Posts
Memoirs Of A British Jihadi
By Josh Strawn / July 5, 2007
Now that the terror threat in Britain has been hilariously "lowered" from 'critical' to 'severe,' (in other words, from 'imminently fucked' to 'almost certainly screwed'), it's as good a time as any to meditate on the ol' 'Why They Do It' question. First, let's review the stock answers with which we're all quite familiar: American foreign policy, British foreign policy, imperialism, poverty in the Third World/Global South, the War in Iraq. Now, let's canvass a former member of the British Jihadi Network, Hassan Butt:
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.
Hassan isn't even an apostate. He hasn't renounced Islam and in fact he's quite devout. But when his superiors wouldn't answer his hard questions about Islamic theology, he did his own searching and discovered that he couldn't square what he had been told to do in the name of Islam with what he found in the Qu'ran. I know this might disappoint those folks who live to point out that economic disadvantage and American/British foreign policy are the fundamental engines of evil in the world. But watch the videos below as Hassan reminds us of the power of a fascistic ideology on the minds of the pious, the well-to-do, and, not least on those who don't want to be forced into marrying a girl they don't want to marry.
Those who think that Bush and Blair's war against al-Qaeda and Ba'athism cause terrorism or that suicide bombers are angry at the sight of starving children might do well to acquaint themselves with the history of Islamic schism–the Khawarij and the Wahhabis for a start. There is a great deal of contrast between these splinter groups and the first ummah. Muhammad's ascendancy was due to his character, one that was uncommon in Meccan society–he was a brilliant resolver of conflict amongst those of different tribal allegiance. It wasn't until those with specific power interests within the Islamic empire injected a separatist violent strain into Islam that the violence of jihad against "unbelievers" came into being as we know it today. This ideology was at once appealing to desert brigands and thieves who could use it as a perfect tool for political power grabs, and for the raping and pillaging of fellow Muslims. It functions the same to this day. Those who today continue to insist that Islamic terrorism would disappear or diminish if only George Bush would leave Iraq and if only fewer offensive cartoons would be published only make apparent their own historical illiteracy with respect to the Middle East and Islam. Hassan Butt knows what he's talking about. Individual groups may not issue fatwahs nor may they declare jihad. The division of the world into believers and unbelievers is outdated. In the spirit of Butt's recommendation to confront extremism on the level of theology, it might be worthwhile to call on the Hadith (the sayings of Muhammad). The inhospitable region of the Arabian peninsula known as Najd was home to Ibn Wahhab; it has home to vicious fanaticism for centuries and it is the birthplace of many of al-Qaeda's most integral beliefs. Muhammad himself said that the people of Najd were essentially people of hell:
'O Allah, bless our Syria and our Yemen!' They said: 'Ya Rasulallah, and our Najd!' He didn't reply. He blessed Syria and Yemen twice more. They asked him to bless Najd twice more but he didn't reply. The third time he said: 'There [in Najd] are the earthquakes and the dissensions, and through it will dawn the epoch [or horn] of shaytan.'
Now today, as the flame of violent, separatist Islam burns, many actively apologize for those who defame the religion by carrying out brutal mass murder in its name. They say 'BushBlairimperialismpoverty' and think they're ever so cultured, ever so full of conscience and respect for Islam. In reality, they "do the propaganda work" of the modern day equivalents of those people the Prophet deemed people of hell. Whoever says Islam is an outdated desert religion has this fact working against them. Muhammad could apparently spot the enemies of peace far better than many of the supposed forces of progress in our modern world.
POST A COMMENT
Yes, absolutely agree Josh. It would be foolish to ignore the meddlesome role of the United States throughout the region, and what's more such decisions (ranging from support of the Shah through our love affair with the House of Saud) give such an easy excuse, and in the end is a fairly easy target for any number of dictators, autocrats and fascists to utilize in order to move attention away from the inherent class (and often tribal or religious) divisions in these societies; particularly in the oil states. Though as was pointed out just above me, the Zionists can always be counted on to be the target of deflected blame.
Though that said, given our sercretive misadventures throughout Latin America, one could point out that despite some fiery rhetoric, there has yet to have been a large-scale Latin American jihad (umm, ok because it is hard to have a jihad when the j is silent) against American and American interests.
double standards are always at the heart of forms of 'orientalism', in many forms… failing to hold Muslims, their states, their leaders, or their societies to the same standards we hold ourselves is a form of patronizing racism…
But of course, the big problems in the Muslim world are NOT the fault of American or British bombs or imperialism, or the war in Iraq, or global poverty. Any Muslim anywhere in the world can tell you that– It's really all Israel's fault!!
No doubt. I constantly reiterate that this argument also homogenizes a group into a supposedly single-minded entity (Muslims) with a singular shared experience (poverty), only one analysis of it (Anglo/Western imperialism) that could have only one possible response (terrorism). It overlooks the complexities and diversity within these societies. Glossed over is the absence of Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, the presence of anti-Islamist Muslims, the many Muslims who do not fight against oppression with terror, etc. It isn't true that every Muslim in every impoverished country blames their situation on the United States and Britain. They know their leaders and their histories and they know that even after Anglo-American interference is accounted for, many elements within their own societies contribute to poverty and immiseration. The argument ignores Muslims who opress their own fellow Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries who make bad decisions. In general, it ignores the complexity of situations, refuses to account for multiple actors, and instead favors an over-simplified stock critique that is ideologically satisfying more than it is true.
My only fear of late is that, since this fact needs pointing out so badly, and since many of us who do it do so loudly, there does tend to be almost a casualness to the way many of us have come to mutter 'and also American meddling'–sort of the way antiwar folks used to say 'and also Saddams crimes.' After all, one mustn't stop wondering what jihad might look like today if there had never been an Iranian revolution or if the Anglo-American relationships with Ibn Saud and Sharif Husayn of Hezaj had played out differently. While I do believe blame for jihadists' evil acts rests with those who carry them out, I also believe that a more self-determined, economically stable region would have been more likely had not Western powers done many of the things they have. Still, the twisted logic of those who sympathize with jihadists as if they are the reaction to imperialist crimes runs, as you say, 'Well, what else did you expect imperialist–they have to murder large amounts of innocent people because that's all they can do–and since its all they can do, it's ok, because fighting agianst imperialism is better than being its victim.' None of these people can have studied any underdog resistance movement in history if they really believe that mosques, nursing homes, and marketplaces are key targets in the fight for a better world. Â
It seems as if the poverty or oppression argument is sort of a new form of Orientalism. In a way, those who excuse or try to rationalize suicide bombing and other wacky jihadist hijinx, show their truly low expectations for Muslims and Arabs. Essentially implying that we could not expect any other reaction to any number of grievances (real and/or perceived) than the violent targeting of innocents. I, for one, know that so much more is possible and necessary from both the Muslims that I know and those that I don't.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!