Muslims and Multiculturalism in Britain: Where did we go wrong?

GUEST SPEAKER: Gilles Kepel

Summarizing his latest book "Beyond Terror and Martyrdom. The Future of the Middle East", Kepel identified two dominant worldviews:

1. Bush’s ‘terror’ narrative: a means not only to destroy the Al Qaeda network but to reshuffle the Middle East and facilitate the promotion of democracy in the region.

f
2. Al Qaeda’s ‘martyrdom’ narrative: Built by Zawahiri to boost Al Qaeda’s objectives.

Both narratives stumbled over the issue of Iraq and, as a result, have now failed. The issue now becomes how we can function together with Muslim majority countries.

To answer this, we can learn from the experiences of Europe. The book is a comparative study of the policies of integration and multiculturalism of certain countries in Europe, using recent events as analysers: 7/7, the stabbing of Theo Van Gogh, the cartoons controversy in Denmark, the Pope’s remarks at Regensburg, the Muslim riots in Paris.

The book argues that multiculturalism, as put into practice in Britain and the Netherlands, has created enclaves in the shadow of which terrorist events were able to take place.

Finally the book examines ways to move forward.

Q & A
You say within your book that multiculturalism in Britain was built upon the credibility of English-speaking Muslim elites, which was then shattered by ‘the doctors’ plot’. Could you expand?
- The politics of multiculturalism in the UK has led to the strengthening of identity differences. The UK also gives asylum to people from all around the world, considering it ok to host the most radical ideologues. This functioned as political insurance: radicals were more interested in staying in London and so would not do anything on the domestic front.
- Some citizens have maintained conservative Islamic tradition, whilst working as professionals in the UK. In order for them to function professionally, the government felt that they had to give them religious rights. That people who were supposedly symbols of socio-economic integration were able to take part in the Glasgow Bombing, symbolically throws into question the whole issue of multiculturalism.

Do you feel that the strategy of reaching out to social minorities by using community leaders as intermediaries is a successful one?
- This policy of having community representation, rather than engaging with individuals, was a colonial policy. In a system that is clearly secular, why would someone be defined in terms of their religion? This is a major impediment in a society where people should be regarded as equal.
- Politicians must say clearly what they want to do with these intermediary figures/groups. They cannot behave as if they are the sole representatives.

What is the evidence behind your assumption that multiculturalism and Islamism are directly connected? Is the rise in extremism not, instead, to do with our security policy? Are you blurring integration and security, as policy-makers do?
- I did not say that multiculturalism would lead to terrorism, but that it makes terrorism very difficult to deal with. One was feasible because of the other, but extremism is not a necessary consequence of multiculturalism.
- This is because the government has to rely on the cooperation of community leaders. In France we’ve had no incidents since 1996 because we did not rely of self-proclaimed community leaders.

There has never been an official policy of multiculturalism in Britain. What do you have to say about this?
- I agree with you. Multiculturalism became a state of fact or state of mind rather than official policy. It is this state of mind which is now being increasingly called into action.

You haven’t mentioned the word ideology. Does extremism not need to be tackled as a classic ideology?
- In a way there is a continuum in Islam from moderate Muslim Brothers to radicals like Zawahiri. However, the issue is not to unmask the ideology but to ‘put your money where your mouth is’- e.g. when Tariq Ramadan says he’s a “Third Worldist” we need to challenge it. As a democratic society it is ok for these groups to have an agenda as long as it is clear what their agenda is.

Britain successfully integrates large populations from very different societies in a policy that is socially liberal. Since 7/7, British Islamists claim to be those best equipped to stop violent extremists, but in raising the credibility of Islamists they get to impose their socially illiberal policies on UK Muslims. We need to make sure counter-terrorism policy doesn’t undermine the bigger long-term project of undermining integration in the UK.
- This happened in Egypt - the ulama became the sole bearer of ideas. In the French case the Muslim Brotherhood tried to play that card.
- What you have in the UK are many success stories of integration, although often these integrated figures do not want to be considered as symbols of minority communities because they do not regard themselves as different. These are people who are not Imams or members of the Muslim Brotherhood and they are given a position of privacy.

What do you think the core requirement is in order to build cultural competency around state institutions in both Europe and the States?
(Unfortunately we ran out of time at this point, but the question was an important one.)