On Events At City University

The Steampunk Shariah website has published an article condemning the alleged interference of the authorities at City University in London, with the Friday prayers held by the University Islamic Society. You can read the artcle here:

My response is 'awaiting moderation' - in case it is not published, here it is below:

A few things are missing from this piece, whether by accident or design. The first is the local history of City ISOC. Its past racist comments to a Sikh student journalist who had investigated its extremism is perhaps the worst example, but its long term dispute with the University has to be considered relevant. Here is a libertarian socialist analysis from 2010 on some of the issues raised by City ISOCs past conduct:

Many Universities are now moving towards the creation of multi-faith spaces, to be shared by all religious societies on campus, and/or are encouraging religious groups to make use of local religious buildings off site. I would hazard a guess if City ISOC did this, few local mosques would stand for the sort of nonsense they have got up to in the past. Either way, I am not the only person to observe how willing some religions are to share space in this way, and how reluctant ISOCs are. Universities will increasingly make the decision for them.

I do not much care for Marine Le Pen, but comparing a one-off appearance at the Cambridge Union with the broader treatment of University ISOCs is a tad cheeky. Universities are more concerned, not with occasional debates, but the responsibility they have to regular users of their premises. Put simply, use their facilities on a regular basis, obey their rules. That is what City ISOC is struggling with.

Finally there is the much broader issue, which you mention solely in relation to fascist terrorists. Do you really want me to list all the serving or former ISOC members convicted of terrorist offences in the past twenty years? Or the numbers involved in actual or attempted suicide bombings?

We are talking about over a score of individuals, something that outstrips the examples of far-right terrorism in this country. 

Comments

[Yakoub]

It HAS been published, and my response is this:

As my piece points out, the bar at which you need to be convicted of being terrorist plummets if you’re Muslim. So the notion that ISOC nasties somehow outstrip right-wing ones is a moot point. Moreover, the fact you are or have been an ISOC member and are a convicted terrorist does not concede a causal link.

But this raises more fundamental issues – why target ISOCs on these issues? It’s nothing to do with the spread of liberal mores. This is all about targeting ‘campus extremism’. Yet the evidence on ‘student extremism’ is highly tendentious, and those arguing in favour of this are frequently (1) speaking from a politically loaded or racist position, and/or (2) favour a link between ‘religion’ and ‘terrorism’ that is at best crass and at worst, again, highly political. When I converted, my ISOC included plenty of nitwits with unpleasant and inflammatory positions. And how many went on to blow people up? None. Their views were challenged.

They grew up.

Universities should provide more platforms for genuine debate and education, which in the current exam-centric culture, is rare enough. If City Uni ISOC is dominated by jihadi dicks, this move has just made them martyrs and sealed their position of authority. Along with sledgehammer anti-terror legislation and Home Office policies like Prevent, such acts may actually prove to be counterproductive – as in the Birmingham case, where families didn’t alert police to their kids trying (unsuccessfully) to attend terror camps coz they feared they’d get 10 years!

[Yakoub]

Ps. I'm not a terrorism studies academic like you, Paul, so I look forward to getting intellectually beaten up on this one. I don't mind learning the hard way!