Muslim radicalisation and our Foreign Policy
Amidst world-wide Muslim protests at the Pope's recent remarks, Hizb
ut-Tahrir (the Muslim organisation Tony Blair wanted to proscribe
with his Anti-Terrorist legislation) called a typically (for HT) peaceful
and low-key meeting.
Held last night (Monday 18th) in Bedford's Queens Park at the Parish
Church of All Saints meeting room (a Christian venue be it noted)
some 40-50 of the local Muslim community gathered to talk about the
alleged "radicalisation of Muslims", in an effort to establish who
or what they believe to be really responsible for this.
Zardad Khan of HT Bedford kicked off by briefly outlining the issue
and expressing the view (held fairly widely within the local Muslim
community) that, contrary to what the Government is willing to admit,
this whole business of "radicalisation" can be directly attributed
to Western foreign policy.
Mr Khan accused Tony Blair of seeking to make the Muslim community
a scapegoat for his (Blair's) own actions, and drew attention to the
hypocrisies within Blair's public statements.
He was scathing of public remarks that suggest Blair regards any Muslim
who even so much as disagrees with government foreign policy as being
an extremist.
A good half of the meeting was taken up with a question and answer
session that was conducted in a far more polite and orderly fashion
than some non-Muslim meetings I've attended!
The Chairman of Bedford's largest Mosque was also at the meeting and
spoke of the divisions within the Muslim community, of energies wasted
in needless finger-pointing and attributing blame, and of the huge
lack of understanding of the Muslim way of life within Western society
as a whole.
One guy I spoke with afterwards referred critically to the fear that Muslims in this country feel, particularly amongst the older generation, which acts as a restraint on their coming forward and expressing their true opinions about major issues... fear of prejudice, fear of persecution, and indeed fear of the State seeking reprisals.
Yet the overall message that seemed (at least to me) to come out of
the meeting is the absolute necessity for Muslims to stand up and
speak out against the injustices being perpetrated by the West against
Islam.
That said, both Zardad Khan and Jahanghir Lal (chairman of the meeting)
were very clear in their condemnation of acts of terrorism directed
against innocent civilians.
It also emerged that the idea of Mosques in Britain radicalising the
Muslim youth and being breeding-grounds for terrorism is laughable,
and yet one more example of the propaganda practised by much of the
mainstream media.
However, one thing's certain. This ain't an issue that's going away quickly.
further comment...
With British troops still being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq;
with the suicide bombings of July 7 last year; with major terrorist
alerts such as close our airports and create havoc for the airline
industry and their passengers, of course Tony Blair can't admit
a connection between his foreign policy (forced upon this country
against the wishes of huge numbers of the population) and the so-called
"radicalisation" of Muslims.
For to do so would be to admit, at the very least, that his judgement
was seriously flawed. His judgement in unfailingly backing the Bush
empire-building machine; his judgement in believing that taking Saddam
Hussein out would make the world a safer place; his judgement in failing
to acknowledge Hammas as a democratically elected government consistent
with all the conventions that constitute Western ideas of democracy;
his judgement in failing to act promptly when Israel launched its
entirely disproportionate aggression against Lebanon.
Of course, the more cynical amongst us might be inclined to think that
Blair's catastophic, murderous, and clearly anti-Islamic, foreign
policy is not so much a product of seriously flawed judgement as of
more venal motivations.
Just how much of that cynicism has been fuelled by the now so-obvious
misrepresentations and "spin" that seem to be "standard operating
procedure" for our present government has still to be determined.
But however it be explained, it beggars belief that any person
can seriously continue to argue against a connection between our foreign
policy and the concerns, attitudes, and actions of our own Muslim
community.
Indeed, were those of our community who profess the Muslim faith not
to be disturbed, angered, and moved to resistance by our country's
foreign adventures over the past few years, then I would have grave
doubts about the sincerity of their commitment to the faith they profess.
Does such an understandably emotional reaction constitute the "radicalisation" of which Blair and his cronies are so fond of referencing?
Ok, so let's cut to the chase here. Quite obviously the thought in most people's minds whenever the Blairites talk of "radicalisation" is the image of the suicide bomber; the hitherto peaceful, law-abiding, personable young Muslim who (apparently) suddenly loses his marbles, equips himself with some form of explosive, and proceeds to wreak devastation upon the "innocent" population. We're talking extreme reaction here. But are we talking disproportionate?
So, at risk of being suddenly whisked away and carted off to Belmarsh
for "glorifying terrorism", I'll put into words what I know
is in the minds of lots of Muslims but, for fear of persecution and
worse, they dare not say publicly.
But, to cover my own back, let me first state quite categorically
and quite clearly that I do not approve of acts of violence,
nor can condone them, nor urge others to be perpetrators thereof.
And that, my condemnation of violence, applies across the board, equally and to all. It applies equally to the violence we have knowingly, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, perpetrated against innocent Afghans, against innocent Iraqis. It applies equally to the violence we have stood by and allowed to happen to innocent Palestinians, to innocent Lebanese. It applies equally to the violence we allow to go unremarked when the likes of the CIA indulge their Gestapo-like "rendition" practises. It applies equally to the violence perpetrated against helpless inmates of Guantanamo Bay, of Abu Ghraib, and of similar more secret (and hence more detestable) places - violence perpetrated by brutish regimes that our government not only fails to criticise, but actively supports!
When we bewail the deaths of 50 or so people in London last year, or that of a few dozen of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even that of a couple of thousand in America a few years ago, where is our equivalent response to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, killed as a direct effect of Blair's and Bush's foreign policies? And this is to say nothing of the deaths and suffering inflicted upon its neighbours by the Western-supported State of Israel.
If we truly want the madnesses and vicious slaughters practised and
condoned by our government and that of our "ally" the US to stop,
what can we actually do that will be effective?
For one thing's certain: "legitimate" and "legal" protest simply don't
work. I know. I've tried them all. "Legal protest" in this country
amounts to nothing more than a soporific to quell the conscience of
the "silent majority".
So what's the alternative? To "engage" with the present political
system? To buy into the corruption, the compromise, the power-brokering,
the venality of our much-lauded "mother of Parliaments"? To become
tainted by the materialistic, ego- and greed-driven concerns that
seem to inevitably accompany involvement with 21st-century Western
politics?
And when it comes to the one brief opportunity we have to effectively
express our feelings, once every five years or so when we get the
chance to vote for a closed list of pre-selected candidates, what
moves us? It certainly isn't concerns about the integrity and morality
of our government's posture in regard to foreign affairs; much more
likely is it to be a reflection of our petty concerns for our own
personal well-being and safety! (Bear this in mind when next you hear
of "extremists" targetting our "innocent" population - the same population
that simply couldn't be bothered when given the all-too-infrequent
opportunity to actually make a difference!)
No, this is a far remove from advocating or condoning acts of violence against our own population. But the thing is, I can understand the anger, the resentment, the frustration, that leads to such acts. I can understand the conviction that one is witnessing a "total war" between Islam and the West (and talking of what can happen during such a "total war", let's not forget what we so willingly and proudly did to Dresden only some 60-odd years ago). I can understand the despair that must be experienced when one feels oneself to be utterly disempowered, and without recourse to any form of objective justice whatsoever, for oneself or for one's loved ones or even for one's extended family.
So there you have it. As I wrote in an email
to my own MP just recently (predictable waste of time that was, of
course!):
"Though neither young nor Muslim, I too find myself becoming ever
more "radicalised" as a direct effect of this country's foreign policies,
specifically regarding the Middle East."
