Predetermined Outcomes
The Policy Exchange report into extremist literature in British Mosques certainly got plenty of coverage in the media this week (as was the intention, no doubt).
Before looking at the report itself, it is worth taking a moment to highlight the general attitude of its author, Dr. Denis MacEoin.
Elsewhere, he has said:
Just as our parents and grandparents fought the dark ideology of Nazism in the 1930s and 40s, so I believe this generation has the heaviest of responsibilities face to face with this growing threat to all civilized values. Not just the West, but the peoples of the Islamic world too may see their way of life changed for ever should the totalitarian spectre impose itself and its deadening hatred of life on all we and they hold dear.
I don’t like to speak in terms of historic moments or symbolic conflicts, but I’m afraid that, as this struggle intensifies, I am bound to do so.
Civilization itself is at stake. The values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the open society are as much or more at risk today than in the decades when we confronted, first German fascism and then Soviet communism.
He has also said:
I do not hold a brief for Islam. On the contrary, I have very negative feelings about it… I am pro-Israeli and involve myself in the defence of Israel…
To be fair, I should also mention that that second quotation was taken from a complaint Dr MacEoin made to Dhimmi Watch concerning the “gung-ho ignorance masquerading as informed comment” which appears in their comment threads.
Dr MacEoin’s attitude towards Muslims and his lack of any sort of ability to maintain perspective* is no reason to dismiss the findings of his report out of hand, of course. I include this merely as a context.
So let’s look at the report. Policy Exchange says:
The report is the most comprehensive academic survey of its kind ever produced in the UK and is based on a year-long investigation by several teams of specialist researchers into the availability of extremist literature and covers more than a hundred mosques and Islamic centres throughout the UK.
A comprehensive academic survey, they say.
Well, I’ve had a look at it (pdf) and I’m not sure that’s the description you’d want to use for it. For a start, can anyone direct me to the peer reviewed journal which published this “comprehensive academic survey”? I’m no scientist but I believe that’s the standard way in which academic surveys gain legitimacy. No?
As far as I can tell, it’s been published exclusively by Policy Exchange themselves, the same organisation which commissioned and funded the “research”.
And what of the methodology used in the report?
Methodology
In November 2006 four research teams (each comprising two people) were dispatched over a six month period to 100 Islamic institutions in a variety of locations across Britain… The focus for their research was on sites of religious instruction – which for the most part meant mosques… The teams’ brief was to investigate the extent to which literature inculcating Muslim separatism and hatred for the ‘non-believer’ was accessible in those institutions – both in terms of being openly available and also being obtainable ‘under the counter’.
There’s more but it really doesn’t get any more enlightening. It seems that this “comprehensive academic survey” specifically set out to find as many offensive pieces of literature as possible and that’s all it attempted to do.
The report claims to have found offensive material in 26% of the Mosques they investigated. Did the teams investigate the context in which this literature was available or the prominence given to these publications? Did they attempt to build a clear understanding of the situation by recording the number of publications containing counter-arguments available from the same institutions?
No, they did not.
In Edinburgh Central Mosque, for example, the report found one publication they deemed objectionable and that was enough for the Mosque to be included in the list of distributors of hate. Was that one publication sitting overlooked on a dusty bottom shelf while more moderate literature was widely available, prominently displayed and actively promoted? I suspect that’s the reality, as does Osama Saaed, but this is not something which Policy Exchange’s “comprehensive academic survey” concerns itself with.
If you were to visit libraries in the UK, you could find similar literature and get a very high headline figure indeed. Without context, this finding, while true, would be essentially meaningless.
It seems then that the survey was designed so as to allow as many Mosques as possible to be included in the headline grabbing figures. No attempt was made to investigate the full picture of the literature available at British Mosques or the way it is used and distributed. It was instead cherry picking on a grand scale; a comprehensive academic study into the literature being promoted in British Mosques, it most certainly was not.
None of the above is to deny that there is extremist literature to be found in some British Mosques, of course. Nor is it to deny that the Saudi government actively seeks to promote its intolerant version of Islam in other countries including the UK. The point is merely that headlines generated by flawed reports masquerading as academic surveys should not be taken at face value.
* If you agree with MacEoin’s contention that “the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the open society are as much or more at risk today… “, I’ve got three words for you: Battle of Britain. And another three: Cuban missile crisis.
Joe said,
November 2, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Never mind libraries, you could visit most evangelical bookshops in the UK and find some astonishingly vile literature about Catholics…
joe90 said,
November 2, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Osama Saeed at Rolled-up Trousers blog,
as well as mentioning your article also lists this one -
Policy Exchange hijacks professional research
Islam, Muslims, and an Anthropologist
31 Oct 2007
I thought you’d be interested to know!
All the best!
Garry said,
November 2, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Joe, I’m not sure how far that goes but I do seem to remember reading some interesting stuff on Ian Paisley’s website about Catholics not so long ago.
And thanks Joe90. Interesting stuff and from a fellow resident of Aberdeen too. I see that Dr MacEoin has sort of responded by complaining, not actually addressing the points and then running away. Not hugely unexpected really.
septicisle said,
November 2, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Funny you should mention visiting libraries, as that’s exactly what the Centre for Policy Studies did, and surprise surprise, they found some unpleasant literature too:
http://www.septicisle.info/2007/09/hate-on-state-and-hardline-takeovers.html
Indigo Jo Blogs said,
November 3, 2007 @ 1:34 am
“Hate books” that aren’t…
A report was published yesterday by the “Policy Exchange” alleging that so-called hate literature is widely available in British mosques (PDF), many of it subsidised by Saudi Arabia. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, this was published on the same day …
BryanC said,
November 3, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I am a Christian who attends an evangelical church in Aberdeen. You can certainly find literature in evangelical bookshops that is calling for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the middle east although I think that it would be harder to find similar anti-catholic literature except on the furthest marginalised extremes. There are many prominent evangelical leaders, mainly in the US who have savage views and it could be argued that these views are responsible for a lot more muslim deaths than that caused by any extreme Islamic views.
I don’t see any mainstream “evangelical watch” campaign telling the evangelical wing of the Church of England to get its house in order or face legislation or even house arrest.
In reality, at least in the UK, more Chistians are likely to have sympathies with the anti-war movement than neo-conservatism but that does not prevent “extremist” literature such appearing in many or even most churches (one example of this might be the “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye). Some U.S. authors who have political views that most UK Christians would regard as beyound the pale are read but either people do not realise what these political views are or only the author’s theology or practical advice is considered. An example of such an author would be James Dobson, whose politics are far to the right of any Christian I have ever met in the U.K. but who is read as an authority on child psychology.
You could easily put a similar study together detailing the threat of militant Christianity and it could be presented in a frightening and sensationalist way. As you say, context is important and it is self-evident to all but the most ardent islamophobe that there are not hordes of radical muslims or christians waiting to impose sharia or Old Testament law on the UK.
One area where militant Islam differs from Christian extremism is in the political context. Much of political Islam has arisen as a reaction to oppression or injustice in the Middle East, much of which is a direct result of western foreign policy. Increasing demonisation of muslims such as that contained in this study can only increase conflict.
Anyway, thanks for another excelent post Garry.
Julaybib said,
November 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
I remember someone did do a bit of evangelical Christian watching a few years ago, identifying how right wing US Christians were promoting racist and anti-Semitic views after carefully surveying their publicly available literature. He was prosecuted for obscenity following pressure from (?)Tip O’Hara, a right wing Christian friend of President Ronnie Reagan. Who was this watcher? The satirical lyricist and punk rock frontman of the The Dead Kennedys, Jello Biafra. In court, he was compared to Jonathan Swift - and found not guilty.
A week in blogs ‘n’ media « Muslim Recovery said,
November 3, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
[…] (Rolled-up Trousers) More than two sides to this story (Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, Guardian CiF) Predetermined Outcomes (Big Sticks and Small […]
joe90 said,
November 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
American Christian fundamentalists can’t wait for the day Israel is destroyed and Jews don’t exist - that’s how ‘pro-Israeli’ they are.
The three main religious fundamentalist movements (apologies to ‘Hindu’ extremists) Israeli-Jewish, Saudi-Wahabbi and American-Christian all require the support of the US Government to stay in existence, rather than the support of their individual congregations.
The bizarre twist being that the Israeli government promoted so-called ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ amongst their illegaly occupied Palestinian population in order to undermine the secular PLO ie Hamas was born.
The US government promoted the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Indeed, the Rambo III movie credits at the end od the movie dedicates the film to the ‘freedom fighters’ of Afghanistan ie the Al Quaeda-ish Anti-Godless-Communist Resistence Movement.
The US and UK governments destroyed Iranian democracy, and in reaction to the Soviet-style American dictatorship of the Shah, the Iranian Revolution produced the current Shia fundamentalist government - although to be fair, it is nowhere near as bad as the American dictatorship in Saudi Arabia or the American Apartheid regime in Israel, currently engaged in the genocide of Palestine
All the best folks!
Scottish Roundup » Blog Archive » Money, extremism and balls said,
November 4, 2007 @ 1:04 am
[…] The report is damning, but comes in for a good deal of criticism from Scottish bloggers: Garry takes a look at the what the author’s viewpoints on Islam already are, while Osama Saeed […]
Kate B said,
November 4, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Religious extremism?? This weekend Britain indulges in an orgy of anti Catholicism as we set off fireworks and burn in effigy a notorious Catholic revolutionary.
Garry said,
November 4, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I’ve not had to me to respond fully because I’ve been busy burning effigies of Catholics (and stealing ideas from Kate B).
I’m going to write a follow up post dealing with Dr MacEion’s response to criticism of the methodology of his “academic survey”.
A week in blogs ‘n’ media « Muslim Recovery said,
November 10, 2007 @ 8:08 am
[…] Saudis (Rolled-up Trousers) More than two sides to this story (Shelina Janmohamed, Guardian CiF) Predetermined Outcomes (Big Sticks and Small Carrots) Trust Me, I’m an Expert (Karima Hamdan, Ummah Pulse) Dr […]
Predetermined Outcomes, Part 2 | Big Sticks and Small Carrots said,
December 13, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
[…] what I wrote about the Policy Exchange report into extremist literature in Mosques when it was published, I […]
Newsnight versus Policy Exchange « pixelisation said,
December 15, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
[…] with some analysis of their own. MacEoin’s own political viewpoints are noted by Garry Smith (1, 2), and a quick search of his name tells you a lot. (Indigo Jo, a keen reader of letters to the […]
Policy Exchange Report: Links « The Tasneem Project said,
December 18, 2007 @ 6:56 am
[…] Saudis (Rolled-up Trousers) More than two sides to this story (Shelina Janmohamed, Guardian CiF) Predetermined Outcomes (Big Sticks and Small Carrots) Trust Me, I’m an Expert (Karima Hamdan, Ummah Pulse) Dr […]