Theresa May’s Downing Street statement on Sunday morning, condemning the “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” and laying out her four-point plan for action follows a pattern that seems increasingly familiar.

This is a war on joy. Don’t let the terrorists rob us of who we are | Hugh Muir Read more

The prime minister placed much emphasis on extremist ideology among a small minority of Muslims – a cornerstone of the government’s counter-terror strategy. But this narrative has little to say about the proclaimed motivations of the terrorists themselves, who often express far more tangible goals.

For example, Islamic State hailed the Manchester attack as a response to Britain’s “transgressions against the lands of the Muslims”, a victory against “the crusaders” of the west and a response to airstrikes in Iraq. Of course, these attackers would gladly ban concerts and close bars, but their primary motivation has – from the very creation of Isis – been to create a pseudo “Islamic state” in the Middle East.

Attacking European nations or the United States was never Isis’s raison d’être. But as coalition forces have gradually dismantled the strongholds that provided the group with a modicum of authority in the eyes of its supporters, strikes in western cities have consistently been claimed as a response to this.

This isn’t to suggest the territorial fightback against Isis should not be pursued – it is simply that we have to recognise that the fate of European capitals is tied up with a very real war taking place in the Middle East. British foreign policy, whether you agree or disagree with its direction, is reverberating on British soil. And here it mixes with the underbelly that exists in all societies: the marginalised, the angry, the alienated; those looking for a higher cause to bring meaning to an often dead-end existence.

And as long as the UK is involved – rightly or wrongly – in military actions in the Middle East, there is likely to be violent blowback on home soil. The intelligence services have been clear: although they have thwarted many attacks, they won’t be able to stop all of them.

Play Video 6:26 Theresa May responds to ‘brutal terrorist attack’ in London

So the notion that the real problem is a set of ideas being pushed in the murky underground of the Muslim community is false. In fact, intelligence analysts are at pains to highlight that families – let alone the nebulous notion of “the community” – are often the last to know. And when they have had suspicions, recent cases have shown that families and mosques have approached the authorities. Communities work, and will continue to work, with the police to stop those who wish to harm us all.

But this relationship of trust and cooperation is made harder, not easier, when the government casts a wide net of suspicion over the entire Muslim community. To begin a conversation about counter-terrorism, as May did on Sunday, with the proposal that people (read Muslims) simply need to be better educated about “British values” is to cast terrorism as first and foremost a problem of social cohesion.

It suggests the entire Muslim community is a suspect group that needs to be inoculated, through the injection of a predetermined set of ethics – as imagined by the superior mind of May and her cohorts – to protect them from themselves. The days of empire may be long gone, but the notion that the barbarians at the gates need to be civilised is clearly alive and well.

The truth is that British values are no superior to those of any other nation. The very conversation is patronising to anyone of non-British origin. What’s the reasoning, exactly? If only these men had read a little more Jane Austen, they couldn’t possibly have considered the prospect of mass murder? Improving social cohesion is a laudable objective – but linking terrorism to integration produces a dangerous confusion over the roots of the problem, which ultimately stigmatises and alienates some of the poorest communities in this country.

Creating dichotomies between British and Islamic values only feeds a toxic narrative

In her speech, May repeated the point that terrorist ideology is derived from a “perversion of Islam”. While this may be true, we’re in 2017, not 2001. Almost 16 years into this threat, it’s time to change the record. The statement that this has nothing to do with Islam, reiterated after each attack, seems not only trite but counterproductive. How many more times does this need to be stated: terrorists are not motivated by the faith of the 1.6 billion regular folk walking this planet; Muslims aren’t immune to bombs and bullets.

Muslims experience a double penalty in such attacks: the same trauma as all other citizens, plus the guilt cloud that hangs over each of us thereafter. How about not repeating this same toxic conversation after each attack? Because, frankly, there is a point at which it appears almost like the caveat after which the bashing can begin.

What the government could do however is be honest about the risks to domestic security of foreign military interventions – risks the public may or may not wish to accept. It can invest heavily in the security services working to keep the country safe. This means more resources, but it also means not creating a climate of suspicion around Muslims, who, like everyone else, are partners in the common goal of preserving life – incidentally, the highest of values in Islamic law. Creating dichotomies between British and Islamic values only feeds a toxic narrative.

The aftermath of the recent horrific events shows us that people from all faiths and none, drawing on their diverse value systems, can come together to emphasise love, solidarity and unity. We don’t need lessons in British values; but our politicians may need to learn a thing or two about not widening the very divisions they believe to be the problem.