The Westgate tragedy has many dimensions: security, intelligence, police and military command, inefficiency, corruption, and last but not least: inhumanity. When we ask "Why did it happen?", "What is behind it?", we cannot avoid looking at the religious dimension. At a first glance, it was an attack of terrorists. Which kind of terrorists? Al Shabaab claimed ‘responsibility.’ The attackers allegedly shouted “allahu akbar” when they stormed into the building.

Al Shabaab’s intention in Somalia is to establish a theocratic state under Sharia law. They ‘justify’ their attack and slaughter by saying they ‘revenge’ Kenya’s involvement in the fight against al Shabaab in Somalia. But Kenya neither fights Somalia and Somalis nor Muslims. Kenya together with other African states fights terrorism which on the one hand suppresses Somalis and on the other hand destabilises the northern region of Kenya. Somalis suffer under al Shabaab’s inhuman rule; they are Muslims; they flee to Kenya; alone 650,000 refugees stay in the camp of Dadaab; more live in Nairobi and other places. Those refugees are an economic and social burden on Kenya, inflicted by al Shabaab.

Kenya fights al Shabaab because they are terrorists. Their attack on Westgate is a clear proof that they are exactly this: terrorists, nothing else. They did not and do not fight the Kenyan army as soldiers; they are only able to cowardly kill civilians.

Many Muslims distance themselves from al Shabaab’s religious ideology. At the Westgate, Muslims came out in solidarity, helped, and condemned the manslaughter and destruction. They call al Shabaab extremists and fanatics and distance themselves from their use and interpretation of the Quran.

Westgate – and what it stands for – poses a challenge to Muslims. It is appreciated when they demonstrate social solidarity and declare that the deeds of fanatic Is-lamists are not the ‘real Islam.’ But this is not enough, because this is addressed to non-Muslims.

What non-Muslims expect from theologians of Islam is that they speak loudly and clearly to those who declare themselves to be Muslims and who refer to their common book, the Quran, and allegedly misuse and misinterpret it. ‘Moderate Muslims’ have to declare their theological standpoint contrary to an al Shabaab theology; ‘moderate Muslim’ have to confront extremists openly. Otherwise they remain in a grey zone. In practical terms, this is the problem of sympathisers of the extremists. When 9/11 happened, thousands of Egyptians celebrated in the streets of Cairo; they were and are sympathisers. Where is the line between ‘moderate Muslims’ and sympathisers, between sympathisers and terrorists? Which silent supporting sympathisers did the attackers of Westgate have among other Muslims?

To be very clear about this: al Shabaab call themselves Muslims; but Muslims in general are not al Shabaab. The same is true for Somalis: al Shabaab are (mostly) Somalis; but Somalis in general are not al Shabaab. There must not be a xenophobic generalisation. However, what non-Muslims expect from Muslims is that they clearly distance themselves from fanatic extremism – not in vague terms, but in clear theological terms; that they explain whether radical Sharia laws as practiced by al Shabaab are compatible with humanity or not. Or is humanity a concept that has to be fought?

By Dr. Helmut Danner

The writer is author of End of Arrogance: Africa and the West - Understanding their Differences.