Big Sticks and Small Carrots

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.