A PERUSAL of the British newspapers with regard to the intense on-going investigations shows, that three of the four bombers have been tentatively, if not definitively, identified as Muslim Britons, born and bred in Britain but whose parents were migrants from Pakistan. There is a strong suspicion that the fourth is also from an identical background.

At least two of them, 22-year old Shahzad Tanveer and 18-year old Haseeb Hussain were in Pakistan for some length of time. There are reports, based on interviews with neighbours and relatives, that both received some sort of “religious instruction” in Pakistan over the last two years and on their return became more regular in attending prayers in the local mosque.

The theory on which the investigators are working is that nothing in the background of the four alleged perpetrators suggests that they had the expertise to manufacture the bombs and that this was done by an Al Qaeda veteran who has since left the country. They also believe since they discovered a large cache of explosives in one of the houses used by the perpetrators and possibly in the car they used, that further such attacks were planned.

British politicians and police authorities have warned against stigmatizing an entire community because of the acts of a few extremists. Prime Minister Blair, whose calm and solid handling of the crisis has earned him high marks, has, even while calling for legislation to permit the deportation of extremist preachers and other measures to tighten entry rules, emphasized that “this is a small group of extremists. Not one that can be ignored, because of the danger they pose. But neither should it define Muslims in Britain who are overwhelmingly law-abiding decent members of our society.”

The Muslim community leaders in the UK have not allowed any repetitions of the “mistakes” made after 9/11 when some Muslim groups had welcomed the terror attacks on the US. Community leaders, MPs among them, have called for recognition that while in the short term the Muslim community unequivocally condemned these acts, “some of the solutions need to come from the Muslim community, but they cannot all come from it. I don’t think a community 30, 40 or 50 years old here has the skills or resources or infrastructure to deal with these things on their own. There is a role for government...”

So far there has been no widespread assault on Muslims. There is however widespread support for strengthening the powers the government and police have to prevent further attacks. According to a The Times survey, nearly nine out of ten favoured giving the police new powers to arrest people they suspect of planning terrorist acts (86 per cent), tighter controls on who comes into the country (88 per cent) and security check and baggage inspections at stations (89 per cent). More than twothirds of the people (70 per cent) backed an increase in police powers to stop and search people on the streets, while threefifths (61 per cent) said that they supported the introduction of ID cards. If the legislators respond, there will be a profound change in the British way of life. It will impact the Muslim community in the UK but will also affect appreciably the individual freedoms that the British have so jealously guarded in the past.

Let me turn now to the impact on Pakistan. On a social occasion last night, one friend remarked, half facetiously that one immediate effect will be a further increase in real estate prices in Pakistan’s major cities when migrants fearing an increase in discrimination decide to return to their country of origin. Our foreign exchange reserves may also go up when some of them decide to transfer part or all of their assets to Pakistan. In keeping with our past tradition of shortsightedness, he said, we will welcome this without taking into account the damage the removal of these Pakistani expatriates will do to our relations with the UK and the EU. He was right but this is only part of what will happen.

There are newspaper reports that the UK authorities have sought information from Pakistan presumably about the two bombers who spent time in this country. Independently, the British will launch their own investigation in Pakistan and they, with their western partners, have the resources to do so. Our minister of the interior has claimed that just before the UK parliamentary election earlier this year, the Pakistani authorities learnt of a plot to carry out terrorist attacks in London and the transmission of information on this account to the British helped them thwart the plot. This may well be true but what will happen when inquiries are started into where Shahzad Tanveer and Haseeb Hussain received religious training in Pakistan? Will it show that, contrary to our assertions, training camps exist where a generous dose of training in terrorist activity accompanies indoctrination in a distorted version of Islam?

Let us recall in this context that an American of Pakistani origin and his son were indicted last month in California for having lied about the son’s participation in terrorist training at camps in Pakistan. The charge says that the son, Hamid Hayat, admitted attending an Al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004 and that while being trained in the use of weapons, photos of President Bush and other American political figures were pasted onto targets, the affidavit said. At the end of the training, he allegedly said, participants were given the opportunity to choose the country in which their attacks would be carried out and that he chose the United States.

This charge, like many others launched in the United States against Muslims since 9/11, may fizzle out and there may be some justification for Pakistani authorities trashing the allegation that the training camp in question was located in Tarnol, in close vicinity of the Army’s GHQ in Rawalpindi but there is no doubt that the Americans are pursuing the case.

Let us also recall the article in a local magazine which asserts that all major militant organizations, including the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Al-Badr Mujahideen and the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, had begun regrouping and renovating their “training facilities” in Mansehra, North-West Frontier Province, and that “enquiries reveal that at least 13 major camps in the Mansehra region were revived during the first week of May”.

In fairness to our authorities, an explanation of sorts for the reopening of these camps has been offered. A BBC story by its correspondent in Karachi, filed on July 7, and clearly based on briefings by senior security officials, says that the Pakistan authorities have apparently launched a high-risk strategy to flush out the leaders of the Al Qaeda and this involves releasing leaders of extremist organizations and allowing them on to reestablish their training camps in the hope that they will then lead them to the leaders who currently remain in hiding and are untraceable.

According to the story, the authorities recognize that this carries a high risk of prompting new terrorist attacks in Pakistan and renewed violence in Kashmir but believe that this is a small price to pay if it leads to the arrest of the “world’s most wanted man”

Whatever one may think of this plan — incredible, implausible and idiotic are words that come to mind-readily — let us also recall that the French interior minister told reporters he had been told by the British home Secretary that some of the alleged perpetrators of the London outrage had been arrested earlier but released in the hope that they would lead them to the master-minds.

If it is established, as one fears it will be, that Shahzad Tanveer and Haseeb Hussain did attend training camps in Pakistan, then the consequences will be as grim as President Musharraf fears. It should perhaps be the catalyst which will help him convince the naysayers among his advisers and associates that the game of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds is no longer an option. Nobody will believe us when our foreign office spokesman dismisses as wrong Mr Natwar Singh’s charge that he is prepared to provide photographs of training camps and asserts that this was harking back to the “legacy of the past”.

What we need to do is obvious. The admirable economic policy — pragmatic and sensitive to the realities of the market — must now be duplicated in the formulation of foreign and domestic security policy. The peace process with India must not be jeopardized by any actions on our part and political and other moves must be employed to make India more responsive. We must do what is necessary in Balochistan, in addition to deploying 4,000 more troops in Waziristan, support President Karzai’s bid to hold peaceful parliamentary elections in September. We must not allow our allegiance to the war on terror to be called into question.

On the domestic front, we must abandon the strategy of allowing extremist organizations to reestablish training camps as a stratagem for capturing Osama bin Laden. We must act on the Hasba bill in the Frontier exactly as the governor, NWFP, has promised to do. Like the Muslim community in the UK, we must recognize the dangers posed by the imparting of education of low quality and of a nature that incites religious hatred and proceed with the reforms of the Madressahs as we were told we had intended to do. We must create the level playing field in which the mainstream political parties can compete against the religious parties in the theoretically party-less local elections.

A last word as a Karachiite. Today Karachi is a city torn apart by the strife that the jihadists have brought to the country as a whole but particularly to this city. Surely, no matter what the dreams entertained by our intellectually ill-equipped strategists up North, they must realize that if we don’t abandon the “mug’s game” we are currently engaged in, this city — and consequently the country — will collapse around us. The warning signs are all there. It is for us to recognize them and, more importantly, to act accordingly.

THE character of a person consists of all the qualities that make him distinct and reflect his nature. Character is also reflection of truth. All over the world the Muslims feel angry at the misconceived notions of the West about them and Islam. On the other hand, among the Muslims emphasis is laid on rituals and not on the true message of the Quran, which places man and his character on a higher level of life.

When Islam is judged in the light of character, attitude and behaviour of Muslims, the net result is abysmally low and discouraging. The outward signs of a weak character are commonly believed to be corruption, injustice and exploitation, but they do not reflect the true nature of and significance of the term. Ultimately a man’s character is judged in terms of his moral behaviour which for a Muslim must be based on permanent values of the Quran.

Moral action is generally considered to be an action freely performed for the sake of an unconditionally and universally binding law. This law should be such that we can sensibly, reasonably and conscientiously recognize. Preservation of life is an animal instinct, but the preservation of honour is not. It is unknown in the animal world; it is a specific human value and elevates the character and level of life of a human being.

Honour as an important ingredient of character signifies a number of things like chastity, good reputation and respect. Its standard varies from society to society. For example in an island on the Pacific there is a tribe with whom dishonesty is the best conduct and the cleverest cheat is held in the highest esteem. Another example is that of nationalism which is recognized the world over as a political and social creed and those who serve their nation by exploiting other nations are regarded as patriots. On the contrary thee Quran says that human values are the same everywhere and unchangeable.

It is the Divine revelation that gives abiding universal values and provides a universal standard of character called ‘Taqwa’. According to Hastings Rashdall, That there is one standard set of values which is the same for rational beings is just what morality means’ (Theory of good and evil). A true Muslim adheres to the truth in all circumstances.

The Quran says, “O you believers be the securers of justice. If you are summoned as a witness for God regardless of your relationship with the parties, whether your evidence goes against yourself or your parents and kinsmen and whether the party affected is rich or poor, God’s law is the best protector. Let not caprice, personal gain, relationship or regard for riches swerve you from the path of justice” (4:135).

A lot of hue and cry was rightly raised over the desecration of the Holy Quran by Americans at Guantanamo Bay camp. It is, however, a pity that nobody thinks about the actual disregard in letter and spirit of the Holy Book that goes on everyday in all walks of life. For example our courts are full of witnesses willing to lie under oath. A struggle between material gains and Islamic values confronts Muslims at almost every turn in day-to-day life and the test of their character lies in the kind of choice they make. How can a society, which ignores Divine Laws of justice, survive? This is an important question. Is it possible to sacrifice self-interest? Definitely a man will preserve human values if there is a reasonable prospect of greater gain.

A hungry man will eat anything he can get hold of even if it is dirty; but the moment someone tells him that it contains poison he will throw away the food. He would prefer the pangs of hunger rather than risk his life. In our everyday life if we realize that ill-gotten wealth is a deadly poison in the divine Universal system, we will avoid it.

Majority of the western and far eastern countries are progressing because they have moulded their lives in accordance with this universal law. Man is free to observe and accept or reject the dictates of the Quran; but once he makes the choice, he cannot change the consequences. According to the Quran there are two concepts of life. One concept is that man is only an animal and lives and dies as any other living being. This concept completely excludes human values.

On the other hand man is a social being who preserves his physical self and also enhances his character by obeying the Divine commands. Man’s inescapable desire is to live a life of eternity. Satan took advantage of this weakness and affectionately offered immortality and power through his (man’s) progeny generation after generation. This weakness in man’s character is evident all over the world, especially in Muslim countries.

Character also depends upon how a person develops his insight to differentiate between immediate and long lasting gain. Allama Iqbal draws a distinction between two phases of intellect. When it cares only for the satisfaction of physical urges, he calls it ‘Aql-e-Khud Been’ (Self seeking intellect) and when it cares for the satisfaction of the urges of both body and character he calls it “Aql-e-Jehan Been” (All seeing intellect) Thus anything done under the influence of ‘self-seeing’ intellect would be an act of wisdom; but what is done in pursuance of the ‘all-seeing’ intellect would be wisdom cum character. A human being through improvement in his character and attitude has the potentiality of reaching a state higher than the angels; but at the same time he also possesses the power to deny God. It is up to him to choose the right path or reject it. Everything is situated on a particular level of existence; only man can stop being man. He can ascend above all degrees of universal existence and by the same token fall below the level of the basest of creatures.

According to H. Nasr ‘Man is presented with the unique opportunity by being born in the human state and it is a tragedy for him to fret away and waste his life in pursuits which distract him from the essential goal of his life’ (Islam, the Last religion).

Islam stresses achievement. This achievement is a life-long pursuit of knowledge through which he improves his character and delivers to other human beings what he has received from the Almighty. With regard to the permanent values of life, Hastings Rashdall (The theory of good and evil) says that the universe has been created with the purpose of helping humans in all positive matters and the acts of man in this context proceed from and express the nature of his character.

Man’s present actions affect his future. If he sees nothing beyond present life, he will consider Islamic values of no importance. If he believes that character comes to an end with the last breath of life, why should he worry about improving his character? Only those who believe in God and an absolute moral law can develop their character and benefit the whole humanity. The Quran says that faith and character are inseparable, that is why the words ‘Amelu as salehat’ (Do good deeds) are always preceded by ‘Al lazeena amanu’ (Those who have faith).

The Quran also makes the state responsible to see that every citizen is provided with the basic needs of life and the means for the development and realization of every citizen’s capabilities. Weaknesses of character arising directly from want and poverty are thus eliminated. As opposed to communism, there is no regimentation is Islam; conviction is brought home rationally through education and knowledge. The concept of blind faith is alien to Islam.

The laws of nature apply to all irrespective of their faith and belief. The everlasting value of a man’s actions depends upon the faith he has in the Law of Retribution and the Day of Judgment. At times we have also seen that secular societies exploited by religious bigots, take refuge in the mystical approach, which by itself aims at annihilation and not integration of self. It claims purification of self or spiritual advancement through various practices performed in seclusion with no incentive for man to work for a social order. It discards society, relations and desires.

Iqbal calls it “an alien plant in the land of Islam” True character is reflected when man interacts with man. For this Islam gives utmost importance to society and social life. Even the affairs of the state have to be decided on the basis of consultation with men of character. The application of Quranic principles does not deprive one of the physical gains. In a social order constituted on the basis of these principles, an individual has physical gains along with the means of developing his character. The Quran says. ‘Our Nourisher give us good in this world and in the hereafter’ (2:201).

A balanced character is beauty in proportion which practically shows a positive aspect of life, masters nature through education, knowledge and wisdom; establishes justice, rejects sectarianism and fights religious and racial prejudices and attains his destiny by following the straight path (Sirat-e-Mustaqeem). These in essence are some of the shining facets of a developed self that shape a character and can bring back the respect which Muslims have lost.

WILL the London attack turn out to be Britain’s Madrid in political outcome too? National leaders, as George Bush acutely appreciated after 9/11, usually enjoy a no-lose situation when their own schemes stir up horrors at home. The Spanish people, rightly linking the Madrid attack to deceitful authorities who needlessly followed Bush into an unpopular war, dumped their government soon after.

The electoral result shocked cynical pundits who expected fearful citizens to rally around the very leaders who endangered them because, after all, who else can protect them? That excruciating bind usually works beautifully to keep fools in office, but it did not in Spain. Tony Blair and, more distantly, George W. Bush may well wonder if the world, as they know it, is going mad and if they are going to become political casualties, instead of beneficiaries, of the ‘war on terrorism.’

Britain, of course, just conducted an election whose most important aspect, ironically, will be how it ultimately shakes up the US. Tony Blair hung on to his precarious premiership despite a Labour majority shrinking by nearly a hundred seats (and overall vote falling to 36 per cent). The American mainstream media now are doggedly doing their best not to notice a ‘smoking gun’ put in plain sight during the UK election. Blair suffered a leak of a July 2002 government memo (‘minutes’ is the technical term) exposing both the mendacity of Bush and the pushover pliability of Blair as to a pre-determined assault on Iraq.

A protective US media dutifully filters out bad news about Bush (a CNN co-founder cheerfully endorsed “the right of the Pentagon to lie” but only “when it is in the country’s best interest to lie,” which only the Pentagon is fit to determine) but cannot contain spreading news of the scandalous British memo.

By spring, polls found six of 10 Americans “favour bringing most troops home within a year” because the war in Iraq was a bad idea. Last month, startlingly, a Zogby poll found that 42 per cent believed Bush should be impeached if it is proved that he misled the US into war. Bush’s approval ratings are in the low forties and sinking this summer.

Even an obsequious media can read these statistical tea leaves about Bush’s popularity and therefore become a bit bolder and even occasionally critical. Some US media outlets even allowed Americans last month to be treated to the sight of maverick British MP George Galloway telling a Senate committee the bitter truth about Iraq lies. Galloway also was the first parliamentary voice to connect the London bombs to misconceived British policies.

Galloway was elected in an East End London constituency on the Respect ticket, which includes in its coalition the Muslim Association of Britain and the Socialist Labour Party. Most British-born Bangladeshis, a majority in this area, supported Galloway while another Respect candidate, Lindsey German, came in second in a neighbouring, mostly Muslim, constituency. Galloway overturned a 10,000 vote Labour majority, and the result underlined the breakaway of young Muslims from the staid voting patterns of their elders. A housing squeeze, unemployment and Iraq atrocities all figured in this radical turn.

One boon is that this shift to left-leaning parties staves off any appeal that fundamentalists might otherwise exert. The East End boasts a long tradition of immigrant ethnic groups favouring progressive politics, stretching back to Jewish refugees from Europe who settled there and fought Oswald Mosley’s local fascists. In 2005, young Bangladeshis showed that they will not be dominated by authorities in the mosques.

Overall, anti-war activists could hardly ask for a better result, calibrated to repudiate a Blairist love for markets and for tagging along with Bush while placing “old Labour” leftists in a strong bargaining position inside government. Blair consequently is unlikely to stay in office beyond 2006, and the bombings appear only to have assured his departure.

Blair’s falsehoods came unerringly home to roost. On March 13, Blair was asked about a leaked memo written by adviser David Manning in March 2002 wherein Manning assured anxious Yanks that “you would not budge in your support for regime change.” Blair denied he said it. Manning’s memo, however, says: “(to Condoleezza Rice) that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament, and a public opinion that was very different (from) anything in the States.” In other words, the British public, like America’s, could be manipulated, but required a different and slightly more sophisticated style of deceit.

That event was bad enough for Blair. But no leak surpasses that of the minutes taken by a national security aide to Blair in July 2002 revealing Bush as set on invading Iraq. The “Downing Street memo,’ as it is called, found Bush “wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” It was obvious that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy (and it) seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” (US and UK air strikes on Iraq doubled in late 2002 and early 2003 to provoke Saddam.)

This memo confirms what counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke and former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill attested earlier about unscrupulous White House fanaticism. Internet news sources, maverick columnists and a left-liberal radio station have kept the story alive.

Over 100 US Representatives and nine Senators have lined up so far to publicize the memo and to demand an explanation. A massive demonstration is planned for September 26 in Washington DC to demand Congress investigate the Downing Street memo and its implications. Even the Washington Post reluctantly turned up the heat by reporting that National Security Council staff in the run-up to war were busy trawling for any shred of evidence that Saddam might possess WMD because the staff knew their case was feeble.

Yet, deep down, we suspect the reason most editors initially yawned at the British memo is because of boredom over another example of the devious ways that policy really works. Apparently, spilling blood and wasting billions is less reprehensible than staining Monica Lewinsky’s dress. Deceit is a government tradition. Recall the memo the Reagan administration concocted in 1981 to implicate little Nicaragua as a dire communist threat, although it was debunked. But let’s skip over many intervening episodes of wretched lies to the grisliest intervention of all: Vietnam.

In 1965, US scholar Hans Morgenthau, a classic hard-headed realist, tore apart a US official report entitled: Aggression from the North: The Record of North Vietnam’s Campaign to conquer the South. Morgenthau retorted: ‘while normally foreign and military policy is based on intelligence — that is, the objective assessment of facts — the process here is reversed: a new policy has been decided upon, and the intelligence must provide the facts to justify it.”

A civil war in the south was redefined by US elites as a war of “foreign aggression.” The goal was “to pour in forces and munitions and prop up the corrupt South Vietnam state.” It was the “white paper’s purpose to present that proof,” despite a “grotesque” discrepancy between facts and assertions. Morgenthau lamented that “the document showed a tendency to conduct foreign and military policy not on their merits, but as exercises in public relations.

The government fashions an imaginary work that pleases it, and then comes to believe in the reality of that world and acts as though it were real.” Last year in the New York Times a Bush official was quoted as mocking people who live in a ‘reality-based’ world whereas the Bush people create their own higher reality and impose it on everyone else. Iraq, of course, is the nemesis.

Here we go again with Bush touting ‘freedom’ (for entrepreneurs, and no one else), depicting insurgents as all Saddam loyalists, and ignoring the misdeeds, to say the least, of a colonial US military force (as 14 permanent bases are built to protect American control of oil) who routinely ‘regret any inconvenience’ they cause. Yet “the facts are what they are,” Morgenthau warned, “and they take a terrible vengeance on those who disregard them.” The London attack is, we fear, a tiny part of the price. For Morgenthau the only sensible answer to this grim entanglement was to withdraw. Eventually the US did. The US (and the UK) will again. But after what toll is exacted?