Sunny Hundal v Inayat Bunglawala
Sunny to Inayat:
Inayat, you must be a bit disappointed with the Observer article in which Ruth Kelly [secretary of state for communities and local government] wrote about engaging with the Muslim community and explicitly avoided mentioning the Muslim Council of Britain, while instead naming the British Muslim Forum. I think we can comfortably assume that the MCB is not flavour of the month in her department.
All this boils down to tackling and defeating violent extremism. Ruth Kelly and her department presumably feel that after working with the MCB for so long they haven't had much success. My question is: where is the government going wrong and what is the solution to defeating violent extremism? What is the MCB's stance on this?
Inayat to Sunny:
Let me assure you that the MCB has no interest in being "flavour of the month" with the government. Our role is to articulate and represent the views of our affiliates and if some of these views - on our foreign policy in the Middle East for example - happen to displease the government, then so be it.
Understanding the reasons why some people turn to violent extremism and trying to prevent others from doing the same must be a priority for all of us. British Muslims have been here in large numbers since the 1960s. Why are a few turning to violent extremism now? The Preventing Extremism working groups that the Home Office set up in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings made a number of recommendations in their final report.
One of the most important was for the government to hold a public inquiry into the bombings. This would help us to better understand what is "going wrong" and why and how four British-born Muslims became so radicalised. It would surely be indispensable in the fight against violent extremism. The government inexplicably continues to refuse such an inquiry.
In the meantime the MCB continues its work in encouraging British Muslims to build good local ties with the police around the country and cooperate fully with them with a view to safeguarding public security.
Sunny to Inayat:
I'm not sure what you mean by not wanting to be on Ruth Kelly's Christmas card list, given that the MCB is essentially a Labour creation and Sir Iqbal Sacranie was rewarded for that. But there's no point getting into that.
Your response didn't answer my question. There is a difference between: "What drove the 7/7 bombers to their actions?" and "How can we defeat violent extremism?".
Given that you've been involved with Muslim organisations for over a decade now, have you some idea on how to defeat violent extremism? Some idea on what the causes are and what the solutions are? Or is that something the MCB has not got its head round yet?
Inayat to Sunny:
If there was really "no point getting into that" one wonders why you raised the issue in the first place. Still, it allows me the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding.
The MCB was launched in November 1997 following three years (1994-1997) of extensive consultations with Islamic organisations throughout the country. Our ill-informed detractors have wrongly accused us of being alternatively the creation of New Labour or Michael Howard, who was the Conservative home secretary at the time the idea of the MCB was first seriously mooted. I hope you were not suggesting that British Muslims are incapable of setting up their own umbrella bodies?
Your second paragraph is truly astounding. I suggest you try slowly reading again what you wrote. Are you seriously saying that understanding "what drove" the 7/7 bombers to do what they did is somehow disconnected from how we need to frame an effective strategy to defeat violent extremism? I do hope your brain hasn't become "pickled", too.
As for the main causes, you may have seen the reports based on leaked memos from the Joint Intelligence Committee which concluded that our actions in the Middle East have "exacerbated" the terror threat against us and have "reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the west and motivated others who were not". There have been a number of other similar reports prepared by government agencies.
In any case, we are all in this together now. All of us - Muslims and non-Muslims - need to be vigilant and give the police and authorities full assistance in their task of maintaining our safety, and we should report anything serious that concerns us without delay so that they can investigate.
Sunny to Inayat:
No one has suggested Muslims are incapable of organising themselves - we both know there were umbrella organisations before the MCB was created. But it has become prominent because it was the first to have such a close relationship with a government in power. Or is that a figment of my imagination?
But let's go back to the main point. You don't seem to want to answer my question. Its not a case of saying the 7/7 bombers are irrelevant but having an understanding of the current climate and being intelligent enough to formulate a response. Are you up to the task? Do people in the MCB have the intellectual capacity to understand what is going on and respond?
Even if we accept that our government's foreign policy "exacerbates" the terror threat against us, I'd like to know what you think is the cause of that terror theat. Surely you know the difference between cause and exacerbation?
Inayat to Sunny:
I think the MCB's increase in prominence may have something to do with the combination of its position as the UK's largest, most broad-based Muslim umbrella body and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, rather than an imagined "close relationship" with the government.
The answer to your main question was in the JIC assessment I quoted to you. Let's go over it again, this time with added emphasis. The JIC said that our [britain's] actions in the Middle East had reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the west and motivated others who were not. So when you ask about cause and exacerbation, it is not "either/or"; our [britain's] policies clearly appear to be doing both.
In short, a comprehensive response to violent extremism needs to involve greater vigilance on the part of all of us, a closer and more trusting relationship between local Muslim communities and the police, and a genuine reassessment by the government of some of its actions and policies overseas. Agreed?
Sunny to Inayat:
You're still trying to duck the main question. Intelligence reports admit that the Iraq war "exacerbated" the likelihood of terrorist attacks in London. But you're now trying to twist it around by saying they also "caused" those attacks. Your English isn't that bad to assume that the two are the same.
You also contradict yourself by saying that our foreign policy reinforced the determination of terrorists already committed to attacking. How they get to the stage of being already committed?
Terrorists are not created out of thin air. Ideology, circumstances, events and other factors all contribute. Foreign policy may have "exacerbated" the danger but it not create it, that is all that intelligence reports say.
So I ask you again: in order to defeat violent extremism, we must understand what motivates these people and what turns them into killers. What puts them in that frame of mind? The Iraq war alone is not enough. I'd like to know your thoughts on the other factors that motivate people to turn to violent extremism. For example, do you believe the literature and propaganda distributed by extremist groups contributes to this?
Inayat to Sunny:
Oh dear. We appear to be back where we started. At the outset, in my first post, I made clear that we needed to understand the process by which the 7/7 bombers, for example, had become radicalised, if we were to formulate an effective anti-terror strategy.
We may all have our own pet theories about what are the main factors involved, whether that includes foreign policy, sinister preachers, terror camps overseas, internet-based propaganda, etc. It may be an equal combination of all these or it may be that one factor stands out way above others. In the absence of a transparent public inquiry looking into these matters, however, all we have are leaks or extracts from reports prepared by government agencies.
You ask about "what motivates these people". For the umpteenth time, the JIC report, said that our actions abroad had "motivated others who were not" previously inclined to violent extremism. Now the JIC may be right or they may be wrong. If you believe they are wrong then you should lay out your case. I am keen to hear your evidence as - I am sure - are the intelligence services.
As for "literature and propaganda", they play a role in the recruitment of members for all groups, including our own political parties. When it comes to many Muslim groups on campus, their literature often focuses on our actions overseas to attract the interest and concern of potential new members. Are you seeing the connection now?
Sunny to Inayat:
We're not back to where we started since this conversation is increasingly illustrating your attempts to squirm out of answering the initial question. I'm not interested in everyone's "pet theory" about the main factors that motivate terrorists - I'm interested in yours.
As yet all you've done is try and twist the words of the intelligence reports by saying the Iraq war "caused" the terrorist attacks when they do not say that. If, as part of a transparent enquiry, I (hypothetically) asked you what radicalised some young Muslims and drove them to commit terrorism, is the Iraq war the only factor you can think of?
If there are others, please state them clearly and tell us how they should be dealt with. Don't flounce around all over the place - this is not a ballet class.
Are Muslim groups who use literature and propaganda to radicalise young Muslims part of this problem? To what extent and how do you suggest we deal with that? Or do you think they are not a problem?
Inayat to Sunny:
I have tried answering all your questions, but it seems that there are some who are intent on closing their ears.
You say you're not interested in just anyone's pet theory, however, it seems that you are rather attached to one of your own. Your fixation with "literature and propaganda" is evidence of a simple-minded approach. I would suggest that a more intelligent response would be to appreciate that there are a number of factors - some more central than others - that have contributed to where we have arrived.
In my responses above I have already outlined what I think those key factors are. Last autumn, the veteran BBC reporter, Peter Taylor, examined the cases of a number of individuals who had turned to violent extremism and concluded that Bush and Blair, through their ill-thought-out actions, had "gifted Usama bin Laden with a jihad he could only dream of".
Propaganda literature may well play a role in this process just as it does in the recruitment to all groups. However, such propaganda can only be effective because of the conducive atmosphere we have helped create, as Taylor noted.
Finally, to try and end on a positive note, I want to say that I am confident that Bin Laden and the nihilism he now represents will eventually be defeated. How quickly that happens though, depends largely on just how serious our UK/US governments are in reforming their exploitative policies in the Middle East.
CiF - see the comments from readers
ps i've seen this sort of 'debate' played out many a time on SOL
