I have been invited to participate in a conference on “Islam and Muslims in the World” organized by the British government. The initiative has been presented as Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last gesture toward the Muslims of Britain, as a message of openness and respect. As Mr. Blair prepares to leave office, the spirit of the initiative seems at first glance praiseworthy. But on second look, it stands revealed as little more than an exercise in fence mending or in public relations.
Two years after the London terrorist attacks, let us look closely at recent developments in government policy toward British citizens of the Muslim faith in particular, and toward the Muslims of the world, in general. British, as well as Muslim, reaction to the July 7 attacks was extraordinary. Not only was condemnation of the terrorist acts nearly unanimous; across the country organizations and mosques mobilized alongside their fellow citizens to forestall mutual rejection and accusation, and resist the temptation of xenophobia. As Ken Livingstone pointed out several weeks later, Londoners had been exemplary in their reaction, proof that British Muslim citizens religion were well integrated into their society. This state of fact was the basis upon which serious relations of confidence should have been built.
The authorities were entirely justified in expecting a strong religious condemnation of terrorism, as well as a more explicit formulation of the fact of being British, of respect for the institutions of the land; the expression of a positive sense of belonging accompanied by true loyalty to the nation. Across the country and around the world, these very propositions were repeatedly expressed. They made up the core of a declaration issued in Istanbul (July 2, 2006) at a conference promoted by the Foreign Office. Meanwhile, the government had the responsibility to pay heed to the concerns of its Muslim citizens, and to make every attempt to address the causes of resentments that have continued to fester.
A policy of constructive engagement would have spared no effort to make the best of the tragic events of July 7. Instead, the government adopted an attitude of double denial, at home and abroad. Obsession with the “terrorist threat” rapidly colonized debate and drove the government headlong into an approach restricted to the “fight against radicalization and extremism.” Though it appeared normal enough to deal with the issue, the “Muslim question” could in no way be reduced to one of security. Further, this policy was accompanied by a demeaning-and frequently paternalistic-argument on the necessity of “integration.” Muslims, so it went, must accept those British values (the rule of law, liberty, tolerance, democracy, etc.) that make up the essence of “Britishness.” This reductive argument is dangerous on two counts: first, because it tendentiously associates terrorism with integration. It is common knowledge that the authors of the terrorist acts were thoroughly integrated: they were educated, held jobs, were culturally westernized, and met in gyms. Secondly, in today’s social and political debate it normalizes a formula that only parties of the extreme right once dared to articulate: Muslims, on the whole, have a problem with Western and modern values and must offer more convincing “proof” that they accept these values. On the 8th December 2006, Tony Blair called on minorities to conform to “our essential values”, stating that they have “a duty to integrate”. This approach, more ideological than scientific, has led to a strictly security-based policy with regard to the Muslim community, which, because it is perceived as “badly integrated” has become suspect.
Terrorism requires analysis of the religious rhetoric and the political strategies of its authors; they must be confronted firmly on both grounds. It is equally clear that a properly adapted, accurately targeted security policy is a necessity. But this cannot justify sweeping measures applied to an entire segment of the population on the basis of a mistaken diagnosis. The vast majority of British Muslims have absolutely no problem with the British values citied above. Their cultural and religious integration is already a fact, as proven by the millions of citizens who live peaceably in this country. The problem today is not one of “essential values”, but the gap between these values and everyday social and political practice: justice is applied variably depending on whether one is Black, Asian or Muslim. Equal opportunity is often a myth; young citizens from cultural and religious “minorities” run up against the wall of institutionalized racism. Rather than insisting that Muslims yield to a “duty to integrate”, society must shoulder its “duty of consistency”. It is up to British society to reconcile itself with its own self-professed values; it is up to politicians to practice what they preach.
Tony Blair and his government have obliged civil servants to deny that a link exists between terrorism and British foreign policy. While the invasion of Iraq can never be claimed as ethical justification for terrorist attacks against innocent citizens in London, it would be absurd to deny the reality of the political connection between the two. The illegal invasion of Iraq, blind support for the insane policies of George W. Bush, British silence on the oppression of the Palestinians… how could these issues not have a direct bearing on the deep discontent shared by many Muslims toward the West in general, and toward Great Britain in particular. Even though this is not the sole explanation for terrorism, it is certainly part of the explanation (without arguing that it can be justified).
As Tony Blair prepares to leave office, we must be bold enough to take the measure of his foreign policy, and listen to the voices of millions of citizens who have democratically and peacefully opposed the war, citizens whose voices were not heard. The negative effects of this policy-in terms of confidence-are deep, not to mention what we know today about the horrors of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the secret flights that carried prisoners without rights through Great Britain to the black sites of the torture Gulag…
Reading the program of this farewell conference induces a feeling of queasiness. Not a single sensitive subject has been touched upon; not a single representative of the leading British Muslim associations has been invited to speak. It is as though these associations and their leaders were part of the problem, and could not become an active part of the solution. It is as though, by continuing to speak, in one conference after another, of the great “essential values”, of “human rights”, of “dialogue” we could hope to solve deep-seated problems by refusing to see them for what they are. So many fine intentions, so many fine words about openness, while the facts speak instead of petty politics, geostrategic interests and manipulation. If Muslims, in Great Britain and throughout the world, must refuse, as a matter of urgency, to cast themselves as victims (and nurture a victim mentality), and instead assume their responsibilities and develop a critical political awareness, the process must begin by resisting political maneuvers designed to lull them, to select their representatives for them, and even to make cynical use of them. The imperative is theirs, but it can only be a positive development for democracy in Great Britain.
[A shorter version of this article has been published in The Guardian (UK) on Monday 4th June 2007]
Dear Mr. Ramadan,
Your comments on Blair’s initiative betray your ignorance of British, particularly English society. England is a deeply unequal society with an entrenched class system, practically a caste system. And this is what foreigners who came to the country to stay find themselves having to integrate into. In other words, paradoxical as it may seem, a degree of social exclusion may well be a sign of successful integration into e.g. the British working class.
Britain is not America. Nor is it France with the myth of a career “ouvert aux talents”. Many British people experience exactly the same degree of exclusion as 2nd. generation Moslem immigrants. This is particularly the case with declining industrial centres in the north of England.
Mr Ramadan, there is a big trouble in what every muslim assert.
The only law they recognize is a religious law.
You have no respect for whoever is not a muslim. You respect who obeys to your laws. Who disagree… See what’s happened in Egypt where christian girls have to obey covering their heads?
Is there a country where muslims live in peace? Look in Asia how many separationist groups are working and killing as usual. In every place of the world where a muslim disagree with people already living there by a millennium they have to become independent no matter how. So are you peaceful? We have to understand you, we have to be tolerant, but you? Imams tell people even to not dress in the western way! I think you have completely forgotten what Prophet said. I’m reading a book of yours that in Italian sounds “Maometto”.
It’s incredible how The Prophet was in peace with people not of his own creed and now muslims are declaring war to the world and among themselves.
Puah! 1428 that’s ok. You are 6 hundred years before the real world.
This said do you imagine what will happen when you’ll be the greater part of people. I don’t dare imagine! Even worst than the II WW.
Look at what’s happening in Palestine. Only a fight for money! Please cancel the word peace, respect and tolerance from muslims dictionary!