Ultra-orthodox Islamic seminary issues fatwa against terrorism

The Darul-Uloom Deoband, the Islamic madrassa in rural India where Taliban leader Mullah Omar studied, this weekend issued a fatwa against terror during a peace conference in Delhi, with Grand Mufti Habibur Rehman declaring:

"The religion of Islam has come to wipe out all kinds of terrorism and to spread the message of global peace. Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form."

The fatwa is a significant move for an institution that has been widely viewed as the inspiration behind many Islamic extremists. In the Nov/Dec 2007 issue of New Humanist Edna Fernandes told how she gained unique access to the madrassa while researching her book on Indian fundamentalism. In light of this latest development, it's an article well worth revisiting.

RSA debate agrees – a secular state is best for Islam

Broad agreement was the order of the day this lunchtime at the Royal Society of Arts, where four leading commentators on the role of Islam in Britain gathered to debate the question: "The Secular State – the best option for British Muslims?" The debate was chaired by the Muslim peer Baroness Kishwer Falkner.

Speaking first was Dr Usama Hasan, director of the City Circle, an organisation that seeks to promote the development of distinct British Muslim identity. Hasan opened by stressing that political secularism is desirable for all, but that many Muslims, himself included, would find it difficult to accept a state of "metaphysical secularism" – one that operates on the assumption that there is no god.

Hasan was followed by Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, who suggested that the question taken on by the debate was something of a red herring. He stated that among the majority of Muslims in Western democracies there was no problem with secularism, and that the real debate concerns the roles of Islam or secularism in the governments of countries with majority Muslim populations. Bunglawala suggested that some Muslim countries have had negative experiences with secularism, for example in Turkey where the hugely popular governing Islamic AK Party has come under attack from a militant secular minority well entrenched in the state apparatus.

Next up was the Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Chair of the organisation British Muslims for Secular Democracy, who began by stressing that secularism should not be seen as a "backdoor way of privileging atheism", and claiming that she finds "the fundamentalism of Richard Dawkins and Islamic fundamentalism" to be "two sides of the same coin". Brown added that she opposes the French style of secularism - which in her view has been used in "racist ways" and has given secularism a bad name. She stated that there is the greatest potential when the state is religiously neutral, pointing out that this is not yet the case in Britain. As an example of how a secular state can succeed in comparison to an Islamic one, Brown asked the audience to consider the relative stability and development in India since independence when compared to neighbouring Pakistan.

Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and founder of the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation, was last to speak and, along with the others, came down in defence of secularism, stressing that it is the reason Muslims are able to live in the UK today. To highlight this he used the example of Abdullah William Quilliam, the British covert to Islam after whom the Foundation is named, who in the far less secular 1890s was stoned along with his followers for leading Muslim prayers in Liverpool.

Husain advanced three reasons why some Muslims have a "psychological block" against secularism. Firstly, the words for secularism in some languages, such as Urdu, have meanings equivalent to "atheism", which can prove off-putting. Second he blames the rising influence of Islamism, whose proponents have been more effective than others in making themselves heard, and lastly the reluctance of the liberal intelligentsia in the UK to stand up for secularism and liberal democracy. He thinks that the answer may lie in better teaching of the values of secularism and democracy in schools, particularly in history lessons where students need to learn about the conflicts and obstacles we had to overcome to establish the secular, liberal democracy we have today.

The debate was rounded off by Kishwer Falkner, who described her own experiences with religious groups lobbying the House of Lords. She praised groups, such as Muslims and Catholics, for being well-organised and ensuring they have a say in public affairs, but warned that at times the religious demands for exceptions from the law can go beyond belief in democracy and reach very exceptional levels.

So, that's my quick-fire rundown of the debate this lunchtime. It would have been interesting to have someone on the panel who wasn't backing secularism, but it's still fair to say there's plenty to chew on here. It's clear that while the speakers all support a secular state, there was uneasiness among them about the role of atheism (see Usama Hasan's problem with "metaphysical secularism"), and Yasmin Alibhai Brown's suggestion that the likes of Richard Dawkins are "fundamentalists" on a par with Islamic fundamentalists is sure to raise a few eyebrows. Brown also had strong opinions on the merits of French secularism (in her view it's "racist"), an issue covered by Joan W Scott in the March/April New Humanist.

Join this debate by leaving some comments on this post...

Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film released online

After months of anticipation, criticism, threats and counter-threats, right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilder's controversial short film, Fitna, warning of the perceived "Islamisation of Europe" has finally been released online at video site LiveLeak.

You can read about its release in this story on the BBC website, which for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video provides a summary of what it contains.

Now the release has actually happened, it remains to be seen what the fallout might be. Wilders lives under constant police protection, and ever since he announced his intention to make Fitna the Dutch government has been taking measures to protect its offices overseas.

Opinion is greatly divided over Wilders and his film, so we're running a poll to gain an idea of what readers of this blog think. Here's the question, followed by the choice of responses. Vote at the top right of this page:

What is your opinion on the controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders and his decision to release the short film Fitna, which warns of the perceived "Islamisation of Europe"?

• In releasing his film, Wilders is making a brave stand against Islamisation and mounting a necessary defence of Western values
  

• Wilders is acting in a deliberately provocative manner and should be condemned for his actions. Free speech must be exercised with a degree of responsibility, which Wilders has failed to demonstrate
  

• While I do not agree with the message of the film, I believe that free speech is paramount and so defend Wilders' right to release it

As always, your comments are encouraged - please leave them on this post.

Iraqi youth becoming less religious

The International Herald Tribune reports that, disillusioned by the daily violence that surrounds them, young people in Iraq are becoming less religious.

Over a period of two months 40 young people from five cities were interviewed, and their responses showed "a pattern of disenchantment ... in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives."

Of course, this is anecdotal evidence and, as the Herald Tribune points out, "it is far from clear whether the shift means a wholesale turn away from religion. A tremendous piety still predominates in the private lives of young Iraqis, and religious leaders, despite the increased skepticism, still wield tremendous power."

Nevertheless, the study suggests that young people are far from impressed by the violent extremism that is often seen to prevail in today's Iraq. Many of the responses echoed the sentiments of Sara Sami, a high school student from Basra, who said "I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us. Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."

Ban Islamist speakers to prevent spread of extremism, goverment urges universities

The government will today recommend that violent Islamist speakers should be banned from speaking on university campuses, while suggesting that the struggle against extremism should not be allowed to stifle free debate among students.

In updating existing guidelines on tackling extremism, the government seems keen to state that it does not wish to ban open debate around the issues of Islamism and terrorism. The higher education minister Bill Rammell, while acknowledging that campus extremism is a "serious but not widespread" problem, stressed that "It is legitimate and permissible for people to research the origins of violent extremism, even in some circumstances to say that actually we can understand how that leads people to certain courses of action. But I think it is very clear when you look at ... the views they articulate, there is a line at which you move from analysis an understanding towards outright advocacy of violent extremism."

And it's this that the government seem less willing to compromise on. It has reiterated its view that extremist speakers should be banned from campuses, and has even recommended that universities should share information with each other on speakers who may pose a risk. It has also repeated the suggestion that tutors should monitor their students for signs of extremism and report them to the police if necessary - something that lecturers' unions have said would be tantamount to spying on students.

The new guidelines also advise universities to think twice before providing separate prayer and washing facilities for Muslim students in order to prevent the spread of extremist views in a segregated environment.

We reported on the issue of Islamism on campus back in our September/October 2007 issue, and at that time concluded that it is essential that free debate is allowed to flourish among university students. While university tutors will welcome the government's commitment to this in today's updated guidelines, it seems that the controversy over suggestions that staff should "spy" on students is likely to continue.

The updated guidelines mark another stage in the government's reassessment of its strategy for dealing Islamist extremism. As Dave Rich reports in the current issue of New Humanist, since 2006 the government reduced its dealings with the Muslim Council of Britain and looked for alternative ways of engaging with British Muslims. As you'll see from Rich's article, it seems they're finally getting things right in this area.

Benazir Bhutto: a reality check

Writing in Time magazine, the historian William Dalrymple offers an interesting contrast to some of the hagiography that has appeared in the wake of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week.

While acknowledging that the killing of a "secular, liberal, pro-Western leader" will lead to increased chaos in Pakistan, Dalrymple points out that in power Bhutto colluded in human-rights abuses, presided over an inept administration, allowed the secret service to arm jihadis in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and failed to deliver the liberal reforms she promised.

Above all Bhutto was an autocrat, "a feaudal landowner ... with the sense of entitlement this produced". This, says Dalrymple, is a major part of the problem in Pakistani democracy, which "is really a form of elective feudalism". Thus, while the industrial, military and landowning classes look out for one another's interests, they do not do much for the poor: "The government education system barely functions in Pakistan, and for the have-nots, justice is almost impossible to come by. This pushes the poor into the arms of fundamentalists."

Rather than seeing the struggle against the jihadists as a battle between the forces of secularism on the one hand, and the forces of an "irrational for of 'Islamo-fascism'" on the other, Western commentators need to realise that "much of the Islamists' success in Pakistan and elsewhere comes from their ability to portray themselves as champions of social justice, fighting Westernised elites – like Benazir Bhutto."

Thus, concludes Dalrymple, while "Bhutto was a brave, gutsy, secular and liberal woman", she was also "a central part of Pakistan's problems, not a solution to them".

An interesting take, and one worth bearing in mind when considering her legacy.

Amis vs Morris

Padraig Reidy over at Index on Censorship reports on an unlikely little spat that occurred last night between the novelist Martin Amis and the satirist Chris Morris. Amis was appearing alongside the journalist Andrew Anthony at the ICA to discuss the dangers of Islamism, but it was when the floor opened up to questions that things got really interested. Morris weighs in with some arguments of questionable quality – I'll hand you over to Padraig to relay the tale of this heavyweight bout.

Scottish student found guilty of terror offences

A jury has today found Mohammed Atif Siddique, a student at Glasgow Metropolitan College, guilty of three terrorism offences. He was found guilty of possessing suspicious terrorism-related items, including videos of weapons use, guerilla tactics and bomb-making, and collecting terrorist-related information, setting up websites showing how to make and use explosives, and circulating inflammatory terrorist publications. He was also charged with breach of the peace, related to claims he showed fellow students images of suicide bombers and terrorist beheadings.

Recent months have seen several students convicted for terrorist offences, as cases related to new legislation on the glorification of terrorism begin to reach court. These cases highlight the question of when a combination of anger and curiosity should be seen to spill over into illegal activity. In a statement outside court, Siddique's lawyer said his client was only guilty of "looking for answers on the internet", just as millions of young people do every day, and in court his QC pointed out that the material he possessed was freely available to anyone on the internet.

It's been a busy day for news surrounding campus extremism. The government's Universities Secretary John Denham has today encouraged lecturers to back the government in tackling extremism in universities. In May this year the Universities and College Union voted to reject government recommendations to monitor their students, and today Denham has reiterated the government's view that this decision was misplaced, stating: "All we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody has the strength to ensure that people are not recruited to the sort of organisations which are promoting and organising violence of whatever sort."

Asked to comment on Mr Denham's remarks, the Universities and Colleges Union welcomed comments by Rick Trainor, president of vice-chancellors' union Universities UK, who in a speech earlier today said: "We do not believe that developing measures that focus on a particular group within our community achieves this goal. Rather, harmony is achieved by openness, tolerance and dialogue - which are, after all, central to university life."

In light of the UCU's decision and the recent surge in convictions, our September/October cover story takes a look at the question of radical Islam on campus, asking whether Islamist groups should be free to spread their ideas to students, or whether they should be banned from doing so. Are instances of radicalisation occurring at an alarming rate on campus, as cases like Siddique's may suggest, or are they occurring in numbers too small to warrant restrictions on freedom of speech?

Post 9/11, the struggle against extremism lies much closer to home

In the week of the sixth anniversary of 9/11, we've seen a series of bleak reports relating to the myriad of conflicts unleashed as a result of that day. The latest comes from the International Institute for Strategic Studies who, as today's Guardian reports, believe al-Qaeda has "revived, extended its influence, and has the capacity to carry out a spectacular strike similar to the September 11 attacks".

The report states that "the US and its allies have failed to deal a death blow to al-Qaeda; the organisation's ideology appears to have taken root to such a degree that it will require decades to eradicate". Obviously the key here is Iraq, which in 2003 was turned into a ready-made battlefield and recruitment ground for al-Qaeda, allowing it to expand and recover from the blows taken in Afghanistan.

Old ground, yes, but the reason I bring it up is because I'm currently reading George Packer's excellent book The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq. Whatever your views on the invasion of Iraq it's hard to deny that, had things been handled differently, something good might just have come of the whole thing. Packer's book highlights the naivety, complacency, and in many ways sheer negligence shown by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and co at a time when looting, power cuts, and general lawlessness were busy ruining any hope of progress in Iraq. The Assassin's Gate is by far and away the best thing I've read about the war and its aftermath, and should be read by anyone looking for a sensible opinion on the subject.

As it stands, al-Qaeda is well and truly back in business, and Europe's right on the frontline, as Timothy Garton Ash writes in today's Guardian. Stressing that Iraq is a sideshow in the larger struggle against terror, Garton Ash points out that much depends on winning the hearts and minds of young British Muslims who risk being sucked into Islamism. Encouragement can be drawn from recent high-profile defections from groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, but more must be done to ensure that young men are not pushed into the arms of extremists.

Along with Europe, Garton Ash views Pakistan as the other frontline in this struggle. As Maruf Khwaja writes in the new issue of New Humanist, with "Iraq and Afghanistan ruined forever" the fall of Pakistan to Islamists could mean disaster for us all.

Defections from political Islam

Much has been written this week of the defection of Maajid Nawaz from Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir UK's national executive, and spent 4 years in jail in Egypt for his membership of the party. Having returned to the UK last year following his release, Nawaz left the party two months ago and this week made his reasons public. He spent his time in jail studying Islam and reconsidering his Islamism, coming to the conclusion that the ideas and methods advocated by Hizb ut-Tahrir are invalid under Islam. As was reported last night on Newsnight during an extensive interview with Nawaz, he has now turned his attentions to persuading other members of Hizb ut-Tahrir to leave, and is publishing a series of papers on his blog arguing against the theological basis of Islamism. He told Newsnight that he takes responsibility for past recruitment of many young British Muslims to Islamism, and now wishes to speak out against it.

As our September/October cover story reports, there has been widespread debate over the recruitment activities of Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir on university campuses. Indeed, Nawaz carried out such recruitment during his time as a student at London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Some have suggested that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned, but the experience of Nawaz, and other high-profile defectors such as Ed Husain and Shiraz Maher, does not suggest that a ban is the way forward. They each drifted away from the ideas of Hizb ut-Tahrir through their own studies of Islam, and now Nawaz hopes to help other members do the same. He has explicitly stated that he does not think Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned, believing instead that "through the power of discussion and persuasion, eventually the party will fizzle out".

Is Islamist extremism infiltrating our universties and public libraries?

Yesterday's Newsnight picked up on a new report by the right-leaning Centre for Social Cohesion which suggests that public libraries in areas of London with dense Muslim populations have been inundated with copies of Islamist texts. Books by the key Islamist thinkers Sayed Qutb and Sayed Abdullah Maydudi, and the more recent terrorist sympathisers Abu Hamza and Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal were found in libraries in the Tower Hamlets borough.

The author of the report, Douglas Murray, said that the collections on Islam in these libraries were "warped towards one particular extreme interpretation of Islam", while the former Islamist Ed Husian expressed concerns that readers could be inspired by these teachings: "The worry is how many of those people - it might be a small number, but small enough to cause carnage - who are then prepared to literally act upon those teachings."

This story follows on from concerns over the influence of Islamism on university campuses, and raises similar questions over civil liberties. Should people be free to read about and even espouse these ideas, or are they so dangerous that they should be banned from public life? Our cover story for the new September/October issue takes a look at the question of Islamic extremism on university campuses. We speak to students and leading academics, and ask how universities should be dealing with the problem.