You are here:   Faith > Inside The World Of 'Non-Violent' Islamism
 
On the streets, verbal and physical abuse against both Muslims and Jews is sharply rising, with George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bradford West, claiming that the attacks on the former were "many times more" than the latter. Maybe, but per capita? The British Jewish population is just one tenth of the Muslim population. Galloway's moral strictures on the evils of anti-Semitism expressed on BBC Question Time last month also sit oddly with his support for Hamas and its genocidal outbursts.

A priority for the EAU should be an examination of the relationship between what the government calls "non-violent extremism" and "violent extremism". The government's current Prevent programme is aimed at restricting space for non-violent extremists who ministers say spread hatred and fear. The Prime Minister believes it is this ideology that lies at the root of violent extremism. Islamists not only insist that no such link exists but that to suggest it does represents yet another attack on Islam—"criminalising Islam" as they put it. They argue that the sort of behaviour the government regards as "extreme" is actually representative of orthodox/mainstream Islam.

Such are the claims of clerics like Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad, who espouses an ideological version of puritanical Wahhabi Salafism as practised in, and exported by, Saudi Arabia. In Britain, as in Europe, Salafists are gaining in popularity and influence, particularly among the Islamic societies of our universities.

A staunchly pro-Haddad website called "Islam 21C" describes the Saudi- and SOAS-trained sheikh as "someone well-known for propagating beliefs and practices that enjoy a unanimous consensus among classical schools of Islamic thought, which most Muslims ostensibly claim to follow." If Haddad does indeed represent mainstream Islam in this country, then we are in trouble.

In his popular and sometimes witty lectures on Islam to mosques, Islamic centres and on satellite TV channels, Haddad disdains Western values. He has described parliamentary democracy as "filthy", yet encourages his co-religionists to exploit the ballot box for the far-distant but ultimate purpose of establishing a Muslim majority in parliament as a prelude to a caliphate. He has described gender equality as "a very evil thing" and for citizens of Islamic states he advocates the death penalty for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam) and adulterers.

Where does Haddad stand on violent jihad, as opposed to its spiritual version? He argues against Muslims who say that jihad is just "spiritual" inner struggle: this is "not an acceptable opinion whatsoever . . . whether they will take us all to prison, or they don't, okay, it is up to them . . . this is "part of our deen [religion], yeah?"

To be clear, Haddad does not advocate violent jihad against the UK, or what he defines as innocent civilians. Yet speaking about the Israel-Palestine conflict, he seemed to expand its regional context to a wider one by referring to "the conflict between Islam and the enemies of Islam" as an "ongoing conflict and we should pay the price of this victory from our blood and Muslims are ready to do so". He went on to say the Israel-Palestine conflict "clearly encouraged all Muslims to prepare themselves for jihad, all Muslims all over the world".

Another popular Salafist cleric on the speaker circuit is Murtaza Khan, who has likened living in Britain to being "surrounded" by an "epidemic" of "evil". He laments that too many British Muslims are following one or other of two "accursed nations". He means Christians and Jews. Khan is an Islamic Studies teacher at a primary school in London and a visiting preacher at East London University. He seems to be permanently on fire, and the sheer aggression of his delivery and words can make the genial but hard-line Haddad look kitten-like by comparison.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
John Pedler
April 27th, 2015
2:04 PM
Unfortunately too few non Muslims know anything much about Islam and, alas, this applies to many Muslims too!Yet in the present crisis it is most important to know why are the beliefs that cause 'jihadism'. To make any real progress we will have to accept that the US and the UK have done a great deal to cause murderous extremism. The Bush Blair invasion of Iraq is only one of many causes - though it is probably the main one. We in the US and UK in particular have made too many enemies! Something we will have to publicly accept if jihadism is to be countered. Regrettably this is difficult when scholarly 'higher criticism of the Koran and Hadith is so life threatening!

Anonymous
March 3rd, 2015
3:03 AM
Insightful article, though it doesn't scratch the surface of the world of 'non-violent' Islamism. Nothing is said about the two interlocking strands of the Jamaat-i-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups and how they collectively comprise a singular web of radical activism, which stretches out into schools and mosques and reaches into various governmental departments. Ware does commendable work but he is wrong that Haitham Haddad is not radical. Radicalism ought not be defined in terms of the direct advocation of violence but in terms of subversive intent. There is every bit of that in the non-violent programme of Islamists like him to usher in a social transformation in the West in the name of Islam.

Dan
February 26th, 2015
9:02 AM
Excellent article - many thanks

bobby101
February 26th, 2015
3:02 AM
an interesting fact that the report by Kundani and sponsored by the Haddad linked website seeking to make mainstream the Salafi supremacist ideology was launched at the House of Commons and one of the men promoting it was Peter Oborne, who is the author of an article in this edition of Standpoint. Islamists have their friends not only on the multiculturalist left, but also amongst conservatives like Oborne.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.