They Keep Telling the West, Which Doesn't Want to Hear

[Annie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/i...&en=7b1f44fe6658c193&ei=5094&partner=homepage

July 16, 2005
Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain's Muslims
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

LEEDS, England, July 15 - At Beeston's Cross Flats Park, in the center of this now embattled town, Sanjay Dutt and his friends grappled Friday with why their friend Kakey, better known to the world as Shehzad Tanweer, had decided to become a suicide bomber.

"He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it," Mr. Dutt, 22, said. "Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?"

"It's a double standard, that's why," answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. "I don't approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn't just happen."

...

Speak to young Muslims like Mr. Dutt and his friends in Leeds, or to others like Dr. Imram Waheed, 28, and Farouq Khan, 32, two Islamic activists living in Birmingham, another Muslim population center, and the answers seem clear. Each expresses the grievance in his own way, but the root is nearly the same.

They say they are weary of liberal Muslim leaders and British politicians who promise changes. They see them backing policies against the Muslim world in general, from Iraq to the Middle East to Afghanistan, and promising relief from economic distress and discrimination. Still, Britain's Muslims have languished near the bottom of society since their influx here in the 1950's.

"I know what people don't understand - it's how terrorists could have been born in this country," Shahroukh said. "But my point is, why not?"

A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.

The grievances of the boys of Cross Flats Parks have not propelled them toward political action. But Dr. Waheed, a practicing psychiatrist, and Mr. Khan, a documentary filmmaker, are acting on their alienation.

Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.

The party's stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

The group has drawn about 10,000 members to its recent annual meetings, its members say, and includes chapters abroad in places like Uzbekistan. It is a controversial movement, even among British Muslims, and its members have become emblematic of the shift of Muslims born in Britain to more conservative and outspoken expressions of their faith.

In interviews earlier this week in Birmingham, where they were born and bred, Dr. Waheed and Mr. Khan described the group's struggle as one for the very identity of Muslims in Britain.

"For our parents, the attention was focused on getting a job and building a life here," Mr. Khan said. "My generation had to go through more of a thinking process to discover who we are, our Islamic identity."

...

Jonathan Allen contributed reporting for this article.

 

[USViking]

A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.

Since there are 1.5 million muslims in the UK, this would mean that about 240,000 of them are NOT against the use of violence.

Say only 10% of these are really hard-core. That would give a population of about 24,000 who might be termed as commited to the use of violence.

While this number is small compared to the total Muslim population, it is high enough to cause terrible damage if all were to act on their views.

Such numbers cannot be controlled soley by any government within the bounds of present law and policy, so it is up to the Muslim community to police itself much more vigilantly, if further terrorism is to be averted.

Failure to do so should lead to radical changes in law and policy, such as the halt of immigration by Muslims to anywhere in the Western World, and deprtation of militant Muslims living in the West, even if it means stripping them of citizenship.

I do not like the idea of discriminating against whole groups on account of their worst members. The peril involved in not discriminating may in this case, however, lead to consequences much worse than the discrimination itself.

 

[onedomino]

Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.

The party's stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

UK security services should be all over these guys. They should be detained and deported. If they are homegrown UK citizens, they should be detained for as long as possible under the current anti-terrorism laws, then released for 30 seconds and detained again. The mosques that preach hate and violence must be closed down. But the cat's already out of the bag in the UK (and maybe the US). How can these dangerous security risks be controlled without contradicting the basic freedoms honored in the UK and US? Hate speech laws might help.

 

[Annie]

Since there are 1.5 million muslims in the UK, this would mean that about 240,000 of them are NOT against the use of violence.

Say only 10% of these are really hard-core. That would give a population of about 24,000 who might be termed as commited to the use of violence.

While this number is small compared to the total Muslim population, it is high enough to cause terrible damage if all were to act on their views.

Such numbers cannot be controlled soley by any government within the bounds of present law and policy, so it is up to the Muslim community to police itself much more vigilantly, if further terrorism is to be averted.

Failure to do so should lead to radical changes in law and policy, such as the halt of immigration by Muslims to anywhere in the Western World, and deprtation of militant Muslims living in the West, even if it means stripping them of citizenship.

I do not like the idea of discriminating against whole groups on account of their worst members. The peril involved in not discriminating may in this case, however, lead to consequences much worse than the discrimination itself.

Considering that it only takes a handful to create terror attacks, this does not bode well at all.

Serious concern should be and is finally being noted in the Balkanization of the Muslims.