Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.

This is the fourth in a series of guest posts on reactions from religious communities toward the newly appointed British prime minister Theresa May. You can read the other contributions to this series here.

If you were to only follow certain alternative blogs, I’d forgive you for thinking that the new Prime Minister Theresa May hates Muslims.

A small amount of critical thinking and a degree of self-extrication from the unfortunately prevalent anti-establishment victimhood-narrative state-of-mind means such forgiveness isn’t required. Our new Prime Minister is not an “Islamophobe”, and the fact that the far-right are accusing her of being soft on Muslims, refugees, immigrants and Islam (they use those four terms interchangeably) during her 8 year tenure as Home Secretary should remind us that Theresa May, like the majority of the country, sits between these two desperate extremes.

What I would say in criticism of Mrs May is that too often, when presented with a balancing act between national security and civil liberties, she has erred towards the former. Schedule 7, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, Snooper’s Charter and the various drafts of the Counter-Extremism Bill all fall short of providing adequate safeguards for civil liberties, and show her Home Office keen to provide legislative responses to those suspected of planning terrorism, but not yet found guilty.

Because the most significant national security threat currently comes from jihadist terrorists, all of whom pre-criminality were Islamist extremists, Mrs May’s security measures are currently being implemented against them. If alternative blogs, some with Islamist leanings, are able to successfully shape the narrative, the perception that the new Prime Minister has been targeting Muslims has been allowed to grow. Yes, they are Muslim; no that’s not why they fell foul of these laws. We must oppose such legislative responses, but not because of the argument that they’re anti-Muslim, rather because they’re ineffective, illiberal, and potentially counter-productive.

While I don’t receive a daily national security briefing, nor have a significant portion of my day spent signing warrants, and can therefore be accused of blissful naiveté, I do spend my days thinking about other ways that civil society can prevent radicalisation to keep our state and society safe from the global jihadist insurgency currently unfurling across the world. My two main conclusions are first that a hippocratic oath of sorts is required - let’s do no harm, and minimise negative unintended consequences - and second that we ought to uphold our values in the face of those who seek to undermine them and/or provoke us into dismantling our own societies so they don’t have to.

If not counter-terrorism legislation, these blogs hone in on another item in Theresa May’s former portfolio, the Prevent Strategy, which much the same approach - apocryphal stories, rhetoric about spying, accusations of it targeting Muslims. I think there’s a lot more that can be done to make Prevent more effective and better received - more transparency, greater oversight, more consultation - but I think the former Home Secretary should be commended for its evolution throughout her tenure. The goalposts shifted significantly from preventing a 7/7 style attack in the UK towards reducing the rate of British foreign terrorist fighters leaving to join ISIS, tackling a rise in anti-Muslim hate and improving community cohesion.

The vicar’s daughter showed throughout her tenure as Home Secretary that she understood the difference between Islam the faith and Islamist extremism the political ideology that exploits it. So while accusations of the new PM neglecting civil liberties are perhaps fair, suggestions that she has demonised Islam or Muslims rather than robustly challenging medieval, misogynist, murderous bigots are not. Last Autumn’s new Counter-Extremism Strategy shows just how far the thinking has come on this topic and how clear the distinction is for the new PM, and May must be praised for Britain continuing to lead the world on counter-extremism.

Indeed, two of the priorities within the new counter-extremism strategy underpin lots of our work at Quilliam: “countering extremist ideology…and promoting a better alternative” and “building a partnership with all those opposed to extremism”.

Take the current #MyIslam campaign led by our Theology and Outreach Department that aims to show the synergy between Islam and human rights and engage those in both Islamist and anti-Muslim camps that argue otherwise. As our Head of Outreach Adam Deen says in his video, “I see a gross manipulation of the Quran, the Hadith and its many verses. Islamists cannot be allowed to get away with it” - a Muslim and a former extremist, but not dissimilar from May’s 2014 speech to Conservative Conference.

Independent of government, we have more freedom than the Home Office to engage in these difficult discussions, and certainly don’t have to protect British citizens as our first duty. But any good work would quickly be undone if the Home Secretary or Prime Minister really was worthy of the “Islamophobe of the Year” title. Thank goodness that she is not.

The views in this article are held by the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Theos or its associates.

Jonathan Russell is head of policy at the Quilliam Foundation

Image obtained via wikicommons available under this Creative Commons license