July 3, 2007
Avoiding the I-word
The front page of the evening paper in London this evening proclaims "Muslim leaders condemn bombers". It is rather sad that this should be considered front page news. None of the people arrested in connection with the London and Glasgow bomb plots have, so far, been British Muslims. But it is still clear that we are embarking on another round of the agonised debate about the relationship between Muslims, Islam, Islamism and terrorism.
The Brown government has been praised in many quarters for avoiding the "I" word in condemning the would-be terrorists. They have been characterised as criminals, rather than Islamic terrorists. But some people think the government is being a bit too tactful.
Denis MacShane, a former Labour minister, argues in today’s Daily Telegraph that:
"Measured and impressive as the government’s response has been to the attempted atrocities in London and Glasgow, the fact is that the Labour government, Whitehall and the entire political-media class in Britain have been slow to wake up to the need for an intellectual-ideological confrontation with Islamism."
One person that MacShane has in his sights is Tariq Ramadan, an ambiguous and controversial Muslim philosopher, whose grand-father was founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some of Ramadan’s critics see him as little more than the acceptable face of Islamist extremism. His supporters retort that Ramadan’s explicit denunciations of terrorism and his calls for a separation between secular and religious authority make him exactly the sort of modernising influence that Islam is desperately in need of.
But Ramadan upset some of his sympathisers in Britain about a month ago, when he wrote an article in the Guardian insisting on the connection between terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. David Goodhart, editor of Prospect magazine, who had previously defended Ramadan sent him an open letter, lamenting his "grievance-seeking, responsibility-avoiding diatribe". So far Ramadan hasn’t got around to replying. (Those who want to read a really lengthy anti-Ramadan piece, should follow the link in Goodhart’s article to Paul Berman’s piece in the New Republic)
Under normal circumstances, this might look like an obscure intellectual dispute with little resonance outside the front rooms of Islington and Ealing (the location of the Ramadan residence). But the debate captures some of the most important questions about the terrorist threat to Britain.
Is Ramadan right to insist upon the connection between British foreign policy and terrorism? Or are his critics right to argue that even "moderate" Islamic teachers are far too quick to explain away terrorism, and far too slow to confront extremism? Could both sides have a point? Or is that last question just an example of the sort of feeble, wishy-washy liberalism that will see people like me swept away by the angry Islamic hordes? Time to go home.
It’s the latter.
Posted by: PL | July 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm | Report this commentSend them all home!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm | Report this commentDo you mean to ask is there a point at which blowing up the average Joe in New York, London, Madrid or Tel Aviv can be justified from a political perspective?
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 4th, 2007 at 2:18 am | Report this commentI asked that because there is that angle: Mr. Ramadan does not argue that terrorism can be justified but he thinks we should “take the measure of this foreign policy”; he says that while terrorism as a means isn’t justified, the message of terrorists should be taken seriously. But if we did concede that then doesnt that mean we condone terrorism as a method of political debate? Doesn’t it mean that anyone with a political agenda could come blow people up in the justifiable hope of finding their demands taken seriously? Then don’t we allow terrorism to becomes part of the political debate as a means of proving how strongly we feel about something? As a fellow liberal (in the classical sense) I’d rather not see that happen. Yes certainly anyone from a liberal background should never come close to condoning terrorism as having any sort of place whatsoever in the political process.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | July 4th, 2007 at 4:47 am | Report this commentIt is important not just to hear the sound bites of leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain but to really listen. They roundly condemn the murder of ‘innocent’ civilians by terrorists. So far so good. But who defines the word ‘innocent’. They do. Do they rail against the murder of Jews in Israel by terrorist suicide bombers. Not a single condemnation is heard. They bluster and prevaricate. Why? Because Muslims have been taught from an early age that Jews are responsible for all the ills that they suffer.
I recently was having a conversation with an Italian about 9/11. ‘Who was responsible’ he asked? A moderate Muslim standing nearby who I know, overheard the question and immediately turned and with great anger spat out ‘the Jews’.
Let us not be fooled by the public statements of Muslim leaders designed to reassure the general public and ensure the predominately liberal media do not probe to deeply since the utterings superficially contain the message they want to hear.
Posted by: Alan | July 4th, 2007 at 7:53 am | Report this commentThe key issue is whether “orthodox” Islam sees execution and or physical violence as justifiable because of a person’s views or lifestyle. One thinks of Fatwa’s against Salman Rushdie for example. Or one hears that an “apostate” merits death. Do Muslim leaders try to calm down riots inflamed by “offensive” cartoons or do they inflame them? Do women have the same status as men? Surely we need to address these, and other relevant questions head on and then decide our attitudes and policies towards Islam on the basis of the answers.
Posted by: Johnnt | July 4th, 2007 at 8:55 am | Report this commentIn reply to Felix Drost - no, of course, I didnt mean that terrorism is a legitimate way of expressing political grievances.
What I was trying to do was to raise the question of whether Ramadan has a point that British foreign policy has increased the terrorist threat. For what its worth, the British intelligence services have said that the UK’s involvement in Iraq has made us more of a target. That doesn’t meant that it was wrong to get involved - that is a separate debate - but I think the subject does need airing.
My own view is that while Iraq probably has increased the threat, we would be a target anyway. Quoting yourself is a bad habit. But this is what I wrote in my column in yesterday’s paper:
“The government will insist that British foreign policy will remain unaltered – anything else would sound like a capitulation to terror. Behind the scenes, however, there is sure to be pressure to accelerate troop withdrawals from Iraq. But a panicky decision to withdraw is highly unlikely to appease fanatics. They can always find a new grievance – Afghanistan, Israel or Britain’s infuriating reluctance to accept sharia law.”
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | July 4th, 2007 at 11:05 am | Report this commentWhen did Iran become ‘orthodox’ Islam?
Surely the overthrow of the Shah was one of the obvious, early steps in the development of political islamism as an extremist movement? Reinterpreting older, more pluralist versions of Islam as a political reaction against colonialism and perceived (some rightly so) wrongs against the muslim world.
Many muslim countries have human rights situations that we would find intollerable, but are they so much worse than China?
British foreign policy has increased the terrorist threat, just as previous wars have increased the threat of violent protest. The new terrorism is of a qualitatively different intensity, however, and the roots of that predate both 9/11 and Iraq.
An extremist political movement (that uses a distorted version of a major world religion as an ideological prop) has been born out of the disenfranchised populations of post-colonial repressive regimes (and the usual unscrupulous, often elite, demagogues who exploit it for their own grievances and advancement).
But this movement is not the same as the religion, and we would do well to remember it.
Posted by: D Jones | July 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pm | Report this commentLanguage is not our friend in this debate. Most of the terms used (”the Muslim world”, “the West”, “Islam”) are uselessly broad. No truthful or useful generalisation can be made about the immense, unwieldly, wildly varied areas of reality covered by these terms.
But for what it’s worth, it seems to me that the West is, understandably, under the mistaken impression this is about the West. It’s not. It’s largely about large parts of the world, many of them largely Islamic, having a delayed and traumatic encounter with modernity. With the rest of the world in general. With the recently enlarged universe, with relativity, with television, with three hundred types of marmalade…
To suddenly go from one single worldview, which fully encompasses the spiritual and the temporal life (as Islam tries to do), to a plural, wired-up multiverse of options, opinions, religions, secularisms, individualities, and choices in haircuts is extremely difficult and painful, because change hurts.
Ireland went through the same process in the past century. Like much of the Islamic world, we had missed out on the industrial revolution, and been largely side-stepped by the enlightenment. So we had to sprint from the 15th century to the 21st century in a single human lifetime.
And it meant a war of independence, a civil war, a very difficult repositioning of religion in society, a change in the relationship between men and women. We also went abroad killing people for a while, killing people we blamed for our troubles. But we got through it. We got over it. The Islamic world will too.
When my grandmother was young, a civil war was raging in the Irish countryside, women wore black shawls that covered their hair and obeyed their men in everything. We had no economy, and were entirely dominated by a religious elite.
Now we’re pretty much the opposite of that, while somehow still being the same people. Change hurt, but it didn’t destroy us, as we had feared.
Smoking, cars, and bungee-jumping while drunk will continue to kill and injure more Westerners than terrorism. We are merely getting some of the side effects of a process which is far more traumatic for the Islamic world than it is for us.
My grand-aunt spent most of her life in Pakistan. Her cheerful Christmas cards always contained startling asides: “the snipers were particularly bad last week” or “a lot of bombs last month, but it’s very quiet now”. This has been going on for a long time. We only just noticed. Let’s not get overexcited, or think we can somehow solve it from London, Berlin or Washington. Not everything revolves around us.
Posted by: Julian Gough | July 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pm | Report this commentPS: I forgot to mention how much I enjoy your blog…
Posted by: Julian Gough | July 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentJulian - You make interesting - but ultimately wrong - analogies. You forget to factor in one crucial difference: the Gospel.
D Jones - It’s certainly true that historically there were many different interpretations of Islam. However, why are you so sure that modern fundamentalism is a ‘distorted reinterpretation’ of these? Are you really intimate with the world-view of Islam, or are you groping with your bafflement at what is, for westerners, a very alien psyche?
Posted by: ABC | July 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentWell, ABC, I’m not sure the Gospel makes such a big difference, practically speaking. Christianity also had a wide range of options and interpretations available to it, from loving your enemy to practicing genocide down to the last child, all of them endorsed by verses in the Christian Bible. Likewise, sure, you can justify almost any behaviour by selective quotation of the Koran, or selection of the right hadith.
I mean, if you think Islam displays a “very alien psyche” you should check out some modern Christian websites. Here’s a random couple, justifying genocide, and the murder of children, if it’s ordered by God (or tortuously trying to explain how it’s not really, technically genocide if God orders it):
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html
All three monotheisms contain verses which can be used to justify any behaviour. Human nature expresses itself similarly through all ideologies, however idealistic they are in part. Islam is no more “alien” than Christianity or Judaism.
The fact that they are currently in conflict is another example of “the narcissism of small differences,” so beautifully described by that marvellous analyst of monotheism, Sigmund Freud.
The Christian, Jewish and Islamic worlds are projecting all their darkest fears about their own nature onto the Other. As usual. Just as, for example, America and the Soviet Union did until recently. It’s not specifically and uniquely Islam’s fault somehow. It’s just human nature.
Posted by: Julian Gough | July 4th, 2007 at 9:11 pm | Report this commentDear Julian Gough,
Thanks for your interesting comments. I’m glad you enjoy the blog. I also enjoyed your website (juliangough.com), but I have a question. In the photo, are you the naked one or the man in the suit?
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | July 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am | Report this commentJulian - This marvellous symmetry you are trying to portray doesen’t really exist. Just as the Soviet Union and the US were never on the same moral footing - despite the excesses of Nixon-Kissinger et al.
There are less and more tolerant societies. Sure, there is Christian fanaticism too - but that isn’t the mainstream today. In any case, I wasn’t speaking of Christianity per se, but of the core Gospel, which isn’t amenable to misinterpretation (Though it can be ignored). The Gospel is the source of modern humanism, your own tolerant liberalism included.
Human nature is certainly universal. It has its dark and its bright sides too. But the matrix of a society can reinforce any one of these.
Posted by: ABCD | July 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am | Report this commentDelighted you found my comments interesting, and (blush, blush) enjoyed my website, Gideon.
As to your excellent question (”are you the naked one or the man in the suit?”)… Ambiguity is the journalist’s enemy, and the novelist’s friend.
Posted by: Julian Gough | July 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm | Report this commentSorry ABCD, just saw your post on my way out door… good points, I largely agree, will respond properly on return…
Posted by: Julian Gough | July 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Report this comment1-) I think the British Home Secretary got it right. The people who planned the atrocities in London and Glasgow are plain criminals. They could have undoubtedly killed a lot of Muslims in the same way that the 7/7 bombers did. In other words, they did not place any value on lives be it their own lives, other Muslims’ and non Muslims’ lives.
Therefore, their criminality cannot be attributed to Islam.
2-) My Dictionary has the following definitions of terrorism.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
And also:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Don’t actions like “Shock and Awe” and the indiscriminate nature of the actions in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine richly qualify Messrs. Bush, Blair and Olmert as rank terrorists?
Or, alternatively, is terrorism simply dependant on your choice of weapons so that if your criminality is committed by crude, home-made devices you are a terrorist whereas if you do much more by Stealth bombers, cruise missiles and helicopters, then you are not?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 5th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this comment