The Angry Young Man: Generation Jihad.
On Thursday, 14 July, two minutes of silence were observed in London and in much of Europe (including Madrid, which suffered horrendous train bombings on 11 March 2004), in memory of the victims of the mass transit bombings during the morning rush hour last Thursday, 7 July (three bombs on the Tube -- "subway" to us Yanks -- and one on one of London's proverbial double-decker buses; that one, it seems, went off prematurely...).
On 14 July, in the second hour of NPR's (National Public Radio) afternoon news programme, All Things Considered, there was an "analysis" piece by NPR correspondent Ivan Watson, who looked into the attitudes of some young British Muslims towards suicide bombings in general and the bombings of "7/7" (or "Seven-and-Seven;" like the mixed drink, Krishna preserve us....); this piece was just under four minutes long, and opened up with a brief interview with a Turkish cabbie named Yildiz who told Watson (off-tape, apparently) that Israel and the CIA were behind the U.S. terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: "a conspiracy theory common to the Islamic world," as Watson reminds us.
The piece more or less concludes with Watson's interview with "an Algerian-British real estate broker named Mohammad [SP?], who would not give his full name because he feared for his safety" and "Mohammad's partner Radwan, who also would not give his full name for fear of reprisals, said it was not fair to call the terrorists behind last week's bombing 'Islamic.'" They feel that the specification "Islamic terrorist" directs fear and hatred at all Muslims, not just the Muslims who actually killed a bunch of people.
Tellingly, Watson reported that "Both men said suicide bomb attacks might be justified when attacking a superior military force," although Radwan does not approve of killing innocent civilians, saying that if you did so, "like it or not, you're going straight to Hell."
The day after the London attacks -- Friday, 8 July -- All Things Considered's first hour ran an editorial by the self-styled "Muslim Refusenik" Irshad Manji -- Canadian journalist-cum-wunderkind and author of the controversial book The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call For Reform in Her Faith; the piece, which is roughly 2:45 long (the archived audio is 3:09), argues that moderate worshipers of the desert sky-father variously called YHVH, God, or Allah, need to acknowledge and sideline the bloodthirsty aspects of their sacred texts, and not use them as a jumping-off point for yet another "holy war."
Herewith is a transcript of Ms. Manji's editorial, behind the cut, since I can't seem to find a transcription posted on her website: just a link to NPR's site.
"As a reform-minded Muslim, I've been scouring websites for how the clerics of my faith are responding to the London bombings. Here's the good news: I see heartfelt condolences for the victims, and angry condemnation of the criminals. And then, the bad news: some of the imams are still in denial: not about the fact that Islamist terrorism exists, nor about how easily religion can be perverted, but about how the Koran, Islam's holy book, and the guiding book of my own life, is being exploited to support terror. Too many imams would rather deny that the Koran plays any role in this mess.
"One example comes from a press release issued by a prominent Muslim cleric in New York City. I know him; he's a gentle, decent guy, a new generation type who emphasizes multi-faith dialogue. To top it off, he just came home from a conference about moderate Islam in Jordan, where he played a major role. And yet, in his official response to the London bombings, this cleric sanitizes the Koran. He says it teaches us -- and I quote -- 'whoever kills a human being, it is as if he has killed all mankind.' Not quite; there's more to that passage. The full verse reads: 'Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.'
"'Except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land.' Those words are easily deployed by militant Muslims to fuel their rampages. That includes the London rampage: the group claiming responsibility cited Iraq as its primary motive. To them, the boot-prints of U.S. soldiers in Iraqi soil surely amounts to murder and villainy in the land.
"Of course, that doesn't make it right. Terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to carry out their missions. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals tried to blow up the World Trade Center? Or of 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? That assault came after the U.S. saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia. So I'm certainly not buying the religious rationale of the terrorists, and I'm relieved that more and more imams are rejecting their claims too.
"The next step is for moderate Muslims to join moderate Jews and Christians in acknowledging the nasty side of all our texts: the so-called 'sins of Scripture,' as Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong recently described the Bible.
"Let us be honest with each other, even as we're struggling to be fair with each other."
-- Irshad Manji; Friday, 8 July 2005
The Connection, a news-talk programme divided into two hour-long segments devoted to a single topic on WBUR-FM (an NPR station; the show is nationally syndicated, however), had a good interview with Manji on Thursday, 22 January 2004 when she was flogging her controversial and oh-so-topical second book (The Trouble With Islam Today, which was originally published without the "Today" in the title); if memory serves, she was upbraided by at least one or two irate male Muslims in the second half hour of her slot, and I remember admiring her coolness under fire. The episode is worth a listen, if you're at all interested in the subject.
On 14 July, in the second hour of NPR's (National Public Radio) afternoon news programme, All Things Considered, there was an "analysis" piece by NPR correspondent Ivan Watson, who looked into the attitudes of some young British Muslims towards suicide bombings in general and the bombings of "7/7" (or "Seven-and-Seven;" like the mixed drink, Krishna preserve us....); this piece was just under four minutes long, and opened up with a brief interview with a Turkish cabbie named Yildiz who told Watson (off-tape, apparently) that Israel and the CIA were behind the U.S. terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: "a conspiracy theory common to the Islamic world," as Watson reminds us.
The piece more or less concludes with Watson's interview with "an Algerian-British real estate broker named Mohammad [SP?], who would not give his full name because he feared for his safety" and "Mohammad's partner Radwan, who also would not give his full name for fear of reprisals, said it was not fair to call the terrorists behind last week's bombing 'Islamic.'" They feel that the specification "Islamic terrorist" directs fear and hatred at all Muslims, not just the Muslims who actually killed a bunch of people.
Tellingly, Watson reported that "Both men said suicide bomb attacks might be justified when attacking a superior military force," although Radwan does not approve of killing innocent civilians, saying that if you did so, "like it or not, you're going straight to Hell."
The day after the London attacks -- Friday, 8 July -- All Things Considered's first hour ran an editorial by the self-styled "Muslim Refusenik" Irshad Manji -- Canadian journalist-cum-wunderkind and author of the controversial book The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call For Reform in Her Faith; the piece, which is roughly 2:45 long (the archived audio is 3:09), argues that moderate worshipers of the desert sky-father variously called YHVH, God, or Allah, need to acknowledge and sideline the bloodthirsty aspects of their sacred texts, and not use them as a jumping-off point for yet another "holy war."
Herewith is a transcript of Ms. Manji's editorial, behind the cut, since I can't seem to find a transcription posted on her website: just a link to NPR's site.
"As a reform-minded Muslim, I've been scouring websites for how the clerics of my faith are responding to the London bombings. Here's the good news: I see heartfelt condolences for the victims, and angry condemnation of the criminals. And then, the bad news: some of the imams are still in denial: not about the fact that Islamist terrorism exists, nor about how easily religion can be perverted, but about how the Koran, Islam's holy book, and the guiding book of my own life, is being exploited to support terror. Too many imams would rather deny that the Koran plays any role in this mess.
"One example comes from a press release issued by a prominent Muslim cleric in New York City. I know him; he's a gentle, decent guy, a new generation type who emphasizes multi-faith dialogue. To top it off, he just came home from a conference about moderate Islam in Jordan, where he played a major role. And yet, in his official response to the London bombings, this cleric sanitizes the Koran. He says it teaches us -- and I quote -- 'whoever kills a human being, it is as if he has killed all mankind.' Not quite; there's more to that passage. The full verse reads: 'Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.'
"'Except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land.' Those words are easily deployed by militant Muslims to fuel their rampages. That includes the London rampage: the group claiming responsibility cited Iraq as its primary motive. To them, the boot-prints of U.S. soldiers in Iraqi soil surely amounts to murder and villainy in the land.
"Of course, that doesn't make it right. Terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to carry out their missions. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals tried to blow up the World Trade Center? Or of 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? That assault came after the U.S. saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia. So I'm certainly not buying the religious rationale of the terrorists, and I'm relieved that more and more imams are rejecting their claims too.
"The next step is for moderate Muslims to join moderate Jews and Christians in acknowledging the nasty side of all our texts: the so-called 'sins of Scripture,' as Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong recently described the Bible.
"Let us be honest with each other, even as we're struggling to be fair with each other."
-- Irshad Manji; Friday, 8 July 2005
The Connection, a news-talk programme divided into two hour-long segments devoted to a single topic on WBUR-FM (an NPR station; the show is nationally syndicated, however), had a good interview with Manji on Thursday, 22 January 2004 when she was flogging her controversial and oh-so-topical second book (The Trouble With Islam Today, which was originally published without the "Today" in the title); if memory serves, she was upbraided by at least one or two irate male Muslims in the second half hour of her slot, and I remember admiring her coolness under fire. The episode is worth a listen, if you're at all interested in the subject.