Back in July 2005, when four British Muslim youth killed 52 people on the London Underground, the British government and Muslim organizations sought to find common ground in the fight against terrorism and extremism. For a moment, the quotes from leaders on all sides were indecipherable and it seemed as if the terror threat had finally peaked.

One year later, both have failed to live up to their sides of the bargain and suspicion has continued to grow. From last year�hasty killing of Jean Charles de Menezes to the staggering ineptitude of last month�Forest Gate raid, the Metropolitan Police and its chief, Sir Ian Blair, have been left stumbling. Non-Muslims are still spooked by provocative protests by extremist Muslim groups over the Danish cartoons and continued media focus on militant imams such as Abu Hamza al Masri. And efforts by Muslims to extend the debate to Muslims at large have been sporadic, perhaps reaching those who are already socially and politically active but not those who are reclusive or hardened.

British society sees the lack of progress as a sign that Muslims don't care, don't understand, or worse, sympathise with extremists. Muslims have been faced with calls from Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist who converted to Islam after a brief period of captivity by the Taliban, to withdraw collaboration with the police where fellow Muslims are concerned. And continued empirical evidence shows no abatement of extremist tendencies among certain sectors of Muslim youth. One year after 7/7, both sides have retreated to their corners of the ring and sensational tabloid headlines continue.

Labour MP Sadiq Khan from South London made the first anniversary assessment, claiming Muslims had been paraded to Westminster like the "grand old Duke of York - marching all these talented British Muslims up the hill of consultation and dialogue, only to march them down again." Khan also insists that only 3 of the 64 recommendations put forth by Muslim leaders have been implemented (though many of the recommendations made available were to combat Islamophobia rather than extremism).

Prime Minister Tony Blair countered this assertion, saying that while government had a role to play in combating terrorism, Muslims had to do more to counter the tendencies toward extremism within their own communities. "The Government has its role to play in this but, honestly, the Government itself is not going to defeat this," he said. "If we want to defeat the extremism, we have got to defeat its ideas and we have got to address the completely false sense of grievance against the West." His office noted that 19 of the 27 recommendations that involve the government are being acted upon (though a full public enquiry of 7/7 is a notable exception).

There is a little bit of truth in all these assertions - but a lot of defensiveness as well. The parties differ primarily in their interpreted balance of responsibility between them, the agreement on a constructive approach and possibly even the definition of extremism itself.

For their part, Muslim leaders, despite their efforts, have failed to relate effectively to wayward Muslim youth, where extremist sympathy may continue to simmer. Pleas for government help in combatting extremism reinforce views from angrier Muslims that their leaders are "selling out" their interests for political gain. Ultimately, the measures that will carry the most weight are those that are built from Muslim consensus and free of government influence. Ashqar Bukhari of MPACUK (an advocacy group rather than a representative council, and thus freer to speak its mind) adds that too many Muslim leaders are "incapable or wilfully refusing" to tackle extremism and did not involve enough young British-born Muslims. And recommendations for tackling the poverty, lack of education, and social exclusion that allow Muslims to fall prey to extremists never seem to factor in anywhere.

Tony Blair, on the other hand, insists that Muslims counter the sense of grievance against the West, which he asserts is wrong. This approach would conveniently mesh with his efforts to stem criticism of Britain�presence in Iraq. But grievances alone, perceived or real, are not a crime, and Blair is being disingenuous in stating that it is the cause of the problem. Grievances against Western foreign policies, especially those aimed against the Muslim world, do exist and - more importantly - are shared by even greater numbers of non-Muslims. More than half the populations of the US and Britain have consistently opposed the continuing war in Iraq in recent years for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism.

This should also be an example to Muslims of the reservoir of public goodwill available to them without making the common error of causal (if explanatory) links to terror. The foreign policies of Britain and America towards the Muslim world can be opposed on their own merits (or lack thereof), as evidenced by everything from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to dodgy dossiers and Fahrenheit 9/11. Arguing that foreign policy is a root cause of terrorism has come across to wider society as a form of blackmail. Indeed, to some Muslims, that is exactly what it is intended to be.

More accurately, the root cause of terrorism stems from the inability of its proponents to deal with grievances in a lawful and civilized manner. Where it affects them, this is the point where Muslim community responsibility should take over. Bukhari�other contention that Muslims need to teach their youth not to resort to terrorism may seem shocking to non-Muslims, but it is not fundamentally different than the need for any parent to teach their children not to slash each other with knives in schoolyards or beat late night commuters to death in lonely train stations. The tendency towards violence has to be countered everywhere.

As for the police, while excessive raids into Muslim households (872 arrests have led to 3 Muslim convictions) may feel good to the British public (as long as the failure catch any real terrorists remains unpublicized), there needs to be a realization that the British government�side of the bargain ᠳperior intelligence and police work ձ(s been largely a sham (the trumped up ricin terror plots are one egregious example). And to Muslims, the implications of intentional police heavy-handedness and threats of arbitrary anti-terror laws that strain civil liberties come off as a form of blackmail as well.

Seen in this way, the Forest Gate raid may finally be the last look over the cliff for both Muslims and the British government. The excessive resources that police have poured into faulty intelligence have grated on everyonemӠpatience, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Another mistake in the vein of De Menezes will (and probably should) disrupt the security services that every citizen needs. Yet most Muslim leaders have wisely seen Ridley�castle-moat approach as a recipe for never-ending conflict.

The call for increased Muslim participation in the police and intelligence services is one example of the integration that needs to occur at all levels of British Muslim society so that "them" can become part of "us." Extremism should be broadly defined to include the legitimization of the murder of civilians ᠩcluding elsewhere in the world, despite our sympathies α7thout resorting to an indefensible ban on "glorification."

Non-Muslims should be reminded and convinced that small groups of offensive protestors donɭԠreflect the sentiments of mainstream British Muslim society. And to the extent that real crimes may be plotted within their communities, Muslims must stem it (many, in fact, quietly do), if for no other reason than the good name of their religion. The very distinct campaigns for Iraq and Palestine can continue on regardless.

In their response to the Forest Gate raid, victims Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair were notably gracious, asking only for an apology and insisting on full accountability, while repeatedly asserting that they were (and intend to remain) good citizens who would not otherwise undermine the police from their responsibilities.

This key difference between accountability and demonizing, which can be applied to both Muslim communities and the British government in appropriate measures, signifies an important distinction in trying to deal with the problems of terrorism and Muslim relations constructively. Tabloid editors may not value that enlightened approach, but the rest of us should.

Good article, the too optimistic, too timid. Mr Amanullah is right, however, about the gap. It is wider and it will continue to get worse until ... boom.

Why? Because people are not honest; because they are afraid of the truth, maybe. This is not only for Muslims but also for most people in the West.

Deep within Islam there is a core of intolerance and hate that generates oppression and violence. Those are strong words, but I have a lot of verses from the Quran to back me up and as you know I can quote a bunch of passages in the hadiths that make it clear that Islam's great prophet was... well, very very bad on many many occassions.

Until Muslims renouce this hate and condemn the actions of their leader, nothing will change. Muslims cannot, will not do this. Believe me, I know.

Do Muslims talk about these things? Do they dare confront these issues? Can they accept the truth about their religion? Non, no and nao. Of course, so many in the West are as guilty as the Muslims. That is why it is getting worse and sadly there is nothing we can do about it. Western intolerance will grow and match Islamic hate word for word, act for act, drop of blood for drop of blood. People will be forced to choose sides. These will not be good times.

Remember the scene from the old Planet of the Apes movie where the hero (Heston) says he wants answers, and the old simian says "Careful, you may not like what you find. Well, if Muslims look deep into the soul of Islam and ask 'why' they will not like the answers.

Islam will not change: good Muslims will make excuses and deny that the problem is Islam, radical Muslims will kill. Innocent blood will flow.

You folks take care. Bad times are coming.

John Kactuz

I see kactuz(aka cracked nuts) has been reading his scofield bible again and ascriping its flaws on Islam. The only thing you're backed up on is the same right wing cadaver worshipping christofascist steer manure you've been fed from hate sites you check at from your parents basement. Its apparent you are about as uninformed as possible when it comes to Islam and world affairs. Waiting for you to say something intelligent is like putting a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.
The question is can criminals like kactuz change? Can he ever make a single factual statement? Can the terrorism which is the basis of his belief change? These are the real questions about loosers like him will have to answer. You know bad times are ahead when morons like this are referring to Planet of the Apes to bolster their flimsy arguments. Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?

On July 7, 2006 I paused and reflected over the terrible incident that occurred in London. I was reminded about how cruel acts of terrorism against innocent civilians are, and why would should never tolerate them. It also made me think about the whole concept of having anniversaries for them and whether or not it was a good thing.

From Yahoo news to Reuters; the top news story of the day was ìRemembering 7/7î. Rightfully so people of all walks of life took the time to pay their respects and reflect on the tragic event. Kumrul Hassan an uncle of Shahara Islam who was killed ìin the bus bombings at Tavistock Squareî made a very passionate speech at the East London Islamic Centre. He wished Britons ìwould not see such terrible acts committed in our country ever againî. He was also very disappointed that his pleas to the British government to have a public inquiry into the terrorist acts were denied.

With September just around the corner it wonít be too long now before Americans get into the anniversary sprit. From golf tournaments to walks, motorcycles parades, and concerts there will be something for everybody to do on the week of 9/11. While the world stops and morns for 9/11 and 7/7 they almost never stop to think about the other significant dates where innocent civilians are killed in acts of terror.

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." On December 7, 1987 the U.N. voted almost unanimously (with the exception of America and Israel) on a resolution that condemned international terrorism. U.N. resolution 42/159 appropriately defines ìinternational terrorism as something that ìendangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms.î Based on those words I wonder how many anniversaries countries like Iraq, Palestine, and Chile would have. I dare say they would have enough to fill a calendar. The world should pause and reflect on terrorist acts that have scar people in places like Chechnya, Nicaragua and Bosnia as well. With so much violence and injustice in this world everyday should be a day of pause and reflection. We should honor all victims of terrorism no matter their political, religious, or ideological ideals.

On 7.7, I remembered the dead of the London bombings, and their families. I remembered the maimed and injured. But I also remembered the families of the bombers, whose lives have been equally traumatized by the criminal acts of their sons. I remembered the bombers, too, in a spirit of forgiveness.

But those who call the bombers martyrs I have not forgiven. I hear the bombers screaming in eternal regret from their graves. They have already glimpsed the unflinching and inescapable judgement of God that comes after death. Their wait for judgement day will be a long, dark passage. But those who still call these murderers martyrs remain deluded, perverse and complicit with the evil committed on 7/7 and 9/11.

Yet there is still hope for them. Change is possible, and surely both Muslims and non-Muslims have a moral duty to work together and defeat the cultists, but with a weapon more formidable than bombs, or guns: my preferred weapon - the word.

At the same time, to describe these cultists as ëIslamic extremistsí is to imply they are a product primarily of the Islamic faith. This is Blairís lie. Muslim cultism is not simply a warped interpretation of Islam, as he claims. They would not find fuel for their political fervour, were it not for British and American imperialism. The real extremists are Blair and Bush. More have died at their hand than at Muslim hands.

More civilians were butchered during the invasion of Afghanistan than on 9/11, yet somehow their lives matter less. Indeed, civilians killed during the invasion of Iraq were deemed as not even worth counting by coalition forces.

Yet we risk a complicity with the cultists as long as we see injustices committed against Muslims as linked to our Muslim identity, instead of our Muslim duty. Surely, we have an obligation to fight oppression, but this extends to oppression perpetrated against non-Muslims, or indeed where is it perpetrated by Muslims. It is perhaps this conflation of identity and obligation that leads to a collective Muslim amnesia when it comes to issues such as Darfur.

In the 21st century, political violence - whether it be perpetrated by state or freedom fighter or terrorists - will not bring about lasting peace and justice for the peoples of the world. I therefore call on Muslims and non-Muslims of conscience to unite in the peaceful pursuit of social and political justice.

Wasalaam

The Muslim Anarchist

Yakoub, I agree with alot of your comment, but this:

>>They would not find fuel for their political fervour, were it not for British and American imperialism.

I'm sure that people would dearly like to believe this, but your theory would have to explain why other people who were much more severe victims of imperialism and colonialism have not reacted the same, that is by resorting to suicide and civilian assaults? Also, you may want to inform the extremists themselves that despite thier own deeply held beliefs, they're not actually doing because of Islam. I'm not sure how well you would escape from them at that point...