Tank Warfare: CSC and QF compete for the anti-Islamist crown

A rehash of old attacks is the most charitable way to describe what has become an annual spectacle in the Centre for Social Cohesion's calendar. I believe this report should be understood in light of the ongoing feud between anti-islamist think tanks consumed by a fight for the ear of the next Conservative government.

It is important to contextualise the current report by the Centre for Social Confusion by understanding the context in which it sits.

Labour Pains

The Labour Party, or more accurately, Tony Blair, announced his intention to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir in the aftermath of the London bombings. Blair, attempted through a speech full to the brim with rushed initiatives, to prove he is tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. One ill thought out proposal was to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. It was a rash move that would haunt Blair and his successor, most embarrassingly during Brown's first first Prime Minster's Questions. Since then, the Conservatives have been using it as a stick to beat Brown with and making clear Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned when they come to power. Whilst the Labour line has been there is no basis to ban HT and any move in that direction would lead to the overturning of such a decision if it should be appealed, which would be a propaganda coup for HT. Cameron and his shadow home secretary have been clear a basis exists in law to ban the hizb. This report provides a number of concrete scenarios by which a ban could be possible and provides a plan B, an alternative to a ban. It proposes solutions such as making funding contingent on not sharing platforms with the hizb, prohibiting the use of council facilities to HT as well as encouragement of civic opposition to HT.

This report can therefore be compared to the compilation of intelligence in the run up to the inevitable war against Iraq. It does pull together much of what already exists in the public domain, besides a few notable exceptions. What is does do is to provide a future Conservative government a one stop document it can hold up as a definitive argument for a ban, the only problem is there is no smoking gun which can uphold such a ban. Whilst the Quilliam Foundation like to recycle the 'conveyor belt to terrorism' popularised by Zeyno Baran, by claiming that extremists like HT provide the 'mood music' for Al-Qaeda, the recent high and low profile resignations from HT could more easily prove a conveyor belt to moderation and secularism. The problem is a causal link cannot be proven, it cannot be conclusively argued that someone uses Hizb ut-Tahrir as a gateway to more extreme positions, in the same manner as some claim drug users start off on softer drugs only to move on to harder drugs in search for stronger highs (The Gateway Drug Theory), Baran suggested thousands of people graduate from HT to join Al-Qaeda, although she provided few examples of this. The CSC document provides two, decade old examples of individuals that moved from membership of HT to Jihadi groups. Firstly it is not clear they were affiliated to HT and secondly a handful of examples does not prove the theory has legs. What of the 99.99% of individuals that do not progress from non-violent to violent methods, thereby suggesting other reasons why some may argue against non-violent means. It is granted that the report accepts that it is difficult to substantiate the numbers behind Zeyno Baran's 'conveyor belt' theory, but it replicated Maajid Nawaz's claim that HT provides the mood music for jihadis. Whereas, Al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups clearly ridicule the non-violent path to Islamic political change in the Muslim world and its actions clearly illustrate their belief in violent change. Al-Qaeda does not believe in the caliphate because they have been won over to the argument by HT, but because it is a classically held Islamic opinion that ruling by Islam is an obligation. Secondly, HT is fast approaching its sixth decade working in many Muslim countries to re-establish the caliphate, in that time it has been at the coalface of the struggle, and has never dealt with the repression of its members through violent means. Not because, as this and other reports suggest, this is a tactical decision, but because the method is an intrinsic part of the work which cannot be veered away from if victory is to be achieved. HT believe its method is the defacto Islamic method for change which replicates the life of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, Salallaho alaihi wassallam.

In this instance, the evidence suggests HT has been caught in the crossfire, between parties jockeying for political advantage and think tanks looking to provide the justification for cheap shot political positions.


Attack Formation

In the run up to the publication of this much awaited report, battle has been fought by hitherto amiable allies. There was a time when Douglas Murray of CSC did not have a bad word to say about Ed Husain, from author of ghost written memoir to someone that Murray hosted to debate with Ayan Hirsi Ali. The leg up was followed by supportive articles and press releases for the work of the QF. But recently the mood has changed into one of mutual recrimination.

Publically at least Douglas Murray shot the opening salvo. He attacked Ed Husain's unwise comments backing spying on British Muslims which Ed had endorsed. Murray attacked the Quilliam Foundation's condemnation of his own past remarks and questioned the liberal democratic credentials Ed and Maajid proudly wear as a disavowal of their Islamist past. Murray champions his own centre (CSC) and claims QF are part of the problem, recommending that a future Tory government should cut the funding and presumably re-direct this money to his own organisation.

Ed's sophisticated reply was to call Murray an acolyte of Melanie Philips. Attacking 'Mad Mel' is a populist move within the Muslim community, whilst also ensuring those who view her as extreme, also see Murray in the same light. He sacrificed Mad Mel to get to Murray, but in the process unleashed the scorn of his past ally and advocate. Ed went out of his way to praise the damascene conversion of Inayat Bunglawala and claimed the moderation in Inayat's recent positions should be reciprocated rather treated sceptically as a tactical position, as Mel had done. Like Murray before him, the timing of this attack is not indicative of anything, it is all about using an issue to batter your opponent. Melanie seemed to be genuinely hurt and angry (if human emotion is possible for journalism's equivalent of the Borg queen). She contradicted Ed's claims about their initial encounter and subsequent meetings, but most importantly questioned whether his break from Islamism was real or tactical.

For anyone that reads the CSC report and understands the cyber squabbles that surround its publication, it is clear, in writing this report at this time, they sought to place the Centre for Social Cohesion at the forefront of the debate as the expert on HT, to cut the funding of QF and re-route this funding to CSC and to cosy up to the government-in-waiting.

CSC wants to effectively destroy its competitor. It is actually in a strong position to do this. With all the expertise of Maajid et al. His position has always been a shakey one due to his background, both as an ex-Islamist and a Muslim. He is haunted by the need to reassure his audience that he is one of them. And as his audience is non-Muslim, he has had to say things, which have angered large sections of the Muslim community. Recently Maajid has been forced to diversify the remit of his think tank, lest he be typecast as a one trick pony. Writing on the factors affecting the employment of Muslim women and the focus on combating the BNP are geared towards pleasing his funders and making his organisation indispensable beyond that which gained them plaudits. Ed is frankly a liability, he is the embarrassing uncle he would like to deny, the one whose spills he is continually forced to clean up. Murray is not affected by such an inferiority complex and stole a march on QF by writing the report they should have written instead of reports on unemployment and the BNP. It is as surreal as it is damaging to the foundation, it is like waking up and reading that Jack Straw delivered Labour's election budget and Alasdair Darling choking on the contnts on the front page of the Economist over a bowl of Frosties. Anything QF now write will always be compared to the CSC report.

The months ahead will witness a far uglier cyber battle for the ear of government, but undoubtedly QF have been dealt a severe blow. The Tories are bound to follow through on banning HT, how they do this is anyone's guess. Unless they manage to win a huge landslide (most unlikely), they will have to act within the existing legislative framework. CSC provide an alternative to banning, which is based on encouraging a public challenge of HT, but following this second scenario would open up the Tory government to charges of hypocrisy for failing to do something it has attacked Labour for reneging on.


Cold Front

Anything HT or its members do will be scrutinised and be subject of smear and innuendo. This seems like part of a strategy to create doubts and wear down the rank and file of Islamist organisations. Stink Tanks such as CSC and QF need an adversary, just as Sherlock Holmes was defined by his arch-enemy, Moriarty, driven by the thrill of the chase. What is important is that they should not be viewed as objective bodies looking out for the greater good. As with any other industry, think tanks are all about profile, the anti-Islamist focussed ones thrive on controversy and exaggerated threats are a part and parcel of their way of making their existence relevant, whether a government should base public policy on the proposals they espouse is a different matter. It is in the interests of lobbies to push their own positions, governments have a responsibility to weigh up considerations based upon evidence. The evidence points to the folly of banning the hizb. Parties that seek high office can promise the earth just to be electable, but the sober reality of being in power dulls much of the simplistic policy positions being in opposition afford.

We will keep you posted on what the months leading up to the election unravels. This is not the end of think tank warfare, neither are we free from parties jostling over security issues.

What do you think?