Why Muslims must speak out against terrorism

I’m afraid we have to be at the forefront of “Not in our name” campaigns, whether we like it or not.

In 2007, the American Muslim writer and activist Ali Eteraz wrote, on the Huffington Post site:

The amount of disinformation about Muslims is disconcerting. One popular smear is that Muslims are in an alliance with the left to take over the west; it is an allegation that the far right loves to use.

The other, equally popular and equally absurd, idea is that Muslims do not condemn terrorism. This too makes its way into culture from the right (though judging by comments to my last post, it's diffused to some members of the left). Though it is subtler, and argues from insinuation, it is no less pernicious. The implication is that every Muslim in the world who doesn't engage in terrorism is nevertheless a latent supporter, or enabler, of terrorism because he doesn't make loud proclamations against it.

He's right, of course. It is nonsensical and offensive to pretend that Muslims who are silent about terrorist atrocities carried out by other Muslims are somehow implicated in those acts or approve of them. In such cases, silence does not equal consent.

But, in recent years, I have come to the view that Muslims need to speak out much more than we already do against terrorism and violence committed in the name of Islam. Not because "non-Muslims" or "the west" or "the government" expect us to, but because we should be outraged, indignant, frustrated and angry at the level to which some of our fellow Muslims -- a tiny minority, I hasten to add! -- have stooped, and the manner in which they have tarnished the good name of Islam, the Quran and the Prophet.

I used to argue, like Eteraz and others, that we shouldn't have to speak out or condemn Muslim terrrorism because of the blatant double standard: why weren't Hindus asked to condemn the behaviour of the RSS in India? Why weren't Catholics asked to condemn the actions of the IRA? Why the singling out of Muslims?

But the double standard argument is, I believe, now irrelevant. We're not in the playground. Who cares what others have to do, are expected to do or are asked to do? Let's just focus on what we should be doing -- and I believe Muslims should be speaking out and protesting against Muslim atrocities with as much zeal and passion and anger as we do against, say, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

In the past few weeks, Muslims across the world have been outraged by the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the botched raid on the Turkish aid flotilla, which killed nine activists. In contrast, we have been largely silent about the horrific violence in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan -- which, let's face it, is neither Islamic nor a republic -- where 93 people were killed in gun and grenade attacks on two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore and where, on Friday, 42 people were killed in a terroist attack on one of the country's best-known Sufi shrines (also in Lahore).

What does that say about our priorities?

I am not arguing that Israeli atrocities or US war crimes should be ignored or forgotten. Not at all. But I am saying that brutal, cold-blooded attacks on religious shrines, which kill dozens of innocent people in the middle of prayer, in a nation that describes itself as "Islamic", should disgust and dismay every single believing Muslim.

If we care about our faith -- its purity, its identity, its reputation -- we have to speak out and condemn acts of terror committed by fellow Muslims in the name of Islam. We have to declare, as we did as British citizens over the Iraq war in 2003, "Not in our name."

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Investors are panicked - why we should care

Look closely at the markets, they tell a story. 

If markets diving was a sport, this is the Olympics. Since it became clear Britain was heading for Brexit, the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 have been plunging headfirst into the abyss, coming up for air and then plunging again. 

On Monday morning, RBS temporarily suspended trading in its shares after the value plunged 14%, and Barclays did similar after a 10% hit to the price. 

The FTSE 100 was down 1.2% overall, while the FTSE 250, which is more exposed to domestic markets and hence a better bellweather of the domestic economy, was down nearly 4%. 

Meanwhile, the pound could buy $1.33 on Monday, compared to $1.46 a week before. 

It's the kind of day that makes financial journalists giddy with excitement and sends normally sedate investment houses into meltdown. 

But how far should ordinary voters actually care? 

After all, the general public has not felt particularly sympathetic to bankers since their reckless behaviour caused a financial crisis that threatened the very fabric of society in 2008. 

The financial services industry disproportionately benefits London - the kind of metropolitan elite society that Leave voters resolutely protested against. 

And stock markets are famously nervy. Earlier in the year, unease about China triggered a "Black Monday" for FTSE traders but made little dent in ordinary workers' lives. 

Despite all these reservations, though, this time voters should keep an eye on market moves. This is what they appears to be telling us:

1. This is a domestic crisis

Many of the biggest companies based in the UK are actually international corporations, with customers all over the world. Shares in Unilever, for example, a company that does more than half of its business in emerging markets like India, are up. 

The real damage is in the companies with a lot of exposure to UK customers. For example, shares in the housebuilder Persimmon were down 12.5% on Monday morning, while EasyJet was down 18.4%. 

The FTSE 250, which has more domestically-exposed companies, was down 5% on Monday morning, compared to the FTSE 100's much milder 1.63% dip. 

All in all, this suggests investors are nervous about the impact the uncertainty will have on the domestic economy, whether that means less shoppers on the high street or less first-time buyers able to purchase homes. 

2. Banks are still a weak spot

We may love to hate banks, but for most of us they perform essential services, like providing a safe place to hold savings, dispense cash and provide credit. Underpinning their ability to do this is, of course, their own financial stability. Since the financial crisis, building a robust banking system has been a major project of the Government and Bank of England. 

Banks are also an important chunk of the economy - in 2014, financial services added £126.9billion in gross value to the UK economy. Banks also current benefit from an EU passport which allows them easy access to the European markets.

As the suspension of RBS and Barclays shares show, though, investors are clearly feeling nervous. Virgin Money shares - the rebranded Northern Rock - were down 18.9%, while those in Lloyds Banking Group had tumbled 9.4%. 

This doesn't mean anyone has to panic about their savings, but it does suggest that UK banks are hitting a rough patch. This in turn could mean a dent in economic growth, banks moving to Europe, or in the worst-case scenario it could lead to liquidity problems and taxpayer support. 

3. Investors still trust UK institutions

Government bonds, known as gilts, are generally seen as a safe investment. It effectively means you lend to the Government via the Bank of England, in return for a certain interest payment, known as a yield. Bonds from creditworthy states, such as German bunds, pay lower yields, whereas less creditworthy states generally pay higher ones in return for the investor taking more risk. 

On Monday, 10-year gilt yields fell below 1% for the first time ever in their history. In other words, investors may be very jumpy about the stock market, but they still regard gilts over a longterm as a safe investment.

It's generally obvious that investors see governments as a safe haven, but given the spasms the UK is now going through, it's worth noting. 

The days ahead

There will be less dramatic days ahead. But some of the concerns investors feel will be more long-lasting than others. If, for example, UK financial institutions decide to move headquarters to Frankfurt or Dublin, this could tear a hole out of our current economic set up, for better or worse. It would mean job losses, particularly in London and Edinburgh. 

If house prices do stagnate, as investors seem to fear, it could make buying a property more affordable. The flipside of this is we may see an echo of the years after 2008, when house prices are low but banks were unwilling to lend to anyone but the most creditworthy borrowers.

As for the investors, there will be winners and losers. Some who buy shares now may find that once the dust settles, confidence in returns and they make a profit. But that's little comfort to anyone on the rough end of a redundancy round, or negative equity.