The familiar call has gone out, in response to the recent London and Glasgow bomb attempts, for Muslims to somehow organise "not in my/our name" marches in order to condemn terrorism: for example, this article on Comment is Free by Asim Siddiqui, whose biography still says he is the chair of the City Circle even though Yahya Birt has been in that position for some time, and this letter in the Times (last one the page) by Dr Shaaz Mahboob (one of apparently two members of "British Muslims for Secular Democracy", along with Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the so-called Muslim Parliament).
They conveniently overlook one important difference between the terrorism of al-Qa'ida and the war in Iraq against which we marched under the slogan "not in my name", however. That war was waged by elected politicians - some of them representing constituencies with large Muslim populations - and paid for out of British tax money, including tax money from Muslims. The marches, which took in Trafalgar and Parliament Squares, was aimed at the centres of power in the UK, the marchers' own country. Al-Qa'ida is not the military wing of some international Islamic congress, and it did not carry out a consultation exercise, or invite all our representatives to vote, before they left their bombs in London and tried to ram Glasgow airport (if it was al-Qa'ida). If they had, the government might well have been better prepared to intercept them!
No, al-Qa'ida are a small, extremist fringe group and they represent themselves and perhaps a shade of extreme opinion in the Arab world and, to a lesser extent, other parts of the Muslim world. It would make no difference if those sections of the community which were against them anyway marched; their supporters would look on them with contempt and hatred. Of course, Muslims in some Muslim countries have held such marches, but these were government-supported marches against an enemy of the governments, and some of these countries otherwise ban street demonstrations. You cannot march against the tyrannical religious police in Saudi Arabia, for example.
And if, a month or so after such a march, a bomb goes off and the culprits turn out to come from the ghettoes of Leeds again, does anyone think those who shout "condemn terrorism or else" after every bombing or bombing attempt will accept that we've done our bit? Of course they will not - they will say that only a few tens of thousands turned up, or that we were doing it just for show, or come up with some other excuse. Some of them have an agenda of bigotry, but others are just fumbling around in the dark looking to put the blame on someone, which can be expected particularly if the actual perpetrators are dead.
There is one other thing Muslims should consider here, which is that we as a community are innocent of what a few people with extreme views do, unless we egg them on ourselves or otherwise help instigate the attacks. If we're not contributors to it, we don't need to prove that we are innocent of it, whether by marching or by putting badges on our blogs, as some Muslims did a while ago. These claims are often made by people trying to stir up hostility to Muslims, frequently knowing full well that voices are raised in condemnation of these acts every time one of them happens, but when they are told of the condemnations, they demand that the whole community jumps up and down. I won't dance to their tune and I suggest that others don't either.
"It would make no difference if those sections of the community which were against them anyway marched; their supporters would look on them with contempt and hatred."
I don't understand. Why wouldn't a public demonstration of disagreement with terrorists and their supporters make a difference? It might show to the terror-inclined that "moderate Muslims" are not spineless, and to us non-Muslims it would show pretty much the same thing. Also, it could increase the self-confidence and sense of effectiveness of the demonstrators themselves. Is it really forbidden to Muslims to manifest agreement with unbelievers on specific principles (i.e. that terrorism is wrong) if this arouses the "anger and contempt" of terror-supporting Muslims?
"There is one other thing Muslims should consider here, which is that we as a community are innocent of what a few people with extreme views do, unless we egg them on ourselves or otherwise help instigate the attacks."
It's my impression that Christianity in general aims to make the conscience vulnerable; Islam seems to do the opposite. It has a genius for producing the complacently clean conscience.
Is Islam really so innocent of all this violence? You say, "We have no mechanism for preventing it, so we can't be blamed for not using it." But that's just the point: this is a basic flaw in Islam. It seems to be organized at present on the rogue-CIA principle of "plausible deniability."
Asalaamuaalikum bro...
Its been a while. Listen, I think it is a bit suspicious that Muslims are only called on to denounce terrorism when it happens in Western countries. Why is that? Is it a white thing?
Dress me in pink and call me Hyacinth, but Muslims demonstrating against terrorism makes no sense to me at all.To suggest Muslims alone march implies that somehow we are implicated or responsible for what a small band of loonies do in the name of Islam. Mine is a faith or morality and peace and those who choose to twist its teachings in order to justify politically motivated violence have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. Instead, how about we ALL have a demo - not just Muslims - united against terrorism of ALL kinds, whether perpetrated by governments or looney extremists. And let's see what the bigots, hatemongers and malcontents in the right-wing media have to say about THAT.
As-salamu alaykum,
Just a point of clarification. I've been appointed the Director of City Circle. Asim Siddiqui remains the Chair of City Circle.
Kind regards, Yahya Birt
I think in light of the growing suspicion that is being drummed up by the mainstream media, British Muslims have no choice but to counter this by coming out and visibly showing our opposition to these terrorist acts in the form of a mass demonstration.
I know many people argue that we should not have to demonstrate as we are innocent. However we need to see things from the perspective of the population at large, who are rightly or wrongly starting to view all Muslims with suspicion.
In these troubling times it is a political necessity, if we are continue practicing our deen with the freedoms we have enjoyed thus far.
we're actually rallying against terrorism in Scotland on Saturday. more info on my blog
Funny how it's never hard to get Muslims onto the street to protest against wars on the other side of the world, works of fiction written by distinguished authors or cartoons in Danish newspapers.
If I was living in a Muslim-majority country, say Pakistan or Malaysia, and some white arseholes started letting off bombs in the name of Jesus, killing dozens of inocent people and demanding the recreation of the British Empire, I'd be out on the streets denouncing them as murdering scum and saying "Not in my name."
No one is forcing you to demonstate (because Britain is a free country) but the rest of us will draw the appropriate conclusion - that for many British Muslims, killings in Karbala are worth demonstrating against but killings in Kings Cross ain't.