Student Islamic societies are radical, not extremist Muslim groups on campus radicalise members by inspiring civic and political participation, not by breeding extremism
Source:guardian
I was radicalised by my student Islamic society (Isoc). It started as an innocent means through which to meet down-to-earth and like-minded people. Then we started to break fast together in the prayer room, one thing led to another and before I knew it, I was raising money for orphans and contributing to interfaith campaigns. Inspired by all of this, I have gone on to delve in national student policy, campaign on free speech, rally for Gaza and help shape welfare provision for students around the country. Five years on in this special journey, I reflect upon the palpable change Isocs have etched on campuses around the country – and the radical role that my Isoc has played in my life – and I am one among thousands.
For many, Islamic societies have been a gateway to mature faith and a catalyst for social change and progress for Muslim communities for a number of years, be that through charity campaigns, where over £350,000 was raised for orphans in the space of a week – a feat unmatched at student level – or the meaningful steps taken by Isocs to engage with fellow students and increase understanding about Islam by creating multilevel dialogue on campus. In the past few years, Isocs have taken a role in empowering Muslim students towards a culture of civic and political participation with remarkable results. Muslim students can be seen in every level of campaigning from feminist and social issues, to international conflict, human rights, ethical investment and accessible education, while just last week, the first Muslim vice-president of the National Union of Students (NUS) was elected, a former Isoc president. With giants like Dr Hani al-Banna, the founder of Islamic Relief, and Dr Abdullah Gul, the president of Turkey, the alumni of Isocs and their umbrella body Fosis is diverse and rich, littered with women and men of substance.
Yet living in a post 9/11 and 7/7 world where the threat of terrorism is very real, a different sort of radicalism pervades the discourse surrounding Muslim students today. In its most malevolent manifestation, there has been a concerted effort by some to link Isocs to extremism. These accusations have been particularly virulent following the alleged attack on a Detroit airline by a former president of UCL Isoc. The story had barely reached the 10 o'clock news before some commentators were quick to draw a link between the Isoc and extremist activity, ignoring the fact that it had been 18 months since Umar Farouk had graduated from UCL and that even the security services were at odds as to his whereabouts prior to the alleged attack. Staff and students alike including Qasim Rafiq, a colleague of mine and former president of UCL Isoc, explicitly stated that during his time at UCL, there was nothing to suggest Farouk would ever go on to commit the alleged attack. However, some "experts" have persisted in linking terror suspects such as Farouk to Isocs without a shred of evidence, levelling charges that Isocs are ultimately responsible for the radicalisation process.
Many commentators have jumped to the conclusion of some Isocs being "extremist" on the basis of a simplistic cause-effect argument – by connecting Muslims who commit terrorist attacks with the Isoc of a campus that they once attended – fallaciously assuming that one naturally leads to the other. Looking at the "evidence" such individuals bring demonstrates the fallibility of their argument. Following the alleged attack, the Centre for Social Cohesion issued a press briefing claiming how UCL had ignored "Islamist extremism", and their "evidence"? A list of speakers and their respective comments (most of which were made off campus).
Much of this issue boils down to the issue of freedom of expression on campus, which has come under attack from those that seek to restrict it. We stand firmly by the law in affirming that freedom of expression should be allowed, and we encourage it, except that which incites violence. Though we all hear disagreeable views from time to time, campuses should be fertile grounds for the challenging of such views and not cages of conformity and censorship. Restricting freedom of expression means that legitimate voices that are critical of terrorism are silenced, leading to such unacceptable views being kept underground where they cannot be refuted. Our advice to those who believe speakers have incited to violence is to use full recourse of the law rather than attempt to stifle legitimate discussion.
Our approach on extremism, along with the government and bodies like the NUS, has always been based on sound evidence. While, of course, it is natural to be concerned about extremism, "there is no evidence of systematic radicalisation in universities", according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Approaches on tackling extremism must not be based upon conjecture – as it often is. For this reason, we have been working on the Muslim student survey, led by the National Centre for Social Research and in collaboration with the government universities department and the NUS, to provide a methodological robust survey of the attitudes of Muslim students.
Another narrative which has been promulgated has been the linking together of conservative-religious identity with violent extremism, thereby conflating a values discourse with a national security discourse. One may find some viewpoints on campuses contentious – for example where many Isocs provide strict segregation between women and men in events, based upon their interpretation of religious teachings. However, findings by Gallup, Demos and MI5 show that most terrorists have a poor understanding of Islam and that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. So jumping from a conservative-religious identity to "ideology" to "extremism" is a leap that has absolutely no factual basis. The MI5 report further suggests that there is actually no single pathway to terrorism in Britain – and there is no typical profile for a terrorist.
Spending time vexing over the veil, or worrying that Muslim men aren't integrated because they keep away from wine and women, will not prevent terrorism. Rather, the Islamic values that Isocs impart to their membership, engendering a true sense of identity and purpose to their memberships, should be championed as weapons against terrorism, and not a means to it – despite the protestations of angry thinktanks. The same Muslims that run Isocs and those that they invite to campuses are the most vehement opponents of terrorism, publicly stating – with street credibility – that terrorism has no foundations in Islamic thought. Charges of extremism placed on Isocs are thus incredibly irresponsible – and resistance to be warped into viewing campuses and Muslims through the prism of extremism is imperative.
Freedom of expression isn't just about extremism – freedom of expression is critical to ensure that universities maintain their unique role in facilitating debate, innovation and social change. Universities are heading towards a juncture – there is a path of apathy and a path of genuine radicalism. Apathy is fuelled by restriction and fear; true radicalism is fuelled by confidence and energy. As the progressive voice of Muslim students in this country, we know which road we're taking and had it not have been for my Isoc, I and countless others would never have become the radicals we are today.
For many, Islamic societies have been a gateway to mature faith and a catalyst for social change and progress for Muslim communities for a number of years, be that through charity campaigns, where over £350,000 was raised for orphans in the space of a week – a feat unmatched at student level – or the meaningful steps taken by Isocs to engage with fellow students and increase understanding about Islam by creating multilevel dialogue on campus. In the past few years, Isocs have taken a role in empowering Muslim students towards a culture of civic and political participation with remarkable results. Muslim students can be seen in every level of campaigning from feminist and social issues, to international conflict, human rights, ethical investment and accessible education, while just last week, the first Muslim vice-president of the National Union of Students (NUS) was elected, a former Isoc president. With giants like Dr Hani al-Banna, the founder of Islamic Relief, and Dr Abdullah Gul, the president of Turkey, the alumni of Isocs and their umbrella body Fosis is diverse and rich, littered with women and men of substance.
Yet living in a post 9/11 and 7/7 world where the threat of terrorism is very real, a different sort of radicalism pervades the discourse surrounding Muslim students today. In its most malevolent manifestation, there has been a concerted effort by some to link Isocs to extremism. These accusations have been particularly virulent following the alleged attack on a Detroit airline by a former president of UCL Isoc. The story had barely reached the 10 o'clock news before some commentators were quick to draw a link between the Isoc and extremist activity, ignoring the fact that it had been 18 months since Umar Farouk had graduated from UCL and that even the security services were at odds as to his whereabouts prior to the alleged attack. Staff and students alike including Qasim Rafiq, a colleague of mine and former president of UCL Isoc, explicitly stated that during his time at UCL, there was nothing to suggest Farouk would ever go on to commit the alleged attack. However, some "experts" have persisted in linking terror suspects such as Farouk to Isocs without a shred of evidence, levelling charges that Isocs are ultimately responsible for the radicalisation process.
Many commentators have jumped to the conclusion of some Isocs being "extremist" on the basis of a simplistic cause-effect argument – by connecting Muslims who commit terrorist attacks with the Isoc of a campus that they once attended – fallaciously assuming that one naturally leads to the other. Looking at the "evidence" such individuals bring demonstrates the fallibility of their argument. Following the alleged attack, the Centre for Social Cohesion issued a press briefing claiming how UCL had ignored "Islamist extremism", and their "evidence"? A list of speakers and their respective comments (most of which were made off campus).
Much of this issue boils down to the issue of freedom of expression on campus, which has come under attack from those that seek to restrict it. We stand firmly by the law in affirming that freedom of expression should be allowed, and we encourage it, except that which incites violence. Though we all hear disagreeable views from time to time, campuses should be fertile grounds for the challenging of such views and not cages of conformity and censorship. Restricting freedom of expression means that legitimate voices that are critical of terrorism are silenced, leading to such unacceptable views being kept underground where they cannot be refuted. Our advice to those who believe speakers have incited to violence is to use full recourse of the law rather than attempt to stifle legitimate discussion.
Our approach on extremism, along with the government and bodies like the NUS, has always been based on sound evidence. While, of course, it is natural to be concerned about extremism, "there is no evidence of systematic radicalisation in universities", according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Approaches on tackling extremism must not be based upon conjecture – as it often is. For this reason, we have been working on the Muslim student survey, led by the National Centre for Social Research and in collaboration with the government universities department and the NUS, to provide a methodological robust survey of the attitudes of Muslim students.
Another narrative which has been promulgated has been the linking together of conservative-religious identity with violent extremism, thereby conflating a values discourse with a national security discourse. One may find some viewpoints on campuses contentious – for example where many Isocs provide strict segregation between women and men in events, based upon their interpretation of religious teachings. However, findings by Gallup, Demos and MI5 show that most terrorists have a poor understanding of Islam and that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. So jumping from a conservative-religious identity to "ideology" to "extremism" is a leap that has absolutely no factual basis. The MI5 report further suggests that there is actually no single pathway to terrorism in Britain – and there is no typical profile for a terrorist.
Spending time vexing over the veil, or worrying that Muslim men aren't integrated because they keep away from wine and women, will not prevent terrorism. Rather, the Islamic values that Isocs impart to their membership, engendering a true sense of identity and purpose to their memberships, should be championed as weapons against terrorism, and not a means to it – despite the protestations of angry thinktanks. The same Muslims that run Isocs and those that they invite to campuses are the most vehement opponents of terrorism, publicly stating – with street credibility – that terrorism has no foundations in Islamic thought. Charges of extremism placed on Isocs are thus incredibly irresponsible – and resistance to be warped into viewing campuses and Muslims through the prism of extremism is imperative.
Freedom of expression isn't just about extremism – freedom of expression is critical to ensure that universities maintain their unique role in facilitating debate, innovation and social change. Universities are heading towards a juncture – there is a path of apathy and a path of genuine radicalism. Apathy is fuelled by restriction and fear; true radicalism is fuelled by confidence and energy. As the progressive voice of Muslim students in this country, we know which road we're taking and had it not have been for my Isoc, I and countless others would never have become the radicals we are today.
Comments