Writing in last Thursday's Guardian, Ziauddin Sardar claims that "to lionise former extremists feeds anti-Muslim prejudice". Former Islamists, he argues, "are part of the problem not part of the solution". His argument then descends into unwarrented abuse (albeit with more subtlety and sophistication than some other critics) towards the Quilliam Foundation, the new organisation launched last week by Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz (I wrote about it here) . He concludes with the punchy but wholly inappropriate analogy - "we cannot allow former lunatics to take over the asylum".
Sardar's argument is misleading. He has a point, that we should be engaging the millions of ordinary, moderate, peaceful British Muslims who have never dreamed of becoming involved in Islamism. But he goes too far in suggesting we do that instead of listening to groups like Quilliam and people like Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz. Surely, surely, we should do both?
To dismiss ex-Islamists as "former lunatics" and suggest we are in danger of allowing them to "take over the asylum" is absurd. Does Sardar not realise that men like Husain and Nawaz have valuable insights and information about life inside Islamism - how some young British Muslims get attracted, recruited, radicalised, trained and ultimately turned into advocates of, and sometimes perpetrators of hatred and violence? Does he not think that in launching Quilliam, they have done a huge favour by offering to turn their own in-depth experience into good?
Let's take a parallel - granted, not an exact one, but worth considering nevertheless. In my human rights work in Burma, I have interviewed several defectors, including former child soldiers, from the Burma Army. They are people who at times have witnessed, and perhaps perpetrated, gross human rights violations under orders from their superiors, including gang-rape and forced labour. They are sheltered by ethnic resistance groups along Burma's borders. I have made it a priority to meet them, for three reasons - first, they have done a very brave thing in defecting, and they deserve support and encouragement, not disinterest or abuse; second, they provide me with first-hand information about the Burma Army's mentality, tactics, plans and strategies, and confirmation of the human rights violations I document on my visits to the borderlands; and third, the fact that the ethnic groups - and to a lesser extent visitors like myself - welcome defectors (of course after checking them out first), and provide sanctuary, warmth and encouragement, just might send a signal to others that there is a better alternative, into which they would be well-received and supported. Sure, it would have been preferrable if they hadn't joined the Burma Army in the first place - but surely it is good that they got out. And no one is suggesting that Burma Army defectors are about to take over the running of Burma's democracy movement. Surely we should be sending these same messages to people currently dabbling with Islamism, by helping encourage an alternative to the hate-filled ideology pedalled by Islamists?
A key factor to consider is that at present, the moderate, law-abiding, peaceful British Muslims are - by and large - burying their heads in the sand. They may be far from becoming Islamists - but they are not doing enough to tackle it either. As the Quilliam Foundation says in its launch publication, Pulling Together to Defeat Terror http://quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/pulling-together-to-defeat-terror.pdf, "regrettably, most Muslim communities and leaders are yet to accept publicly the depth of this communal malaise". It goes on: "There is an abject lack of awareness among the vast majority of Britain's Muslims about extremism in the name of Islam ... To date, there has been a reticence among parts of the British Muslim leadership and scholarly community to identify extremism and challenge it. As a result, ordinary Muslims respond negatively to media discussions about extremism in their communities". Unless Muslims "make a stand", the authors write, "increasingly among young Muslims in Britain, we risk Islamism becoming Islam."
So when a group of people who know inside-out how groups like Hizb-ut Tahrir work decide to come out and work against their former comrades and actively tackle Islamism, why would anyone want to reject them? When a foundation is launched which offers, in its first policy paper, to deliver training sessions to mainstream Muslims, mosques and community groups "to explain how extremist Islamists recruit to their organisations, what methods they use to indoctrine, and why people can leave these groups when the right circumstances arise", why turn down that option?
The Quilliam Foundation's paper pinpoints prisons as "zones for greater radicalisation of young Muslims and converts" and advocates the establishment of "well-resources deradicalisation centres in key cities" to promote Muslim scholars able to counter Islamist ideology from a theological basis. It calls for increased efforts to promote democracy and secularism to Muslims in Western society, and more initiatves to deny Islamists "unchallenged platforms" in our mosques. It argues that Muslim leaders should cut ties with Saudi-based Islamist funders, turn their attention to corruption within their mosques, forced marriages and domestic violence, and establish exchanges with Jewish and Christian seminaries. The Quilliam Foundation offers to train seminary students on how to counter political extremists, help seminaries assess their syllabi, and it is creating a specialist unit to assist universities tackle student Islamist cells.
No one is saying that Ed Husain, Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation have all the answers. Nor is anyone suggesting they should be the only people listened to. But when for too long we have given credence to groups like the Muslim Council of Britain, whose ties to Islamism provoke inquiry, surely we should be willing to listen to ex-Islamists who know their stuff and are now leading the fight against extremism. It would be absurd, and an undeserved slap in the face, to sideline them. Politicians in all parties should engage, read the policy proposals and give the Quilliam Foundation a chance.
