Author: Editorial
Publication: The Washington Times
Date: July 22, 2005
URL: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050721-093748-2242r.htm
As if in answer to Prime Minister
Tony Blair's call for an international conference on Islamic extremism
Wednesday, another round of bombs have terrorized London. Though few appear
to have been injured, no thanks to the terrorists, we cannot let the severity
of terrorist acts dictate the appropriate response. International conferences
might not be the answer, but Mr. Blair is right to call on the Muslim communities
in the West to confront their own radicals.
Indeed, the rise of European --
and to a lesser extent American -- Islamofascism seems to discredit the
argument that democracy is a deterrent to terrorism. If Muslims in democratic
societies are inherently less radicalized than the fundamentalist or dictatorial
regimes in the Muslim world, then why is Europe seething with radical Muslims?
Why, for instance, are British Muslims bombing their own capital? To understand
why, we must revisit a central component of the Bush Doctrine, which focuses
on eradicating international terrorism.
Our efforts to take democracy to
Iraq and Afghanistan would be in vain if not for the support of the native
Muslim populations. The United States could have provided the structure
for January's elections in Iraq, for example, but it couldn't have forced
Iraqis to the polls. Similarly, the Bush administration hopes that once
democracy takes hold in the Middle East, it will spread throughout the
region. But the United States cannot force Arab or North African Muslims
to embrace freedom and denounce terrorism.
Fortunately, recent political reforms
-- such as the elections in Iraq and pro-democracy movements in Iran, Lebanon
and elsewhere -- suggest that the theory is working, maybe. A recent Pew
poll finds that support for suicide bombings in Lebanon has dropped from
73 percent in the summer of 2002 to 39 percent today. Though the trends
aren't all positive, it's reasonable to believe that four years after September
11 the Arab world is beginning to show tentative instincts for positive
change. Whether that continues, however, will depend on the commitment
and courage of Arab Muslims.
Which brings us back to the central
question: As young Muslims in the Arab world take up the call for reform,
why have their counterparts in Europe regressed to hatred? The reasons
are several and not at all simple, but one key reason lies within the organizations
that claim to represent Muslims in the West. When terrorists strike a Western
target, for example, the response from Muslim groups usually follows a
standard script. First, they condemn the terror as a departure from true
Islam; then, invariably they worry of a "backlash" against moderate Muslims
by angry Westerners. Then, nothing. In the relative calm between attacks,
these organizations, typically the U.S.-based Council on American-Islamic
Relations, have perfected the politics of victimhood. For all their bluster
that bin Ladenism is a departure from the Koran, they seem relatively unconcerned
about removing its taint from their ranks.
In one positive development, the
case of the London bombers has caused Iqbal Sacranic, secretary-general
of the Muslim Council of Britain, to ask: "The [Muslim] community across
the country condemns such [terrorist] activities, but beyond that what
have we been doing?"
A good question. Forstarters,Mr.
Sacranic can begin by denouncing fellow Muslims like Hani Sibai, director
of London's Al-Magreze Center for Historical Studies, who said on July
8 that the London bombings were "a great victory for [al Qaeda]. It rubbed
the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud." This
is according to the translation of an Al-Jazeera television interview by
the Middle East Media Research Institute. It's no surprise that not a single
Muslim organization in the West has criticized this Islamic scholar, who
lives in London.
Nor have Muslim organizations been
particularly concerned about "moderate" Qatar-based imam Sheik Yusuf al
Qaradawi, whose visit to London next month has become a national controversy.
Should the Muslim Council of Britain host a man who calls regularly for
the destruction of the "usurper Jews, the vile crusaders [i.e., Christians]
and infidels"? What about condemning Omar Bakri Mohammed, whom London Mayor
Ken Livingstone calls "a leading progressive Muslim", a man who blames
Londoners for the July 7 attacks? It would be no small victory for moderate
Islam if Mr. Sacranic supported a decision by the British government to
disinvite Mr. al Qaradawi, as well as to denounce "progressives" like Mr.
Bakri Mohammed.
Instead, Muslim leaders have allowed
radicals to thrive in their communities, preaching hate and galvanizing
the younger generations to murderous acts. That's either because the leaders
of these mosques and organizations at heart feel that way themselves or
-- and we hope this is the explanation -- they are intimidated by these
radical elements. As Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians have shown, intimidation
can be overcome, but first it requires leadership -- a leadership that
is sorely lacking in today's Muslim communities in the West.
