To tackle the threat of Islamism in America, the new administration must challenge groups that advocate extremist ideas. |
As part of President Trump's unapologetic promise to defeat "radical Islam," critics expect an overhaul of the previous administration's Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program. Under Obama, officials adopted counter-extremism policies that European politicians tried over a decade ago and have since deeply regretted.
To tackle the threat of Islamism, the
new administration must identify and challenge the specific groups and networks
within American Islam that advocate extremist ideas, or officials may
inadvertently repeat Obama's practice of legitimizing Islamists as leaders of
all American Muslims.
The British Experience
In 2005, a month after the 7/7 London bombings, the British journalist Martin Bright sought answers to a question that, somehow, no one in government or the media had ever thought to ask before: Who exactly were the people in charge of the Muslim community, and what did they believe?
The British government once blindly accepted Islamist
claims to represent its Muslim constituents
After the Salman Rushdie riots in 1988, the British government blindly accepted the claims of self-declared community leaders to be representative voices of British Muslims. The government gave these leaders millions and millions of dollars of community funds, and, after 9/11, counter-extremism grants.
Bright's investigation, however, revealed something quite different from
what these Muslim leaders had been telling credulous politicians. The leading
recipient of taxpayer funds, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), was in fact run by a violent
Islamist group from South Asia, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), which had close ties with
the Muslim Brotherhood and had been involved in the mass killing of
Bangladeshis during that nation's 1971 Independence War.
The government embraced Islamist groups
such as the MCB so tightly that, as Bright revealed in 2005, Britain's foreign
secretary, Jack Straw, and MCB leader Iqbal Sacranie (an early supporter of
Iran's fatwa for the killing of Salman Rushdie) even used the
same speechwriter.
With the MCB in charge, Muslim
organizations could not receive government backing for projects without the
MCB's stamp of approval. Naturally, the Islamists prospered. Moderate Muslims,
meanwhile, were left without a voice.
Over the next decade, the true extent of Islamism's grip over British Islam
was slowly revealed, thanks to a motley collection of journalists, bloggers,
and anti-Islamist Muslims willing to challenge government wisdom. Prison
chaplains, it emerged, had been chosen primarily from the Deobandi sect, a
hard-line branch of South Asian Islam from which the Taliban had emerged.
Taxpayer-funded schools in Birmingham, the U.K.'s second-largest city, had been
taken over by a network of Islamists who preached hard-line Islamist rhetoric
to young children. Compelling evidence was uncovered to show that prominent
Muslim charities controlled by JI and the Muslim Brotherhood were funding
terrorism abroad. Counter-extremism funds were being handed to Salafist and
Jamaat-e-Islami groups. And in 2009, the Labour government cut off ties
completely with the Muslim Council of Britain after its officials were found to
be signatories to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that advocated attacks on
British troops and Jewish communities.
By 2011, the new Conservative prime
minister, David Cameron, understood enough to signal a distinct change in
government policy, telling the Munich Security Conference:
As evidence emerges about the
backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of
them were initially influenced by what some have called "non-violent
extremists," and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by
embracing violence. . . . Some organizations that seek to present themselves as
a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing
little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a
right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.
The British government overhauled its
counter-extremism programs and cut off dozens of Islamist groups from taxpayer
funding. Politicians and journalists learned a very important lesson about
Western Islam: It is a diverse mix of dozens of different political and
religious sects, which includes both violent and non-violent extremists. No
single group could represent all Western Muslims, and it was only by
delineating British Islam into its diverse, competing constituents that
extremism could be effectively tackled and suitable Muslim allies identified.
Non-violent
Islamism is not a bulwark
against violent Islamism.
After all, if policymakers did not know
which networks and groups within Western Islam were the bad guys, then how
could they learn who the good guys were?
As increasingly radicalized Muslim communities across Europe produced eager volunteers for jihad at home and abroad, governments finally began to understand what moderate Muslims had been desperately trying to tell them for years: Non-violent Islamism is not a bulwark against violent Islamism. Extremists are not allies in the fight against extremism.
As increasingly radicalized Muslim communities across Europe produced eager volunteers for jihad at home and abroad, governments finally began to understand what moderate Muslims had been desperately trying to tell them for years: Non-violent Islamism is not a bulwark against violent Islamism. Extremists are not allies in the fight against extremism.
Meanwhile, in America
Across the Atlantic, American officials
distinctly failed to note the lessons that Europe has learned the hard way. The
Obama administration's foreign policy treated Islamists as forces of
democratization, and its domestic policy legitimized Islamists as gatekeepers
to the Muslim community.
First envisioned in 2011, the Obama administration's Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program promised to "support and help empower American communities and their local partners in their grassroots efforts to prevent violent extremism." In February 2015, the government launched CVE pilot programs in Boston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. To kick things off, the White House hosted a three-day summit. Writing about the conference in the Los Angeles Times, Obama reiterated that the "focus" of CVE "will be on empowering local communities."
How not The Obama administration's Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program enabled Islamists to rub shoulders with America's political elite. |
First envisioned in 2011, the Obama administration's Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program promised to "support and help empower American communities and their local partners in their grassroots efforts to prevent violent extremism." In February 2015, the government launched CVE pilot programs in Boston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. To kick things off, the White House hosted a three-day summit. Writing about the conference in the Los Angeles Times, Obama reiterated that the "focus" of CVE "will be on empowering local communities."
Whom exactly was the White House empowering? Representing the pilot program
in Boston, leaders from the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and the Islamic
Center of New England (ICNE) were invited to the White House summit. The ISB
was established by the
al-Qaeda operative Abdulrahman
Alamoudi, who was jailed in 2004 for his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate a
Saudi crown prince. The mosque's trustees have included prominent Islamist
operatives, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the global
Muslim Brotherhood. According to a report published
jointly by Muslims Facing Tomorrow and Americans for Peace and Tolerance,
twelve congregants, supporters, staff, and donors of the ISB have been
imprisoned, deported, or killed or are on the run — all in relation to
terrorism offenses.
The
Obama administration distinctly failed to note the lessons that Europe learned
the hard way.
The ICNE was once a moderate local mosque, until its imam was ousted by Abdulbadi Abousamra (the father of ISIS terrorist Ahmad Abousamra) and Muhammad Hafiz Masood, who is now a spokesman for the Pakistani terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah. Masood's brother, Hafiz Saeed, is responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and was arrested this month by Pakistani law enforcement.
The ICNE was once a moderate local mosque, until its imam was ousted by Abdulbadi Abousamra (the father of ISIS terrorist Ahmad Abousamra) and Muhammad Hafiz Masood, who is now a spokesman for the Pakistani terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah. Masood's brother, Hafiz Saeed, is responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and was arrested this month by Pakistani law enforcement.
Taking part in the government's CVE program was not just an opportunity for
Islamists to rub shoulders with America's political elite; it was also a chance
to obtain taxpayers' money. As part of the Boston CVE pilot program, a group
based at the ISB named United Somali Youth received over $100,000,
despite having initially joined protests against the CVE
organized by Islamist groups, which claimed that the program was designed to
demonize Muslims.
In 2016, despite widespread media criticism of the CVE pilot programs,
Congress approved a further $10 million of CVE grants. As Obama was leaving
office, the Department of Homeland Security awarded $393,800 to the
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an organization with a long history of
ties to extremism. MPAC was founded by individuals closely involved with the
Muslim Brotherhood. Its founder, Maher Hathout, declared that the
Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was "fighting to liberate their
land" and exhibiting "an American value — freedom and liberty."
Before being offered almost half a million dollars, MPAC had
also expressed opposition to the CVE program.
Another $800,000 of taxpayers' money was awarded to Bayan
Claremont (an Islamic graduate school in Claremont, Calif.), whose president,
Jihad Turk, was recently a member of the executive council of the Islamic
Society of North America (ISNA). In 2008, federal prosecutors named ISNA as an
unindicted co-conspirator during the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing
trial. A judge later ruled that "the government has produced ample
evidence" connecting Hamas and ISNA. Bayan Claremont faculty includes
Ihsan Bagby, a former senior member of the Council on American–Islamic
Relations, which was also designated an unindicted co-conspirator in 2008;
Suhaib Webb, a former imam of the ISB who decries the "evil
inclination" of homosexuality and "understands . . . animosity"
towards Jews; and Edina Lekovic, an MPAC official who was the managing editor
of an Islamist student magazine that, in 1999, called on Muslims to
"defend" Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter."
To flaunt its anti-Trump credentials,
Bayan Claremont recently returned the $800,000 it received, despite
successfully applying for the grant under Obama. Regardless, are these really
the "community" leaders that the government's "countering
violent extremism" program should empower?
Making America Safe Again?
The Trump administration's plans for CVE are not fully known. Most recently, White House sources announced that CVE would focus solely on Islamic extremism and would be renamed "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism." Under Obama, all White House, Homeland Security, and Justice Department documents concerning CVE conspicuously omitted any mention of "Islam" or "Islamism." Clearly, we should be pleased that the new administration is prepared to name the issue that occupies headline news almost every day. But we still do not know what Trump's counter-extremism plans actually entail, although it seems unlikely that Muslim Brotherhood groups will receive more government grants.
President Trump repeatedly pledged to combat "radical Islam" on the campaign trail. |
The Trump administration's plans for CVE are not fully known. Most recently, White House sources announced that CVE would focus solely on Islamic extremism and would be renamed "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism." Under Obama, all White House, Homeland Security, and Justice Department documents concerning CVE conspicuously omitted any mention of "Islam" or "Islamism." Clearly, we should be pleased that the new administration is prepared to name the issue that occupies headline news almost every day. But we still do not know what Trump's counter-extremism plans actually entail, although it seems unlikely that Muslim Brotherhood groups will receive more government grants.
Among moderate Muslims, however, there
is some concern that a ham-fisted approach could be just as ineffective as
Obama's flawed ideas. If Trump fails to delineate American Islam into its
various components, and instead treats all American Muslims as part of the same
problem, then the government will find it impossible to tackle extremism
effectively.
By cataloguing and excluding the
"lawful" or "non-violent" extremists now in America, and
the role they play in the radicalization of American Muslims, the government
can work with genuinely moderate Muslim organizations to identify and prevent
Islamists from, for example, operating schools and chaplaincy programs,
obtaining taxpayer funds under the guise of community work, or using charitable
endeavors to fund Islamist terrorism overseas.
President Trump's former
national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, reportedly wanted to "wage
ideological warfare" against radical Islam using social media. But, as
with all attempts to tackle Internet problems, this would be a Sisyphean task, and
a distraction from the threat posed by homegrown extremists, who carry out
their most dangerous work offline.
State and federal governments must work to delegitimize Islamism in political and civic circles.
State and federal governments must work to delegitimize Islamism in political and civic circles.
Islamist groups thrive on legitimacy, which they obtain either by being
treated as representatives of ordinary Muslims (as happened under Obama) or by
leading unifying protests against the
government (which is happening under Trump).
American Muslims are not going anywhere,
nor should they. Islamism, however, should be fought. To do so, state and
federal governments must delegitimize Islamism in political and civic circles.
This cannot be achieved without the cooperation of moderate Muslims. Only a
considered, intelligent approach to counter-extremism can effectively tackle
the Islamists who have gripped American Islam so tightly.
At the cost of whole Muslim communities
becoming isolated from Western society, tens of thousands of radicalized Muslim
youth joining terrorist groups overseas, and civil unrest increasing, Europe
has discovered that the pernicious effect of extremism is just as dangerous as
an explosive act of terrorism. In America, let's not learn these lessons too
late.
Sam Westrop writes for
Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. He is director of research
for Americans for Peace and Tolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment