Alhamdulilah, a good a article. The point about sectarian bias is an important one – we are not going to get away from the fact that some groups just don’t like other groups and will use any leverage to get one over them.

Some fail to recognise that people and groups have changed – a clear example is that of Hizb-ut-Tahrir who are a completely different organisation then the one I encoutered back in the early 90’s. I will be so bold as to say that we will probably see “HT” councillors in the next few years!

Ps pls note the website is not my own but Sidi Abu Aliyahs!

Tahajjuh Miah, United Kingdom

Gabriele Marranci, anthropologist at the University of Aberdeen has raised some questions, inviting the Policy Exchange to publicly answer them:
http://tinyurl.com/39qw3w

How is it possible to conduct research, sometimes for weeks, in more than 100 mosques and Islamic institutions when the overall research was only 6 months?
How was the leading researcher of the overall project?

Why were the researchers only Pakistani, Somali, Bangladeshi and Arab?
Which qualifications had these researchers? Why are there not names mentioned?

Were the institutions and the people involved in the research, as well the informants, properly informed of the real intent of the research of studying ‘the extent to which literature inculcating Muslim separatism and hatred for the ‘non-believer’ was accessible in those institutions’?

The problems with Policy Exchage publication are diverse and at times extremely worrying writes Laurence Hopkins owner of Remarks and Culture blog. http://tinyurl.com/2hs3n4

The report doesn’t take into any account whether the proliferation of this material has any bearing on the practice of Islam in this country but implies as much.

There is no coverage or mention of the distribution of far right and far left literature, both of which can contain the promotion of violence and/or separation.

The report does not adequately discuss a link between conservative/’radical’ positions and exhortations to violence. The report implies that Wahhabism/Salafism naturally lends itself towards terrorism. Statements such as “Yet more troubling is the possibility that such materials can act as a de facto ‘bridge’ to radicalisation.” and “Too often it acts as an ideological bridge to violent jihadism.” are not explored in any detail or in reference to existing evidence and research.

The evidence that is mentioned isn’t particularly robust. The report mentions that 5 of the booklets have been found by Metropolitan Police in terrorism investigations since 9/11 – We don’t get the figure of how many books the police service has looked at. The ‘radical’ material was found in only 26/100 places and out of those 26 they obtained 80 pamphlets. We don’t know the total sum of pamphlets on display to get an idea of what percentage this is.

There is no coverage of publications which they claim to be ‘non-radical’ or moderate despite the fact that these are in the majority. How are radical voices countered in other publications? This would have been an interesting analysis, but outside the bounds of fear creation.

Interestingly on pages 28-30 they name all the mosques in which they found hate literature – the far right British National Party will love this – this is like Megan’s law in the US where they name and shame paedophiles who then become victims of vigilantism. This naming and shaming will also have serious implications on access to these institutions future research, not to mention breaking trust and increasing scepticism. What happened to research ethics?

The debate surrounding Policy Exchange’s controversial report goes far beyond a few suspicious reciepts right to the dubious intentions, malicious motives and audacious approach of a so-called research body for pushing their agenda by all means fair and foul.
Rather than blaming Newsnight of sidetracking, Dean Godson should come up with verifiable proofs to establish why this and other Policy Exchange reports should be considered neutral and objective and how it is helpful for community cohesion?

Godson’s underlying motives are clear from his article is The Times: “During the Cold War, organisations such as the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office would assert the superiority of the West over its totalitarian rivals. And magazines such as Encounter did hand-to-hand combat with Soviet fellow travellers. For any kind of truly moderate Islam to flourish, we need first to recapture our own self-confidence.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article702053.ece

What Godson didn’t mention is that Encounter, is an Anglo-American magazine co-founded by Irving Kristol. Not until 1967 would it be revealed that Encounter and its parent organization, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, were funded by the CIA as part of the programme of covert action that has become known as the cultural cold war. In fact there is reason to believe that Cold War methods of psychological warfare are already shaping the debate about Islam and the war on terror in Britain. Dean Godson himself may be one the most successful practitioners. Certainly, he comes from a family with long experience of what the CIA calls ‘covert action’. http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4309/8/

Dean Godson has a long history with neoconservatism, starting out as assistant to John Lehman, a signatory to the Project for a New American Century and Conrad Black. Bringing the ideas of neo-conservatism to the UK, Godson has compared Britain’s ‘late-imperial defeatism’ with America’s ’self-confident liberal interventionism.’

Of all books, Dean Godson’s favourite is the one by his brother Roy, Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards, Counter-Intelligence and Covert Operations, which among other thing looks at how to spread disinformation through the media.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/05/dean_godson.html
There are good reasons to be concerned about Dean Godson’s role to influence public and private perceptions about Muslims in Britain. He has made no secret of his own advocacy of ‘political warfare.’ It is clear from the historical precedents that he cites, and the methodology that his brother describes, that deception and covert manipulation are an integral part of ‘political warfare.’
Journalism influenced by this covert action approach clearly invites scepticism. There is likely to be a hidden agenda, in line with Roy Godson’s injunction that: “to be effective, covert propaganda must be co-ordinated with overall policy. It serves little purpose to dabble in the trade unless there are important strategic goals to be achieved.” There are also likely to be unverifiable claims that should be treated with caution. http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4309/8/

Godson has worked as chief editorial writer at The Telegraph and Special Assistant to Conrad Black. Does this indicate a tendency to be in company of those working with fake receipts?

Above all, imagine writing a monograph on Islam in Australia: Democratic bipartisanship in action including interviews with prominent players in law enforcement and politics but without interviewing a single Muslim, and launching the monograph thousands of miles away in London with none other than Dean Godson!

Note how bloggers have questioned
Policy Exchange’s failure to ensure that
the publications bearing their name
bear a broadbased, transparent and representative character.
http://madhabirfy.blogspot.com/2007/09/middle-eastern-gerard-henderson.html

If anyone has ever wondered who would be more appropriate to talk about
“community” and “cohesion” none could better disqualify himself from such a responsibility than Godson exemplifying an exact opposite of those terms.

Bilal: I’m proceeding on the basis of what has been said in public so far, namely that these researchers were Muslims. There isn’t any evidence at present to disprove that.

Azad: I don’t have any positive proof as yet as to the involvement of particular groups/institutions/individuals, but there is some circumstantial evidence that would lead one to follow particular lines of inquiry. But certainly I think there is a public interest in looking at the bone fides of these researchers properly and that can only be done if they can be called to account properly for the evidence turned up by the Newsnight report.

Of course fundamental beliefs are sacrosanct, I would imagine what Soumaya Ghannoushi was alluding too were some of the popular tales and stories that can attach themselves to these topics in certain kinds of literature. Our theologians (mutakallimun) have written our creeds; no-one else has.

wa -salam, Yahya

Do you think names should be mentioned of those that were involved? Also – should we be seeking an explanation from them in a public meeting? Afterall, if they stand for truth why hide behind policy exchange.

As for the materials and some of the quotes like “Some of the books on sale on djinns, angels, dreams, signs of the day of judgement, and hellfire often make me laugh/ cringe/ both…” need further elaboration? Why do we find books about Angels, Jinns, Hellfire laughable? Are we, unwittingly, losing our beliefs…due to some neocon world view? Would appreciate your thoughts…

PS – belated Eid Mubarak

The Policy Exchange lied and they fabricated evidence. They may also be lying when they say the researchers were Muslim.

Razwan Arshad, Dubai

This and other similar posts that you have written are a model of the implications and benefits of the Sunni Pledge (though I do not contend that you are doing it because of it). I applaud you for it.

jazakAllahkhair

Amad, muslimmatters.org