The anti-terrorism stance of British Muslims seems to be a bit shaky.
First of all the meeting of Muslim scholars and leaders which took place in London on Friday condemned suicide bombings but, according to the New York Times, the assembled experts on Islam, refused to condemn such attacks in Israel. So in Islam there is justification for carrying out suicide attacks. Strangely enough the BBC and ITV didn't cover this aspect of the press conference.
''There should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime,'' said Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London.
All the leaders at the news conference appeared to agree with Musawi.
Aren't the victims of the suicide attacks in Israel predominantly on civilians? This also raises the question- if this is what the imams and scholars are saying- that they will not condemn attacks in Iraq and Israel, presumably because there is justification for them- then what exactly is the majority view of Muslims in Britain? Is terrorism okay so long as it's in another country?
Then we have this report from the uncle of one of the bombers saying-
"This lad has made a name for himself in the world. Muslims call it a sacrifice, the Europeans call him a terrorist."
Tanweer's uncle laid the blame for the rush-hour attacks on London's transport network at the feet of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush, warning, "There will be more".
Citing US policy in Iraq and the Middle East, as well as its treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba, Ahmed told the paper that Western disregard for the rights of Muslims was driving young men to violence.
So, nothing to do with Islamic jihad then, it was all down to Bush and Blair?