The Dangerous Discourse on Terrorism
The stories of the terrorists involved in recent atrocities are nothing new, yet their similarities raise many important questions that need to be asked, and debates that need to be had. However their profiles are seemingly ignored, and the discourse on terrorism is not only wrong, but dangerous.
UK Politics / Foreign Affairs
Conrad Kunadu
____________________
The suspect of the car attack at Westminster in March this year, Khalid Masood, was a British-born man with a string of criminal convictions, described as the “antithesis of a violent radical”. He was also a convert to Islam. Importantly, he was waging jihad in revenge for western military action. The suspect of the recent attack in Manchester, Salman Abedi, was a British born man with a reputation for drinks, drugs and partying, described as a “quiet” and “respectful”. According to his brother and Libyan authorities, he was radicalised in the UK in 2015, and wanted revenge for US military intervention. Spot the similarities?
These two are not the exception. Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale of the Lee Rigby stabbings and Mohammed “Jihadi John” Emwazi were all either British born or had lived in Britain for most of their lives; had troubled backgrounds yet had appeared to be unlikely suspects by friends and family; were either converts or explicitly radicalised not too long before their atrocities, and committed terrorist attacks for explicitly political reasons.
Breaking apart these attributes tells us a great deal. Firstly, the idea that the greatest threat is from refugees or immigrants is empirically untrue, as so many terrorists are British born or have lived in Britain for a long time. This rhetoric is a distraction from the fact in a country that espouses “British values” domestic terrorism is a real threat, pointing to a clear failure to successfully propagate this sense of British solidarity. The framing of terrorism as “us vs. them”, when so many terrorists appear to be a part of “us” firstly only serves to play in the interests of terrorist organisations aiming to divide and radicalise more Muslims, but likewise fuel the Islamophobia that led to the disgraceful attack on Finsbury Park Mosque. The fact that Salman Abedi’s Didsbury Mosque supposedly had links to the Muslim Brotherhood points to a debate that needs to be had about the role of Muslim communities, or a debate over potential failings of multiculturalism but this is not primarily an issue over people or an ideology entering through the border.
The very fact that these suspects had troubled backgrounds, were not suspected to be terrorists and were later radicalised all point to an important aspect of radicalisation, exemplified by the story of Jake Bilardi. Jake Bilardi, was born an atheist and brought up in Melbourne. In long being interested politics, and like many from all religions and convictions, reading about Iraq and Afghanistan as an atheist gave him sympathy towards Islamist rebels. Combined with the death of his mother and paired with bullying at school, radical Islam and joining Islamic State offered him companionship, a sense of justice and a sense of purpose all of which he desperately needed. He then committed a suicide bombing in March 2015.
The appeal of radical Islam is empirically therefore not merely one of mere Islamic doctrine. It is easy to point to the attention-seeking Anjem Choudary types, yet there is not a problem of people picking up Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine and suddenly becoming radicalised. There is however a problem of teenagers and troubled adults being radicalised by an ideology that offers adventure, an outlet for frustrations and the appeal of being “heroic”. The discourse heavily centres around problems with Islam as a doctrine, yet there are 2.8 million Muslims in the UK alone, yet almost all are not terrorists. No doctrine should be free from scrutiny, but radical Islam must be distinguished from Islam. An attack on Islam is futile when terrorists join Islamic State after having to read “Islam For Dummies”.
The fact the motivations of every terrorist listed above is highly important too. Nowhere in the Quran does it state “avenge Western intervention in the Middle East” or does it denounce US airstrikes. Criticising Islam as an ideology does not take away from the feeling of vengeance for US airstrikes in Libya or Syria. For Jeremy Corbyn to be denounced for linking foreign policy to terrorism only highlights the extent to which the discourse on terrorist attacks is entirely misguided, as knowing it inevitably plays a role is important in the debate over our foreign policy in the first place.
Islamic State began as a Jamaat al-Tawhid wa-l-Jihad, a political organisation aimed at overthrowing the Jordanian government. It allied with al-Qaeda (formed out the Soviet-Afghan War) to counter Western intervention. In all these cases and more, their troops are Muslims, yet their aims and raison d’être were, and continue to be political. To shirk away from the political debate and to scapegoat Muslims or blame “Islam” as a whole is laziness at best, yet it distracts from the real matters of policy and debate that needs to be had.
However, there is also the prominent cry of “ISIS isn’t Islamic at all!” or that the terrorist suspect “is not a real Muslim!” To ignore the role Islam has to play is also ludicrous. Understanding they are Muslim is important in terms of the debate over what the Muslim community can do, and where there have been failings. There also clearly needs to be these internal discussions over interpretations over Islamic doctrine. If 126 Muslim leaders wrote to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to detail how Islamic State is highly misguided, then there is a message that has not successfully got out yet. However in the end when Islamic State smuggles pornography and claims responsibility for Omar Mateen’s shocking Orlando attack, even though he pledged allegiance to their enemies al-Qaeda and the Shia Hezbollah, it is clear that Islamic State is not fixated on strict adherence to Islamic doctrine, and an attack on Islam and Muslims does not weaken Islamic State, nor reduce terrorism. It is only divisive, and as recent events in Finsbury Park show, could be a matter of life and death.
What the debate over terrorism should not be is a denial of any Islamic roots, a focus on immigration or refugees; a focus on the fundamental problems of Islam and there should certainly should not be a blind eye to the fundamental domestic problems. The profiles of terrorist attacks give useful insight into understanding, and in turn combating terrorist atrocities. To ignore this information is a threat to our national security.
