Welcome to Dar ul-Harb
Hassan Butt explains.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology…And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4’s Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: ‘What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.’
He did: here (fast forward ten minutes). He also said, to Ed Husain, ‘You’re absolutely right in what you say about the Wahhabi strand; the way you then demonize a whole load of genuinely representative Muslims is completely wrong.’ But Ed Husain wasn’t doing any such thing, as he kept trying to get Livingstone to see: he was distinguishing between Muslims and Islamists, while Ken was lumping them together.
Hassan Butt explains some more.
[T]hough many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world…The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war. What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
So when it looks as if the goal is not to extort some concession or change of policy but just to kill as many people as possible – it looks that way because that is how it is. We are all part of Dar ul-Kufr, and we all need to be killed.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.)
Yeah. Let’s do that.
Ed Husain has a very good article in today’s Evening Standard; Allen sent me a copy and also posted a useful chunk of it on the Letters page.
Being a big‑tent liberal is laudable; but to fail to discern the difference between Islam, the religious tradition, and Islamism, the extremist political ideology hell‑bent on destroying the West, is a disaster for us all. By confusing regular religious Muslims with fanatical ideologues, Ken blurs the lines between right and wrong, and allows radicalism to flourish within sections of London’s Muslim communities…While living in Saudi Arabia two years ago, I remember watching in horror television images of Ken walking around with Yusuf al‑Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric based in Qatar, whose publicly stated attitude is that suicide bombers are martyrs. Yet it was Ken who said that “of all the Muslim thinkers in the world today, al‑Qaradawl is the most positive force for change”. By promoting these extremists, and their supporters, Ken gives them legitimacy. He helps set in motion the conveyor belt to terrorism.
Listen up, Ken.
No, not listen up.
WAKE UP! _ and Ken we mean YOU!
I find it hard to believe that pink Ken does not realise what he is doing, and if he is doing it for what he percieves as short-trm politi
cal advantage, then that is despicable.
I hope I’m wrong.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone called on Britons not to demonize Muslims after a double car bomb plot was foiled in the capital, amid fears of a Islamist terror threat.
Yet,…at another recent time he criticized Britain over its ties with Saudi Arabia, which he said had fuelled intolerance in the past through its Wahhabist form of Islam, creating a “major problem.”
“Ken blurs the lines between right and wrong”
Yeah, apparently so. Jack Straw and himself should do a Laurel & Hardy double entendre Moslem act! They will have people doubling up with confusing hysteria!
Last post <> ‘Conversion hysteria’. <>
Taken from: “My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror” in B&W The Guardian News bulletin.
“Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same”.
If Islamic theology does not allow for separation of State and religion, why then did Iran say that the fatwa on Salman Rushdie was obsolete? Is fundamentalism the reason why?
Am confused to say the least?
“The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war”.
Continuation from above. <> Is Islamic fundamentalism alone the reason why the fatwa on Salman Rushdie is still in place? The Faundamentalists seemingly so keep harping on about it -not having been rescinded.
Ed Husain has written an interesting book too – doesn’t seem to be available on amazon.com.
G.T. I dont think Ken does this sort of stuff for political gain i think he is just barking mad!
It seems that we, will-we nil-we, live in interesting times. Thinking about recent news, I came up with:
“When Medical Doctors make Car Bombs, only a Mercedes Benz will do.”
Unique, perhaps, but hardly a selling proposition.
Just another faith-based initiative, I guess.
Just thought I’d share a little quote from Naguib Mahfouz’s _The Cairo Trilogy_. This is near the beginning, during WWI. One of the main Muslim characters, Yasin, thinks:
“[S]he’s nothing but a woman. Every woman is a filthy curse. A woman doesn’t know what virtue is, unless she’s denied all opportunities for adultery. Even my stepmother, who’s a fine woman — God only knows what she would be like if it weren’t for my father.”
I see you ignored my life is to short advice then Doug?
Richard — My memory is shite. Did you advise me not to read _The Cairo Trilogy_? Or were you just one of those who were telling me that starting a book doesn’t mean committing to read every word?
Whatever. Now that I’ve started Mahfouz’s Nobel prize winner (which I’m reading aloud to my wife), I’m sure I’ll eventually read every word.
Dispatches from the Frontlines of the Burqa Brigade
What Lies Beneath
By FAWZIA AFZAL-KHAN
Excerpt: ‘The women turned suddenly serious. Umm Aiman–the one with the pretty round face–replied, “Our war is against the infidels, and against the US. It is a war between the forces of Kufr and those of Islam.”
Still smiling, I pushed, “And you think you’ll win?”
Quite aware of my trap, the whole gang suddenly raised their voices in unison, “The Victory will be Islam’s, not ours–Allah-o-Akbar!”‘
http://tinyurl.com/352azk
I think I said life is to short pick up some light reading Doug,I dont think I was refering to any particular book just heavy going books in general.
Azar Nafisi: “I very much resent it when people – maybe with good intentions or from a progressive point of view – keep telling me, ‘It’s their culture’… It’s like saying the culture of Massachucets is burning witches.”