Myths and monsters

Three years after 7/7 the threat is still real and still misunderstood

The NHS' 60th birthday dominated last week's headlines, but Monday's anniversary of the 7 July 2005 bombings is no less significant for many in the UK. It is three years since four men carried bombs onto the London tube and a bus and detonated them, killing 52 and injuring hundreds.

To many, the act showed only a psychotic contempt for human life. To others these men must, like everyone, have been a product of the world we live in. The truth is that since 7/7 we have only come some way in understanding the inner lives and motivations of Hasib Hussain, Germaine Lindsay, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and Shehzad Tanweer. Their respective childhoods, neighbourhoods, environments, ideologies, influences and beliefs have been picked over as forensically as the train debris in search of clues.

But those who hoped to find a common pattern that would reveal the terrorist archetype have been disappointed. The psychological profilers, or those that believed poverty or foreign policy were the motivation, have been confounded by the bombers diverse backgrounds and beliefs. There is just no simple explanation. In many ways both the 7/7 bombers, and the others thought to be lying in wait, remain monsters: hidden, ruthless and terrifying.

Lacking a coherent picture, many have fallen on a simple and comfortable one: that religious extremism is to blame. Put simply, piety of all kinds, particularly fundamentalism, is now looked upon with suspicion. In truth, the relationship between religious extremism and violent action is very complex. Demos is currently working across Europe with religious groups to explore and better understand that relationship.

On Saturday, as part of that programme, we will host a session at IslamExpo called The Islamist Threat: Myth or Reality?, one of a series of discussions we are holding at cultural events throughout the year. Amongst other things, it will provide a chance to explore the difference between terrorism and Islamism, often misunderstood.

It's a significant distinction. Islamism, also called ‘political Islam', is a political ideology that is relatively modern - its roots are in twentieth century Egypt. Its adherents range from North Africa to South Asia, and its defining idea is that Islam should be the mode for all political expression. Moreover, Islamism is contested: Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir all call themselves Islamist but, for example, take different positions towards violence.

At the same time, literal interpretations of Islam like Wahhabism are frequently misunderstood as synonymous with Islamism, when they spring from radically different origins. There are many such fundamentalists in the UK, but their views towards the West and the legitimacy of violence are characterised by similar variation. So Islamism and fundamentalism are distinct. It is in the jihadist vortex of terror groups like Al-Qaeda that the picture gets murky.

Numerous acts of terrorism have been committed in the name of Islam before and since 9/11. All those involved would probably describe themselves as Islamist (on a political level) and, in addition, subscribe to aspects of fundamentalist Islam (on a theological one), not necessarily in a coherent way. But far from all Islamist radicals or fundamentalists are terrorists, and nor does either lead inexorably towards violence. There is still scant comprehension of how political ideology interacts with fundamentalism and other influences to lead to violent extremism.

The extent to which Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrorism are conflated has a palpable effect on the way the threat here is understood both by the public and by those protecting us. Every fundamentalist or Islamist is assumed to be a jihadist, and the government's ‘prevent' strategy has until only recently been distorted by the view that all radicals become violent. This is exactly the myth challenged by the current Demos programme of research.

Our decision to hold the debate has attracted criticism because the organisers of IslamExpo are self-described Islamists. This is to be expected in a topic that has become increasingly polarised. We are not promoting Islamism but a liberal tradition of debate with all parties. In an age of fear too many monsters and myths still impede our struggle to overcome the terror threat. If by discussing, and through our research, we can help bring some of them out in the open, it will be worth it.

Peter Harrington is communications manager and researcher at Demos.

The Islamist Threat: Myth or Reality? will be held at IslamExpo on Saturday 12 July, at 16.15 in the Main Hall, Kensington Olympia. See www.islamexpo.com to register

Comments

Be the first to comment on this item.