SIX years ago today, on July 7, 2005, Islamist suicide bombers attacked London’s transit system. They blew up three subway trains and a bus, killing 52 people and leaving a nation groping for answers.Continue reading.
In one sense the meaning of 7/7 is as clear to Britons as that of 9/11 is to Americans. It was a savage, brutal attack intended to sow mayhem and terror. Yet whereas 9/11 was the work of a foreign terrorist group, 7/7 was the work of British citizens. The question that haunts London, but that Washington has so far barely had to face, is why four men born and brought up in Britain were gripped by such fanatic zeal for a murderous, medieval dogma.
British authorities have expended much effort in seeking to understand how the 7/7 terrorists acquired their perverted ideas and became “radicalized.” In the immediate wake of the attacks, much ink was spilled over the role of extremist preachers and radical mosques. More recently, the focus has shifted to universities as recruitment centers for terrorists.
But this obsession with radicalization misses the point. The real question is not how people like Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 bombers, came to be radicalized, but why so many young men, who by all accounts are intelligent, articulate and integrated, come to find this violent, reactionary ideology so attractive. To answer it, we need to look not at extremist preachers or university lecturers but also at public policy, and in particular the failed policy of multiculturalism.
Actually, I don't separate multiculturalism from extremism. The same ideological forces promote both: the neo-communist left. But state policy exacerbates tensions, and Malik makes some interesting suggestions on bringing people together rather than driving them apart --- and driving some into the hands of terrorists.
1 comments:
“The Ikhwan (Muslims Brothers) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
-- by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991, Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."
----Hassan al Banna, (1906 – 1949) teacher and imam, best known for founding the Muslim Brotherhood
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qu’ran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
—Omar Ahmed CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) Founding Chairman
"Islamic Holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax."
---- Al-Amili Shia Muslim who wrote Jami-i-Abbasi. He died in 1622 CE.
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says, kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! ...Whatever good there is, exists thanks to the sword, and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient, except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! ...Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
—Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989—the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation.
Post a Comment