This particular discourse has evolved over the years in regard to its initial concern with spatial and residential segregation changing to more perceived cultural forms of segregation which reached particular prominence following the events of the London bombings. In response to the shifting paradigms, the policy measures aimed at responding to these ‘problems’ also shifted away from community cohesion to prevention of violent extremism.

This chapter aims to provide a broader context to the question of Muslim self-segregation within educational debate; it aims to provide the reader with an idea of how particular events have shaped our understanding of Muslim communities in Britain. It also contextualises not only how the question of self-segregation is problematised, but also how this problematisation has evolved and consolidated within political and policy discourse.

Ray Honeyford (1983a; 1983b; 1984) became a cause célèbre for the New Right after publishing a number of articles questioning multicultural educational orthodoxies of Bradford City Council, in a series of articles published in the Times Education Supplement (Honeyford 1983b) and most significantly for the Salisbury Review (Honeyford 1984) – a political journal associated with the New Right. Honeyford, head teacher of the Drummond Middle School in Bradford with a majority Muslim cohort, viewed Muslims through an essentialised lens of cultural separatism, which he felt was akin to ‘imposing purdah mentality in schools’. For Honeyford, Muslim community, culture and religion were diametrically opposite to the reified British culture and his fundamental principle revolved around the ways in which the antiquated nature of Pakistani Muslim culture were unable to cope with ‘democracy’ and the ‘rule of law’. More crucially he felt that principles of multiculturalism which allowed a ‘growing number of Asians whose aim is to preserve as intact as possible the values and attitudes of the Indian subcontinent within a framework of British social and political privilege, i.e. to produce Asian ghettos’ (Honeyford 1984). Whilst the New Right championed Honeyford for his attack on multicultural education policy and obscurantist Muslim culture, the political Left described him as a racist bigot and a mouthpiece for the political Right. After a coordinated campaign Honeyford was suspended as the head teacher, but following an appeal to the High Court he was reinstated (Halstead 1988). However, in light of mobilised pressure by parent groups and national anti-racist organisations, Honeyford was forced to take early retirement. Some 25 years after the Honeyford controversy, he was seen to be vindicated by the national media and senior politicians. Whilst during the 1980s multiculturalism exerted a degree of influence in framing education policy and Muslim communities, following riots in 2001 not only was the multicultural consensus questioned but also the ‘death of multiculturalism’ was advocated. The re-imaging of Honeyford as ‘the man who predicted the Race Riots’ and a person ‘if we had only listened to … we should have not sown what we are now reaping and what we (and others) shall reap for many years to come’ (Darlymple 2002) shows the journey that British race relations discourses has made from the political Left to a secure position on the centre Right.

The public debate surrounding cultural segregation was to hit the national and international headlines once again during the late 1980s after Altrincham Grammar School for Girls, one of the best grammar schools in Britain, suspended two Muslim sisters for wearing the hijab on the grounds of cultural integration (Alvi 2010). This event brought the questions of secularism, conspicuous religious symbolism and religious tolerance into the national debate in Britain some 25 years before the Stasi Commission report in France, which ultimately led to the banning of the hijab in French schools. Unlike the French judgement, the Altringham Grammar School affair, following a national campaign supported by diverse groups including the Commission for Racial Equality, Manchester Council of Mosques, the Jewish Gazette and the National Union of Teachers, led to an out-of-court settlement with the family of the Alvi sisters, in light of changes to the school’s uniform policy. More recently, the case of Shabina Begum and Denbigh High School in Luton has demonstrated the evolving conflicts regarding Muslim dress code, school policy and the nature of secular space (Ward 2006; Idris 2006; Singh and Cowden 2011). The Shabina Begum controversy began during the new school year in 2002. Like most secondary schools in Britain, Denbigh High School had in place a school policy that accommodated Muslim girls by allowing them to wear the traditional shalwar kameez, comprising loose trousers and tunic, together with the hijab. Shabina Begum argued that this policy did not meet her strict religious needs because the shalwar kameez reflected the cultural legacy of the Indian subcontinent, including that of Hindu and Sikh girls. Instead, Ms Begum chose to wear the jilbab – a long, loose garment worn by Muslim women throughout the Middle East and which she considered met the criteria of Islamic dress. Ms Begum refused to attend the school and, with the help of her family, issued a judicial review seeking a declaration that the school had unlawfully denied her the right to manifest her religion and, as a result, had denied her right to education (Idris 2007). The High Court rejected the judicial review in June 2004 on the grounds that neither had her religious freedoms been breached nor had she been excluded from the school (Ward 2006). In light of this judgement Ms Begum took the matter to the Court if Appeal, which in March 2005 offered a different response to that of the High Court, arguing instead that Denbigh High School ‘approached the issues … from an entirely wrong direction and did not attribute claimant’s beliefs the weight they deserved’ (cited in Idris 2007). Ms Begum’s fate was finally determined by an appeal made by the school at the House of Lords, which ruled in favour of Denbigh High School and provided a similar judgement to that of the High Court by arguing that Ms Begum’s religious freedoms had not been violated and that Denbigh High School – with a significant number of Muslim students (79 per cent), including a Muslim head teacher – had a comprehensive uniform policy (Idris 2007). Ms Begum’s case is significant not because it signifies conflict between Muslims and secular space; rather it demonstrates an internal debate and difference over the requirements and authenticity of religious dress.

The subject of cultural self-segregation was a dominant feature in the discussions over state funding of Muslim faith schools from the mid-1980s onwards; the provisions for religious faiths to establish schools which are recognised and funded by the state have been utilised by both Christian and Jewish communities since the introduction of the 1944 Education Act. The emphasis on single-gender education, the importance of preserving ones cultural and religious identity and providing a safe space were the initial drivers behind the establishment of Muslim faith schools. This meant that Muslim schools were increasingly viewed through the lens of ‘separatism’. The fact that Muslims were requesting an extension of existing provisions enjoyed by other religious groups was disregarded; instead the confident display and expression of Muslim identity within the public space was seen as a particular threat to the Judeo-Christian consensus. The emergence of an active voice for state funding of Muslim schools coincided with the growth of national educational groups, academic organisations and Muslim representative bodies, including the Muslim Educational Trust (1966), The Islamic Academy (1983), the Muslim Education Quarterly (1983) and the Association of Muslim Schools (1992). At the local level, as early as January 1983, the Muslim Parents Association in Bradford submitted a proposal to Bradford Local Education Authority that, given the absence of single-sex schools and lack of religious provision for Muslim pupils, their association take control of five schools with the aim of running them staffed by voluntary aided schools (Haw 1994).

The question of cultural self-segregation during the 1980s was shaped by two crucial debates, the first being the history of the struggle against and resistance to racism within working-class ‘Black’ communities in Britain – the term ‘Black’ being understood as a political category rooted in the experiences of racism and imperialism by post-colonial subjects. This period witnessed active campaigning against street- and state-based racism together with the popular appeal of the Asian Youth Movements (Ramamathury 2013). Thus it is not surprising to note that some of the early demands for opting out of mainstream state provisions were grounded upon fears and concerns regarding racial harassment and institutional failures to embed anti-racist and anti-sexist educational policies (Haw 1994). The 1980s also witnessed the McDonald inquiry into racism and racial violence in Manchester schools linked to the murder of the Manchester schoolboy, Ahmed Iqbal Ullah, in a school playground in Burnage. This damning report provided systematic examples of racism by members of staff and pupils against Muslim youths, and also documented graphic examples of institutional forms of racism.

The second debate was in regard to the rejection of the policy of assimilation within public policy discourse which envisaged that the ‘problem’ of minority communities could be solved by full assimilation, whereby minority ethnic groups would be absorbed and subsumed within the host society (Swann Report 1985:1991). The Swann Report (1985) considered neither of these options valid: the agenda of assimilation was seen as a ‘denial of the fundamental freedom of all individuals to differ on aspects of their lives where no single way can justifiably be presented as universally appropriate’ (Swann 1985:4). The report argued that such policies were ‘unreasonable’, ‘unjust’ and, above all, ‘unrealistic’. Equally, a policy of separatism would ‘offer equality or justice to the numbers of all groups, least of all the numerically smaller minorities’ (Swann 1985:5).

Instead, the Swann Report (1985) proposed that a multicultural policy grounded on the idea of pluralism was a way out of this binary typology. It argued that, given the nature of a multi-racial society, a third way would be in the interests of that society as a whole and would, more importantly, be in tune with the changing nature of post-war Britain. It proposed that plural society:

Multiculturalism, with cultural recognition through government policy and in regard to providing an equal say for minority groups, was seen as an inappropriate way of meeting the contemporary challenges arising from recent political events. It was argued that, hitherto, policies of multiculturalism had been promoting a sense of ‘difference’ which nurtured a sense of racial and religious ‘separateness’. The concept of community cohesion was developed and promoted as a way of meeting the new challenges post-race riots and 9/11. The key task for multicultural societies was: