Going to Extremes

Why Muslim fundamentalists may be our best hope for stopping terror.

BY TINA ROSENBERG | MARCH/APRIL 2011

In 1996, Richard Reid, a petty criminal recently released from prison, found his way to an unassuming mosque in the rough-edged south London neighborhood of Brixton. The majority of worshippers were converts to Islam: some of them ex-convicts who had taken up the faith in prison, some immigrants. Most of the women wore the full niqab and abaya, showing only their eyes in accordance with the mosque's strictly conservative bent.

The mosque's demographics fit Reid, who had grown up in a mixed-race suburban London household and converted to Islam while in prison. They also suited a fellow Brixton worshipper Reid might or might not have met: Zacarias Moussaoui, a French-born son of Moroccan immigrants who had attended university in London. Neither man stayed long. Moussaoui was kicked out in 1997 for his aggressively extremist views, and Reid drifted away the following year. Both found their way first into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then, in 2001, into the headlines. Moussaoui, al Qaeda's so-called 20th hijacker, was arrested in the United States and later charged with playing a role in the 9/11 plot; Reid was captured several months later for attempting to blow up a transatlantic flight with a bomb hidden in his shoe.

Although Brixton Mosque was scrupulously anti-violence, Britons began to worry that the mosque had become, in the words of Time magazine, "an ideal hunting ground for terrorist talent spotters." But some of Britain's front-line experts on Islamist radicalism soon came to believe that this cloud hanging over the mosque had a silver lining -- that the same fundamentalist Muslim community that had been a departure point for Britain's most notorious terrorists could be used to persuade other alienated young Muslim men not to make the same decision. "The Brixton Mosque is not a center of violent extremism -- it is a center of resistance to violent extremism," says Robert Lambert, a former counterterrorism operative with London's Metropolitan Police Service.

Nearly a decade after 9/11, this thinking has evolved into one of Britain's most promising counterterrorism strategies -- and perhaps its most controversial. The government is, in effect, betting that the ideology that so many Islamist radicals claim to believe in can be employed to keep them from becoming terrorists in the first place.

The man at the center of this idea is Abdul Haqq Baker, a Londoner who converted to Islam as a young man and served as Brixton Mosque's chairman for 15 years. Born Anthony Baker to Nigerian and Guyanese parents, he adopted a Muslim name when he embraced Salafism, the fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam preached at the Brixton Mosque. Hard-line mosques like Brixton have often been the last stop before radicalism for people like Moussaoui and Reid. But mosques generally don't know what to do with such young men, especially if they stop short of openly advocating violence. The usual response is to expel them. But once they're out the door, they may be gone for good.

ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

 SUBJECTS: AL QAEDA, TERRORISM, BRITAIN
 

Tina Rosenberg is author of Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World, from which this article is adapted.

BORN2WILDOUT

11:14 PM ET

February 21, 2011

The sudden Muslim movement in

The sudden Muslim movement in London is striking

Fix Laptop Screens

 

MARTY MARTEL

7:38 AM ET

February 22, 2011

Muslim fundamentalists will stop terror only on their own terms

US helped Muslim fundamentalists to throw out Soviets from Afghanistan and yet same Muslim fundamentalists attacked US on 9/11.

Angry young Muslim fundamentalists had no justifiable cause to attack India in 725 AD other than to loot and covert a prosperous advanced country that did NOT believe in Islam.

US-created and US-backed Karzai government was forced to deport to Italy a Muslim Afghan who converted to Christianity, to save his life.

So-called moderate Muslim fundamentalists of Pakistan threw rose petals and cheered the killer of Punjab governor.

Who is Tina Rosenberg kidding when she propagates that Muslim fundamentalists will stop the terror advocated by Koran against infidels if only West will stop giving them the reason to spread terror?

 

MARTY MARTEL

7:42 AM ET

February 22, 2011

Muslim fundamentalists will stop terror only on their own terms

US helped Muslim fundamentalists to throw out Soviets from Afghanistan and yet same Muslim fundamentalists attacked US on 9/11.

Angry young Muslim fundamentalists had no justifiable cause to attack India in 725 AD other than to loot and convert a prosperous advanced country that did NOT believe in Islam.

US-created and US-backed Karzai government was forced to deport to Italy a Muslim Afghan who converted to Christianity, to save his life.

So-called moderate Muslim fundamentalists of Pakistan threw rose petals and cheered the killer of Punjab governor.

Who is Tina Rosenberg kidding when she propagates that Muslim fundamentalists will stop the terror advocated by Koran against infidels if only West will stop giving them the reason to spread terror?

 

NSC LOS ANGELES

5:43 PM ET

February 22, 2011

I would have to partially disagree with you...

I get why they're angry what with the wars and such, but I just don't really care.

 

JKOLAK

10:57 AM ET

February 22, 2011

What kind of nonsense is

What kind of nonsense is this? Fundamentalism is the doctrine of terror. This is letting the fox guard the hen house.

 

MARTY24

1:09 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Breaking the link between Islam and terror

The proposal overlooks a critical issue: embracing fundamentalism is a step in the conveyor belt that leads Muslims to terror.

Much has been made of the fact that terrorists constitute a tiny minority of Muslims. What usually goes unmentioned is that there is a larger group prepared to assist with terorrist activity whose members can become inflamed about what has happened to terrorists and then decide to follow in their path. Beyond this larger group that is willing to assist terrorists, is an even bigger group that is willing to support terrorist activity, and beyond them an even larger group willing to speak up in defense of terror.

The members of these various groups constitute a continuum, not distinct subsets within the Muslim population, and the flow has overwhelmingly been toward the more radical end.

The trick is to find ways to keep Muslims from getting on this conveyor belt, and it seems to me that legitimizing any part of it is exactly the wrong way to go. Since Salafist Islam appears to be the starting point for the conveyor belt, the objective should be to keep Muslims from turning to the Salafis in the first place. I don't claim to know how to do this, but it should be the goal.

 

IAIN WESTLAND

3:53 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Missing the point

@ KHALID, Salaam, you are trying to justify one action with the example of another. Although this is sometimes a very good idea, when it comes to extremes of violence I would deem it quite counter productive.

The piece is about how to capture those who wish to move from the very strict doctrines of Salafism into the realms of terrorism. There are many things that I dislike about Salafism but I also respect a persons choice to follow it. There is a tipping point though, we see that those who become fervent can fall into extremism, this must be stopped.

Who can tell us when this is happening? Those who are in close contact with the person, the Mosques and their congregations. We need an organisation to work with the community, at their level and on their terms to combat this.

He is quite right in the assertion that the Quillian Foundation would be dismissed off hand, but if we are to work with any organisation, to fully or partly fund it, then we have an obligation to the general population to ensure that the activities of that organisation are not at odds with the activities of the UK. The question is then how do we ensure that our money is not being spent on the promotion of anti-western propaganda in the guise of anti-extremism.

It is up to the Salfist (amongst others) community to ensure that their fundamental belief's do not infringe on or harbour threats to the wider population, that those who are falling through the gaps are not lost but reported to the authorities. It is better to turn a Muslim brother over to a non Muslim authority if that action may stop the Muslim brother form committing acts that will lose him a place in heaven.

Our first priority is to the safety of all 60M of the UK population, yet I fear that if the Muslim community does not act with more direction we could see draconian laws and authoritarian actions in the name of defence.

With respect

 

IAIN WESTLAND

2:41 AM ET

February 23, 2011

Moving targets and shifting fields

@ KHALID, sorry for my tardy reply

May I ask when there was last a 'white Christian war', a war waged by 'white Christians' in the name of God? I also feel that there is a worrying use of the word 'White' there but that is another matter..

By justify I simply mean that you are trying to quantify amounts of wrong doing, A's is larger than B's therefore ignore B. But I can not ignore any death, or allocate larger remorse due to religious outlines.

People are using Islam as a reason to murder, they incite the name of Allah in their actions. I personally believe that in doing so they bring not only dishonour to Islam and Muslim's but at judgement they will loose their place in heaven. To me this is a more important subject to focus on, after all it is the reason some of these wars have been waged and if the reason is removed the legitimacy goes too.

Respect

 

IAIN WESTLAND

3:46 PM ET

February 24, 2011

@ Kahlid

"Don't overwhelm me with respect. Give me logic and facts."

It is common decency in a conversation whether in person or via essay to show respect.

"You mean you don't know? Then I begin to doubt your sincerity. White Christian wars are going on right now. They don't have to be in the name of God per se. Although George Bush did let slip the word "Crusade" when he started the wars. Very telling. He also said he was getting orders from a "Higher Power." Are you blind to all this?"

merriam-webster dictionary describes a crusade as: a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm, but that would not fit with you thinking. I have let it slip that you continue to use the word White, have you a problem with the colour White?

"So 2,000,000 murdered in the name of freedom, democracy or whatever is OK with you, yet 3,000 or 55 killed in the name of God is vile? I say both are vile, but which is the greater crime? Violence is frequently carried out in a "greater cause." That's what is being done by both sides."

Neither are greater, but one can be secular while the other is exclusive. Personally I would say that a religions founding for violence is a greater twisting as it will go against the basic tenets of any religion.

"You have falsely implied that White Christian wars are retaliation for the holy wars of Muslims. There cannot be a bigger lie. Muslim attacks in the last few decades have been retaliation for earlier White Christian violence. How many Arabs/Muslims did US and Britain kill in 1991 and after? We will not be safe from revenge attacks if we continue with our violence. White Christian societies have been the INITIATORS of violence in recent decades. When was the last time Muslims initiated violence against White Christians?"

By 1991 you must mean the first Gulf War, a coalition led, UN Sanctioned counter invasion to Iraq's attack on its neighbour Kuwait? It would seem that in fact an Arab/Muslim action was the precursor to this war.

"Or are you saying that our violence is good, their retaliation is not? Or that they don't have the right to avenge the tearing apart of their children's bodies by our bombs, bullets and missiles?"

Far from it, I am saying that violence is rarely an answer whether that be the action or the promotion.

You seem to advocate a level of acceptance toward terrorist activities, as seen by 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombs, Nairobi and many more. These are carried out in the name of Allah, they are aimed at civilians, non combatants. Could you direct me to passages in the Qur'an that excuse yet alone promote killing an innocent? The nearest I could get was action against the Kafir yet that should not be applied to the people of The Book.

Sorry, but I am want to say that you general attitude is one of confrontation, you support indiscriminate killing against non Muslims and I suspect you are more annoyed at STREET trying to stop Muslims committing atrocities than those that make such actions that clearly fall completely outside of Islamic jurisprudence.

Kahlid, I believe you may not only be a symptom but a product 7of such doctrines.

Iain

Answer me.

 

IAIN WESTLAND

6:18 PM ET

February 24, 2011

Mind your blood pressure

"Scriptures can be, and are, interpreted any way that is convenient. What I look at is what the followers of those scriptures DO, not what they profess to believe, or intended."

But if their actions are in the name of the scripture then it is obvious that either the scripture or the interpreter are wrong. In the case of Islam there are so many Muslims who denounce 9/11 etc that we must conclude that it is not the scripture but rather the interpreter that is at question. We must ask to what end these interpretations serve.

It is unfortunate that those who are unresolved in their convictions drift toward Salafi teachings, yet will find little to hold them fast. These teachings, although strictly fundamental, will not give the religious declaration needed for those willing to move from worship to suicide. Salafi teachings would not allow such talk, a reason Reid and others have left or been expelled from Mosques.

"So if you have killed 2,000,000 civilians under whatever pretext, even if you proclaim you did not INTEND to, you are still a huge terrorist, because I cannot gauge your intentions. I can only go by your actions."

Terrorism is an act of coercion via the incitement of terror. It is used indiscriminately and in secret, its victims will not be selected by any formula and their crimes will just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are trying to claim that those who are engaged in war can not have their intentions gauged and as such are terrorists. This ignores the provision of rules, field and time scale of conflict, all of which are present in Afghanistan but none were present in 9/11.

"It is either dishonest, or ignorant, to say that our attack on Iraq in 1991 was triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Just google "April Glaspie" and you will be enlightened that we tricked that fox Saddam into taking over Kuwait."

I think you should actually Google her, you seem to misinterpret standard political comment as anything other than that...

"And what is your problem with my references to White Christian terrorism? Was it Brown Hindus, or Yellow Buddhists that killed 2,000,000 Arabs/Muslims? You are defining things in a totally self-serving way, and therefore dishonestly, like Humpty-Dumpty paying extra to words so they can mean anything he wants. Some of my closest friends are White Christians, and many of them agree with me."

First Christianity, like all other religions is not bound along the lines of colour. There is not a particular form of Christianity that is exclusive to white people, again as with all religions. You want to push the colour into this realm, to separate out the protagonists along religious/racist lines. You need to see conflicts as religious in order to propagate a defence for the activities of AQ, the Taliban etc. A pseudo Jihad made under a false pretence.

"Stop trying to mislead readers with glib abstractions. Go back to my earlier post where I have listed a half dozen White Christian atrocities, both old and recent, with widely accepted FIGURES, taken from books written by your own ilk (AKA White Christians, but also Jewish scholars), and prove them inaccurate one by one. If you cannot do it, or will not, then obviously you are a sympathizer of White Christian terrorism, and I refuse to give you fake respect."

I am not a Christian, I will admit to being white though. I can not see your reasoning on the disproof angle. First you would have to prove that these were 'White Christian' actions, ie. actions taken to further White Christians. If these are such actions then they would not benefit Black Christians or White Muslims but only the White Christian.

You will not be able to do this, as although Britain may have a recognised indigenous religion it has allowed where possible not only the participation but the furtherance of other religions. This is due to its continued movement toward secularism, Liberal Democracy, allowing you the right to make your wild allegations without fear of persecution. Allowing Islam to remain in a country regardless of the number of people who do not want it, and allowing Call2Islam Movement, Muslims Against Crusades, numerous Salafist and Wahhabist Mosques to preach hatred on street corners with the full protection of the Law.

I ask not for your respect, or even that you remain polite. Neither are important to me, but as they say, manners maketh the man...

Regards

Iain

 

NSC LOS ANGELES

5:58 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Whole lot of prison converts there eh?

It isn't discussed often enough that this religion draws a tremendous amount of new recruits from prison, which says quite a lot about a) the type of person drawn to Islam, and b) the mentality behind the recruitment effort. Looking for thugs? Where better to find them than behind bars?