Trying to divine the exact path to extremism that Muslims may follow – paths that may or may not lead to terrorism – is like trying to follow the path of water from the clouds to the ocean. We know where some terrorists came from and where they ended up. But that's about it.

A recent miniseries on British television, Britz, highlighted shadowy groups operating on university campuses. Extremist imams such as Abu Hamza al Masri have been tabloid fodder for years, though many have been detained or deported. The Internet is often cited, as Britain's Community Secretary Hazel Blears did this week (though without specifics). But, as MI5 chief Jonathan Evans also pointed out recently, the number of Muslims under surveillance has increased to over 2,000. Something is sticking, but what?

That something is the written word, books and pamphlets that can often subvert cyber-monitoring and public debate in a tangible way. A recent study by the right wing Policy Exchange think tank alleges that books containing extremist statements were found in about 25% of British mosques, including two of its most high profile ones, the East London Mosque and the London Central Mosque in Regent's Park (PDF).

It's not the first time such allegations have been made. Earlier findings of literature have focused on material stumbled upon in dark corners of independent shops in quiet neighbourhoods, or the pamphlets accompanying firebrand preachers on their roaming tours. In this case, however, the claims are more specific and more damning in their inference. This time, mosques, stores, authors, and publishers are outlined in detail, with much of it stemming from a prolific and well-financed Saudi Arabian connections.

Independent Muslim analysts have noted that the Saudi influence may be overstated, with a spiritually low profile kept since the Saudi origins of September 11th were pointed out. Spiritual motivations have since been superseded by political ones, particularly over the Iraq war. And the irrational scrutiny from groups like Policy Exchange, the British government and police services do smack of a witch hunt, ensnaring – as many American domestic initiatives have – many peaceable Muslims and mosques who would have otherwise agreed with the concerns.

But advocacy groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain have focused attention on other aspects that don't settle as well. Representatives have claimed a legal right to sell such material if it is not against the law (Policy Exchange says that some cases may be forthcoming). They note that many of the bookstores, although within mosque grounds, are independently run and impossible to monitor. As for the words themselves, they may be acknowledged as offensive on personal levels or merely for historical interest. But this offence is otherwise dismissed. Even the most comprehensive critiques of the report don't explain them, which is what a now curious public (Muslims included) wants.

This legalistic approach to the controversy, while technically correct, brings its own contradictions. During the Danish cartoon crisis, the common refrain from Muslims in the West was less legalistic than moralistic. That is, while it may be legally permissible to publish material offensive to Muslims (though to many, even this was debatable), the plea for respect was based on moral grounds – that sincere Muslims deserved protection from gratuitous offence. Without the extreme response to the cartoons by a minority of Muslims around the world, this approach may have borne some fruit.

But by adopting a legalistic response to a crisis that is easily seen as a mirror of the Danish one, a case can be made for employing double standards. Muslims should have seen this coming. A resistance to addressing shortcomings pointed out by those hostile to us is understandable. It is also immature and short sighted. Regardless of the source, the words and books are out there. Merely pointing out agendas won't win the argument.

Do British Muslims agree with the alleged pronouncements on apostasy, women, jihad, and non-Muslims? What are the parameters of morality on key issues as British Muslims see it – and what is beyond the pale? Couldn't a "best practice" guide for mosque publications be developed - even if not enforceable - to represent a moral consensus? Facilitating public discussions and clear answers to these (and to questions not yet asked) should not be an onerous task for any umbrella organisation worthy of the name.

Without an effective response to an issue that will undoubtedly resurface, the debate will continue to be seen by silent (and peaceful) majorities on both sides as more political grandstanding. Ultimately, Muslims will have to determine their own moral framework for Islamic issues – whether in books, mosques, or in their own culture – before defending them on legal grounds. And before other groups hostile to Muslims exploit the absence of this for political reasons, Muslims should fill the vacuum for the benefit of their communities and religion.

Making sense of the myriad paths to extremism may continue to remain difficult for Muslims or anyone else. But effectively ruling out the ones we can identify - while marginalising our critics in the process - shouldn't be.

Sorry, but I think you have really REALLY got it wrong here. This is a dreadful piece of research carried by someone who is not really qualified to undertake sociological research, but certainly has a history of being a friend of the political right. What is included as "hate" literature borders on the preposterous - some of it can be purchased in Waterstones. Evangelical Christian bookshops certainly carry materials that would be just as offensive to gays and non-believers.

There are a raft of questions that have been posed by academics in the UK - including the ethics of how literature was obtained, its accesibility to readers, possible reader responses, how many people using the facility had sufficient Arabic to access the materials (since much of it was in Arabic) and so forth.

The only thing Muslims should be reflecting on it how to better shoot down this kind of quasi-scholarship which aims to marginalise those Muslim groups opposed to the UK government's foreign policy.

Here in the U.S., there is a bill under consideration in Congress entitled H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.


The text is available at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955.

My guess is that, should this commission be formed, every neocon professor who can't find a job teaching will be nominated. Not to worry about civil rights violations, since:

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

Zahed, I agree with you that people responsible for masajid should review their materials in the light of this increased scrutiny. Really, we should be motivated to do it out of fear that we are distorting Islam. But, as is the case with most things, we humans fear the boot of the state more than we fear God. While the points Yakoub makes have some validity, should not masajid have higher standards than commercial and evangelical Christian bookstores which carry similar materials? The other points Yakob makes are just statements justifying poor management.

1. Most literature is obtained because somebody leaves town, does not want to carry his/her personal library, and "donates" it to the masjid. Or some other similar haphazard process.

2. If nobody has access to the materials, what's the point of keeping it around? It should be thrown out if nobody is using it.

3. Why should materials be there in languages people don't understand? I assume most books are in Urdu, Arabic and English. Each community should have some trustworthy person who is fluent and knowledgeable review all of these materials. If a community has literature in a language nobody uses, reference point 2.

>> Why should materials be there in languages people don't understand? I assume most books are in Urdu, Arabic and English.

We read Quraan and don't necessarily understand it well. Most of us are more devoted to the Arabic Quraan than a meaningful English translation... I'm making a generalisation to make a point. That is if people deem the literature to be religious, then they find it deserving of being read and respected. Copy over some Quraanic Ayahs, some random Hadeeth, a couple of quotes from ilm-e-blablabla .. and presto .. instant sanctimony. A sanctimony with a very willing Muslim audience. You know what I mean?

The MCB representative Zahed refers to is Inayat Bunglawala, whom Zahed implies, has contradictions in his (and others) legalistic approach, namely double standards when being offended by others. Danish cartoons is the case in point.

Its important that in an otherwise thoughtful piece, you do not misrepresent people:

1. Inayat said in the Al-Jazeera interview Zahed links to that, even though he adopted the legalistic approach, mosques must exercise vigiliance in ensuring inflammatory material is limited

2. Inayat has defended the right to offend from all fronts,

here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/06/freedom_to_offend.html

and here

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/06/not_surprisingly_the_awarding.html

I have found in my own masjid, on numerous occassions, literature that I personally found very offensive. Most of it mysoginistic interpetations of fiqh and hadeeth that were very derogatory towards women and sometimes non-Muslims. Sometimes I think there will have to be a wake up call of some kind before the majority of moderate Muslims realize that they will have to actually "speak out" against those in their own community who want to impose their own misguided, distasteful versions of Islam.

Disha, as you're probably aware, Inayat's views on Comment is Free are his own and don't necessarily represent the MCB (he states this explicitly). He is right to defend the freedom to offend. That the MCB officially doesn't share his view is the problem.

The contention that the MCB has no influence over it's own members is, frankly, disingenuous. That argument, as a response to this issue, will only discourage people, including Muslims, from feeling that the MCB is capable of doing more than organising committees and press releases. If they can't constructively influence their members, frankly, what good are they?

This is not about Inayat (which is why I didn't mention by name). It's about a particular decision/response made by the MCB, which undoubtedly has scores of well-meaning people regardless.

Zahed, thanks. I'm glad you recognise that MCB has well-meaning people, and, as its a broad church, it doesn't always get it right.

OK, so you say Inayat's CiF blogs are his own, yet you still do link to his interview in Al-Jazeera, persumably because the hat he is wearing there is of an MCB rep. In which case, part of my comment stands: in that interview he spoke of MCB's call on affiliated groups to exercise responsibility (see the end of the interview).

The problem is that MCB is a fragile, democratic coalition of Sunni and Shia groups (detractors fail to mention this) and decisions are made bottom up, not top down.

I think the point that will be reached here is that if Masjids are being used by different people of different backgrounds, then Masjids should endeavour to remain politically neutral. The masjid could be used to entrench some sort of practical community service based agenda instead of politicising Islamic civil society groups.

I must say that I can't believe what Im hearing. How can one change what the Qu'ran says or the Sunnah of the Prophet S.A.W. Doing such action is like becoming a Jew or a Christian. They have changed their religion to fit their own needs and in turn sold their pleasures of the hereafter for the pleasures of this world. Who ever changes even the smallest detail about the Qur'an has made the statement that he is above God, Subhanallaah, how can one be above Him who created a being such as you. Your religion should not suite you, you should suite you religion. If you do not want to follow Islam one has a choice to denounce and send the rest of eternity in the pits of the Hell-Fire. The Jews tried to Kill our Prophet by smashing a bolder on top of his head. Our Prophet. So they have chosen to be an enemy of Islam, so you as a Muslim have to treat them as a enemy not as a friend...Oh Muslims, do not be fooled by this non-sense, who ever tries to change our religion is not from us and remember the Allah hears even the deepst secrets in our hearts.

Ghulam--You do not know what you are talking about. I don't think that you know that the Qu'ran was revealed in Arabic, therefore, there are alot of words in the Arabic lanuage that cannot be fully translated into english. When you say, "Most of us are more devoted to the Arabic Quraan than a meaningful English translation", you sound like you are not educated in your own religion. It is important that every Muslim learns the Arabic language because one cannot fully grasp the really meaning of the Qur'an and if a Muslim cannot fully comprehend his/her religion then one is easily manipulated into thinking that there is a flaw in Islam and if a Muslim thinks that Islam has a flaw then one is really not a Mulsim. So becareful about what you say about Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. for ignorence is a disease of the mind.

i think as a non-muslim who is intensely interested in islam again post 9/11, having lived and worked in islamic countries for some time now, GHULAM seems to be talking from a non-arab, ,and non-jihadi point of view.

its my observation, what GHULAM says here very likely will offend those who espouse an arab agenda for rest of muslims, rather then individual thought and initiative in understanding islam. from what i can make out, muslims may be better served in pursuing an understanding of their religion thru an educated, enlightened mind that any of you muslims can posses, should you put your mind to it.

most muslims in my country ie. US, have been very successful in what they put their minds to. ofcourse, i cannot say that for muslims in uk and europe tho. they seem to be different from american muslims.

in closing, its remarkable to me that mohammad in his 20+yrs of ministry did not leave with instructions to build a church or org to instruct and guide the 'ummah' over the ages, as the 'tableegi jamaat' and other proslytising muslim orgs purport. even tho there are detailed minutae re law&instructions;in all areas of muslim life in koran and documentation of mohammade's life's. please note, i am not criticizing your religion. just observing as a non-muslim who has read koran by abdulla yusuf ali and several commentaries of abu hanifa and bukhari online.

george

Thats where you are mistaken george. After the Prophets death S.A.W. there were a series of Khaliifas mainly four. they are the one who kept the light of islam burning after the department of the Prophet. they themselves are the street light of islam. i can safely say even though i am not a scholar that Muhammad S.A.W. is he road of Islam and the Khaliifas were the nuur(light) of that road. It is we as Muslims who strayed off that road and wound up in turmoil. Allah does not distroy a nation without that nation purposely falling in eror. What you see all over the muslim world is that muslims are getting killed or discriminated against. and that is because of our own actions that we have put forth. we have chosen to take the path of dunyaa(wordly life) instead of the path of Our beloved Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. and his companions. So to answer you comment, our Prophet did set the blue prints for not only his generation but also the ones to come until the day of Judgement by the Quran, and every aspect of his life from going to sleep to matter pertaining to marriage. May Allah guide all of us and forgive our sins for we are always in eror.

Thank your for correcting me Beware.

My question really is about current phenomena of a multi-cultural, multi-lingual muslim world very different from Mohammad's and his four Khalifa's time. They were all arab, and ruled arabs in mideast 1000yrs ago.

And I do listen to your faithful 'brethren in islam' carefully when talk is channeled towards a time/place remote and ancient from where the muslim world of multi-lingual and multi-cultural dynamics is today, to see if they have any ideas of their own in pursuing understanding of their religion by themeselves, without going back to an ancient time that had a singular arab culture, traditions and language dictating how people want to live their lives.

And an interesting thing I continue to witness which you bring to light is this throw back to arab and ancient world of Mohanmmad and the four caliphs. It seems Islam was perfectly practised. There is no knowledge, or even interest by the same faithful, many of whome are very bright, highly educated and successful in the 'world', in any other civilizations other then the muslim one that came before and after and even during Mohammad's time in rest of the world. The beauty, wisdom, sprituality, harmony, message of peace of everyone else is omitted and erased by closing their mind's eye from all other knowledge of people and places by the 'faithful' muslims today. In fact, most, but not all, muslims in my experience, can only think in derogatory terms of all other people and places. I believe that this is how they are brought up and taught at home and the ones going to school, by the curriculum in muslim countries.

In fact, I find it interesting to see that despite Mohammad being the traveller and trail blazer he was in his time, traveling and intermingling with people of christian, jewish and pagan faiths in distant places, working as a salesperson for a woman, and then marrying a woman much older then him(something unheard of in that retarded culture of those times)most 'pious and faithful' muslims I know seem to continue to abhor those two intrinsic qualities of their beloved Prophet.

george

The Jews tried to Kill our Prophet by smashing a bolder on top of his head. Our Prophet. So they have chosen to be an enemy of Islam, so you as a Muslim have to treat them as a enemy not as a friend...

this is the kind of thing that scares me-

beware, do you really believe that the qu'ran compels muslims to consider all jews as enemies?

"Those with faith, those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)"



"They are not all the same. There is a community among the People of the Book who are upright. They recite God’s Signs throughout the night, and they prostrate. They believe in God and the Last Day, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the righteous. You will not be denied the reward for any good thing you do. God knows those who guard against evil. (Qur’an, 3:113-15)"

"Among the People of the Book are some who believe in God and in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, and who are humble before God. They do not sell God’s Signs for a paltry price. Such people will have their reward with their Lord. And God is swift at reckoning. (Qur’an, 3:199)"

"We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So, compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God, and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed. (Qur’an, 5:48)"


i say this mostly for the benefit of geowash- who likely knows better-

i find that the lack of an imposed heirarchy in islam is ver wise indeed-
it has prevented it from becoming an ossified calcified mockery of its original intent-
for this reason it remains fresh and dynamic, requiring its' adherents to rediscover it each generation-

otherwise, i might have to accept ideas proposed like beware's- that muslims are commanded to treat jews or christians as enemies-
islam is not the religion of exclusion and diviseness
peace all

(i forgot why i came here to begin with)


here is the bbc expose of the PE report-
it is found on the new question about jihadists and inkjet printing- at the bottom of the page under the "here" link


http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7142200/7142296.stm?

MRS.A --
Think about what I said for a second. Those who tried to kill our Prophet are our enemies. Just as you have enemies. They, in the time of our Prophet S.A.W. broke treaties and kill many innocent Musims with their corrupted mind and hatred for all expect themselves. In our Qur'an teaches us that beware about such enemies by stating, "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah."Surah 02: Ayah 120. I know that there are some who abide by the bible and are good people but who ever doesn't believe in Muhammad S.A.W. as the last Prophet is only working towards a miraj. I am not a scholar so what im am saying is only what I have picked up here and there. Those who kill my people (Muslims) is my enemy and I will treat them as my enemy. Sometimes the hardest words to swollow is the Truth. I also would like to add my views do not represent all muslims, it is the view of only one person and that would be mine. May Allah guide us on the straight path and forgive our sins.

Thank you Beware, and Mrs. A. You speak from the heart, and I really appreciate your candid remarks.

I am here to learn about islam and I know to be a fact, today's muslims are a diverse, rich and vibrant global community with many voices and approaches towards following their religion. Most, I believe pick and chose what works for their particular upbringing, culture and traditions. I am most moved by Rumi's english translation and often refer to abdulla yusuf ali's koran commentary.

fyi, Beware, I would like to bring your attention to quotes from your holy book koran you quoted below -
'Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah."Surah 02: Ayah 120.'

There are three very interesting illuminations by way of non-mention that stand out that refute your style of thinking.

One, your holy book does not at any point promote nor espouses hatred and enemity of any jews or christians or pagans as people. It does seem to call for action in a time and place of war between muslims and christians and jews at a time when religion and tribe defined muslims, rather then a nation and state. Also, at that time muslims I believe were in so small a number as to be eliminated totally if they did not defend themselves against their enemies at that time.

The jews have been at that stage in recent times. Especially in Israel, when they stood up to arabs around them and defeated them several times. In fact, if it weren't for a UN, all that Israel conquered in war, as other countries in the past have, would belong to the conquerer and all arab enemies would have had to honor treaties they made with Israel. I believe, thats how arab conquerors in past dealt with the people they conquered.

Two, your focus on jews seem to reverberate with an arab call for action against israel by playing the religion card thru the mosques local imams and saudi wahabi funding in muslim countries, by masking arab incompetence in their defeat and pointing fingers at everyone else to blame(especially US and the west non-muslim world) except themselves.

Three, when just 4yrs ago indian hindus in india massacred 5000 muslim children, women and old men in broad daylight while the rest of arab muslim world sat and watched, not one arab mosque anywhere in the world, nor nation condemned india or hindus. In fact, most arabs who were questioned never even knew it happened. And as a side note for the pakistanis who are ready to jihad for arabs - I suggest you check UN voting record. Every arab countries especially Iraq, and then Iran and Afganistan consistently have voted against their brother-muslim pakistan in favor of India at every UN vote. As I listen to most non-arab muslim associates from pakistan, it seems they never heard of such a thing!

So, I believe all this jew and christian bashing is a phony
scheme of arabs to gather gullible muslims worldwide into supporting arab political agenda making it a religious agenda...i call it the 'arabization of islam' tho, i might say in this case many non-arab muslims are waking up to this scheme, after first hand experiences themselves or via their friends/relatives experiences with pleasure of being on receiving end of special treatment from fellow muslim arabs in KSA, and Persian Gulf countries...are finally getting to know what their arab muslim bretheren really think about them.

georwash--
I thank you for comment and insite into what is relatively your piont of view. When I talked about Jews and Christians, I did not talk about whites or black or in between. I talked about religion wise. I when you say, "...your focus on jews seem to reverberate with an arab call for action against israel by playing the religion card..." it seems to me that you dont know that he arab muslim population is on 22% world wide. The majority are of different races, color and cultures. I dont know if you have heard of Bilaal, his legacy is one to be studied by all people from different backgrounds because he displayed courage, wisdom and steadfastness even though he was from the "lower class" as we define it today. He was not a arab nor perian. He was a black slave who served one of the Main cheifs in Makkah at that time. I am please to say that he himself was given a throne bacuse of Islam, where he was fed dirt becasue of his social status. Islam is not one persons religion, it is everyone's religion. When the pilgrams come to Americas to escape religious persecution, they were hungry for they did not know how to bring out the pleasures of the earth. Who helped them? The American natives helped them, clothed them, fed them, tought them... Yet what have they gotten for it? Indian reservations is what they got for it. The main point that I'm trying to extract from this is that: you know you are doing a good thing when everyone is your friend comes your enemy. Muslims black and white have brought about math, science, astronemy, agriculture... you name it and Musims have had influences. And look where we stand today...War ravaged countries where innocent kids or old folks alike die in the millions. If you had to watch that as Muslims then Im sure that you would take it upon yourself to protect their well being. They are only dying because the proclaim the name of Allah and his messenger Muhammad S.A.W. There is a saying which I'm sure your are familiar with "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." May Allah show us the way to worship him best and guide us to the path of those whom he has favored.

Beware, I have read your message carefully.

You seem to be talking in terms of
1- muslims as one monolith identity,
2- arabs are only 22% of muslims which is true - but every faithful muslim looks towards arabs or things arab ie appearance, clothing language, to define a better muslim, rather then learn and be proud of their own identity of culture, language, and traditions that have often spanned rich, rewarding civilizations developed over thousands of yrs. most educated muslims i speak with are totally ignorant of greek, roman, hindu and chinese civilizations that contributed to the period of the islamic golden age. and all those civilizations are now in ascendency due maily to their robustness, richness of intellect and humanity.

3- this african slave mohammad freed and elevated as a good example to
mankind. ok. so, what is really the big deal? think about this - most all arabs i have worked with globally are racist to the core. most muslims from india and pakistan are steeped in color obsession regarding their own skin color or where they will marry. so, please, you should try to stay current today. you seem to be living in ancient times.

1. in my experience. its not true at all. muslims all over the world identify themselves based on which religious sect, ethnic, tribal, and country they are from. you and some others may want to have a single muslim nation, but thats where i think you start to leave reality and start living in fantasy. my opinion - all these muslim imams are bookies/intellectuals whome educated muslims listen to, while the uneducated muslims listen to mostly illiterate imams of millions of mosques worldwide. in both cases, result is this relatively new group of muslims from many countries, all fired up with a sense of humiliation/inferiority and economic depravity that keeps swelling into rages we read in headlines all the time. I think this is mainly from failed leadership from your own govts, tribal, ethnic leaders. and then you guys keep following these leaders, both arab, non-arab, keep pointing at us in the west as reason for their failures in uplifting you people in one way or another. you and your bretheren in islam have always turned a blind eye to your own leader's greed, corruption and total ineptitude. these leaders keep brain washing you from their strategic partnership with religious sector that control you from fatwas from mosques and sermons worldwide. suggest you take a stock of your own country, city, village, first- and show some interest in changing your own world before you try to change ours.

the results are in front of you today.

george