At a time when Europe marches to the tune of far-rightists' drum, its capitals entranced by the aggressive and often openly racist narrative pouring from groups such as the Pegida movement in Germany, the Front National in France or again the UKip in Britain, Muslims everywhere have grown uneasy.
Share It :
“Because really the discussion we’re having is about sectarianism. It is not about whether or not Islam is inherently dangerous, but rather if Muslims are desirable in a western society set-up,” Elizabeth Ferguson, a rights activist with the Omega Movement (a London-based not-for-profit organization aiming to denounce Islamophobia and racism) told OnIslam.net in exclusive comments.
“The debate on terror has been hijacked by bigots and demagogues. They seek not to eradicate radicalism … they seek to expand their powers on society by fuelling fear and hatred, thus preventing people from realizing that their democracies have become bona fide police states,” she added.
Over a decade after Islam and its 1.6 billion Muslims were likened to Al Qaeda, all Muslims have stood guilty by association, branded dangerous and de facto suspicious.
With the rise of new militant group, the so-called Islamic State (ISIL), British Muslims have said they would wholeheartedly cooperate with the authorities when it comes to tackling the roots of radicalism and extremism, as to prevent further men and women to fall into the trap of groups such as the ISIL or Al Qaeda.
Yet, British politicians have rode the the tidal wave of fear and panic which the Charlie Hebdo’s attack unleashed onto western Europe earlier this January, revisiting Britain’s anti-radicalization strategy, Prevent, which turned the heat on Muslim community.
Britain’s "Prevent Strategy" was first introduced to the British public on the back of 9/11.
It aimed to set up a series of measures which would help communities anticipate the radicalization of its youth and globally work to dismantle the very ideology of Islamic radicalism.
Though experts have admitted that the premise of such a strategy were once good, many have warned that as the strategy evolved on the ground, it may become a tool of repression and not protection, a weapon in the hand of an increasingly policed state rather than a protective shield.
“It all goes down to how the authorities have profiled terror. Muslims have been reduced to an ethnic group and this has fed the flame of racism,” explained Angeline Portman a human rights lawyer based in London.
“To make matters worse, the assumption of innocence which all individuals benefit under the law was taken away from Muslims on the basis of their religion.
“Under programs such as Prevent, the authorities have based their narrative on the premise all Muslims are guilty until proven otherwise. And those are the foundations upon which police states are built on,”
Witch Hunt.
Facing a campaign of criminalization against their religious community, British Muslims have decided to voice their anger, determined to no longer tolerate having their civil liberties be taken away in the name of national security.
In comments to the Guardian earlier this month (March), Jahangir Mohammed, director of the Centre for Muslim Affairs, said the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act had made the entire Muslim community feel targeted.
“Counter-terrorism policies are flawed and alienating,” he stressed, adding, “This approach is not working and actually backfiring. The entire Muslim community is being blamed for the actions of a violent few and as a result Muslims in Britain feel marginalized.”
Continuing his criticism against the Prevent Strategy, he emphasized that the Act would legitimize public servants’ suspicions of Muslims and their beliefs and political views.
“This goes against equality policies that state individuals should not be discriminated due to their political and religious beliefs,” he said.
“It will serve to destroy good community relations that have been built over many years and will treat Muslims as a suspect community.”
Keen on making themselves heard, Muslims, under the impetus of Cage and other Muslim organizations, signed a petition denouncing the very principles of Britain’s counter-terror policy.
The scathing statement slammed the British government for “criminalizing” Islam and with it all Muslims, warning that such state-sponsored demonization of everything Islam would only serve to legitimize racism.
Dal Babu, a retired chief superintendent with the Metropolitan police branded Prevent a “toxic brand.”
In his comments to OnIslam, Babu noted that, in his opinion, officials should not attempt to categorize and label Muslims out of society since it would only serve to further alienate young people and drive a wedge in between communities.
Counter-productive
Rights activist Ferguson believes that Britain’s handling of radicalism has pushed young people to disengage from society and ultimately made them more vulnerable to extreme ideologies.
Steve Taylor, a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Metropolitan University believes that rather than religious indoctrination, radicalization stems from individual’s desperate need to belong, combined to an ability to “switch off one’ sense of empathy in service to one’s beliefs and goals.
“Prime Minister David Cameron has explained the problem of Islamic terrorism in terms of a “poisonous narrative” of extremism which is being fed to young people. But this is only a superficial explanation of the problem,” he said.
“It’s a mistake to simply label terrorists as “evil” or psychologically deranged – in fact, psychologists who have studied terrorist groups have found that terrorists tend to be stable individuals, not paranoid or delusional. What seems to make terrorists essentially different from others is their ability to “switch off” their sense of empathy in service to their beliefs and goals.”
He added, “It is very significant that most terrorists are young men, usually adolescents. Adolescence can be a psychologically difficult period, during which a person becomes aware of themselves as a separate individual, with a sense of vulnerability and fragility. As a result, there is a strong need for identity and belonging.
“This is why adolescents often join gangs, and become followers of fashion or of pop groups. Belonging to a group helps to alleviate their sense of separateness and strengthens their identity. It also provides status for people who may have little or none in a normal context.”
Dr Mary Whyman, a psychologist from Crawley told OnIslam.net that rather than looking at Islamic radicalism from a religious standpoint, officials should consider the possibility that extremism is but the manifestation of a deep social crisis within western society and not so much an expression of faith.
“Islam no more than Christianity or Judaism can be blamed for becoming the matrix upon which violent ideologues have built their radical movements,” Whyman said.
“Religion has often been used as a cover, a rallying flag from covert agendas -- the crusade, the 3rd Reich in Germany, history is full of examples. Radical Islamists have recognized the power of social alienation and they’re tapping into this malaise, weaponizing young minds. How else can we explain why three young girls would envision joining the IS, throwing themselves in the eye of a terrible and violent war if not convinced that the UK has nothing to offer them?”
She added, “The radicalization of our young people actually says more about our society than it says about Islamic radicals. Have we become so disengage as a community that we cannot recognize that our society is broken, unsympathetic and judgmental?”
