Hassan Butt

[ajva]

I really must go to bed.

However, before I do I must just post one thing. I've been growing more and more interested recently in the comments of one Hassan Butt, a British former extremist Islamist jihadi who seems to have suddenly made a sharp about-turn over the past year or so, and who now says things that no-one else can dare to, about how he believes the current political situation vis a vis Islamist terrorism to be largely the fault of the current state of Islamic theology rather than directly the result of British foreign policy. To give you some idea, here are three different links to show you how his views appear to have changed to a startling degree over a relatively short period of time.

Firstly, an interview with Prospect magazine in August 2005: here

And then, a more recent article he wrote for the Observer, and one for the Times

One thing that jumped out at me from his various writings is his assertion that many young Muslim men are attracted to the current extremist belief systems because they do not sanction forced marriage. An interesting point, and one which I feel could simply not have been illuminated by anyone other than someone in his unique "insider's" position.

I also saw him on Newsnight, speaking out very vociferously against his former way of thinking. Watching this, I was struck by the incredible bravery of his decision to speak out so plainly, but I would also be absolutely fascinated to know what prompted this change of heart.

Comments

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I heard Butt on the radio the other day. He's interesting, but he paints Hizb-ut-Tahrir as far more violent than other former members whose accounts I've come across from time to time, so I'm inclined to apply quantities of salt.

he believes the current political situation vis a vis Islamist terrorism to be largely the fault of the current state of Islamic theology rather than directly the result of British foreign policy.

Of course there are things in the Koran which can be read as supporting terrorism, and some Islamic scholars who do read them in that way, but the fact is that the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to those readings. The same is true of all the Abrahamic faiths and some of the others, too. The interesting question to me is not whether such elements are present in the theologies, but what causes particular adherents to espouse the violent readings or not, and what causes particular adherents amongst those who espouse those readings to act on them and others not. This is clearly not just based on what happens to be included in holy books - if it were, the Middle East conflict would look very different and, for instance, would almost certainly involve armed Christian groups and armed religious Jewish resistance against the secular Israeli government. There been some evidence in the past that the extent of the person's Islamic education may be a factor, with more education correlating with a greater preference for the non-violent readings, but the evidence is largely anecdotal and not completely consistent. I think it's clear that there must also be some social and political factors at work.

many young Muslim men are attracted to the current extremist belief systems because they do not sanction forced marriage.

I don't see that in those three articles, but perhaps I didn't read closely enough. It's certainly a possibility, and a good reminder that nothing is ever straightforward. I know my friend N, who is Iranian, thinks the solution to practices such as forced marriage is stricter adherence to Islam rather than less. She gets quite annoyed when people attribute those practices to Islam itself.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

he paints Hizb-ut-Tahrir as far more violent than other former members whose accounts I've come across from time to time

Isn't that what you'd expect, though? For people to tone it down a bit, generally speaking?

The same is true of all the Abrahamic faiths and some of the others, too.

Well you see, I'm coming at this from the perspective of a strident atheist, so obviously that colours my view. To me, all holy books are simply fairy tales, and therefore without value beyond their obvious historical and cultural import (which in itself can be considerable, of course).

The Koran is obviously not the only holy book to sanction violence. And obviously, the way people interpret their own holy book is as dependent on a hundred other cultural, historical and - perhaps most importantly - psychological factors as it is on the original words on the page. However, to me, it matters not that Islam is not unique to sanction violence - now, in the UK in the 21st century, we have a problem with Islam-inspired terrorism. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, because they are not part of the problem. But I think Butt is right when he points out that mainstream Muslim denial is.

It always irritates me when commentators, Muslim or otherwise, push the Orwellian line that Islam is a religion of peace, when it quite clearly, for a substantive minority, is quite the opposite. It will not do to dismiss these people as terrorists who have interpreted their religion incorrectly. Again, see my atheism kick in here: Islam means many things to many people; why should one interpretation be any more plausible as a divinely intended absolute than any other? Who decides what God wants? Who has that right? The elephant in the room is that perhaps it's all a load of cobblers. And no-one wants to start down that road of thought. Where would it end? :o)

And it is a perfect example of why religion can be so dangerous. Of course non-religious people can be violent too and be inspired to it by non-religious dogma. But only religious dogma suffers from the fundamental idea that it is unquestionable. Of course many religious people do continually question themselves and their beliefs, but it is precisely those people on the margins - the "fundamentalists" - who will take pride in not questioning their own ideas, as if it were a strength rather than a weakness. Only ideas that the subject believes have been handed down by God will suffer from this specifically.

I don't see that in those three articles,

Yes, the forced marriage thing wasn't mentioned in these articles I don't think, but I've definitely seen him give it considerable prominence elsewhere.

To be honest, I think there seems to be a strong positive correlation between the degree to which the sexes are segregated &/or women oppressed in a particular interpretation of Islam, and the levels of violence perpetrated by its young men. Not surprising, when you think about it. Sexual revolutions all round, please. :o)

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Isn't that what you'd expect, though? For people to tone it down a bit, generally speaking?

I'm not sure it's possible to generalise. One might equally expect people to play it up (convert syndrome).

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, because they are not part of the problem.

That wasn't my point. It was that if we want to prevent terrorism, the important thing is to try and understand what factors determine whether a given person ends up in the "problem" or "not a problem" group (which is why I also don't much care whether either interpretation is a "correct" interpretation of Islam.)

Of course non-religious people can be violent too and be inspired to it by non-religious dogma. But only religious dogma suffers from the fundamental idea that it is unquestionable.

I've come across too many secular people who displayed exactly the same verbal behaviours as fundamentalists to believe that one. I think the causal arrow points in the other direction. Religious fundamentalists don't lose the ability to question because they think things are handed down from God - they lose the ability to question because of a psychological need for certainty, and they reach for whatever totalitarian doctrine is most easily culturally available to them to give them the excuse to stop questioning, exactly the same as secular fanatics do. It's just that in their case, religious fundamentalism is the most convenient thing (and in the case of young Muslims, often plays to the adolescent desire to rebel against one's parents, too, since the parents are often more towards the secularised end of the spectrum). If there was no religion in the world, they'd just adopt an extreme form of some other cause instead, like Marxism or animal lib or whatever. See also cognitive dissonance theory.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

One might equally expect people to play it up (convert syndrome).


Yes, I guess that's true. It's impossible to know, really, without further evidence.

It was that if we want to prevent terrorism, the important thing is to try and understand what factors determine whether a given person ends up in the "problem" or "not a problem" group

I think my view on this is that it really is very easy to understand, but incredibly hard to do anything about. I'd agree with this, for example:

(and in the case of young Muslims, often plays to the adolescent desire to rebel against one's parents, too, since the parents are often more towards the secularised end of the spectrum).

I think that's a big contributory factor.

If there was no religion in the world, they'd just adopt an extreme form of some other cause instead, like Marxism or animal lib or whatever.

I certainly agree that people with a psychological disposition towards extremism will tend towards whatever the culturally accepted extremist views are. I honestly tried to take pains to say so, actually - this was what I meant by "non-religious people can be violent too and be inspired to it by non-religious dogma".

However, no matter how extreme and unyielding a particular secular dogma, it will not be perceived by those involved in it that non-compliance with it is going against the will of a divine entity. I still believe that this makes religious belief fundamentally more inclined towards lingering inflexibility. I suspect this may simply be an area where our opinions differ.

I think the causal arrow points in the other direction. Religious fundamentalists don't lose the ability to question because they think things are handed down from God - they lose the ability to question because of a psychological need for certainty, and they reach for whatever totalitarian doctrine is most easily culturally available to them to give them the excuse to stop questioning, exactly the same as secular fanatics do.

I don't think I was pointing the causal arrow in quite the direction you thought. :o) Obviously, as the particular type of atheist I am, I believe that religion is entirely a manifestation of human psychological processes (just as secular dogmas are), so to agree with what you say here on one level is for me, trivial. However, I do think what I would argue to be the infantilising inflexibility of God-revealed truth makes retreating into specific extremist views and never emerging from them much easier than with any extremist secular ideology.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to figure out a way to explain succinctly what exactly I think the difference is between extremism inspired by religion and that inspired by secular dogma that makes the religious one more worrying. Here's my best shot:

Religious-inspired extremism fosters a mindset of obedience.
Secular-inspired extremism fosters a mindset of conformity.

The two are close, I'll admit, but I think the subtle difference should give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Totalitarian secular organisations can foster obedience, too - think of the FDJ, for instance (Freie Deutsche Jugend, the youth organisation of the former East German Communist Party).

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I still believe that this makes religious belief fundamentally more inclined towards lingering inflexibility. I suspect this may simply be an area where our opinions differ.

Probably. I think this is an area where one's own philosophy makes it very difficult to appreciate what the world looks like from the standpoint of the other philosophy. djm4 and I have had similar discussions, and I think there's something about the way it subjectively feels to believe that God is telling you to do something that both makes this argument wrong, and is impossible to explain to someone who hasn't had it. The closest I can come is to say that unless you're insane, God's voice doesn't override your own will and moral compass, and if you're insane, it probably doesn't make much difference whether you're a dangerous religious lunatic or a dangerous secular one, because you're not going to be listening to reason either way.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Well, firstly I would say that I'm coming from a standpoint of having experienced sincere religious belief myself; I was a committed Christian from the ages of 12 to 18. I suppose this was only a short time in the scheme of things, but it certainly felt very real to me at the time. Perhaps, similarly to your point here, it could be argued that neither you nor I can quite comprehend the way being an extremist feels. We are both after all people who question things and ideas as best we can.

And I'd just like to say, incidentally, how pleased I am that you have responded to this post. Whenever I post this sort of serious thing and see that I have a long response from lizw, I know I'm going to have to get my best thinking cap on, and be obliged to try to express myself with the best clarity I can muster. :o) It certainly discourages woolly thinking. And I always feel I come away a little wiser as a result. So thank you.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Oh, interesting. I didn't know you'd been a Christian, or else I'd forgotten. Did you experience it as fostering an unhealthy sort of obedience, then, or do you think it's only the fundamentalist versions that do that? Do you mind if I ask what denomination(s) you belonged to?

I think you may be right that we can't know what it feels like to be an extremist. I know I've had some moments in the past when I could convince myself of some very extreme views temporarily (although fortunately not of the kind that call for violence), usually when I've somehow painted myself into a corner in an argument. I guess I kind of imagine fundamentalists as having got themselves permanently stuck in that corner, but perhaps it doesn't feel like that at all.

Thanks for what you say about my responses to your posts. I like a good robust discussion with you myself. It reminds me of some of the best verbal sparring matches I got into at College - strong views passionately defended, an enjoyment of the argument, and no hard feelings afterwards.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I was officially Church of Scotland, but I spent most of my time with a slightly more evangelical crowd. I was always a questioner, though, and tended to have more liberal views than was the norm there. I suppose it used to seem to me that there were a lot of otherwise intelligent people who seemed to have a blind spot about certain things.

For example, one controversial issue at the time surrounded potential Satanic influence via role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. I felt that was a bunch of hooey even then, but the school's Christian Union had a meeting about it, and a non-Christian bloke who had D&D as a hobby came along to defend it. All I remember was the shocking sight of a bunch of polite kids, usually so nice, surrounding the poor guy and getting very verbally aggressive at him. I tried to calm it down but they were, frankly, unthinking animals. It made me realise how there is a human need for conflict that discourages rational thought about ideologies. After all, being peaceful is no fun (a facetious remark, of course). And that goes for non-religious dogma too, of course.

However, I always felt that there was something in the nature of my own and others' mental response to God that made it qualitatively different from a response to a human power. I suppose, if you like, I think that same propensity to extremism we were talking about earlier can be taken by both extremist religion and extremist secular dogma as a springboard from which the human mind jumps but lands in slightly different places. It's about whence flows the authority of the ideology. A divine authority will always be more difficult to break than a human one, inside your mind. And indeed more difficult to let oneself break away from, as the risks in doing so are less easily quantifiable.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. I don't think my own mental response to God is qualitatively different from my response to a human power; or rather, it is, but that's because "power" is the wrong analogy for me, not because of the "human" part. My response to God is qualitatively the same as my response to a human partner, I think.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Ah, that is interesting.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Actually, you've just prompted me to go back and think a little more about how I thought about my relationship with God at the time. I've just remembered that I definitely separated God and Jesus in my mind. I think there's obviously much to be explored about the concept of the Trinity here - another time perhaps :o). I expect that I wasn't alone in this separation, though. Anyway, I always perceived Jesus to be like a cool, inspiring friend, a chum really. Had I believed into, shall we say, my "drinking years", I would definitely have thought of Jesus as a cool, fun pal down the pub who would be the guy who manages to be all of morally upright, non-judgemental and a huge laugh at the same time. Whereas I thought of God Proper (if you like) more as a concerned and somewhat strict parent, definitely a bit more distant.

I thought you might find that interesting, and hopefully a little amusing. :o)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

And this leads on to another question I'd be interested to hear your views on: do you feel that your own relationship with God, and indeed your perception of it, has changed over time?

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I definitely separated God and Jesus in my mind.

I think most Christians tend to. It's difficult not to when virtually all our source texts come from a time before we'd figured out that they aren't in fact separate.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Definitely. Even just including the times when I've been Christian, new dimensions have been added to the relationship over time. It started out as mostly father/child, but these days, I usually only feel that one if it's prompted by a hymn or something. Over time, it became more like a relationship of friends, lovers, mentor and mentee (I hate that word, is there a better one?), supervisor and student, even dom/sub. Then there's the times when God seems very alien and non-personal, and I have to reach for fictional relationships as analogies, like Doctor/TARDIS or Rose/Vortex, and try not to feel too silly about it ;-)

[barakta]

I just wanted to say thank you to you and lizw, I find these civilised discussions of religion/secularism and extremism interesting to read and think about.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I'm sure God, if he exists, enjoys Doctor Who as much as we do. ;o)

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Definitely!