What can the British Government do to persuade young Muslims that they should reject terror and fully embrace the British way?

The title of this post was the question asked by Paul Goodman MP within a speech he gave to the New Culture Forum on Monday night.

Mr Goodman, Shadow Minister for Social Cohesion, analysed three potential strategic answers to that question: appeasement, assimilation and integration.  We summarise the speech below and this PDF contains the full text.

Appeasement is a course that Mr Goodman quickly rejects: "If our armed forces withdraw from Afghanistan – the argument runs – if we simply let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without sanctions or resistance; if we actively seek the replacement of our allies in the Islamic world by Islamists, if we abandon our support for the existence of Israel and if we connive in Britain at special legal dispensations for Muslims, then the problem will go away... You don’t have to be a neo-conservative – as I am not – to dismiss this option with the contempt it deserves.  It’s hard to perceive how abandoning parts of Afghanistan to Al Qaeda could help weaken that movement rather than strengthen it; how writing special sharia provisions into British law could strengthen community cohesion rather than weaken it, above all, how knuckling under to extremism could possibly help mainstream Islam worldwide."

Paul Goodman also rejects assimilation: "At heart, this school of thought usually believes that Islam in particular, if not religion in general, is at the root of separatist extremism... If government is to hold that religion in general is a problem – a habit that, like smoking, is bad for your health, and is to be tolerated only in private, if at all – it must surely move towards, say, cutting off all state support from faith schools, removing all tax breaks from religious-based charities and, eventually, scrapping the Coronation Service.  You can make your own judgement about whether such courses of action are more or less likely to lower school standards, remove support from vulnerable people, offload new burdens on the taxpayer, damage civil society, harm the current quest for shared values and dent our common sense of Britishness.  I’ve already made mine."

Mr Goodman then devotes a large section of his speech to discussing whether Islam is different from other religions and deserves special prohibitions.  His strong conclusion is that there is enough hope within certain traditions of Islam to firmly reject the idea that Islam needs to be suppressed.  He focuses particularly on Sufism as catalogued by Bernard Lewis.

The third option, favoured by Goodman is integration: He defines it in this way: "Non-Muslims should make Britain a warm home for mainstream Islam, and that Muslims, like other religious communities, should root out support for separatism and extremism within their communities.  This mutual bargain is essentially an unwritten social contract – one of many in today’s Britain.  You don’t need me to tell you that a very great deal hangs on the success of this one – including, perhaps, the domestic struggle against Al Qaeda."

He then argues that understanding of mainstream Islam is too limited within many of Britain's Muslim youths and he suggests some ways in which the British Government might address the lack of understanding:

• More education of policymakers: "First of all, our politicians, policy makers and opinion formers clearly know less about Islam and Islamism than they might.  France has a specialised research unit within its Foreign Ministry.  We abolished our equivalent in 2002.  Would a small college to educate these groups about trends in modern Islam be out of place?"
• Financial support for mainstream Muslim projects: "Shouldn’t Government encourage its contacts to give private money to suitable charities or foundations which would in turn grant funds to, say, a mosque seeking to a well-qualified, English-speaking Imam the kind of salary that would not only attract him to the job, but keep him in it; or to an education project that brings pupils from different schools and religions together, or to a madrassa curriculum for children that seeks – as some are now doing – to demonstrate a Koranic basis for our common way of life?"
• Sponsorship of a mainstream Islamic publisher: "Separatists and extremists are adept at constructing a grand narrative of perpetual conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims by the manipulation of Islamic texts, and running bookshops on site or online that produce books, tapes, DVDs, films and lectures in English that hammer out simple and repetitious messages of confrontation, hatred and anger – based on these narrow readings... There seems to be a gap in the market for a mainstream Islamic publisher who offers clear, simple and Islam-based material, in English, that rebuts extremist claims, and advances the case for shared values and our common democratic settlement.  Is there nothing that government can do to stimulate the emergence of such an enterprise?"
• Projects that educate children about Muslim struggles against totalitarianism: "Turning to schools, up to 2.3 million inhabitants of the old Imperial India fought for Britain during the last World War.  Over 30,000 people died and over 60,000 were wounded.  Many of these soldiers were Muslims.  Some of their friends and relatives, and indeed some of the soldiers themselves, live in Britain today.  A project on the contribution which Muslims made to the struggle against totalitarianism has been carried out in my local area – with obvious resonances for the present day.  Shouldn’t such projects be encouraged by government on a larger scale?"

PS Over the last few days we have seen Derek Conway pollute the name of all politicians.  Paul Goodman's thoughtful speech - the product of a great deal of research over a long period - is a reminder that we are still fortunate to have many politicians who take their briefs very seriously and whose whole engagement in the public square is about providing answers to the real challenges our nation faces.  Some of his recommendations will be unpalatable to some conservatives but they should provoke all of us to think more deeply about serious solutions to the related problems of extremism and separatism.

Related links: Baroness Warsi's first major speech on community cohesion and Paul Goodman's Platform archive.

Comments

[anthony scholefield]

Paul Goodman is wrong on many counts
1. You cant integrate with nothing-if you settle in selfsegregating communities who do you integrate with?
2.Its worth looking up the American founding fathers and their words on the necessity of 'assimilation'.
3. What have other religions got to do with the Islamic problem? This is an argument the extremists use.
4. Precisely which country is setting the way to Goodman's nirvana-Pakistan Thailand Malaysia? Let us have an exemplar and not words.

[Serf]

Melanie Philips, rightly points out that a society that is embarrassed by its past and culture is unlikely to be attractive to immigrants and their offspring.

Combined with a long track record of encouraging tribalism in politics and a culture of the victim, and we have shot ourselves in the foot before we start.

I am not sure what to do in the specific sense, but I am sure of a few things. A society that is at ease with itself, the rule of law, and a culture of opportunity, will do more to encourage peaceful interaction between groups, that any amount of social engineering ever could. To put it another way, Conservatism is the answer.

60+ years of socialist social policy has fragmented society and big statists of all parties like it that way. Welfare reform, public service choice and a justice system that is accountable to the voters will go a long way toward destroying the corrosive idea of multiculturalism that has done so much damage. Replace it with freedom & tolerance and we can all hope for a better future.

Oh and everyone from the Monarch down needs to make it clear, that freedom of expression and equality in the eyes of the law is non negotiable.

[Tony Makara]

Since the waves of Asian immigration started to come into Britain every government of the day has consciously worked to ghettoize these people. Lumping them together on large council estates and making sure that government literature is printed in their own languages, that they have their own community centres etc. So its little wonder that many feel they are living outside of mainstream Britain. Most of these ghettos were established in deprived areas of old mill towns which created a feeling of social exclusion. So young second and third generation muslims have a crisis of identity and look to join something to give them that identity, something bigger than they are, something that they feel will empower them. No surprise then that many turn to militant islam as a way establishing that identity. The blame for the situation today lies with those politicians who created the ghettos, who created a societies within societies.

[George Hinton]

Islam is confrontational and expansionist. Followers of the creed must conform to the teachings and writings contained in the Koran. The Koran accepts the legitimacy of only Islam as a monotheistic faith, rejecting all other religions and more importantly, any other form of government that is not islamic.
Given the above it is not surprising that many muslins in the UK do not integrate and create their own ghettoes. Assimilation is not on the agenda, unless we become muslims and the UK adopts sharia law.
Frankly we must not continue pandering to this group in the UK, no amount of appeasement will be enough. We must state clearly and unequivocally, that we will respect the muslim faith but the quid pro pro must be that they respect our ways and acknowledge that this a Christian democracy which they will not subvert. Furthermore, it must be implicit that Islam is a guest religion, cannot propagandise and be subject to restrictions. Imams must speak english and have an understanding of western, democratic, multifaith ways.
As for the extremists and terrorists, here we must take a leaf out of history. The followers of the faith must be made responsible for themselves. So that the entire nuclear family of a terrorist will be subject to deportation after the payment of an indemnity to cover the damage caused and the payment of "blood money" to the victims. In the event that the families have insufficient funds then the community in general will be made to pay.
It is only by making the muslim society in the UK responsible that a degree of integration will occur. A monotheistic faith that is locked into a creed that goes back centuries, that has had no "reformation" and fails to modernise will always remain on the borders of the society that it resides in, unless it is the dominant party, in which case it will tolerate no competition and brook no multiculturism.

[ToryJim]

Posted by: George Hinton at 11:02:
...the entire nuclear family of a terrorist will be subject to deportation after the payment of an indemnity to cover the damage caused and the payment of "blood money" to the victims. In the event that the families have insufficient funds then the community in general will be made to pay.

Oh, that's a great idea. For some reason it sounds very much like collective punishment which, by the way, is forbidden by article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited [...] Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

[ToryJim]

Posted by: George Hinton at 11:02:
Followers of the creed must conform to the teachings and writings contained in the [HOLY_BOOK]. The [HOLY_BOOK] accepts the legitimacy of only [RELIGION] as a monotheistic faith, rejecting all other religions [...]

Take the specifics out and what you've written could be a description of Christianity, couldn't it? Reminds me of something I read once...

I am the LORD thy God [...] thou shalt have no other gods before me

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.

[Labourer]

Common sense also suggests that the best thing to do when you're in a hole is to stop digging - in other words, we need to think very careful about what limits we should place on Muslim immigration.

By no means should Muslim immigration be completely stopped (which would be bad for trade and diplomacy), but it should be *greatly* reduced in numbers and made far more selective as regards the 'assimilability' of the chosen immigrants (no jihadists, for a start; and nobody who cannot offer us a very impressive skills set and a pile of money to invest in the country).

Such a proposal is probably too controversial right now, but perhaps after the next terror attack, this taboo will diminish to the point where its discussion becomes feasible.

[George Hinton]

Tory Jim if i may respond..

The Geneva Convention was constructed before terrorism as we see today existed, before jihadists and suicide bombers. We are expected to conduct warfare under civilised rules whilst our enemy conducts a guerilla war, ignoring ALL rules and resorting to suicide bombings, designed deliberately to dishearten and alienate.
If we are to discourage extremism, jihadists and islamofascists then we must make that part of our society, that protects, harbours or supports them, accountable and hold them so.
It might well be collective punishment, but it is the only way to make a self segregated part of our society mainstream. It also forces that group to make a conscious decision as to whether they wish to assimilate or not, in the latter instance the cost of not supporting democracy might be too high and they leave, which is their free option.

The theological difference between Christianity today and Islam is Reformation. We have separated religion from state, no longer having to conform to dogmatic interpretations of the holy book.

My comments and suggestions might be regarded as extreme, BUT they are a posit. The problem with muslim terrorists is not going to go away. The schism in our society cannot be allowed to continue, nor the self imposed exile of the muslim community in their so-called ghettoes. We must look at ways for them to emerge and join mainstream life. If that community will not emerge then we must question whether they are welcome and why it is that they remain separate and perhaps disenfranchised. Appeasement as we know from bitter history does not work. Granting favour, as in the case of the Sudentenland, merely whets the appetite for a further bite. Allowing a mini-muslim state to exist within the UK will propagate an event similar to the implosion of Yugoslavia.

Tough decisions need to be taken.

[Dave]

Meanwhile the Balkanisation of Britain gathers pace.

[C Powell]

Some suggestions: -

1. No more Islamic faith schools until we can be confident that they are not preaching anti-Western hatred, anti-semitism etc. And all such schools must be properly inspected by Ofsted, not by a special Islamic inspectorate.
2. Ban all foreign funding of Islamic schools, charities and mosques: this is necessary to stop the Wahabi funding of the Muslim community in this country.
3. Make it clear that there will be no Sharia law in the UK.
4. Reintroduce the laws on primary purpose marriages.
5. Take action against those mosques, bookshops, leaders etc who are providing the ideological support for terrorism.
6. Stop dealing with so-called Muslim community leaders such as the MCB who have a Muslim separatist ideology.
7. Make it clear that Muslims who live in this country will be treated as British citizens: they will have the same rights as other British citizens - no more, no less - and crucially they will have no special rights as Muslims.

[tired and emotional]

Islam is , as George Hinton makes clear, unreformed in the Christian sense. If anything the centre of gravity is shifting ever further away from Sufism towards the Salafi and Wahabhi styles.

It could be argued that the Islamic reformation will (or has) lead or led them in the opposite direction to Christianity. In other words towards the absolute interpretation of Mohammed's views and recorded sayings and away from any critical, reflective or personal understanding of Islam.

We don't have five hundred years to wait for Islam to catch up with the rest of the world, assuming it wants to. That is why integration is a non-option. The only demographic chance is assimilation of the existing population, to the extent that as their wealth rises their fertility falls, and a total halt to the importation of poor Muslims who simply top up the breeding rates and find it impossible or unpalatable to integrate, let alone assimilate.

[David]

Immigrant groups should be clearly told what is expected of them. As Sir Nicholas Winterton siad a year or two back:

"The Australian Government has spelt out bluntly what it expects of its ethnic minority communities and we in the UK should do the same.

"They should stop politicising dress, such as wearing the hijab and burkha, they should learn English, they should not return to their homelands to get a spouse, cease forced marriages and accept once and for all that the United Kingdom is not, and never will be, an Islamic state."

[veronica]

when the molotov cocktails start in this country just as they are in Denmark today the blame will lie 100% with those appeasers that roam westminster.
The blame will also lay at the feet of the BBC the islamic broadcasting corp.
First we should be told the truth regarding the correct number of muslims here before like Kenya they cause one unholy massacre here in the uk.
Then stop the pretence that islam means peace the history of islam over 1400 years tells a very different story.
Like millions of ordinary folk in the uk i'm sick to death of islam and muslims.