Satanic Delusions

Jan. 14, 1989, is a date that means little to most Britons. But any attempt to understand Britains current predicamentthe investigations into 70 homegrown terror plots, the phrase enemy within being thrown around with abandon, and Muslim leaders demanding Islamic law for Muslim family mattersmust start there.

That Saturday, following the public burning of Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses in the northern city of Bradford, the countrys largest bookseller withdrew the book from public view in that city. In the Muslim community, it was shown that those who advocated the rule of the mobnot the rule of lawgot results. The British authorities demonstrated that they would abandon liberal values for the false promise of the quiet life. That decision has resulted in a situation where British citizens blow themselves up on buses and subways, plot to take down passenger jets, and young British Muslims believe in surprising numbers (31 percent, according to the most recent poll) that their countrys foreign policy justifies terror attacks.

The mob in Bradford burnt the Satanic Verses because it regarded the book as blasphemous. They had every right to do what they wanted with their purchased copies, but no right to intimidate bookshops into pulling it from their shelves. Nor should the police have helped persuade bookstores to give in to this pressure. The situation became even more disturbing after Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini called for Rushdie’s head on Feb. 14, 1989. The call was frequently repeated in Britain, despite a British law that makes incitement to murder punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment. (The year prior to the Rushdie protests, there had been more than a thousand prosecutions for incitement.) Demonstrations against the book frequently resulted in chants of Kill Rushdie, Kill Rushdie. Perhaps the most egregious case was that of the late British Muslim activist Kalim Siddiqui, who told a public meeting, I would like every Muslim to raise his hand in agreement with the death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Let the world see that every Muslim agrees that this man should be put away. Still, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to act, perhaps fearful of a poplar backlash. Polls showed almost a third of British Muslims agreed with Siddiqui and the ayatollah.

Meanwhile, British politicians failed spectacularly to understand what was at stake. The deputy leader of the Labour Party said that the paperback edition of the book should be canceled. Conservative parliamentarians groused that the price of freedom was too high, and Rushdie ultimately felt obliged to contribute 100,000 pounds to the cost of protecting his own life.

The end result of the Rushdie affair was a lost opportunity to show that British citizens must obey the law of the land. Within the Muslim community, the moderate position had been undercut and the standing of the more radical elevated. Iqbal Sacranie, who from 2002 to 2006 headed Britains biggest Muslim organization, the Muslim Council of Britain, came to prominence during the campaign against the Satanic Verses; he infamously observed that death is perhaps too easy for Rushdie.

Just how little Britons learned from the Rushdie affair was demonstrated during the 1990s as London became the gathering point for Islamic terrorists. Foreign governments complained that the British were tolerant of their presence because they thought that allowing radicals to set up shop in London would protect the city from terror attacks. Their irritation was understandable given such events as the public mock trial of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1997, which concluded in a death sentence pronounced on him in absentia. It wasnt only Middle Eastern dictatorships who were incensed by Londons laxness: It took the French 10 years to extradite a suspect wanted in connection with terror attacks in Paris. The British seemed incapable of understanding that words had meaning.

After 9/11, the British attitude to these emissaries of hate stiffened, with polls showing 93 percent support for apprehending those who aid and abet terrorists. But the reaction was too late. The poison had already spread. Polls revealed that 57 percent of British Muslims regarded the campaign against the Taliban as a war on Islam, 40 percent thought those Britons who went to fight with the Taliban were justified, and 15 percent viewed the attacks on the Twin Towers as in some way warranted.

So how, at this late date, can Britain address this problem? Confronting the countrys socioeconomic disparities is the stock answer. One in four Muslims aged 16 to 24 is unemployed, more than twice the national average, and 68 percent of those of Bangladeshi and Pakistani descent live in low-income households. Undoubtedly, improving these conditions would reduce alienation. But it is too simplistic to argue that this deprivation causes terror. The 7/7 bombers were more middle class than working classtwo of the four terrorists were university graduates. Also, the martyrdom tapes of the London bombers concentrated solely on their disagreement with British foreign policy, suggesting that they were neither motivated by domestic inequality nor viewed it as a key recruiting tool.

The terrorists case is ideological and should be countered ideologically. The British government must constantly explain why it takes the positions that it does. For instance, when Muslim leaders request Islamic law for Muslim family disputes, the request should be rejected with an explanation as to why the idea of a parallel legal system is totally alien to the British tradition. Leaders such as Sacranie who boycott Holocaust Memorial Day should not be rewarded with knighthoods. Indeed, the British state should interact with its citizens directly rather than through Islamic groups and councils often run by extremists. Parliament should show that it respects the rights of every citizen by banning forced marriage, regardless of the position of Islamic groups.

This approach will not bear instant rewards. A generation of misguided policies cannot be overturned in a day. But the current approach has failed. To respond to the threat of terrorism by appeasing Muslim critics of its foreign policy, like those who wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair demanding changes just two days after the foiled plot was announced, would be both immoral and misguided. Only by reasserting liberal values can Britain guarantee that the multiethnic, multiracial society that it has created can succeed. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, let us hope that the British do the right thing before they have exhausted every other option.