I wondered how long it would take mad Mel to jump in head first to tell all and sundry what the Mumbai attacks proves. She says, “It is a war waged in the name of Islam against America, Britain, Hindus, Jews and all who refuse to submit to Islamic conquest.” She laments ‘western commentariat’ for being naïve and yet to understand what all this is about – in her mind “It does not arise from particular grievances. It is not rooted in ‘despair’ over Palestine. It is not a reaction to the war in Iraq.”
Triumphantly she announces, “The atrocities demonstrated with crystal clarity what the Islamist war is all about”. Shamelessly mad Mel felt the need to title her little rant ‘The war against civilisation’ – adding not just fuel to the fire, no Mel has gone one step further, to actually directing the path of the fire!
Just to make sure you all understand what she is talking about here the first item on her list of what the Mumbai attacks has taught her is. “The Islamists want to murder as many Americans, Brits, Hindus and Jews as possible. That is because they are waging all-out war against civilisation.”
Job done for Mel, from ‘terrorists’ or more precisely the criminals that committed the atrocities we have now moved quite far along the ‘conveyor belt’ and we can now comfortably blame the ‘Islamists’!
Mad Mel finishes her subterfuge with the sentence “And yet still the west is scratching its head…”
I suppose we can take some solace from this and count our blessing that mad Mel is struggling to navigate her Trojan ‘war on civilisation’ horse.
Job done for Mel, from ‘terrorists’ or more precisely the criminals that committed the atrocities we have now moved quite far along the ‘conveyor belt’ and we can now comfortably blame the ‘Islamists’!
Are you suggesting that Phillips is wrong to blame the Islamists? Or are you suggesting, given that you have placed the word Islamists in quotes, that Phillips’ use of the term is worthy of derision?
Both to be honest – the issue is just like ‘terrorism’ has become a confused word so has the use of the word Islamist. Why is it difficult for us to stick to known terms like criminals and crimes?
Phillips’ purposefully creates this confusion so as to avoid any semblence of objectivity or justice.
Why is it difficult for us to stick to known terms like criminals and crimes
I agree with you about Philips, but then it would be difficult for any sensible person to justify her use with English language at the best of times.
But In the case of the Mumbai atrocities, if terms such as ‘Islamist’ and ‘terrorism’ are deemed inappropriate, we are in danger of other gross errors of language, are we not? Would you prefer that the Mumbai attacks be called ‘heinous crimes by ‘Muslim criminals’? Is that an improvement?
Flipantly I would say yes – as it divorces the act committed by an individual from the religion. It also stops the likes of Phillips spreading Islamophobia.
But we must not generalise and we must not quote someone’s religion or race to send ulterior messages.
But in this case, Phillips is not saying anything that is not being stated universally by even neutral sources.
This attack was clearly and quite obviously an act of terrorism targetting their victims both indiscriminately as well as highly discriminately in the way in which the victims were selected on the basis of their religion or race. Hence US and UK nationals were picked off in the hotel and Jews were targetted in the Jewish community centre.
If the ‘criminals’ themselves did that, then surely to ignore or downplay their religion (or rather their extremist interpretation thereof) and their motives sends equally ulterior messages?
No I don’t agree. Phillips deliberately creates a link between the acts of murder, to Islamists. She describes Islamists as being anyone who wants to establish the fundamentals of Islam (read her book and you’ll see what I mean), who do not profess violence as a means to achieve them. This is the point – this is the conflation and this is why we must be wary of her likes.
Following your logic, those who committed the murders can justify their action, as India, Britain and by extension the West caused much of the suffering of Muslims in Kashmir and other places. Would we accept this logic?
I wholly disagree with this, so just as I would not allow criminals to generalise I would not also allow warmongers like Phillips the same right.
When we deal with issues like this we must be accurate, focussed and pinpoint the crime, otherwise we give oxygen to bigotry, hatred and increase the cycle of violence.
Finally – the criminals did not carry out those acts because of religion, it was more for the lives lost in Kashmir, Gujrat etc.
“Thank Allah that the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai have finally come to an end.”
Those words were not written by Phillips, but by your fellow blogger Abul Kalam in an article on this very blog.
So if it is perfectly appropriate for your peers to call these attacks terrorism and they are, why is it that when Phillips uses the same terminology she is, as you say, creating a “link between the acts of murder, to Islamists”. You refer to her book but her book is not in discussion here. Here we are talking about the Mumbai attacks and what it means for Muslims. In the final analysis, Phillips is pretty insignificant.
You go on to say:
When we deal with issues like this we must be accurate, focussed and pinpoint the crime, otherwise we give oxygen to bigotry, hatred and increase the cycle of violence.
I agree with this completely. I think it is very important to use language that is accurate to pinpoint the exact nature of these killings. Which is why it is important to stress the language that separates these criminals and the motivation behind their crimes from the actions of ordinary Muslims.
Ordinary Muslims are not in the business of opening fire on women and children, indiscriminately killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, white, brown or whatever. This is a very specific crime, and it is called terrorism and these killers were not ordinary Muslims, they were extremists. This wasn’t merely a criminal act by a some criminals. To suggest Phillips is wrong for using the word “terrorism” to describe the attacks in Mumbai is like trying to proscribe the use of the word ‘blue’ to define the colour of the sky.
You are suggesting we use “focussed” language but at the same time you are objecting to the use of particular and exact terms. If you are not willing to abide by these terms, then Muslims are in danger of being associated with these killers simply because they happen to be Muslims. This plays directly into the hands of people who want to say that all Muslims are terrorists. You will find that most Muslims do not want to be associated with or to be represented by these cold-blooded religious supremacists and mass murderers.
Okay I think we may lose the point I was trying to make, that being the link Phillips creates between terrorism and Islamists. This lazy and casual linkage is grossly inaccurate and seeks to paint Muslims who adhere to the fundamentals of the religion in a particular way.
If you want to make that accusation of Phillips, then there are plenty of examples of her anti-Muslim bile to back you up. But to use the Mumbai attacks of last week, an act of Islamist terrorism pure and simple, to critique Phillips use of language is self-defeating because she isn’t actually saying that controversial or inexact.
This entire discussion is of, course based on the premise that we both agree on the defnitions of the terms “terrorist” and “Islamist”.
the Mumbai attacks of last week, an act of Islamist terrorism pure and simple,
We disagree quite clearly.
In that case, it appears that you disagree with not only Melanie Phillips but also most people, including your co-blogger Abul Kalam, who writes:
“Thank Allah that the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai have finally come to an end.”?
Salam,
My view is the attacks in Mumbai is a terrorist attack period. Terrorism has no place in Islam and therfore i do not recognise the term Islamist Terrorism.
Behind all the hype and hysteria of 24 hour news reporting we are beginning to find some level headed reporting:
“The operational key to the Mumbai attacks, however, is almost certainly held by D-Company, the sprawling and hugely effective organised criminal syndicate that is steered from the Pakistani port city of Karachi by the most powerful figure in Mumbai’s fabled underworld, Dawood Ibrahim. It is virtually impossible that Dawood was unaware of the preparation of the attack, given the D-Company’s extensive intelligence network (which in several past instances has proved more effective than the Indian state’s intelligence capacity).”
It has been suggested in a comment on my blog on this issue: This was not global Jihad.
Wasalam
My view is the attacks in Mumbai is a terrorist attack period. Terrorism has no place in Islam and therfore i do not recognise the term Islamist Terrorism.
I personally believe extremism has no place in Islam but I am not credulous enough to believe that there is no such thing as Islamic extremism. ‘Islamist’ is simply a term for Islamic extremism. And, by extension, ‘Islamist terrorism’ is the use of indiscriminate violence to further extremism ideology. You are fee to use any term you like but you cannot ignore the problem away by refusing to recognise a term to define it.
There were 657 terrorist acts in Pakistan in 2006 alone with thousands of victims of, largely tribal or religious sectarianism. These were not not global Jihad either but that does not mean it is not terrorism borne of extremist Islamic ideology.
Someone must be responsible for these acts of violence. To say that you do not recognise this leaves the field open to those who will then say that if extremists do not exist then muslims are all extremists. And that would be highly irresponsible.
Sid – the issue is conflation.
Yes Extremism exists – but this is true of all people, all faiths, all ideologies – the Neocons that wrote the ‘Clean Break’ strategy are a good example.
There is no such thing as Islamic extremism – as Islam does not allow for it, hence the verse of the Quran that says that Muslims are of the “middle nation” – neither negligent (left wing extremism) nor over zealous (right wing extremism).
We do have some Muslims that are extreme – but they are not Islamic extremists. They are Muslims that are extreme – like we have Muslims that are liberal. Do we now say they are Islamic liberals?
Also – it does not follow that ‘extremism’ naturally leads on to violence. I pray that adds to your understanding.
Your definition of Islamist is quite interesting – where did you get that from? Of course I disagree.
There is no such thing as Islamic extremism – as Islam does not allow for it, hence the verse of the Quran that says that Muslims are of the “middle nation” – neither negligent (left wing extremism) nor over zealous (right wing extremism).
No religion mandates extremism yet extremism exists in all religions. I’m sure you would agree that only a fool would claim that there is no such thing as Christian extremism with the claim that Christian doctrine does not allow it. The same would apply with someone who makes the same claim of Islam. Islamic doctrine does uphold religious moderation but it is quite clear that ideological extremes exist in practice.
Like other religions, Islam has its extremists. Whether you prefer to call them “Muslim extremists”or “Islamists” is academic but in any case either terms refers to the same thing. Whether we like it or not, the point of departure for Islamic extremism is Islamic doctrine.
This is why it is imperative to differentiate between extremists such as those who committed the masacre of innocents in Mumbai with ordinary Muslims who worked in paramedic centres to treat the wounded victims of those extremists.
The issue is discernment. I truly hope you can recognise this difference.
I think you’re having the problem discerning one from the other – read your own post – no religion mandates extremism
There is a difference between doctrinal exegesis and ideology? No religion mandates extremism *doctrinally* but ideological extremism exists in *practice* for all of them.
I would have thought that that was quite obvious…
If there is no doctrinal mandate then surely it supports my point. What Muslims practice is not necessarily what Islam teaches! Obvious indeed.
Anyway – good discussion.
But excuse me, if it were that easy, why do you seem to have such a problem with Melanie Phillips? You could also say that all she does is bang on about bad Muslims who are not practising Islam properly. And leave it at that! There would be no need for this discussion and certainly no need for blogs posts of this nature.
But since no living man has the spiritual authority to assert extremists as not Muslims or ‘unMuslim’, we must all accept that extremism has become a malignant cancer within the body of Islam.
Muslims all over the world are going to get tired of keeping their heads down and pretending that this problem will go away. They will turn on extremists themselves. They will use far more forthright actions and language to fork out these evil perverts from within them and we will soon see an end to their apologists and their cowardly mewling.
The tide has begun to turn already with symbolic actions like this.
The Muslims who refused to bury the terrorists are wrong – as pointed out by the Maulana at the end of that article Sid! Unless they are apostates – no matter how heinous the crimes, they must be given a burial.
These people could’ve used some other excuse to refuse burial – even something bland like ‘inappropriate given the circumstances’, and/or advised they be buried in some smaller town etc. But to say they weren’t real Muslims because of their crimes is Islamically wrong. Even Saddam Hussain, a mass murderer of many tens of thousands of Muslims was given a Muslim funeral.
Sid – you still don’t get the point do you? Mad Mel is deliberately painting a picture of Islam which is false. She has no issues with Muslims behaving badly, in fact she promotes that herself i.e. disavowing of one’s faith. Remember there are two extremes we should avoid, neglect and over zealousness.
Your ’support’ for the unislamic actions of those that are refusing the burial of the gunmen proves my point. On your part and theirs – this is an extreme action!
Phillips is certainly using Islamist terrorism to paint a picture of Muslims and Islam which is false. But you have already stated that there is no such thing as Islamic Terrorism and you have said here that there is no such thing as Islamic Extremists – only extremists who are bad Muslims. So by that logic, by your logic in fact, Mad Mel is only wrong insofar as using the term ‘Islamists’ to define these people. You can easily refute her by asserting terrorists and extremisrs are not “Muslims who adhere to the fundamentals of the religion in a particular way”.
Sooner or later you will discover how self-defeating that is, since terrorists and extremists regard themselves as Muslims as much as you do.
Your ’support’ for the unislamic actions of those that are refusing the burial of the gunmen proves my point. On your part and theirs – this is an extreme action!
Why is it an extreme action? It can be argued on perfectly sound theological grounds. Since the terrorists defied any number of fatwas which proscribe terrorism as an un-Islamic activity, and since they killed Muslim non-combatants, it can be argued that they were not Muslims at their point of death.
But more important than theology is the message that this sends to Islamist terrorists. The reason for refusing them an Islamic burial isn’t for revenge or to spite their families but because it would make it plain that nearly all Muslims reject the terrorist’s claim to be Islamically justified and it may even stop people blaming and murdering other Muslims for their actions.
This is the ultimate denunciation of Islamist terrorism. Do you agree that terrorism should be denounced?
I agree with you on many points – perhaps Azad Ali is going around in cricles. BUT to say that because someone ‘defies fatwas and kills non-combatants’ makes them a Kafir is wrong, and you should withdraw that.
According to the Ahl as-Sunnah, the only things that make someone a Kafir is rejection of basic tenents of Islam by action or words. All other sins and crimes including homosexuality, rape, and ultimately murder does not make someone a Kafir. Unless he believes that those are not sins and crimes in Islam that is! Fatwas are not needed to say these are wrong in Islam – they are ‘absolute’ (Qati) crimes and not up for Ijtihad of an ‘Alim.
So if these absolute crimes does not make one a Kafir, how can mere defiance of fatawa do it? I’m sure you can see the logic!
Finally, the Khawarij believe (Aqeeda) that major sins (Kabira) like murder leads to apostacy. That is rejected by Sunnis and almost all other sects. So Sid unless you are a latter day Khawarij – I’d suggest you withdraw that point promptly, lest you inadvertantly become a apostate for rejecting basic aqeeda!
Sid
Mad Mel is wrong to use the word Islamist to describe these people, as she uses the same word to describe those that are non violent or commit acts of murder. She is deliberately conflating the two with this term to attack Islamic values such as Khilafah, Shari’ah etc.
I doubt if my argument is self defeating – it may only be that you choose not to agree.
The reason it is an extreme action is covered by Abdullah, I would also add that we should always maintain humanity in dealing with difficult matters or matters that we are not comfortable with.
Abdullah:
Finally, the Khawarij believe (Aqeeda) that major sins (Kabira) like murder leads to apostacy. That is rejected by Sunnis and almost all other sects. So Sid unless you are a latter day Khawarij – I’d suggest you withdraw that point promptly, lest you inadvertantly become a apostate for rejecting basic aqeeda!
With respect, I think it is the terrorist who murders dozens of innocents in a murderous killing rampage who has rejected basic aqeeda. And if that leads to apostacy, as you suggests that it does, then so be it. And it the terrorist is an apostate at the point of committing a terrorist act, it stands to reason that he should be legally denied an Islamic burial.
Azad Ali:
Mad Mel is wrong to use the word Islamist to describe these people, as she uses the same word to describe those that are non violent or commit acts of murder. She is deliberately conflating the two with this term to attack Islamic values such as Khilafah, Shari’ah etc.
In answer to that, let us look at your own words:
“Also – it does not follow that ‘extremism’ naturally leads on to violence. I pray that adds to your understanding.”
And also:
“Muslims who adhere to the fundamentals of the religion in a particular way”
Therefore, by your words, if a Muslim believes in the Khilafah and/or Shariah without resorting to violence and “in a particualr war” they can be described as an Islamist. So to use your own thinking, Phillips or anyone else for that matter, would be perfectly correct in using the term Islamist and would not be guilty of “conflating the two with this term to attack Islamic values such as Khilafah, Shari’ah etc”.
OMG – are you for real? How is using the term Islamist for terrorists and then using it for those that are not terrorists – NOT Conflating? It is creating in the minds of the uninformed a picture which is wrong? This is what is being done to HT (not that I agree with their methodology) but they are non-violent, yet the likes of Mel and others wish to proscribe then under the Terrorism act?!
Please don’t answer.
Because an extremist might have, and most proabably will, hold the same opinions on Shariah and Khilafah as you. The only (possible) difference is that the terrorist will kill innocents to implement his ideology. On the other hand, you will possibly not.
That is clearly *not* conflation.
This is why it would be advantageous for moderate Islamists such as yourself, Azad Ali, to denounce terrorism. Ths is the second time I’m asking, but have you denounced the Mumbai terrorist massacre of last week?
[...] Ali certainly holds some unattractive political views. I once had a long exchange of comments on his blog (in an article I was the subject of!) in which he refused to condemn the [...]
peace be with everyone.
I am pleased to see that my brother and colleague, mahbub ‘ed’ hussain who is operating under an improved pseudonym ’sid’, has made some very salient comments. I coudn’t have put it better really. Well said…
I would encourage him to continue monitoring the controversial threads of many islamists on this blog and respond to them in the manner that he has done so. A great show of intellect over religious bigotry.
bravo
It’s sooo obvious that sid has no real line in his argument whatsoever… what with all that play on words… tut, tut.
For our old boy sid, or ed, according to his fellow colleague majid nawaz, his comments are merely a game to score points and to find flaws in the authors thread. In doing so, he has shot himself in the foot by falling into the classic trap of takfeer by insinuating that the mumbai attackers were apostates! A true hallmark of the most extreme of the extremists.
More relevant then, would be the question; does our right honorable ‘blogger’, sid hussain, condemn improper use of takfeer?
After all, improper takfeer can inadvertantly cause one to leave the folds of his religion – a deed more henious in islam than murder/’terrorism’.
Perhaps Azad may condemn ‘terrorism’ in mumbai if sid condemns improper use of takfeer. It appears, sid was asked to retract his position regards this in earlier posts by abdullah. Hmmm…
If he fails to do so, I and everybody else have no choice but to consider you an extremist yourself as they, like you, sid, ascribe to the ideology of takfeer.
please see http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=105
It is one of the clearest proofs about a man’s misguidance when he claims things completely new to the religion through pages upon pages of ‘intellectual’ writingquoting men while overlooking the words of true guidance from Allah and His Messenger. Claims made conflicting with the sayings, beliefs and practices of our early generations: “he whoever interoduces into this matter of ours that which is not from it shall have it rejected” – and that rejection is taking place from the masses of the muslims, lay and learned, young and old, black and white. More importantly, another rejection awaits at the turning-away from the ‘hawd’ by the angels and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) himself, on a day when truth and falsehood will be judged between and every man shall ‘have a matter that concerns him’.
Every muslims wishes to revive Allah’s religion to its pinnacle, but every muslim must remember just that – it’s Allah’s religion and abuse of it will be recorded by His Majesty who is swift in accounting. All attempts at ‘new versions’ of Allah’s religion without any authority from Allah will fall under the great sins: “…and that you say upon Allahthat which you do not know”, and will ultimately fail:
“the last of this ummah will not be fixed except through that which fixed the first” – Imam Malik.
Eddy and Maggi, and especially Eddy, your games in this dunya will not last and you will die one day and you will face Allah. Your pals [neo cons] will not be able to save you from the punishment of the Fire. Repent NOW if you want to be saved. Your a clear munafiq [yeah, you can go and tell your pals that ur being witch hunted and ex communicated and that might get you extra cash so you can burn yourself with it], a liar and a criminal in the eys of Islam! MAY YOU ENJOY THIS WORLD!!!!
[...] also quotes from this exchange I had with Ali on his blog: On 1 December, after the Mumbai attacks, Mr Ali engaged in [...]
[...] also quotes from this exchange I had with Ali on his blog: On 1 December, after the Mumbai attacks, Mr Ali engaged in [...]
Sid you are a misguided sell and majid you part of his clique anyway. go take your banter and your nosey pig noses to hell
This is sweet Sid, you calling in your blog post for the honourable A.Ali to be suspended long ago for his opinions. Coming from a guy from whom we saw emotional outcrys, lamenting and school boy sobbing in protest for when the UK banned Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering UK and now you want someone thrown out from the civil service? What cowerdly hypocrisy is this? Does it bug you when someone with some islamic and grassroots credibility tries to tackle extremism by talking with their government and not singing to their ears? (a job you clearly are fit enough to do!) Readers should take into account ‘Sid’ or ‘Ed’ Hussain or more accurately Mahbub Mohammed Hussain (why so insecure about your realname pansy?), operates a doubly standard and is a charlatan ( with not grassroots cred or academic credibilty in anything he tries to ‘tackle’) and is just a plan pansy.
Any sense of academic reading in the constriction of the ‘War on Terror’ and Terrorists will clearly show why such terms are not only loaded by academic retarded. Refer to ‘Taboo and Terror (Zulaika and Douglas) or any athropological contributions ‘Sid’ before you try and put yourself on a pedestal. You have so far failed to show any academic expertise with regards to what you talk about and a madman does not go on to become a psychiatrist you neocon hawk.
Sid does have a name. It’s ‘FAISAL GHAZI’. http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2155 (comment 5 and 6)
I hope he has no quarrel with whoever named him Ghazi, given that ‘Ghazi’ means Islamic ‘fighter/warrior’ -maybe he will come out to apologise to his zionist friends about this?
He is a staunch secularist who writes for the Bangladeshi Drishtipat Writers Collective from which you can find his brief biography:
“Faisal was born in Bangladesh and brought up in Liverpool, Dhaka and London. He studied civil engineering in Leeds University where he came politicised upon coming into contact with the writings of George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens and Vladmir Nabokov. He was involved with the politics of anti-racism and the far-left in the 1980s, followed by associations with Islamic mysticism, anarchism and rave music. He has lived and worked in various countries in jobs varying from editor to project manager to van driver. He currently works in London as a software architect for a financial corporation. His areas of interest are religion and religious identity, race, multiculturalism and technology. He writes in various capacities for the defence of secularism, free speech and democracy and against the growing culture of religious supremacism.”
I hope he does not become from those who have ‘lost their dunya and their akhirah…surely, that is the great loss’.
Oh so we all now know who SID really is! I wonder if he will come back again