Confronting Social Malaise in the Muslim Community

Considerable material progress in recent decades has brought about some serious social challenges and issues of social malaise in developed societies. Commercialisation of life, sexualisation of our young people and individualism that often expresses itself through self-gratification are now haunting post-modern Britain. The Guardian reported on 23 June 2009 that Ofsted inspectors investigating an increase in exclusions from primary schools have discovered “worrying” levels of sexual behaviour among very young children. The inspectors also reported high levels of “trauma”, such as family breakdown, and domestic violence. London Assembly recently published a report that reveals ‘young people from Muslim communities, whose Islamic faith forbids alcohol, are now drinking far more than before- girls now as bad as boys for underage drinking’ (The Guardian on 16 June 2009). In a society where nafsaniat (sensuality, permissiveness, promiscuity, etc.) are abundant, the pressure on individuals is tremendous.

Here are a few areas where we need to concentrate, now and over the next ten years.

Social Malaise and Young people

Young people generally lack maturity, are vulnerable to social ills, and susceptible to social pressure. Allah, in His divine wisdom, has instilled in man the dual nature of good and bad (fujur and taqwa). Schools have always been established to create good human beings that can make a positive contribution to society, not to train rapists, paedophiles, gangsters, and drug users. Rather, these kind of individuals have found themselves in a society that has lost its direction.

Loss of Childhood Innocence

Increasingly early sexualisation of young people via tools such as TV, internet and magazines is having an impact on their innocent and balanced growth. This is having an unwholesome impact on their attitude towards life: what should be innocent youngsters enjoying their childhood is being tarnished by an early over-awareness of sexuality.

Bullying

Bullying destroys the self-image of the victims and can leave long-term psychological scars. A bully is most often an unhappy or frightened child who has an angry, bitter or defeatist attitude to life, and often chooses a loner, a socially passive child, or children of minority groups as his target.

Sex and Sexuality

Sexual promiscuity has given rise to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In Britain, thousands of women suffer some form of sexual assault every year. In several religions, including Islam, homosexuality has been treated as a sin. However, this is now accepted as a social norm in British society.

Some beneficiaries of women’s exploitation hide themselves under the guise of women’s liberation. Paedophilia, pornography and nude modelling have contributed to the making of an unhealthy sexuality.

Family Breakdown

A stable family environment is essential for healthy growth of children. Domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, and unhappiness among children in Britain has become disproportionately high. Marriage is losing its importance in society and divorce is increasing at an alarming rate, giving rise to more confused children. Modern technology, including mobile phones, computers, and TVs, are decreasing the need for physical communication and are keeping people apart.

Delinquency and Crime

According to some studies Britain’s young people are not faring well in their behaviour. Is it because our children are unhappy, as UNICEF report of 21 developed countries in 2007 suggested? Anti-social behaviour and petty crimes by young people are costing the society financially, as well as resulting in a loss of a significant section of our youthful energy.

Drug Addiction and Alcoholism

Drugs, sex and violence are intertwined. Addictions can negatively affect the educational and social progress of the community as well as the health, economic and social lives of individuals.

Racism and Islamophobia

The Lawrence Report in the late 1990s highlighted how deep-rooted racism is present even in today’s Britain. Everywhere from schools to workplaces, racism creates fear, distrust and a disturbing environment. The atrocities of 9/11 and 7/7 have given rise to a significant rise of Islamophobia in Europe, endangering community harmony and social cohesion.

Laissez Faire Morality

Over the centuries materialism has marginalised religion and, as such, societies have fallen in the grip of amoral or often immoral values. Morality has become selective and double-standards have taken over in most political decision-making. In the social context this has given rise to permissiveness.

Tackling Social Malaise

The challenge of combating social malaise is daunting, especially in the context of the weaker socio-economic condition of the Muslim community. This cannot be tackled by one group or community in isolation; it needs a holistic approach and national consensus.

Religious leaders, professionals and other community activists must develop socially sound interventions and strategies that conform to Islamic values.

1. Positive Parenting

Mosques, community organisations and youth centres must invest in educating our parents in positive and assertive parenting. This empowers parents in understanding the world of youth in a post-modern society and gives them confidence through useful techniques of addressing the challenges.

2. Youth Services

Young people are energetic and need strong role models. They need help in understanding Islam and the values of meaningful, sound and stable family life. They need basic life skills training, e.g. communication skills, anger management and decision-making based on Islamic teachings.

Premarital counselling should be provided as part of social service delivery. There are a large number of professional social workers that work with the mainstream society. They need to be provided with Islamic aspects, while Imams and scholars should be provided with professional tools in this area.

3. Mental Health Services

Problems of depression, family disorders, poor parenting, drug and alcohol related stress have now become common and contribute to development of mental illnesses. Mental health therapists who are well grounded in Islamic strategies should be included to assess and treat such individuals.

4. Education

Most Muslim children are educated in state schools and mainstream public schools. Holistic education of all these children, who are the future of the ummah as well as productive citizens of Britain, is essential.

In addition, the composition of the Muslim community and its diverse background demand that adult education through mosques and community organisations is important for the social improvement of the Muslim community.

Conclusion

It is imperative from the teachings of the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition that each one of us is charged with an obligation to help promote spiritual, physical, emotional, intellectual and social well being of all. Individuals and Muslim institutions must volunteer to help tackle these issues over the next ten years and beyond so that not only can we achieve these aims, but we can also develop the society for a better future.

With greater awareness, necessary targeted interventions and positive contributions from concerned sections of the community, social malaise can be overcome. The age-old proverb ‘desperate diseases need desperate remedies’ is now the demand of time.

Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, MBE, FRSA is an educationalist with a PhD and PGCE from King’s College London and a Management degree from the Open University. He has worked as an Air Force Officer, researcher in physics, science teacher and SEN specialist in London. He is chair of the East London Mosque Trust and a board member of The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games Ltd.

He is an author of several books on parenting, and issues of youth and identity. These include: ‘Building Muslim Families’, ‘A Guide to Parenting’, and ‘Race, Religion & Muslim identity in Britain’. He is the current Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, having been elected to the position at the MCB’s Ninth Annual General Meeting on 4th June 2006.

The problem of violent extremism, which tends to dominate the headlines, is very real. But unfortunately, the headlines can often obscure the complex social factors from which the threat of terrorism emerges as a final result. Currently, the government’s approach to preventing violent extremism or countering terrorism is in danger of dealing overwhelmingly with symptoms, rather than root structural causes. There is a tendency toward ‘widening the net’ in the effort to find evidence of terrorist activity – but ‘widening the net’ of surveillance, risk-assessment and legal powers tends only to increase the number of innocent civilians that end up being caught in the net, leaving the terrorists to slip through. This is a huge burden on public funds, which is unlikely to produce real results. The more we ‘widen the net’, the more extremists groups will find devious ways of slipping through.

So what are the root structural factors that we need to address? Violent radicalisation is not simply the result of one cause, or even a range of causes, but is the culmination of a hierarchy of interdependent causes. These operate collectively as a mutually-reinforcing social system, which therefore requires a holistic approach.

The first factors worth noting are social exclusion and institutional discrimination. These terms by themselves do not explain violent extremism in the UK, but they are primarily responsible for a weakening of a sense of British national identity and citizenship. The majority of British Muslims are socially excluded. Sixty-nine per cent of British Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic origin live in poverty. Unemployment rates are also higher than for any other faith group; young Muslims aged 16 to 24 years have the highest unemployment rates, and are over twice as likely as Christians of the same age to be unemployed. Social exclusion is linked to institutional discrimination. According to Minority Rights Group International, British Muslim “access to education, employment and housing” is deteriorating.

The combination of social exclusion and institutional discrimination affecting a majority of Muslim communities in Britain contributes to a general collective sense of marginalisation, disenfranchisement, and disenchantment; a sense of being excluded from civil society, which thus exacerbates the experience of a separate or segregated identity to mainstream Britain.  This sense of civic exclusion is reinforced primarily by a perception of blocked social mobility and discrimination, and therefore, can even affect more upwardly mobile groups.

The good news is that despite the prevalence of social exclusion, only a minority of British Muslims are likely to respond by negating their sense of British identity and citizenship, becoming vulnerable to a powerful sense of civic exclusion. A 2009 Gallup poll finds that while only half the general British population identifies strongly as British, 77% of Muslims in the UK identify very strongly as British, with 82% affirming themselves as loyal to Britain.

But trends aren’t so heartening with regards to non-Muslim perspectives of British Muslims. In 2001, a majority of two to one thought that Islam posed no threat to democracy. Now, two to one British non-Muslims believe that Islam is a serious threat to democracy, and that most Muslims support terrorism.  This trend of social polarisation is a second factor that undermines community cohesion, and potentially undermines a sense of belonging amongst some British Muslims.

These increasingly negative perceptions are catalysed by a third factor: reactionary and irresponsible media reporting. A media study commissioned by the Mayor of London found that in a single week in 2006, 91% of newspaper articles published nationwide about Muslims were negative, denying “common ground between the West and Islam.” Another study by Cardiff University’s School of Journalism analysed UK press coverage of British Muslims from 2000 to 2008, and found that “Four of the five most common discourses used about Muslims in the British press associate Islam/Muslims with threats, problems or in opposition to dominant British values.”

Ironically, then, the media has served to reinforce the sense of blocked social mobility, discrimination and alienation experienced by many British Muslims, while simultaneously stoking widespread paranoia about Islam amongst non-Muslims, and promoting the views of Islamist extremists as representative of British Muslims. Together these factors interplay to create an environment that undermines the notion that Muslims belong intrinsically to British society, culture and values as citizens, and increases vulnerability to identity crisis.

Exclusion and discrimination are known to be key causative factors in mental health problems, and there is little doubt that these processes have detrimentally affected British Muslim mental health, raising the question of the link between mental illness and young Muslims’ vulnerability to identity crisis. Although there are insufficient studies of this, a recent survey by Rethink found that 61% of British Pakistanis believed that negative perceptions of them by the media and society had damaged their mental health.

At this point, the ‘pull’ factor of Islamist extremist organisations becomes significant. These extremist groups, often financed by overseas networks in the Middle East and Central Asia, exploit conditions and perceptions of disenfranchisement fuelled particularly by grievances over British and Western foreign policy. Those who are particularly vulnerable due to a convergence of personal, psychological and social reasons linked to their peer-networks, family environment and so on, may find a potential resolution of their identity crises in these extremist groups. Such groups galvanise the sense of frustration and civic exclusion to inculcate an ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ mentality. At worst, this mentality misappropriates Islamic texts, language and symbolism to justify violence against ‘Their’ (Western) civilians as a response to ‘Their’ killings of ‘Our’ (Muslim) civilians abroad.

The cumulative interaction of all these factors creates a mutually-reinforcing positive-feedback system which causes a minority of British Muslims to experience violent radicalisation. Dealing with ideology and foreign policy is important – but these operate primarily as a final ‘pull’ factor; so far the deeper, structural ‘push’ factors have been neglected, and are getting worse. It is therefore imperative for Muslim communities to engage with government at all levels to get these deeper structural issues onto the agenda – for the sake of the security and prosperity of British society as a whole.

Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a bestselling author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Crisis of Civilization: How Climate, Oil, Food, Finance, Terror, and Warfare will Change the World (Pluto, 2010). He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and has authored four other books on terrorism and foreign policy, including most recently The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006). He has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Sussex, where he has taught contemporary history and political theory.

Addiction does not discriminate based on colour or creed; it strips victims of their background and is a great equaliser. The United Kingdom has the highest level of dependent drug use in Europe. The British Crime Survey 08-09 estimates that in England and Wales alone a staggering 11.9 million people aged 16 to 59 have used illicit drugs at some point in their lives, with around 1.9 million having used in the last month.

The Muslim community is no different and is reflecting the social trend in society. This is a frightening thought and when alcohol is added to this mix the picture looks even gloomier, leaving me to conclude that the menace of criminality and drugs – both abuse and dealing – is the biggest challenge facing British Muslims.

Thankfully not everyone who uses drugs progresses on to become an addict. There are an estimated 332,000 individuals described as problem drug users (PDUs) in England alone. They have an addiction which has social, psychological, physical and legal consequence; a staggering 99% of the £15.4 billion yearly cost of crime and healthcare resulting from the use of Class A drugs is generated by PDUs.

What is striking is the growth of drug addiction in the Muslim community over the last two decades, especially given the inherent religious prohibition that exists in Islam.  The Qur’an (Al-Ma’idah: 90-91) declares that ‘Khamr’ is unlawful. The word ‘Khamr’ normally means something that is ‘fermented’ hence primarily translated to mean wine or alcohol. A more encompassing meaning is that which ‘covers’ or ‘conceals’ or ‘any substance which clouds or obscures the intellect’ and therefore includes drugs. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is prohibited” [Sahih Muslim], and Umar the second Khalifah declared: “Khamr is that which befogs the mind” [Sahih Bukhari].

In the early 80s drug use was unheard of within the Muslim community. However, by the mid 90s there was a significant cultural shift among some young Muslims. In their minds drugs and alcohol did not invoke the same abhorrence found in older generations. Hence in boroughs, like Tower Hamlets, currently almost 50% of young people in drug treatment are Bangladeshi and for adults the figure is around 39%.  In the neighbouring borough of Newham, 19% of those in drug treatment are Muslims. Although it is impossible to know the actual numbers of Muslims drug users, the trend is more or less repeated in other highly populated Muslim areas.

The impact on the individual, family and society makes drug abuse potentially one of the most destructive social issues facing the community. From the very real and obvious impact on the user’s health to potential or [in some cases] eventual death; the pressure on the family that inevitably results from having a son, daughter, mother or father with an addiction is compounded by the importance of the family in Islam. The once indispensable sense of honour, respect, responsibility and duty disappears very quickly, not to mention the abuse and domestic violence that can occur.

This impact is passed on to the next generation literally. With the increase of drug abuse among Muslim girls and women, many babies are born needing treatment for withdrawal symptoms caused by the mother’s heroin use during pregnancy. This can lead to the child having long-term health complications and behavioural problems.

Drug dealing in Muslim areas is exclusively controlled by Muslims and it goes without saying that it’s a very lucrative market. Dealing drugs is a career choice just like choosing to be a doctor or a lawyer for some. The criminality associated with drugs is well documented and may partly explain why 11.8% of the prison population are Muslims whilst representing only 3% of the total UK population.

Encouraging signs

There is however some encouraging signs. The fact that so many Muslims are accessing treatment is very positive, given that a decade ago the stigma associated with drug abuse meant Muslims remaining ‘treatment naive’. In contrast to the denial of previous decades, the community in general acknowledges the problem. This is where the Muslim community needs to accelerate its work. The level of education within the family and discussion in religious institutions about the perils of drugs do not reflect the drug usage trend.

Agencies like Nafas have pioneered a more religiously sensitive and culturally appropriate treatment response for Muslims. Drug use does not negate a person’s Iman (faith). I have yet to met a Muslim drug user who when in control of his/her faculties wants to remain an addict.

Whilst it’s true that faith and family was initially unable to deter young people from delving into drugs, in actual fact for many Muslims the rediscovery of their Iman, coupled with a strong family bond, which the addiction for so long concealed, provided the catalyst for recovery from addiction.

Faith can be a major weapon against addiction and over the coming years in order to further progress in tackling drug use particularly within the British Muslim community, it is essential that the significance and role of faith and family be acknowledged and made an integral part of drug education and treatment.

Syed Tohel Ahmed is the Director of Nafas, a nationally renowned specialist drug treatment agency working with the Asian/Muslim community. He has over 15 years of professional management experience as a director and consultant in statutory and 3rd sector organisations. Mr Tohel Ahmed is also a founding director of C3ube which offers a range of proven culture, diversity, and Islam awareness training programmes.

[Co-Directors, European Muslim Research Centre, University of Exeter]

Our aim for 2020: a reduction of anti-Muslim hate crimes in Europe

In the thirteen years since the Runnymede Trust published Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, the problem of anti-Muslim hate crimes in Europe has become worse, not better. Muslims are the victims of hate crimes every day, often being spat at, verbally abused and on occasions suffering serious physical violence as well as witnessing arson and graffiti attacks on their mosques and Islamic centres. Our aim is that by 2020, much of the ignorance and bigotry that motivates these attacks will have been dispelled and that the incidence of anti-Muslim hate crimes will have reduced significantly. This, we believe, is crucially important so that all Muslims come to feel that the European countries where they live are safe, secure and congenial homes.

What do we see as the key to achieving this objective? The answer is simple: public education. Just as public education initiatives to reduce the vilification and stigmatisation of other European minorities have achieved success in the past, so to we believe it will be possible during the next ten years to counter and correct the adverse impact of false, Islamophobic accounts of Muslims as threats to European safety, security and cohesion, that permeate both mainstream politics and extremist nationalist political agendas. As academics we believe we have an important role to play in this education process. Indeed, the main motivation for us launching the European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC) is to allow us to help educate politicians, media, police, public servants as well as the general public about the positive contributions of Muslims to the political, economic and cultural well-being of the European countries where they reside, and hence of Europe in general. This task has become especially important because a significant number of both mainstream and extremist nationalist politicians and commentators have convinced wide sections of the public that Muslims in Europe pose a threat to safety, security and social cohesion.

Why will it take ten years to achieve this objective? Public education takes time. Racism still exists in Europe but over the last ten years we have seen real reductions in discrimination against many ethnic minority communities in Europe. We would like future historians to record this new decade as the one where Islamophobia and the hate crime it gave rise to was effectively tackled by politicians and public servants in the same way they have tackled racism and anti-Semitism.

What specific contribution can the EMRC make? Our first contribution is to research the problem, analyse it and provide solutions for politicians. We are at the beginning of a ten-year project that investigates the adverse community impact of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime across Europe. Our first report focuses on London and can be downloaded here: http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/emrc/ .

We reject, as fundamentally flawed, the position currently held by too many commentators: that European Muslims, Islam and strict adherence to Islam pose a threat to the safety, cohesion and well-being of communities and countries in Europe. The research undertaken and sponsored by the EMRC builds upon this value– seeking to highlight and constructively engage with communities, practitioners and policy makers where these contributions seem especially relevant and valuable to the development of 21^st century Europe. This means that research conducted by the EMRC is ‘action’ oriented – seeking not only to make methodologically rigorous academic contributions to understandings of the roles that Muslim communities play in European society, but also engaging with practitioners, policy makers and the public to translate this work into practice. The EMRC research agenda is posited on the belief that overly negative or non-constructive analyses of the contribution of Muslim communities to European society, if left unchallenged, may create the conditions necessary by which these pernicious ideas become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For these reasons and more, we launched our first research report in January 2010: The Community Impact of Anti-Muslim Hate Crime and Islamopobia: a London case study. Both the content and the methodology chosen for the report illustrate our central purpose: to produce high quality, long-term empirical research on the experience of Muslims in European towns and cities. We have chosen the topic of anti-Muslim bigotry for our first report because it has become a serious problem in many European towns and cities. In our assessment, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crimes require the same kind of urgent and thorough attention that policy makers, public servants and researchers have afforded to the problems of racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia in recent years. Our starting point is London, but we aim to compare and contrast experience here with experience in key towns and cities across Europe in the months and years ahead in this new decade.

Our report is dedicated to Yasir Abdelmouttalib, a talented and committed PhD student, whose prospects of an exciting and productive academic career were cut short when he was brutally attacked and seriously injured by a gang of youths while on his way to Friday, jumma, prayer at the London Central Mosque in June 2004. During the assault, he was struck several times on the head with a roadsweeper’s broom. As a result, Yasir was in a coma for three months and his doctors feared he would not recover consciousness. Mercifully, he did, but as a result of brain injuries he has remained partially paralysed, partially blind, largely housebound, frequently bed-ridden, and reliant on constant nursing care provided by his family. Nevertheless, the commitment he showed before he was attacked still shines through the disabilities he has been forced to endure and he has made a small but significant recovery. Yasir’s resilience and bravery will serve as an inspiration for us over the next ten years.

Robert Lambert MBE is a research fellow at the Department of Politics and Co-Director of the European Muslim Research Centre, University of Exeter. He is also the retired head of the London Metropolitan Police’s Muslim Contact Unit (MCU), a post 9/11 initiative designed as a bottom-up grass roots project that ran counter to the global top-down military led ‘with us or against us’ approach. Robert’s PhD was entitled ‘The London Partnerships: an Insider’s Analysis of Legitimacy and Effectiveness,’ on partnerships between Muslim groups and the MCU.

Jonathan Githens-Mazer is a senior lecturer in politics and Co-Director of the European Muslim Research Centre at the University of Exeter. He is conducting research on political mobilization amongst British Muslims. Jonathan completed his PhD at the London School of Economics (LSE), which came to be published as ’Myths and Memories of the Easter Rising: Cultural and Political Nationalism in Ireland.’

Structural violence is the effect of a systematic imbalance in society that prefers the interests of some over others. Its dynamics are less visible than that of direct violence, where the causes are generally easier to identify. In terms of global relations, the use of direct violence is mostly a state affair manifested in armed conflict. The participation of the general population is predominantly one of inaction. Structural violence, however, tends to involve the participation of the general population which is both a cause for concern and optimism.

When the effects of structural and direct violence are compared, the contrast is striking. The deadliest conflict in human history is WWII yielding a total death toll of approximately 50 million people which annualises to an average of 8.3 million people. This was in 1945. In 2009, around 10 million children under the age of 5 perish from the effects of extreme poverty, in a century where so-called development aid is at record highs. Of course the two forms of violence are interdependent. War itself results in adverse structural effects. The effects of WWII lasted for many years after the conflict ended and, though the comparison is not perfect, it serves to illustrate the sheer magnitude of structural violence. Furthermore, structural violence tends to perpetuate conflict which further deepens social destruction.

Structural violence kills people slowly by depriving them of their basic needs. The most elementary of needs is access to the resources required for basic sustenance, such as food, water, basic shelter and sanitation. However, access to resources is tremendously disproportionate. According to the UN World Wealth Distribution Report 2005, 2% of the world’s population owns, and therefore controls, half of the world’s wealth leaving the lower 50% of all people, around 3.3 billion, with access to only 1% of all wealth.

Despite ‘development aid’, the magnitude of structural violence has dramatically worsened. In 1820 the ratio of rich to poor was 1 to 3, while in 1992 this was estimated at 1 to 72. This is where policy has not only failed to solve the problems but further exacerbated them. In fact, official aid and particularly that associated with international banks, tends to have the exact opposite effect to development, as was seen in Argentina amongst other places.

This gross disparity is also a matter of consumption. The EU consumes at the bio capacity of 2.1 planet earths, meaning that to sustain the world population at the EU consumption average would require the resources of more than 2 planet earths. The UK rate alone is 3.6 and the US’s is almost 5.

The scale of this violence is a cause for great concern, particularly as policy is used to maintain this disorder. As George Kennan wrote for the US Secretary of State in Public Policy Study 23: “We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity“.

However, unlike most direct violence which is overwhelmingly a matter of state policy, the economic participation in structural violence is overwhelmingly a consumer choice, which will in turn manifest itself in policy. This is particularly the case in developed economies like the US and Britain. People can substantially reduce or completely withdraw their participation in this systematic imbalance by becoming informed consumers with particular attention to understanding their needs.

While this will involve lifestyle choices that we are perhaps not accustomed to take, the momentum to create demand for a new economic approach is already well into motion, creating new opportunities for meaningful change in the coming decade.  Of course there is a long way to go, but this is a stark example of where participation can have dramatic effects- either highly detrimental or highly productive. This scale of positive change is not beyond us, but is one that will take recognition that social transformation begins with the individual – with me.

Toufic Machnouk is Associate Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development. Toufic has lectured at the University of Cambridge, Imperial College and King’s College London, amongst other universities, on the subjects of international relations, global economics, structural violence, propaganda and public perception. He has also co-taught a comparative philosophy study group at Imperial College for two years.

How I’d like things to be in 10 years time

In the future I don’t want people to have an opportunity to blame our faith for crime carried out by individual Muslims. I also do not want the security and peace of all people to be threatened by a minority few.

Currently, there are 10,000 Muslims amongst the prison population, which is high compared to other groups. In ten years time, I would like to see this number dramatically reduced and more Muslims aspiring to greater achievements, rather than aspiring to get out of jail. And, of course, I would like to see a huge decline in the number of Muslim victims of crime, as Muslim and Asian communities in the UK currently suffer disproportionately from the effects of crime.

We need to continue to become involved in as many civil society organizations as we can. This can be carried out by providing a helping hand in the place where we live and remembering that the act of one Muslim can have positive or negative consequences for us all.

In one example, an organised multi-ethnic criminal gang smuggled drugs into the country by placing them in the Quran and by weaving drug ingredients into rugs and other everyday household items. The gangs are often living in a highly populated Muslim area of the UK. Criminals need to off-load the drugs quickly, and so the first and easiest place to do this is in the community that they are living within. They employ drug dealers who are often Muslims who associate with young people to sell the drugs. Often to feed drug addiction, further crimes are carried out such as robbery, theft, fraud, prostitution and violence.

Criminals in the British Muslim community harm the potential of our community to prosper. This is why we should help law enforcement and the community to fight criminality. We must disown their criminal and unjust acts by passing on information about criminality either to law enforcement directly or anonymously to Crimestoppers.

When Crimestoppers runs crime-fighting campaigns in Asian/Muslim communities we are often overwhelmed by the support and willingness to help fight crime. This means members of Muslim communities are proactively working towards improving the quality of life of all by helping to make our communities safer.

Victims of crime and potential criminals are in our neighbourhoods; we cannot allow the Muslim prison statistics to rise any higher.

To find out more about Crimestoppers visit http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/how-we-help/minority-communities.

Anisa Abouelhassan is the Asian-Muslim Communities Manager for the Crimestoppers Trust. Anisa is a qualified development worker whose interests are in tackling the injustices of all kinds of criminality that harm communities. Anisa has previously worked in the youth offending service and a range of third sector community organisations.

Muslims Must Work to Change the Anti-Terror Laws

Since the events of 9/11 and 7/7, the British government has launched a series of programmes and initiatives under its counter-terrorism strategy (Contest) to counter the threat posed by individuals intent on adopting a violent methodology for change. Out of the four areas that comprise Contest (Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare), the Prevent strand, or Preventing Violent Extremism as it’s officially known, has been given the most coverage by researchers, academics and practitioners, respectively.

However, this has led the Pursue component – the strand which has created numerous draconian anti-terror laws that have authorised extended pre-charge detention periods, control orders and a surveillance culture – to be somewhat neglected. In essence, the problem lies with the definition adopted in the Terrorism Act 2000 that has lowered the bar for what constitutes a ‘terrorist’ offence. According to the definition, terrorism is the use of force, or the threat of force, to influence the government for a purpose related to the advancing of a political, religious, racial or ideological goal, regardless of whether it’s in the United Kingdom or abroad. Now keeping this definition in mind, if somebody calls for the overthrow of an oppressive regime or defends the right of a group of people to resist an occupying army, they are potentially inciting terrorism.

To provide some perspective to the example, if you say that the people of Palestine have a right under international law to resist the Israeli occupation and have a right to self-determination, they could be said to be ‘inciting terrorism overseas’. But, if you stand outside Downing Street and shout – ‘Israel has a right to take all necessary steps to defend itself, even if it means bombing the people of Gaza with cluster bombs and white phosphorous’, this is a totally legitimate position to hold. In fact, you might even get invited in for tea and biscuits.

Just as insidious as this idea is the glorification element of the Terrorism Act 2006, which also hinges onto the definition of terrorism mentioned above. According to this section, it is an offence to glorify or encourage – whether directly or indirectly – an act of violence. You may not attempt to encourage an individual to commit an act of violence, but if the individual interprets your words, writings or video as an encouragement to commit violence, then you are potentially committing an offence. The most absurd thing is that because it is an offence to glorify terrorists no matter when they were operating, it is actually an offence to glorify what an American Revolutionary or Lawrence of Arabia did, both of whom were terrorists according to the current definition.

So, what do we do then? The answer is actually quite simple. Because the problem with many of the terrorism offences hinge on the over-broad definition of terrorism, the government must tighten the definition, along with other components of the legislation not mentioned here that equally threaten and undermine legitimate speech and actions. Whether it’s Israel’s occupation of Palestine, China’s occupation of Tibet, the dictatorial regime of Burma or the Pakistani government’s war against the people of the North, is besides the point. Respect for international protocols that defend the right of citizens to speak without fear of being detained as suspected ‘terrorists’ is paramount and should act as the foundation for any democracy – not only on paper and in rosy speeches, but in reality too. The British Muslim community, along with all other people who respect and believe in the idea of liberty and civil rights, must take it on themselves to become the biggest challengers to such insidious and draconian powers that have done nothing more than justify botched terror raids, wrongful arrests and continued vilification and criminalisation of Muslims.

As a Muslim, I believe that the Muslim community has the conviction, belief and passion to challenge the laws of this country that threaten them with arrest and detention if they hold a political view that challenges the status-quo. Indeed, the next ten years will be difficult. The far right is increasing in power, socio-economic conditions are worsening and anti-Muslim sentiment is further increasing throughout Europe, but let us not allow this to bog us down. Let us use these difficulties and challenges as motivating tools. This is a struggle that needs to be fought and it is a struggle that needs to be tackled head-on. Only when the anti-terror laws have been altered, the draconian clauses dropped and threat of arrest and detention ended, will Muslims feel safer to engage in a more honest and open debate about violence, foreign policy and the Middle East.

In the next ten years, I believe that the British Muslim community – armed with its increasing number of intellectuals, religious authorities, writers, journalists, lawyers, academics, community leaders and professionals – should be at the fore of such discussion and debate. As a community we have a lot to offer. We are young, radical and energetic, and we must use these strengths to shape policies and laws that affect us so heavily. Let us make it our duty to inform and pressure those in power that we will not passively sit back and continue being criminalised and threatened by their over-zealous laws. If there was ever a time to get active, it is now. Let us show those in the corridors of power what democracy is.

Rizwaan Sabir is a doctoral researcher at the University of Strathclyde where he is researching the role of Islam in British and Scottish government discourse, with a special focus on counterterrorism. He is a regular contributor to the Guardian’s Comment is Free blog and various news agencies. In 2008, he was wrongly arrested in a terrorism raid at the University of Nottingham and detained for six days for being in possession of research material. Since his release, he has become an outspoken campaigner against counter-terrorism measures and anti-terror laws.

As a student of law, I was surprised by the extent to which English law has developed to protect a suspect from injustice and arbitrary state action: from undue detention until charged; from undue punishment until convicted; from being treated as innocent until found to be guilty. Yet the enactment of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 and similar anti-terror measures make a mockery of the traditional criminal legal system and the principle of habeas corpus.

The Terrorism Acts have created a wide ambit of offences for which police need little evidence to make an arrest. As students, we laboriously studied the minutiae of laws governing the detention of suspects, as detailed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1894, and their accompanying Codes of Practice, yet people detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8 and section 41 and other provisions of that Act are not subject to any part of this Code.

Instead they are subject to the provision of those particular Acts, which considerably lighten the burden on the police to make haste in either charging the prisoner or releasing him/her expeditiously. It is incredible that today, murder or rape suspects can be held for an absolute maximum of four days before being charged or released, whilst someone held for the ambiguous offence of “encouragement of terrorism” under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (for which incidentally the usual requirement of intent is not necessary), can be detained for 28 days without being charged for a single crime.

Worse still, these Acts clearly have a discriminatory effect towards members of the Muslim faith even though outwardly they claim not to. It is a sad fact that in recent years the majority of terrorist acts have been carried out by extremist Muslim terror groups, yet when one glances through the pages of history we find many cases of religions being hijacked for terrorist purposes– Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism – few major world faiths have not at some time been affected by this malady. But this does not mean that it is the religion itself to blame nor that its members are intrinsically pre-disposed to commit acts of terror.

The recent anti-terror acts were enacted in the aftermath of September 11^th and the July 7^th bombings and therefore clearly had Muslim terrorists in mind. A government scheme known as Preventing Violent Extremism (‘Prevent’) is more explicit – “a new action plan to step-up work with Muslim communities to isolate, prevent and defeat violent extremism”, or as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty put it, “the biggest spying programme targeting the thoughts and beliefs of the innocent in Britain in modern times.” The Guardian investigation also highlighted the fact that Muslims were specifically being targeted just by virtue of their religion, such as in one London borough where people working with youngsters were asked to highlight which were Muslim.

Many innocent Muslims have been detained for days and weeks on end on the basis of barely-there evidence for behaviour which would have been unquestioned in a non-Muslim, such as the possession of a book which touches on the topic of jihad or militant Islam; let’s be honest, isn’t this a subject which everyone is interested in right now? The case of Rizwaan Sabir highlights this problem and is one of the many cases which lead Muslims to legitimately fear that normal uncontroversial actions on their part will be misconstrued by those around them due to a prejudice which leads people to assume that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists.

Sabir was researching for his masters thesis on terrorism (incidentally a topic which the government is very interested in for obvious policy reasons) at Nottingham University, when he was arrested for downloading a publicly accessible al-Qaeda training manual from a US government website, and detained without charge for 6 days. Sabir’s MA supervisor Rod Thornton stated his possession of the manual was legitimate in view of his research interests.

There is still a lot of goodwill in the Muslim community towards the government and the greater British community; many want nothing more than to be good, peaceful citizens who are contributing to society. Such incidents challenge that goodwill, and rumours of spying and heavy-handed behaviour towards Muslims does much to bring into question whether the rest of society even wants us to be part of it. Government projects like Prevent and the much-lauded but totally irrelevant Quilliam Foundation, which target Muslims qua terrorists, are not necessary to promote anti-terrorist behaviour. There have been encouraging incidents such as in the Isa Ibrahim case where the local Muslim communities in Bristol approached the police themselves about potential terrorist activity where there was genuine reason to warrant such concerns. This is very positive, and not only engages with the Muslim community as a partner in the fight against terrorism, but is also more targeted and, therefore, far more effective than seeking out “potential extremists” in each and every Muslim.

Sabir himself sums the situation and solution up well: “To build bridges, the British government must rethink the prejudiced manner with which it views young Muslims… Fighting militancy and violence is a serious problem that must be confronted. But spying on innocent people and viewing them with deep antipathy and suspicion because of their faith is not the way to do it. The government must stop viewing all Muslims as potential terrorists or individuals that have an innate potential to resort to violence. Only then can work on rebuilding a bridge between British Muslims, the police services and the government recommence.”

Alia Suruliz is a graduate of Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Cambridge. Having converted to Law, she will be working as a trainee solicitor in a major city law firm in London. During her student life she was active in numerous student-led initiatives and served as head of a student society. She has also been active in wider grassroots projects and organisations. Currently she is volunteering with a Human Rights organisation in Geneva.

News during the Christmas and new-year period was dominated by the failed terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on 25 December 2009. Many media reports have used the fact that the perpetrator was a student in London, active in a student Islamic Society, to imply this appalling act was incited by the perfectly normal activities of Islamic Societies in London colleges. Abdulmutallab was President of the Islamic Society at University College London (UCL) from 2006-2007. Malcolm Grant, provost of UCL, said reports that Abdulmutallab developed extreme views whilst studying at UCL about were “spectacular insinuation” and has ordered a review of the 23-year-old’s time at the university.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims resident in the UK abhor such acts. One of the routes to countering terrorism lies in ensuring that Britain’s Muslim communities are respected and included in all aspects of society. Isolating and stigmatising all Muslims in response to such incidents undermines these efforts and the basis of an integrated society where all are free to express their faith and culture, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. Unsubstantiated media reports on Islamic societies at University campuses inciting extremism are whipping up Islamophobia in an already hostile climate.

There have been numerous overtly anti-Muslim demonstrations around the country coordinated by various groups calling themselves the English, Welsh and Scottish Defence Leagues, including two demonstrations which took place outside Harrow Central Mosque donning the name “Stop the Islamification of Europe”. Some of these anti-Muslim demonstrations are linked to the fascist organisation, the British National Party (BNP). The BNP has been emboldened by the election of two of its members to the European Parliament in June this year. Its leader, Nick Griffin, has since been a panellist on the BBC’s flagship programme Question Time. Fascism – the politics of the BNP – stands for systematic racism, including annihilation and genocide against entire peoples. It stands for the ruthless victimisation of black, Asian, Muslim, Jewish and other minorities.

The BNP has been increasingly focussing its political cutting-edge on demonising Muslims, and Griffin has been reported to have said: “We bang on about Islam. Why? Because, to the ordinary public out there, it’s the thing they can understand. It’s the one thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other group – some people say we should attack the Jews … But … we’ve got to get to power. And if that was an issue to bang on about when the press don’t talk about it … the public would just think we were barking mad.”

The BNP has been making use of whatever bigotry the media or mainstream politicians have effectively legitimised, with Muslims being its current principal target. For example it described the 2006 local elections as “a referendum on Islam”.

Accompanying increased Islamophobia from the media and the BNP advance, there have also been physical attacks, including two murders. A taxi driver in Birmingham and a Muslim man in Tooting, South London, were the victims of such cases. Most recently, in November, Muslim students from City University in London were viciously assaulted after prayers. In Rochdale, in the North West, a Muslim woman was violently attacked by a BNP supporter who attempted to rip off her hijab.

The anti-Muslim campaign is also being fanned across Europe. In Switzerland a referendum last November agreed to ban the building of minarets, following a campaign led by the far-right. In France, home to Europe’s largest fascist organisation, President Sarkozy has called for a ban on the wearing of burkas in public.

To defeat this Islamophobia trend, not only must we oppose the politics of the extreme right, but we also need to change the terms of the discussion taking place by waging a strong campaign in defence of multiculturalism. We must assert the importance of the most fundamental of human rights; the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and cultural expression.

Despite the rise of Islamophobia, tremendous progress is taking place in society.  The majority of people– over 80% of Londoners – enjoy Britain’s multiculturalism. Far from Britain ’sleepwalking into segregation’, a recent study by Dr Ludi Simpson from the University of Manchester found that British society is becoming more mixed, not more segregated, with the number of mixed neighbourhoods increasing from 864 to 1,070 in the decade to 2001. In addition, the past decade has seen children of mixed ethnic parentage to rise by 20%, and there are four times more children than adults of mixed ethnicity.

Ken Livingstone recently launched the One Society Many Cultures campaign. It aims to uphold the freedoms of religious and cultural expression and to defend them for all groups in society, including Muslims who are facing the brunt of the attack. At its launch meeting, representatives from a wide range of religious faiths and from different political parties pledged their support to this campaign. It is through initiatives such as these that we can hope to unite over the coming ten years and strengthen ourselves as a rich and diverse British community – one that we can all be proud of. Let’s all do our bit to realise that.

To support the campaign contact onesocietymanycultures@googlemail.com

Sabby Dhalu has been Joint Sectretary of Unite Against Fascism since the campaign started in 2003, and an active campaigner against racism with the National Assembly Against Racism for 10 years.

Editorial

At present, the British Muslim community is suffering disproportionately as a result of crime, on both sides of the spectrum. How can we help the community progress?

Each community has both its fair share of wrongdoers and its exemplary citizens. This is no exception within the British Muslim community.

There are many issues that are affecting the community, but the issues of crime and security features with a regrettable significance. It is unfortunate that there is a disproportionate focus on the Preventing Violent Extremism and Counter Terrorism agenda. There are other areas of concern to be seriously considered, ranging from the disproportionate Muslim prison population, high substance misuse including alcohol and drugs, and gang cultures – to name but a few. With all of these cases, families and societies are suffering, regardless of religion.

The Holy Quran encourages community cohesion and understanding: “Help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression” (05:02). This clear recognition of mutual cooperation points to the importance for individuals to openly acknowledge and work together to solve issues in society.  Thus, the various effects and responses to crime and security should be recognised as deciding factors in the successful, or unsuccessful, cooperation of a community.

Crime and security is not the only prism through which our identity is defined, but it is one of the many facets that shape our identity today. This week, we focus on some of these key questions. Where is the government going wrong? Or are the current legislations enhancing our security? In which direction would you like the community to head? Are the current institutional structures adequate? How do you think we should get there?

The Platform Editorial Team