The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY SEVEN: 14 July 2005

(Please see also the Deniers page.)

VERSE AND CHAPTER

The sketchwriters, who generally pump out satirical buffoonery, were subdued today.

Simon Carr of the Independent soberly criticised the debate in the House of Commons yesterday to make some criticisms of Islam itself (page 22 or paid access here). Michael Howard, leader of the Opposition said that the bombers' Islam was a 'perversion of Islam'.

Carr wondered, 'what if it isn't a perversion of Islam? What if it's a distillation of it? ... There is a desert-dwelling, Old Testament ferocity in the Koran that is very comfortable with violence.'

It is true that there is ferocity in the Qur'an, though to focus on this element is a political choice.

Karen Armstrong, the former Catholic nun, whose humane interpretation of religion is a rock to be clung to in these desperate times, observed in Monday's Guardian, 'Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.'

Simon Carr's invocation of 'Old Testament ferocity' is itself revealing. The Old Testament contains many stories not merely of 'ferocity' (in Psalms 137:8-9, God is asked to bless those who would smash Babylonian babies against rocks in an act of mass infanticide, for example), but of genocide, ordered by God, including the extermination of the Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; see also Joshua 24: 8-13)

One can go on in this vein. How would we regard someone who suggested that this side of the Old Testament was the 'distillation' of Judaism? They would be revile, rightly, as an anti-semite.

Why is it acceptable, then, for someone in an influential position to make similar comments about Islam?

This has relevance also to Christianity. Jesus said that the Old Testament was an integral part of his teaching: 'Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.' (Matthew 5: 17-18, also Luke 16:17)

So the 'Old Testament ferocity' of the Old Testament was also part of Jesus's teaching. For example, Jesus criticised the Jews of his time for not putting to death children who spoke evil of their parents, as the Law commanded. (Mark 7:9-10)

Should this be regarded as the 'distillation' of Christianity? Of course not. These are parts of the holy writing of two major religions, but they are only parts of Scripture. It would be bizarre to conclude that followers of these religions should be condemned as believers in baby-smashing violence.

Then why can verses be pulled from the Qur'an and used to condemn Islam itself, to condemn all Muslims in all the many streams of Islam that have grown up in the modern world?

POISONOUS IDEOLOGY

The Prime Minister yesterday made remarks about the nature of Islam. Andrew Gimson, sketchwriter in the Telegraph, in a piece entitled 'Blair welcome converts to his version of Islam', made the piercing observation that, in talking of the 'moderate' nature of Islam, 'Mr Blair and his followers may claim to be saying something about the true nature of Islam, but what they are actually doing is laying down the conditions on which Muslims will be allowed to live in Britain.'

'Moderate Muslims will be welcome while, in Mr Blair's words, those "who may incite hatred or act contrary to the public good" will be excluded, or deported if they have already come here. This begs the question of what will be done with any Muslims who were born here yet have the temerity to reject the Blairite interpretation of their religion.'

Tony Blair spoke of the need to combat the 'perverted and poisonous' doctrines of Islamic extremism, and to 'pull up this evil ideology by its roots' - if necessary by excluding or deporting the religious extremists who foment it.

The problem then is the ideology, the interpretation of Islam, the brainwashing of vulnerable recruits.

POISONOUS REALITY

Well, to check this analysis against reality, let us turn to an extremely valuable account by a young British Muslim, of an attempt to recruit him as a suicide bomber, recounted in the Daily Mirror:

Then one evening I attended a gathering in a home in London. After everyone else had left the two men took me aside and asked me if I was angry about the West's persecution of Ummah, the Islamic nation. They pulled out a video cassette and slipped it into the machine. The tape started with masked men talking in Arabic. I didn't understand everything so they paused the tape to translate and explain what was going on.

Then I watched in horror as grotesque footage was played of Chechen fighters being executed by Russian soldiers. The men were shot in the head, with blood going everywhere. It was the first time I'd seen such horrific things and I felt physically sick, hardly able to watch.

"You see what's happening to your brothers and sisters?" one of the men told me as other images of Muslims being killed in Palestine and Iraq flashed up. "But these people are going instantly to heaven." The other added: "Imagine how it feels to be one of these brothers, to know you are about to be rewarded with eternal life and the highest place in Jannah."

After the video had ended the two men sat on either side of me and began to discuss how glorious it would be to die for the great cause.

There were also the sexual advantages of Paradise, and the prospect of seeing his recently deceased father. 'Muhammed' was invited to become a suicide bomber. He was 'drawn into their discourse, feeling the pain of my Muslim brothers and sisters around the world who were being killed and maimed unjustly.'

This young man, by his own account, was a devout Muslim. But he was not approached on the basis of theology, or the glories of the Caliphate, or resentment of Western 'success' (see earlier Media Reviews). He was not approached on the basis of 'ideology'. He was approached on the basis of reality.

The reality of British and US foreign policy, which is in effect, though not in intention, largely anti-Muslim. In relation to Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq (under sanctions and now under occupation), Afghanistan, the Muslim communities in China and Kashmir, and so on, there is a recurring pattern of action or inaction which harms Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Middle East countries, the West props up repressive regimes.

All of this is a disastrous coincidence of policy. The West has no anti-Muslim or anti-Islam agenda (why make alliance with the most fundamentalist regime in the world, Saudi Arabia, if the West has problems with Islam itself?)

REALITY AND IDEOLOGY

Where 'reality' becomes 'ideology' is, firstly, in portraying this as an anti-Muslim 'crusade', and, secondly, in constructing an interpretation of Islamic law (which violates some basic principles while upholding others) to justify the kinds of atrocities which we have seen in recent years.

But where does the problem lie? If there were no atrocities in Chechnya, or if the West were strenuously pressuring Russia to end its brutal war there, would young men be shown videos of atrocities committed in Chechnya? If there was no US/UK occupation of Iraq, would young men be shown videos of fighting there?

Is the main problem the spark? Or the spreading pool of petrol? Is the main problem those who show videos of Western-backed or Western-committed atrocities? Or the foreign policy of Western states that permits or commits those atrocities?

In the Financial Times, outstanding correspondent Roula Khalaf asks the crucial question: 'why are young people like last Thursday's bombers alienated enough to be swayed by radical religious ideology?' She reports,

'Experts cite a series of factors, ranging from social deprivation, to cultural disenchantment, and a sense of deep injustice harboured by many Muslims during the past five years of the war on terror. Opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was strongly felt among European Muslim communities.'

The Home Office/Foreign Office report on Young Muslims and Extremism is quite clear in its priorities. British foreign policy is considered the primary driver of alienation and 'extremism' among young British Muslims. The suggestion is made that when extremists are arrested or their houses searched, this should be 'evidence-based, intelligence-led and proportionate'.

In his emphasis on 'deporting radical preachers', Tony Blair is going against the advice of his own ministries on this central problem of our times.

JNV welcomes feedback.