Hier ist endlich eine Kampagne britischer Muslime, die die Anschläge in London und Glasgow verurteilt. Ganzseitige Anzeigen in britischen Zeitungen wurden geschaltet, und die Botschaft „Not in our name“ wird auch auf Bussen zu lesen sein. Man stellt sich hinter die Brown-Regierung und die Polizei. Phase zwei der Kampagne wird den positiven Beitrag der Muslime zur britischen Gesellschaft herausstellen. Mehr hier.

Die in diesem Blog geforderte Auseinandersetzung mit der Theologie des Terrors steht freilich auf einem anderen Blatt als die „Islam-is-Peace“-Rhetorik dieser Gruppe. Trotzdem: Distanzierung von den Terroristen und sichtbare gesellschaftliche Isolation ihrer Propagandisten ist ein wichtiger Schritt.

Heute wird diese Moschee in Islamabad wahrscheinlich vom Militär gestürmt. Ein australisches TV-Team hat vor wenigen Wochen einen Einblick bekommen und mit den beiden Brüdern gesprochen, die dort Dschihadis ausbilden. Der eine der beiden wurde gestern in Frauenkleidern festgenommen, als er die Moschee verließ. Sein Bruder harrt mit einigen Anhängern aus und möchte offenbar zum Märtyrer werden.

Gordon Brown, der neue britische Premier, hatte gestern seine erste „Question Time“ im Parlament zu überstehen. Dabei hat ihn der Tory-Chef David Cameron auf dem falschen Fuss erwischt, als er danach fragte, warum die extremistische Kalifatspartei Hizb ut-Tahrir immer noch nicht verboten worden sei, obwohl dies nach den Anschlägen des 7/7 angekündigt worden war. (In Deutschland ist Hizb ut-Tahrir seit Januar 2003 verboten.)
Zitat aus dem Parlamentsprotokoll:

Mr. Cameron: We need to act against groups which are seeking to radicalise young people. Almost two years ago, the Government said that they would ban the extremist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. We think it should be banned—why has it not happened?

The Prime Minister: Of course, with all those details—I have had to tackle the matter at the Treasury when dealing with terrorist finance—one has to have evidence. It is precisely to examine the evidence that we instruct several investigations.

(…)

Mr. Cameron: A very interesting answer, but I asked a specific question. The Prime Minister said that we need evidence about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation says that Jews should be killed wherever they are found. What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation? It is poisoning the minds of young people. Two years ago, the Government said that it should be banned. I ask again: when will this be done?

The Prime Minister: We can ban it under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Of course— [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition forgets that I have been in this job for five days. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

The Prime Minister: I have agreed that we will look at the issue, but we need evidence, and it cannot be just one or two quotes. We must look in detail at the evidence and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we should approach those matters in a sustained and calm way; that we should not jump to conclusions but consider all the evidence. That is the basis on which the Government will proceed.

Mr. Cameron: But there has been a lapse of two years since the Government said that they would ban the organisation. People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned.

Das war gut gegeben von Cameron. Allerdings brachte die Hizb als Antwort auf Camerons scharfe Linie eine peinliche Sache zum Vorschein: Einen Brief des Tory-Chefs von letztem Jahr, in dem dieser die Kritik der Hizb an Israel während des Libanonkrieges zustimmend zur Kenntnis nahm.
Zitat laut Hizb-Website (Link oben):

The letter begins by saying that, „David is most grateful to you for your comments on relationships between western governments and the Muslim world. He fully takes on board the points put across to him…Your comments are noted and appreciated“ The letter concludes, „Thank you again for writing; your views have been taken on board“.

Commenting on this, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, „Many will find it remarkably hypocritical and opportunistic that less than a year ago, Cameron was expressing his gratitude for our comments on Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, yet now he calls for our banning, alleging that we call for the killing of Jews.“

Hat Cameron gelernt, oder spielt er einfach nur das Spiel „Regierung ärgern“ und hat in Wahrheit überhaupt keine Linie im Umgang mit den islamistischen Radikalen?

Es gibt mittlerweile mehrere Insider-Berichte, aus denen hervorgeht, wie die Hizb gegen die Demokratie hetzt. Worauf warten die Briten noch?

Über diesen Mann müssen wir hier einmal reden, wenn wir verstehen wollen, was die „Todes-Doktoren“ antreibt, die London und Glasgow treffen wollten.
Sayyid Qutb hat den modernen Islamismus geschaffen. Seine „Milestones“ sind das kommunistische Manifest des Dschihads.

Und in Greeley, Colorado, hat er sein Bild des Westens geformt, das bis heute die jungen Dschihadisten prägt. Ein exzellenter Artikel über „Al-Kaidas Wurzeln in Colorado“ hier.

Der bessere TV-Beitrag scheint mir dieser hier zu sein. Er zieht interessante Parallelen zwischen der Kritik des islamisten Qutb an der westlichen Gesellschaft und der Vision von Leo Strauss, einem der geistigen Übervater des Neokonservatismus:

Immer mehr kluge Stimmen aus dem muslimischen Lager melden sich zu Wort. Dies hier ist Asim Siddiqui im Guardian von heute, und ich unterschreibe jedes Wort:

The events of the last few days have been sobering for us all. The response from some UK Muslim groups (influenced by Islamist thinking) is still largely to blame foreign policy (undoubtedly an exacerbating influence but not the cause), rather than marching „not in my name“ in revulsion against terrorist acts committed in Islam’s name. By blaming foreign policy they try to divert pressure off themselves from the real need to tackle extremism being peddled within. Diverting attention away from the problems within Muslim communities and blaming others – especially the west – is always more popular than the difficult task of self-scrutiny. And what part of foreign policy do the Islamists want us to change to tackle terrorism? Withdrawal from Iraq?

A. Siddiqui

And once we’ve left Iraq, will they be satisfied? Of course not. Their list of grievances is endless: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Burma … so long as the world is presented as one where the west is forever at war with Islam and Muslims there is nothing we can do to appease the terrorists and those who share their world view. Instead it is this extremist world view that must change.

…

No, it’s not foreign policy that’s the main driver in combating the terrorists; it is their mindset. The radical Islamist ideology needs to be exposed to young Muslims for what it really is. A tool for the introduction of a medieval form of governance that describes itself as an „Islamic state“ that is violent, retrogressive, discriminatory, a perversion of the sacred texts and a totalitarian dictatorship.

When the IRA was busy blowing up London, there would have been little point in Irish „community leaders“ urging „all“ citizens to cooperate with the police equally when it was obvious the problem lay specifically within Irish communities. Likewise for Muslim „community leaders“ to condemn terrorism is a no-brainer. What is required is for those that claim to represent and have influence among young British Muslims to proactively counter the extremist Islamist narrative. That is the biggest challenge for British Muslim leadership over the next five to 10 years. It is because they are failing to rise to this challenge that the government feels it needs to act by further eroding our civil liberties with anti-terror legislation to get the state to do what Muslims should be doing themselves. If British Muslim groups focus on grassroots de-radicalisation then this will provide civil liberty groups the space they need to argue against any further anti-terror legislation.

Of course I would like to see changes in our foreign policy and have marched on the streets (with thousands of non-Muslims) in protest on many occasions. But blaming foreign policy in the face of suicide attacks is not only tactless but a cop-out that fails to tackle extremism, fails to promote an ethical foreign policy and fails to protect our civil liberties.

Der ganze Text unter obigem Link.

Die Anschlagserie in England scheint manche traditionelle Muslime endlich aufzuwecken. Es reicht nicht, einfach immer zu behaupten, Islam und Islamismus hätten nichts miteinander zu tun. Auf Eteraz.org fand ich dieses Plädoyer, das mir sehr einleuchtet:

„Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor are all terrorists Muslim. But we’d be kidding ourselves if we claimed that a disproportionate number of terrorists aren’t Muslim or that the most destructive and deadly terrorist attacks aren’t perpetrated by Muslims fighting under the banner of Islam. Furthermore, terrorism is but an extreme manifestation of a rejectionist mentality that is all too common amongst Muslims.

Though few Muslims attempt to justify terrorist attacks, many steadfastly deny that Muslims were ultimately responsible, attributing them to elaborate conspiracy theories in which the Muslim hijackers/bombers were unwitting pawns in a grand plot directed by America/Israel/India/Freemasons. Even if such views are to be taken at face value, their advocates seem disturbingly unconcerned about the propensity of Muslims to be brainwashed and unwittingly recruited into shadowy non-Muslim conspiracies.

Even many Muslims who do not share the conspiratorial mindset cannot accept the idea that Islamic extremism is any more prevalent or dangerous than extremist movements in other communities. They illustrate their denial by drawing superficially relevant paralells between al-Qaeda and abortion clinic bombers or the Irish Liberation Army. But such comparisons miss the mark; no other community has extremists that have sought to wage a decentralized war on an entire civilization and indiscriminately turn major urban centers into battlegrounds. (Endlich! JL)

As much as we’d like to believe that terrorist attacks are the work of a tiny minority of locally-oriented fringe extremists, this tiny minority is active and vocal, their ambitions are global, and they don’t seem to be starved for recruits. Their websites are on the Internet for all to see. Their message boards attract posters from around the world who wish destruction on the West and preach hatred of non-Muslims (and Shi’ites). Their rhetoric advocates the imposition of Islamic hegemony through perpetual conflict with „Dar al-Harb“. Who knows how many adherents to such views frequent mainstream masajid; I can remember a few Muslims in the masjid I grew up in who were disturbingly indifferent to the horrors of 9/11. That’s a few too many.“

Wer schon einmal die hervorragend gestaltete und immer wieder mit interessanten Beiträgen aufwartende (englische) Website der Muslimbrüder angeschaut hat, der weiss, wie die politische Zukunft Ägyptens aussehen wird.
Während das Mubarak-Regime Blogger einsperrt wegen Frevel an Gott und dem Präsidenten, bloggt die Brüderschaft selbst, setzt sich für politische Gefangene ein (darunter 500 der Brüder), protestiert gegen Militrätribunale (auch davon sind ihre Mitglieder bedroht) uhnd setzt sich für die Freilassung des BBC-Reporters Alan Johnston ein, der in Gaza von Islamisten gefangen gehalten wird.
Heute präsentieren die „Ikhwan“ auf ihrer Website einen offenbar wohl informierten Artikel aus der New York Sun (hier der Original-Link) von Eli Lake, der davon berichtet, dass Bush die Eröffnung von Gesprächen mit den Muslimbrüdern erwägt.
Vor zwei Tagen habe ein Gespräch im State Department stattgefunden, bei dem die Kontaktaufnahme mit den „moderaten Muslimbrüdern“ Thema sein sollte.
Eingeladen war auch Robert Leiken, der kürzlich in „Foreign Affairs“ einen sehr freundlichen Bericht über die Muslimbrüder veröffentlicht hatte.

Könnte dies mit der Ratlosigkeit angesichts des Hamas-Durchmarsches in Gaza zu tun haben? Offenbar hat die westliche Strategie der Isolierung nicht funktioniert. Und auch durch die Saudis und die Ägypter hat man ja offenbar keinen Zugriff mehr auf Hamas, wie der Mekka-Gipfel gezeigt hat, der jetzt mit Füssen getreten wird. Da man nun mit Hamas auf keinen Fall direkt reden kann, wird offenbar geprüft, ob man über die Bruderschaft da herankommt.
Das wäre ein folgenreicher Politikwechsel.

Die Queen hat Salman Rushdie am Wochenende zum Ritter geschlagen. Im Iran findet man das überhaupt nicht ok. Eine „NGO“ namens Gesellschaft in Ehren der Märtyrer der islamischen Welt bietet demjenigen 150.000 $ Belohnung, der das Todesurteil des Ajatollah Khomeini von 1989 vollstreckt. Dies berichtet die semi-offizielle Fars News Agentur.

Ritter ohne Furcht und Tadel: Salman Rushdie Foto: Kyle Cassidy

Die offizielle Agentur IRNA meldet diese peinliche Drohgebärde nicht, gibt sich aber sehr empört über Rushdies Ehrung. Der Sprecher des Aussenministeriums, Mohammed-Ali Hosseini wird zitiert:

„Iran on Sunday said knighting Indian-born author Salman Rushdie, one of the most disgusted persons in the Islamic societies, was a clear proof of Islamophobia among high-ranking British officials.“

Und damit hätte Iran dankenswerter Weise auch einmal gezeigt, welche Funktion das „Islamophobie“-Argument in Wahrheit hat: Kritiker mundtot machen, wenn man sie schon nicht richtig tot machen kann.

In diesen Tagen wird viel an den Sechstagekrieg von 1967 erinnert – und welche Katastrophe er bis heute für die Palästinenser bedeutet.

Dabei fällt oft unter den Tisch, dass nicht nur die Bewohner der besetzten Gebiete bis heute unter den Folgen des Krieges leiden, sondern alle arabischen Gesellschaften: Denn ihre Herrscher nahmen die selbstverschuldete Niederlage zum Vorwand, die arabischen Gesellschaften brutal zu unterdrücken und sich jeglichen zivilen Widerstands zu entledigen. Auch der islamistische Fundamentalismus hat in dieser Welle der Unfreiheit und Unterdrückung seinen Ursprung.

Abdullah Iskandar will dies in seinem hellsichtigen und todtraurigen Stück in Al-Hayat nicht unter den Tisch fallen lassen:

In some countries, the Emergency Law turned from an exception into a permanent law, while martial courts were ready to prosecute anyone showing signs of uneasiness in this society. Intelligence services, whether they were military, public, affiliated to the air force or the President, took the place of parties, syndicates and cooperative and civil authorities. Every product, be it industrial, agricultural or intellectual, became subject to one of these services whose loyalty kept changing, while all developmental, social and educational progress inside these countries was blocked. In conclusion, the civil society’s function turned into a service for the ruler.

Rulers became totalitarian and despotic; they ruled out all possible peaceful rotation of power, and eliminated all those calling for them to be held accountable. Industrialists, farmers, scientists and intellectuals were expelled or, alternatively, neutralized to make them submit to the „wise“ leadership. This vacuum led to a political and intellectual one and deeply weakened the society’s capacity to resist. In this vacuum, the defeated regimes, which were the ones that had created it, used isolated social categories, as well, to face the residual signs of civil society.

Despotism is turning into a monster dealing with all developmental, civil and political progress as if it were a dangerous enemy completing, through new means, the objectives of the June aggression. In the meantime, while poverty is increasing, education is falling apart and unemployment is on the rise, those benefiting from the regime are no longer ashamed of considering public funds part of their personal budget.

In this context, fundamentalism grew and a series of civil wars broke out: Syria, Egypt, Algeria and, later on, the remaining countries witnessed violence and terrorism.

Not only was the 1967 war an occupation of Arab territories and an expansion of the State of Israel, but also a justification for despotism and totalitarianism and a pretext to suppress Arab society. It was not only a setback, but also a catastrophe for all Arab peoples. Forty years ago, the choice was between a military regime resulting from a coup and a plural democratic system, while today it is between a despotic ruler on the one hand, and fundamentalism and civil wars on the other.

Wer sagt, es gibt keine kritischen Stimmen aus der muslimischen Community – ja, sogar aus islamistischen Kreisen!

Hamid Tawfik, Ex-Islamist

Hamid Tawfik, ein ehemaliges Mitglied der ägyptischen Islamistengruppe Al-Dschamaa al-Islamiya, hat im Wall Street Journal einen klugen Artikel geschrieben, in dem er erklärt, wie Muslime die Islamophobie besiegen können:

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah („Ma Malakat Aimanikum“). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman’s testimony in court counts as much as a man’s, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.

We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.

Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in Thailand by Islamic groups? Why was there silence over the Mumbai train bombings which took the lives of over 200 Hindus in 2006? We must not forget that innocent Muslims, too, are suffering. Indeed, the most common murderers of Muslims are, and have always been, other Muslims. Where is the Muslim outcry over the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq?

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.