Guardian

What the Guardian won’t report: Radicalization on British University Campuses


The Quilliam Foundation has issued a new report on how a mainstream academic institution in the UK can become incubators for extremist, intolerant forms of political thought – in this case, radical Islam.

Among their findings:

  • At City University, in London, extremist members of the campus Islamic Society created an environment in which there was the potential for radicalization towards Islamist-inspired terrorism.
  • Based on material from the Islamic Society’s (ISoc) Friday sermons, the ISoc’s website and 15 interviews conducted on campus, this case study particularly illustrates how easily a small group of extremist students can take over a university Islamic Society and use it as a vehicle for the propagation of extremist, intolerant and pro-violent ideologies.
  • The activities of the ISoc leadership at City also impacted the campus environment. Although only a relatively small number of Muslim students were involved in the ISoc’s disruptive activities, this group had a clear, negative and disproportionate impact on both student life, academic freedom and on various minority student groups.

You can read the entire report, here.

13 replies »

  1. The British intellectual elite are too busy turning themselves into dhimmi serfs to notice or care about on-campus radicalization of Muslims.

    Freedom of speech, innit?

  2. “Although only a relatively small number of Muslim students were involved in the ISoc’s disruptive activities,”

    This piece is what we need to focus on.
    Hope rather than despair.

  3. Adam, there is much more than a mere potential here. There was a prayer- in in the square outside the university – the good old claiming of space for Islam. This is an account of it and the “rationale” behind it:

    http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9192.35;wap2

    Note the date and this by Rosie Waterhouse (emphasis mine):

    “…In April 2009, organisers invited three radical Islamist preachers to address the society’s annual dinner, with the “brothers” and “sisters” segregated, and the latter forbidden to ask questions. One preacher, Anwar al-Awlaki , was to speak by video-link from Yemen, because he is banned from Britain for alleged links to terrorists. But the then vice-chancellor Malcolm Gilles (sic)intervened and the video-link was banned.

    “After this I met Gillies to say I was concerned about the activities of the Islamic Society. Several research papers and Ed Husein’s alarming book, The Islamist suggested that certain British universities, including City, were potential recruiting grounds for violent extremists. We agreed this was a sensitive subject but I argued that it was time universities took action. Gillies, who has since moved to London Metropolitan University, said there were two taboo topics among vice-chancellors – Islamic extremism and pensions…”

    A small group of committed and one-track-minded Islamists (?Salafists) can easily outwit a university body which is spineless, which cannot conceive of behaving any differently than its humanistic values dictate, and cannot believe that said Islamists/Salafists could possibly do such things in this country.

    For the life of me, I just cannot understand why these people should expect the freedom (and be given it by this university) to impose the sort of Dark Ages rule which stifles the freedoms of others.

    City owes it to Muslims who merely want peace and quiet to stand up on their behalf against these extremists. These peaceable Muslims will continue to be targeted by this crowd.

    Itsik, the small number can easily “infect” gormless others. I have seen this in action. And there is also the Islamic imperative of loyalty to other Muslims against kufar which runs like a seam of ….. through the whole Koran and feeds any sense of paranoia, and which is deliberately pushed at these poor souls. I am trying to find out from my contacts there exactly what is going on. If I am allowed to do so I will clarify here.

  4. There is clearly cause for concern here as regards radicalisation.

    A certain Ben White was behind the campaign to disinvite Benny Morris from some Oxbridge event. Morris is simply a historian whose views you may or may nor agree with, but he’s hardly a radical extremist nor in any sense a threat.
    Why is White not challenging campus invitations to Islamist hate-preachers?

  5. “What the Guardian won’t report: Radicalization on British University Campuses”

    The term radical comes from ‘radicalis’ or Latin for roots, implying something native, innate or genuine; By the way, the word ‘radici’ means the same thing in Italian.

    That said, Islamic dogma not being native to Europe is an alien concept altogether. Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head in your post.

    Thank you again.

  6. Good question Pretzelberg.
    I think your mind can assume the answer, since you’ll probably want get an honest response form the accused…

  7. Pretzelberg because White is a typically benighted supporter of the rights of Islamists to free speech, even if those rights mean that Islamists make clear their intention to deprive us of those very freedoms.

    White is also an ignoramus.

  8. Silvertrees, if you are correct and White supports Islamist “free” speech but not that of others who oppose this Dark Ages mentality, then he is also very conflicted.

  9. Ben White on antisemitism… judge for yourself.

    “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”

    What a scumbag!!!