| |
Columns |
|
Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
|
UK’s Muslims have failed to respond
to the challenge of the 7/7 moment
How could 62,040,606 Americans get
it so wrong? So wailed a tee-shirt slogan last November. The
reference, of course, was to the votes garnered by US President
George Bush, which gave him a second term. If something does
not happen to change attitudes — and very quickly at that
— I expect to see another tee-shirt on my next trip to London
bearing the slogan:
How could 1.6 million Muslims
get it so wrong?
In the wake of the 7/7 London bombings
(and the me-too attempt a week later), everyone expected the
Muslim community in Britain to be
contrite about all that had happened. Instead, the only Muslim
voices hitting the headlines were those calling for more of
the same.
The Sunday Times ran a long story
about how it had sent its reporter, a Muslim, to investigate
the activities of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed — a Syrian-born
radical cleric who lived on the British dole and used Britain’s
traditional tolerance to preach violence to the society around
him (he has subsequently left the country).
According to the report, Bakri
and his followers will be satisfied with nothing less than
“flying the Islamic flag over Downing Street”.
Sheikh Omar Brooks was quoted saying
that it was a Muslim’s duty to stay apart from the rest of
society:
“Never mix
with them. Never let your children play with their children.”
A third man reportedly said that
non-believers were dispensable.
It really does not matter whether Muslims
in general share this extremist attitude, for all practical
purposes the fundamentalists are the only ones being heard
by the rest of Britain. And it is not just the Anglo-Saxons
who are listening but also the youngsters in the Muslim community.
MI5, says The Independent, has told Britain’s Prime Minister
Blair that there could be as many as 10,000 young Muslim men
on British soil who have had some form of military training.
(Sheikh Omar Brooks himself has claimed that he was trained
in Pakistan.)
There was no visible backlash against the
Muslim community in Britain immediately after the London blasts.
Some commentators went so far as to mouth the usual politically
correct spiel about how poverty and poor education were at
the root of misguided youth adopting terrorism. But I am not
sure how much more the British can stomach of being denounced
as “kafir” by men who are living on the dole. There is still
no open hostility aimed at the many Arab families who are
seen frequenting the shops and restaurants of London but —
make no mistake about it — there has been a change of attitude,
a wariness that now extends to Muslims in general.
Some Britons are more open about their
likes and dislikes. “Maybe now it’s time to start listening
to the BNP,” says the headline next to a photo from the scene
of the London blasts. It is a leaflet released by the British
National Party for a council by-election in Barking, London.
In case someone had not got the message,
party leader Nick Griffin was quite explicit:
|
“The Labour Party
for years has allowed Islamic extremists to preach in
mosques in Britain and use them to recruit people to
their cause.
It is the Labour Party that is to blame.”
|
|
| Griffin
is already facing charges of spreading race hatred but
everyone is afraid that he is simply articulating aloud
what many Britons believe silently. |
However, there is a
crucial difference between the Nick Griffins of the world
and the likes of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed.
The British
National
Party
is not conducting classes for budding terrorists, nor
is it applauding the London Bombers as
“the Fantastic Four”. |
Ordinary Muslims, meaning the vast mass
of the community in Britain, are not helping their cause.
They do not support the London bombings, they may even occasionally
condemn the terrorists (though rarely by that name) themselves,
but there is a always a sting in the tail. “What of Iraq?”
they ask, “Aren’t there bombings and other acts of violence
in that land which was once the seat of the Caliphs?”
This is a fatal rider. The Anglo-Saxons
immediately respond, “Are you being ill-treated? Haven’t we
allowed you to settle down in our land, to live off our bounty,
and to follow your own religious practices in peace? Do you
consider yourselves British citizens, or citizens of a wider
Islamic community?”
Actually, that question has already been
tackled by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and his followers to
their own satisfaction. Al-Muhajiroun, a radical group associated
with the Sheikh, went so far as to justify the London bombings.
Its spokesman, Anjum Choudhury, claimed he was not surprised
by the attacks since all Muslims had an obligation to support
Muslims in other countries in the course of a jihad. (According
to some reports, Al-Muhajiroun has been officially disbanded
— only to reappear under other names.)
Is that really how all Muslims feel? If
not, it is up to the Muslim community itself to clarify that
Anjum Choudhury and his ilk do not speak for all Muslims.
Can the Muslims of Britain condemn the London bombings unequivocally,
without once mentioning the words ‘Iraq’ or ‘Palestine’? Or
has the Muslim community sunk so deep into a persecution complex
— convinced that it is the victim rather than the attacker
— that it cannot?
A “clash of civilizations”
seemed far-fetched when Huntington first advanced the thesis.
The silence of the British Muslims lends substance to that
apocalyptic theory.
 |
| |
Your
comment[s] on this article |
|
|
|
|
