Fortunately Scotland Yard and related agencies are fast closing in on those responsible for the 7/7 ghastly terrorist attacks in London. Punishing those responsible for the reprehensible crime should serve as a deterrent against future acts of terrorism. No cause, ideology or politics can justify the insanity that left over 60 innocent Londoners dead.
This insanity of 7/7 that has seriously undermined peoples’ security would also have a fall-out on the multiculturalism of the British life. Despite the worldwide stresses of multiculturalism in times of increasing cultural assertiveness, especially in the decades of the ’80s and ’90s, the British system has tried to consciously and creatively manage its own cultural mosaic. Significantly the response of the Blair government and of the British media to the London bombings has been marked by reason and restraint. These steps literally within forty-eight hours of the bombings helped stop any vicious and widespread targeting of British Muslims - either physically or verbally.
Tony Blair is attempting a balancing act. Having said earlier that the root causes of terrorism have to be dealt with more recently he attacked such bombings as part of an “evil ideology.” Blair insisted it was not a response to injustice; was “fanaticism” that must be confronted. He believed it would be a “misunderstanding of a catastrophic order” to link behavior change in extremists to behavior change in the developed world.
But not everybody on the European continent agrees with Blair. Christophe Chaboud, France’s new anti-terrorism coordinator, stated in his July 11 interview with the Le Monde: “The war in Iraq has revived the logic of total conflict against the West.”
Britain too is divided on this. On July 16 John McDonnell, Labour MP insisted that “for as long as Britain remains in occupation of Iraq the terrorist recruiters will have the argument they seek to attract more susceptible young recruits to the bomb team. Britain must withdraw now.” He said it was “intellectually unsustainable” to say the war in Iraq had not motivated the bombers. Labour ex-Minister Clare Short, who resigned over the Iraq war, said recently: “We are implicit in the slaughter of large numbers of civilians in Iraq and supporting a Middle East policy that for the Palestinians creates this sense of double standards - that feeds anger.” She said she “had no doubt” the London atrocities were linked to Iraq.
In tracking the movements of the suspects, the British security agencies have widened the network to Pakistan. Three of the four bombers, third generation British, were of Pakistani origin. The family of one of the bombers has already made a statement about the young bomber having been “brainwashed” during his monthlong stay at a madrasa in Pakistan. While Pakistan is fully cooperating with the British on the investigation, Pakistani officials maintain that Britain needs to see the internal causes of alienation among Muslims in Britain.
Nevertheless in Pakistan, public space and public action has yet to be occupied decisively by the overwhelming majority that opposes the insanity of killing the innocent. To achieve that Pakistan requires a more credible and effective state apparatus, genuine democratic politics and a peaceful regional neighborhood. In the days to come Pakistan is likely to remain at the center of the 7/7 investigations.
The causes of this insanity are complex. The roots lie in the anti-Soviet covert war strategy of the ’80s. Then the architects and executioners of this strategy took weapons, guerrilla training, the idiom “evict the evil infidel - the evil occupier” and bagsful of greenbacks into hundreds of madrasas and even some mosques throughout Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan for the production of the “Mujahedeen.” The “production” of Mujahedeen spread throughout Middle East and North Africa. In the ’80s it was for the anti-Soviet “Western-supported jihad” and in the ’90s primarily for the anti-Western Al-Qaeda jihad. Some were also used in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
But this is no justification for today’s insanity.
It would be wrong to label the London bombers or their acts as Islamic. Yet most in policy- and opinion-making communities in the West and some in the Muslim world continue to do so. Perhaps prejudice, intellectual inertia and sensationalism partially explain this improper labeling.
Britain’s Prince Charles has publicly supported the Muslim leaders’ contention that the attacks were not linked to “true faith.” He rejected the notion of linking Islam with terrorism. “Some may think this cause is Islam. It is anything but. It is a perversion of traditional Islam.”
However the non-Muslim explanation for linking Islam and terrorism, even by the more objective writers, is that often the sympathy factor is apparent in the Muslim discourse on terrorism. They maintain that from our opinion-making community even the swift condemnation of terrorism often appears qualified when the injustices against the Muslims is simultaneously recounted. But more significantly the internal censure of the Muslims is not forthcoming.
While these are issues that we the Muslims should be conscious of, the media factor also plays an important role. The “right response” from the Muslim community does not make an exciting media copy. Hence the minority - the extremist - view often gets disproportionate projection.
Tony Blair’s conclusion is correct that “in the end it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.”
Legitimate politics is a must, nationally and internationally to promote the cardinal principles of stable and rational collective human existence, objectively determined justice, compassion, and discipline.
