UK Muslims Fear Backlash

[Aaron]

CBC.CA

Muslims in London's mosques say they fear backlash in aftermath of bombings
06:31 PM EDT Jul 08
JILL LAWLESS

LONDON (AP) - Thousands of Muslims crowded London mosques for Friday prayers, fearful of reprisals against their growing and vibrant community for four bombs that tore through the city's downtown core a day earlier. While British Muslim groups condemned Thursday's deadly attacks, which police say bore the hallmark of al-Qaida, many worried they could be made scapegoats.

At the East London Mosque, near the site of one of Thursday's attacks, an imam told 8,000 worshippers to be "confident in our identity" as part of London's multicultural fabric.

The mosque said it had received hate e-mails and a telephone threat to disrupt Friday prayers. A few police officers stood outside during the prayers, which ended peacefully.

Outside, some Muslims said the attacks had made them more cautious on the streets, but others said they were secure in their identity as Londoners - confident of the city's tolerant traditions.

"It will have some impact on people. But this is London, a cosmopolitan city," said student Ali Ayubi. "Maybe after one or two months it will go back to normal."

At the huge brick mosque in an east-end neighbourhood that's home to many with roots in Pakistan and Bangladesh, imam Sheikh Abdul Qayyum told worshippers Muslims were "part of the rich diversity of British life.

"At this difficult time, some people in our community may feel insecure purely because they are Muslims, but these terrible events have nothing to do with us. The Muslims of London are victims as much as their fellow citizens," he said.

All of Britain's major Muslim groups condemned the bombings, which killed at least 50 and wounded more than 700.

But some feared they would be blamed for the bombings, which police said bore the hallmarks of al-Qaida.

"This morning I was driving to work and a woman on the radio said she'd had her head scarf pulled. I was shocked, to be honest," said Ahmed Shafi, 31, a grocery store manager. "In this day and age you don't expect that."

Almost one million of London's eight million people are Muslim. From the opulent glitz of Harrods department store - owned by Egyptian-born Mohammed al Fayed - to the kebab shops that dot the city's streets, Muslims have long been part of London's glamour and its grit.

Prime Minister Tony Blair stressed that Islam was not the culprit in the bombings.

"We know that these people act in the name of Islam, but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do," he said Thursday.

That message was underscored by Muslims on the streets.

"Many Muslims are British. They have lived here for years. What happens to London happens to them," said Suraiya Zammath, a Bangladeshi woman visiting relatives in London. "This should not be singled out as 'Islamic terrorists.' That destabilizes the community."

Abdul Mukith, a 37-year-old supermarket worker in Brick Lane, the heart of London's Bangladeshi community, agreed.

"What's religion got to do with it?" he asked. "I'm bloody Muslim, and I'm afraid to go into the city" just like anyone else in the aftermath of the attacks.

The Muslim Council of Britain said it had been deluged with hate e-mails, which caused its server to crash late Thursday. Though it was up and running Friday, the council said it was still getting a steady stream of vitriolic missives.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said Friday police were aware of one or two "very minor incidents" involving backlash against Muslims, but he didn't elaborate.

He said so far, "Britain with its liberal and welcoming approach to people is taking this in its stride. I'm very proud of that."

Representatives of several religious groups held a silent prayer vigil Friday in a street near Aldgate subway station, where seven people died.

"There is a worry, but I think we can overcome this because we have been working with all the communities together," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, chairman of the East London Mosque.

"As Muslims, as British citizens, as Londoners, we are confident nothing will happen to us. We have to face it with resilience and with confidence."

But Shafi feared he and other Muslims would endure animosity in the coming days and weeks.

"I'm a practising Muslim; I've got a beard. After 9-11 people called me bin Laden," he said. "But I was born and brought up here, and I don't consider myself anything but British."

I think the part I bolded says it best. The people that did this will consider the Muslims in London viable targets the same way they consider any other Englishman a target.

[That NOS Guy]

That's one thing I never quite got in the reprisal mob mentality. It's not like they have a secret Muslim newsletter that goes around saying "alright, stay indoors on the [insert date]".

[Knife]

On one hand I feel sorry for them, but on the other hand, well if the nutball Immans did not have 'congregations' or what ever the hell Muslims call it, then the nutballs would be out of business.

[Lord of the Abyss]

That's one thing I never quite got in the reprisal mob mentality. It's not like they have a secret Muslim newsletter that goes around saying "alright, stay indoors on the [insert date]".

The question is, do the mobs believe that ? IIRC after 9/11, there were conspiracy theories about how the Jews / Arabs all stayed home that day .

[Johnny Ipcress]

Having watched BBC and ITV news more regularly than usual since Thursday, have you noticed how they seem to have gone out of their way to show diversity among the bomb victims and others?

Of three victims interviewed in one segment, one was a Muslim woman and another was a man of Turkic or Arabic descent. Furthermore, when the BBC were interviewing Muslims in a Mosque in Central London about the possibility of 'reprisals', of all the people they could interview, they interviewed a white Anglo-Saxon Muslim (convert, presumably).

It strikes me as a little odd that they would interview such a demographic of people when it bears little relation to the racial/religious mix of people in the country (and also the victims of the attacks). I can only assume that there is a small, benificent level of 'spin' occurring to assure those with a tendency toward 'mob mentality' that WASPs were not the only victims, and that those that carried out the attacks do not represent Muslims generally. Which is true.

[Lord Pounder]

I can see where this comes from. The BNP has been on the rise of late and an attack by Islamics nutjobs is just the catalist they need to gain even more support. I don't consider myself racist yet one of the 1st things I though was that maybe this would have been easier to prevent if every fucking Tom Dick and Ahmed wasn't allowed straight into the country. The BNP thrive on ideas like that creeping in.

[FSTargetDrone]

For comparison, was there a significantly higher attack on Muslims in the US after 9/11? I recall very few incidents (including one where, I believe, I Sikh man was "mistakenly" killed).

[Coyote]

Muslims are right to be afraid, and it is because their religion desperately needs a housecleaning, a reformation, and a few teeth pulled. But they won't, don't or can't stand up to the radicals. I've heard that there are some pretty radical mosques out there, all over the EU, UK and US, but the congregations don't muzzle the maniacs.

That said, randomly attacking Muslims who may, actually, be moderates and potential allies is stupid and inexcusable.

[Durandal]

I think the part I bolded says it best. The people that did this will consider the Muslims in London viable targets the same way they consider any other Englishman a target.

Because the Qur'an tells the fundamentalists that it's okay. The Muslims in London have strayed from Allah. Sure, they may pay lip service, but their women don't cover themselves, and thieves' hands aren't cut off.

[Broomstick]

For comparison, was there a significantly higher attack on Muslims in the US after 9/11? I recall very few incidents (including one where, I believe, I Sikh man was "mistakenly" killed).

There were a few dozen incidents, out of a country of around 300 million people.

On the flip side, in my area there were also non-Muslim locals setting up impromptu security for Muslim homes and businesses in our area to protect them from stupid bigots, and volunteering to provide women with headscarves what were essentially bodyguards if they felt they needed them.

[Darth Wong]

Muslims are right to be afraid, and it is because their religion desperately needs a housecleaning, a reformation, and a few teeth pulled. But they won't, don't or can't stand up to the radicals. I've heard that there are some pretty radical mosques out there, all over the EU, UK and US, but the congregations don't muzzle the maniacs.

Ummm, do you realize that Muslims who speak out against the violent radicals are likely to become their targets?

[Coyote]

Ummm, do you realize that Muslims who speak out against the violent radicals are likely to become their targets?

The alternative is status quo-- the fanatics continue to run amuck, while the moderate or even liberal Muslims hide in fear. No reformation gets done, and the moderate/liberal ones will continue to occassionally suffer revenge attacks from incomprehending Westerners.

The moderates and liberals have to ask how much their beliefs are worth to them. Without some internal responsibility among Muslims to police their own, all Muslims will continue to be seen as a monolithic bloc of irrational, fanatic, fascist murderers.

[Johnny Ipcress]

The alternative is status quo-- the fanatics continue to run amuck, while the moderate or even liberal Muslims hide in fear. No reformation gets done, and the moderate/liberal ones will continue to occassionally suffer revenge attacks from incomprehending Westerners.

The moderates and liberals have to ask how much their beliefs are worth to them. Without some internal responsibility among Muslims to police their own, all Muslims will continue to be seen as a monolithic bloc of irrational, fanatic, fascist murderers.

Exactly how do you think Islam can be 'reformed'? It's not as if its a centralised religion like Roman Catholicism. As is made known quite often, Islam and the Islamic texts are very much a matter of interpretation. To use an example, in Malaysia in the middle ages, the Muslim rulers would prevent their subjects from becoming Muslims as then they would not be able to exploit them through slave labour. The text in the Koran itself can be interpreted to mean either every person or every Muslim. There is no single person in Islam who can tell others that x means y and therefore it will always be an extremely diverse religion.

[Durandal]

Exactly how do you think Islam can be 'reformed'?

Censor the Qur'an. Strike all the parts about how unbelievers will "suffer a painful doom" and why they should be slaughtered en masse. (This would eliminate probably half the book, making it much more readable.) If those verses aren't there, they won't be "misinterpreted."

[Coyote]

Exactly how do you think Islam can be 'reformed'? It's not as if its a centralised religion like Roman Catholicism.

Not anymore, since the end of the Caliphate and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But the al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo has acted as a de facto Caliphate since then, and a fatwa from one of the ulama there would go a long way. If they cared to, that is.

The same thing can take place at a local level. Either the ulama bring in reforms and tone down the rowdies, or the umma vote with their feet and go to a Masjid where there is a more moderate tone.

As is made known quite often, Islam and the Islamic texts are very much a matter of interpretation.

And the Torah and New Testament aren't? These are hardly models of clear and concise storytelling, they are as clouded in mystery and interpretation as the Qur'an is, yet the Christian Church has had reformations and the Jews have had an ongoing tradition of Rabbinical interpretation.

The Muslim fanatics want to return to the "golden era" is Islam, and there are two distinct periods that they look back on: the time of the Rashidun, or first four righteous Caliphs after Mohommed, and the era of al-Andalus, or Islamic Spain, when Islam triumphed in science, learning, technology, literacy, education for women, and rational thought. The era of the Rashidun, especially, was a time when the Caliph was elected by democratic vote. Somehow it does not seem that the fanatics thought these things through.

These things could be brought up byt eh people in places of authority in Islam, but surprise surprise, they are the ones who stand to lose if the people are empowered.

There is no single person in Islam who can tell others that x means y and therefore it will always be an extremely diverse religion.

Actually, the Caliph would do that, but until the position is reinstated officially, it is up to the ulama and umma as a whole. As long as religious "leaders" encourage or condone terrorist attacks and jihad, they deserve everything they get coming right back at them.

[Johnny Ipcress]

Actually, the Caliph would do that, but until the position is reinstated officially, it is up to the ulama and umma as a whole.

The Caliph would only have had any authority over Sunni Muslims, besides the Caliphs hardly had any authority since the 13th century.

Also, doesn't 'ulama' refer to all scholars of Islam? And 'umma' refer to all Muslims? Surely this is an extraordinarily diverse group anyway, unlikely to agree on anything. We have the ulama of Britain, for example, decrying these attacks whereas elsewhere they are not.

[sketerpot]

Muslims are right to be afraid, and it is because their religion desperately needs a housecleaning, a reformation, and a few teeth pulled. But they won't, don't or can't stand up to the radicals. I've heard that there are some pretty radical mosques out there, all over the EU, UK and US, but the congregations don't muzzle the maniacs.

Here's some encouraging news: Muslim scholars ban killings in name of Islam.

Leading Muslim scholars meeting in a three-day conference in Amman banned killing in the name of Islam and urged respect for other opinions in the Muslim world.

"We condemn the principle of accusations of apostasy and the legalization of the assassination of Muslims for religious reasons," the 180 scholars said Wednesday at the end of the first International Islamic Conference in Jordan.

The statement was based on religious edicts, or fatwas, issued by Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the highest Muslim Sunni authority, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shiite leader based in Iraq, and Egypt's Mufti, Sheikh Ali Jumma, as well as other senior leaders in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan.

Or, looking around recent Al Jazeera articles some more, we get a similar one which is specific to the London bombings: Muslim leaders condemn deadly London attacks.

[A Big Flying Fish]

The alternative is status quo-- the fanatics continue to run amuck, while the moderate or even liberal Muslims hide in fear. No reformation gets done, and the moderate/liberal ones will continue to occassionally suffer revenge attacks from incomprehending Westerners.

Not entirely sure of the situation in the US, but the moderate Muslim groups in the UK are quite vocal in condemning terrorist attacks, and make a point of reiterating that a "real" Muslim will not harm anyone. However, as with most religions, they have a segment dedicated to generally being scum.

Luckily, here they generally seem to limit themselves to same activities christian fundies in the US do, but being small enough in number that no one cares what they say. It may be worth pointing out that second generation Muslims, atleast from my experience are signifacantly less likely to take up the fundamentalist view, and they're becoming ever more numerous than the older populations.

[Coyote]

The Caliph would only have had any authority over Sunni Muslims, besides the Caliphs hardly had any authority since the 13th century.

True, but Sunni is 90% of the population of Islam. I actually think we can cut our own deal with the Ayatollahs, but a fatwa from a Caliph-like institution (Tantawi's comments from al-Azhar are encouraging, for example) would go a long way towards setting the road straight.

The extremist branch of Islam facing the European West (and that includes the USA) is the 18th-century Wahhabi sect, and that is Sunni.

Also, doesn't 'ulama' refer to all scholars of Islam? And 'umma' refer to all Muslims?

Ulama is all scholars and authority figures in Islam, pretty much anyone who can issue a fatwa:
Qadi (judge of sharia'a law)
Mufti (overseer/guardian of a sacred shrine or city)
Imam (priest at the mosque)

Or the recognized Muslim leader of an Islamic state-- a Sultan or King, Emir, Sheikh. (Sheikh is a tribal title among the Bedouin but elder Sheikhs guide the closest thing the nomads have to a 'state', so they get in on default).

Surely this is an extraordinarily diverse group anyway, unlikely to agree on anything. We have the ulama of Britain, for example, decrying these attacks whereas elsewhere they are not.

More and more moderates are speaking out, and that is good. No matter how diverse this group is some should should be universal-- slavery, child rape, murder, etc... and terrorism, especially terrorist attacks targeting civilians. Getting them to agree should not be difficult if indeed they are as 'civilized' as they claim.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Having watched BBC and ITV news more regularly than usual since Thursday, have you noticed how they seem to have gone out of their way to show diversity among the bomb victims and others?

Of three victims interviewed in one segment, one was a Muslim woman and another was a man of Turkic or Arabic descent. Furthermore, when the BBC were interviewing Muslims in a Mosque in Central London about the possibility of 'reprisals', of all the people they could interview, they interviewed a white Anglo-Saxon Muslim (convert, presumably).

It strikes me as a little odd that they would interview such a demographic of people when it bears little relation to the racial/religious mix of people in the country (and also the victims of the attacks). I can only assume that there is a small, benificent level of 'spin' occurring to assure those with a tendency toward 'mob mentality' that WASPs were not the only victims, and that those that carried out the attacks do not represent Muslims generally. Which is true.

Nah mate, this is London we're talking about. Usually the first place of entry and the place with the jobs to keep entrants there. It's a massive melting pot, as I could not help noticing as a Yorkshireman visiting the place.

[Johnny Ipcress]

Nah mate, this is London we're talking about. Usually the first place of entry and the place with the jobs to keep entrants there. It's a massive melting pot, as I could not help noticing as a Yorkshireman visiting the place.

But a majority of the population of London is white British. And there aren't that many white British Muslim.

[Johnny Ipcress]

More and more moderates are speaking out, and that is good. No matter how diverse this group is some should should be universal-- slavery, child rape, murder, etc... and terrorism, especially terrorist attacks targeting civilians. Getting them to agree should not be difficult if indeed they are as 'civilized' as they claim.

The ulama vary from state to state, so they're not going to agree on anything if the states don't. Besides the ulama can become discredited if they are seen to agree with the state all the time

Many don't claim to be 'civilised', as this is effectively a euphemism for 'Westernised' in this context. They stick to their interpretation of the Islamic religious texts and don't bow to peer pressure.

[Glimmervoid]

Ulama is all scholars and authority figures in Islam, pretty much anyone who can issue a fatwa:
Qadi (judge of sharia'a law)
Mufti (overseer/guardian of a sacred shrine or city)
Imam (priest at the mosque)

The thing is imam's and Mufti's etc are not formal positions. They are not appointed by some Muslim authority. They are people that other Muslims feel know enough about the Koran to speak about it.

That is to say imams are not priests just a loose analogue.

[Rye]

Nah mate, this is London we're talking about. Usually the first place of entry and the place with the jobs to keep entrants there. It's a massive melting pot, as I could not help noticing as a Yorkshireman visiting the place.

I don't think so, I find it far more likely the BBC emphasised that everyone was a target to nip any antimuslim sentiment in the bud. Same thing with interviewing "Abdullah Greene" I believe his name was, so that people would understand there are white muslims too, it's not all brownskins.

I think they were right to do it, too, emphasising the diversity of islam, especially in the west to temper any immediate antimuslim reactions was a good thing.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Nah mate, this is London we're talking about. Usually the first place of entry and the place with the jobs to keep entrants there. It's a massive melting pot, as I could not help noticing as a Yorkshireman visiting the place.

I don't think so, I find it far more likely the BBC emphasised that everyone was a target to nip any antimuslim sentiment in the bud. Same thing with interviewing "Abdullah Greene" I believe his name was, so that people would understand there are white muslims too, it's not all brownskins.

I think they were right to do it, too, emphasising the diversity of islam, especially in the west to temper any immediate antimuslim reactions was a good thing.

Well, maybe. But by that same account if you grabbed any, say, 10 people in London I'd bet about half of them would be something other than white caucasian.