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 Spiritual motivations have since been superseded by political ones, particularly over the Iraq war.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.

beware-a salaamu alaikum
i dont know where you are from- but there is a small inconsistency or two there and ill elaborate-

not ALL of the people of the book in the Prophet(pbuh) time were his enemies!
so there is that.
you stated-
"Those who kill my people (Muslims) is my enemy and I will treat them as my enemy."

well, now, in the current world situtation- many many muslims are being killed by other muslims.
so how do you distinguish friend from foe then?

geographically? racially? what criteria?
and most of all- a muslim is forbidden to kill a muslim-
so there is that also-

not that im not synpathetic to your frustrations, or think your points are without reason- i am certain they are-
but we are not a warmongering religion-
the code of war i islam is very strict-
ALLAH loves not the aggressors-

i have the luxury of responding from america, where i am in relative safety(although i am having great difficulty finding a job with my hijab- as im a white blue eyed american woman- and americans think im stabbing Jesus(ata) in the back repeatedly, and arabic people are, well, prejudiced against me:)

so there is that, too :)


actually, i'm almost positive the current figures for percentage of arabs in the muslim world is just under 18%.
but thats not important- if you have figures and a link to disprove that- that would be nice.

i have some qualms about your philosophical quotes beware-
"you know you are doing a good thing when everyone is your friend comes your enemy."

one doesnt determine ones own state of goodness by the abandonment of ones friends, actually if you are good- your friends will be good- and their fleeing you would actually point more to you becoming bad and repulsing the good- not the other way around-

we are not prophets beware- any of us- and our goodness is not so bright that it s frightening people away who are afraid to see their own failings reflected in the perfected mirror of our being-

we discern our own goodness by an assessment of ourselves by ourselves- we know our own hearts, its failings- our prayers- and we must always be ever vigilant to ferret out and expose our own faults first-
then we, when we are properly spotless- can begin to look at how others are responsible for our woes.

muslims are responsible people- and personally repsonsible first.

also- the statement-
"keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

if i am to find that valid- as a philosophy- (while strategically it may be very clever)-
i will have to also acept the rest of the philosopher's statements who first made that quip-

sun-tzu wrote the very famous "art of war"
as muslims- there is much in his ideas that is pretty ethically repulsive-

"All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him.
******************
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Sun-tzu, (attributed)
**************
"A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective."

his dependence on deception as a valid tool of engagement is invalidated by islams approach to engagement

but, having said all that- i really DO appreciate your passion and fervor beware
peace

What im simply saying my friend in Islam is that we should not please others and put them infront of our religion. We should stay away from pleasing others and angering Allah and we should strive to please Allah and let people get angry at us for that reason. For when we please Allah, all those who hate us for it will fight aganist us. We should fight back the ours hearts, minds and actions for Allah is with those who are closest to him. Asalaamu Alaykum.

wa alaikum a salaam beware


I guess we're all fighting in our different ways, beware.
only ALLAH knows, eh?
who could argue with what youve just said?
EID MUBARAK

well said mrs.a

i am very happy to hear that you found in islam what you were looking for & wish you and everyone here a very happy eid mubarak.

unfortunately, most muslims from muslim countries seem to have a very hard time understanding their own religion.

i wonder why? :-)

george

thank you muchly george-

i find the same thing holds true for christians in america for instance-
i think it is generally human nature to follow the herd and be comfortable-
it seems the noisiest (and bulliest)people are the ones who uncompromisingly decide for others how they should practice their religion, with the benefit (to them) of controlling those around them.

after a few generations, things can controt into even the opposite of their intended meaning

i think all of us humans are guilty of this at some time
peace and happy holidays to you whatever they may be