One was a loving father. Another helped out in his parents' fish and chip
shop. All apparently chatted away as if they were going on holiday as they
walked through King's Cross station with their deadly rucksacks. It is the
contrast between the ordinariness of the London bombers' lives and the savage
barbarism of their actions that is so shocking. But then, few recent terrorists
have resembled the caricatures of mad mullahs, bearded fanatics and foreign
zealots that people the press. Many have been Western born, Western educated,
and seemingly ordinary.
The shoe bomber Richard Reid was brought up in south London. His fellow conspirator
British-born Sajid Badat was educated at the prestigious Crypt Grammar School
for Boys. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, convicted in Pakistan of the murder of American
journalist Daniel Pearl, lived in east London and was educated at the LSE.
Asif Hanif and Omar Sharif, the two Britons who carried out a suicide bombing
mission in Israel became friends at university. The most detailed study yet
on Al-Qaeda supporters shows that the majority are middle class with good
jobs. Most are college educated, usually in the West. Fewer than one in 10
have attended religious school.
There was nothing extraordinary, then, about the background of the London
bombers. So, why are these men, born and brought up in Britain, gripped by
such a fanatic zeal for an irrational, murderous dogma, and seemingly possessed
with a hatred for such virtues as democracy and decency? Muslims have been
in Britain large numbers since the 1950s. Only recently has fanaticism taken
hold. The first generation of immigrants faced greater hardships and more
intense racism than do today's Muslims. Yet most thought of themselves as
British and were proud to be here.
While that first generation often put up with racism, the second generation
(my generation) challenged it head on, often leading to fierce confrontations
with the police and other authorities. But however fierce those confrontations,
we recognised that to fight racism we needed to find a common set of values,
hopes and aspirations that united whites and non-whites, Muslims and non-Muslims,
not separate ourselves from the rest of society.
It has only been over the past decade that radical Islam has found a hearing
in Britain. Why? Partly because, in this post-ideological age, the idea that
we can change society through politics has taken a battering. And partly because
the idea that we should aspire to a common identity and set of values has
been eroded in the name of multiculturalism.
Over the past week, much has been said about the strength of London as a multicultural
city. What makes London great, mayor Ken Livingstone pointed out, was what
the bombers most fear - a city full of people from across the globe free to
pursue their own lives. I agree, and that is why I choose to live here. Multiculturalism
as lived experience enriches our lives. But multiculturalism as a political
ideology has helped create a tribal Britain with no political or moral centre.
For an earlier generation of Muslims their religion was not so strong that
it prevented them from identifying with Britain. Today many young British
Muslims identify more with Islam than Britain primarily because there no longer
seems much that is compelling about being British. Of course, there is little
to romanticise in old-style Britishness with its often racist vision of belongingness.
Back in the fifties policy makers feared that, in the words of a Colonial
Office report, 'a large coloured community would weaken... the concept of
England or Britain.'
That old racist notion of identity has thankfully crumbled. But nothing new
has come to replace it. The very notion of creating common values has been
abandoned except at a most minimal level. Britishness has come to be defined
simply as a toleration of difference. The politics of ideology has given way
to the politics of identity, creating a more fragmented Britain, and one where
many groups assert their identity through a sense of victimhood and grievance.
This has been particularly true of Muslim communities. Muslims have certainly
suffered from racism and discrimination. But many Muslim leaders have nurtured
an exaggerated sense of victimhood for their own political purposes. The result
has been to stoke up anger and resentment, creating a siege mentality that
makes Muslim community more inward looking and more open to religious extremism
- and that has helped transform a small number of young men into savage terrorists.
There is nothing new, of course, in the use of terror tactics. What is new
is the arbitrary, nihilistic brutality. In the past, whether we are talking
Palestinians hijacking aircraft or the IRA bombing British shopping centres,
terror was always in pursuit of political or strategic aims. No longer. The
London bombers - like those in Madrid, Bali, and New York before them - issued
no warnings, made no demands, left no list of grievances. Four men simply
sneaked onto three tubes and a bus and without a word created carnage. For
them, terror was an end in itself, not a means to an end. In this post-ideological
age, few believe in political ends, or have a vision of political change.
Few actually believe in anything, or can articulate what they believe in political
terms. All they feel is a sense of anger or resentment or rage. So terrorists
just lash out without any sense of what for. And without anything to believe
in, without the moral restraints imposed by political activism, or the sense
of responsibility to a cause or to a people, the unthinkable becomes possible.
As in London last Thursday.