Over the last few months I have written a lot about the problem of ISIS and what to do about it (most of the articles are here). I have been pointing out that the military campaign doesn't address the underlying question of ISIS-type ideologies, and so even if ISIS is defeated militarily similar groups are likely to emerge elsewhere in the future. 

I have also argued that Arab states – including those fighting ISIS militarily – have contributed to the spread of jihadist and Islamist ideologies through their religious policies, and that those policies need to change.

The problem is not confined to the Middle East, of course, and in Britain we worry about people going off to fight in foreign wars, several official reports have investigated Islamist influence in schools and this week the government announced yet another series of anti-terrorism measures. These will include "a statutory duty on named organisations – such as schools, colleges, universities, the police, prisons, probation providers and local government – to help prevent people from being drawn into terrorism".

In a speech on Monday, the Home Secretary, Theresa May said: "When the security and intelligence agencies tell us that the threat we face is now more dangerous than at any time before or since 9/11 we should take notice." 

That is probably not an exaggeration, and in some ways I think we still underestimate the problem. As with the military campaign against ISIS, the British government is approaching it almost entirely from a security perspective. It's easy to see why security is the government's priority but, as with ISIS, it is still largely ignoring the ideological aspects.

The ideology in question is often referred to as "Islamic extremism" but the term is too vague to be useful. More precisely, it's the idea that Islam has certain rules which can be imposed by force or other forms of coercion which may not involve physical violence. This directly challenges the concept of freedom of thought and the right of individuals to act according to their own conscience.

Another point to note is that it's probably not a transient problem. As I pointed out in a recent article for the Guardian, as a result of globalisation that ideas which were once alien or unknown can now leap across national borders and take root in unexpected places. That process isn't going to stop, so we have to find ways of dealing with it.

In Britain there is still a tendency to view this as transient (so long as jihadists and Islamists are stamped on hard enough) but it may not be. More likely, we shall have these ideas in our midst for a very long time – in which case we need to take a cool-headed and long-term view of how to minimise their influence. 

Exactly what should be done is a difficult question, but we might begin to answer it by looking at what should not be done – and in particular the ways Arab governments have mishandled religious issues over the years.

The starting point for most Arab governments is to adopt an officially-approved version of Islam which is then granted special privileges. The effect is to stifle open debate about religion, including the sort that challenges Islamist ideas – often on the grounds of preventing social discord. In the meantime, the approved version of Islam becomes closely associated with other government policies – which in many cases include corruption, repression and dictatorship, thus encouraging people to turn to non-approved versions instead.

Britain now seems to be heading down a similar path. With politicians increasingly talking about "good Islam" versus "bad Islam" we have the beginnings of an official "British Islam". These pronouncement from politicians are based on skimpy knowledge and the usual dividing line between "good" and "bad" Islam is violence ("moderates" versus "terrorists") rather than oppressive religious ideas more generally.

Merely condemning certain types of ideas doesn't achieve much, either, and – as in the Arab countries – if the condemnation comes from the political establishment it's liable to be counter-productive. The same can be said of talk about inculcating schoolchildren with "British values": it can easily set up an "us-versus-them" dichotomy. Far better not to get nationalistic about it and talk instead of "universal rights".

In an article for Lapidomedia, Frans Veerman writes:

"Western governments have to be aware that there is no such thing as a clear distinction between moderate and terrorist Islamist organisations nor a clear distinction between mainstream Islamic organisations and Islamist (or Islamic political) organisations. 

"In fighting Islamic State and preparing to tackle returning jihadis, as well as in preventing future jihadis from leaving their country, Western governments should not turn for moral compensation' to whatever non-terrorist organisations they know, believing they are radically different from the terrorist organisations."

Veerman, if I've understood the article correctly, is not saying that all Muslims are equally bad but that we should stop trying so hard to categorise them. A better way forward, Veerman suggests, would be to focus on "certain key concepts that are commonplace throughout most of the Islamic continuum" – including sharia and jihad which, in the way they are most commonly interpreted, are clearly at odds with universal rights.

This kind of concept-based approach could be a lot more fruitful in identifying precisely where the problems lie.