24 July 2005 Blog Home : July 2005 : Permalink
It is wrong to put the onus on British Muslims to defeat terror
Let us start with the sub head. I don't believe anyone, and certainly not Cherie "jiljab" Booth's husband, has said that only Muslims can defeat terror. What he said is that British Muslims need to stop shrugging their shoulders when they hear so-called co-religionists making statements that sound like they could be incitements to terrorist activityFaced with the events of the past two weeks, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to say the Muslim community must do more to combat terrorism. Many community figures have done just that.
Shahid Malik MP told the Commons: "The challenge is straightforward - that those voices that we have tolerated will no longer be tolerated." This raises the question: did we really hear people planning violence in this country but do nothing about it?
The problem, Mr Saeed, is that hitherto there has not apparently been much assistence given the the police. Actions,as they say, speak louder than words, especially when the words are generally followed by a weaselly "but..."
This is why I've found it strange that many Muslim leaders have offered to look deep within our community now. It's a tacit admission of negligence that I simply do not accept. The prime minister has of course welcomed this attitude. Indeed he has led from the front, ratcheting up the rhetoric against Muslims, laying the responsibility solely on us. "In the end, this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself," he said last week.
Blair is of course completely correct, terrorists need the tacit support of their neighbours to operate successfully. The classic examples of this being across the water in N Ireland. The fact that it seems that very few Muslims have to date dared to complain publically about the inflamatory speeches etc. of their co-religionists indicates that he could be correct. One wonders whether Mr Saeed is worried lest he be shopped for something he might have said or written sonewhere - Google shows up, for example, this article but it is more risible than anything else IMO
Mr Blair has attacked the idea of the caliphate - the equivalent of criticising the Pope. He has also remained silent in the face of a rightwing smear campaign against such eminent scholars as Sheikh al-Qaradawi - a man who has worked hard to reconcile Islam with modern democracy. Such actions and omissions fuel the suspicion that we are witnessing a war on Islam itself. If there is any thought that Muslims are fine but their religion can take a hike then Mr Blair should know that we will never be in the corner, in the spotlight, losing our religion.
Firstly - why not criticise the pope? you only have to look in the Grauniad a few months back to see all sorts of papal critcism. Secondly I don't think any pope since the 17th century (if then) has ever claimed that the entire world should become Roman Catholic and if they don't they should at the least be governed exclusively by Roman Catholic governors, law courts etc. Thirdly if al-Qaradawi is working hard to reconcile Islam with modern democracy he hasn't been terribly good at it, at least when it comes to the part of democracy open to those who are not male heterosexuals. While we are not at war with Islam, some parts of Islam, such as those run by that other Osama, do declare that they are at war with us. It seems not unreasonable that those threatened with war to establish a religious state should ask the co-religionists of said warriors whether they agree with the goals or not and explain that such a goal is counter to our way of life.
By putting the onus on Muslims to defeat terror, the prime minister absolves himself of responsibility. Muslims are not in denial of our duties, but who are we meant to be combating? The security services had no idea about all that has gone on in London, so how are we as ordinary citizens to do better?
So here we are - outright slopey shoulders. The police should be omniscient and it is not the responsibility of any Muslim to help the police. As for "who are we meant to be combatting?" what kind of a dumb rhetorical question is that? Just in case Mr Saeed is genuinely confused on the question the answer is people who prefer to blow up others rather than engaging in negotiation or political lobbying.
It is not Muslims but Mr Blair who is in denial. He was advised that the war in Iraq would put us in more danger, not less. Silvio Berlusconi has admitted Italy is in danger because of his alliance with Bush; Mr Blair should do the same.
And more slopey shoulders and "root cause" apologia for terrorism. Apparently it is entirely acceptable for cowards to blow innocent users of public transport because of their government's policies. The only reason why Iraq made Britian more of a target is because of appeasing statements by papers such as the Grauniad who seem to think that western nations must remove the speck from their own eye before removing the plank from that of another.
Jack Straw has just apologised for Britain's role in the Srebrenica massacre. This is a welcome development, but these apologies need to be extended to Britain's explicit roles in creating the injustices in the Muslim world - from the mess that colonial masters left in Kashmir to the promising of one people's land to another in Palestine. We need to recognise our past mistakes and make a commitment not to repeat them. Western leaders are outraged about London but show no similar anger for other atrocities across the world. What happens abroad matters to British Muslims as much as what happens here.
The difference between Srebenica and either Kashmir or Palestine is the way that in Srebenica unarmed Muslims relied on the global community to protect them whereas Muslims in both of those places where armed but still managed to be defeated in battle. Somewhat less culpability methinks. Of course it is interesting to note that Mr Saeed seems to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist.
As EU Rota noted a few days ago, most of the deaths in Iraq have been caused by Islamic terrorists not occupying forces. Combine that with the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein it is hard to say that either the US or British governments are making Iraqis less safe.
Why 12 or 1400? how about 60? or 30? or some other number? And why should I judge these acts as being either a part of Islam or a protest? Given the bloody history of Islam over the past 1400 years I think you could make a plausible argument that Islam has always behaved this way. Actually I think that is generally wrong but I do think that the instigators of the terrorism believe that they are fighting for the same goals as Muslims did when the conquered Spain a thousand years ago - namely the establishment of a global muslim state, the Caliphate. I think that because the terrorists say that in their propaganda. Are we not supposed to take their statements at face value? The ball is most certainly not in Mr Blair's court, it is in yours because if you continue to tacitly support terrorism in favour of the establishment of a Caliphate you will be unwelcome in Britain where the vast majority of the inhabitants don't want to live under such a regime.
· Osama Saeed is a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain
Osama Saeed is a embarassment to the Muslim Community in Britain