Thanks to ranjani for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2072587.ece

In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings I remember having a passionate discussion with some friends about who was responsible for the attacks. "It's the work of the security services; I can put my life on it!" one said. "In fact, I think they've killed off these guys, planted their stuff on the trains and then just blamed it on the Muslims again." Then came a timid voice of opposition. "Shaf, I don't think they'd kill their own people, I mean Tony Blair isn't that evil. I think Mossad had a hand in it."

The theories in the Muslim community were wide and varied: some believed the bombings were orchestrated by the Government in order to justify ever more draconian laws. Others believed it was near-impossible for four British-born Muslims to be behind such indiscriminate violence, so the first suicide attacks on British soil must have been the work of other terrorist organisations. Two years on I still hear the same conspiracy theories being clung to by a Muslim community that is living in a comforting state of denial.

Denial by definition is a psychological defence system by which people protect themselves from things that threaten them or make them feel uncomfortable. People do this by refusing to acknowledge the awkward person, thing or event, or by attacking any allegation of the existence of such difficulties.

I spent many years in the British Jihadi Network. While I was a member of that extremist group, I was told to encourage the spread of such theories because they created a useful, murky state of confusion. Propagating the idea that the Government was victimising Muslims by painting them as the bogeymen of the 21st century recruited young men to the radical camp.

This deeply imbedded culture of denial is not a new phenomenon in the Muslim community. Within Muslim families — like any kind of family where its members are expected to live up to demanding traditional standards of behaviour — there has always been a habit of burying their heads in the sand whenever there is something unfavourable happening.

For instance, there was a guy in my year at college who was a known drug dealer. He wasn't at all subtle in displaying the wealth he had obtained from selling drugs and it was widely known that his family knew what he was up to but had decided it was easier to pretend it wasn't happening, rather then confront the problems within their household. The same happens in our communities if someone's sister or daughter is seen at a club or in the company of males, the first response will always be: "No, my daughter isn't that type of girl! How dare you accuse my daughter and stain her untainted reputation."

This tendency towards denial is now writ large with the problem of terrorism and Muslims. Let's remember that the older generation of Muslims emigrated to Britain aspiring to work hard and to better their standard of living. They had always been law-abiding citizens whose loyalties lay with Britain in the main. Muslim involvement in terrorism here in Britain carries as much or even more shame for them as a drug-dealing son or a promiscuous daughter. Muslims do not deal with shame very well or anything that tarnishes their honour or reputation.

Just alcoholics or drug addicts must acknowledge that they have an addiction problem, we Muslims need to accept that there is a problem within our communities. Only when Muslims admit that 9/11 and 7/7 were the work of Muslim terrorists can we move forward to the next juncture: which is recognising the hard truth that Islam does permit the use of violence. Muslims who deny this, preferring instead to mouth easy platitudes about how Islam is nothing but a religion of peace, make the job easier for the radicals who can point to passages in the Koran, set down in black and white, that instruct on the killing of unbelievers.

I disagree with those who say the pressing problem is simply how do we deal with an aberrant, extreme minority who have unleashed a reign of terror on Britain — rather, I believe the heart of the matter is Islam itself and how its teachings are interpreted. If we isolate the problem to that of the extreme fringe, then we are merely skimming the surface.

What we Muslims need to do is go back to our books: we need to debate the teachings that are used to radicalise young men and legitimise the killing of innocent people. We need to discuss and refashion the set of rules that govern how Muslims — whose homes and souls are firmly planted in the West — live alongside non-Muslims. Only when we do this can we successfully dissect the radicals' interpretation of Islam and fight back against terrorism.

We can no longer turn a blind eye to the driving force behind terror attacks both at home and abroad. It should not matter how painful or embarrassing this admission may be, and nor should it matter how taboo this subject is.