Why Margaret Thatcher Loved Islamists

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (www.al-akhbar.com).

Al-Akhbar Management

Bearer Party from the three military services carry a coffin up the steps of St Paul's Cathedral during a rehearsal for the ceremonial funeral of former British Prime Margaret Thatcher in Central London on 15 April 2013. (Photo: AFP -Carl Court)

By: Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Published Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Upon Margaret Thatcher’s death, her champions naturally eulogized her as a fighter for liberal democracy in Eastern Europe, while her detractors brought attention to the fact that she was highly supportive of dictators in countries of the Global South like Pakistan, Chile, and Indonesia.

Overlooked in both portrayals is her support of political Islamism and, by extension, jihadis. In December 1979, Thatcher advocated political Islam as a counterweight to left-wing or communist ideologies, which she derogatively dubbed “imported Marxism.” As cited in Mark Curtis’ Secret Affairs, Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, she said:

I do not believe that we should judge Islam by events in Iran…There is a tide of self-confidence and self-awareness in the Muslim world which preceded the Iranian revolution, and will outlast its present excesses. The West should recognize this with respect, not hostility. The Middle East is an area where we all have much at stake. It is in our own interests, as well as in the interests of the people of that region, that they build on their own deep religious traditions…

Thatcher’s statement that “our interests” and “the interests of the people of the region” are one and the same is rooted in a particular type of British imperialist strategy that was articulated by Frederick Lugard.

An imperial officer in northern Nigeria in the 19th century, Lugard managed the local emirs on the grounds that they “were allowed to retain the trappings of power so long they accepted the advice of their new overlords,” according to Dane Kennedy’s Britain and Empire.

There was nothing new about this puppet-overlord relationship in the history of British imperialism, but Lugard added a new dimension to this relationship. He framed the Empire’s relationship with its subjects “in terms of the preservation” of their way of life. Hence, Thatcher’s notion that the “Muslim world” should “build on their own religious traditions.”

Professor John Callaghan further argued in The Labour Party and Foreign Policy that if there were no indigenous structures for the British Empire to partner with, then it would consolidate its exploitation and also “retard the rate of social and political progress.”

When the Empire began to consolidate its lordship over the Arab world after WWI, it partnered with Saudi Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood. The trends that these movements represented were not so much “invented” by the British but favored and promoted.

Before the British allowed the Wahhabis to establish themselves in Riyadh in 1901, they were an isolated, exiled cult in the Basra region known as “Kuwait.” With further support from the Empire, the Wahhabis expanded into the western part of the Arabian peninsula in 1924 and 1925.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928. In Richard P. Mitchell’s seminal book on the Brotherhood, The Society of the Muslim Brothers, the American academic states that a British operative, seemingly from the British embassy, James Heyworth-Dunne, was “a participant in some of the history of the movement and his work must be considered a primary source.” The work in question is Heyworth-Dunne’s Religious and Political Trends In Modern Egypt.

Heyworth-Dunne wrote that the challenges faced by the Empire in Egypt in the 1920s and 30s were twofold. First, US president Woodrow Wilson’s “declaration of self-determination inspired the Egyptians to higher ideals.” Second, there were the “communistic ideas” to be dealt with.

To offset these two challenges, Heyworth-Dunne advocated the Islam as “taught and represented by Hasan al-Banna,” the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than the traditional Islam as practiced by the oldest university in the Islamic world, al-Azhar, for which he had nothing but disdain.

The British Empire had an overprotective attitude toward Islam. It heroically and selflessly defended Islam, even if al-Azhar, the traditional bastion of Islamic learning in the world, didn’t comprehend this urgency.

By the time these two major trends of Islamism strategically coalesced in the 1950s to meet the challenge of third world independence and socialism, the Americans had embraced the British Empire’s imperialist strategy.

This embrace meant bringing British puppets, such as the Saud clan of Saudi Arabia and the Thani clan of Qatar, under its protective umbrella. This American appropriation of the puppets had initially gained doctrinal credibility through the Eisenhower doctrine and extended all the way until the 1980s to support the Islamist mercenaries, or mujahideen, against the Soviets in the 1980s.

It is for this reason that Thatcher declared that these mujahideen were engaged in “one of the most heroic resistance struggles known to history,” as cited in Sandy Gall’s Afghanistan, Agony of a Nation.

For the UK, the policy of employing Islamists to further its interests is rooted in an imperialist existential strategy, whereas for the US, utilizing Islamists commenced in the 1950s during the Cold War. This is the reason why there is currently a mild schism between the US and the UK with regard to supporting the Islamist “rebels” in Syria. With the Cold War over, the obstacle currently facing the UK is convincing the US to remain enlisted in a pro-Islamist strategy in Syria.

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a UK based freelance Yemeni-English writer specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World. My focus is on how the United Kingdom has historically maintained its interests in the Middle East. A full collection of my essays can be accessed at www.yamyam-yemeni.net.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar's editorial policy.

Want to publish a (thoughtful) response to one of our opinion pieces? Send your contribution to our Submissions editor.

Comments

In Central Europe, not Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is Russia. Central Europe is Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic

Writing history, if you ask me, is largely a political matter: overcoming the "party line" mythology. As such, you know good historical writing when you see it, in that it makes more sense of the events of the day than the official mythology.
I see it in this essay.
If the first thing that strikes the eye in the modern middle east is the racist regime of the Jewish state in Palestine, the second is the tolerance of that outrage by the full range of Arab regimes. You have to get to Iran before you hear credible criticism.
And what do you see if you travel to these Arab states? I can only speak about Iraq and Qatar, and then about my further vicarious visits to Qatar via Al Jazeera, but there is a very strong and very sickly relationship to "Mother England". If there were to be two words to summarize globalism in the region, if it is accepted that globalism entails the "rule of law", they would be "perfidious Albion". Until England (and the US and Canada) come to terms with the existential weight, indeed, vacuum, of its legal tradition, the absurdity of the Jewish state in Palestine, and the chorus of Arab regimes that nod dumbly at that absurdity will continue on. Like reruns of John Cleese comedy shows. But this absurdity is only in the legal sphere. In the sphere of "facts on the ground", we are, to switch to the Russian paradigm, in the post-tsarist period. What we see is the formation of provisional indigenous government. That supplies, by the way, a theme for understanding Russia. Tsars were Europe's attempt to conquer Russia and hence Asia culturally, just as the Jewish state in Palestine and the various pseudo-English arbitrary states around it are European cultural excrescences wrapped around southwest Asia and Africa. European imperialism only was plausible as a myth of "power projection" (to cite an anachronism) in the age of steam and steel. Now in the age of the cell phone, only "facts on the ground" matter: because people do what they want. Administration has finally come home, down to earth, and the intelligentsia have finally found their home among the people, not as shepherds or guardians but merely as poets: the voice of the popular spirit.

As is typical of britain and the west.. they have historically supported the savage religion of islam... now enjoy being run over by mullas and maulvis

The author clearly has an sectarian axe to grind and his article is full of lies and double standards and a quick look at his website proves this like glossing over the treachery of Shareef Hussein. The idea that all Sunnis Islamists were founded by Western imperialists or are in bed with Western powers is a joke ignores that many of them opposed Western imperialism decades ago, this does not mean that there aren't traitors amongst them. And if the thrust of your article was supposedly true, the British gov't wouldn't be backing Yemeni Sufi shuyookh like Ali al-Jifri to promote a moderate Islam to suit its agenda.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top