Are Some Counter-Terrorism Policies Causing Islamophobia
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 64.35MB
talk today is on a very, very contemporary, very pertinent topic in today's society, especially for Muslims.
It's on Islamophobia and counterterrorism in the UK and brother Abdullah andalusi is giving the talk, I'd like to give you a brief introduction as to who the brother is.
He's an international speaker, thinker, intellectual activist for Islam.
He has delivered international talks on the, on the issues of the existence of God,
the maker of the Quran, Islamic Finance, furthermost topics like that, like secularism, liberal liberalism, democracy, and he's
talked on primetime television as well. Some some of them include BBC, ITV, BBC Arabic, BBC Radio, alzira, Press TV, Islam channel and echo TV. He's also engaged with atheists, secularists, agnostics, liberals, and Christians on variety of different different topics from theology, to political philosophy. I'd like to please ask you guys to put your hands together for
I greet you all the Islamic greetings of peace.
First of all, I'd like to thank the University of sorry, student unions and descemet society, for inviting me again, to speak to you today. I'd also like to thank the audience for your attendance. I think I came here a couple months ago to discuss was proof of God, I think he was, and it was a pleasure. Back then, and it's a pleasure now to speak to you in address you on another topic, which is obviously not the same gravity in one way, theologically speaking, but is something that's quite pertinent to all of us today. And that is Islamophobia, and counterterrorism. And the question of whether there's any connection between counter terror policies by certain Western governments and
Islamophobia that we see pervading Western society.
the organizers described his lecture as being one way Britain's counterterrorism policies, which have had promoted the growth of Islamophobia and a sense of hostility felt by Muslims. And so the description of this event, discussed how this will be demonstrated. However, I'm not going to be telling you that counterterrorism policies have promoted or led to a growth of Islamophobia. I will merely give you the evidences and allow you to decide that for yourself. So you make the judgments based on the evidences that you hit. And in the q&a, if you believe that I have failed to mention any evidences or there are other counter narratives that I have missed out, then I'll give you the
opportunity to raise them as a question or comment or criticism, and I wholeheartedly welcome that.
Now, as is common in all University arenas, the first thing that's always discussed is what is the definition of the words used because we always hate words used radicalization, terrorism, Islamophobia, extremist Islamist but what are moderate even but what do any of these words actually even mean? And there you'll find a problems and confusions as the West in western history is a famous saying that the devils in the detail, so let's have a look at this. Now, Islamophobia is a key term. And so we need to define it in order to categorize or be able to gather criteria to to know what sentiments or expressions or activities are actually Islamophobic so I'll give it from a
non controversial source the Oxford English Dictionary. And the Oxford English Dictionary defines Islamophobia quite interested in it says it is a dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.
The same dictionary explains that prejudice refers to hostility and dislike based on preconceived or unfounded opinions.
It's quite fascinating that the Oxford English Dictionary includes the dislike hostility to Islam, especially if considering or in situations where it's being a political force is being discussed.
It all should be noted that the opposite is dictionary definition of terrorism is also something we have to understand before we can look at is any is any connections or links between counterterrorism policy and Islamophobia, and whether counters and policy is dealing with terrorism? Or is it or some of these policies being dealing with more than just terrorism. So terrorism is defined in the OED output for short, as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims?
Now, it's interesting, because the OED defines terrorism by reference only to the methodology that's used, and not any ideology that it has been done for. So someone becomes a terrorist attack or terror, action and action of technical using terrorism employing terrorism based upon the description of the action, and not on the cause, or the reason that it is done, rather than merely being a political goal of some kind.
So it says in pursuit, political aims, now, it might sound obvious thing to mention that, okay, well, terrorism is violence done in pursuit of political aims. But if you think about it, it's very important, it's mostly missed out by the discourse we find in politics and by these pundits, because he terrorism terrorism is a mercenary methodology. It cares not for whom it serves, it can be employed, employed by any group, or people under any flag, any calls any nationalism, any ideology, any religion, any reason whatsoever under any grievance. So it's not by its definition, it's not limited to any one particular ideology, or one particular religion.
But then this brings more interesting question, is there a connection between someone's ideas and terrorism? So if someone believes in, let's say, women deserve to vote,
does that lead to terrorism? But does any of you think that the idea of women deserve to vote wouldn't need violence? And when you think that, do you think it's a violence inducing idea?
So no one has committed violence in the name of that idea. And also the history and history students.
Was it mostly was this university famous? Was it computing engineering and all those types of things? Yeah.
suffragettes, one refers switched on. Yes, indeed, the suffragettes use actions which were the dictionary definition of terrorism. They set fire to post offices of postboxes. They attack politicians didn't kill them. But apparently it was leading up to that, but they attacked people brutally. And they set off fire bombs and things in London in order to secure them in the vote. Now, obviously, side point is they weren't responsible for being having the vote. They weren't the I know, it's portrayed in popular media that the suffragettes enabled me to get the vote in UK now there wasn't them. It was the suffragists. The suffragettes were the mainstream women's movement,
which didn't use violent means, but their their idea, their ideology was exactly the same, which was women deserve to vote. But they took a different method, a different methodology, yet peaceful, political lobbying and campaigning. The suffragettes were the ones who managed to convince enough of the MPs on all parties, such that they all the parties voted in majority for women to have universal suffrage. It wasn't the suffragettes. They were the violent movement. You always hear about the violent movement. But it was the mainstream movement that was much like you have the Black Panthers during the black civil rights movement in United States. My blacks and Black Panthers were a
militant group. What was their ideology? Was it black supremacism? No. Was it some kind of black nationalism? Or was it just an ideology that says you must kill people who are white? No, the ideology was was pretty simple, which was that people who are African Americans deserve the same same treatment as people who are European Americans. Like for them whites, European American, just remind every one of the immigrants done status. Yeah, so I wish maybe native Native Americans, just Americans. So the European Americans, and the African Americans should have equal ability to vote. That was the ideology of the black pants. But okay, there was a few other socialists and other kind
of Marxist overtones here and there, but that was one of the ideas. Sharing that same idea was the movement led by
very famous peaceful activists who they want to know
Who was the who was on the main leaders of the black movement for suffrage of African Americans?
Martin Luther King, yes. easy one.
All right. So my Luther King and, and through him and his movement for political lobbying, and campaigning, demonstrating, protesting. They're the ones who managed to secure the objective. But their idea was shared by a militant group who, who enacted in certain cases, militant activities or violence to seek that political objective. In South Africa, you have the anti apartheid movements, the ANC, and they were against apartheid of the Dutch originated boas and the rest of the population of South Africa.
And ANC was meant to be the peaceful political wing, there was a militant wing, called on counter MC square, which means Spear of the nation. And they used terror attacks, bombings, shopping malls, or shopping malls, restaurants and other public places, killing men, women and children, to seek the same goal, to seek the same goal. Now, what people don't seem to remember is that Nelson Mandela was also the head of competencies where he was imprisoned. And he was asked by the government to tell his group, this middle group to stop their militant activities. And his response was, well, you stop apartheid and oppressing my people. And then I'll tell these people, this, this group to stop. And
people don't realize that that aspect, but what was the ideology of Nelson Mandela, some people say he was communism, but it became what you might call liberal democracy, or secularism, democracy, and he did it under the name secular liberal democracy. So there was a militant wing, and there was a mainstream, peaceful political wing, they happen to share the same ideology, but not the same methodology.
So then, is ideology connected to terrorism? No. People can be connected to terrorism, but ideology does not necessitate one method or another method.
And that this is the problem here. When, if you if you imagine all the discourse is that the problem of terrorism is due to some aspect of the people's beliefs,
their beliefs, which are might be non violent in nature, but these non violent beliefs lead to violence, when you hear this particular rhetoric, know that there's something very wrong happening here. And there is a nefarious purpose, intended by that rhetoric, because simple analysis of human history, sociology, and all these cases show that an ideology can be responsible for peaceful movements, as it can be responsible for militant movements.
So let's ask the burning question is any interpretation, or substract, or even distortion of Islam responsible for terrorist violence?
Well, let's start by asking the terrorists themselves so to speak. Al Jazeera, I believe in 2003, had an interview with Osama bin Laden.
And they asked him, How can he enact terror violence, attacking America, American interests, attacking American civilians? So he said that there was a there was a religious and logical argument to it? And he said, Okay, well, we'll explain the British argument once about resolvement is one way people generally cite the body for the Prophet Mohammed suasana, which said that it is prohibited to kill women and children in war between basically non combatants. So Algeria interview was an interview with like, oh, what exactly is that? How then why do you justify then if you've admitted that basically, it's prohibited? You can't do it, the program is also prohibited very explicitly.
And what are some 11 said is in response to that is, yes, it has been prohibited by the prophet Mohammed. But it's not set in stone. The law isn't set in stone that says ultimate, not that I was the head of hair or climbing first here. No, he says, the law isn't set in stone. The only verse of cron he did bring up was that he said that the Quran says to fight, fight enemies as they fight you.
And he said that if America comes into Muslim countries, and bombs, killing women and children, that in order to stop them from continuing to do this, you retaliate, using the same tactic upon them, in order to dissuade them from doing so and save Muslim lives. In essence, this is his kind of his his argument. But of course, he didn't finish the first the crime he quoted, which there and do not transgress the limits of Allah. Of course, what would be so? So if I was saying fight them, they fight you but do not transgress on those limits? Then what limits would they be? Because the only limits in warfare? If you say there was a limit in warfare, the only the minimum understanding of
any kind of limit is that civilians are exempt from being targeted. You can't talk to civilians. So somehow, didn't finish the quote. But his argument is that in essence is this if you if you listen to it, his argument is that because of global oppression and injustice,
Because of the Muslims being attacked, the Quran merely gives him permission to imitate the West that his Sunnah also knows who you will imitate the son of a son, but northern is the West. And he cites he cites World War Two, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of recorded strategic bombing of German cities with civilians with no military budget to do so. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he cites this as part of his justification for terrorism. So he's not citing the Prophet Mohammed suasana. Or sometimes in the Quran that said, Go out and kill it and disbelieve you can find doesn't exist. What he is citing, is he citing? Look what the West does, we should do the same.
That's his argument. It's not a religious argument. It's not an iron a, a twist of Islam, because it's not even coming from Islam. It's not even an interpretation of Islam. He's just saying that they attack us they commit to justice. So the supreme reciprocity, and this is a non Islamic argument and an Islamic argument.
Now, what do the the kind of intelligence agencies say, is the intelligence agency responsible for implementing counterterrorism policies, and the whole point of a counterterrorism policy is to stop terrorism. So these people have tapped to have a clear understanding of the causes of terrorism, more than anyone else, they implement studies to try to find the cause of terrorism. And here's what they say. So Eliza Manningham Buddha, who was a former head of MIT, said, our involvement in Iraq for want of a better word, radicalize a whole generation of young people, and spurred some British Muslims to terror. So it wasn't ideology.
We see that
Arizona State University commissioned a research funded by the Office of Naval Research, they analyzed 2000 what they called extremist text between 1988 and 2011. and analyzing all these texts to see what was the justification for terrorism being produced, or what verses of the Quran were being produced in any discourse concerning violence or militancy or terrorism. They said, We conclude that the vs extremist site from the Koran do not suggest an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead, they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor, and retribution. So when these terrorists are citing versus the
Quran, they're not saying verse the Quran that says, anything to do with can be an act of violence, they may decide in verse, the Koran that they believe reinforces the themes of their being dishonored, that the Muslims are being attacked, the Muslims must fight and defend themselves. This is the verses of the Quran, they are fighting. But these words the Quran have nothing to do with attacking civilians or telling people to attack civilians, or even conquer non Muslims at all. This is what the research came up with.
But more interestingly, MFA is behavioral science unit, in elite reports, this report was not actually meant for public view was actually meant for internal internally the government view, and it says something which was quite different to the public narratives, which we hear, which I'm going to come in come to in a bit. And they noticed that the people who use violence or actively support the use of violence
are those who are tend to be religious novices, and are quite far from even being Islamic fundamentalists, quote, unquote. So basically, the people who tend to support the use of violence, or have or use of terrorism, tend to be people who are not religious, or even have any understanding of the idea of quote unquote, political Islam. And they tend to be people who are not practicing. And this was quite fascinating. And they said that this was ancient. And they said that there's no single pathway to violent extremism, they couldn't find extremism. There's no single pathway, there is no stereotype or recognizable kind of template, you can say, this person if this person is going
to be radicalized in violence. They admit this, they said this, and it has been brought up. But the government has never commented on this, the government has never discussed this research. And this is by the AMA five, we think that of all the research on terrorism, they should be listened to because they're talking about what exactly causes terrorism.
And this has been reiterated in many academic studies of radicalization, that it's never any belief of Islam or prayer or religious diversity of Islam, or understanding or indoctrination of any political one, Islam, it is usually either grievances or that a person is particularly vulnerable mentally to committing violence of their certain social or other factors. That person However, what is being argued now is this, okay? Might not be ideal that leads to terrorism. Maybe it's not either this terrorism, but ideology, quote, unquote, plays a part is the argument. It is a part of it. Where's the evidence for this? And they say, well, because all Muslim terrorists are Muslim. Well,
of course, by definition, it's the muslim terrorist. They're going to be you if you call the Muslim, then of course, it's circular logic, but there's a mosque.
explanation for this is quite simple. There is one thing that Islam does, like every other idea of identity, which is, it makes you feel part of a particular group of people, you identify yourself as Muslim.
A person who is Irish identifies himself as Irish, a person who is a from from who is African American, and defines himself as African American. However, what explained the IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland wasn't some particular ideological winds, which is the belief that, that it should be unified, unified into one hole. But when Irish people started to be to feel they were being persecuted by the state and Irish people in Northern Ireland, and mainly Catholics, when they started to feel that they're being persecuted, you saw radicalization into the IRA. They felt that as Irish people, they were being targeted, that they were being discriminated against, and this
caused them to be radicalized. Likewise, there was a story, I think, a year or two back, when you start seeing these videos of these us police officers shooting African Americans who are just holding their hands up, or they're not being threatening at all, but on the slightest, the slightest paranoia of the officer himself, they shoot, and there's some very costly videos that come out on this. There was one particular video that came out, which was particularly horrific. And right off the video, an African American man went out with a pistol and shot two police officers. I think a year ago, I think was those five police officers were shot by an angry African American man. Is
there an ideology behind African Americans that causes them to do this? Is there some interpretation of African American ism that makes them do this? Or is causing this? Are they black supremacists, perhaps, or some kind of
racialist of any particular kindness?
They in these cases, everyone concurred that it was anger at the perceived mistreatment of African Americans that seems to be causing this violence. And those who identify as African Americans feel that they personally been targeted, and they are angry. Now usually, this comes out in a mainstream, peaceful movements, which is Black Lives Matter. Anyone heard of this must have heard this. It's a peaceful movement. But there is these these people who enact violence. So this shows that terrorism has nothing to do with ideology never has, it's got more to do with a variety of factors more concerning the mentality or the mental state of the individual themselves, rather than any
Now, I cannot discuss this, I can't discuss what is the cause of terrorism, it's very clear that they these are issues actually more relate to the individuals. And there's a psychology an individual might be involved there. The idea of grievance and being published at a targeted identity group might be involved, but some beliefs about what the Muslim world should be or freedom for the Muslim world in terms of a independent Islamic government, or what have you, or Caliphate these ideas do not lead to particular to violence, is what the security services have said.
Now, I've discussed that let's deal with Islamophobia. Does Islamophobia even exist in the UK as important? Because if we if we're going to analyze there's any connection between the two, we have to see what some of it is something even exists.
Well, interestingly, many individuals the media one particular was one particular person was a political editor of The Daily Mirror called Jason Beatty, he's he admitted. He said in general do not exclusively the portrayal of Muslims in the mainstream media has been unsatisfactory, sloppy, and sometimes stereotypical reporting. It has been noted that
in a study of broadsheets between 1994 and 1996, they found it before 911 that even back then 88% of articles on Islam reported Islam as a foreign faith or something different, or British Muslims were linked with the word fundamentalist, or fundamentalism. After 911 and seven, seven, this trend changed considerably. A study commissioned by the Greater London Authority found that in 2007, on average 91% of articles about Muslims were negative, quote unquote, a wider channel for commission survey of British press articles from 2000 2008 found two thirds of them to portray British Muslims as a threat and a problem with reference to radical Muslims, outnumbering references to quote
unquote, moderates 17, to one, a number of MPs and a number of other journalists have conceded that the media has become out of control and rampant in its negative portrayal of Muslims.
Now, some have even said that this is clearly damaging community cohesion, if Muslims are being demonized constantly in the media.
Now, here's the thing. Remember this damaging community cohesion and Islamophobia
if this is a significant problem, what has the UK government said about this about the media? Have they condemned British media for successes have they condemned any petition?
Killer newspapers for their excesses in reporting against Muslims, because they seem to condemn a whole bunch of individuals even by name. There was a case they mentioned for popular Muslim speakers in the UK by name called an extremist, one of these challenges in court, salmon, but they seem okay to mention names, but why not? Why not mention newspapers Daily Mail or the sun? Perhaps there's been a lot of controversy regarding their cartoons, and being being compared to may 20 century cartoons against another another minority from the Middle East originally. And this is not gonna have the same kind of reaction from the politicians as Muslims and the practices the Muslim
committee has, but I'm going to get to that in a second.
Now, what would a connection between Islamophobia and counter terrorist policies look like? This is the other criteria we have to kind of look into. Because this is sama phobia. We have counterterrorism. We know what it means that the term, but is there any connection between that the practice of counter supports in UK and Islamophobia? Well, again, that's something that you're going to have to judge for yourselves. But let's define counterterrorism first. Not the final sorry. Let's, let's basically look into what a connection would look like before we didn't bring out the evidences. So firstly, counterterrorism is a concept when directed only at criminal activity would
of course not be Islamophobic. It's not Islamophobic to stop terrorism. It's actually what Islam what Islam would command and judge would be that we should stop terrorism. It's wrong to committed to committed oppression to committing justice to target non combatants. Islam prohibits this unequivocably. So, of course, it's not summer phobic at all to target terrorism, whoever's committing terrorism, if they're Muslim, atheist, Jew, Christian, whoever was doing it, they should be stopped, and no Muslims will have a problem with this.
However, if counterterrorism policies are aimed solely at preventing people from undertaking acts of terrorism, we would expect it to only focus on those planning it or those doing it or those advocating it, or even maybe those who perhaps argue are supported, right, who just argue supported, you could understand that these people would need to be targeted in some way those who may be just supported by doing actions, maybe they just need to be, you know, dissuaded and might have changed about it. But those who participate in doing it planning your act or advocating it openly,
are actively recruiting for it, of course, they should be stopped. And that's what we would expect from counterterrorism policies, no more, no less.
But if counterterrorism policies went beyond that, then there has to be questions asked, Why go beyond targeting who's committing a criminal, the police don't try to find out who thinks in their head that upset who might might steal in the future, the police don't have a crystal ball. It's not the minority report that
that old film now where they can predict the future. They don't do that, and they don't have any concern about this. Likewise, those people there are people who never intend to break the law, or let's say commit theft, the police don't go after them. If the police go upset people who don't commit a crime, but who maybe criticize the police, or maybe have a different political view, we'd call it a police state, we'd call it a state that discriminates and is oppressive. That's what we call it, and rightfully so. So likewise, counterterrorism policies, which are enacted by the state security apparatus, if it goes beyond targeting people who are committing acts of terrorism or
advocating or supporting it, then we have to ask very important questions. Now, if any component of government sanctioned counterterrorism policy, or the public rhetoric of politicians discussing counterterrorism, if any of these components were expanded beyond the arena of fighting criminals who perpetrate or advocate a criminal methodology, and instead becomes hostile or prejudicial towards Muslims, who maybe believe in particular aspects of Islamic belief, deemed undesirable by the UK Government, that according to the OED definition, this would be Islamophobia, it would be encouraging it and itself would be Islamophobia.
And if the government offered good relations with self labeled Muslims, only on the condition that you renounced any particular belief they had, or a particular aspect of Islam or a particular interpretation, in order to be compliant with the state ideology or secular liberalism, then this too, would be Islamophobia. Even if they say, I have no problem with Muslims, that my friend here he's a Muslim doesn't believe in God, but he calls himself a Muslim, I have no problem with him. That was actually turned out that there was the EDL for example, in one case, I'd like to bring up quite a quite bombastic group and conference at least, and they had this member of this EDL member
this could have done and they said, We don't hate Muslims. We have a Muslim member, Abdul some, he said is actually a sectarian Scots. He's from Scotland, and he's quite sectarian against Catholics for some strange reason due to Celtic and whatever football teams anyway, side points. So when our
You know, do you believe in Islami believing God is not believe in God? I don't believe nobody was wrong. But I was born a Muslim background I call myself Muslim. And that's the type of Muslim the EDL are happy with.
So, so does does that doesn't have to refute any allegations that the EDL or something but no, because if you see, Muslims are not a race, we're not an ethnicity. If you believe in Islam and the beliefs of Islam, the articles of faith, you're Muslim, if you don't believe in them, by definition, you wouldn't be a Muslim, even if you call yourself a Muslim, right? I mean, I could call this chair a donkey, because it has four legs, and only has four legs. But it's not donkey. So anyone who calls themselves any label,
and they're not there, and then they don't fit the description of definition, then of course, it wouldn't be accepted. I could call myself a secular liberal. But people look at my beliefs and say, but you're not secular people. You don't believe in X, Y and Zed number of things. I can call myself a communist. And people say, Well, no, because you clearly reject these articles of these very basic premises of communism. So you can't, you can't be called that. So if you don't believe in God, and you say you're a Muslim Boy, that doesn't, that doesn't mean that person is a Muslim just because they call themselves Muslim.
Example, would it not be the kind of phobic vegan phobic to say, I don't hate vegans, I only hate vegans who don't eat meat. But I have no problem with the ones who do eat meat
and will still be beginner phobic if they respond. I have a friend who calls himself a vegan, but he eats meat, proving that you don't have to abstain from meats in order to be vegan. So I don't have a problem with that kind of veganism. And I don't have a problem with vegans. That wouldn't be a person who is tolerant to vegans just because he has someone calls himself a vegan, but then eats meat, which then automatically invalidate you being vegan.
So this is the issue. So now it wants to, in order for us to judge Western capitalism policies are actually a sama phobia, going, encouraging Islamophobia. And I'm not referring to the ones that are dealing with the criminals. I'm dealing with the print on discussing the policies that go beyond dealing with the criminals and go beyond and deal with things with people who are not criminals. Are they Islamophobic? Well, let's have a look.
The when 911 happened, America called its war, a war on terror, but not a war on Al Qaeda. Why did they call themselves a war? why they call it a warlock Qaeda, Al Qaeda attacked America. So in America should respondent declare war on Al Qaeda, Why say a war on terror, you can't find methodology you can find people you can't find a theology. Likewise, UK when he was fighting the IRA, it was many politicians who say they're at war with the IRA, they're fighting the IRA, they won't say they fighting terror, per se. Just eat is a nebulous word, kind of not the best word, but just it's not a particular group terrorism, just a word. It's not a group of people, individuals. So
they will say, well, we're at war with the IRA until something gets resolved there.
And here's the problem. The problem was brought in when this war on terror was declared. And it was discussed that the ideology of these terrorists or the war is being fought against not the terrorists themselves. Now, that might sound innocuous fine, yeah, we fight terrorists to fight they, you know, they argued you must be evil as well. But then look at that. So let's say that let's take the KKK for example. Let's say we want to fight against the KKK.
If we say we must fight, get the KKK and fight against their ideology, people would agree. But if I say if I say the ideology is, for example, the belief that Jesus has got all the Trinity because there are Christians, kkk Christians, people say whatever you want. Second, that's, that's that's not an identity specific to the KKK. This is just Christianity, that something else, you're going beyond the remit to find the KKK you're not you're not moving it to Christianity, and rightfully so. Now, the more terrifying even even even it's a good idea to say, okay, you can fight against terrorism. That's a good idea. But if the if President George Bush, for example, use rhetoric, like
we have to defeat political ambitions of extremists, they want an Islamic government. They want to have a caliphate, and we have to defeat these these ideas and ideologies. Well, then here's the problem here because you see, while Muslims all rightfully condemn al Qaeda, and we condemn their methodologies, but Muslims believe in in Sharia, they believe in the Quran. They believe that the Prophet Mohammed Salaam instituted a form of government to protect the Muslims and advance the cause of Islam and protect Islamic interest implement Islamic law, which was caliphate. The first Khalif was abubaker then Omar, the mom and Ali, are these extremists. The fourth the first four caliphs.
Only 100 years ago, the UK was having diplomatic relations with a caliphate which was the ultimate caliphate. They extremist was that with a whole bunch of extremists considering that at the time, it was on incontrovertible that Muslims viewed most Muslims to be fair viewed. They have money Calif as as the Khalifa, the male
mumineen, the leader of the Muslims, then obviously if you say that the idea of Calif or Caliphate itself is extremist and should be fought against, you've now moved beyond fighting a war on terrorism. And you're now fighting a war on aspects of Islam that have been there for 1400 years.
And then they're not vital aspects of Islam. It's, you know, it's peaceful aspects of Islam, accountable government willing of justice, pluralism, Christians and Jews and Israelis all having a right to life. their right to just practice right to worship as they see fit, no one to coerce them, no one to oppress will persecute them. This was what the ultimate Caliphate did. This is what it obviously the teaching the Prophet Mohammed Solomon, some advocated, but to declare, as George Bush did the fight against an identity that believes in the caliphate or believes in Islamic government, this was now going beyond just fighting against terrorists.
It was in 2009, it was leaked by Whitehall. This contest to which will contest was the sort of contest and strategy in the UK. And it was leaked, a part of it which discussed what would be extremist ideas. It had a number of points. Anyone who advocated Caliphate, or pan Islamic State encompassing many countries, anyone who promotes you every law, anyone who argues that Islam bans homosexuality, and that is a sin against God.
People who believe in jihad, armed resistance.
This these these concepts, it probably consider many, most Catholics have to be also extremists, as well as many Protestant Christians as well to be extremists by these definitions. But this was now a counterterrorism policy, going beyond attacking
the criminals and going into areas of belief which do not predispose people to violence, per se. And of course, the intelligence agencies have noted this, that, that these ideas don't predispose people to violence. So why are you now going after these issues that have nothing to do with violence?
Then we see the rhetoric coming from UK government ministers. So we see David Cameron,
that they have to get to the root of the problem of terrorism. And they have to be absolutely clear, quote, where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamic extremism, we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology.
He didn't mention is the ultimate goal is an entire Islamist realm governed by an interpretation of Sharia move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of extremist worldview, including new hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on one hand and political ideology on the other.
Why is David Cameron discussing what is and what isn't part of a religion? And why is he even going to areas which are just discussing different political concepts or different political ideas or philosophies? What relevance do these things have to fighting terrorism?
In fact, if a Muslim believes that a independent elected Khalif is an obligation in Islam, but they become with David Cameron consider them to be enemies now that must be targeted, that they follow, in one case a quote unquote, a poisonous ideology. And who is the who is the British government to decide? What is or isn't religion, part of a religion, it's meant to be a secular government. When secularists go to the Muslim world, and they say, secularism, the best system secularism will bring peace, secularism will apparati. They always say secularism doesn't get involved in people's religion. It doesn't involve itself in the communities, religious practices, or what they choose to
believe or what doctrines they choose to adopt. And yet you have David Cameron, discussing as part of counterterrorism policy, the need to declare parts of, of an essence Islam to be not Islam, and parts of Islam to be which are made, which presumably, are just to do with ritual, ritualized prayers and things Oh, that's acceptable Islam.
And interestingly enough, he mentioned this in his Munich speech. But by the way, he mentioned what He also mentioned the far right. And he said on that, on the one hand, those in the hot right, ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable, that there is a clash of civilizations. So it follows We should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation favored by some fascists, or banning of new mosques as a suggested in some parts of Europe. These people feel with sama phobia and I completely reject their argument. So his argument is that the difference really between
And by David Cameron presumably, is that he believes the West and Islam are reconcilable. But the hard right don't believe Islam and the West irreconcilable. And if you don't believe they're reconcilable, then what follows naturally, apparently, is you have to implement a whole bunch of measures that limit Islam or limit the Muslim practice. And then he gets to the most interesting part, he says, Now, I'm not saying that issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. Yes, of course, he must tackle them. These are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all these problems, I believe I have mentioned and he referring to the poverty and
grievance of a foreign policy,
they will still be terrorism. I believe the root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology, I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes to a question of identity. And then, after the publication of the counter extremism strategy last year, he mentioned that it is a concern for many that some Muslims hold a loyalty to a greater community than the national boundaries to eight to the oma that the Islamic international community, then then just their national communities. So this concern that Muslims are all part of some Muslims are not loyal, or that they have a loyalty greater than that of the British government. And what was more, it was
even more interesting and a little hilarious was when this described this description that people who don't believe in the rule of law are extremists, according to the preventive strategy, have nothing to do with preventing terrorism is White's go into the discussion? And it's interesting because the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when he was cussing with a with an MP, an MP said that anyone basically who believes that that God or God's Will or that British law is greater than the law of England are an extremist. Then Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said, well, then you have an extremist right here, because I believe that the law of God is greater than
the laws of man.
But of course, it's not it wasn't targeting the Anglican Church and the Anglican church or not, obviously, I'm not what really the focus of this. And this comes up in the discussions of many members of the current government. So in one particular article, I've just finishing on some of these quotations I think you need to come listen to so William Shawcross, the head of the Charity Commission was put into that position, head of chokmah Commission, obviously conservative with the Conservative Party. And he mentioned in a lecture when he, when he was delivering he was delivering while discussing a book that he published, he said, Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most
terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations.
David Cameron has said rhetoric such as to deny Islamic extremism has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices.
And this also brings to the RAND Corporation report in 2003, the biggest think tank in the United States to advise the American government that says that as part of the war on terror, the means to achieve victory, in essence, or to the end goal should be encouraging a reformation of Islam. Now, I mentioned a few evidences I'm gonna bring literally to the close. But with this kind of rhetoric, which says on one side, Islam and Islamism is separate. However, Islam needs to be reformed, and you can't deny that Islam has a connection. So terrorism is in some way or Islamic extremism is in some way connected to Islam. This kind of rhetoric is what the media is. It's what the public hear and it
reports it the media gets headlines from a lot of the quotations by these, these politicians. And even during the Labour government jack straw, he discussed about maybe the niqab being banned in certain contexts. And they were meeting after that reports of Muslim being attacked in one case, and someone had had her job.
While she was threatened, while she was wearing a job, she take it off jack shore Setzer. Now, of course, that's anecdotal. But if you see that, in many of the reports coming out, especially the case, the report now has just come out a week ago, which discussed and it mentioned in the highlight very specifically that Muslims more than any other ethnic group is a particular concern of regarding integration into society. And it also mentioned that, yes, the Muslim country is facing a lot of pressure at the moment from what society but once it deals with certain issues of itself, this pressure should ease no mention of we need to tell the media to stop sensationalized against them,
or we don't see them the petition saying that it is the media sensationalism, which is causing the breakdown of communication by targeting Muslims and demonizing Muslims or portraying negative stories of Muslims. Now put all this together. Obviously, we see they becoming interested in Muslims Muslim law into the UK integration assimilation and connecting that to counterterrorism policies, even though it has no relation to counterterrorism should have no connection to it.
Taking into account all this evidence and more which time has would not allow me to continue to go on maybe the QA I mentioned the bits and bobs, but take into account all this evidence. I asked.
You To answer this question for yourself. Does certain counterterrorism policies have a connection to encourage? Or even themselves are Islamophobic in any way or encourage sama phobia in any way? I think that's a question I'll leave you to answer. If you have any contentions that then please bring up in the q&a and we can discuss it. Thank you for listening.
So any questions, answers, comments, questions, comments or contentions?
I'm happy to take contentions. You don't have to accept everything I've said blindly.
Should I mean if if you're not going to mention it, maybe I'll get the ball rolling with just discussing some some historical context. Now, if you do happen to believe that the UK Government has some hostility to aspects of Islam or prejudices to aspects of Islam, which have been mainstream Islamic discourse for 1040 years,
know that it is not due to some kind of cosmic hatred of Islam or cosmic war against Islam in that sense. It's actually more germane factors. Because any historian here if you look back in UK history, you'll you'll see that this hasn't It's not the first time that such situations happened in UK. Just a few 100 years ago, maybe three 400 years ago and continuing up until the 19th century, the Catholics of the UK suffered similar stigmas, very similar discriminations. Catholics were suspected of being violent of suspected of trying to take over this country to apply the Catholic canon law on this country and usurp the throne. Catholics were obviously linked to terror attacks,
of course, they were terror attacks that Catholics are done like Guy Fawkes, which, of course, is why it's been it's behind the fifth of November commemoration. The Great Fire of London was blamed on a Catholic, admittedly, the Catholic came out and admitted that he did it. But people think that it was just owning up to to advance the physical tools and the coolest was usually against the persecution of Catholics. So the persecution of Catholics, as many historians have posited was a radicalizing factor in Catholicism, but some people will say, No, no, it's a Catholicism or as they used to call it paper ism. It was it was there Islamism for that time, paganism, that pejorative
word, basically, that papers and leads to violence, pay the Pope. The belief in the pope as great in the British crown is subversive. It's seditious, you can't trust Catholics, they want to take over this country or depose the monarch. And of course, in foreign relations, England sometimes had was with Catholic countries and there was the whole Protestant Catholic conflict. So Catholics faced laws, perhaps the first prevent laws where they were told that they have to swear allegiance to the to the monarch, and they have to denounce the Pope, but to a Catholic belief in the pope is the head of the church is pomposity quit it defines a Catholic, they told to renounce. I mean, arguably, it
was probably said that we don't hate all Catholics, as long as the Catholics that renounced the pope we have no problem with but then that, does that make them Catholic anymore, but they have they have to do so that was the Catholic testing laws were Catholics. Basically, we had to make this test they had to make an oath of allegiance. And they were denied positions in government and certain professions. They weren't allowed to get jobs in those professions. In some cases, they weren't allowed to inherit and so on. There's many discriminatory laws against Catholics, which only stopped round about the mid 19th century, when the geostrategic situation or geopolitical situation changed
and was no longer forced in the world. secular governments kind of arose, and the Catholic Church was set forth and Catholics could be trusted, because the pope is is harmless now, and that's what was perceived. But the Catholics were also maligned suspected. And the same arguments used against Catholics were actually quite literally the same argument against Catholics we use against Muslims, even back then. So you had
you had both john Locke and the john Milton, because it'd be the grandfather of free speech, john Milton argued that you can't basically would probably call it potpourri, you must basically, first invite them to leave their religion or leave their disbelief in the Pope. If they don't, then you basically you can be justified in exterminating people that do so because the pope leaving the Pope was occupied john Milton is Erica chitika that exterminate all civil, civil government. And so so these people can't be tolerated because they have an intolerant belief a belief that the Pope has great government. And then he mentioned the belief similar to delta Hamilton's, as well as,
ironically enough. JOHN Locke also made the same argument in his ironically titled, electron toleration, although he interesting did argue that religion doesn't cause violence. He says oppression causes violence. JOHN Locke argued that it's actually oppression that causes violence, not religion, but
make Catholics protected
Could be, could be not tolerate, because if they believe in a higher power than the government, how could they be trusted, also interesting enough to mock said that Hamiltons also could be distrusted and might not have an argument to be tolerated because they believe in following the the the rulings of the shape of Islam who is under the fruit of the ultimate canon, which they believe is greater than any, any other government. So maybe you could tolerate Muslim for that for the same reason as well. So these these kind of discussions and this concern, which you see William Shawcross, and, and actually a whole number of other individuals save things which are quite similar
is not because people were promoting Islam, or it's a cosmic battle between the West and Islam or it's the crusades, part two. Now, none of that is more germane, actually. And it's repeating historical problem, which is mistrusting minorities, because they have either different religion or just beliefs in particular, different practices or laws, or beliefs, beliefs that have a political aspect to them, which are viewed to be incompatible with, with a supposedly loyal subject, whatever that that, however you define that anyway. So I think at this point, in case anyone has asked us are you just saying that the government hates Islam just because it wants to hate spam was part of
crusade with a Nope, nope, not that. If you look into history, you see the same repetition the same kind of arguments. Winston Churchill wrote a tract called I believe it was
Jews versus Bolshevism, I believe was the title attic. I forget the exact title of it. But please, please Google, Winston Churchill, Bolshevism, Jews, with a Churchill made the same argument he said, national Jews, you can trust them there. They are people who are loyal to the country, but international Jews, they follow Bolshevism, which is the communists, someone and they seem to be disproportionately leading communist movements. And, and these are these are the issues that the British Jews have to combat the same kind of city scare mongering, xenophobic rhetoric and arguments you see today about political ideologies about minorities, and a lot is being tested, whether
there's a fringe of them or a majority of them, this stuff has happened. And we repeat throughout history. And it has to obviously, we have to learn from history, at some point stop repeating these silly prosecutions of minorities or distrust of minorities, because obviously, both the Catholics and the Jews and Muslims are humans like anybody else. We want to believe in our beliefs, we don't want to be persecuted or we don't wanna be discriminated against. And we certainly mean no ill will to any of the countries that we reside in. So we should people should stop be distrusting and stop interfering with our with our religious beliefs in telling us what is acceptable religion or what is
not acceptable religion? Because that's the that's the problem. Any questions, points of contention if it is a brother up there? Yeah.
Things like this. First, if we look, do you think there's a big link between the UK foreign policy? And why some Muslims, actually some Muslims might be disintegrated from society here? So, for example, the mistake of going into Iraq
or Syria in 1915, Palestine? So it's I think it's natural to be not very connected.
With the government, it's actually I think it's much more much more complicated.
Well, I mentioned that it's not religion, that radicalizes people, and it's not it's not grievance is a form of grievances themselves that cause people, some people to commit violence. What people have what many studies have shown is that there's a particular mentality, which is vulnerable to or susceptible or prone to committing violence. And these particular mentalities are everywhere in every religion, every ethnicity, every nationality, every ideology. You as I mentioned earlier, earlier, in my discussion, you have mainstream political movements like the suffragettes who were peaceful political campaigning and so on, then you have the militant fringe of them. Likewise,
obviously, with the
African American civil rights movement, you had the mainstream political movement, peaceful movement, and then you had a fringe militant movement. So by pulling out like this one clear example, this is the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland has a neutral foreign policy. How many Islamic terror attacks have happened in the Republic of Ireland? Is anyone No.
Sir, anyone? configure number
00 tax. There is a sizable Muslim population in South American countries and one particular country, it's almost a percent in South America. How many Islamic terror attacks against civilians against the population of South America people have happened in South America.
get the number.
You're right. Yeah, exactly zero. So surely then people will notice there is a correlation between foreign policy grievances because South America is not involved in the Muslim world in terms of foreign policies. Republic of Ireland is neutral Switzerland to
is also neutral. How many terror attacks have happened in Switzerland? Again, zero.
But what george bush argued during his war on terror is he said that these people, these terrorists, they are fighting us because of our way of life. They want to destroy us. They want to destroy our way of life. Same with the kind of hyperbole we hear from David Cameron, and his successor that this is the greatest power generation cycle was all this hyperbole and rhetoric, which What does it make the average English personal, brief person feel is that they're on the wall, that there are Muslims who are out to get them for no other crime other than that they just exist? Of course, how are they going to react to Muslims, then, with suspicion, they're gonna be worried, because the politicians
are not telling the people why it hasn't really happening.
And even even Malala, she responded to that. He said that, well, if that's, he said, you say I attack you for your freedom, then please explain why don't attack Sweden,
in his response, but that being said, and I'll make this cabinet very clear, I don't have to but because given this topic, as a Muslim, with the media out there, you you will get suspected. There is no justification in any way, shape or form for terrorism under any circumstance. And one of the people things I like about Islam, is that because we believe that Islam comes from a loss controller, and we believe that the laws the prohibitions of Islam, are from Allah spawn, tada, we as Muslims, if you feel God, you cannot break the laws, even if you think it's in your benefit to do so.
And, and this is very interesting, because for Muslims, Muslims would not if there was an Islamic government, they would not drop nuclear bombs onto Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They would not fire bomb burning to death, men, women and 30,000 men, women and children burning to death, or those who escaped in the in the in the in the shelters were cooked in, like Athens. Right Islamic proclivities. Second, but second, liberal philosophers have argued like john Rawls and Michael Walzer, john Rawls is among the most preeminent political philosophers of secular liberalism or the most preeminent in recent time. politics or political science or liquid science? No. So, you do.
Law International, have you heard of john wall's?
And they argued for what they call the supreme emergency exemption, they said that if this if this is the state societies under threat, it is this is on the front, and even bringing victory it can have an exemption from the prohibition against targeting civilians, they can target civilians, Michael Bolton brings up world war two as his example, you know, bombing German civilians. And I think that's disgusting. I think that's absolutely disgusting. But I often wonder, what how does how does the web How does the counterterrorism
expert like next best, these these pundits, all these rhetoric and capitalism, how do they expect to stop terrorism by telling Muslim they should become secular liberal, when the former liberal philosophers justify terrorism, and Islam doesn't in any way, shape or form? And Assad Middleton admitted that he was copying the West he wasn't. He wasn't a prophet Mohammed told him to do so he was emulating the problem. He didn't say that. He says he's just copying the West, which I think is a is a horrific and an Islamic argument in the extreme
amount to be a classical Islamic scholar discuss this, he discussed this particular instance, what if Muslim civilians are being taught being being killed? specifically? What can Muslims do? Can they retaliate in like manner, and here's what he said, he said, is not permissible for us to retaliate in the same manner, even if they kill our women and children and Kosovo to befall us. It is not permissible for us to act likewise with the intention of making them feel grief and sorrow. And this is why a lot about Islam, that we hold ourselves to a higher criteria, a higher standard than what what is beneficial or not beneficial. materially speaking, people say, oh, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, we
bombed it because it ended the war quicker. And people didn't. And the argument is where it would end when the war quicker or not, or I say doesn't matter. It's still wrong. It was still wrong. How can even justify a disgusting? How can Winston Churchill is revered as a as a model English
hero, when he initiated the strategic bombing of German civilians? How is that acceptable? How is that praised?
And that's why a lot about Islam is that there's no exceptions. When Allah Allah has prohibited something, and has given no exceptions, and Muslims, we hold fast to it. So I can confidently say that someone is going against Islam, not because I disagree with interpretation is because he doesn't have an interpretation of Islam. His only argument is that in the modern world, Muslims can imitate the West. And we say, I reject that.
And that is the real reason. But yet counterterrorism policy is based on the idea that terrorism derives from an Islamic related ideology and what David Cameron it's connected in some way to Islam. How is it connected to Islam when someone says sites
His justification, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. How is Hiroshima never connected to Islam or Islamic argument? from the Quran? Allah in the Quran, nowhere that Hiroshima, Nagasaki dropping nuclear weapons. So someone's not not, he's not even distorting Islam. He's just not his argument is not even from Islam in the first place.
So then why our counterterrorism policy is going beyond just targeting criminals, and targeting people who believe in common Islamic concepts such as Islamic government, Sharia the idea of a caliphate, which 100 years ago, Britain was having diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Caliphate, how these extremist ideas now that must be tackled, and why is it that they become I mentioned, the problem here is identity. And the problem here is that there are some Muslims who have a loyalty greater than the nationality. That is a question to ask yourself, Is this in the realm of homophobia now? Is it does it does this argument encourage Islamophobia?
Do I think that the government silence on the media attacks on Islam or Muslims or the portrayal of Muslims is because they approve? Well, obviously, I can't go into the head and determine with with the approval of it. However, all I'll just say is they know exists. There was a committee set up I think, was called the anti anti muslim hate group, I believe, to investigate these matters and to obviously discuss with media. But there was a report from one of the members of it, one of the key members of this group who left it resigned from it and said, this group clip does not have any real intention. I'm not serious about combating
anti muslim hate in the media, in some ways, almost, you almost seem like a token gesture to him, as a token gesture, his words, a member that was in this group.
So I forget his name up, we find it somewhere here, actually.
So then, how is it? So what I'm gonna say is the government knows this, people have raised the issue that, that the portrayal of Muslims in the media has caused a breakdown of communication in the text, the negative portrayals, so the government has been serious about communication and may go on about communication all the time, especially when it comes to extremism and combating it in the name of protecting communication. Why not the media? So I don't I don't have a crystal ball. I can't see into their minds. I think that question is best addressed to them. But look at the evidences and see for yourself, what you think is likely.
system in the front?
Okay, I'm sorry, I'm just
okay. So because my memory since I'm Swiss cheese, the individual who was part of the all parliamentary group on Islamophobia is Dr. Chris Allen, with two L's and in a double l. n. He wrote an article it was published in I believe in the Huffington Post, saying why I quit the government's anti muslim hatred Working Group, read his comments. He's a member of the group of that group, read his comments for yourself. So you're not just taking my word for it. So I'm giving the reference Dr. Chris Allen. He's also a lecturer in social policy at the University of Birmingham. Anyway, so to get to your question system. So up the second part of that for
do I think counterparties can be changed through through the bait? Well, the thing is that, in theory, yes, of course, if we get enough public opinion, and also on our side to challenge this to expose it for what it is, then of course, and as many academics have come out and scrutinized this, the prevent policy and scrutinized aspects of it that they deemed to be extremely like what's this got to do with preventing terrorism and the conveyor belt theory which believes that religion or ideas or particular interpretation of religion, or something is linked to violence has been completely debunked by almost all mainstream academics. It's discounted as a theory, the conveyor
belt theory, but it's still being used by government despite in the face of all this academic research. And it's interesting because usually when the government cites a study which proves something it says it has been proven to demonstrate but when it in discussing the concept of radicalization, it says we judge use the word we judge that regulation is due to ideology and extremism we judge Well, friends your opinion, but this is a report about policies that will affect people and we have to go by objective measurement, not your judgment, which
can be dubious, might have a dubious motive, which is mostly with assimilation or minority into the into the UK and then terrorism.
Questions about loyalty or changing practices deemed to be illiberal, and instead promoting a liberal reformed Islam? Well, if you believe that Islam should be reformed, then clearly you, you can see at the very least, that you are Islamophobic to the uninformed Islam, but concedes the very least you're phobic to the unreformed Islam, or it would it would mean it will least be an evidence for that. And I would say that so security officials have to challenge that and they do, but it really needs an immediate groundswell. I can only assume that the gentleman at the top of his he's a member of the police, I believe, not security, some kind of
universal security. Okay, if Remember, the police was going to say that it's people like you that have to report upwards and get these, like, popularize these ideas. But as a member of the public, you're obviously like everybody else, you have a duty to ensure that government policy is informed by facts and evidence, not by a particular type of right wing agenda, or understandable immigration, which might be potentially xenophobic, right? I so inshallah salmon bubble changing courts will see what the courts you know what the court says, obviously, the courts are interesting, because courts require evidence and not just opinion. So it'd be fascinating to see where that goes. And then if he
does win, it'd be fascinating to govern how we extradite him. But we predictably probably react by trying to get around these judgments or try to find another way of, of calling people, extremists because the word extremist is has no meaning in of itself doesn't mean anything.
How can you define it? And I know the government in the prevent policy puts up definitions such as if you're opposed to if you make vocal opposition to democracy. So you criticize democracy. But there are people in this country who are monarchists they believe that, you know, moderate go back to good old times the monarchy is a good thing. Are they extremists now? The Jehovah's Witnesses, the job? I think it's jobs witnesses, I believe. So they don't believe in voting because they believe that this is the government of this world, and therefore the government next world, and they don't get involved in a political process. I think Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe I have to double
check that nomination of Christianity because a particular sect doesn't do it. But no one has a God that no one says, Oh, look, they don't engage in all of these are the counter values because it's accepted. Justin Welby believes in a higher law than the rule of law, as in lieu of the man made law. He believes in God's law that, you know, obviously God has a higher side, and then Parliament MPs and the House of Lords. And he himself said, Well, what the commission because I believe that, but he will be called an extremist, no one's going to call him an extremist. The government won't treat him as an extremist. And why is that question that you have to ask yourselves? I'm not going
to lead you with leading answers. Just ask yourself these questions. Why there was no political extremists? And if you say, well, this rule of law idea, you know, it's not serious, but why is it in the prevent counterterrorism policy as part of countering terrorism? What's that got to do with counterterrorism? And that's why I say that these issues have to be have to be raised. So inshallah maybe we can change if we get enough public support. But against the tidal wave of negative media, mostly right wing, the right leaning media, it's very difficult and the government doesn't seem to want to do anything about it. So
we'll see what we'll see, we have to try our best is all of us have to try our best to communicate the truth as much as possible. Any other questions, contentions? Or what anything you disagree with? Obviously, don't feel compelled to agree everything I say.
Okay, so why if if the British government was using counters and policies to incite some phobia? I haven't said that. I but if it if it did, what motivation would be, would be a motivation for that. Yeah. That's quite interesting, because that's a big section unto itself. What I'll say is this. It's, it's, there was some academic studies done about the perception of Muslims and the policies towards Muslims and Islam prior to 911.
And these academics use the term anti muslim or anti muslim, this was their terms. And they said it follows two kinds. You have domestic, domestic anti muslim nurse and you have strategic anti Muslims. So teaching anti muslim, this is a quandary as academics, that when a policy is aligned to prevent or undermine particular governments or enact strategies, countering political aspects of manifestations of Islam, so for example, the Iranian Revolution 1979 was viewed as a turning point in American foreign policy to the Middle East, in shifting it from just communism and dealing with
tin pot to secular dictators to now dealing with a country that extensively calls itself Islamic and wants to preach a sonic revolution. And, and it that and, of course, the united the 1973 oil embargo over the ninth century war with Israel. When the Saudi Arabia major Muslim countries putting oil embargo on the United States also created this change of policy and that was that what they called a strategic anti muslim ness domestic
anti muslim, as they say is usually as a reaction to immigration in and stimulation of minority populations. So he points out these two particular motivations. But even even if even if we look at in history, even if we go back 100 years ago, let's go back 100 years ago, the the, the architect of the site's Pico treaty, the one that cut the Middle East up until the map it looks today. Well, it wasn't like Pico particular treaty was when it came after that, but this was their first particular foray into it. So Mark Sykes said in August 1917 he says that regarding UK interest, he said I want to see a permanent Anglo French on top Alliance allied to Jews, Arabs and Armenians, which will
render pan Islamism innocuous, ie neutralized and protect Africa from the Terkel, German combine. He also said in 1915,
to bridge capital in the Middle East, he said that the reduction of the ultimate Caliphate isn't is necessary to defeat the malignant power of political Islam. And then he said, to defeat the enemy is essential to destroy the Ottoman Empire. So, at that time, now, when I use what Islamism just so you understand, isn't because they have the same unsettling back then back then the word Islamism was synonymous with Islam. They didn't actually, there was no separate Islamism in Islam. Because Islamism is the first word for Islam. Invented by Voltaire after mohammedanism got got got rid of so when they when they use the word Islamism, they mean Islam. And you see us commonly, but I think I
won't go into that story so much about just a certain sense of, of people who are doing translations and Muslims who are complaining about being Kuma, Hamilton's. They said, Okay, fine. We'll, we'll use the word, the Arabic word for it. But generally, they will just kept the word Islamism, which is why Judaism Hinduism still kept the kick that ism. That was the way of naming religions isn't it isn't it just means the beliefs and practices of Islam Islam as a means of belief and practice of Islam and Judaism. Hinduism is the same, same concept. Anyway, I digress. But we see back then these were the same discussions. I've got loads and loads of quotations from back then of British Foreign
Policy. It was awesome state. But it was in the later part because the ultimate caliphs were using the idea of political Islam to incite rebellion against the British in India, and allied to the Germans. The British saw that the understanding of a pan Islam and Islam uniting multiple lands around the world was dangerous and ultimate Empire up in the epicenter of it, and so should be deposed. But it wasn't because they always hate Ottoman Empire per se, which is expedient for so and because obviously oil resources in the Mideast as they've admitted, but prior to that, in the 19th century, Britain supported the Ottoman Caliphate against the Russians in the Crimean War, primarily
because if it collapses too quickly, they're worried that Russia will gain the lion's share of other territories. So they wanted to keep it propped up as much as possible because they were too far from it, discussion. But geostrategic such considerations and mostly the issue bridgecom as Kenneth Clark said, When asked why why don't we make negotiations and allow Middle East to have maybe some kind of Islamic government, you made a negotiation the IRA, so why not have negotiations to have non interference or just comes from commendation and he said, Well look, unlike the IRA, who believed in basic secular concept of nationalism, there is no negotiation on the possibility of the caliphate.
So Kenneth Clark says,
The Labour labour minister at the time when labour was in government, so this is more to do with British Government strategic policies, as well as the age old concern of domestic policy domestic assimilation of a minority whose loyalty is suspected. These are the these are the these will be the motivations if these, if they were British, if they were anti terror policies, which were Islamophobic items to do, but if they were if they are, then they would probably be the most likely motivations if they are, if they had a question.
Similar British government not discontent with removing Islamic political ambitions along with changing Islam quite fundamentally due to fear of semicolons arising in the Quran
Okay, it's good question.
Oh, I'll get you a quote from Lord Cromer, who was the British governor of British occupied Egypt. In 19 hundred's Egypt was occupied before the Ottomans fell.
He said it's interesting, he said, it is absurd. It is absurd to suppose Europe will look on as a passive spectator, whilst the retrograde government purely based purely on Mohammedan principles, and Oriental ideas is established in Egypt. The material interests at stake are too important. The new generation of Egyptians has to be persuaded or forced into imbibing the true spirit of Western civilization. That was 100 years ago.
Got that quotation, but I don't think British Foreign policy has changed so much with regards to the Middle East since back then. And I bring you the quotations because
firstly, we should we should all scrutinize claims that are made you have to know where these claims come from the evidence for it's not just someone renting or making an argument and secondly because the the criticism against mentioning this is that these are this is a conspiracy theories or these are just arguments brought up inciting go irrational hate so the no one needs to be hated in this all then policies and government policies and and in a country which claims to be free, you should be allowed to hate or dislike government policy and criticize government policy wise reputation. So I think Muslims should understand that the situation that government policy, UK policy foreign
policy for our history, especially in the Middle East, since the full Ottoman Caliphate even before that has not held the best interests out for Muslims in is more concerned with their their own financial economic interests or strategic interests, projecting power and controlling.
Well being influenced they play, they play a game of Monopoly, but it's over over the world unfortunately, owning in control and so on so forth of oil fields and such and such, I mean, Tony Blair said, Oh, if you only want to open a rock, we will just do the same people pointed out Well, no, it's not to get oil, it's to control the supply of the oil, or to have a government which is which can be easily influenced or directed to do to fulfill your interests. And that is that's the situation that I would argue I could argue we find certainly was the situation on the first governments in the in the Middle East after about after colonialism. When they gained independence,
we have British ministers talking about creating a facade of self rule, but it would be British controlled from within no conspiracy, the British ministers in their cables, the cables been, the cables have been declassified because they're so old. But historians read it for themselves. And they say that this was a situation that the British protectorate of Iraq wasn't an independent Iraq. Right. And what happened, then the king, the king of Spain, afterwards wasn't of Jordan wasn't an independent King. He's all governments that were there, which were, as the, as the politicians themselves admitted, were there to give a facade of self rule, while permitting UK to have an
interest. That's why because it costs too much money to have an occupation army in another country, and people don't like it there. But if you can get people that often the natives to occupy for years, you know, on behalf of you, well, then it's easier. It's much more cost efficient. It's just good economic practices, if all you care about is economics. So I would say that a caliphate would certainly be not not something which would benefit the to the same degree, economically, certain Western powers as they are getting now from the governments in the Middle East. Because a caliphate presumably, with Muslims, defending Islam and thinking, thinking about independence and thinking
about developing Islam would use the oil to build their own industry. You know, some people said, the patriarchy politician said, Look, we will we have to sell it, we make money off selling it. So what would you do different? Because we still coming out of the ground, we have to sell it. So make money. So how would you do anything different? And I asked him, What do you think America does the oil
does this they said, someone else? use it. It built up this entire industry on these natural resources. That's why it can now and then it will sell you it's produced goods used with your oil at a higher rate back to you, because you never developed your own industry. You just sold your resources off. See, we don't think ahead, we don't think in a more enlightened way. But if a caliphate was established a real one and not one
fake one set of bodies in the Rocky buffets,
along with their friend who's a Syrian, the Syrian Baathists, then, you know, it would be things to be different. And of course, as I've always said,
we should we should be steadfast in pursuing this goal. But we should pursue it obviously, not using violence, because history is always shown, visually shown that those who are who are patient and obviously, stick to doing what's right and not to transgressing or doing violence, always achieve achieve their goals sooner or later. But that's not the reason the real reason is because this is what Allah Subhana Allah wants us to do. And it's prohibited for us to use violence, also not appropriate this. So we must implement the prophets example to achieve this in the parameters and I've never used violence to get the state of Medina didn't do a uprising or uncertainty or even a
violent revolution. To get the first Sonic state in Medina, he actually did it by persuasion. And that's how we should do it in the Muslim world. We should do it by persuasion. So that's what we might point to that anyone has any other points Christians or sister of that g thing kind of
quite happening in Syria and Iraq and all these proxy wars and the wars division.
Okay, so, the argument is, is it with some kind of fate? Is it feasible? Well, firstly, if, if we if, if all, if all our ancestors from 1020 years came today, they would be absolutely aghast. There is no Caliphate now, because for most of 1000, long time, by the way, 1300 years it was one Muslims, even under the Mongols, there was a few blips for one or two years, then they reestablished it after the after the fall of Baghdad. But it was always there was always a carry. That was the caliphate. So it'd be actually a ghost. But here's the thing.
Not Muslim countries aren't occupied by by foreign soldiers anymore. occupied by soldiers who come from our own people. They obey their commanders, and their commanders, obviously come from our own people. Everyone in the Muslim countries, for the most, for the most part, are Muslim in majority Muslim countries, but most people are Muslim in Germany.
Now, the only reason they live in the way they live is because they think it's that's acceptable to live that way, and that they don't know anything better. Really, the only barrier between us or us and establishing a standard government is literally just changing people's minds. So it's as simple as that. So if you right, if anyone here right now believes if you believe that Islamic caliphate is something that should be worked for you and you would work for it with all halau means possible. peaceful means, of course, if you believe that, then how does how is it so difficult for you to get someone else to believe the same?
And if you go to countries and just get people that believe exactly the same? You do, if you get him to be the same way you do that? Of course, it'd be very, it'd be inevitable. Some would say that the change that's happening since the 19, the 1980s, is due to an Islamic a gradual, gradual Islamic resurgence and revival happening the Muslim world, even in secular Turkey, like was commodity secular Turkey, Turks, many of the majority of Turks or arguably a significant majority of Turks are now nostalgic for the days of the Ottoman Caliphate, they talk about it in such
such longing, yes. Such all. They talk about Islam, and you would never imagine this 20 years ago in Turkey, you would never think of this. It's a concerning thing to the foreign
powers. But this is these these changes are happening. So the example obviously, Iran was under executive government. Arguably, you could say it's delicious. But the interesting thing is that the sentiment for Islam might not, they might not know exactly what it looks like. But there was a sentiment for Islam. Likewise, in Egypt, when the Muslim Brotherhood obviously won the elections, there was a sentiment for Islam. In fact, if you did elections, usually semigroups always when the problem is that because we've been so long without Islamic government, and we don't even know what it looks like how to operate it or the details that they don't know what to even do. And the second
point is that the army remain secular and pretty wouldn't allow that anyway. And we know what happened to Mohammed Morsi.
He wasn't really in control. And everyone knows he wasn't in control of Egypt. So but but look at that there was a movement towards that sentiment, a growing sentiment, if you know what I looked at these pictures in Afghanistan 30 years ago, these pictures of Afghanistan 30 years ago, and they were women wearing kind of mini skirts, but kind of really high up skirts, and, you know, open blouses and thinking, that doesn't look like what I'm seeing now. I'm not saying that.
Afghanistan now, materially or no aspect is an improvement back then since then. But all I'm saying is that that shows there is some kind of sentiment, I mean, that goes on for 30 years. So it's not going to be the most advanced country in the Middle East. And if some people think, oh, but you know, Muslims, whenever we actually achieved anything, even in the modern day, like, you know, like, Muslims who desire Islam, what kind of technological advancement or economic advancement can we ever achieve? Well, here's the interesting thing is the most advanced countries in the Middle East are the ones who have the most Islamic sentiments. Give example, again, I don't, I don't agree with the
Iranian government. I certainly don't agree with that doing in Syria to our preferences there. However, they are, they are one of the only 10 countries in the world that has a self a completely independent space program, which means they make the satellites they make the rocket that goes that takes time and they have a spaceport, and it's all self contained. They don't need to ship it to NASA or to Russia to get it to launch from Kazakhstan for them on their behalf. They can do it themselves, and they've done it. And only 10 only 10 or one studies of nine, only 10 countries need an entire planet have a fully contained space program as an independent, they can launch their own
satellites. It's amazing. I mean, that's actually amazing. I disagree with the government, and I strongly criticize what they're doing in Syria strongly. But at least that shows what the power of Islamic sentiment and forward thinking can do. Likewise, obviously Turkey is most economically it became much more economically abundant, and successful, obviously during the AKP party parties, a tenor and they noticed that Muslims who well
Western politicians and others have said that many Islamists seem to come from university educated backgrounds are successful business entrepreneurs and engineers and so on so forth. Well, if that's what Islamism does, then surely it exposes the lie that Islamism is retrograde, backward or medieval. If the most developed countries in the world, the Muslim country in the Middle East are actually ones with more Islamic leaning contrast is to Mubarak Egypt on borrowed time. And when he was ruling Egypt, he the Egypt wanted to create a first satellite right to get it built, some get built somewhere else, and then get shut up into space somewhere else because they couldn't make it
themselves. And America came in and stopped them because Israel complained it was worried it would send a spy satellite up that wouldn't be able to Israel and didn't like that. So they basically, that stopped Egypt's space program and he complied. That's what the second that's what secular governments are doing in the Middle East complying to the demands of foreigners, at least governments that have more Islamic sentiment at least do our bit more independent. Pretty I don't agree don't say to me, which government is obviously not but I'm just showing you his with the power of just Islamic sentiment increasing is something we can achieve. So imagine what can be achieved
with a fully independent Islamic caliphate, elected Calif, which we are present for from the time of the color for Russia. Let's leave accountable on the law, transparent government and plurality Christians Jews, atheists say all this, like in the past, you know about Abu hanifa was debating against atheists in Islamic Baghdad, right? So they want to kill the massacre or whatever. So why can we do this again? In fact, it was probably more enlightened, the Muslim was more enlightened back then that it is certainly it is now. So how can what can we recreate it? You can't recreate by just looking at old history books and also great Rumi and all these
using the English terms at the center. So at first, but now it's great. Yeah, that's great history, right? history book aside. Now what we can do now and what we're going to do tomorrow, we don't ask yourself these questions we should. And the moment you get Muslims, to ask the same questions that you're that you're thinking right now is the moment that we can actually change our situation.
And you know, the final points.
There's also other ways you can do that, in the future, how to control the cheese and
how to control extremeness. It's a very big subject.
Well, I'll say this.
Here, cuz that's a different discussion. What I'll say is, we should stop using the word extremism. It what means they have people said, Oh, but extremism means hello. In Arabic, it just means hello. Right. Oh, you know that the whole adage? They were like, Well, you know, what? Could and the argument is that extremism isn't because of foreign policy. Islam has always had extremes. And that's the argument. This is the organization Islam has always had extremist element to it. And they bring up the whole adage to show this. Well, guess what? The the hot edge were transgressors. Right, they were done. I mean, they were fasting, but they weren't who not. Now, why do I say that? Well,
hello and in in Islam means that is something that you do if you do a little bit of it, it's good. If you do too much of it. It goes outside the limits, the forage will not.
Hold didn't commit. Because that would mean that, oh, they kill too many innocent people, they only get a few minutes and people then that's no, it's bad enough to kill one innocent person. Right? It's not, they did too much of it.
Good, some other actions.
So the whole adage were, as Molly said, they were transgressors. That's what the name for them is. They transgress the laws of God. There is no word for extremism in Islamic texts and literature. Yeah, of course, you have
photography, and in Modern Standard Arabic, which we've kind of borrowed from the west and the meaning of it back in the old days, it would never mean extremism. We never had an understanding of extremism. But now we borrowed the concept, the idea, and now we use it on this course how to deal with extremism. Well, how'd you get the unicorns? You know, what that means? mean? It's just an abstract concept in our heads, how to get rid of terrorism, that now now we're talking now, that means how do we get rid of,
of killing or theft or corruption? These are things that we can understand. But extremism is nebulous concept. And if you buy into that word using that word, then you already kind of fallen fallen foul of their particular agenda to make us look at Islam in terms of skills of extreme and extreme there is no skills of extreme extreme Islam is only you transgress or you do too much of a good thing and they go beyond the limits of Allah. Allah Hello. Bye
Not there is no such thing as always one extreme extreme that doesn't exist in and the Hulu is translated as access is back to translate success. So we see the Prophet Mohammed is also lemma was with a sacrificial companion the companion said during the Hajj you know, we have to stone stone a pillar, stone a pillar and one sahab was thinking you know, should you get like a big big boulders or bigger big rocks to stone this, this pillar as part of the ritual the Hajj ritual. And the Prophet Mohammed Salim obviously told him that just get rocks size of, of date stones or what have you don't go to Hulu, in religion don't go to access. Because Yeah, you have to do the ritual. But
don't do it with such don't add stuff to it that you kind of make it burden for yourself or you. You make it more troublesome than it is don't go to excess in that matter. Right. So that's where it all comes from. But extremism doesn't exist as a concept in Islam, transgression and problems of fiscal and Golem, this does exist in some breaking the limits of Allah, Allah that exists, we can understand that but not extremism.
Is that the cue to shut me up? one final point from from the audience or if you do have any content. Can anyone else disagree with me at some point to say that I disagree with this? So make contention any contents of any kind of anything I've said or just challenge anything you think I haven't provided evidence for?
What you agree with me? That's no fun.
Should have a debate here today. All right.
Well, what we'll say is a soccer head for for listening and inshallah, a lot of the stuff I've discussed, I'll put up the evidences for on my on my slides at some point in the next couple of weeks in short, so you can check the references for yourself. I suggest you do please go and check yourself everything I've said. And as the the topic today's question, the topic the question today is, is, is there a is counterterrorism policies, encouraging or creating Islamophobia? I'm not going to answer it. But I think you have all the evidence for yourself to answer that question for yourself, not all counterterrorism policies. But are there any aspects of it which you think, have
gone beyond the limits of what counterterrorism should be? And is that creating Islamophobia on the other side, thanks for listening