I normally have a lot of respect for Larry Johnson’s work but I think today that he’s suffering from an excessively Western – in the sense of the US/European conventional wisdom – framing of the issues.
Following up on a piece in the Daily Mail by Butt, an avowed ex-radical Islamist, he claims that:
They do not hate us because we love freedom. They do not hate us because we have stupid policies. They hate us, and other Muslims, because we are sinners. Butt’s analysis is spot on.
Firstly, let’s note that we’re talking here about someone whose judgement led him, by his own admission, into a close encounter with terrorism and is now writing pieces for the Daily Mail, a paper perfectly happy to encourage anti-Islamic feeling and to exculpate the West: neither are good character references.
I’m sure it suits many to believe that the motivation for terrorism is something as simple and pathological as religious belief is the basic drive behind the violent extremists. In fact, it displays an almost touching naivety to believe that the West bears no responsibility for the situation in which the world finds itself. Violent extremism thrives in an environment of injustice, which is precisely what our policies have helped build in the Middle East and much of the rest of the world where the Islamic branch of the Abhramaic Religion is dominant.
Islam is, as I understand it, a religion that believes that justice on Earth will follow from a righteous government and that the appalling situation of the Muslim world demonstrates that the Islamic people are not following the path set down by Allah. It is this horror that provides the context in which people like Butt can be drawn into a religiously based extremist movement. It is this injustice that provides the petri dish that violent theology grows in. And this has been largely caused and fed by Western policies over the last hundred and fifty years.
Of course they don’t hate us for our freedoms (whatever the hell that means) or even directly our policies, which they may well consider a punishment for the wrong type of Muslims, but they couldn’t sell their bat-shit crazy beliefs or ideology in an environment where the Islamic world was progressing, where social justice existed and where oppressive Western supported or enabled governments weren’t the rule.
Terrorism, like crime, doesn’t exist without a context: poverty and deprivation doesn’t cause crime – criminals do – but it allows criminals to develop more easily and to justify their acts to themselves. Likewise with terrorism.
Want to stop it? We need both the police and military action in which Larry is expert and we need to adopt a diplomatic and development policy that will drain the swamp so that this war can be won.
Butt makes the point himself in his piece:
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.
If justice was available, this justification falls apart. And as a minor side benefit, we would be adopting a policy that is in line with our own claimed values. Respect democratic decisions. Allow countries to act in their own interests. Stop supporting repressive regimes because they’re compliant with us and stop pretending that ethical behaviour has no place in international relations.
“In fact, it displays an almost touching naivety to believe that the West bears no responsibility for the situation in which the world finds itself. Violent extremism thrives in an environment of injustice, which is precisely what our policies have helped build in the Middle East and much of the rest of the world where the Islamic branch of the Abhramaic Religion is dominant.”
I would return the statement and say that it displays an almost touching naivety to believe that the policies of the West are all to blame for the terrorist deeds of Al-Qaeda and their supporters. I refer to Butt’s statement in Larry’s article saying that;
Of course the foreign policies of western countries are also a part of the equation here, but I believe they are used most conveniently to justify the actions of these groups. That said I have to emphasize that the jihadi salafists are but a small, albeit extreme and lethal, group of the whole Muslim global community.
And, what is this about? “neither are good character references.”
I didn’t say they were: I thought I was being clear that the terrorism is the terrorists fault. It’s our fault that we carry out policies that predictably make the environment more suitable for the growth of AL-Qaeda and other radical Islamist organisations.
.
Political party
But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group , said Mr Butt was no longer linked to the organisation.
“Hassan Butt no longer represents al-Muhajiroun in Pakistan,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One.
“We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities.”
Mr Bakri Mohammed , a radical Muslim cleric based in Tottenham, north London, added: “He no longer even exists in our offices in Lahore. “He himself now, I think personally, functions as an individual or has his own organisation.”
‘Secret routes’
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the self-styled Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, said the interview with Mr Butt was “very worrying and frightening”, although he thought the claims were “more fantasy than realism”.
Citing his return to Britain last month for three weeks, Mr Butt claimed none of the pro-Taleban volunteers were worried about being caught. He said the method he used to enter the country was “irrelevant” but there were many “secret” routes into Britain for use by Muslims.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said Mr Butt’s comments about a domestic terrorist threat could be “largely fantasising” but his claimed three week stay in the UK raised questions about Britain’s intelligence capabilities.
The shadow home secretary added that he viewed Mr Butt’s remarks as “traitorous”.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Well, fantasist or not Mr. Butt has admittedly been a member of the al-Muhajiroun group and thus is a testimony in his own right. It shows that there are some dedicated people amongst the salafists that are willing to go the extra mile.
The Al-Muhajiroun are known to be associated with Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park Mosque, which both have openly expressed their support to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. British police found links to the Finsbury Park Mosque when investigating the 7/7 2005 London bombings.
We’re all more favorably inclined to our pet theories. Three days ago he got on his pet theory high horse over the terrorist bombings foiled in London and was carried away — in the wrong direction — by his argument.
On this subject, everybody’s got a theory: Stephen R. Shalom lists specific foreign policy stances by the US as reasons;
James O’Shea has an entire blog devoted to the topic.
Seymour Hersh lays the blame for the escalation of Middle Eastern hatred for the U.S. on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in his widely-read New Yorker article of April 30th, 2004 (online).
So many reasons for Muslims to hate America. Probably it would take a fraction of the time to list why they shouldn’t hate us. At the moment, under the conditions of recent history, I find it impossible to come up with a single reason they shouldn’t, though.
And chances are those (mostly) foiled British terrorist acts by the “killer doctors” will be discovered to have been motivated by a fierce hatred of QEII’s recent knighting of the writer, Salman Rushdie, he of the former fatwah curse.
Saying all this, I still find it easy to accept that religious fanatics (of any stripe) can easily hate the “Other” because they perceive the “Other” as sinners. Why not? I’m just unwilling to grant Muslims exclusivity on this point.
It seems we, as humans, have a general propensity for seeking simple reasons to explain things that are often quite complex. Also, we want these simple answers to help us avoid feeling any need to examine things more closely afraid we might find ourselves culpable in some way for the tragedies around us.
With this in mind, it’s clear to me that religious doctrine and political doctrine, twisted as they often are, are the most common venues used by so-called thinking people to explain away the actions of others. But for people who willingly set out to kill other innocents, whether it be the so-called terrorists like bin Laden or McVeigh, or the warmongers like Cheney & Co, religion and politics are just cover behind which to conceal the deeper sicknesses these creatures have.
John Adams famously remarked in a letter to a friend; “…[N]othing intoxicates the human mind so much as power.”.
There is little difference between the likes of Cheney and Zawahiri or bin Laden; between Lieberman and Kristol and the leading propagandists within the Salafist/Takfiri movements or the limb-hacking psychopaths in Darfur and other regions in Africa. They are all dangerous sickos and they have far more in common with each other than they will ever have with more civilized peoples who eschew war as a problem-solving device and who see conquest as a self-defeating catastrophe.
There must be a grain of truth in that because that is certainly how the Christian Right feels.
They may be drunker, more divorced, more prone to cheat, lie & steal – but a least they feels guilty.
When, for example, a left-wing couple (straight or gay) decides to live together, happily, outside the bonds (and I use that word consciously) of marriage, without the guilt that they feel should “properly” come with “living in sin” – it just frosts. their. ass.
Enough to do something about it. Something violent. Some “punishment”.
So, while Larry Johnson may not have it all right, I think he’s on to something.
The Christian right have achieved the amazing feat of feeling as if their way of life and beliefs – their tribe – is in imminent danger of destruction despite wielding huge political power in the most powerful country in the world. Their psychology is pretty similar to that of the Islamists, except when they decide to go kill shit it’s called “war” rather than terrorism. Well, except when it’s blowing up abortion clinics – is that even a crime any more?