Earlier this week, it was revealed that Abu Rumaysah, a prolific ISIL activist, had fled London, and was reportedly in Syria. There will be few in the UK who will be sad to see the back of him. However, considering he had recently been arrested, there will be a number of questions asked, in particular, how was he able to leave the UK and join a force that has declared war against Britain, without the knowledge of the authorities?
Rumaysah was born Siddhartha Dhar, of Indian Hindu extraction. He is 31 and converted to Islam some years ago, after which he became a student of Anjem Choudhary, the radical UK preacher. He and his circle were part of Al Muhajiroon, the extremist group that was eventually dissolved.
Choudhary and Rumaysah were well-known because the media ensured they were. One might have thought that supporters of ISIL who clearly had no analytical or academic expertise – and certainly no popular support in the UK’s Muslim community – would be out of place on British television. On the contrary, Rumaysah regularly appeared on the BBC as well as Channel 4.
London’s Metropolitan Police arrested him and some of his associates in September. They were released on bail on the condition of surrendering their passports. According to reports, Rumaysah held onto his and travelled to Syria via Europe the following day.
Several questions remain. Firstly, why was this individual and others like him ever given the platform to promote their propaganda so widely? Secondly, how was Rumaysah able to leave the UK without the security service’s knowledge? And thirdly, should he have been able to leave anyway?
The representation of a wide variety of viewpoints is a part of the media’s role in any free society. As such, the very presence of Rumaysah on British television is not necessarily a bad thing. However, he was often portrayed as a member of the regular Muslim British community rather than as an extremist.
On one BBC programme, Rumaysah was described simply as a “Sunni Muslim”. Such an appellation failed to put him into proper context for viewers, who might have thought he was somehow typical of Sunni Muslims in the UK and elsewhere.
It is concerning that the British security services, who had Rumaysah in custody only shortly before he left the country, were not keeping sufficient tabs on him and ensuring all departure points from the country were aware of his particulars so that he could not slip through. Rumaysah was still being investigated after all.
But a larger question is raised. Rumaysah obviously wanted to leave the UK. Regardless of him being investigated by London’s police force, should he have been permitted to leave?
In previous interviews, Rumaysah made it clear he and others would be willing to leave the UK to go to Syria to live under ISIL rule, even if that meant giving up their British citizenship. Should Britain forcibly stop someone from leaving the country who so clearly does not want to be British any longer?
It’s an interesting question. If Rumaysah had given up his nationality, he would, presumably, have no automatic right to remain in the UK.
Legally, however, it would be awkward to deport him, unless he had another passport as he would effectively be stateless and unable to travel. That would place the UK into a catch-22 situation. Forcible removal of citizenship remains against British law, but what if there is a genuine request to renounce citizenship?
Rumaysah’s departure will not be mourned by many in the UK. But it does raise questions about how Britain’s media represents Muslims – and what the UK government ought to do with those who not only so clearly reject being British, but wish to empower those who would wage war against it.
Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC
Twitter: @hahellyer
