Are we in denial? - Idlan Zakaria

Guest writer Idlan Zakaria writes for 'I Am Muslim' from the UK:

"Are your people in denial?" she asked me. She was curious, really. Had no malicious intent. She just... wanted to know, this colleague of mine.

"My people?" I asked. "Who do you mean? Malaysians? Students?" I adjusted my snow cap. It was getting ridiculous, wearing a snow cap in this sweltering weather, on top of the tudung as well, but it was for safety reasons that I switched from the preppy, student-like look to the misguided, misplaced hip-hop style. I didn’t want to be a moving shooting range for some deranged racist BNP type.

"No, I meant you Muslims," she replied. "Are you people in denial that al-Qaeda are behind the attacks in London? Isn't it blatantly obvious that they are?" I scratched my head, not really out of confusion, but, damn, the snow cap was making my head hot. How on earth do the kids do it, walking around in hooded tops in 32 degrees heat in Malaysia?

It seems so futile

Anyway, I wanted to launch into a full-fledged speech about the beauty of Islam, the absurdness of anyone even thinking that Muslims could perpetrate this very act, and the hurt that I felt that anyone would insinuate this. But I was mentally composing my answer, I thought about her question. "Are your people in denial?" Are we? And if so, why?

In the aftermath of the London bombings (after the use of the b-word after the names of other cities, I have always dreaded the day I would use a British city as a prefix to the phrase), the media was careful to paint the correct picture of Muslims in light of recent events.

Knowing full well that racist louts, yobs and their kindreds would not take too kindly against a people they already abhor anyway, TV stations were quick to emphasise that this was not the work of Muslims; that Muslims, just like any other Londoner, were suffering just as much; that the bodies of those dead in the wreckage were as likely to be Asian as they were to be Caucasian; and most importantly, the Islamic community should not suffer for acts perpetrated by people no one has been able to conclusively identify at the time of writing.

Much hoohaa has been made over this being an al-Qaeda job, but there are no sureties. No arrests have been made, no conclusive leads are being followed. Just a lot of fingerpointing, namecalling and smearing. My mind wanders back to the 'Arab' that bombed the building in Oklahoma City; one who went by the name of Timothy McVeigh. Apparently, I am told we, as a community, have yet to receive a formal apology for that one.

But back to the question that I was asked. Are we in denial? Why are Muslims very skeptical and easily angered by insinuations of al-Qaeda being behind terrorist atrocities? I have no conclusive evidence, but here are my theories that I lay open for you to dissect.

Perhaps, first and foremost, Muslims reject the idea of al-Qaeda being behind this because al-Qaeda is purported to be an ideology based on the teachings of Islam, and yet the average Muslim, even those on the more right-wing of the spectrum, are very unfamiliar with the use of violence, terror and murder of civilians as a methodology to achieve an end.

We are taught that Islam is a religion of compassion; we are told of stories of the benevolence of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w; of his own patience when he was struck by the disbelievers in Taif; of exercising sympathy and respect even in warfare. We are reminded of great Muslim warriors like Salahuddin al-Ayubi, who fought wars but earned respect from both sides for his good heart. We are taught about love, sharing and caring; we are taught about tolerance and loving our neighbours; we are taught about seeing beyond the racial divide, and living in harmony with others of different faiths, or even the faithless.

All these teachings contradict greatly with violence we see these people perpetrate in the name of our religion. That is why we are angry when people associate terrorists with us. We are not in denial, but we reject your notions that these people are one of us, because their traits and their beliefs are so, so foreign to us.

We're skeptical

Secondly, I conjecture that Muslims are skeptical about the very existence of al-Qaeda itself. It is an idea, a construct, a nexus that no one can place a stronghold on, a theory.

Some believe it is a convenient excuse created by intelligence agencies to smear the name of Islam; others believe it is the work of the Zionist movement who are allegedly silently controlling the world these days. Conspiracy theories are abound in even moderate Muslim websites, and while some believe such theories are farfetched, others are equally quickly to dampen them not because of the lack of truth, but because of the unthinkable horror should these theories carry any weight.

It isn’t as if we aren’t used to being lied to. America and their allies led troops on a merry war into Iraq justifying it on weapons that did not exist, and a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq that was so loose, a newborn baby could have tugged at its strings and all would have been unbraided. So when you say, "This is the work of al-Qaeda," we are skeptical first of all, that al-Qaeda even exists. And given that they do, we are not quite sure who al-Qaeda are. You tell us it’s Osama and co, but you’ve lied to us before, why should we believe you this time?

Thirdly, many Muslims are incensed at the speed of which the blame was trained on al-Qaeda, solely based on a website forum posting which was so open, a CIA agent or your very Caucasian neighbour could have put it up. The forensics had yet to clear the crime scene, the body of some of those who perished are still down in that tunnel below Kings’ Cross, the bus in Russel Square was barely cordoned off: and yet word was spread around as if it was the gospel truth: al-Qaeda did this.

One understands the fear and insecurity that lack of clarity creates; that as humans there is a sense of security, however false, when we know who did what, as opposed to facing a phantom villain no one can name, never mind put a face on.

But the speed at which the blame was placed hurt, and the ramifications of the instant finger-pointing did not help the barrage of abuse Muslims were already beginning to receive mere hours after the bombs were detonated. Innocent until proven guilty has no place in today’s world, but as the headlines of Friday the 8th claimed al-Qaeda was responsible, one could not help but cringe at the swiftness of it all. They may, or may not, be the culprit in the end, but was there real necessity in the instant justice, in the absence of conclusive evidence?

But when we condemn these bombings, we must not be hypocritical. We must remember that the very government expressing outrage at the attacks on their people are also the very government sanctioning similar bombings in other places around the world. We can’t ignore the fact that while we are angry at the way our lives are trying to be disrupted by these senseless killings, a few thousands miles to our East, similar senseless deaths are happening too.

Having said that, in the same way that those in the Middle East do not deserve to die, neither did those in London, Madrid, New York and everywhere else where terrorists have stricken. We can’t differentiate these deaths; they are human lives at the end of the day, and are not collateral damage in a war no one really wants.

Catch-22

While we must not encourage a very high-risk game of tit-for-tat, we also have to acknowledge that the end of these bombings will not come with the arrests of the person or people who placed these bombs on those trains and that bus. If it did, then the nonsensical incarcerations of men without charge at Guantanamo Bay would have long solved the problem. March 11th and July 7th should not have happened. The root of the matter lies a whole lot deeper than that, but sadly, I do not forsee anyone in power willing to swallow their pride and admit this.

As very aptly put by the Chancellor himself in the Star Wars movies, "Those in power fear one thing – that of losing it", there can only be one way to go for the president or prime minister who admits that their skewed foreign policies may have invited these atrocities onto their homeland: and it isn’t up.

Even though I’ve lived abroad for a while, I have only been in Britain, so my observations are admittedly skewed. But I like it here where differences, to a large extent, are celebrated, and nowhere is it more pronounced than in London; where I can walk down Tottenham Court Road to find halal eateries; where every corner I turn, I am amazed to hear a British voice, as nine times out of ten, every Caucasian I pass are European; where even in their solitary and individualistic attitudes, there is a collective togetherness about them.

Yes, I find my own Lancaster a lot friendlier, but I am not comparing like for like. My friends call me an idealist to a fault, and perhaps I am, and perhaps it is a fault. But in light of recent events, I can’t help but think what a better place this world would be if we put aside our egos, personal interests and stereotypes, and stopped to listen to what others have to say, even for a minute. One can, but hope, even if ultimately in vain.