The Centre For Social Cohesion

Oh dear! I was looking for a meaningful rebuttal of the attacks made against the Quilliam Foundation. Instead I find a poor piece of journalism with only poorer substance.

Permit me to qualify my remarks. I shudder to think what we were to find were we to select random quotes from the beleaguered Foundation's founders. Surely, there can be no value in such a meaningless article.

I would question the use of such tabloid journalism on a website dedicated to the discourse and advancement of social cohesion, quite certainly the issue of the day for at least the Muslim community, but I think the article itself is testament to the lack of academic credentials of both the author and the Foundation itself.

Have you actually read the Quilliam Foundation proposals? They are just insensible to say the least!
While extremism needs to be addressed, it is essential to realise the importance of the approach.
The way QF catagorise Muslims into 'good' and 'bad' is awful, it's what G.W. Bush did and look at the havock he wrecked!
No organisation can gain credability if they start their project by 'terrorising' the language.. I mean, every other word in their report is 'Islamist' or 'Islamism'.. whats Islamism? Is there a Christianist or a Jewadist? If QF are serious about building community cohesion, they should re-think their strategy..there are cleaverer and more sensible ways of doing things.
And FOSIS, well.. so far it has presented a shining image for community cohesion.. if anything, we should salute them and support their nobel services they offer to students and communities, both Muslim and non.

It is the Islamists you need to talk to

by Jamal El-shayyal

Last week witnessed the launch of the much heralded Quilliam Foundation. A think tank aimed at “countering extremism” and presenting a “British Islam”. In a time when Britain’s Muslims are constantly in the spot light, and the threat of terrorism seems oh so apparent, such a think tank should be welcomed, and its work is much needed for. Or is it?

Despite the noble and benevolent aims of Quilliam, there are a number of factors which make this government funded expedition certain to fail. Quilliam is just the latest in a long chain of failed attempts by the British Government aimed at dictating the stance it wants the British Muslim community to take. A chain which stretches back several years. When British Muslims came out condemning the terrorist attacks of 7/7 yet also citing the many factors (both domestic and foreign policy related) which contributed to those heinous crimes being carried, it became clear that this was not the type of condemnation the Government wanted. The condemnation they were looking for was one coupled with guilt and one that most definitely did not cite the role of foreign policy.

When the Muslim community, represented by the Muslim council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain refused to tow the line, those who were once welcomed into Whitehall, or even Knighted became surplus to requirement, their expiration date came sooner than expected. For why should the government meet with people whom it disagrees with?

But with the need for a token Muslim at Home Office events and the necessity for some sort of “Muslim” endorsement still present the search for “the good Muslim” continued. But this time it seemed the government did not want to take the same risk of trying to groom an established leader within the Muslim community, instead it would fund and prop up any aspiring propagandist, thus dictating – from the start – what line he or she would take.

But this is where and why Quilliam will definitely fail. Neither Ed Husain nor Maajid Nawaz have any credibility within the wider Muslim community. Ed was never known in any of Britain’s Mosques, Muslim charities or youth organizations, he has never given a Friday sermon or been invited by any of Britain’s Muslim youth; his only claim to fame is the publication of an egotistic diatribe full of inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies.

Maajid unfortunately also lacks credibility. Whilst it is true that he was a senior member of Hizbutahrir, and did have his voice heard in several quarters, the manner in which he disowned the organization and the swiftness in which he has adopted a government narrative on how to deal with the problem of “extremism” and issues pertaining to multiculturalism has made many who know him now distrust him and question his motives. Furthermore his recounting of time in an Egyptian prison and the capitalization of the experience also casts sever doubts on his credibility. Whilst I do not question it must have been a hard time, I have visited the prison he was held in on several occasions and know it well, inmates there include former Egyptian ministers and millionaires, it is not one of the many prisons Egyptian authorities use to torture those it disagrees with.

Perhaps what is most disingenuous in the eyes of Maajid’s critics is his cozying up to the very same British government which did not lift a finger to get him released when he was unlawfully imprisoned, whilst many Muslims and non Muslims campaigned tirelessly to free him; were it not for them he would never have been adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International – a claim which he so proudly wears today.

The lumping of all Islamist organizations into one category by Quilliam is also an example of its naivety or even a sign of its ulterior motives. For whilst it is correct in its criticism of some, like Hizbutahrir who have for years called on Muslims not to engage in the democratic political process of the countries they live in; it forgets (probably intentionally) to mention those Islamists who have for decades not only encouraged but insisted that Muslims should and must partake in the democratic systems governing them. Quilliam forgets to mention that it was these Islamists who first used the term British Muslims to identify themselves, and taught their members that there is no contradiction in being a law abiding politically participating British citizen whilst concerning and connecting oneself with Muslims the world over – Think Globally, Act Locally was the call.

It is not enough to get a former “extremist” present him as a reformed messiah and expect people to follow him across the oceans. Moreover it is insulting and totally wrong to assume that the problem of “extremism” is exclusive to the Muslim community and its reasons lie solely within it.

From transforming the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque into a community centre with outreach programs and adult educational courses to freeing British hostage Norman Kember, Britain's Muslims, nay Britain’s Islamists have contributed vastly to British society. They have spoken out when no one was brave enough, advised when insanity seemed destined to prevail, and campaigned when civil liberties were being curtailed.

It is high time that the British government acknowledges that working in partnership requires working with those who it may not necessarily agree with on everything, but who have the same passion and desire to see a United Kingdom stable, peaceful and multicultural. And this will mean working with the Muslim community’s true leaders, some of whom are indeed Islamists, for they are the ones who built Britain’s Mosques, set up Muslim charities, organized their youth and continue to work tirelessly for God and country. They have been around long before Quilliam and shall be there long after it is gone.

Jamal El-shayyal has served on the executive of many British Muslim organizations, he was a Labour party candidate in the May 2006 elections and has advised the FCO, Home Office and DFES on issues relating to the Muslim community as well as the topic of “extremism”. He is currently working for Aljazeera English where he is one of their Middle East Editors.
NB. He writes here in his personal capacity.

This is utterly outrageous. Instead of supporting the only democratically led organization in the UK against HT and extremism for years, Civitas which claims to be 'non-partisan' is throwing its weight around with an even more dubious thinktank. It is clear that you are unaware of who the bedfellows of the Quilliam Foundation but once these come to light you'll simply have damaged Civitas's credibility.