Farooq Siddique: A Muslim in Bristol
On Saturday, the Guardian newspaper published some revelations about the Government's counter terrorism strategy known as Prevent.
According to the revelations, Prevent is about spying on the Muslim communities even if no crime is suspected or committed. Youth workers, teachers, lecturers, community groups, mosques, Imams, everyone it seems, is being paid to gather intelligence on anyone with a Muslim name, practising or not, and passing that information to the security services.
-
Bristol is one of the 82 councils in the country where Prevent operates.
In my opinion, there is actually nothing wrong with the Government's Prevent strategy: it's very positive, it's about working with communities to protect vulnerable individuals, and address the root causes of radicalisation.
How it is being implemented on the ground in some areas, though, is cause for serious concern.
There can now be no doubt that the UK is facing a substantial threat from Al-Qaida-inspired extremism. It is not a conspiracy, it is not exaggerated, it is real – 7/7 was no mirage; Isa Ibrahim tried to do so in Bristol – only prevented from his horrendous plan by Bristol's Muslims. And that, in essence, is what Prevent is about.
But there is a context. The Muslim communities of the UK suffer from huge, multiple disadvantages. The fact is, we are amongst the poorest and the least affluent people, in the worst housing, with the lowest educational attainment, and the poorest health. It was not always like this. Among the many underlying causes is the "terrorist" label, leading to discrimination faced by the communities, which not only prevents success, but acts as an obstacle even when success is achieved. Al Qaida offers an easy answer, and the message resonates loudly: the West hates everything about Islam and Muslims.
Prevent is about challenging that message, because it's not true. Prevent is partly about addressing grievances, perceived or actual. It's also about creating a sense of belonging for vulnerable individuals.
The Muslim communities are the natural and in fact, willing partners in the Governments' Prevent strategy. But to get it right, local authorities need to have the trust of the Muslim communities. The Muslim communities need to be listened to, not lectured to. Where I have seen Prevent done badly, like the Guardian highlights, it's been because the Muslim communities have not been genuinely engaged.
The key to success in Prevent is partnership; local authorities must trust and value their Muslim communities as equal partners; the Muslim communities must view Prevent as an opportunity, not a conspiracy; anything less from either side, hands an easy victory to Al Qaida.
23 Comments
View all
by thenewworldview, bristol
Sunday, October 25 2009, 3:21PM
“thenewworldview blogspot com”
by Alex, Redcliffe
Sunday, October 25 2009, 12:44PM
“Jonathan - I am not sure you do understand my point. I am not saying people should lose freedom or that children should be told god does not exist. However, surely children up to a certain age are not able to make a choice? By the time the reach secondary/high school when religious education properly starts then I believe they are mature enough to be able to do this.
This is why I am saying that parents should not teach their children that god exists, so enforcing their beliefs on them, before they are old enough to make their own choice.
Secondly, religion should only be taught at school. This would be in the sense of "These people belive in this, but others believe somethings else." This is much like it currently is anyway in UK comprehensive schools.
So basically, no child should ever be told that something un-proven is fact. They should simply be armed with the information to make up their own mind. This is not taking away freedom but increasing it.”
by Jonathan, Canada
Saturday, October 24 2009, 6:16PM
“Alex, i understand your point.
I went to a C of E school and, as such, i was educated that a certain God does exist. I was also lucky enough to have the intelligence to question this and have made my own decision.
I do not believe in a god. This, however, is because i do not believe in the particular God that i was taught about. Of the people that went to this school, i am still in touch with many of them. Not a single one of them believes in that particular god, because they have not been given a balanced education.
Do you see the pattern here? Even though we were all 'educated' that this god exists, all of the people that i know of do not believe, despite being told so as children. This shows that it is possible to make up your own mind.
I'm sure you were told as a kid that Santa exists? You don't believe it now, but you were taught it as a kid. Do you support the abolition of kids being taught about Santa?
Had i been given information about a range of gods, i would have been in a position to make a far more informed decision about it. I was not, so i have made a decision on a partially informed basis. I'm sure you can i understand that it is best to be in possession of all of the points of view before making a decision.
Personally, i advocate being taught about a range of gods. This is far better than being taught that no gods exist. After all, you can't know that something doesn't exist without proof.
You seem to be treating children as though they are all unable to make their own minds up. Telling them that something definitely isn't true is indoctrination as much as telling them that a particular god is the one to follow.
I also do not agree that the current way of teaching religion is the best way. However, i would support more religious education, rather than wipe it out completely.
It seems arrogant and conceited to withhold education from children, just because you don't believe it when you have no proof one way or the other.
Religious freedom is not something to be taken lightly. You are able to come on here and state that god does not exist, because of your freedom to decide and express your view. If you did not have this freedom, you would not be able to. In the same way, everyone else is allowed to believe in whatever god they want to.
The alternative is that religion is abolished and people have no freedom. This is no better than having a state religion that you are obliged to follow. In fact, it is exactly the same.
You are, therefore, saying that people should have their freedom removed and that they should be told what to think.
Are you happy to say this?”
by Alex, Redcliffe
Saturday, October 24 2009, 5:01PM
“Brendan & Jonathan - I am not saying we should 'educate children out of religion'. I am saying that children should not be brought up believing that god exists until they can make their own mind up. I am saying that education will put them in a position to, when the time is right, make an informed and objective decision as to whether god exists and whether they want to follow a faith. If a child is taught from the beginning that god exists then they are much less likely when they grow up to question that belief.
Following a religion is a lifestyle choice, just as being a vegetarian and many other things. These choices that people make in their lives should never be enforced on someone who does not have a choice, i.e. children.”
by Mark, Brislington
Saturday, October 24 2009, 10:49AM
“Farooq - did you airbrush that poppy onto your outfit?
Sure it wasn't there before.”