Not the way I was hoping to return to the UK and to adding something to this blog. The death toll has now risen to at least 37, with some 700 injured. A number of attacks happened right across Central London, from the east between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East tube stations, across the northern edge between King's Cross and Russell Square and through to the west at a Edgware Road. Another bomb was detonated on a bus near Tavistock Square, which is not far from Euston and Russell Square (see this BBC map). The BBC as always has detailed coverage. It is not clear how these devices were triggered as the police and security services are gathering evidence.
There was concern and worry in our household, with my mother reduced to tears as she watched the television -- my sister was due to pass through Russell Square on her way to help at a university open day, and my father usually passes through Liverpool Street or Aldgate East tube station. Alhamdullilah, my father had decided to use the car and simply drive through Hackney, and after much worry we got through to my sister who had to walk all the way from Shoreditch (which a little further east of Liverpool Street). I can only imagine there were similar stories of concern for countless other families, some of who will be without fathers or mothers, sons and daughters. One day we do return to Him, and this was their day.
What can be said that has not probably been said throughout the course of yesterday? Outrage has been expressed by everyone including Tony Blair, the MCB, the Mayor of London, EU officials and members of the French government. Whatever I might think of any one of them, there is nothing I do not agree with to a great extent (though I agree with others that Blair's 'our way of life' rhetoric was pointless, and might even be akin to scaremongering). Slowly, the news seems to be emerging that an "Islamic [sic] group" is behind this attack, one 'affiliated' with al-Qa'ida. Certainly there is a disease, a cancer, which is eating at Muslims in various parts of the world, but moreso amongst some younger Muslims in some Western societies: the need to satiate a lust for immediate 'glory' and 'victory', where all that is Transcendent can be sacrificed for an instant quick-fix; the modern Muslim version of the one-pill-for-all solution. Who needs to work at life, and struggle through its twists and turns, who needs sabr and tawakul, when you can much more easily blow up your 'enemy' and book that multi-bedroom villa in paradise? But this, in reality, is a sickness. It is sick when a car bomb drives itself into Iraqis, cueing for a job to feed their families, by people believe they are doing God's work; it is sick when a bomb is driven into a mosque in Pakistan where people gather to worship, by people believe they are doing God's work; it is sick when someone on their way to work on a double-decker bus, and who probably couldn't tell you where Chechnya or Kashmir is on a map, is killed by people believe they are doing God's work. No doubt, some people try, and will continue to try, to justify these acts of psycopathic egoism as a struggle for God. This is most depraved and is a 'spiritual' disease. The heart does not simply have layers of rust on it, but the whole damn organ appears to be riddled with pot holes from a corroding condition. But there is still hope and mercy for God says He is All-Forgiving.
We must avoid, at all costs, arguments of moral equivalence. Thse are easy arguments to slip into. I do it frequently. If X is bombing Iraqis, Y is murdering Chechens, and Z is causing countless injustices to Palestinians, ought our response be to kill indiscriminately -- believing as we do that we will be accounted for each action -- without any sense, rhyme or reason? There is nothing "Islamic" about this. This is said again and again and again, and it can become an exhausting task. But why on earth do we -- Muslims as a whole, or as individuals -- need to apologise for any of these acts? I will not even bother to point to fiqh or shari'ah issues. For one thing these are better done by others more qualified to do so. But by trying to entertain such a response I feel, in my current state, that I am apologising for such acts. Of course, if the people who did this -- who it seems without doubt are Muslims -- had the courage to actually tell other Muslims straight-up what they were doing, an Islamic discourse could open. But this is expecting cowards to stand up and be counted. Instead, we are as unwares as any other individual when such bombs go off. They aim to kill us as much as anyone else.
Let us even consider any practical benefits of such attacks, if we put aside all moral and ethical concerns. What has been achieved? Will a single individual benefit? Will a single Muslim gain from this? Has Kashmir been instantaneously liberated from under the jackboot of Indian nationalism? Have Russian security services and their proxies all of a sudden stopped abusing, raping and mudering Chechens? Is the Israeli soldier at that checkpoint magically going to stop harassing the Palestinian mother and her young child? Have the foreign occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan ended at the click of the bomb? Are any of these events even close to materialising? Or is the opposite true? Afterall, Aldgate East and Liverpool Street in the east, and Edgware Road in the north-west, are areas where there are large ethnic minority populations, many of whom are Muslims. These people have tried to -- if they have not suceeding in doing so -- harm and kill other Muslims.
And what of the reaction across the UK? This will be shaped to an extent by the media and government. Must we now expect, under the garb of protecting Our Way Of Life, more measures that will really only target Muslims. More detentions without trial. More house arrests. More police 'mishandling' of Muslims. It becomes more difficult to stand up to such measures now that the Government and all those who agree with them can point to "7/7". What will the reaction be in the media, especially the press (never considered the best of friends by many Muslims)? We can all hazard a guess at who will be writing what in which papers (I expect muddying of the waters by certain newspapers and columnists is all I will say). What of the 'ordinary' Muslim who simply goes about his or her own business like any other individual in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or indeed even mainland Europe? Why must they put up with the idiots and morons, who do not have the ability to make proper use of their God-given faculties, that will inevitabley harass and potentially harm them? I fly frequently on internal flights to Scotland and mainland Europe (usually Norway). Will I now expect that on every occassion I stand to board a plane, I will be the only one asked to take out my my passport and wait for it to be scrutinised by several people, or be asked to step aside after someone has 'some questions' for me (both of which have happened in the past)? Of course some anti-Muslim individuals, whether or not they are writing in the mainstream or part of hate groups, will use these incidents to attack, verbally or physically, Muslims. But these people need little in the way of justifying their beliefs anyway. I was not at work yesterday, but many of my friends (some of whom, incidentally, either live or work in and around Aldgate) told me that there was no immediate outward reaction to any of them. I am hoping that what was learnt from the IRA campaign on the mainland was to remain clear-headed calm and not to act on impulse and fear.
In a way incidents like this only proves that people who perpetrate and support such acts are the mysognists they are protrayed as. The most vulnerable individuals after such attacks are Muslim women who show any outward sign of being Muslim. One might have thought that for people who are claim to do acts like these "in the name of Islam" and to defend their "brothers and sisters" against atrocities, the potential for incidents involving Muslim women would have been factored in. But Muslim women are probably the last people on earth who would enter into any calculation from such would-be martyrs and claimants to the title of mujahid.
I, for one, do hope that none of these bombs were triggered by 'suicide' attacks. For some reason, this makes the whole situation worse. It seems to 'personalise' the incidents. It is bad enough that I expect this to have been carried out by some Muslims born in the United Kingdom (hence, the lack of intelligence -- I wouldn't be surprised to find this was planned and put together quickly). Couple that with the possibility of a suicide attack, then it becomes not just a case of some people "out there" or in the shadows performing these acts, but me. Or my sister. Or one of my brothers. Or my Muslim friends. The finger is pointed at us all explicitly, not just implied. I suppose, this knee-jerk reaction would be understandable to a degree.
Lastly, I think the response by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, was particularly inspired: "I want to say one thing: This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners [...] Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old [... it was an] indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever." Hopefully, others are thinking like him too.
Blog feed
I very much agree with you. What else can be said... it is so sad. These people are harming humanity as a whole. So-called "radicals" harm islam and muslims. But they harm everybody else as well. The point is not saying again and again that this is against everything islam teaches us. It's just plain crime. That's all. Doing it in the name of God... subhan Allah I can't find the words.
Posted by: cahincaha | July 08, 2005 at 11:01 AM
"We must avoid, at all costs, arguments of moral equivalence. Thse are easy arguments to slip into. I do it frequently. If X is bombing Iraqis, Y is murdering Chechens, and Z is causing countless injustices to Palestinians, ought our response be to kill indiscriminately -- believing as we do that we will be accounted for each action -- without any sense, rhyme or reason?"
The arguments of moral equivalence fail for more than just the aforementioned reason. What about plots unearthed to blow up stuff in France and Germany, nations which opposed the Iraq invasion ? And what about those Nepalis beheaded in Iraq ? That didn't seem to have been provoked by any "injustice." Indeed, anyone who tries to indulge in such a rationalization should also, if he/she is not being hypocritical, rationalize the post-Godhra events in Gujarat. I'm glad you didn't slip into such a rationalization, because, finally, all violence (especially that directed at civilians) is abhorrent. Period.
Posted by: Atheist | July 08, 2005 at 04:23 PM
"I suppose, this knee-jerk reaction would be understandable to a degree."
More than understandable, more like good security policy. Since your 'brothers and sisters' have been, and are presently, plotting terrorist attacks, and since you will not fight, with us, against them, then you are part of the problem, shielding information that could help save lives.
It's so ridiculous that after one of these attacks, all you prolific Muslims blog madly about how the backlash has started. You get so upset with the non Muslims who now rightly look at you suspiciously. Why not, instead, turn that anger towards where it right belongs: to the majority in your so called faith that are kidnapping the complete religion and turning it into a murder cult.
While I support all the actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and reduced freedoms for Muslims, I also agree that all of these actions in totality will not solve the fundamentalism problem. Only within Islam, can this problem be resolved. The well justified fear is that there is no one person or group within the Islam community who is strong enough to try and fight the quite large fundamentalist body. Or who has even tried to put up a whimper of a fight.
And, by the way, this conspicuous lack of effort, is very obvious to the West. Hence, why all of you are being viewed with suspicion. Don't blame us for the obvious... heal thyself... prove that you can clean your own house.
Posted by: AlHamdulllilah | July 08, 2005 at 05:55 PM
Let me explain why this kaffir is very skeptical about all the Muslims 'condemnations of terror'. I can even sympathize with the fact that the sincerity of Muslims is often questioned, and even their loyalty. This is certainly a difficult issue, being condemned a priori.
I do not know what is in the hearts and minds of any Muslim. God only knows. I do know what Muslim's do where they are a majority, and I do see the strength of radicalism in Muslim communities in the West. It seems when a radical and a moderate meet and talk, the radical wins - he has a better understanding of Islam, I guess. The fact is that wherever Islam dominates, other religions as well as women and other groups are discriminated against and persecuted. Period.
So, based upon these simple facts, We - the people of the West - have every right to doubt your honesty, sincerity or even your understanding of Islam. We cannot put our women, our children and our civilization in jeopardy just because something hurts your feelings. Tough! Based upon Islamic websites, there is no doubt that if Muslims ever control a Western country, out goes personal freedom, and in comes sharia law, persecution, hate, anger, killings, and all the other things that bring such joy to the hearts of so many Muslims.
So, I couldn't care less what Muslims say or how many times they condemn terror. The only valid clue to what Muslims really believe is how they treat people where they are a majority. And it ain't a pretty picture. In case you haven't noticed, they don't even treat other Muslims very well. So quit blaming it on everybody else and take a good, hard look at your religion, your writings and even the life of your prophet.
When Islamic coutries permit Christian and Buddhist missionaries to walk the streets of Libya and Iran,when non-Muslims have exactly the same rights as Muslims do in all Islamic countries, when women can drive and vote in Arabia, when Copts are not killed and kidnapped by Muslims in Eqypt, when people can openly criticize the life of Mohammud, when men who commit honor slayings are condemned to 30 years, etc... (you get the idea) THEN and only then can we talk about your hurt feelings, and maybe we can even assume that Muslims are really against terror.
Posted by: kactuz | July 08, 2005 at 07:22 PM
To #3:
Your obvious lack of ability to think about things is a shame to the very Western traditions you claim to defend. The same Western traditions that have spawned great thinkers like Ockham, Aquinas, Calvin, Erasmus, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche... You are no defender of "the West" or its humanist traditions. You're just an idiot with access to the internet.
Posted by: thabet | July 08, 2005 at 08:07 PM
kactuzkid:
"...I do see the strength of radicalism in Muslim communities in the West."
Given that you "do not know what is in the hearts and minds of any Muslim" how can you then say you know about the "strength of radicalism in Muslim communities in the West"? How and, more importantly, through what method do you gauge this "radicalism"?
The rest of what you have to say requires no necessary response as it is probably an attempt to mimic a dream sequence a la Rushdie, but instead looks like bad GCSE writing from a 16-year old.
Posted by: thabet | July 08, 2005 at 08:23 PM
" ... strength of radicalism in Muslim communities in the West"? How and, more importantly, through what method do you gauge this "radicalism"? "
Dunno about him, but I do know a couple of lapsed Muslims. What they say doesn't paint a pretty picture in the least.
It's also revealing that in most Islamic forums that I go, every debate is framed in terms of believers Vs crusaders/zionists/shirks/kufrs. Free speech does guarantee the right to express and propound such points of view, but if such a sentiment is prevalent amongst the majority (and we're talking about kids raised in the West here), one really wonders how assimilated the Islamic community is. What's needed is greater tolerance for dissent within the community (instead of,for example, calling Irshad Manji a zionist prostitite), as well as for external criticism (the Rushdie affair). Exactly the same standards that everyone else is expected to follow in the West. If and when that happens, that'll be the first sign of true assimilation.
Posted by: Atheist | July 08, 2005 at 09:05 PM
Just to clarify, I've called Rushdie's criticism/fantasy/whatever external criticism as he's not a practising Muslim, AFAIK, unlike Manji.
Posted by: Atheist | July 08, 2005 at 09:09 PM
thabet, ad hominem attacks are the sure sign of a defeated debater. You lost before you started. I, too, can rattle off names, but what's your point? That you can 'think about things'? Is that the extent of your articulation?
Wow, we're all blown away by your sheer intellect. Try to at least make a point next time... otherwise you make this forum look like the Internet with access to an idiot.
Posted by: AlHamdullilah | July 09, 2005 at 06:24 AM
I would dearly love to "debate" some points. However, I saw no points to debate. Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: thabet | July 09, 2005 at 06:58 AM
Atheist:
"Dunno about him, but I do know a couple of lapsed Muslims. What they say doesn't paint a pretty picture in the least."
I can't speak for these "lapsed Muslims", obviously. I know people who are not Muslims (far from it) and they don't paint pretty pictures of situations/attitudes where they come from. What is your point? Human beings are not always particularly nice creatures? I'll agree with you on that one.
"It's also revealing that in most Islamic forums that I go, every debate is framed in terms of believers Vs crusaders/zionists/shirks/kufrs."
All doctrinal religions will usually debate their questions in terms of believers/non-believers. Unless your point is a general critique of such religions (which is a useful point of discussion, but a totally separate one), why are Muslims being singled out for this sort of criticism? Sure, some Muslims get over-excited with their language. So do people who are not Muslims. I don't necessarily regard internet forums as the final word on what "others" are thinking as tactics are often used which distort views (e.g. by using multiple ids).
"...(and we're talking about kids raised in the West here), one really wonders how assimilated the Islamic community is."
Well, one wonders what "assimilation" means. Coming close to flouting Godwin's Law, I will note that the Jews of 1930s Europe were far better integrated and assimilated than Muslims today. You can fill in the rest of the history. Arthur Hertzberg's _The French Enlightenment and the Jews_ points to the problems with this call for "assimilation" from visible minorities. However, I don't see how so-called "Islamic forums" can be used to gauge what the "majority" are thinking. Do the "majority" of Muslims use "Islamic forums"? Probably not. Again, if you're going to tell me that there are Muslims who will cheer on senseless violence, you have no argument from me on that one. I've made this quite clear in this post and in others.
"What's needed is greater tolerance for dissent within the community (instead of,for example, calling Irshad Manji a zionist prostitite), as well as for external criticism (the Rushdie affair)."
Well, I should make the first note that one need not read Rushdie's book as "external criticism" of anything other than an attack on racism and religious hypocrisy in parts of the world (primarily British racism and the attidues of religious authorities in the Indian subcontinent an Iran). What people forget was that before Khomeini decided to wave his hands and issue his verdict (there are questions as to whether he actually did it, or someone on his behalf), Muslims in the UK who were aggreived by this book were exercising their right to protest. You should be happy that tried to use the democratic process, by petitioning their MPs and organising demonstrations. In the aftermath of this whole affair, some Muslim writers -- even those with "liberal" views -- found their views marginalised and ignored by acts of self-censorship from the press. What happened to "free" speech and "external/internal" criticism then? Instead, some so-called "liberal" writers were given free-reign to express insulting, abusive and outright racist comments.
I would not deny that greater tolerance of other views is needed (it is needed even "free" societies). A number of Muslims have made similar comments so you're not the first to say so. However, what often happens is that if the "dissent" is fashionable any constructive critique of it is dismissed as "reactionary". This has happened in the case of Manji (whose book, I am afraid to say, is poor; I've read a lot better).
"If and when that happens, that'll be the first sign of true assimilation."
I am happy to say I reject calls for assimilation. Participation is a better way forward. And it isn't just Muslims who might be stopped from such a route. Can you honestly say that if all prejudices were eliminated today in "the West" we would be living in the same sort of societies?
Thanks for the comments and keeping them largely clear of asinine remarks.
My personal rule is that I usually only engage in my comments box twice with anyone individual. Feel free to respond here, but do not feel I am ignoring you if I do not reply back. If there are some comments I feel are worth entertaining, I often try and flesh it out in another post.
Posted by: thabet | July 09, 2005 at 07:35 AM
Thabet, your attempt at self-portrayal of an intellectual failed miserably. I'm actually happy with your personal rule... it means we won't be bored silly with any further rambling posts from 'you'. Just because you read a few books you don't really understand doesn't entitle you to an Internet granted BA.
'Some Muslims get over excited with their language'???? Are you absolutely drowning in your dementia inducing kool-aid? Have you been awake in the last few years? Have you missed the CNN video of Iran senate screaming "Death to America" like a bunch of robotic lunatics. Your type of apologist rhetoric with this 'over-excited' nonsense is clearly part of the problem... the funny thing is your faux intellectual type is the first that the radical Muslims would do away with.
Posted by: AlHamdullilah | July 09, 2005 at 08:27 AM
As all rules have exceptions...
I am happy to admit that I am not an "intellectual". I have never claimed this title, and would not wish to do so. Thank you for your help in clearing this up. I could, however, never accuse you of being an "intellect(ual)".
"...it means we won't be bored silly with any further rambling posts from 'you'."
Of course. I apologise. Next time I force 'you' to surf to this website I will try and ensure you're kept entertained with flashing lights and dancing girls.
"Have you missed the CNN video of Iran senate screaming "Death to America" like a bunch of robotic lunatics"
I am a Muslim: so why ask me when you already know that all Muslims believe any CNN footage is made up by the CIA or Mossad?
Sorry, must stop boring you further. Au revoir.
Posted by: thabet | July 09, 2005 at 06:11 PM