Tag Archives: Violence

Glenn Greenwald – Attacks on the West

‘It is always stunning when a country that has brought violence and military force to numerous countries acts shocked and bewildered when someone brings a tiny fraction of that violence back to that country…

The issue here is not justification. The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly “senseless” act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms.’

-Glenn Greenwald following the attack on Canadian parliament 2014

Advertisements

Advising People To Prepare Is Not Victim Blaming

nabil-abdulrashid-2009-octoberAdvising people to prepare for bad situations they’re likely to face isn’t victim blaming.

Harassment whether racial or sexual is disgusting and wrong and nobody should have to face it. But refusing to look into ways to prepare for these situations on the grounds that you shouldn’t learn to avoid the crime, report the crime, defend yourself against the crime or survive the crime but rather people who commit them should learn not to commit them is illogical and pretty stupid.

I should be able to leave my home or sleep at night without locking my door, but I still lock it because nobody will ever teach all burglars not to burgle.

I shouldn’t have to be harassed by police officers for no damn reason but I’ve learned the law and loopholes/ technicalities around stop and search so I can defend myself against police and have an idea what to do when they harass me. I’ve learned my rights so I know when what they’re doing is illegal and every single time I see it happen I react and call it out, being critical of those who don’t make the same efforts as me is NOT victim blaming.

Stop teaching people that it’s okay to be cowardly. If someone has experienced trauma then encourage them to get help for it and regain their confidence. I respect people who admit they are the way they are because of fear. But those of you who hide behind all your millennial jargon and faux intellectual feminist rhetoric are ridiculous.

Stop intellectualising the fact that you’re a coward, you guys are good allies in Facebook debates (sometimes) but are useless everywhere else. Stop teaching kids not to hit bullies back and that they need a “safe space”, in this world your only safe space is your house and even that isn’t always safe.

Now go on, be offended.

~ Nabil Abdul-Rashid

nabil-abdulrashid-2009-october

THE FALLACY OF COMPARING ‘VIOLENCE’ IN THE QURAN & BIBLE

quran-bible

A Dā’ī’s Perspective on Violence in the Qur’ān and Bible

A recent computer analysis of the Bible and Qur’ān has been making waves on social media.[1]OdinText, developers of analytics software, recently announced results from a comparative analysis of the Qur’ān and the Old and New Testaments using the latest data mining technology. The aim, according to the researcher, was to uncover with as little bias as possible the extent to which the content of any of these texts is more violent than that of the others. Their inspiration was pundits’ claims that the rise of terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islām compared to other major religions. Tom Anderson, CEO of OdinText, states:

“Obviously, to understand any religion one must start with its literature. So, we thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the primary books of Islam and Judeo-Christianity—arguably the core of their philosophies and tenets—using the advanced data mining technology that Fortune 500 corporations, government agencies and other institutions routinely use to comb through large sets of unstructured text to identify patterns and uncover insights,”

Their findings included:

– Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent. Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Qur’ān—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%).

– The concept of ‘love’ appears most often in the New Testament (3.0%), significantly more than in either the Old Testament (1.9%) or the Qur’ān (1.26%).

– The concept of ‘forgiveness/grace’ occurs significantly more often in the Qur’ān (6.3%) than in the New Testament (2.9%) or the Old Testament (0.7%).

– On the concept of ‘faith/belief,’ the Qur’ān leads (7.6%), followed by the New Testament (4.8%) and the Old Testament a distant third (0.2%).

Tom Anderson comments on the findings:

“While we’ve only scratched the surface here, it appears safe to conclude that some commonly-held assumptions about and perceptions of these texts may not necessarily hold true. For instance, those who have not read or are not fairly familiar with the content of all three texts may be surprised to learn that the content in the Quran is not more violent than that of the Bible”

Full details of their findings can be read on their website.[2]

WHAT TO MAKE OF THESE FINDINGS

One obvious application for such findings would be in field of dawah to counter the widespread polemic that the Qur’ān is somehow inherently violent or more violent than other religious texts. Whilst it may be tempting to pull out these findings as some kind of trump card, I personally would advise against it. I do not think such arguments should be used in dawah generally speaking as it really amounts to nothing more than an appeal to Tu quoque, Latin for “you also”, which is a logical fallacy. By trumpeting such findings we as Muslims are essentially saying “you may accuse our Qur’ān of being violent, but at least it’s not as violent as these other books!” Arguably such sentiment does nothing to correct the distorted view that many have of Islām.

Furthermore, although the intentions of the researchers were to analyse the extent to which the content of any of these texts is more violent than that of the others, there is a subtle subtext that is at play. It is that violence of all kinds in religious texts, regardless of the context, is negative, or that somehow having less violence means that a religious text is superior. Scripture cannot separate itself from violence, because violence is a fact of life. Violence manifests itself in many different forms, such as criminal acts, racism and war. The one constant about violence is that it has been around since the beginning of time. Therefore any genuine book of revelation must provide a practical way of life which tackles violence as it has to deal with the reality of the world that we live in.

SOME ISSUES WITH THE METHODOLOGY

Such findings are of little value when they are detached from the context of their source material. Does the software take into account the different authorship of the texts? It seems that they treated each as a homogeneous text, and while the Qur’ān is from a single author, the Bible is a library of 66 books written by over 40 authors over a span of thousands of years. The researcher took the effort of analysing the Old and New Testaments in isolation, but even within each there are many contextual factors at play such as genre (the Bible is a mixture of history, poetry, proverbs, biography and the apocalyptic), historical backdrop and the target audience that the author was writing to. Is the software sophisticated enough to distinguish between the literal and allegorical? The Book of Revelation in the New Testament is undoubtedly one of the most violent and would weigh heavily in the results, but it is highly symbolic.

From the researcher’s own testimony it seems that language was not considered an important factor, their primary concern was ease of analysis, not accuracy:

“Secondly, there are obviously multiple versions and translations of the texts available for study. We’ve selected the ones that were most accessible and best suited for this kind of analysis.”

The software used English translations of all three texts for its source material, but the question must be raised as to how accurate the translations were. If you are not completing the analysis in the native language of a text, then you are just analysing the translators’ understanding and interpretation which could be far removed from the originals.

Part of the study analysed the Old Testament and New Testament separately. They were split apart for the following reasons:

“1) They were written hundreds of years apart and 2) their combined size relative to the Quran.”

This overlooks the fact that the texts are inextricably linked. The Gospel of Matthew alone directly quotes the Old Testament over 60 times and alludes to it even more.

Last, but by no means least, has the intent of the researcher been considered? On the one hand they claim that they have eliminated as much bias as possible:

“So, we’ve conducted a shallow but wide comparative analysis using OdinText to determine with as little bias as possible whether the Quran is really more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts.”

Yet on the other they have introduced bias by their approach to categorising the texts:

“‘Jesus’ is also mentioned a few times in the Quran, and, for obvious reasons, not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.”

It is one of the few givens across the plethora of Christian denominations that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and yet the researcher has adopted a pro-Jewish, anti-Christian (and perhaps even anti-Islamic) interpretation that Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.

These are just some of the considerations that are needed in order for me to take the findings of such a study seriously. Without them, such computer analysis is nothing more than a glorified word count. The researcher boasts about the speed at which their software “reads” the religious texts:

“Considering many people take at least a year to read just one of these texts, you may find it interesting that it took OdinText less than 120 seconds to read, parse and analyze all three texts at once!”

Such sentiments are symptomatic of the age we live in, where we judge matters superficially. We have been conditioned to communicate in 140 characters and express our emotions using memes. In the age of mass media propaganda we are bombarded 24/7 with sensationalist language. As Muslims we should look beyond the surface level, we need to ponder deeply and have insight into matters.

A BETTER APPROACH

As someone who has experience in inter-faith apologetics, I hope my insight can be of benefit. Let us analyse the core findings of the research which I will expand on using my own research. I believe what follows is a much more beneficial approach to discussing such issues:

  1. Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent. Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%).

Whilst it is undeniable that all three texts contain violence, the question should not be whether they contain violence, but rather what is the nature of the violence. One problem with such statistical analysis is that it reduces violence to a numbers game, but not all violence across the texts is the same.

Let us take the Old Testament for example, which contains some severe acts of violence:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”[3]

It must be noted that the genocide of the Amalekites in Samuel’s time was a punishment for what their ancestors had done over 300 years previously. Violence of such a nature, which does not distinguish between combatant or civilian, adult or child and even animal or human, is common throughout the Old Testament. It is by no means an exception but rather the norm:

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.[4]

We are led to believe that these are the protocols of war that were revealed by God to Prophet Moses, the same Moses who in the Qur’ān reacted with shock when Khidr killed a single child.[5] By comparison nowhere does the Qur’ān command believers to slay innocents. As with all matters in life, Muslims are bound to act according to the code of conduct laid out in the Qur’ān, and war is no exception. If Muslims happen to be at war, then even when we might be facing severe opposition, we must be just. We are prohibited from the extreme acts of violence such as those found in the Old Testament:

“Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits.”[6]

This ethos can be seen in the instructions given to the Muslim army by the first Caliph Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him):

“I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”[7]

The extreme violence of the Old Testament sits rather uncomfortably with the New Testament. When Trinitarians are shown such violent passages in the Bible, they try to distance themselves from the Old Testament because it stands at odds with the pacifist ways of Jesus (peace be upon him) as portrayed in the New Testament. Typically they dismiss such acts of violence by consigning them to a context or reality of the world that was specific to the Israelites. Jesus represents a new way, they say, with his new covenant of love and peace fulfilling and supplanting the warlike and vengeful covenant of old. Yet these same Christians believe that the Jesus of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. So when God allegedly commanded the genocide of Israel’s enemies, that was Jesus. When God rained down fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, that was also Jesus. So Christians cannot disconnect themselves from the Old Testament so easily, they have to reconcile these polar portrayals of God’s personality.

Moreover such internal inconsistency is not just limited to the interplay between the Old and New Testaments, it even occurs within the confines of the New Testament. On the one hand we have Jesus preaching a message of ultra-pacifism, with talk of loving one’s enemies and turning the other cheek, and on the other we have prophecies of his terrifying return in the End Times. In this Second Coming the gloves will be off: Jesus will have eyes of fire and out of his mouth will come a sharp two-edged sword. The Book of Revelation goes into detail about this future Jesus, who will “judge and wage war”,[8] his robe will be “dipped in blood”,[9] and he will be accompanied by “armies”,[10]with which he will “strike down the nations”.[11] So in the New Testament Jesus seemingly loves his enemies until he kills them all, a far cry from Christian missionary rhetoric that ”Muhammad is a Prophet of War, Jesus is a Prince of Peace”.

  1. The concept of ‘love’ appears most often in the New Testament (3.0%), significantly more than in either the Old Testament (1.9%) or the Quran (1.26%).

God’s love for mankind lies at the heart of the Gospel message: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”[12] Such emotive language permeates the New Testament and would have certainly registered positively in the OdinText results. While such concepts when reduced to counts of words such as “love” may appear positive, it brings us to a limitation of science. OdinText may very well tell us, with great speed and accuracy, how often “love” is mentioned in the New Testament, but it cannot answer questions about morality. Science can tell us how things are, but it cannot tell us how things ought to be. At face value the notion of Jesus sacrificing himself to redeem mankind may appear to be a noble act and undoubtedly is an aspect of Christianity that resonates deeply with its followers.

The reality though, is that such an act would be a gross act of injustice on the part of God. In the Gospel message, God effectively demonstrates His love by torturing and killing His son (subhānah – may He be exalted high above such a claim). Is such an act befitting of the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful? A human court that punished the innocent in place of the guilty would be considered corrupt, a miscarriage of justice. How much more unjust then would it be if God were behind such a system. You may wonder why is it that such a distorted concept of divine love has gained so much devotion among Christians. It is appealing to human beings because it shifts the responsibility of our sins onto Jesus. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, then we already have our golden ticket to heaven. There is no need for us to strive, no need to repent, because Jesus has already done the hard work for us.

While such notions of divine love carry favour with Christians, they have long been a stumbling block for Jews to accept Christians’ view of Jesus. They treat Jesus as a Messiah imposter because the very notion of the beloved of God dying on a cross, a fate that the apostle Paul described as Jesus “becoming a curse”, runs counter to the very concept of justice laid out in the Old Testament. It is amidst all this confusion that the Qur’ān was sent down. The Qur’ān unravels centuries of myth making and demystifies for us who the real Jesus was. It solves all of these problems by revealing that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but rather it was made to appear so. In Islamic theology it is up to every human being to take responsibility for their own sins, as long as they have reached the age of discernment and are of sound mind. Not having the safety blanket of the crucifixion means that Muslims have to strive in bettering themselves from the cradle to the grave, in turn making the true believer a force for good in society, the very effect we would expect of God’s true love.

  1. The concept of ‘forgiveness/grace’ occurs significantly more often in the Quran (6.3%) than in the New Testament (2.9%) or the Old Testament (0.7%).

New Testament theology paints a picture of God whose forgiveness is contingent on the shedding of blood:

“In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”[13]

Sin, Christians believe, is like a debt that must be re-paid, it cannot simply be forgiven. Hence why Jesus was sent to die on the cross, his sinless life represents the perfect sacrifice to wash away the sins of the whole of humanity and reconcile us with God. The theology that underpins the crucifixion is that humanity is inherently sinful, a consequence of Adam (peace be upon him) eating from the forbidden tree. So when Adam violated God’s command not to eat from the tree, sin entered into humanity and has remained ever since:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—“[14]

The solution according to the New Testament is thus: Jesus died on the cross in order to undo Adam’s “original sin”:

“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”[15]

Here we have a bizarre situation of the whole of mankind being held accountable for something we did not do, Adam’s original sin, and rewarded for something someone else did, the crucifixion. Such paradoxes are rampant throughout Christian theology.

Moreover such a drastic and elaborate solution, which effectively amounts to God incarnating Himself into the creation and committing suicide, misses a big point – the very capacity to make mistakes and commit sins was embedded into human nature the moment God gave us free will. God knew before He created us that we would err. So for the New Testament to claim that mankind has only been able to properly access God’s forgiveness the moment Jesus shed his blood on the cross makes a mockery of God’s forgiveness, it is an intolerable challenge to the principle of God’s mercy. We now know that the human story is so old, going back tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, that to say it has only been 2,000 years since a proper relationship between man and God has been made possible, makes a mockery of the idea of divine love, because that is not loving. A God who coherently shows mercy, compassion and forgiveness for His creation does not stuff all of salvation into a single moment in human history.

The Qur’anic vision is very different:

“For every people there has been a guide”[16]

In Islām the salvation offered through all of the Prophets has been the same throughout history, submission to our Creator and forgiveness granted through sincere repentance. That is the true understanding of God as having forgiveness and compassion prescribed on His very nature. Unlike Christianity’s pessimistic view of humanity, Muslims believe that God created man in the best of states. Each baby that is born is pure and sinless. However human beings are prone to making mistakes because we are fallible beings, an inevitable consequence of the free will that God gifted us. When God created man He did not expect us to be angels, He already had countless angels, perfect in their compliance, to do His bidding. In the creation of Adam, God wanted to bring about something different: a creature of free will, submitting to Him out of choice. A consequence is that we commit sins, and if we are believers then we repent and return to God. That is the part that God loves: the repentance, the voluntary return. In Islām what is God’s attitude toward sins? He condemns the sins we commit, but He waits for us to repent, and when we do He welcomes us. The Qur’ān tells us:

“O my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not the Mercy of God. Verily, God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”[17]

  1. On the concept of ‘faith/belief,’ the Quran leads (7.6%), followed by the New Testament (4.8%) and the Old Testament a distant third (0.2%).

While all three texts require that their followers believe in certain tenets, it is only really the Qur’ān that directly engages with its reader in order to have them reason their way to faith. The Qur’ān is unique because it is the only religious scripture that gives its reader the tools needed to identify God’s truth: “Will they not think about this Qur’ān? If it had been from anyone other than God, they would have found much inconsistency in it.”[18] Here the Qur’ān has provided us with an important principle that allows us to determine whether something is from God or not. If one reasons about theology and finds that there are glaring inconsistencies, then it cannot be from God. God is perfect in knowledge and therefore it stands to reason that His revelation will be perfect and free of inconsistencies. So we can use this principle as a falsification test to determine whether a doctrine is from God or is man-made.

Throughout the Qur’ān God constantly reminds mankind of His countless favours. For example the Qur’ān highlights that God gave us the gift of our senses and reason:

“It is God who brought you out of your mothers’ wombs knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and minds, so that you might be thankful.”[19]

The Qur’ān in fact admonishes those who follow trends blindly:

Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of God are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.”[20]

An endearing quality of the Qur’anic narrative is that it appeals to its audience to make use of their intellect and reason:

It is He [God] who spread out the earth, placed firm mountains and rivers on it, and made two of every kind of fruit; He draws the veil of night over the day. There truly are signs in this for people who reflect. There are, in the land, neighbouring plots, gardens of vineyards, cornfields, palm trees in clusters or otherwise, all watered with the same water, yet We make some of them taste better than others: there truly are signs in this for people who reason.[21]

By comparison reading the Old and New Testaments is quite a passive experience as they do not really engage with their readers. While they do speak of many miracles performed by Prophets such as Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them, these are not events that we can witness for ourselves, therefore they have to be taken on blind faith. The Qur’ān is the miracle of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and Muslims believe it is the greatest miracle of all the Prophets. What makes the Qur’ān different from all the other miracles is that it is one which every­one can experience for themselves today, simply by opening a Qur’ān and reading it. Muslims do not just believe that the Qur’ān is from God based on blind faith because the Qur’ān is full of signs that it is the truth of God:“We shall show them Our signs in every region of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth…”[22]

For some examples of what makes the Qur’ān miraculous you can refer to past articles such as the Qur’ān structural composition,[23] and its unveiling of lost history.[24]

CONCLUSION

It is my hope that we as Muslims avoid superficial approaches to comparing religious scripture such as that undertaken by OdinText. We should be people that do justice not only to our scripture but also that of the People of the Book. We should have insight into not only our own religion but also that of our fellow non-Muslims so that we can discuss our faiths properly and fulfil the principles of dawah laid out in the Qur’ān:

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best…”[25]

Article written by Abu Zakariya

Source: http://www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] http://www.islam21c.com/special/web-posts/data-mining-software-compares-quran-bible-with-results-surprising-to-some/

[2] http://odintext.com/blog/text-analysis-answers-is-the-quran-really-more-violent-than-the-bible/

[3] 1 Samuel 15:2-3

[4] Deuteronomy 20:16-17

[5] Al-Qur’ān 18:74

[6] Al-Qur’ān 2:190

[7] Muwatta Imam Malik, Book #21, Hadith #10

[8] Rev. 19:11

[9] 19:13

[10] 19:14

[11] 19:15

[12] John 3:16

[13] Hebrews 9:22

[14] Romans 5:12

[15] Romans 5:17

[16] Al-Qur’ān 13:7

[17] Al-Qur’ān 39:53

[18] Al-Qur’ān 4:82

[19] Al-Qur’ān 16:78

[20] Al-Qur’ān 8:22

[21] Al-Qur’ān 13:3-4

[22] Al-Qur’ān 41:53

[23] http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/ring-theory-the-qurans-structural-coherence/

[24] http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/unveiling-history-the-qurans-remarkable-insight-into-the-past/

[25] Al-Qur’ān 16:125

DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for free and is for information purposes only. All material may be freely copied & shared on condition that it is clearly attributed to Islam21c.com [hyperlinked] as the original source. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of Islam21c.com

 

 

 

MUSLIM DEBATE INITIATIVE – AMERICANS ARE 4 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SAY “KILLING CIVILIANS IS SOMETIMES JUSTIFIED” THAN MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST”

civilian_bombing_syria

Interesting points made by the Muslim Debate Initiative regarding the propensity towards violence in the West compared to some Muslim countries.

It’s a very long post, so I’ve only included the first part which is MDI’s commentary, you’ll need to click on the link to get their full report and the polling they quote from GALLUP.

Source: Americans are 4 times more likely to say “killing civilians is sometimes justified” than Muslims in Middle East

MDI Comment: This GALLUP survey reveals something quite contrary to the Islamophobic and ‘counter-extremist’ narratives propounded by pundits and government officials around ideology and ‘radicalisation’. It reveals that people in the U.S. are four times more likely to justify killing civilians as “sometimes justified” than the average respondent in the well known areas of the Muslim world (North Africa and Middle East [MENA]).

Almost 50% of Americans say they believe the deliberate targeting and killing of civilians is “sometimes justified”, compared with a MENA average of 14%.

The same survey also found that an alarming 33% of UK respondents also believe that targeting civilians is sometimes justified!

When the survey compared results from Muslim-majority countries and compared them with non-Muslim majority countries (which includes ones from asia and africa) found that respondents from Muslim-majority countries were 6% less likely on the whole to say that killing civilians by military operations were “sometimes justified”.

If we take into consideration a poll by Pew in 2012  showing the majority of people in the MENA region support the establishment of Sharia as the official law of the state (74%), an analyst would conclude that the only link between belief in Sharia and the justification of violence against civilians (i.e. terrorism), would be that belief in sharia makes someone LESS likely to justify terrorism (which it defined as deliberate targeting of civilians), than say, an average american (who is likely an adherent of their state’s ideology of Secular Liberalism).

Perhaps what the Muslim world needs to reduce terrorism, is more Sharia and less imitation of the violence-justifying mentality that Pew has shown is quite widespread in prominent Western countries like the U.S (and Israel).

HUFFINGTON POST – STATE OF HATE REPORT WARNS OF ‘GREATER VIOLENCE’ FROM FAR-RIGHT GROUPS IN 2016

From the Huffington Post

The UK should prepare for “greater violence” from far-right groups – and in “extreme cases, terrorism” – in 2016, as members increasingly target British Muslims to get their message across “as anti-Muslim hatred is being mainstreamed”, a report has found.

Far-right extremists, the State of Hate 2015 report warned, are increasingly turning to violence, and some have even been videoed training with knives and teaching members martial arts and survivalist skills.

The report by Hope not Hate found that far-right groups had increased their public profile in 2015, staging a third more demonstrations than in 2014. Last year 61 demonstrations were held, compared to 41 in 2014.

dover protest

A report has warned that the UK should expect “greater violence” from the far-right this year; a bloodied protester is pictured above during a North West Infidels protest in Dover last month

“Political and economic conditions for right-wing extremist groups could hardly be better,” the report released on Monday found, even though the activists remained “politically marginalised, fractured, leaderless and increasingly violent”.

Nick Lowles, chief executive of Hope not Hate warned the UK needed to prepare itself for the “rising militancy of Britain’s far right” which he said would “lead to greater violence in 2016”.

He said: “This could be manifested in three ways: a general increase in anti-left wing harassment and attacks; communal violence where gangs of far-right supporters clash with Muslim or Eastern European youths; or, in extreme cases, terrorism.

“The underlying rhetoric of much of Britain’s far right is that a societal conflict – either between Muslims and non-Muslims or more generally with immigrant communities – is inevitable. For some, that means preparing for it or even encouraging it along.

“The Government needs to understand the changing nature of the British far-right threat and get to grips with the growing threat posed by far-right violence.”

britain first

Far-right political party Britain First were accused of ‘inflaming’ tensions after staging a ‘Christian Patrol’ in Luton

Hope not Hate said the most active far-right group in 2015 was the North West Infidels, who were involved in violence with anti-fascist protesters in Dover on January 30 this year.

The Infidels, the report said, is a network of “regional fascist gangs” which split from the English Defence League and “pursue a far more confrontational and violent agenda”.

Hope not Hate said 2015 saw far-right activists increasingly getting involved in survivalist, outdoor training and martial arts groups.

These included, the report found, the Misanthropic Division, which is led by a former member of the fascist Azov Battalion in Ukraine and the Italian Nazi group, Casa Pound.

Another group, Sigurd Legion (Legion), Hope not Hate said, released videos documenting men stripped to the waist punching each other as they practice unarmed combat while others train with knives.

National Action, which was overwhelmed by counter-protesters when it staged a “White Man March” in Liverpool last year, was the “most organisationally sophisticated neo-nazi group”, the report found. It has its own internal internet forum and regularly uses the Dark Web.

Foreign far-right supporters living in the UK are also becoming increasingly active, the report revealed. One of the most active groups, according to Hope not Hate, is called Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski, meaning “the national rebirth of Poland”. Dozens of UK-based Italian fascists are also active in the British nazi music scene, the anti-extremist group found.

The State of Hate report noted that despite the acceleration of violence, traditional far-right movements were collapsing in the UK, such as the British National Party (BNP) and the EDL.

The 2015 General Election highlighted the “political impotency of Britain’s far right”, the report found, with the BNP standing just eight candidates in 2015, compared to 338 in 2010, and averaging just 0.5% of the vote in these seats.

“A lack of effective leadership has severely hampered traditional British far-right parties, contributing to their underlying weaknesses,” the report concluded.

Hope not Hate’s 2014 State of Hate report revealed that the movement’s three key leaders – Nick Griffin, ex-leader of the BNP; Jim Dowson, formerly Chairman of Britain First; and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, ex-EDL leader and current Pegida UK manager) had all withdrawn from frontline leadership roles during 2014.

However, all three, the report noted, “have attempted to make political comebacks in 2015, to varying degrees of success”. Yaxley-Lennon has been most successful, taking on a management role of Pegida UK. The group staged a rally in Birmingham over the weekend, which took place at the same time as several other marches across Europe.