When Terror Reigns
Despite the tragedy of the situation, the British press were once again over-hasty in blaming Muslims for the massacre in Norway. Mahmud Al-Rashid reflects.
Even though it was too early to draw firm conclusions, that did not prevent the British press going into overdrive to attack Muslims for the horrific massacre in Norway. Even before the blood of the victims had stopped flowing, much of our frenzied media demanded belligerent action against Muslims. “Islamist fanatics out to kill PM,” declared one paper. Like hounds after a prey, they rounded upon Muslims to demand apologies, contrition, and retribution. Experts were hastily wheeled out to express their fanciful opinions. Houriya Ahmed of the discreditable Henry Jackson Society declared, “No-one should be surprised if this bombing turns out to be a jihadist attack.” The Quilliam Foundation postulated this was a standard “jihadist attack.” They all strained to find any links, no matter how spurious, to justify their expositions. This persistent offending by the press, with its handy rent-a-quote talking heads is taking its toll and causing untold damage and disharmony.
But no one is willing to see that. The constant vilification of Muslims by the media and their handmaiden the politicians (now that the News International scandal has made it clear who is beholden to who), has created a debilitating victimhood mentality amongst many Muslims. The bigoted amongst Muslims will continue to spout their irrational threats of Islamic vengeance and global domination, but most Muslims would have been mightily relieved (and this in itself is a sad indictment) that the prime suspect is not a Muslim – can you just imagine the fallout if he was? This sadistic state of affairs is perilous, and a truce needs to be urgently declared. We must withdraw from the brink of perpetual provocation and violence.
So, Anders Behring Breivik is a “blond, blue-eyed” Norwegian. This rather causes a problem for David Anderson QC, the reviewer of British terrorism laws, who just last week said the focus of investigation should be on Pakistani-looking people. To search others would be the “antithesis of intelligence-led policing,” Anderson surmised. Which rather exculpates white people, or those with blond hair, or blue eyes – a subtle form of Aryan supremacism, you might think. Norway’s security service concluded, “National extremism [as opposed to Islamic extremism] would not pose a serious threat to Norwegian society in 2011.” If the guardians of our safety and security have become indolent over clear and present threats from other sources, then we are all doomed. As Breivik has shown, blond hair and blue eyes are an equally lethal combination as dark skin and brown eyes.
If it had been a “jihadist attacker,” he would have belonged to a global terrorist network; this would have been another evil plot by the ummah to bring down western civilisation. But upon the arrest of Breivik, the press was anxious to justify his liability. He was described as a loner, a lunatic, an individual acting on his own. It is Muslims who connive; others merely act alone, frustrated at the “Islamification” of their homeland; they do not have networks, cells or clerics who preach hatred; no ideology to feed their hatred. Well, Breivik has given the lie to that cosy assumption. He is a devout Muslim-hater and his target was those he perceived to be responsible for being soft on Muslims.
The leaders and opinion-formers of our society are complicit in creating such a demonic atmosphere. They provide the mood music for fanatics and extremist groups to act violently. It is clear from Breivik’s internet musings that he collaborated with the EDL and other like-minded groups. His anti-Islamic credentials are impeccable. And why shouldn’t they be, when our ‘muscular liberal’ leaders never fail to berate Muslims at every opportunity, thereby creating a class of people who are deemed a threat to “our way of life.” Breivik’s musings are not isolated, but quite commonplace amongst the public expressions of our leaders and opinion-formers. Under the pretence of free speech, they have created so much odium against Muslims that it is respectable for ordinary people to be anti-Muslim. This constant inflammatory discourse of enmity has engendered so much hatred that even a “blue-eyed blond” feels compelled to massacre people to express his contempt of Muslims. As his lawyer chillingly says, it was “gruesome but necessary.” Our leaders and opinion-formers need to recognise their irresponsibility that has led to this.
Breivik claims he is a Christian. In expressing his religiosity he has chosen the egregious methods of his crusading forefathers, of whom he spoke proudly; it would have been infinitely better had he selected instead the way of true Christian belief. Notwithstanding that, our media will not be demanding apologies from Christian leaders, nor will they taint all of Christendom with this grotesque act of violence by one of its own. “Christian terrorism” is an oxymoron declared a work colleague, whilst he has always been at ease with the term “Islamic terrorism”.
The fight against terrorism has become dangerously partisan. It cannot be said enough times, and the evidence is glaringly obvious, that anyone of any background can and does resort to terrorism; Muslims do not have a monopoly on acts of political violence. Genuine acceptance of this fact will create a real and solid partnership between those who wish to do good in society and those who are set on its destruction. Then we can together address the causes of terrorism, and work for a society where justice prevails, instead of living in one where terror reigns. At the very least this is what the lives lost to terrorist violence deserve from us.
Bookmark this |
|
 |
Add to DIGG |
 |
Add to del.icio.us |
 |
Stumble this |
 |
Share on Facebook |
Share this |
|
Send to a Friend |
|
Link to this |
|
Printer Friendly |
|
 |
Print in plain text |
Comments
8 Comments
1
Majed Jazairi
26 Jul 11, 14:34
Thank you for writing this excellent article... I totally agree with and support your statements. I wish this response could be supported by main stream media...
2
aminah
24 Jul 11, 16:33
Thank you for this article. I live in Norway and
while the Norwegian government did not speculate
about whom was behind these atrocious attacks, I
was shocked to listen to one expert after the other
(including Al Jazeera) concluding that this was
definitely the work of Al Qaida and the like.
John Key, the prime minister of New Zealand even
used it as his excuse for why his country is in
Afghanistan. Obama used it as an apt occasion to
justify his foreign policy than to offer a sincere show
of respect to the people of Norway. The speculation
snowballed and as a Muslim living in Norway I
feared the repercussions if it was some mad man
invoking the name of Islam.
It is confirmed that the gun man was a white man,
a Christian, a conservative, following the extreme
right wing.today the media speculates over his
motives assuming that they are not that of an
christian extremist but of an anti islamist. The
responsibility heavily weighted on maintaining that
Islam is the scapegoat.
3
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:58
terrorised the streets of the UK. This was an organised terrorist group. Breivik appears however, to have acted alone. Choosing to, instead of engaging in the political process to address the issues, with which he is concerned, to mercilessly murder nearly a hundred of his own people. The actions of, clearly, a very disturbed individual, who may well claim to be a Christian but certainly not acting in the name of Christianity.
4
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:57
present immigration and social policies of European and, specifically, Norwegian governments. He attacked what he presumably sees as the source of these policies, governmental institutions and the youth-wing of the Norwegian Labour party. The actions of ‘Islamic’ terrorist groups may well be political in many senses as well (opposition to policies of Western governments and indeed, governments of ‘Islamic’ countries) but they are dressed up as being ‘Islamic’ and are committed in the name of allah.
The mainstream media could also be supported when they claim these are the actions of a single mad-man, rather than a terrorist. A helpful comparison would be with the IRA. Here we see an organisation that co-ordinated atrocities on both the British mainland and also in Northern Ireland. It was a well organised group (of, incidentally, Roman Catholics – not Roman Catholic terrorists, but terrorists who happened to be Roman Catholic) with a chain of command that regularly terrorise
5
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:56
groups that we tend to call ‘Islamic’ enact their attacks in the name of Islam. Their actions are based on (from the majority’s point of view) an incorrect interpretation of Islam. They claim the right to call other Muslims heretics and indeed kill more Muslims than they do Christians, Jews or Hindus (something they appear to have adopted from the Islamic philosopher Ibn Taymiyya – who was writing in response to the Mogul invasion of the “Muslim” world and sacking of Baghdad, when some of them had already converted to Islam). They claim to be responding to the ‘Infidel’ presence (in terms of military bases) in the holy land of Saudi Arabia and thus their attacks on ‘Infidel’ – we poor Westerners – are justified.
Breivik does none of this. He does not invoke the Bible as a justification for his attacks. The reasons behind his attacks are political, not religious. The attacks are a reflection not of his religiosity but of his political views. His objections appear to be to the past and
6
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:55
groups that we tend to call ‘Islamic’ enact their attacks in the name of Islam. Their actions are based on (from the majority’s point of view) an incorrect interpretation of Islam. They claim the right to call other Muslims heretics and indeed kill more Muslims than they do Christians, Jews or Hindus (something they appear to have adopted from the Islamic philosopher Ibn Taymiyya – who was writing in response to the Mogul invasion of the “Muslim” world and sacking of Baghdad, when some of them had already converted to Islam). They claim to be responding to the ‘Infidel’ presence (in terms of military bases) in the holy land of Saudi Arabia and thus their attacks on ‘Infidel’ – we poor Westerners – are justified.
Breivik does none of this. He does not invoke the Bible as a justification for his attacks. The reasons behind his attacks are political, not religious. The attacks are a reflection not of his religiosity but of his political views. His objections appear to be to the past and
7
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:55
groups that we tend to call ‘Islamic’ enact their attacks in the name of Islam. Their actions are based on (from the majority’s point of view) an incorrect interpretation of Islam. They claim the right to call other Muslims heretics and indeed kill more Muslims than they do Christians, Jews or Hindus (something they appear to have adopted from the Islamic philosopher Ibn Taymiyya – who was writing in response to the Mogul invasion of the “Muslim” world and sacking of Baghdad, when some of them had already converted to Islam). They claim to be responding to the ‘Infidel’ presence (in terms of military bases) in the holy land of Saudi Arabia and thus their attacks on ‘Infidel’ – we poor Westerners – are justified.
Breivik does none of this. He does not invoke the Bible as a justification for his attacks. The reasons behind his attacks are political, not religious. The attacks are a reflection not of his religiosity but of his political views. His objections appear to be to the past and
8
Liverpool-Durham
24 Jul 11, 15:48
Dear Sir,
Whilst there is much to credit your article and indeed it is true that there is much room for improvement in parts of the British press with regards to its handling of Muslims, your suggestion that Breivik might be a Christian equivalent to ‘Islamic’ groups such as Al-Qaeda and their off-shoots and the idea that he might be a ‘Christian terrorist’ is quite wrong.
Breivik is quite obviously a neo-nazi extremist. The source of his hatred is
He does not appear to claim that the reason for his actions is the furtherance of Christianity. He is not claiming that he is following the example of Jesus or God’s word in the Bible. He justifies his actions by calling not upon the name of God or Christianity but completed his atrocities in the name of, “The indigenous peoples of Europe.” He does not claim to represent Christians but the white peoples of Europe. (It can hardly be claimed, by himself or anyone, that he is representing Christians in Nigeria, China or Brazil)
Terrorist gro