Tom Griffin (London, OK): The European Commission has this week released the findings of a new report, which will form the basis of EU policy on preventing violent radicalisation.
The study by Kings College London concludes that the dynamics of Islamist militant recruitment have changed significantly in recent years:
efforts have largely been driven underground, with little overt propagation and recruitment now occurring at mosques. Prisons and other places of vulnerability in which individuals are likely to feel lost or experience tensions continue to be a great cause of concern, which urgently needs to be addressed.
A variety of actors continue to be involved in propagation and recruitment, though radical imams have lost some influence. Activists are the ‘engines’ of Islamist militant recruitment. They often draw on recruits from so-called ‘gateway organisations’ which prepare individuals ideologically and socialise them into the extremist ‘milieu’.
The latter finding may represent the most controversial element in the report:
Governments need to tackle the challenge posed by gateway organisations, and they need to be clear and consistent in doing so. Organisations which approve of, incite or justify violence – whether at home or abroad – should never be seen as allies in counter-recruitment. Purely religious organisations, such as the Tabligh or some non-violent Salafi groups, may be helpful in facilitating grassroots counter-radicalisation programmes and
providing the religious arguments through which to counter the extremists’ interpretations of jihad. Even so, governments should resist the temptation of turning them into ‘official
spokespeople’ for the Muslim community. In no European countries do they represent mainstream Muslims, nor should European governments be seen to promote rigid faith practices which may prevent Muslims from becoming full and active citizens of Western democracies.
There has been a long and divisive debate about how far Governments should engage with non-violent Islamists. Some have argued that such groups played a key role in driving extremists out of British mosques.
The concept of 'gateway organisations' is a potentially slippery one. The reports cites groups like Hezb ut-Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun as its main examples. There is also, however, a brief mention of the 'soft Islamists' of the Muslim Brotherhood. That squares with the reference to official spokespeople, which suggests the kind of patronage enjoyed by groups like the Muslim Council of Britain before their high profile repudiation by Ruth Kelly.
There may well be a danger in setting up such groups as sectarian spokespeople, but there is also surely a danger that a determination to 'tackle' non-violent groups within the Islamist social milieu will only strengthen their more militant rivals.
