In the ongoing debate on terrorism, nothing is more polarising, nothing sends political discourse into a tailspin more than the contention that foreign policy is one of the root causes of terrorism. As much as it is a favourite slogan among Muslims, it sends skeptics of Muslims and Islam into a near xenophobic rage. After the verbal fireworks go off, the dialogue fades until the next Islamo-crisis. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Although such linkage began mostly after 9/11, it resurged again in full force after the recent attempted car bombings in London and Glasgow. In the blogs and newspapers, the assertion was made back and forth and back again. Two hundred Muslims gathered in London on Saturday to discuss what to do about terrorism and the official (sensible, yet obvious) advice to the public was that Muslims should report suspicious activity to the police. But inside, "foreign policy was mentioned over and over again," according to one participant. "Whatever the government or some MPs say, it is a factor that is fuelling extremism."

The Muslim reliance on this argument is understandable because it's absolutely true. With religious, ethnic, and cultural links to the scores of countries subjected to Western "interests," evidence is both anecdotal and explicit. From Mohammad Siddique Khan's explicit mention of Britain's involvement in Iraq and elsewhere, to Osama bin Laden's assertion that he doesn't have a problem with Sweden, you can't get it more direct than from the terrorist's mouth.

The counterargument is that Muslims are being cynical and selective with the foreign policy argument. A blind eye to Darfur has been mentioned, as has the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq and elsewhere. Palestine, despite the very real injustices committed against it by Israel, commands a disproportionate attention among Muslims when compared to either of the above where far more Muslims die (many at the hands of other Muslims). Palestine, in particular, has become a political Mecca, towards which Muslims direct their attention every day.

Still, these two modern struggles - against terrorism on one hand and unjust foreign policy towards the Muslim world on the other - are valid and necessary. But like matter meeting anti-matter, when these distinct issues are mixed together, everything disintegrates. Muslims around the world are on one side, Western governments and their non-Muslim citizens on the other, hurling accusations in equal measure until they're incapable of seeing the grain of truth each possesses.

More importantly, what's the end game of the foreign policy-terrorism connection? As an argument, it is incapable of altering the foreign policy it condemns. The masses of people who could sway government decisions will not accept challenging the injustice of foreign policy in Iraq or Palestine by accepting the threat that an injustice (terrorism) will occur to them. Yes, the link between them is true, but the foreign policy argument is a non sequitur. In fact, it is the mother of all non-sequiturs.

Linking foreign policy to an increased risk of terrorism isn't merely a casual observation. The only possible course of action is to change those unjust policies. But it's hard to influence people this way, especially when the majority of citizens who hate the Iraq mess and want a way out don't want to appear to capitulate to terrorism. Tony Blair and George Bush linked the threat of terrorism to foreign policy because fear of terrorism helped promote their grand foreign policy designs. How on earth will using the same fear dismantle them?

When citizens - especially Muslim ones - start saying that terrorism is blowback for foreign policy, those who conflated the two in the first place know that it suits their purposes as well. It "proves" the government's point that "if we don't get them there, they'll get us here" - even if everything is twisted around in reality. The public fear of terrorism (promoted by the government) will not be soothed with more fear of terrorism (as argued by the blowback proponents). The answer is not to buy the government's logic, but to maintain a principled alternative.

Incidentally, this "serves you right" approach to terrorism is far less prevalent in the US than in Britain, partially because of fear of the government, but also because this approach has simply never caught on with Muslims or war opponents there. Instead, the arguments dealing with torture, WMD lies, civil liberties, direct and indirect deaths, exacerbating of sectarian tensions, failure to deliver security, sabre-rattling with Iran, etc., have all worked to erode the Bush administration's arguments. For the first time in years, there is a sense of real momentum in the US for ending this fiasco. And none of it has to do with conflating foreign policy with terrorism.

In the Qur'an it says "Let not the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice" (Qur'an 5:8). In other words, Muslims should not legitimise any motivation to injustice because it is only the injustice (terrorism, in this case) that matters. Even if that motivation is cited by the perpetrators, our instinct should be not to honour it. In the context of this issue, that motivation should now be tainted.

If despite all this, Muslims and others insist on reducing the threat of extremism in Britain and elsewhere by addressing the Iraq conflict, then at least Muslims should strive to end that conflict with arguments that work - not with arguments that don't. In the four years since Iraq was invaded, there is no evidence that the blowback argument has had any positive effect. The more terrorism and foreign policy are mixed up, the more the circular arguments will continue and the more things will never change.

Give people a way out by condemning foreign policy on its own injustices. Condemn terrorism by its own inherent injustice. And put the Grand Canyon in between them.

emjayinc, the problem of religion and violence around the world is such that many people jumps, jumps and are mislead. Be it Christianity, islam, hinduisn, Buddism etc etc. People all over have mixed things up. There was no Pakistan before 1947. People needs to know what causes partition and who were behind partition and what were the motives? The problem between hindus and muslims in india is now an excuse for Kashmir and distributed to Israel and more and more places. Recently, in Mauritius, a Christian took to court a petition on the ground he was disturbed by the loudspeakers in the morning prayers. He won his case but the muslims around a section of the capital which had nothing to do with that locality in question marched and threaten terrorist activities. Well, as this island is an example for the world to learn about integrity, acceptance and respect, was about to become fragile. Well, all the stakeholders gathered and in the end accepted a compromise to reduce the decibels. even the muslims in Mauritius are ignorant of the fact that Loudspeakers are not used in UK. Whilst things have cooled down, this has given an opportunity for the authorities to keep an eye on those trouble makers.
This is just an illustration my friends how fragile things are getting just in the name of religion.

I have read a lot of blogs and a lot of reader comments, but rarely have I found the comments so hate-filled as the ones posted to this article.

The question on the table is whether foreign policy and terrorism are related in a causative sense. The author says no. I would agree with Mr. Amandullah, but for a different reason. Jihad -- or fighting in the path of Allah (Surah 61:10) -- IS the foreign policy of Islam. It takes place all around the world in Kashmir, Thailand, Great Britain, Kosovo, Nigeria, and the Sudan, quite independent of the foreign policy of any non-Muslim nation. But compared with the great expansion of Islam in the 7th Century the jihad today is disorganized, sporadic, and hardly directed by a central caliphate as required by Islamic law. When Muhammad was alive he used state-of-the-art weapons and tactics. Most of the weapons used by jihadists today are primitive, and furthermore they cause more Muslim casualties than non-Muslim casualties.

As I see it, Muslims should either distance themselves from Jihad as inappropriate in the 21st Century, or they should concentrate on reestablishing the Caliphate and uniting the ummah for one mighty push to make all humans submit to Islam. These thousands of little terrorist attacks do little to advance Islam, and they only galvanize non-Muslims into more concerted resistance. It was central to the concept of jihad during the 7th Century that the imam would not order fighting unless Muslims were confident of victory. Someone should tell that to OBL.

My hope is that Muslims will abandon jihad as a foreign policy and instead "compete in good works (per Surahs 2:148 and 5:49) as an alternative and more noble path.

"Spun up," emjayinc? You are uncomfortable with people bringing up American extremism, but very eager to look for Muslim excesses. In case you didn't know I'm not a Muslim.
I thought you were a hindu fanatic because you kept posting Indian hypernationalist propaganda, munna. The Kashmir issue is not up for discussion here, so don't protest so much when taken to task for spamming. I must say that the presence of Muslims in the Indian film industry is hardly a barometer for the state of Indian Muslims. Thats about as absurd as saying America treats its minorities well because Denzel Washington won an Oscar or that there are Hispanics on prime time TV. Ironic that these little gains would not have been possible had people taken your advice of "going back where they came from" instead of making their making their voices heard.
Dwell on that.

Chris, jihad is not the "foreign policy" of Islam. You have concocted a racist fraud by taking the presence of Muslims in political and ethnic conflicts worldwide and presenting that as some form of concerted "global jihad" waged against non-Muslims.
This is the stuff of conspiracy theories found on the far right fringe in the US and Europe. I strongly suspect you have lifted quotes from questionable web sites to propagate this fable.
Anyone who believes that American foreign policy is not the cause of Muslim anger is living in a fool's paradise. It does not excuse Muslim excess, but its a fact. Iraqis aren't fighting American terrorists because they are "infidels" but because they invaded their country and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If there is a "jihad" which must be stopped it is the relentless aggression of western powers hell bent on robbing the resources of the world. Thats whats really happening today, its clear and out in the open, and I say that as an agnostic.
Muslims are not like Westerners, crazy for power, whose motive is to dominate everybody else and who are very bad losers. Islam is not about power. The West just CANNOT get that. It hurts to admit it - because of its blindness to its own manic obsession with power.I liked the explanation given by the Edward Gibbon in the 18th Century for the unstoppable spread of Islam - its "moral authority".

RTW -- Excuse me for "spamming" but I would rather respond with facts and data than hyperbole.

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:123)

"Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam's instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers . . . . jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community . . . the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to nonexistence." page 64, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, by Majid Khadduri, c. 1955.

"What kind of man is it who still thinks that [jihad] is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders? . . . this struggle is not a temporary phase but an eternal state -- an eternal state, as truth and falsehood cannot co-exist on earth." pages 64-54, Milestones, by Sayyid Qutb, c. 1964

Q.E.D.

You have lifted quotes as I suspected, Chris. Would you be kind enough to tell us from where?
I do not believe you have ever read the Koran, otherwise you would quoted 9:122 and 9:124 including tafsir(I hope I spelled that right) commentary, in addition to 9:5, 9:7 and 9:9 within historical context in addition to conditions of fighting back against aggressors.
Until I have read the works of the other authors in their entirity I would take any of their quotes found primarily on far-right American websites with a grain of salt, as I'm sure they have taken great liberties with the actual truth. This is blatant dishonesty on their part and yours.

BTW, what would you have to say about the Lal Masjid Mosque incidents?Is it foreign policy?No my friend, everyone wants to flex their muscles and forget something very important :"HUMAN BEING!!" So many people's mind have been twisted. Sure, they are probably psychotic and need some antipsychotic medication. In USA, long time, they would have had treatment for mental health problems. There is obviously no pity for women and children. fancy religious leaders holding poor people hostages.
I am ashame to be associated with these lots!!!

Just great. Chris is quoting from Sayyid Qutb. Good thing he wasn't controversial...

Should I start with the Jerry Falwell quotes, as well?

Everybody wants to get on the "Bash Quran" bandwagon. The HotAir blog says they're going to give a subjective view of the entire Qur'an so that they aren't accused of "cherry picking" verses. Instead, they cherry pick Quranic commentators.

Why can't they just declare war on all Muslims and get it over with?

Munna, you have once again posted off-topic without any sense of context. I am not privy to the entire situation nor do I believe the full facts are in. I believe the politically weakened Pakistani general is trying to curry favor with the west by targeting his own people, going after the religious establishment which opposes his dictator-like excess. If there is anyone in need of medication, it would be him.
In future, stay on topic and refrain from posting shallow unrelated commentary.

Munna, you offer the perfect squelch to BTWFM's attempts to ignore your message by calling you names and accusing you of "off topic". To the contrary, "...There is obviously no pity for women and children. fancy religious leaders holding poor people hostages..." well illustrates religious fanatics diverting attention from their despicable, dehumanizing, even murderous, means, by claiming lofty moral ends. They justify themselves by asserting that they are mere victims, driven to their actions by lack of choice. These maniacs in control, until yesterday, of the Red Mosque and it's innocent hostages, clearly define themselves as irhabi muharibuun and munafiquun, rather than "holy men" or "religious leaders" -- but as Zahed has described it above, these murderous zealots will loudly proclaim they are merely cleansing Pakistan of it's sinful secular leadership.
Also appreciate your effort to express yourself in a second language - your intent is perhaps more eloquent than your words.

emjayinc, learn to fight your own battles. The situation in Pakistan is not the topic of this discussion, despite your eagerness to rush to Musharraf's side, who is friend to the secularists either. Otherwise your rant describes American occupation terrorists in Iraq perfectly.

I meant Musharraf is NO friend to the secularists either. His sacking of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to weaken the judiciary, to consolidate power coupled with the attacks on the press and murder of opponents will be his downfall.
A pro-American dictator is still a dictator, whether you like it or not.

BTW, you are definitely very stubborn and blinkered in your views on humanity. I am therefore not surprised by the actions of some people who are screwed up because of the kind of views, beliefs and attitudes you have on the world at large. i just give up on people like you. You cannot and will not change unless you are given a course of ECT.
You keep implying that people are on not on discusing on the topic. the topic is clear man. It is about fanaticism, terrorist activities that is unnerving people from carrying out their daily activities. I think you should have been in the Lal Masjid Mosque. This is the best description I can give you. That is your beliefs, behaviours and presentation of view/ideas can only make one imagine that this is the group you belong to.
Have a beautiful day. Keep the KAKA Brain

Munna,

You have perhaps missed interview by the deputy Imam of Lal Masjid where he admits of getting funds from CIA in the past. So, lets see - Musharraf and the other Pakistani governments coddled them in the past. CIA/US govt did not think it was morally reprehensable to fund these bloodthirsty nut jobs. Who in this political game have any moral superiority?

You've become a nuisance with your childish attacks and slurs, Munna. Calling me an "arsehole" "kaka brain" and other witty names only reflects your lack of substance and inability to form a coherent argument. You don't sound like a Muslim despite your claims. You don't know me or have a clue about my beliefs, or lack of. So far you've proven yourself to be a master of diversionary self-aggrandizement and circular reasoning. Claiming to be against extremism overseas, while ignoring its causes and complexities is common amongst the simple minded disingenuous followers of empire.

BTW, you need a life of your own darling. Breathe fresh air!1

But I do have a life, munna. Its good to speak truth rather then cling to disingenuous propaganda. You'll feel better once you do.

It is not enough anymore for Muslims to scream Foreign Policy. It is necessary for Muslim to be active and involved. If we want to change the foreign policy of the administration or even the next administration, we will need to be able to coherently express our views to the appropriate individuals in office. This can only happen when a core group of Muslims who are qualified as religious leaders and politically savvy, take measures to change the discourse.

Allah will not change our situation until we take positive steps ourselves!

Check out my videos and blog on media and communications for the Muslim world. HotConflict.com

HotConflict, there is too much conflicts within self to start with. You all need a course in management of Conflicts, anger and violence.
I am happy to provide my services but that is not easy!!

"You all need a course in management of Conflicts, anger and violence."

Speak for yourself. You need a course in reality based logic.

"I am happy to provide my services but that is not easy!!"

Test driving the ps3? LoL.