The following article appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 11th September.
The effects on America and Europe were nothing short of traumatic. There was an immediate questioning of a growing “globalism” and the emergence of a siege mentality. Heightened security has eased people’s minds, but there still lurks a basic anxiety about when, and where, the next attack will be.
Siren voices sometimes ask us to believe that 9/11 was caused by the pathological actions of a few, and that all Muslims should not be blamed for acts of terror. It is true that there are many moderate Muslims who condemn unequivocally what has been done in the name of their religion and assert that Islam had nothing to do with it. But we still need to ask how terrorism on such a vast scale was possible.
Apologists, both Western and Muslim, claim that Islamist extremism and terrorism have been bred by resentment of Western power. The military dominance of Israel, the roots of the Kashmir dispute, the megalomania of the Shah of Iran, and Suez are all seen to be examples of Western hubris and ill-will towards the Muslim world.
We can acknowledge that these have contributed to anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, but it would be a serious mistake to believe this provides a complete account of the extremism and the terror that has resulted from it.
At the heart of extremism is an ideology, a world-view – and not just concerning the perceived wrong done to the Muslim Umma (or people). Such an ideology expects Islam to dominate rather than to accept a subservient place in world affairs. It promotes pan-Islam and the ultimate rejection of nation-states, even Muslim ones. It may be that some extremists chatter about an Islamic state, in this part of the world or that; however, its ultimate aim is a single Islamic political, social, economic and spiritual entity.
For many, the restoration of the Caliphate is integral to this project and, given past history, we should not be sanguine that Western powers will not collude with it if they believe it promotes a temporary self-interest. Such a vision of pan-Islam is not restricted to the Muslim world as it is now but also includes lands “lost” to Islam whether that be India, Palestine, East Timor, South Sudan or the Iberian countries.
Since the death of bin Laden, there have been reports of the demise of Islamist extremism itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan has been weakened, but it has not been eliminated.
If we think of al-Qaeda more as a franchise than a monolithic organisation, it is flourishing as Al-Shabaab in Somalia, AQ in the Arabian Peninsula, in Iraq and in Jordan. In addition, there are the murderous Lashkars in Pakistan, where the Taliban still operates with impunity; in Afghanistan, the Taliban still retain significant capacity.
This is not to mention Shi’a radicalism which, in the form of Hizbollah, is now present on the borders of Israel. The radical Shi’a crescent is waxing all over the Middle-East and it has enormous security implications for states in the area and beyond.
The so-called Arab Spring is not a single event but a mosaic of different interests and people. An element of youthful idealism has been present and secular points of view have been represented, but well-organised Islamist programmes are at the fore.
The re-emergence of politicised Salafism in Egypt, and the violence associated with it, has already given the Coptic Christian community cause for concern. In Libya, al-Qaeda and the Taliban-related fighters have been in the vanguard of the struggle to oust Gaddafi. People whom the West would bomb in other circumstances have been the beneficiaries of Western air cover in Libya.
So what should be done about the rise of this kind of Islamism? In the Muslim world, the answer is clear. Democracy is not enough in itself or it could simply become a tyranny of the radicalised. It must be accompanied by internationally backed guarantees of liberties for women, non-Muslims and even moderate Muslim opinion. There must be one law for all and the equality of all before the law. A common view of citizenship will prevent the re-appearance of the dhimma for non-Muslims, under which they are little better than subject peoples without equal rights.
In the West, too, citizenship is where to begin. This means the West will need, once again, to acknowledge the Judaeo-Christian tradition and aspects of the Enlightenment that have made it what it is. How can we expect others to integrate when we are suffering from amnesia about our own identity?
The time for post-imperial hangovers is over. It will mean dismantling the structures of isolation that have been built up in the name of multiculturalism, and the encouragement of mobility and engagement across religious and communal divides.
We need more integration in housing and schools; greater mobility in higher education and employment.
We need a commitment to English as the lingua franca and the teaching of history that reveals the “golden thread” of a cohesive world-view.
We should be clear that integration does not necessarily imply assimilation. It is possible to be fully integrated as citizens but also to hold on to our culture, religion and language.
The chattering classes, who criticised the police for their absence during the recent riots, are now disparaging about their visible presence this weekend – but it is well-planned security that has deterred a repeat of 9/11. While being alert to the importance of personal liberties, and to the misuse of power, we will have to accept some curtailment of our preferences to live in even relative peace in the next 10 years.
* Michael Nazir-Ali is now President of OXTRAD, the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue