|
|
In a May 17, 2023 panel discussion (video) in Washington, D.C., on the future of Islamism and counter-Islamism in America, Abha Shankar, director of research at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and Kyle Shideler, director and senior analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, examined the new ideological developments within leading American Islamist movements, discussed new threats posed by these networks, and explored new potential alliances and strategies to advance the counter-Islamist cause. The following is a summary of their remarks:
The panelists shed light on divisions within Islamist movements, collaborations with the Left, the growing focus on Israel and India, potential ties with far-Right groups, and the significance of empowering moderate Muslim voices.
MEF Islamist Watch director Sam Westrop, who hosted the panel, began by reflecting on the transformation of Islamism over the past decade. He mentioned political changes in the Gulf, the collapse of Islamist branches such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, and the rise of new Islamist movements in South Asia, the Far East, Africa, and South America.
Westrop emphasized that understanding the nature and evolution of Islamism is essential for predicting its impact in regions with contrasting demographics, such as Europe and the United States. There is an interesting shift in the flow of money and ideas, which now largely move from the West to the East. For example, a Malaysian prime minister led a wealthy Islamist network in Virginia, but he is now implementing American Islamist agendas in Malaysia.
Westrop also expressed concern that despite the evolving nature of the Islamist threat, the interest in Islamism among the public and media appears to be waning, which he believes is a problem.
Abha Shankar presented her observations on recent trends in Islamism, noting an increase in vitriol and activism against India – particularly on the subject of Kashmir – and likening this effort to the longstanding Islamist campaign against Israel.
Such radicalism leads to violence. Shankar noted: “I think this targeting of Hindutva as a Nazi ideology, as a fascist ideology, has been having repercussions on diaspora communities. We saw the violence in Leicester [in the UK]. And then of course over here [in the United States] there is also rising Hinduphobia. Temples are being attacked, Hindus are being targeted.”
Shankar further explained that Islamists have successfully marketed themselves as civil rights groups and framed issues like the Palestinian and Kashmir conflicts in human rights terms. Islamists take advantage of public ignorance about complex conflicts like the Palestinian and Kashmiri conflicts to spread a broader radical narrative. The furor around the topics are designed to serve as an accelerant in the Islamist pursuit of a caliphate.
Shankar also issued stark warnings about the alliances Islamists have built with far-Left activists and progressive groups, their rising influence in politics, and their efforts to overturn the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. A unifying agenda with the far-Left is a shared disdain for ostensible American imperialism.
Shideler, meanwhile, suggested that Islamism should be examined along two axes: non-state versus state actors; and the positioning of Islamism along the Western Left-Right spectrum. As non-state actors such as the Muslim Brotherhood have evolved, they have moved away from focusing on their own networks. Now, “you have a real uptick in Turkish influence, Qatari influence, Pakistani influence. Where these networks [were] once operating for their own ends, they are now operating really explicitly for the agendas of these states.”
Shideler also touched on the changing dynamics of Islamist groups within the Left-Right spectrum, explaining how Islamist groups that twenty-five years ago aggressively targeted Republicans have since moved towards the Left. Pointing out the involvement of Islamists in issues not directly related to Islamism, such as LGBT rights or the Black Lives Matter movement, he asked, “To what extent are Islamists influencing the Left and to what extent are they being influenced by the Left?”
Some Islamists stood accused by other radical voices of compromising Islamic values by embracing Left-wing groups a little too tightly.
Westrop agreed and emphasized some curious side-effects of extant alliances between Islamists and the Left, noting that some Islamists stood accused by other radical voices of compromising Islamic values by embracing Left-wing groups a little too tightly.
In response, Shideler proposed promoting internal debates within Islamist movements. This approach provides insight into the internal dynamics of all the competing Islamist sects. While this strategy might not ultimately cause the modern Left to abandon key Islamist figures, such efforts are nevertheless worthwhile.
Meanwhile, too many Islamists, Shideler argued, regard the dilution of dogma as a necessary compromise. “I saw a poll that said two-thirds of American Muslims support gay marriage, which, if I was an Ikhwani of 1970, I would consider it a complete failure. But they don’t seem to consider it a failure today.”
Shideler also addressed the infiltration of Islamists into government institutions, highlighting their concerted efforts to recruit candidates and support and fund them through various organizations. He emphasized the need for counter-Islamists to establish their own institutions and identify individuals who align with their values, stressing that “we need to think about what institutions do we need to create, as counter-Islamists, to train the people that we need.”
Shankar warned that groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have been particularly busy “grooming a new generation of leaders.” She noted an increasing number of Islamist-sponsored Muslim advocacy days in legislatures, along with Islamist-run initiatives to appoint Muslim Americans to public service positions, plus meetings with congressmembers and the White House.
Shideler addressed the infiltration of Islamists into government institutions, highlighting their concerted efforts to recruit candidates and fund them through various organizations.
The panelists also discussed potential collaborations between Islamists and far-right groups. Shideler pointed out that there is a perceived envy among far-right groups for the ability of Islamists to voice views that may be considered beyond the pale for others, particularly on matters such as women’s rights. Shankar brought up instances of overlap between Neo-Nazis and Islamism, highlighting an example of a transit cop prosecuted for supporting ISIS while also being a Neo-Nazi.
The importance of empowering moderate Muslim voices remains a key pillar of counter-Islamism, the panelists agreed. Shankar identified Muslim reformers and organizations such as Zuhdi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy and activists such as Asra Nomani as key allies.
Shideler welcomed the recent launch of the Clarity Coalition, a new alliance of former Muslims, Muslim reformists, and counter-Islamist activists and journalists. He added that he found it extremely “heartening” that there is now close cooperation between a mix of counter Islamists from both the Left and Right.
However, he warned that this is still a small contingent, and that he wished there were a larger selection of allies to whom counter-Islamists could turn. Westrop suggested there may potentially be new allies within overlooked, previously apolitical, black Muslim communities.
