War of words
Once again, scary literature has been found at Islamic bookstores and
mosques. If Muslims continue to be careless about the books they sell, those
books will continue to be exploited against us.
By Zahed Amanullah, November 8, 2007
...and the men who love them
Trying to divine the exact path to extremism that Muslims may follow paths
that may or may not lead to terrorism is like trying to follow the path of
water from the clouds to the ocean. We know where some terrorists came from and
where they ended up. But that's about it.
A recent miniseries on British television, Britz, highlighted shadowy groups
operating on university campuses. Extremist imams such as Abu Hamza al Masri
have been tabloid fodder for years, though many have been detained or deported.
The Internet is often cited, as Britain's Community Secretary Hazel Blears did
this week (though without specifics). But, as MI5 chief Jonathan Evans also
pointed out recently, the number of Muslims under surveillance has increased to
over 2,000. Something is sticking, but what?
That something is the written word, books and pamphlets that can often subvert
cyber-monitoring and public debate in a tangible way. A recent study by the
right wing Policy Exchange think tank alleges that books containing extremist
statements were found in about 25% of British mosques, including two of its
most high profile ones, the East London Mosque and the London Central Mosque in
Regent's Park .
It's not the first time such allegations have been made. Earlier findings of
literature have focused on material stumbled upon in dark corners of
independent shops in quiet neighbourhoods, or the pamphlets accompanying
firebrand preachers on their roaming tours. In this case, however, the claims
are more specific and more damning in their inference. This time, mosques,
stores, authors, and publishers are outlined in detail, with much of it
stemming from a prolific and well-financed Saudi Arabian connections.
Independent Muslim analysts have noted that the Saudi influence may be
overstated, with a spiritually low profile kept since the Saudi origins of
September 11th were pointed out. Spiritual motivations have since been
superseded by political ones, particularly over the Iraq war. And the
irrational scrutiny from groups like Policy Exchange, the British government
and police services do smack of a witch hunt, ensnaring as many American
domestic initiatives have many peaceable Muslims and mosques who would have
otherwise agreed with the concerns.
But advocacy groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain have focused
attention on other aspects that don't settle as well. Representatives have
claimed a legal right to sell such material if it is not against the law
(Policy Exchange says that some cases may be forthcoming). They note that many
of the bookstores, although within mosque grounds, are independently run and
impossible to monitor. As for the words themselves, they may be acknowledged as
offensive on personal levels or merely for historical interest. But this
offence is otherwise dismissed. Even the most comprehensive critiques of the
report don't explain them, which is what a now curious public (Muslims
included) wants.
This legalistic approach to the controversy, while technically correct, brings
its own contradictions. During the Danish cartoon crisis, the common refrain
from Muslims in the West was less legalistic than moralistic. That is, while it
may be legally permissible to publish material offensive to Muslims (though to
many, even this was debatable), the plea for respect was based on moral grounds
that sincere Muslims deserved protection from gratuitous offence. Without the
extreme response to the cartoons by a minority of Muslims around the world,
this approach may have borne some fruit.
But by adopting a legalistic response to a crisis that is easily seen as a
mirror of the Danish one, a case can be made for employing double standards.
Muslims should have seen this coming. A resistance to addressing shortcomings
pointed out by those hostile to us is understandable. It is also immature and
short sighted. Regardless of the source, the words and books are out there.
Merely pointing out agendas won't win the argument.
Do British Muslims agree with the alleged pronouncements on apostasy, women,
jihad, and non-Muslims? What are the parameters of morality on key issues as
British Muslims see it and what is beyond the pale? Couldn't a "best
practice" guide for mosque publications be developed - even if not enforceable
- to represent a moral consensus? Facilitating public discussions and clear
answers to these (and to questions not yet asked) should not be an onerous task
for any umbrella organisation worthy of the name.
Without an effective response to an issue that will undoubtedly resurface, the
debate will continue to be seen by silent (and peaceful) majorities on both
sides as more political grandstanding. Ultimately, Muslims will have to
determine their own moral framework for Islamic issues whether in books,
mosques, or in their own culture before defending them on legal grounds. And
before other groups hostile to Muslims exploit the absence of this for
political reasons, Muslims should fill the vacuum for the benefit of their
communities and religion.
Making sense of the myriad paths to extremism may continue to remain difficult
for Muslims or anyone else. But effectively ruling out the ones we can identify
- while marginalising our critics in the process - shouldn't be.
Zahed Amanullah is associate editor of altmuslim.com. He is based in London,
England
saiyed shahbazi
www.shahbazcenter.org
