The culture of intolerance that has grown over time in the UK has undermined the ethos of British schools. As Islamist zealots grow stronger in influence in our society, a number of schools known for their secular, inclusiveness and apolitical approach, such as St Stephen’s Primary School, Parkfield Community School, Batley Grammar School, Kettlethorpe High School, and Barclay Primary School, have been caving into their demands one after the other.

There has been an attempt by Muslim fundamentalists in the UK to politicise educational institutions, in order to gain clout in social and political sphere.  And now these nefarious elements have come out in force to assert their intolerant beliefs under the pretext of religious freedom. They use religious identity and political grievances to subvert the secular democratic system. Unfortunately, innocent school children seem to have become pawns in their hands.

What happened outside the gates of Barclay Primary School in East London late last year illustrates this state of affairs. As reported in the Telegraph, children and parents had been in conflict with the school over its policy of being ‘apolitical’ and monitoring comments in parents’ WhatsApp groups, as well as not allowing the children to wear pro-Palestinian clothing. In December, the school was forced to close early for Christmas by a pro-Palestine protest in support of a boy who arrived at the school wearing a Palestine badge on his coat and refused to take it off. The boy’s mother was from Gaza; his father accused the school of ‘Islamophobia’. Yet neither parents nor protesters seem to have acknowledged the school’s interest in avoiding extremism and safeguarding for all students – or its claims that staff and the school itself had been threatened by ‘malicious fabrications’ and ‘misinformation’. Since then, the school has received threats of violence, arson and a bomb threat.

Given this toxic situation, it was only a matter of time before the Michaela Community School in north London was added to the list of schools singled out for their secular principles and inclusiveness.

Michaela was founded by headmistress Katharine Birbalsingh in 2014. The school, known for its outstanding academic results, is facing a lawsuit for maintaining its longstanding secular character by banning prayers. It is a sad state of affairs that a school known for its excellence has become the target of unfounded charges of prejudice. Among certain religious zealots, particularly Islamists at present, the attitude seems to be that those who defy their dictates must be punished pour encourager les autres.

The manner in which the Michaela case has been framed, with the accusations of victimisation and discrimination against Muslim pupils, demonstrates that Islamists will stop at nothing to bully people into compliance. They use the language of human rights to assert their supremacist beliefs. They attempt to use English legislation pertaining to religious freedom as leverage to force the schools to comply with their requests.

The issue of discipline within the school premises has now turned into a question of whether Muslims have the freedom to practise their religion on their terms. The Muslim author of an article recently published in the Guardian, Nadeine Asbali, castigated Birbalsingh’s supposedly ‘dystopian, sinister vision of multiculturalism’.

But this was not merely a case of students offering prayer in the school. As reported in The Standard, Birbalsingh said that her decision came against a ‘backdrop of events including violence, intimidation and appalling racial harassment of our teachers’. At one point a brick was even hurled through a teacher’s window. There was also allegedly intimidation of some Muslim pupils by others. The Muslim pupil who sued the school was reportedly suspended for five days in 2023 for threatening to stab another pupil. This suggests that children were being influenced by an extreme Islamist ideology, which cannot but harm the wellbeing of the whole school. Birbalsingh’s intervention was arguably a matter of safeguarding, as well as of fostering inclusion and cohesion among the student body.

Concerningly, the threat posed by religious extremists remains present and has often gone unnoticed. The Commission for Countering Extremism has reportedly revealed that research on radical groups is ‘skewed’ towards the far right. Consequently, Britain has ‘substantial gaps’ in its understanding of Islamist extremism, which has been ‘systemically under-researched’. The CCE also warned that Islamist radicals are attempting to dissuade researchers from writing about them by threatening legal action. This is just like the lawsuit being pursued by the unnamed Michaela student against her school: she may claim that the ban on prayer is discriminatory, but in fact, she, or whoever it might be speculated is behind her, is arguably attempting to exploit human rights law to enforce the sowing of division in the school, against the better judgement of its headmistress.

A highly polarised society where differences are valued more than similarities is a breeding ground for extremists. Parallel legal and educational systems based on extremist religious beliefs are operating in plain sight, contributing to further division in society. Disproportionate emphasis on religious freedoms has given minority ethnic or religious groups too much leeway to live according to their own cultural and religious norms, in disregard of the law, human rights principles and British values. Unfortunately, the main culprits at present are the Islamists.

The Michaela lawsuit and the threats and violence out of which it comes ought to be a wake-up call for progressives. They should acknowledge the perils of being in denial about the threats which Islamist extremism poses to the sort of peace, fair treatment and mutual harmony which are encouraged by a code of school rules that is universally applied, with no exceptions. In a modern secular society, it is surely in everyone’s interests if religion, like politics, is kept out of the classroom.

Asbali argues that the Michaela School prayer ban implies ‘the bleak and frankly insulting assumption that, in order for all of us to live harmoniously, we must become robots with no beliefs or ideas of our own’. But this arguably misrepresents the case. It is not a question of what pupils believe – that is, of course, their own business, as Birbalsingh would surely allow. It is a question of their public actions while in school, where a multitude of different considerations may apply, and headteachers must not be unduly shackled by religious demands.

Freedom of belief is one thing – but freedom of manifesting a belief is another. Article 9, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself makes this plain, stipulating that ‘Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society’ for various reasons, including to protect ‘public safety’ and ‘the rights and freedoms of others.’

It may also be that, as Asbali says, some Muslims believe that the five-times daily prayer ritual ‘will be one of the first things we will be questioned about by God after we die.’ However, is at least questionable whether children are obliged to fulfil this ritual. More fundamentally, it is open to debate whether points of religious doctrine like this one, which are based on nothing but ancient traditional authority and faith with no evidence, should be allowed to take precedence over concerns for the wellbeing of a mixed group of children in the here and now.

The Michaela case is but the latest in a string of incidents at schools in the UK to pose the question of how far religious exceptionalism should be allowed to interfere with the good running of a school and the wellbeing of its whole community. The High Court will have to decide whether Birbalsingh’s policies have struck the balance fairly. In the meantime, the question remains how many other schools and headteachers will have the bravery and tenacity to stand up against the threats of litigation, or worse, from religious extremists. As things stand now, the storm of threats looks to be a long way from abating.

Enjoy this article? Subscribe to our free fortnightly newsletter for the latest updates on free thought. If you can, please donate to support our work into the future.

The post The Michaela School and religious exceptionalism appeared first on The Freethinker.

A 16 year old girl, Armita Geravand, is one of the latest victims of the Iranian regime’s oppressive hijab laws. She was assaulted by the so-called morality police for not wearing a hijab. After going into a coma, she died in custody on 28 October.

The images of Armita Geravand in a coma are terrifying and disturbingly similar to those of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was killed by Iran’s ‘morality police’ for donning an ‘improper’ hijab.

According to reports, Mahsa Amini was tortured in the back of a police van. She died after suffering significant head injuries during this abuse. She became a global symbol of resistance to religious orthodoxy, and many people are determined to say her name in protest against the sexism and misogyny that is condoned by religious doctrine.

Tragically, the first anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death has been marked by the death of another young woman in similar circumstances. This shows that there is still a long way to go in the struggle against the imposition of the hijab on women regardless of their views – both in Iran and elsewhere.

Some people, however, have chosen to actually ‘celebrate’ the hijab, rather than the brave women who have refused to wear it and in some cases died for their refusal.

In Smethwick, Birmingham, a 16-foot-tall steel statue depicting a woman wearing a hijab has been constructed and was due to be installed last month. The title, The Strength of the Hijab, which is written on a tablet at the statue’s base, is a betrayal of the brave women who refused to wear this restrictive clothing and were destroyed by their own resoluteness and dignity. Ironically, the statue that arguably celebrates a symbol of women’s submission to men was designed by a man, the sculptor Luke Perry. Perry said that he had drawn inspiration from ‘speaking to Muslim women’; according to his Instagram page, his ‘work is often about under-represented people’.

Underneath the title of the piece is the platitudinous statement, ‘It is a woman’s right to be loved and respected whatever she chooses to wear. Her true strength is in her heart and mind.’ This statement, superficially appealing but fundamentally vacuous, fails to acknowledge the utter lack of ‘love and respect’ shown towards so many Muslim women around the world, whether in forcing them to cover their hair or in persecuting them when they say ‘no’.

Regardless of the intentions of Perry and Legacy West Midlands, the charity that commissioned the statue, this ‘celebration’ of the hijab unfortunately cannot help but remind viewers of the utter indifference and lack of humanity that is prevalent in the authoritarian, brutal Islamic regimes where millions of women are forced to wear it.

Of course, in Britain, some Muslim women wear the hijab as a matter of personal choice and freedom of conscience. As long as this does not impinge on the rights of others, they should be free to do so, their choice should be respected, and they should not be discriminated against.

This does not mean, however, that the hijab as a symbol should not be open to criticism. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, Islamic governments routinely violate the rights of women who break ‘modesty’ regulations, subjecting them to imprisonment and harsh penalties.

Altogether, given the connotations of theocracy and violence against women which the hijab has in contexts around the world where it is not freely chosen, you might have thought that its presence was hardly something to be celebrated.

Moreover, the mere assumption that the hijab represents all Muslim women lends credence to the orthodox assertion that women who refuse to wear it are violating divine morality laws. This may embolden religious zealots who are already hell-bent on subjugating women in the name of religious modesty. Even in Western countries, women are regularly shamed, ostracised, tortured and in some cases even killed for not complying with this restrictive clothing regime.

Not long ago, a 17 year old Muslim girl was caught on camera twerking while wearing the hijab in a busy city centre in Birmingham. The video went viral on social media, drawing harsh reactions from certain members of the Muslim community. As reported by the Mail, she was called a ‘f****** s***.’ ‘Stupid b**** needs to be killed,’ another wrote. She received death threats. Apparently, it was not her dancing that landed her in this situation. Rather, she was abused and humiliated for dancing while wearing the hijab. She was forced to apologise publicly for ‘disrespecting’ it.

The brutal killing of Banaz Mahmod still evokes horrifying images in the mind. Born and raised in a highly conservative Muslim family, she was strangled to death by her father and uncle because she disobeyed the traditional teachings of Islam and tried to escape from an arranged marriage. Liberation from what are arguably cultish ideas was viewed by her relatives as a shameful deed that would bring disgrace on the family. She was strangled and her body was buried in a suitcase in Handsworth, Birmingham.

The problem is that these women who suffer in silence are often ignored in conversations about hijab culture. The dominant narrative on social and political issues has been dominated by religious fanatics. These fanatics self-identify as the guardians of religion, and somehow they have gained recognition as the representatives of their communities.

It is a dismal reality that religious zealots enjoy a privileged status in the UK. They exploit this position to bully individuals into compliance without facing any opposition from both inside and outside the community. They shield themselves from criticism by claiming the right to freedom of religion.

A new report by the conservative think tank Policy Exchange, The Symbolic Power of the Veil, has revealed how Islamists have been permitted to dominate the debate about the religious dress code in the United Kingdom and abroad.

The report makes five policy recommendations. Most significantly, it advises that ‘the government should resist any definition of Islamophobia that inhibits the public criticism of religious practices and traditions, including dress codes.’ It also recommends that ‘the government should refrain from publicly endorsing or promoting any specific religious attire, including events such as World Hijab Day.’

As reported in the Independent, the Labour MP Khalid Mahmood supported the key findings and recommendations in the Policy Exchange report. He pointed out that ‘the wearing of the hijab clearly does not represent all Muslim women. And it is grossly insensitive to those Muslim women in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere who are compelled against their wishes to wear the hijab to declare that it does.’

The introduction to the report highlights ‘the importance of resisting factitious accusations of “Islamophobia” too often made by Islamists against those who campaign for the human rights and freedoms of people living under oppressive regimes.’ As it rightly observes, ‘in too many societies, the control of women’s bodies through religiously-sanctioned restrictions, including those relating to clothing, [is] a key tool of oppression.’

The findings of the report, in particular the way that accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ are being weaponised to suppress debate about women’s dress codes, should be a wake-up call for legislators and administrators. Sadly, for far too long, Islamist organisations that support restricting women’s freedoms in the guise of religious modesty have dominated the conversation on their religious attire. It is a sad fact that the authorities have long been ignorant of these issues, which remain some of the most pressing in British society today.

The authorities often seem oblivious to the fact that the normalisation of religious fanaticism further marginalises already marginalised groups in society – such as women in minority communities. Such fanaticism, and its tolerance, cannot but erode the liberal, secular and democratic principles on which British laws and customs are to a large extent predicated.

It is time to talk about truly ‘inclusive’ human rights which protect everyone, instead of pandering to divisive religious preaching. The misogyny of religious fundamentalists who overtly or covertly impose dress codes on the women and girls in their sphere of influence must be resisted, not appeased.

The presumption that all religious and cultural beliefs, no matter what their content, are entirely beneficial forces that should be accommodated at all costs, and celebrated rather than criticised, needs to be debunked.

It would be wise for Legacy West Midlands to reconsider the decision that led to the commissioning of this statue. Women should be honoured for who they are, not for what they wear. They should not be forced to carry the symbolic burden of any faith or culture. Reverence for a culture should not be used as a justification for ‘celebrating’ religious and cultural ideas that conflict with human rights.

Enjoy this article? Subscribe to our free fortnightly newsletter for the latest updates on free thought. Or make a donation to support our work into the future.

The post The hijab is the wrong symbol to represent women appeared first on The Freethinker.

The series of plastic dolls made by Mattel has made the headlines again through the recent Barbie film. Yet the Barbie brand has long been criticised for promoting an unrealistic and unattainable image of what a woman should look like. In Barbie’s world, a woman can be anything she wants – as long as she looks perfect. While this may seem like a paradise for young girls, it has created a living hell for many women in the real world. Unfortunately, these beauty standards are not only unattainable for most women, they also make a mockery of those who struggle to survive in a still largely male-dominated world.

In 2017, a Barbie in hijab was designed to celebrate US Olympic Medalist Ibtihaj Muhammad’s achievements. This doll was part of Mattel’s ‘Sheroes’ series. Mattel portrayed this doll as serving as an ‘inspiration for countless little girls who never saw themselves represented in sports and culture.’ It was wholeheartedly welcomed and the hijab-wearing doll soon became a sign of inclusion and diversity.

However, as pointed out by the New York Post, the hijab-wearing doll does not tell the story of a little Ibtihaj Muhammad who chose the sport of fencing for herself. It was her mother who decided that fencing was the best sport for her daughter, because it was the only sport in which athletes could wear a uniform covering their entire body. And Ibtihaj was required to honour her parents’ religion and culture, regardless of what her own inclinations might have been.

Thus the hijab-clad Barbie appeared to be more of a marketing tool for retrograde clothing like the hijab for kids than it did a celebration of a free-spirited girl with great aspirations. 

Wearing the veil as a religious obligation is a controversial subject within Muslim communities around the world. Many renowned Muslim scholars disagree with veiling being adopted or presented as a religious obligation. 

Making children wear hijab is not even a religious requirement. It stems predominantly from fundamentalists’ perception of piety, which is imposed on women and girls under immense social and political pressure. This misogynistic ideology absolves men of mistreating women and puts the onus on the victim to use the veil as a means of guarding herself against unwanted advances. The primary goal of covering young girls from an early age is to introduce them to the culture of ‘modesty’ and force them to adopt a strict and unyielding way of life. They have little choice but to fall in with these arbitrary religious and cultural norms.

In such circumstances, when powerful businesses like Mattel promote hijab-wearing in the name of cultural relativism, this ploy serves as nothing more than a marketing strategy tool designed to placate religious fundamentalists, rather than to empower the women who suffer discrimination at their hands.

Furthermore, when corporations like Mattel choose the hijab as a symbol of Muslim women, they support a stereotyped idea of what it means to be a Muslim. This approach delegitimises the worries and suffering of women who reject the hijab and are chastised for doing so.

In addition, the choice of the hijab runs counter to the reality of women in Muslim-majority countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, where women are protesting against the hijab and turning to the streets to demand their fundamental human rights. The hijab is being used as a tactic by the brutal Taliban regime and the theocratic government of Iran to oppress women and girls. Women are tortured and imprisoned for not wearing hijabs, and girls have been prohibited from entering the school gates.

It is thus highly inappropriate for corporations such as Mattel to peddle the hijab – a symbol of oppression – as an inspiration for Muslim girls. They sell an imagined feeling of freedom, a fictitious sense of independence, to Muslim girls who often have no choice but to comply.

It is concerning that such capitalist firms have gained power to redefine what social justice means by marketing symbolic goods which serve no purpose other than to tick the diversity box, while doing little to improve the social and political standing of women. Such exaggerated assertions about women’s rights and diversity convey the ideologically motivated message that ‘all is well’. This could not be farther from the truth.

Such progressive tokenism often does more harm than good. It distracts people from addressing concerns and adopting measures that would actually help to protect women.

The Barbie doll has arguably been used to perpetuate a variety of misogynistic attitudes for years. At least until relatively recently, many of its models depicted women as flawless sexual objects – even when they had careers.

Mattel has never given a satisfactory response to these criticisms, but instead has laid the blame elsewhere. In 2014, Mattel’s lead designer for Barbie, Kim Culmone, said that mothers, not dolls, are to blame for girls’ body issues. ‘Barbie’s body was never designed to be realistic,’ she reportedly said, ‘she was designed for girls to easily dress and undress.’

It is all the more perplexing to find the same Barbie being portrayed as an embodiment of feminism in Greta Gerwig’s new Barbie movie. While Gerwig and her partner Noah Baumbach reportedly had creative freedom in writing the script, Mattel was involved as co-producer.

The movie has managed to capture the attention of people who probably grew up playing with Mattel’s dolls, or knew someone who did. Many commenters have defended Barbie’s fictional struggle as an act of feminism and seem to think that opposing Barbie is the same as endorsing the patriarchy.

The film’s idea of making Barbie develop self-awareness and anxiety, along with physical changes like flat feet and ‘thoughts of death’, is intriguing. However, after venturing into the ‘real world’ of the movie, its heroine feels starts sexualised and objectified. This is perhaps rather an obvious plot development. At the same time, calling Barbie a ‘fascist’, as Gerwig has another female character do, makes her appear gullible and foolish.

The Barbie film presents its protagonist as a feminist icon. Yet it does not deal with the fundamental problem of Barbie’s instrumentalisation by a culture that was, and in many ways still is, structually misogynistic. According to one recent study, playing with a Barbie doll may have a range of negative impacts on women and girls, such as reduced self-esteem and a desire for a slimmer body. 

There is a clear significance in the film’s attempt to engage a younger audience in discussions about the struggle for women’s rights. However, it seems disingenuous to use the figure of Barbie, with her pink lipstick, matching clothes and perfect waistline, to raise awareness about these struggles. The movie comes across as a deliberate effort to reintroduce the Barbie brand with fresh traits like morality and self-realisation in a bid to clear Mattel of all criticism, pay lip service to 2020s feminism – and advertise new Barbie dolls.

It is questionable, to say the least, whether companies like Mattel are in the business of empowering women. Whatever the movie may suggest, toys like the Barbie doll surely continue to commodify girls and are designed to encourage them to be nothing but consumers of a cheap ideal of themselves.

Whether you take the Barbie movie or Mattel’s series of Sheroes, everything revolves around the Barbie brand. It seems like a cynical joke to promote this brand as a symbol of feminism and the struggle against the patriarchy. Corporations like Mattel should give up their apparent attempts to whitewash the subjugation of women – whether through Islamic dress codes or unrealistic body images.

It’s time to put the doll back in the box and let the world be inspired by real women.

Enjoy this article? Subscribe to our free fortnightly newsletter for the latest updates on freethought. Or make a donation to support our work into the future.

The post Hijab or hairdo, it’s time to put Barbie back in the box appeared first on The Freethinker.

Moreover, with the widespread use of the internet as a propaganda tool, the number of channels through which young people can be radicalised and recruited to commit crimes has multiplied. Extremists today use social media to perpetuate myths about their religious and political supremacy.

It is no coincidence that ISIS managed to recruit thousands of young men and women beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq. They brainwashed people through online speeches and videos based on distorted realities. Extremist propaganda material remains available online and offline, and extremists use it to radicalise people.

In 2020, the national coordinator for the Prevent counterextremism programme, Chief Superintendent Nik Adams, warned that young and vulnerable people, including those with mental health issues, were being exploited. In his view, as reported in the Independent, ‘terrorists who “self-radicalise” using online material are a now a greater threat to the UK than those directed by Isis.’

Such a situation requires frontline efforts to counter both online and offline threats of radicalisation. The UK Government’s 2011 counter terrorism strategy, ’Prevent‘, was designed to stop people from being drawn into radical Islamic and far-right extremism alike through dialogue and rehabilitation efforts.

The objectives of Prevent included the need to ‘respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism’ and its promoters; to ‘prevent people being drawn into terrorism’ and give those who were affected ‘advice and support’; and to ‘work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation’ (3.21).

However, Prevent faced strong resistance in certain quarters, including from some British Muslim individuals and organisations. For instance, in 2015, the former chief superintenant with the Metropolitan police, Dal Babu, said that that ‘most Muslims are suspicious of the scheme and see it as a tool to spy on them,’ according to a report in the Guardian. For Babu, Prevent had become a ‘toxic brand’.

In a joint letter to the Guardian in 2016, a group of around 380 academics, lawyers, students and others argued that Prevent ‘damages the fabric of trust in our society, silences Muslims and dissent, and institutionalises Islamophobia at a time when the far-right is gaining influence in many parts of Europe.’ But this analysis was arguably wrong, because it does not represent the ground realities.

The former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal, a British Muslim who lives in Birmingham, has been a strong supporter of Prevent. He argued in an interview with The Times in 2017 that ‘Prevent is simply safeguarding… It’s not about criminalising. It has done phenomenally good work. It’s stopped at least 150 people from going to Syria, 50 of them children.’

As reported in another Times article from 2017, Afzal warned that there was an ‘”industry” of Muslim groups’, such as Cage and Prevent Watch, which were ‘spreading misinformation about the Prevent strategy.’ According to the same article, ‘Critics have called the organisation [Cage] apologists for terror.’ [The article is currently the subject of a legal complaint from MEND, which has itself been accused of promoting Islamism – Ed.]

Altogether, it seems next to impossible to reach a consensus on how to use Prevent so as to effectively deal with the radicalisation of young and vulnerable Muslims. For now, they remain at risk.

Clearly Prevent is no silver bullet. It needs to be constructively revisited, scrutinised and reformed from time to time like any other policy. However, scrapping a policy based on mere assumptions and unfounded fears is arguably short-sighted, especially when the threat posed by Islamist ideology remains alarming in the UK. In 2021, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said in his annual threat update that ‘alongside all the focus rightly being given to State Threats, Islamist Extremist Terrorism remains a potent, shape-shifting threat.’

The extremist ideology does not need a territory to establish its dominion. The Islamic state might have fallen in Syria, but there are still individuals in the UK and abroad who are deeply influenced by their radical religious ideology and who remain loyal to the cause of establishing a Caliphate. This increases the threat of individual radicalisation.

According to Matt Jukes, Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police and Head of their Counter-Terrorism Policing Unit, ‘while some recent attacks have been carried out by asylum seekers, the majority of the terrorist threat to the UK is home-grown, and posed by British-born extremists.’ This demonstrates the urgent need to address religious radicalisation within the country.

Narratives such as the idea of ‘western imperialism’, the claim that ‘Islam is under siege’ and that ‘Western society is hostile to Islam and Muslims,’ are relentlessly peddled by radical preachers. Their aim is to alienate vulnerable young Muslims and push them down the path of violence and revenge. Such preachers also advance conspiracy theories, including the influence of the Jews over international media, and advocate wife-beating and the ideology of the ‘jihad against the infidel West.’

One Muslim cleric, Abubaker Deghayes, while addressing the congregation of a mosque in Brighton, is reported as saying, ‘Jihad by fighting by sword, this jihad is compulsory upon you.’ Following a trial at the Old Bailey, he was recently convicted of encouraging terrorism.

In January 2022, Malik Faisal Akram, a British national, reportedly took four Jewish people hostage at a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, in a bid to secure the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a convicted terrorist. The incident was described by US President Joe Biden as ‘an act of terror,’ and by UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss as ‘an act of terrorism and anti-Semitism.’ However, mere condemnations are not enough. What is needed is for society to address the crucial question of what drew Akram to commit this crime in the first place.

Akram was not an isolated fan of Siddiqui, or merely an anti-Semite who travelled to the United States from the UK to witness Siddiqui’s glorious release. Rather, his actions were motivated by religious devotion: his last conversation with his brother in the UK, in which he ‘promised’ that he would ‘go down a martyr,’ demonstrates that he was a product of the same toxic rhetoric that manipulates religious discourse to gain leverage and influence. His case illustrates the way in which Islamist radicalisation is not only divorced from reason, but also lacks compassion and empathy towards fellow human beings who happen not to be Muslims.

Impressionable young people who listen to radical preachers may grow up to distrust their fellow citizens and governments. Some disturbing examples of this phenomenon have been uncovered by Ed Husain, a former radicalised Muslim. Husain, who is now an author, political advisor, and Professor at the Walsh School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University, presented these findings in Among the Mosques: A Journey Across Muslim Britain, published by Bloomsbury in June 2021.

Husain shows how mosques in the UK are exerting control over Muslim-dominated areas such Bolton, Dewsbury, Bradford, Birmingham, and Blackburn. In these areas, a Taliban-like lifestyle is widely followed by orthodox Muslims. According to Husain, nearly 50 per cent of the mosques in the UK are controlled by the Deobandis – the radical Islamist sect which has inspired and created terror organisations such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Concerns about the radicalisation taking place in certain British mosques and madrassas have been raised in the past. But because there is such sensitivity around multiculturalism and relations between Muslims and the rest of British society, these concerns have often been overlooked or dismissed. More moderate or pluralist Muslims, such as Qanta Ahmed, have found themselves being criticised for ‘speak[ing] up against political Islam’ by organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, which Ahmed describes as ‘highly politicised’.

Back in 2015, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, announced a crackdown on madrassas attached to mosques in a speech to the annual Conservative party conference. According to a report in the Guardian, Cameron claimed that ‘pupils in some madrasas were taught not to mix with children from other religions, were beaten, and fed conspiracy theories about Jewish people.’

Cameron’s announcement prompted outrage among so-called representatives of the Muslim communities. Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the Crown Hills madrassa in Leicester, for example, said that the proposal to register madrassas and require them to be inspected by Ofsted would be ‘seen as once again picking on the Muslim community because of the actions of the few,’ according to the Guardian.

Extremist ideologies have not gone away. In 2021, the Manchester Arena Inquiry held an evidence session into the conduct of Didsbury Mosque, which had been attended by Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber responsible for the deaths of twenty-two and the injury of many more on 22 May 2017. The chairman of Didsbury Mosque, Fawzi Haffar, ‘denied that the mosque…had issues with extremism’, according to a National Secular Society report.

However, in a statement issued by their solicitors, the families of the victims reproached Haffar for his ‘complacency’, responding that, ‘Whilst there is no evidence that Manchester Islamic Centre and Didsbury Mosque played a direct role in radicalising Salman Abedi, it is clear that they failed in the years before the bombing to take adequate steps to challenge extremist ideology.’

As reported on the BBC, the same inquiry was also informed that a ‘significant’ amount of extremist material supporting the Islamic State was found in the possession of Salman Abedi’s elder brother, Ismail, when he was a teacher at Didsbury Mosque, ‘including music encouraging suicide missions.’ A former imam, Mohammed El-Saeiti, had given a ‘sermon speaking out against terrorism and Islamic extremism at the mosque’ while Salman Abedi was there, according to the Manchester Evening News. He subsequently ‘received death threats on social media over his address.’ His evidence was disputed by the mosque.

The glorification of jihad through religious sermons as a way of inciting gullible young people to violence remains a matter of concern not just in the UK but across Europe. In France, for instance, three mosques were recently shut for varying periods because of charges including the spreading of Islamist propaganda and anti-Semitic remarks. In late 2021 the interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, also announced a crackdown on 76 mosques suspected of being ‘breeding grounds of terrorism.’

In Austria, after an Islamist killed four people in a deadly attack in Vienna in 2020, the authorities have been taking steps to fight ‘political Islam’. Some have criticised these as likely to marginalise Muslim civil society: as with Prevent, finding an approach that will gain general acceptance is fiendishly difficult.  

Religious beliefs can be a force for good or bad. On the bad side, they can be used to brainwash vulnerable people and drag them down to the path of violence in the name of defending their faith.

What is urgently needed in Britain in 2022 is an honest and transparent debate among public authorities, the media and other relevant parties about Islamist radicalism and how best to counter it. Adopting a strategy of appeasement to avoid seemingly unpleasant situations only encourages extremists to continue spreading their invidious ideology. It also increases the possibility of more situations like the Batley Grammar case, in which an RS teacher was suspended by his school, in response to pressure from an angry mob of protesters, for showing ‘blasphemous’ cartoons in the classroom.

In the long term, appeasing religious extremists will not lead to greater harmony and integration between people of different cultures and beliefs, who have to learn to live together somehow. This is because Islamist extremism, just like far right nationalism, seeks to drive a wedge between different ‘identities’ and exploit people’s fear of reprisal.

The problem is that failing to intervene in minority communities, including Britain’s Muslim communities, out of a mistaken notion of tolerance, will harm those who most need protecting – the young and the vulnerable.

Enjoy this article? Subscribe to our free fortnightly newsletter for the latest updates on freethought.

The post The radicalisation of young Muslims in the UK: an ongoing problem? appeared first on The Freethinker.