In the wake of the 7/7 London bombings (and the me-too attempt a week later), everyone expected the Muslim community in Britain to be contrite about all that had happened. Instead, the only Muslim voices hitting the headlines were those calling for more of the same.

The Sunday Times ran a long story about how it had sent its reporter, a Muslim, to investigate the activities of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed — a Syrian-born radical cleric who lived on the British dole and used Britain’s traditional tolerance to preach violence to the society around him (he has subsequently left the country). According to the report, Bakri and his followers will be satisfied with nothing less than “flying the Islamic flag over Downing Street”. Sheikh Omar Brooks was quoted saying that it was a Muslim’s duty to stay apart from the rest of society: “Never mix with them. Never let your children play with their children.” A third man reportedly said that non-believers were dispensable.

It really does not matter whether Muslims in general share this extremist attitude, for all practical purposes the fundamentalists are the only ones being heard by the rest of Britain. And it is not just the Anglo-Saxons who are listening but also the youngsters in the Muslim community. MI5, says The Independent, has told Britain’s Prime Minister Blair that there could be as many as 10,000 young Muslim men on British soil who have had some form of military training. (Sheikh Omar Brooks himself has claimed that he was trained in Pakistan.)

There was no visible backlash against the Muslim community in Britain immediately after the London blasts. Some commentators went so far as to mouth the usual politically correct spiel about how poverty and poor education were at the root of misguided youth adopting terrorism. But I am not sure how much more the British can stomach of being denounced as “kafir” by men who are living on the dole. There is still no open hostility aimed at the many Arab families who are seen frequenting the shops and restaurants of London but — make no mistake about it — there has been a change of attitude, a wariness that now extends to Muslims in general.

Some Britons are more open about their likes and dislikes. “Maybe now it’s time to start listening to the BNP,” says the headline next to a photo from the scene of the London blasts. It is a leaflet released by the British National Party for a council by-election in Barking, London. In case someone had not got the message, party leader Nick Griffin was quite explicit: “The Labour Party for years has allowed Islamic extremists to preach in mosques in Britain and use them to recruit people to their cause. It is the Labour Party that is to blame.” Griffin is already facing charges of spreading race hatred but everyone is afraid that he is simply articulating aloud what many Britons believe silently.

However, there is a crucial difference between the Nick Griffins of the world and the likes of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed. The British National Party is not conducting classes for budding terrorists, nor is it applauding the London Bombers as “the Fantastic Four”. Which leads ordinary Britons to wonder why it is Griffin who is being prosecuted by the government while the Syrian preacher could draw an allowance from the same authorities. There is no answer to that question.

Ordinary Muslims, meaning the vast mass of the community in Britain, are not helping their cause. They do not support the London bombings, they may even occasionally condemn the terrorists (though rarely by that name) themselves, but there is a always a sting in the tail. “What of Iraq?” they ask, “Aren’t there bombings and other acts of violence in that land which was once the seat of the Caliphs?”

This is a fatal rider. The Anglo-Saxons immediately respond, “Are you being ill-treated? Haven’t we allowed you to settle down in our land, to live off our bounty, and to follow your own religious practices in peace? Do you consider yourselves British citizens, or citizens of a wider Islamic community?”

Actually, that question has already been tackled by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and his followers to their own satisfaction. Al-Muhajiroun, a radical group associated with the Sheikh, went so far as to justify the London bombings. Its spokesman, Anjum Choudhury, claimed he was not surprised by the attacks since all Muslims had an obligation to support Muslims in other countries in the course of a jihad. (According to some reports, Al-Muhajiroun has been officially disbanded — only to reappear under other names.)

Is that really how all Muslims feel? If not, it is up to the Muslim community itself to clarify that Anjum Choudhury and his ilk do not speak for all Muslims. Can the Muslims of Britain condemn the London bombings unequivocally, without once mentioning the words ‘Iraq’ or ‘Palestine’? Or has the Muslim community sunk so deep into a persecution complex — convinced that it is the victim rather than the attacker — that it cannot?

A “clash of civilizations” seemed far-fetched when Huntington first advanced the thesis. The silence of the British Muslims lends substance to that apocalyptic theory.

Crime & justice