconstitutional in the United States
  • The SPLC mentions his trip to a strip club, reported in April 2015. What relevance this has to being an alleged “anti-Muslim extremist” is anybody’s guess.