How can we defuse Islamic hatred and anger?

There has been a great deal of the angry rhetoric and reactionary solutions to resolve the Islamic worlds descent into violence, and the more sensitive issue of terrorism among Europe’s Muslim populous. As is almost always the case, resolutions reached in anger and clouded in hatred are counterproductive and compound the problems we face.

The first goal in achieving conflict resolution is to be honest about one’s own faults; it’s no use crying foul about your adversary and carping about their misdemeanours. Almost half a century of conflict in Israel is proof that such tactics are futile and are self-perpetuating.

If we continue to ignore our own contribution to this crisis we will have to resolve to annihilate the entire Muslim world, including our own Muslim communities. This unacceptable apocalyptic crusade would destabilise the entire world and almost certainly lead to a global economic meltdown. We cannot continue to lie to ourselves about our contribution to the problem.

The incessant argument from Western leaders that “they want to destroy our way of life” does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes there are fundamentalist’s – some actively campaigning in the UK – that wish to subvert our established social order, but these ideologues should not be confused with the wider resentment among the moderate Islamic world. In fact treating the Muslim world as one homogenous group would further cement the radical doctrine among the majority – something that is already apparent post-911.

We confuse ourselves by trying to pigeonhole al Qaida as fundamentalists who cannot be sated, only destroyed. But al Qaida are a product of the modern world (see philosopher John Gray’s book al Qaida: And What it means to be Modern) not some remnant from historical religious divisions. As Michael Scheuer (former head of the CIA’s ‘bin Laden division’) has often argued we are crippling ourselves by accepting the perceived wisdom that al Qaida does not have a strategic goal, and are somehow ‘demonic’. It’s easy to dismiss our enemies as evil as this defers any question of our own contribution to the predicament, this tactic has been used throughout history to mobilise uninformed support against an enemy. I have outlined before the numerous statements by bin Laden that refute this argument, he claims he does not ‘hate our way of life’ but resents the cheapening of Muslim blood and western interference in the Islamic world.

The al Qaida leader also rejects that notion that an American withdrawal from the region would lead to an oil crisis, bin Laden argues that the west can buy the oil because “I can’t drink it. We’re going to sell it to you at a marketplace.”

To ignore the damage that the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and western economic imperialism have on the Muslim populations is very dangerous and cripples any chance of lasting peace.

Those among the Rightwing with an agenda – be they racist, Zionist, or economic – are perpetuating this myth that Islam is malevolent and those who follow are inherently evil because it serves their purpose. These dangerous acolytes are no more palatable than the radicalised Muslims, and are themselves fundamentalists.

*********

If we are to address our own contribution to the problem, what can Muslims do to address the radicalised element within their own communities and around the Islamic World? Well they need to stand up and challenge the repressive constraints of their religion, and the totalitarian regimes that hold back their development. We can use our economic strength to facilitate this process.

When trying to understand Islam we look through Christian/secularist eyes, this is unavoidable, however I think we are always in danger of considering our own present incarnation of Christianity in absolute terms; it has evolved through many turbulent times. The stability and prosperity of western civilisation has allowed for critical discourse, variation, and the deconstruction of dogma.

Our own faith was once a fear-based faith similar to Islam, and therefore would it not be constructive to foster the conditions that would allow similar growth, and enlightenment in the Islamic world too? Christianity’s Renaissance was possible because the increased wealth from the New World allowed the rising middle-classes to challenge the primacy of the all-powerful organised Church.

The newly affluent merchants demanded political representation and the chance to emerge from the imposed shadow of the medieval doctrine. These men refused to be damned and wanted a return to the Classical ideology of the greatness of man – A Great Man of course would gain credibility through his services to God, his enterprise, and cultural sophistication. Henry VIII’s court painter Hans Holbein (the Younger) observed mans newfound freedom in his great work The Ambassadors. Holbein portrayed two dashing and wealthy young men showing off their wares, however the key to the picture was the skewed skull than adorns the bottom of the painting; a reminder of the mortality of man and the absolution that awaits.

Islam has not yet experienced its Renaissance. Islam never recovered from the crusades the way the western Christian Church did. The once enlightened and progressive Islamic world had –under the threat of Christian invasion – pulled into itself and became a fear-based faith.

So how can we – for the benefit of mankind – foster a Renaissance in the Islamic World? How can we encourage a break from the literal and dangerous teachings of Wahhabism? How can we help women in the Islamic world and wider Muslim diaspora to break free of the regressive tenet that suppresses their freedom and identity?

I argue that if we can encourage greater trade with the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, we can encourage the rise of a middle class that would demand change, greater representation, and increased freedom. The dominant industry that exists in the Middle East, Oil, only perpetuates the regressive nature of Islam by allowing princes and despots to rule. Undemocratic authoritarian leaders who gain legitimacy through the religious clerics they encourage.

This symbiotic relationship is similar to the feudal relationship of the European King and the Catholic Church; this suppressive model was only broken (or in the case of Britain altered and subsequently fragmented) with the emergence of the middle-class and the neoclassical rebirth of democracy.

Could this be the solution to the deterioration of the relationship between the Christian and Islamic worlds? I truly believe we have to give this philosophy a chance.

*********

In developing Muslims abroad we would help defuse the anger and resentment at home. But we must also protect ourselves from the imminent threat the terrorism poses; this may indeed mean a measured and temporary retraction of liberties.

We must reject the counterproductive excesses of political correctness, and multi-culturalism that gives the freedom for radicals to preach hate. Those that exploit our asylum and hospitality while attempting to subvert our justice and social fabric should be deported; of this I have no problem. Those that practice intolerance and fundamentalism are as much my enemies as anyone else’s. And in this group I include the hard right.

The reason I cannot concur with the Right’s world-view is that it is fundamental in itself. A one-sided reactionary ideology that cannot face up to the difficult task of fixings what is wrong in the world. The hard right never appreciates that society requires sacrifice and effort, it wants to make the problem disappear, because it is fearful of what is does not understand.

This Multi-Cultural Bri
tain has not failed as many have claimed. A few thousand radicals in a nation of millions is not the signal that apocalypse in upon us, or that some experiment has failed. Society is not an experiment that can be abandoned when the going gets tough, you can’t just give in and revert back a hundred years. You assess the causes of the problem and remedy it, and that means looking at oneself and addressing ones own shortcomings and mistakes, not just the errors of those who can be marginalised and blamed.

*********

So what more can we do to remedy the radicalisation of many of the Britain’s radicalised Muslims?

The first thing we do is encourage greater citizenship and participation within the Muslim community. We stop forgiving the crimes of radical clerics just because we are afraid of upsetting Islam. Our Law, is our Law, is our Law. We have since our royalty spoke French, developed a just and equitable legal system that is much more representative of our national identity than a flag or any appearance.

Our Law should be protected and the foundations of our nation upheld. This does not suggest that additional mechanisms should not be introduced, but merely that we react in proportion and that civil liberties are protected.

I am not an ideologue of liberalism; I will not cut off my nose to spite my face. This country needs protecting, and certain freedoms will be curbed. But do not think this will be a lurch into authoritarianism – Liberalism is not about to die.

I do not claim to have all the answers but I do claim to have a constructive plan to deal with the global threat of extremism, however no western leader would have the conviction to see it through.