Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO05047 | The London Bombings: Fundamental Change in Fundamentalist Times
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO05047 | The London Bombings: Fundamental Change in Fundamentalist Times
    Norman Vasu

    28 July 2005

    download pdf

    Commentary

    IN the investigations of the bombings that took place in London on 7 July 2005, it has been revealed that all four suspects who perpetrated the bombings were young British men and not Al Qaeda operatives from abroad. Following this revelation, the headlines of the British tabloids captured the zeitgeist. The Daily Mail ran the headline ‘Suicide bombers from Suburbia’ and asked how “these utterly British streets produced such twisted young men who hated this country so much”. The Sun ran a headline along a similar vein, with the front page declaring ‘The Brit Bombers’ and describing as “truly shocking” that the “backpack butchers” were young Britons.

    In the wake of the attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Parliament “security measures alone are not going to deal with this”. He suggested that extreme ideology found within segments of the Muslim community can only be defeated by the community itself. To achieve this, he appealed to the moderate voice of Islam to drown out extremist voices.

    When faced with this threat, the usual responses have been proffered. Calls have been made for the British government not to neglect the need to better integrate British Muslims into mainstream British society in order to avert defections to the fanatical jihadi camp. The argument goes that many British Muslims have become alienated in, and disenchanted with, British society due to the Blair government’s participation as a key player in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, these embittered British Muslims have turned to the teachings of the more radical imams (Muslim preachers) spouting their doctrine. The touted solution to this scenario is one which argues for these largely foreign radical imams to be kept out of Britain and more local moderate imams to be cultivated from within the British Muslim community.

    While keeping radical imams out of Britain may go some way to protecting impressionable individuals from the fundamentalist logic, the question surrounding why the diatribe espoused by the jihadis has an appeal remains unanswered. It is not over-reaching to suggest that these individuals are not automatons that will follow the teachings of anybody willy- nilly. If the four bombers are our guide, these individuals are well-educated and well- informed with what they see as a justifiable gripe against both the British state and what they understand as the ‘West’. Consequently, it could be argued that the terrorism committed by these men suggests a failure of mainstream institutions in Britain to represent their grievances. The issue is not that they have been led astray but that they may have been led astray because their views have few legitimate mainstream outlets of expression. These youths may not have enough willing voices within the leaders of their community to act as an outlet for their displeasure and, as such, turn to the next available alternative source found in the jihadi camp.

    British Muslims and the Attitudinal Gap

    British Muslims number roughly 1.6 million and constitute about 2.9 percent of the total population. The community is however far from monolithic. Besides the differences in economic background within the community, there is a clear attitudinal gap between different generations. In trying to understand the attitudinal gap, there may be utility in the work of Marcus Lee Hansen and what has become known as the “Hansen third generation return” hypothesis.

    Hansen was concerned with the attitudes of immigrants to the culture of their new country. More specifically, he was concerned with the question as to whether there is a reversal of the assimilative process as one proceeds from one generation of immigrants to another. Through his research, Hansen found distinct differences between each generation. First-generation immigrants tended to maintain the values of their cultural traditions and did not intermingle with the larger society to a significant degree. The second generation assimilated to a greater extent and correspondingly did not give much attention to the cultural values of their country of origin. However, according to Hansen, there is a return to an appreciation of traditional values in the third generation.

    The attitude of British Muslims seems by and large to be in keeping with Hansen’s hypothesis. Unlike the previous generation of Muslims who had a predilection to keep their heads down, coupled with an attempt to assimilate into British society, the current generation are unafraid to communicate their dissenting views while also being awakened to their ethnic/cultural roots. As expressed in the British newspaper the Guardian, the new generation of British Muslims do not possess the “don’t-rock-the-boat attitude” of their forefathers. They feel moderate leaders of their community have failed to represent their indignation and anger over the British government’s participation in the war on terror owing to the don’t-rock-the- boat mentality of old. As such, with few leaders acting as sounding boards for their concerns, some feel disconnected from mainstream society and have turned to the teachings and politics of fundamentalist Islam as their agitation “can be contained no more”.

    Responsibilities of British Muslims and British Non-Muslims

    Faced with a need to absorb dissenting British Muslim views into the mainstream, change will have to come from both Muslims and non-Muslims in British society.

    The non-Muslim community must understand that critical views expressed by the Muslim community are not indicative of their desire to either overturn British society or a rejection of British values. If Hansen is correct with his third generation return hypothesis, the reawakening of British Muslims to their roots as well as their willingness to express dissent should be viewed as a natural process to be absorbed into the British national fabric. Thus, paradoxically, in order to remove the powder from the keg, the British government may have to encourage greater dissent from the Muslim community. The government will have to offer these alienated voices the opportunity for the grievances to be heard. It has to engage with these discussions rather than sweep them under the carpet. It is only by doing so that unhappy alienated elements of the community can be persuaded back into the mainstream where differences are resolved via discussion rather than bombs.

    Statements such as the one made by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick points towards the mindset that has to be present when engaging with the Muslim community. After the bombs, he maintained: “As far as I’m concerned Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together.” In addition, one could even go further and maintain that “dissenting Muslim views” and “anti-British” are two concepts that have no truck with each other.

    What about the British Muslims? The Muslim community has been correct in strongly condemning the actions of the suicide bombers. The fatwa (religious decree) issued by more than 500 British Muslim leaders and scholars expressed condolences to the victims of the atrocity and condemned the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives while reiterating that suicide bombings are “vehemently prohibited”. This fatwa is praiseworthy. Furthermore, marches to be organised by the Muslim Council of Britain in order to demonstrate revulsion at the bombings are timely. These actions go far in assuring non- Muslims that these extremists do not represent the views of the community.

    Besides these actions, the Muslim community needs to go through some form of introspection. Muslim leaders must realise they need not walk on eggshells fearful of offending. They should be confident enough of their firm position in British society to express dissenting views freely. They must also realise their community is undergoing a transformation and their role as leaders will have to transform along with it. By not rocking the boat and by failing to fully represent and address all views within their community, they may be doing more of a disservice than a service to the British Muslim cause.

    About the Author

    Norman Vasu is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University; he studied in the UK for 10 years and has a PhD in International Politics from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Conflict and Stability / Religion in Contemporary Society / Europe / Global

    Commentary

    IN the investigations of the bombings that took place in London on 7 July 2005, it has been revealed that all four suspects who perpetrated the bombings were young British men and not Al Qaeda operatives from abroad. Following this revelation, the headlines of the British tabloids captured the zeitgeist. The Daily Mail ran the headline ‘Suicide bombers from Suburbia’ and asked how “these utterly British streets produced such twisted young men who hated this country so much”. The Sun ran a headline along a similar vein, with the front page declaring ‘The Brit Bombers’ and describing as “truly shocking” that the “backpack butchers” were young Britons.

    In the wake of the attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Parliament “security measures alone are not going to deal with this”. He suggested that extreme ideology found within segments of the Muslim community can only be defeated by the community itself. To achieve this, he appealed to the moderate voice of Islam to drown out extremist voices.

    When faced with this threat, the usual responses have been proffered. Calls have been made for the British government not to neglect the need to better integrate British Muslims into mainstream British society in order to avert defections to the fanatical jihadi camp. The argument goes that many British Muslims have become alienated in, and disenchanted with, British society due to the Blair government’s participation as a key player in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, these embittered British Muslims have turned to the teachings of the more radical imams (Muslim preachers) spouting their doctrine. The touted solution to this scenario is one which argues for these largely foreign radical imams to be kept out of Britain and more local moderate imams to be cultivated from within the British Muslim community.

    While keeping radical imams out of Britain may go some way to protecting impressionable individuals from the fundamentalist logic, the question surrounding why the diatribe espoused by the jihadis has an appeal remains unanswered. It is not over-reaching to suggest that these individuals are not automatons that will follow the teachings of anybody willy- nilly. If the four bombers are our guide, these individuals are well-educated and well- informed with what they see as a justifiable gripe against both the British state and what they understand as the ‘West’. Consequently, it could be argued that the terrorism committed by these men suggests a failure of mainstream institutions in Britain to represent their grievances. The issue is not that they have been led astray but that they may have been led astray because their views have few legitimate mainstream outlets of expression. These youths may not have enough willing voices within the leaders of their community to act as an outlet for their displeasure and, as such, turn to the next available alternative source found in the jihadi camp.

    British Muslims and the Attitudinal Gap

    British Muslims number roughly 1.6 million and constitute about 2.9 percent of the total population. The community is however far from monolithic. Besides the differences in economic background within the community, there is a clear attitudinal gap between different generations. In trying to understand the attitudinal gap, there may be utility in the work of Marcus Lee Hansen and what has become known as the “Hansen third generation return” hypothesis.

    Hansen was concerned with the attitudes of immigrants to the culture of their new country. More specifically, he was concerned with the question as to whether there is a reversal of the assimilative process as one proceeds from one generation of immigrants to another. Through his research, Hansen found distinct differences between each generation. First-generation immigrants tended to maintain the values of their cultural traditions and did not intermingle with the larger society to a significant degree. The second generation assimilated to a greater extent and correspondingly did not give much attention to the cultural values of their country of origin. However, according to Hansen, there is a return to an appreciation of traditional values in the third generation.

    The attitude of British Muslims seems by and large to be in keeping with Hansen’s hypothesis. Unlike the previous generation of Muslims who had a predilection to keep their heads down, coupled with an attempt to assimilate into British society, the current generation are unafraid to communicate their dissenting views while also being awakened to their ethnic/cultural roots. As expressed in the British newspaper the Guardian, the new generation of British Muslims do not possess the “don’t-rock-the-boat attitude” of their forefathers. They feel moderate leaders of their community have failed to represent their indignation and anger over the British government’s participation in the war on terror owing to the don’t-rock-the- boat mentality of old. As such, with few leaders acting as sounding boards for their concerns, some feel disconnected from mainstream society and have turned to the teachings and politics of fundamentalist Islam as their agitation “can be contained no more”.

    Responsibilities of British Muslims and British Non-Muslims

    Faced with a need to absorb dissenting British Muslim views into the mainstream, change will have to come from both Muslims and non-Muslims in British society.

    The non-Muslim community must understand that critical views expressed by the Muslim community are not indicative of their desire to either overturn British society or a rejection of British values. If Hansen is correct with his third generation return hypothesis, the reawakening of British Muslims to their roots as well as their willingness to express dissent should be viewed as a natural process to be absorbed into the British national fabric. Thus, paradoxically, in order to remove the powder from the keg, the British government may have to encourage greater dissent from the Muslim community. The government will have to offer these alienated voices the opportunity for the grievances to be heard. It has to engage with these discussions rather than sweep them under the carpet. It is only by doing so that unhappy alienated elements of the community can be persuaded back into the mainstream where differences are resolved via discussion rather than bombs.

    Statements such as the one made by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick points towards the mindset that has to be present when engaging with the Muslim community. After the bombs, he maintained: “As far as I’m concerned Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together.” In addition, one could even go further and maintain that “dissenting Muslim views” and “anti-British” are two concepts that have no truck with each other.

    What about the British Muslims? The Muslim community has been correct in strongly condemning the actions of the suicide bombers. The fatwa (religious decree) issued by more than 500 British Muslim leaders and scholars expressed condolences to the victims of the atrocity and condemned the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives while reiterating that suicide bombings are “vehemently prohibited”. This fatwa is praiseworthy. Furthermore, marches to be organised by the Muslim Council of Britain in order to demonstrate revulsion at the bombings are timely. These actions go far in assuring non- Muslims that these extremists do not represent the views of the community.

    Besides these actions, the Muslim community needs to go through some form of introspection. Muslim leaders must realise they need not walk on eggshells fearful of offending. They should be confident enough of their firm position in British society to express dissenting views freely. They must also realise their community is undergoing a transformation and their role as leaders will have to transform along with it. By not rocking the boat and by failing to fully represent and address all views within their community, they may be doing more of a disservice than a service to the British Muslim cause.

    About the Author

    Norman Vasu is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University; he studied in the UK for 10 years and has a PhD in International Politics from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Conflict and Stability / Religion in Contemporary Society

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info