In Britain last Tuesday, the House of Lords spent almost eight hours debating the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. Opening the debate on behalf of the government, Lord Bates said the bill "will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat, and it will help to challenge the pernicious underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism".

Discussion of the bill, in parliament and outside, has focused mainly on the plans for new security measures and their effect on civil liberties. There has been far less discussion of how Islamist/jihadist ideology might be challenged – largely because there's not much the government can realistically do about it in Britain.

Tackling the ideological problem within Britain is mainly a matter for Muslim communities, as Viscount Hanworth, a Labour member, pointed out:

"Our Islamic community will be one of the most important factors in overcoming the threat of Islamist terrorism in this country. The opinions of parents, siblings, friends and elders will eventually discourage young people from espousing the ideology of jihad."

In practical terms, the government can't do much more than facilitate such processes when they occur, and avoid obstructing them. It's important, as Viscount Hanworth noted, not to alienate law-abiding Muslims "by the rough handling of their errant relatives". 

Baroness Manningham-Buller, a former head of MI5 (Britain's domestic counter-intelligence and security agency) argued that the government's Prevent programme, which aims to stop people becoming terrorists, isn't working – and added that "we do not really know what works".

She continued "I know that a great deal of effort has gone into thinking about how to counter this toxic and murderous ideology" and suggested that there is now "a better understanding of the roots of terrorism" and a better understanding of how to divert people from that path.

However, she doubted that the British government is well placed to counter this ideology and said: "A lead on that has and is beginning to come from moderate, mainstream Islam."

This continuing talk of a "moderate, mainstream Islam" countering jihadism and "extremism" (which I discussed previously in connection with Tony Blair) is part of the problem, not least because there are so many different opinions about what these terms actually mean. Also, ideas can't necessarily be regarded as "moderate" or good just because they happen to be mainstream.

One crucial example here is the idea of compulsion in religion – including the idea that those who blaspheme or otherwise "insult" religion should be punished. That created a pretext for the killings at Charlie Hebdo magazine last week but, as an idea, it's very much in the mainstream. As far as millions of Muslims around the world are concerned, it's acceptable to punish people for religious "crimes" and in most Muslim countries doing so is part of government policy.

Successfully challenging Islamist/jihadist ideology is therefore going to require some fundamental re-thinking within the Islamic mainstream and in many cases by governments of Muslim countries too.

I had been hoping that somewhere in the lengthy House of Lords debate someone would mention the possibility of tackling the ideological problem at source in the countries where it originated, but perhaps that was too much to expect. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill comes under the auspices of the Home Office so the international dimension falls mostly outside its scope.

Lord Green of Deddington probably came closest to raising this when he said "the situation" in the Middle East is "fuelling the jihadist movement", but he was talking specifically about ISIS which is a symptom of the problem rather than a cause. Although (or perhaps because) Lord Green is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, he didn't see fit to mention the kingdom's central role.

This points to the confusion and inconsistency of Britain's policy (and western governments more generally). While the Home Office proposes new measures to combat terrorism, the military are attempting to fight ISIS with support from countries that promote an ISIS-type ideology of religious compulsion. Meanwhile the Foreign Office is so eager to develop business relations with those countries that it is reluctant to put serious pressure on them to change their ways.

One particularly egregious example from Saudi Arabia last week was the public flogging of Raif Badawi who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam". Commenting on that case, Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch asked: "Is it really any surprise that extremist groups – also acting in the name of Islam – seem to be following Saudi's lead, meting out their own severe punishments against journalists and activists they find offensive?" She continued:

"There is probably little governments and policymakers can do to influence the ideology of extremist armed groups. But there's a lot more they can and should do to influence the policies and practices of purported allies in the 'war on terror'. That includes the anti-ISIS coalition, to which Saudi Arabia and many other unaccountable, authoritarian, and deeply abusive Arab governments belong.

"While the United States and United Kingdom governments' statements condemning Badawi's flogging were a good start, more often these countries are utterly silent in the face of Saudi Arabia's grotesque abuses against its own citizens. The West's denunciations of ISIS abuses have less credibility when governments carrying out similar abuses, if much smaller in scale and magnitude, are good chums, strong allies, and important investors.

"If the international community is serious about taking on Islamist extremist ideologies – if it wants to see real models of tolerance, respect for diverse viewpoints, religious freedom, and the free and peaceful exchange of ideas – it must urge King Abdullah to be the true protector of the rights of Muslims around the world."
  

Posted by Brian Whitaker
Thursday, 15 January 2015