Daily reading: the Manchester attacks and ISIS

Well here’s a surprise: The Independent, a Leftist newspaper, has managed to transcend the hypocrisy of sites like the Guardian to publish the following op-ed piece (click on the screenshot to read). Sadly, the Independent ceased on-paper publication in March of last year, and is now found only online. I used to read it when I lived in the UK.

A quote from author Patrick Cockburn, who’s speaking of Wahhabi Islam:

This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

. . . The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.

. . . The culpability of Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to. Leaders want to have a political and commercial alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. They have never held them to account for supporting a repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to have inspired Salman Abedi.

*********

And, mirabile dictu, the Guardian—the HuffPo of England—has published an article by Nick Cohen, whose voice we desperately need in these tumultuous days. His article: “After Manchester, our values will only prevail if we speak up for them.” (I’ll ignore the misplaced word “only”, which belongs after rather than before “prevail”, and assume it’s the work of a copywriter.) What bothered me a bit about the British reaction to the Manchester bombings—which in the main was an admirable display of courage, stoicism, and empathy—was the incessant mantra of: “We must go on just as before or the terrorists will win.” Well, no, no Western country can go on as before—not unless we want more innocent civilians blown to bits. I don’t know what the solution is, but it doesn’t seem to be taking off your shoes in airports or avoiding crowds. We’re facing a new age now, and an enemy willing to die to kill the rest of us, assured by their faith that they’ll gain Paradise.  An enemy that doesn’t mind dying for his cause, indeed wants to die for his cause, is the most dangerous enemy of all. Our tactics and behaviors must somehow change.

And that is, in part, what Nick Cohen wrote about. A few excerpts:

But warm words about “our way of life prevailing” rub up against scratchy questions about what our “life” is now and which way it is taking. Talk to anti-Islamist Muslim writers and activists and they are worried. They don’t see “diversity” and “community”, those warmest of 21st century words, as synonyms but opposites. No one knows the level of Islamic State support in Britain, they say, but with MI5 monitoring 3,000 suspects it isn’t negligible. Beyond the violent and potentially violent lie fractured and isolated ghettos, where large numbers are prey to religious demagogues.

. . . I don’t wish to sound alarmist. There is no conveyor belt that picks up believers in reactionary religion and transports them to religious violence. You can spend your life believing women should be second-class citizens and homosexuality and apostasy are crimes that in an ideal Islamic state deserve the death sentence and never harm anyone apart from your wife and children. Equally, desegregating the school system is a modest reform, not a panacea. As for the silence of mainstream conservatives, I am sure that if Theresa May is re-elected she will not call for a Muslim travel ban.

But if you believe ideas have power, then you must believe in the power of bad ideas to harm when they are left uncontested. Liberal Muslims suffer from the widespread belief that to be “liberal is a contradiction of the faith”, as Rabbil Sikdar put it. With honourable exceptions, white liberals prefer the safe life and hold that it is “Islamophobic” to help their cause and argue their case. Liberal conservatives say nothing because they fear their party leadership won’t support them and know the rightwing press will denounce them. They too cede the field without striking a blow.

“Our values will prevail,” says Theresa May. No they won’t. Not if no one is prepared to say what they are, let alone prepared to fight for them

*********

Finally. we have Maajid Nawaz on the radio station “Leading Britain’s Conversation”. His six-minute video is described in this way:

Leading figures from the Didsbury Mosque have spoken out against Isis, and condemned member Salman Ramadan Abedi – the 22-year-old responsible for the Manchester bombing.

In a strongly worded statement, Didsbury mosque and Manchester Islamic Centre called the terrorist attack an act of cowardice, adding that it has worked peacefully at the heart of the community for more than 50 years.

But Maajid Nawaz is not impressed.

In this clip he explains how the Mosque will have to do a lot more to gain his respect, given their track record.

Click on the screenshot to view the video, and remember that Nawaz, who fights incessantly against radical and extremist Islamism, has been labeled an “Anti-Muslim Extremist” by the increasingly ridiculous Southern Poverty Law Center.  Do his words make him seem “anti-Muslim”? I don’t think so: he’s asking for his own faith to be enlightened and liberalized. He and the SPLC are on the same side!

How can Progressives possibly have any objection to these views?

h/t: Simon, Grania