---

Her er endnu en god kommentar til hvorfor man finder terrorister blandt alm.
englændere, - fra The Times of London

For dem der ikke gider læse det hele, er her bidden om multikulturalismens
indflydelse:

....
And partly because the idea that we should aspire to a
common identity and a 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, 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's why I choose to live in this city. Multiculturalism as a
lived experience enriches our lives. But multiculturalism as a
political ideology has helped to 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


(Kun 33% af muslimerne ville godt være mere en del af det engelske
fælleskab)

................................




The Times of London Commentary, Saturday, July 16, 2005

MULTICULTURALISM HAS FANNED THE FLAMES OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

By KENAN MALIK, The Times of London Commentary

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 Sajid Badat was born in Britain and educated at the
prestigious Crypt Grammar School in Gloucester. Ahmed Omar Sheikh,
convicted in Pakistan of the murder of the American journalist Daniel
Pearl, lived in East London and was educated at the London School of
Economics. 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 of 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 ten have been to 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 fanatical zeal for an irrational, murderous dogma,
and seemingly possessed with a hatred for democracy and decency?

Muslims have been in Britain in large numbers since the 1950s. Only
recently has fanaticism taken hold. The first generation of immigrants
faced greater hardships and more intense racism than today's Muslims
do. 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, and not to
separate ourselves from the rest of society.

It has been only 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 a 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, 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's why I choose to live in this city. Multiculturalism as a
lived experience enriches our lives. But multiculturalism as a
political ideology has helped to 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 about in old-style Britishness
with its often racist vision of belonging. Back in the 1950s
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 communities
more inward-looking and more open to religious extremism - and that
has helped to 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 about Palestinians hijacking aircraft or the IRA bombing
British shopping centres, terror was always in pursuit of political or
strategic aims. No longer.

The London terrorists - 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 on to three Tube trains 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. 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 nine days ago.

---

Kenan Malik is a broadcaster, author and lecturer.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.