Since I last posted on this topic, there have been a number of other attempts at bombings. On friday, another car bomb was detected when an illegally parked car was towed away in central London. Thank God for wheel-clampers! (Perhaps the only time I’ll ever see myself writing such a sentence)!
On saturday, two people attempted to drive a car loaded with petrol into Paisley airport in Glasgow. Thankfully, it seems, those responsible were apprehended by police and members of the public. Another incident involved a car bomb at the Royal Alexandra hospital. Again, mercifully, this device was destroyed in a controlled explosion (source). A number of arrests have been made in various parts of the country, pending further enquiries presumably.
My reaction to all of these developments? Firstly, I’m grateful that these devices have all either failed to detonate, or have otherwise been defused. Praise be to Allah that there have been no deaths or serious injuries. Secondly, a sense of gratitude to those members of the public who intervened, as well as to the police for doing a dangerous and often thankless job.
Although it does appear to be the work of Muslim extremists, details are still emerging. I would, therefore, still counsel caution. If Muslims do prove to be responsible, then these acts represent a perversion of the Islamic tradition, and should be seen as such.
In conclusion, here’s a short passage regarding what you might call the Islamic ethics of war, drawn from a classical historian (Imam al-Tabari). The speech is attributed to Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s first successor:
‘Oh army, stop and I will order you [to do] ten [things]; learn them from me by heart. You shall not engage in treachery; you shall not act unfaithfully; you shall not engage in deception; you shall not indulge in mutilation; you shall kill neither a young child nor an old man nor a woman; you shall not fell palm trees or burn them; you shall not cut down [any] fruit-bearing tree; you shall not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel except for food. You will pass people who occupy themselves in monks’ cells; leave them alone, and leave alone what they busy themselves with. You will come to a people who bring you vessels in which are varieties of food; if you eat anything from [those dishes], mention the name of God over them. You will meet a people who have shaven the middle of their head and have left around it [a ring of hair] like turbans; tap them lightly with the sword. Go ahead, in God’s name; may God make you perish through wounds and plague!’ (I.1850)
For more details, see my earlier post on this topic.
Ma’as salama,
Abdur Rahman
irving said:
May Allah guide us with peace and love in this time of trial, dear Bhai. Alhamdulillah, that the devices harmed no one.
Ya Haqq!
Tess said:
Thank you for this, I hope you don’t mind, I’m going to link to it.
Pingback: Critical alert status | Anchors and Masts
Sylvia said:
Hello, I got here via Anchors and Masts. I admire your courage in publicly opposing jihad but I have to take issue with your statement that these acts run contrary to Islamic tradition. History shows a very long and bloody track record of Islamic conquest (and attempted conquest) as well as oppression (to various degrees) of the conquered peoples.
I think you damage your credibility when you deny history and try to paint Islam as a peaceful force in the world. Only by acknowledging Islam’s violence and hegemonic aspirations can it hope to be reformed to a morally and politically acceptable state.
Raza Rumi said:
What a bold post – and your right when you call violence as a perversion of Islamic tradition.
Sylvia: power politics and desire for hegemony has not just been the preserve of Muslim empires. This is a consisten pattern across human history – and why single out Islam only.
Alas, this is what the oriental construct about Islam and Muslims is – and we continue to live in times when this image is being reinforced by mainstream media and academia in service of power..
Regardless of this broader debate, there are clear precendents and incidents where unarmed civilians ARE not targets of Jihad – and the latter can only be declared by a state and not private groups nurtured by imperial games. Whosoever harms or attempts to harm innocent civilians is distorting Islam and its message. And we condemn that as believers of our great religion.
AR: could you please update your blogroll – my blog has moved to http://www.razarumi.com.
Abdur Rahman said:
Salaams Irving and Tess
Thank you for your comments. Yes, this is indeed a trying time. God willing, those responsible will soon be brought to justice.
Abdur Rahman
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
Firstly, I would like to welcome you to my virtual home. Feel free to stop by as often as you like. You are most welcome.
Secondly, I would also like to thank you for your honest and forthright comments. True dialogue can only take place when there is honesty. So, for this, I thank you. I hope that you will also accept my comments in this regard. I am serious about the need for discussion and reflection, and so I hope you take my words in the spirit in which they are meant.
Raza’s comments are important and I certainly agree with their general thrust: that these actions certainly are a perversion of Islam.
In responding, I think it is important to consider a few points. Firstly, I would not describe these actions as ‘jihad’. I am, of course, aware that this is how such people portray them. However, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding.
Jihad literally means ‘struggle’. Thus, there can be many kinds of struggles. For me, at present, my personal jihad is in trying to be a better man, a better Muslim and a better husband/father. There is a very strong emphasis in the Islamic tradition on the greater jihad being against the human soul and its wayward desires.
Unfortunately, given the nature of this world, armed ‘struggle’ is sometimes necessary. World War 2 against the Nazis is a good example. That is, there are times when oppression must be resisted physically.
However, as you may be aware, physical jihad has always been linked to legitimate authority within the Islamic tradition. As my brother Raza points out, as a normal Muslim, I do not have the authority to call a jihad. Indeed, in this day and age, it is doubtful whether there actually is such a legitimate authority.
Saudi Arabia does not constitute normative Islamic practice in this regard. Rather, it represents at best, merely one school of thought (and not the most dominant). Islam does not equal Saudi Arabia, no more than Christianity = Fred Phelps’ group.
Moreover, with all due respect to a guest in my (virtual) home, I really don’t think I damage my credibility by insisting that Islam is a positive force. You may not believe it to be so, as is your right of course. I can see the positive impact of Islam in my own life. Indeed, the aim of this blog is to document that, in some small manner.
The vast majority of Muslims (which remember constitute about a fifth of the world’s population) believe that Islam encourages them towards peace, justice and mercy. These people are either all completely misguided, or else lying, or and this is the one I favour: Islam does actually teach these things and the contemporary terrorists represent the perversion.
I do not accept that Islam itself has hegemonic aspirations. Some Muslims certainly do, but that is hardly the same thing. I could make a similar point about far right groups such as Christian Identity. If I were to say, these represent normative Christianity, you would rightly object. Moreover, I believe, you would also object if I then said: the only way we can sensibly dialogue is if you accept this to be true.
My apologies for the length of this repsonse, but I felt this was a serious issue and warranted a fuller treatment. I really do appreciate your input here. However, I do wonder how far we’re going to get together if we can’t get beyond this point.
At any rate, peace and blessings to you and yours.
Abdur Rahman
Sylvia said:
Hello again. I thank you for your response. I read an article recently by Hassan Butt who also drew a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate jihad. I think this is a very good approach to reining in Islamic terrorism. I hope it will be pursued in the Muslim community. But it still leaves the fact that violence and the oppression of non-Muslims are permitted or even required under Islam. Contrast this to Christianity, where violence is expressly forbidden. When Christians use violence, they are clearly violating Christ’s teachings; when Muslims use violence in the name of Islam and jihad, they can quote the Quran for justification, and who can argue with them? It’s all a matter of semantics and interpretation. They can say they don’t kill innocent civilians because kaffir are not innocent and deserve death according to the Quran and Hadith. What are Westerners to make of that, especially when it is put into practice somewhere in the world every single day? It is small comfort to say that most Western Muslims don’t support jihad when they can’t stop the minority from killing people. It would be a good first step to see jihadis convicted of blasphemy in sharia courts. Has that ever happened? It would be interesting to know.
Sylvia said:
Just a note for Rama Ruzi: Obviously Islam is not the only system of thought that advocates domestic, regional, or world domination, but I believe it is the only *religion* that does, which makes it unique in that respect. If that is not the case, then was the Muslim conquest of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asian (and indeed the Arabian peninsula) all a misinterpretation of Islam? Obviously it’s too late to give the land back, but if Islam is not about conquest then the past Muslim conquests should be acknowledged as anti-Islamic.
Pingback: Barnabas quotidianus » UK terrorist attacks - Scottish newspaper quotes Baha’i comment
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
Thank you for your response.
I suspect that we’re not going to get very far here, I’m afraid. You are right, in a sense, it is all about semantics and interpretation. I reject any interpretation of the Quran and Hadith which sees indiscriminate killing, murder, and mayhem as lawful. I do not do this by myself, so to speak, but because this is how Islam is, and is taught by the overwhelming majority.
You might like to follow some of the links in this post:
http://thecorner.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/recent-events-views-from-around-the-blogosphere/
In particular, I would direct you to Eteraz.org, and Ali Eteraz (his blog is listed in the commentary section). You can find a range of useful resources there.
What are westerners (am I not western?) to make of apparently violent texts in the Quran, etc? Firstly, ask questions of Muslims about how these passages are understood. Secondly, to understand that because the Quran, as a text, is organised along very different lines to the Bible (the most familiar religious text in the UK and US) it needs to be approached differently.
There are many problems in the global Muslim community, I do not deny it. In my view, these represent a fundamental dislocation from Islam, and not a return to ‘normal service’. There are many groups who use Islam to justify their actions. This does not condemn Islam as a faith, just as the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda does not condemn Christianity.
If I ever became aware of a terrorist cell, or plot, in my local area (or anywhere for that matter), I would immediately contact the police and would consider it my religious duty to do so.
I think your point about blasphemy relates to other, wider issues of politics, law and freedom in the Muslim world and should be seen in this light.
Islam is not a system of thought, as such, it is a religious system. It does not aim at ‘world domination’. It does enjoin upon its followers the obligation to convey the Islamic message to everyone, just as Christianity does. Thus, if I say I want the whole world to become Muslim, what I mean is that I want the whole world to find the sense of purpose and joy that I have found. I do NOT mean that I want to take over the world. One could, indeed, make a similar criticism of Christian missionary activity, but that would also be a fundamental misunderstanding.
Islamic conquests? These events should be seen in their historical context. I have another blog dedicated to Islamic History (see the links), where I look more closely at early Islamic history. However, I would say that at the same time Byzantine emperors were also attempting to expand Christendom through the sword. Weren’t the crusades a similar event? Do these things represent the essence of Christianity? Not at all.
Thank you again for your response. I sense we may just have to agree to disagree, which is perfectly fine, of course.
My best wishes to you and yours
Peace
Abdur Rahman
Sylvia said:
Thanks for that. I don’t completely disagree but I think for me it’s a question of whether the good outweighs the bad. As a non-Muslim I am a potential victim of jihad (legitimate or illegitimate, as the case may be) and that certainly colours my opinion. But I certainly appreciate your willingness to calmly discuss these things. You certainly are modelling the potential for Islam to be peaceful. Keep it up! Thank.
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
I appreciate what you’re saying. These terrorists are a threat to us all. Remember, bombs do not discriminate and so Muslims are as at risk as any other group. Indeed, look at the bombings in Iraq and other places.
I also suspect that were al-Qaeda types ever to come to power somewhere (and may Allah prevent it from happening), that those Muslims who disagree with their ideas, their interpretations and their methods would be the first against the wall.
Peace
Abdur Rahman
Sylvia said:
Oh yes, I’m definitely aware that the first victims of jihad are Muslims, especially women and anyone like yourself who is brave enough to admit that there is room for improvement in the understanding and practice of Islam. Non-Muslims may be allowed to live, with second-class status, under Islam, but ex-Muslims automatically get the death penalty, and critics are not exactly tolerated, even outside of Dar al-Islam. It certainly is a lot to ask of people like yourself to risk your life to speak out against extremism in your mosque, but I think many lives depend on it. In Christianity we say there is no greater love than to give your life for a friend. That’s our kind of martyrdom.
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
I know there are challenges, only a fool would pretend otherwise. However, it is also true that there are many good Muslims (i.e. those better than myself) speaking out against these things and more importantly perhaps, doing the unsung work of transforming themselves and others on a day to day level.
I do agree with your concept of martyrdom and would argue that this is the essence of the Islamic understanding. On one level, our only True Friend is God (or al-Wali in Arabic).
May Allah help us all.
Abdur Rahman
Raza Rumi said:
So the discussion continues -
Dear Sylvia – the way you typed my name (could be simple typos) is a little symbolic of the way you see ‘us’ –
I suggest that you invest some time in studying Islam and would recommend Karen Armstrong (who God forbid is not a muslim). Get her book Isam – a short history. http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_11/002-1515114-6506440?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183740879&sr=1-11
Your honest questions are much appreciated but it might do you good if you discovered that World domination and capture of political power is nowhere mentioned in the Holy Quran as an objective or an end of Islam.
And, you might be amazed further that people of the book (Jews, Christians, Sabians etc.) are all considered to be believers and NOT objects/TARGETS of Jihad (much as Fox news and spurious historians may like people to believe). Indeed there is a lunatic fringe and many who feel angry at the dispossession of Palestinians and illegal occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq who use this sillya rguement to settle what essentialy are POLITICAL scores.
This is what our holy book has to say:
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Judgement day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.” (The Quran| 2.62)
And quite conveniently you glossed over Abdur Rahman’s comment on the crusades – what were those battles? And what is the neo-con alliance with the evangelical belt in the USA of today – there are religious symbols and references dragged in political struggles.
I respect your right to hold/air your views but please show a little more understanding of the religion and its followers rather than arguing along the media-fed views. This is not too much to ask for, dear friend?
Sylvia said:
Sorry for the typos. Raza Rumi. I know “the people of the book” have a special place in Islam, but I have two problems with that. One is that the special place is second-class citizenship (jizya, restrictions on religious practice and proselytizing, etc.). I suppose this is an improvement over the fate of pagans and atheists (decapitation), but it is unacceptable to me and an obvious violation of human rights. The other problem is that this impliles that Islam is a system of governance as well as a religion, and you can’t have two systems of governance in one society.
I didn’t mention the Crusades because I know there is a such a great deal of misinformation about them (even in the West) that there is not much point. But since you brought it up again, I will just say that they were obviously defensive wars intended to stem the Muslim invasion and recover some Christian lands. Obviously they were unsuccessful, and it does seem that the victors have written the history and painted themselves as victims rather than aggressors. And lets not forget that when a Christian fights, he is violating Christ’s teachings; when a Muslim fights, he is following the will of Allah.
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
That refers to me, and I will die (and not kill) before I submit.
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
I think there are some serious issues here, which deserve a fuller treatment. So, I’m going to mull over my response for a little while before posting it.
Then, I think, I will draw the comments on this thread to a close, because I’m really not sure they’re leading anywhere.
Best wishes
Abdur Rahman
Abdur Rahman said:
Peace Sylvia,
I think the central issue here relates to the pre-conceived notion with which you approach Islam as a religious tradition. Islam, as you see it, is an inherently violent faith and that a Muslim who is ‘good’ is, in some way, going against the ‘true’ teachings of their religion. This, it seems, colours your attitude to all things Islamic.
Thus, people who speak out against the violence done in the name of Islam are a strange phenomenon: we’re either diluting our faith to the point of ridiculousness and dishonesty, or we’re misguided or at worst, lying.
This pre-conceived pattern also colours your approach to Islamic history. Because you believe that Islam is a violent faith, your understanding is both partial and selective: when you find an example that appears to confirm this pattern, you see it as proof positive, without understanding its historical context. When you see an example that goes against this, you understand it as either a myth or else as an example of a ‘strange’ Muslim.
Your rather odd comment that the crusades were ‘obviously defensive’ falls into this pattern. The crusades, you suggest, were a defensive war, designed to curtail and push back the ‘Muslim invasion’. This understanding fails to take into account the actual history of the time, as it fails to account for the complex motivations behind this tragic period of human history. The causes of the crusades were many, diverse and complex – and were certainly not solely related to ‘religious’ matters. Indeed, as much as they were the Pope’s response to perceived Muslim aggression, they were also a useful method for channeling the dangerous aggression of the kings and princes of medieval Europe. Moreover, let’s not forget the actions of the crusaders. Your point that these do not represent Christ’s teachings is, of course, accurate. But I do not then believe that this represents normative Christianity (many Middle Eastern Christians were also put to the sword at this time).
With regards to the Muslim world at the time, there was no political unity at this point. Thus, talk of a ‘Muslim invasion’ strikes me as a little odd. If you’re referring to the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, or the harassment of Christian pilgrims, then these are surely not universals, but particulars of human history. That is, they refer to the actions of individual humans and states, but not to the entire community or religion of Islam. Perhaps these were driven by particular interpretations of Islam, but are selective and partial interpretations the same thing as the essence?
As I said in my previous post, I think that we’re not actually getting anywhere here. The underlying assumption in all of your posts has been that unless I accept that Islam is inherently violent, there can be no real dialogue. I would, by contrast, contend the opposite. Until you are able to accept that Islam, in essence, is no more violent than Christianity, there can be little chance of us really beginning to explore the issues which divide our world.
I am glad that we have had the opportunity to talk about these things. I certainly do value the opinions of others, and strongly believe in the need for constructive dialogue. However, on this particular point, I feel that we have expressed our respective positions clearly enough to see that we’re just going to disagree.
Peace be with you and yours
Abdur Rahman