Deradicalization Programmes

Do they make any sense?

May 12, 2024

Earlier this month police in Perth, Australia, shot and killed a teen who had stabbed a random stranger in a car park. Newspaper reports read ‘There are indications he had been radicalized online’ after ‘converting to Islam’. He was said to have ‘mental health issues’ but was also undergoing a ‘police deradicalization course.’ (1)

In another case, an Afghan national who repeatedly publicly exposed himself was found guilty, but on appeal was not deported because a doctor claimed that if he did this in Afghanistan he could be the victim of mob violence because of ‘mental health issues’. This is the third time a court decision against him has been reversed by an Asylum Tribunal. He is now free to continue breaching public decency in the U.K.(2)

Last month, it made headlines around the globe when, in the middle of a church service, an internationally known Bishop was stabbed multiple times right in front of his congregation. Parishioners, many of whom are Assyrian Christians who had already fled conflicts in the Middle East, were able to catch and restrain the youth ‘who had recently been radicalized’ until police arrived. Several more youth were picked up shortly thereafter.(3)

Is this really that surprising when a recent survey conducted by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxon found that half of young German Muslims want sharia in Germany and almost 70% said that the rules of the Koran are more important than the law of the country. In Hamburg recently thousands marched through the streets demanding an Islamic caliphate. (4)(5)

So which is it? What is ‘radical’ and how much of a difference is there between that and ‘mental health issues’ or is it really just a matter of perspective.

Does it actually make sense to determine the state of a person’s mental health based on the norms of the host community rather than the norms of sharia if the perpetrator is Muslim? If behaviour is perfectly acceptable according to sharia, but happens to be practiced in a non-Islamic country that is not a mental health issue, it is a legal one. Sharia vs the law of the land and this is what isn’t being discussed.

One reason for this is that authorities in non-Islamic countries discount ‘religion’ as a motivation. In a 2022 report prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology for the ‘Countering Violent Extremism Branch, Dept. of Home Affairs,’ we read: “of the few studies that have examined religion OTHER than Islam, including Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, results did not support a connection to a terrorism outcome (Desmarais et al. 2017). Ultimately, religious affiliation does not appear to be a meaningful or widely applicable risk factor for violent extremism” (6)

This same study describes ‘jihadism’ as an ‘extremist ideology’ ergo a mental health issue when in fact, jihad is normative Islamic doctrine. And even though instructors may laud the advice of Sun Tsu to ‘know the enemy and yourself’, students of counter-terrorism will find little mention of Islamic doctrine or the authentic life of Mohammed in their study materials (7)(8). Are not knife wielding jihadis the enemy? Instead, using tools provided in the deradicalization program what they will discover are programmes “developed in consultation with Imams and Muslim community leaders” or ‘faith leaders’ (9)(10) But what does that faith teach?

· ‘The Prophet [Mohammed] said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”’ (Bukhari 36)

Mohammed is the guiding light of Islam, it is his example that adherents are required to follow. Koran 4:80 ‘He who obeys the messenger [Mohammed] has indeed obeyed Allah…’ A variation on this theme is repeated frequently throughout the Koran and Hadith.

How do the authorities in non-Islamic countries square that circle when it comes to jihad? Does it make sense that this is called ‘extremist’ when the foundational doctrine of Islam frequently cites jihad in the ‘cause of Allah’ as the best deed and Mohammed’s behaviour is not that of a ‘madman’ (Koran 68:2) but indeed, that of ‘great moral character.’ (Koran 68:4)

While police send youth to ‘deradicalization’ courses government ministers cite the need for “youth programmes addressing health, social services and education”. (11)(12) Deradicalization programme directors suggest that these are social failures causing economic insecurity and alienation resulting in mental health issues. (13)(14) Youth are sometimes in these programmes for years and at the same time trying to convert others to Islam. (15)

Now what do course leaders tell the youth – don’t follow that part of your doctrine or that example of Mohammed? Of course they don’t. Instead Islamic ‘religious leaders’ are called on for advice. But consider that this is their belief system as well and it is forbidden to be critical of Mohammed. ‘…whoever conceals (the faults of) a Muslim, Allah will conceal him (his faults) in this world and the Day of Resurrection” (ibn Majah 225).

So how successful can de-radicalization programmes be? Non-Muslim programme leaders minimize the importance of Islamic doctrine and seem to be unaware that sharia calls for jihad against the non-Muslim. Yet, that is exactly what the perpetrators have done. (16) From an Islamic perspective then, how is that bad?

In some parts of the world killing an unbeliever will hardly raise an eyebrow. (17) Perhaps it’s time to take Sun Tsu’s advice to heart and learn what the doctrine actually teaches about jihad and the unbeliever before expecting it’s followers will ignore it.