William JK Leong Malaysian MP
Selayang
Terrorism
must be condemned without exception
Nothing justifies terrorism. It is criminal, inhuman,
immoral and repulsive. It must be condemned unequivocally in the strongest
terms. An act of violence designed to induce terror and fear on non-combatants
for the purpose of a political goal must be condemned without qualification irrespective
of its cause or whether perpetrated by friend or foe.
Where superpowers describe those who use violence to
achieve political ends as “freedom fighters” when they are fighting the enemies
of the superpowers but they are described as “terrorists” when fighting friends
of the superpowers they encourage the illusion that victory or the validity of
their cause would justify the brutality of their crime[1]. It can never be. History
may be written by the victors but the wrongs will never be forgotten or
forgiven.
Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin are examples of Western
Governments and media labelling them as terrorist and when they became the
leaders of their liberated nations they were called “freedom fighters” and
“statesmen.”[2]
Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Mujahidin were hailed by the Saudi and US
governments as heroes when they fought to rid the Soviets from Afghanistan but
became terrorists when they attacked US interests to force the US military out
of Saudi Arabia after the First Gulf War. Yesterday’s villains can be today’s
heroes, today’s heroes may be tomorrow’s enemies but right and wrong cannot be
based on which side you are on.
The indiscriminate use of the word “terrorism” as a
pejorative term to label one’s opponent and enemies has distorted its meaning.
An act of terrorism cannot depend on one’s point of view or subjective moral
judgment or whether one sympathizes with the victim or the perpetrator. The
saying “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” is grossly
misleading. A terrorist act is terrorism regardless of the validity of the
cause.[3] Such gloss on the use of
the term dilutes the force of the condemnation.
The United Nations failed to conclude a Comprehensive
Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single
all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal definition of terrorism. Noam Chomsky explains that in December 1987
the member states at the United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong
resolution against terrorism, condemning it in the strongest terms, calling on
every state to fight against it in every possible way. All approved, one
abstained, Honduras. Two voted against, the United States and Israel. The
reason, there was a paragraph which states nothing in the resolution infringes
on the rights of people struggling against racists and colonialist regimes or
foreign military occupation to continue resistance in their just cause. The
United States could not agree because its official ally, South Africa had
denounced the African National Congress struggling against a racist regime as a
terrorist group. And of course Israel supported by the United States was at
that time occupying Southern Lebanon. A US vote against is a veto. It also vetoes
it from history. None of this was ever
reported and none appear in the annals of terrorism.[4]
There is also no international legal consensus that the
definition of “terrorism” should include “state terrorism.” There are arguments for and against that
terrorism is not committed by states. It is contended that when states abuse
their powers they should be judged against international conventions dealing
with war crimes and international human rights law. However, former UN
secretary-general Kofi Annan said that it is “time to set aside debates on
so-called ‘state terrorism’. The use of force by states is already regulated
under international law”. Annan said “…regardless of the differences between
governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what
we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless
of one’s cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism”[5]
Therefore ISIS, Boko Haram and all other terrorist
organizations that resort to killing innocent people, raping, kidnapping and
forced conversions have no legitimacy whatsoever and the term Islam or Islamic
whether fundamentalist or any kind cannot be ascribed to them. Terror in the
name of Islam is not Islam. It is not in Islam, Christianity, Hinduism,
Buddhism or any religion to kill. Terrorism is not a Holy War. It is unholy, it
is evil.
Thus the ulema, Muslim clerics, influential Muslim
organizations and all eminent Muslim Democrats must condemn not just these
extreme and violent groups but also the dictatorships and autocratic regimes in
the Muslim world that have persistently denied democratic rights to their
citizens and violated their human rights.
By the same token we cannot stay silent and must condemn
with equal vigour those who support dictatorships and autocratic regimes, be
political and economic partners with states who support literalist Salafi
doctrine, be silent when civilians are massacred in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen
and Palestine.
Violence, terror and death have become commonplace in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Africa and Asia with the unilateral
declaration of the “War on Terror”, the non-existent weapons of mass
destruction for the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein and his
regime. It begins with European and American foreign policy and loss of
civilian lives a footnote under acceptable collateral damage. The US in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, Yemen, has repeatedly attacked civilian facilities
such as hospitals and schools. A US airstrike on 6 July 2008 killed civilians
in a wedding party including the bride in Afghanistan. On October 9 2016
US-armed Saudi coalition bombed a Yemen funeral killing 140 and wounding 525.
The 2014 Israeli military operation in Gaza to stop Palestinian rocket attacks
into Israel resulted in the death of thousands, the vast majority of whom were
Gaza residents. Various human rights groups contended both sides violated
international laws and committed war crimes. The United States Congress
expressed vigorous support for Israel and passed legislation providing Israel
with an additional USD225 million in military aid for missile defense. While
nothing can justify terrorist attacks, the condemnable action should not blind
us to the root causes. Is it right to declare war when citizens are killed at
home but consider themselves at peace when they kill the citizens of other
countries far away?[6]
Salafism
and Geostrategic interests
The Saudi Arabian oil reserves are an important reason for
US support of the Saudi Kingdom. Every US President since President Franklin
Roosevelt to Barack Obama has worked with the Saudi monarchy.
Saudi Arabia has spent an estimated US100 billion over
decades to promote its Salafism Islam in building mosques, madrasas, schools
and Sunni cultural centres across the Muslim world. ISIS’s ideology has its
roots in Salafism.[7]
Wikileaks email reveals that Hillary Clinton acknowledged
to colleagues that Saudi Arabia and Qatar sponsor ISIS. The leaked August 17,
2014 email by Hillary Clinton said “…we need to use our diplomatic and more
traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic
support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”[8]
The West cannot be driven solely by their own geostrategic
and economic interests they risk paying a heavy human price in response to the
injustice and humiliation they have provoked.
Condemnation of those who commit terrorism, violence,
violation of international laws, war crimes cannot be qualified by subjective
moral judgment or dependent on whether they are committed by friend or foe.
Terrorism must be condemned without exception. We grieve with those who held
thousands of candle lights for the victims of the terrorists, but was there
even one candle for the thousands killed in Syria,
Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Africa and Asia?
Egypt
and the Muslim Brotherhood
The lack of an accepted meaning for “terrorism” continues
to create problems. Once again, a former military official turned dictator
rules Egypt. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s regime is an even harsher
authoritarian regime than Hosni Mubarak’s. Sisi wants to crush the Muslim
Brotherhood. Many Egyptians have good reason to be angry with the Muslim
Brotherhood who, in their brief time, proved incompetent, authoritarian and
sectarian. Yet the Brotherhood has deep roots in Egyptian society. The Muslim
Brotherhood has for decades sought political power through elections and
non-violent means, US Congress is currently considering Sisi’s request to
designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. US declaring the
Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization will improve ties with Sisi but it
would be condoning his brutal repression[9]. It would be history
repeating itself.
A Rigorous
Religious Counter-Narrative
The use of military force in Iraq and Syria is not enough
to end Jihadist terrorism. There must be a counter-narrative to challenge the
narrative of ISIS and Jihadist groups. Such a counter-narrative is needed to
stop the flow of misled young people joining ISIS and Jihadist groups as
fighters. Jihadi recruiters prey on frustrated youth, radicalizing and
indoctrinating them by painting tales of glory to right the wrongs of history
and mankind against Muslims to justify violence.
ISIS has brought terrorist propaganda to a new level. ISIS recruits its fighters from all over the world
turning them into brutal killers of both Muslims and non-Muslims, programming
them to make the ultimate sacrifice as suicide bombers. ISIS is able to
convince young women and girls to leave their homes from Europe, South East
Asia and Australia to perform their Jihad by becoming comfort women to the ISIS
fighters.
ISIS is able to do this because it is very much in
cyberspace. It is on the internet where its claims often go unchallenged. With
its propaganda in the social media and with some of its video footage also
broadcast in mainstream media, ISIS has caught the imagination of a
considerable number of young Muslims all over the world. They are attracted by
its violent messages and catchy slogans. Its apparent success has also led to a
number of instant conversions to Islam among marginalized non-Muslim youth in Western
countries. The media campaign of ISIS is very professional by any standards
with high quality visual footage and well-crafted ideological statements
attracting young Muslims and some recent converts to Islam to join its ranks.
Per day, ISIS produces up to 90,000 tweets and other social media responses – a
volume of activity unmatched by government messaging. According to the American
FBI Director, James Comey, ISIS has been issuing statements in almost 2 dozen
languages. It is estimated more than 20,000 fighters from more than 100
countries joined ISIS and other Jihadis organizations.[10]
In the United Kingdom, its Counter Terrorism Internet
Referral Unit has secured the removal of more than 120,000 pieces of
terror-related content between 2010 and 2016. On average about 100 removal
requests per day contain Syria-related content, which would amount to 36,500
requests per year. The EU Internet Referral Unit made over 500 referrals in the
first 16 weeks after it was established in July 2015 of which 90% were
successfully removed. Between mid-2015 and February 2016, Twitter had suspended
over 125,000 accounts globally that were linked to terrorists. Google removed
over 14 million videos globally in 2014 which related to all kinds of abuses.[11]
Despite these efforts, 800 UK-linked fighters are estimated
to have travelled to Syria and Iraq since the conflicts began in those
countries, 50% of these are thought to have returned. Terrorism-related arrests
in UK were 35% higher in 2015 than in 2010.
Countering terrorist cyber propaganda is not achieved just
by setting up more websites or having more tweets than them. Ideology and
religion are crucial and central for legitimising jihadist violence. There must
be a counter-narrative based on facts, rational reasoning and rigorous religious
arguments by Muslim scholars and leaders that have the necessary credibility
and standing in the eyes of the young Muslims. Only then can they be made to
see ISIS is a death cult that kills mainly Muslims and discredits rather than
defends Islam.
It is also necessary to develop credible alternative narratives
that Islam is not the answer to their political, economic and social problems
and to give a new sense of purpose, meaning and hope to those who feel they
have no future in their societies.
The Politics
of Fear
The terror attacks are just “mad”, “irrational” and
“inhuman”. If we wipe away the tears, the smoke and see through the blind
emotional reaction stoked by fear and terror, there is method to the madness.
In fact it makes perfect logical sense. It is about provoking fractures between
Muslims and the citizens of the West. It is about making Muslims feel they will
never be welcome in European, American or any Western society. Their goal is to
use Muslims to feed fear of Islam; for the West to associate Islam with danger
and violence. It is to spread insecurity and social instability along religious
fault lines.
As terrorist attacks continue, Islamophobia is
spreading all around the world. As a consequence, bona fide Muslim
organizations and Muslim democrats become targets even as ordinary Muslims fall
prey to “hate crimes.”
In responding to the terrorist attacks, it is
important to keep in mind that jihadists and extremists do not represent
Muslims. There is a growing body of literature that claims that over-reaction
to terrorism causes more terrorism. It appears that many acts of terrorism is
motivated by revenge for acts of repression, injustice and humiliation. The
democratic, rule of law-based states have to find a balance between freedom and
security. Although there cannot be freedom without security and people
generally opts for security first over liberty, if the state overreacts to
terrorist provocations and become very repressive and aggressive, it often
produces additional mobilization on the other side. It is now widely accepted
the invasion of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison atrocities have contributed to both
radicalization and recruitment to al-Qaeda.[12]
So intense is the demonizing of Muslim extremists
today that, in dealing with individual suspects, everything seems to be
permitted. While it is normal to detain persons who are acting suspiciously in
order to forestall terrorist actions, the arrest and indefinite preventive
detention of individuals without respecting their right to a legal defense
cannot be considered legitimate. Men have been imprisoned under anti-terrorist
security laws who do not know what they are accused of and without judgment.
What we observe today as a result of the politics of fear is a danger, above
all for the West itself, the abandoning of its principles: extraordinary
renditions, detention without trial, torture, incarceration and solitary
confinement, degrading treatment incompatible with the professed values of
human rights and dignity. UK programmes like PREVENT have been under heavy
criticisms for their discriminatory approach.[13] In the fight against
terrorists the West have transformed into monsters violating the very rules
that the West claim to protect, the system based on the rule of law and human
rights.[14]
Kofi Annan had warned “…compromising human rights
cannot serve the struggle against terrorism. On the contrary, it facilitates
achievement of the terrorist’s objective. By ceding him the moral high ground,
and provoking tension, hatred and mistrust of government among precisely those
parts of the population where it is most likely to find recruits. Upholding
human rights is not merely compatible with a successful counter-terrorism
strategy. It is an essential element in it.”[15]
We have to be mindful that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist’s
objective is to provoke mistrust of government and society against Muslims. As Anwar Ibrahim said Islamic terror groups,
the self-righteous and self-proclaimed defenders of the faith, are stabbing the
religion in the back by preaching intolerance and animosity. These groups are
using jihad as an excuse to justify their violence, trying to outdo one another
in their demonstration of faith. He said these groups went against what Prophet
Muhammad had done, who despite facing many difficulties and obstacles during
the spread of Islam, had shown compassion, tolerance and commitment to dakwah,
not violence.[16]
He asked:
“Where does it say that Muslims should avenge the
prophet by attacking and going on a killing spree?”
Terrorists and murderers are and will continue to kill
and maim to do battle against the whole world including Muslims, it is to
ferment Islamophobia.
Knowing that groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and
terrorist groups want to instill fear and deepen divisions on an international
level, we must guard against a natural reaction to the terrorist acts which is
defining ourselves as Muslims and non-Muslims, “Us” against “Them.”
Tariq Ramadan issues the same reminder against turning
to populism that narrowly defines the “Other” and holds him responsible for all
society’s ills because of what he is: precisely the definition of racism and of
the politics of fear. It will drive the West so powerful and yet so fearful, so
far from its ideals, so near to its demons.
Unfortunately, after the US Presidential elections,
Barack Obama noted the world is entering a new illiberal era. Populism is on
the march. Immigration is an explosive issue for whom populists from US to
Europe strongly oppose. Among the reasons are political entrepreneurs fanning
fear and latent prejudice. This has given rise to fear, racism, xenophobia and
Islamophobia. There is no substitute for political will and enlightened
leadership, the kind that, instead of pandering to people’s worst instincts,
appeals to their better judgment.
Fundamentalist
Islam
To counter Jihadist ideology and use of religion, we
need to know more of the precepts of Fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam
is a contemporary phenomenon of approximately only 100 years. The movement was
a reaction to the frailty and weakness of Islamic countries compared with their
glorious pasts. Fundamentalism emerged not out of conservative circles but
rather reformist movements which were aiming for an “Islamic Awakening.”[17]
The goal of fundamentalism in fact is to return to the
“sacred texts” carefully executing what it says, without interpretations, and
rejecting the official and more conservative, historical interpretations of it.
For the fundamentalists, a return to the original and primary reading and
avoiding any latter interpretations is the solution to all current problems.
The idea of an Islamic state characterized by the
implementation of sharia is a modern phenomenon developed by Abul A’la Maududi
in the context of British colonial rule and the identity politics of the Indian
Subcontinental. In response to the Muslim League’s calls for a Muslim state of
Pakistan, Hindu calls for a secular India and communist calls for a socialist
state, Maududi called for the establishment of an Islamic state. Maududi’s
concept found support among influential Islamic thinkers and leaders. Sayyid
Qutb built on Maududi’s works in his book, “Milestones”. He took the core
concepts of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and Maududi, reshaped
and sharpened them to exhort Muslims to radical action.[18]
Like Hassan al-Banna and Maududi, Qutb regarded the
West as the historic enemy of Islam and Muslims as demonstrated by the
Crusades, European colonialism and the Cold War. The Western threat was
political, economic and religio-cultural. Equally insidious were the elites of
the Muslim world who rule and govern according to Western secular principles
and values that threaten the faith, identity, and values of their own Islamic
societies. Qutb denounced governments and Western secular-oriented elites as
atheist against whom all true believers must wage Holy war.
Fundamentalist Islam seeks to establish an Islamic state
ruled by sharia. They apply a literal interpretation of the primary sources of
Islam and harken back to earlier times to return to the fundamentals of the
religion which is out of line with modern times. They apply the teachings of
Sayyid Qutb in his book “Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones) or guiding markers
along the road that will lead to the revival of Islam from its current
extinction. According to Qutb the Muslim community has been extinct for a few
centuries and reverted to “Jahilyyah” (the state of ignorance of the guidance
of God) because those who call themselves Muslims failed to follow the laws of
God or sharia. When God’s law is established on earth, it will lead to
blessings on all mankind. What is non-Muslim or “jahiliyyah” is evil and
corrupt and its existence anywhere is intolerable to true Muslims. To restore
Islam on earth and free Muslims from jahli society, jahili concepts, jahili
traditions and jahili leadership, Qutb teaches that a vanguard (tali’a) is to be
formed modelling itself after the original Muslims, the companions (Sahaba) of
Muhammad. Qutb believes these Muslims to successfully vanquish Jahiliyyah have
to do carry out two duties:
·
They have to cut themselves
off from Jahiliyyah- they have to ignore the learning and culture of non-Muslim
groups; (Greeks, Romans, Persians, Christians or Jews) and separate themselves
from their old non-Muslim friends and family;
·
They have look to the Quran,
not as learning and information or solution to problems but for orders to obey.
Following these principles the vanguard will fight
Jahiliyyah; by preaching and through the “the movement.” Preaching will
persuade people to become true Muslims while the movement will abolish the
organizations and authority of the jahili system by physical power and Jihad.
Force is necessary, Qutb explains, because it is naïve to expect those who have
usurped the authority of God to give up their power without a fight.
Remaining aloof from Jahiliyyah, the vanguard will travel
the road growing from a cell of three individuals to ten and ten to hundred
until there are thousands and blossom into a truly Islamic community. The
community may start in the homeland of Islam but its objective must be to carry
Islam throughout the earth to the whole of mankind.
This is the ideology and narrative the Al-Qaeda, ISIS
and the Jihadists use. An alternative to this fundamentalist approach is
critical to counter terrorism and also to re-think the religion to bring it to
be compatible with modernity.
Maqasid
al-Sharia
Since Jihadi recruiters use religion
as a political tool, to defeat them there must be a response with solid and
rigorous religious arguments. Religion is use
as a tool to disguise political aspirations, lust for power. It is Machiavellian
and inhuman.
Who can be the messengers of the counter-narrative and what
is the content? There are those re-thinking Islam applying maqasid al-sharia
and ijtihad. There is an increasing number of Muslim scholars and political
leaders who utilize rigorous, historical and texture analysis to re-examine,
reconcile and re-think the role of Islam in a secular state and related issues
to bring modern concepts of democracy, human rights, inclusivity, tolerance,
pluralism and religious freedom to be comparable to Islam’s universal concepts.
They assert good governance, economic development, inclusiveness, protecting
basic rights and freedoms are Islamic objectives adopting a maqasid approach
and ijtihad.
The content must satisfy rigorous conditions. The road
to Islamic re-thinking despite its twists and turns cannot reach its
destination without passing through the gates of Islamic authoritative
traditions. Those re-thinking Islam have to frame the narrative and discourse
to engage Muslims in accordance with the practices and authority of Islamic
traditions. This is a critical problem that all religious scholars or leaders
of whatever faith face. They need to demonstrate a relationship between the
re-thinking and the authority of tradition. The re-thinkers must show some form
of continuity between tradition and change. For Muslims, the interpretations
and practices sanctioned by the ijma of the past, the classic Islamic
traditions, consensus of religious scholars or ijma represents the source of
religious authority. If the re-thinkers are unable to establish the necessary
link or continuity between the authoritative ijma of the past and modernity,
their effort to effect change will fail.[19]
These Islamic intellectuals such as Mohammad Hashim
Kamali, Tariq Ramadan, Dr Nurcholish Majid, Abdullah Ahmed An-Naim, Abdul Aziz
Sachedina and Islamic political leaders such as Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim and
Tunisia’s Rachid Ghanouchi have striven to demonstrate Islam’s compatibility
with modernity, democracy, human rights, gender equality, pluralism and
peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims.
Islamic political parties have struggled for decades
to find the appropriate balance between Islam and modernity. Ijtihad and the
maqasid al-sharia approach enables these parties to maintain Islamic legitimacy
while evolving from ideology-oriented to policy-oriented parties and thereby
responding to the needs and aspirations of broad constituencies.
Maqasid provides an alternative to the generally
anti-Western, ideology-oriented, focused on moralistic discourse and defined by
their commitment to establishing an Islamic state based on the implementation
of sharia law.
Anwar Ibrahim has explained that: “The
maqasid-al-sharia (higher objectives of the sharia) sanctify the preservation
of religion, life, intellect, family, and wealth, objectives that bear striking
resemblance to Lockean ideals that would be expounded centuries later. Many
scholars have explained that laws which contravene the maqasid must be revised
or amended to bring them in line with the higher objectives and to ensure that
they contribute to the safety and development of the individual and society.
Notwithstanding the current malaise of authoritarianism plaguing the Muslim
world, there can be no question that several crucial elements of constitutional
democracy and civil society are also moral imperatives in Islam- freedom of
conscience, freedom of expression, and the sanctity of life and property-as
demonstrated very clearly by the Koran, as well as by the teachings of the
Prophet Muhammad” [20]
Rachid al-Ghannouchi, Anwar Ibrahim and others are
teaching that there is an alternative to the fundamentalist approach that
democracy is not compatible with Islam. These Muslim Democrats show that the
principles of Islam can be compatible with modern democracy. Ghannouchi’s party,
Ennada in May this year announced a historic transition from an Islamist party
to a party of Muslim democrats.
We need to support and give these re-thinkers the room
and opportunity to provide the Counter-Narrative. Unfortunately, many obstacles
are placed in their paths to prevent the Counter-Narrative from being told,
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim lost his teaching position in Al Azhar, his teacher
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha was hanged by the Gafaar Numeiri government for apostasy, these
re-thinkers face harassment, threats, arrests and some like Anwar Ibrahim are
put into prison.
Conclusion
While we see light with the emergence of Muslim
Democrats calling for inclusiveness and democratic values, the rise of populism
with the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States who said he
would “bomb the s---- out of them” creates great concern. Hopefully as Obama
seeks to reassure the rest of the world: “How you campaign isn’t always how you
govern” otherwise Islamist terrorists may find Donald Trump to be a Godsend for
their cause, just as one photo of the atrocities in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Bay recruited more impressionable minds to join the terrorists than a hundred
Jihadist recruiters could have done.
21 November 2016
[1] Eqbal Ahmad, Terrorism: theirs and Ours
[2] Theodure P. Seto, The Morality of Terrorism, The Times published on
July 23 1946 described Irgun as Jewish terrorist of which Menachem Begin was a
leading member; Lord Desai Hansard house of Lords September 3 1998; Jomo
Kenyatta, nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin-to give just three examples- were
all denounced as terrorists but all proved to be successful political leaders
of their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom.
[3]Adrian Humphreys, One Official’s ‘refugee’ is another’s ‘terrorist’
[4] Noam Chomsky, What is Terrorism?
[5] Press conference with Kofi Annan and Foreign Minister Kamal
Kharrazi, United nations 2009-03-25
[6] Tariq Ramadan March 25, 2016 “Terror isn’t just ‘mad,’ ‘irrational’
and ‘inhuman’
[7] The Week August 8, 2015: How Saudi Arabia exports radical Islam
[8] Your NewsWire.com October 12, 2016 Wikileaks: Hillary Confirms
Saudi Arabia Sponsor ISIS
[9] Steven Cook, Egypt’s Nightmare, Foreign Affairs November/December
2016
[10] Dr Alex P. Schmid: Challenging the Narrative of the “Islamic State”
International Centre for Counter-Terrorism
[11] House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee; Radicalisation: the
counter-narrative and identifying the tipping point July 19 2016
[12] Dr Alex P. Schmid: Radicalisation, de-Radicalisation,
Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review ICCT March 2013
[13] Tariq Ramadan The Politics of fear: how Britain’s anti-extremism
strategy has failed; The Guardian October 19, 2016 UK’s Prevent
counter-radicalisation policy ‘badly flawed’; House of Commons, Radicalisation:
The counter-narrative and identifying the tipping point.
[14] Tariq Ramadan, Salafi jihadism and the West
[15] Kofi Annan March 10, 2005 “A Global Strategy for Fighting
Terrorism”
[16] Anwar Ibrahim June 2, 2015: “Extremists Stabbing Islam in the Back”
International Youth Gathering 2015
[17] Ali Mamouri, “The Roots of Radicalism in Political Islam”
Al-Monitor
[18] Halim Rane, The Relevance of a Maqasid Approach for political islam
Post Arab Revolutions, Journal of law & Religion Vol XXVIII page 489
[19] John L Esposito, Rethinking Islam and Secularism, Association of
Religion Data Archives
[20] Anwar Ibrahim, Universal Values and Muslim Democracy 17 J.
Democracy 7 July 2006
