Can al-Qaeda be destroyed if we kill Usama?

It is a tragic mistake to believe that al-Qaeda refers to a solid and uniform group whose very existence can be undone by the death of one man. As the execution of the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein proved, the demise of a criminal does not necessarily remove the crime. In fact, Iraqis believe that their lot is worse now than when Saddam's Baath party had been in power.

The mistaken belief about al-Qaeda is simple as it is attractive, but stems from a very real misunderstanding of what the term al-Qaeda had meant to Muslim militants in the past and what it means in the present. The word itself is constituted by three Arabic characters: Qaf, which is pronounced with a guttural emphasis on the K; Ayn, which is pronounced with a heavy dip in the AY; and Dal, which is pronounced with a thickening of the DA, usually achieved by filling up a cheek with air and releasing it when DAL is uttered. Al-Qaeda literally means 'the base', and may refer to three things:

• Base, as in an outpost
• Foundation, as in what supports a home
• Principle, as in a formula, maxim or template

Abdullah Azzam, the chief ideologue of the non-Afghans (for a discussion on this predominantly Arab contingent, see Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, & the Fundamentalism in Central Asia) who took part in the 'holy war' against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, wrote:

Every principle needs a vanguard to carry it forward and, while focusing its way into society, puts up with heavy tasks and enormous sacrifices. There is no ideology, neither earthly nor heavenly, that does not require such a vanguard that gives everything it possesses in order to achieve victory for this ideology. It carries the flag all along the sheer, endless and difficult path until it reaches its destination in the reality of life, since Allah has destined that it should make it and manifests itself. This vanguard constitutes the strong foundation (Al-Qaeda al-Sulbah) for the expected society.

Azzam's use of the phrase al-Qaeda al-Sulbah led many commentators to believe that the group, al-Qaeda, had already existed during the early days of the Afghan jihad, but this is untrue. In writings and speeches, Azzam resorted to a very romanticized image of a small 'vanguard' fighting against the forces of evil. The vanguard was a term popularized by Syed Qutb, a leading intellectual of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who was later executed by his own government. Thus, by Al-Qaeda al-Sulbah, Azzam was really referring to a didactic mode of activism, based on clear and very specific principles. He was, in short, discussing a tactic.

Al-Qaeda continues to be an elusive entity whose cohesive structure and tentacle reach is highly exaggerated. In the wake of 9-11, regimes like Russia, China, Uzbekistan and to a limited extent, Israel, have benefited from reconciling their various border wars with the US' war on terrorism. Often, the rebels would even be characterized as al-Qaeda operatives. This ensured that international criticism over war tactics and social policy is as limited as it is selective. Thus, civilian casualties imposed by state actors are called "collateral damage", and those imposed by non-state actors are called "terrorism".

Besides the eclectic value judgments that come to play when the word 'terrorism' is thrown about, there is a clear and present danger in overemphasizing the threat of al-Qaeda. Killing Usama bin Laden will not destroy al-Qaeda, per se, because the plethora of extremist movements that currently riddle the global arena are linked not by a physical network, but by a common maxim and world-view. A useful glimpse into this world-view can be derived from an article written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, entitled "Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet". In it, al-Zawahiri mentions the tools through which so-called Western imperialism is deployed [1]; they include:

• The United Nations
• The friendly rulers of the Muslim
• The multinational corporations
• The international communications and data exchange systems
• The international news agencies and satellite media channels
• The international relief agencies

It is interesting that all of al-Zawahiri's points take political and economic dimensions as their reference points.

On past occasions, US President George Bush had been fond of characterizing Muslim extremists as people "who hate our freedoms". This is a mistake, because the rhetoric of extremist leaders like the Saudi-born Usama bin Laden and the Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri are inherently rooted in the notion of liberating Muslim countries from very real, very unforgiving dictatorships. The US President panders to a self-assured Western audience without calculating how condescending, foolish and downright hypocritical his speeches sound in the Orient.

Some western commentators also make an unforgivable lapse when they call al-Qaeda "a gang of evildoers" because the phrase sets up a false goal. Destroy gang, destroy problem. The war on terrorism is a ridiculous anachronism because terrorism is not an object, it is a tactic. Success in overcoming terrorism through policies that pursue individuals, contain money and human trafficking, widen police arrest powers and conduct pre-emptive action has been significant, but only in the short-term. It does nothing, for example, to deter new recruits from adopting the extremist ideology. To take a leaf from history, where was Zionism before European anti-Semitism eventually convinced almost all Jews that Israel was a reality that had to be forced with one's hands instead of simply waiting for the anticipated Messiah to lead them there? If anything, Zionism's evolution should serve as a warning to all myopic governments. Social and political pressure coming from the outside can and do contribute to increasing the relevance and currency of ideological movements, no matter how extremist they are.

So, al-Qaeda is but a tiny player in a market where the real commodity is that of ideas, not personalities or groups. Hunting down and eventually killing one man, Usama bin Laden, will not purge the world of extremism. People who continue to believe that are on their way to bitter disappointment. Worse, once these same optimists realize that the hopes they have been entertaining are false, they will then turn on the Muslim community at large. After all, if Usama's death does not remove terrorism, then surely Islam's death will. Signs of this trend are already abundant in parts of Europe, where radical political groups like the Danish People's Party openly declare that, "To a great extent, we are anti-Muslim."

The way forward is to visibly engage the extremists at a social, political and theological level. Yes, the tangible manifestations of extremism need to be curtailed. Men and women clearly out to do harm must be pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Here, both Muslim and non-Muslim nations have sometimes made blunt decisions on stemming the movement of people and money to stop extremism in its tracks. But initiatives are getting better-informed. Governments, for the most part, know enough not to turn the state's full attention on the entire Muslim community, but to a small section of it who subscribe to clear and well-defined trends (see my previous article, The Great Commission of Mussulman).

More than this, however, has to be done, and I suggest some signposts that ought to be followed, not least because they make common sense. Stop business interests from influencing international relations. Engage dictatorships, even if they govern strategically-sensitive and oil-rich countries, and persuade them to reform. Adopt a wide-ranging and human-centered approach to stopping disease. Adopt policies that orientate toward real global threats, like environmental catastrophes triggered by pollution and deforestation.

And most important of all, stop the hypocrisy! The so-called tactic and logic of terrorism is deployed by both Muslims and non-Muslims, and should be condemned for what it is, not who commits it.

---

[1] Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda- The True Story of Radical Islam, pg 23-24

Fight terror, invent electric cars

Peres: Fight terror - reduce global dependence on oil

President Shimon Peres on Monday hailed Israel's new weapon against the threat of "terrorism" from its Middle East neighbors - the electric car.

Outlining Israel's development priorities in an address to foreign journalists to mark this week's 60th anniversary of statehood, Peres said reducing global dependence on oil would curb oil-producing states' ability to fund Israel's enemies.

"Oil ... is not only polluting the air, it is also promoting terror," said the 84-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner, who has long promoted Israel's now powerful high-tech industries.

Peres argued that manifold increases in oil prices in recent years had contributed to a rise in financing for terrorism in the Middle East

Okay, I confess, I kind of understand where Mr Shimon Peres is coming from, but if I extend his logic, then the Bush Administration itself would be a direct sponsor of terrorism by continuing to buy oil from the Middle East and refusing to cut down or ratify any treaty that threatens its use of oil.

Muslims parade in New York

New York: Muslims parade in New York, condemn Sept. 11 terror attacks

Hundreds of Muslims chanted and waved flags from around the globe as they marched Sunday in the 22nd annual American Muslim Day Parade.

About 20 protesters shouted anti-Muslim slogans from behind police barricades along Manhattan's Madison Avenue and sought to link the marchers to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

A member of the parade organizing committee, Dr. Hafiz Ur Rehman, a pediatrician from Bay Shore, said the marchers condemned the 2001 attacks.

"We are law-abiding citizens, and we want the people of New York to know that Muslims are part and parcel of the landscape," he said. "The motto of this parade is that Islam holds human dignity high. And that is what we want to demonstrate."

Funding the anti-terror drive

Netherlands: Dutch government to spend €28 million combating "radicalization"

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: The Dutch government will spend €28 million (US$38 million) over the next four years to prevent the growth of Islamic fundamentalism and right-wing nationalism, the interior affairs minister said Monday.

Guusje ter Horst said the emphasis would be on funding existing programs at the neighborhood and school levels for what the government sees as a "growing problem" of the radicalization of Dutch youth.

She said the goal was not to combat extremist groups — a job for law enforcement and intelligence agencies — but to prevent them from forming in the first place.

I can't state with certainty that such plans are effective, because more often than not, they impact a larger number of people than is necessary. Anti-terror drives based on ethnicity and religion are almost always blunt weapons. Ironically, these drives serve to create a climate of fear, suspicion and a sense of oppression that might well push borderline cases into radicalization. I am more inclined toward not giving extremist leaders any more fodder than they already have at their disposal.

Only traditional Islam can do it...or can it?

A refreshing article written by Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst caught my attention today. It is provocatively titled, Only traditional Islam can do it. Here is the lead-in to the story:

The attempted bombings in London and the attack on Glasgow Airport last week underscore the continued and long-term Islamic terror threat that Britain and the world is facing. To date, all of those detained are highly educated foreign-born medical staff.

Far from being affronted by this incursion, young British Muslims are increasingly likely to support domestic jihad. The radicalization of British Muslim youth proceeds apace. According to a recent poll by Populus, growing numbers of Muslims aged 16-30 subscribe to extreme versions of Islam, and almost 40 percent want to live under Shariah law. Britain faces the prospect of a whole new generation of young people embracing extremism and religious fanaticism...

Crucially, current policies are not working because they fail to address the real cause of radicalization and fanaticism. Contemporary Islamic violence is religious in nature. Its origin lies in Islamic scripture and the destruction of the traditional medieval schools that dictated its interpretation.

It is gratifying to note that western commentators are getting closer and closer to the truth of the causes of Muslim extremism. Books like Joespeh Lumbard's Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, Khaled Aboud Fadl's The Great Theft and Aftab Malk's With God on Our Side have certainly made an impact, inasmuch as they have clearly drawn a line between extremist Islam and mainstream Islam.

However, Phillp Blond's article is not without problems. For example, he says:

And since there were four traditional schools of religious interpretation, which themselves varied according to time and location, what constituted a proper Islamic practice varied according to local norms and customs. As such traditional Islam prohibits the very totalitarian state Al Qaeda seeks to impose.

For example, if Islam recovers the traditional practice of ijtihad, a process of textual reinterpretation that replaces the scriptural literalism of the fundamentalists with a more medieval allegorical reading of the Koran, this would enable the Muslim faithful to distinguish between immutable God-given laws and mutable human interpretations.

Blond not only furnishes a wrong definition of ijtihad, but also makes the rather mistaken assumption that literalism is bad, allegory is good. Ijtihad is the action that a qualified scholar (called a mujtahid) takes in determining Islamic laws. His sources are primarily the Quran and Sunna. Because mujtahids employ different methods in interpreting the sacred texts, there are differences between the four canonical schools of jurisprudence. Within individual methods, the degrees of literalism or allegorism varies. Imam Ahmad Hanbal, for example, was known to have interpreted certain Quranic verses literally, but that does not mean he had not also used reason in interpreting other verses.

No doubt, modern-day extremists do employ a literalist approach to the text, but their literalism is of an entirely different flavor. In an earlier article, I had commented:

Muslim extremists...have a quaint habit of seeing the Quran as totally self-explanatory. "It's not rocket science," they would declare. However, to live up to that claim, any interpretation of the holy scriptures done by them inevitably gravitates toward literalism. What's worse, most Muslims aren't even familiar with the Arabic language and the particular grammar that infuses the Quranic text, so what they end up being literal about are the translations of the Quran, be they English, Malay or Mandarin.

Moreover, I find that the greatest impact literalism has on Islam is where statements are made concerning theology (see my previous article, The Amman Message in light of Imam al-Ghazali's Clear Criterion), rather than on matters like huddud or state institutions (criminal punishments).

Thus, literalism per se is not evil, while excessive allegory, which found its strongest expression in an ancient group of Muslim ultra-rationalists called the Mutazilla (see my previous discussion on this at Mu'tazilla is not Godzilla), is unanimously rejected by all four schools of jurisprudence.

Blond goes on to say:

...the mere rebirth of classical Islam is not enough.

I find the word "rebirth" extremely incompatible with Islam, because it mirrors the idiolect of Muslim ideologues who like to use words like "reformation" for their interpretation of Islam. Reformation implies that the cumulative tradition which is the hallmark of traditional Islam is flawed. In the same vein, rebirth implies that traditional Islam has been lost for a time and needs to be brought back into the lives of Muslims again. Blond's mistake is in assuming that traditional Islam has given up significant ground to extremist Islam, when this is not the case, especially in Muslim populations outside the Middle East.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of positive signs in Britain. For one, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in ­connection with the ­terrorism crisis.

While I support Brown's noble intentions, I have some reservations. By glossing over the label that most terrorists rigorously apply to themselves, Brown might be in danger of underestimating how much of a role Islam, or the extremist interpretation of it at least, plays in their ideology and lives. Making the subject taboo might ironically fuel bigotry against the whole Muslim community, since the dichotomy between what the terrorists claim themselves to be on television (i.e. true Muslims) and what the government is trying to push out (i.e. not Muslims) is simply too wide to ignore.

Have you heard the latest joke about doctors?

Again and again, some silly nut drives an explosives-laden car into a building and reminds us that the scourge of terrorism is far from over. Has the war on terrorism accomplished anything at all? The answer would be a resounding yes. To which I would add: more terrorism!

Isabel Hilton also snidely remarked:

The war against terrorism has proved a blessing to governments embroiled in long-running conflicts especially though not exclusively, where the rebels are Muslim. [1]

Meanwhile, the extremist form of Islam has been left relatively unmolested, despite the fact that all the writing on the wall point to very specific groups within the community itself. Although there are very few outward differences between mainstream Muslims and extremist Muslims, there is one key difference that might form a litmus test. The distinction lies between how both factions view the phenomenon known as the Saved Group within Islam [read my previous post, Salvation is just a family affair]. Without going into too much detail, very few mainstream Muslims believe that the Saved Group actually refers to a teeny-weeny minority that is presumably on the path of right belief while the others languish in near-polytheistic or innovated doctrines.

I am not saying that all those who believe in that particular interpretation are necessarily extremist, but it is certainly a useful starting point for rejecting Islam's cumulative tradition of mercy and tolerance. Extremist leaders use this device all the time. Reject tradition. Go back to the Quran and Sunna. The trouble is, the same groups agitating for just such 'returns' have very different ideas on how to go about it. If blood has not been shed on account of this, the whole situation would probably make up a chapter on Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

So the recent bunch of uncovered terrorists are medical doctors. The British government and press can't seem to get over that fact.

Omigod! Now they are doctors! Wake the prime minister, round up the Arabs and order armoured helicopters. Stop the presses and clear the schedules. The fiends from outer Asia are cunning. They could be poisoning hospital drips. They could be lacing paracetamol and putting anthrax in Elastoplast. Declare another bomb "imminent". Surround Heathrow with tanks, fortify Wimbledon, put blast blocks round Waterloo and ack-ack guns on Parliament Hill. Raise the threat level from critical to panic. On second thoughts make that totally hysterical. [Simon Jenkins, The Guardian]

Do you seriously think that only stupid people join terrorist ranks? Was 9-11 a stupid, bumbling plot? Why is there any surprise?

Mohammed Atta, one of the pilots who flew a plane into the World Trade Center, was a trained architect; Usama bin Laden is a civil engineer. Al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a surgeon. The latter must be an especially good one, considering how long Usama bin Laden has survived despite various ailments. Word has it that Dr Ayman also has a macabre sense of humor. In a swipe at Egyptian authorities for their alleged use of torture, he referred to an Egyptian newspaper article he read which mentioned a fax sent by a jailed dissident from his prison cell. He ruminated,

"Do prison cells in Egypt have fax machines? And I wonder, are they connected to the same line as the electric shock machine or do they have a separate line?"

No doubt, Islam's most vociferous, evangelical and activist spokespeople are now individuals highly trained in technical sciences. So part of the problem is caused by the way these engineers treat religious texts as operational manuals. Unfortunately, they are also living proof that extremist cells suffer no fools. In fact, the initiation into Islamic extremism must be a sophisticated and intellectually-appealing experience.

The indoctrination typically introduces another factor:

A powerful sense of kafir helps the believer to live in western exile in the necessary state of chronic persecution, from which his theology is born...It also confers a heroic glamour on the everyday alienation felt by the immigrants- especially in the male immigrant- who struggles to keep his head up in a foreign culture...Your corrosive solitude is the measure of your superiority to the kuffar, in their hellbound ignorance and corruption. [2]

What later distinguishes them from other Muslims is radicalization rather than piety. In the extremist worldview, however, they are the faithful ones while the rest of the world, including the majority of Muslims, are immersed in sin and laxity.

When is anybody going to read the writing on the wall?

---

Notes:
[1] The Guardian, 15 December 2001
[2] Malise Ruthven, A Fury for God

What the media needs to show: Muslim Scholars condemning Terrorism

Mujahideenryder has collected a list of links that feature prominent Muslim scholars repudiating extremism and terrorism. What is striking is that these scholars are not merely repeating the old line that "Islam does not condone violence", but are learned enough to identify the very sources of extremism in the Islamic world.

Visit the entry here.

Muslims give blood to Hindu victims

Indian Muslims queued for hours on Wednesday to give blood to their Hindu neighbours wounded in the Mumbai train bombings, in a rare show of harmony in a city with a long history of communal bloodshed.

"We don't care whether it's a Hindu or a Muslim who gets our blood as long as we can save them," said Abdul Khan, one of dozens of Muslim men waiting in line at the blood bank at Siddarth Hospital, near one blast site at Jogeshwari station.

More at Dawn.

The choice between Jesus and Jihad

People believe what they want to believe. Mention the word "terrorists", and images of bearded men brandishing Kalishnikovs immediately pop to mind. Last week, the FBI swooped in on seven men accused of planning an attack on Chicago's Sears Tower. Presumably, the group calling itself Seas of David had aspired to wipe out as many "devils" as possible.

At first glance, the profiles that the mainstream media coughed up on these homegrown terrorists were entirely typical. Who else can they be but Muslims?

To make matters clearer, US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales has little doubt that the group is inspired by, (wait for the drumroll)

...a violent jihadist message.

Which is funny, because a source close to one of the arrested men insists that,

...He studies the Bible and cares only for Jesus.

A clear paradox then. All good people know that Jihad and Jesus don't mix. So even though the seven misfits subscribe to a belief that is a hotchpotch of the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, an unconscious consensus was reached to play up only one part of the unholy triad- Islam.

The proof, as they say, is entirely in the pudding. The name of one of the alleged attackers kept on appearing- Brother Sunni. Evidently, it's trumpeted as irrevocable proof of Islam's doctrinal involvement in the aborted Sears attack.

Thanks to the Iraq war, Americans are intimately familiar with the term Sunni. It's the majority group in Islam, and currently makes a nuisance of itself by lending its name to certain recalcitrant groups and districts in Iraq.

Brother Sunni crops up in almost all the news reports, despite the fact that its a blatant mispronunciation. Wolf Blitzer, anchor of CNN's Situation Room, recently interviewed the sister of one of the arrested suspects, Marlene Phanor.

BLITZER: Is your brother a Muslim?

PHANOR: No, sir. He's not a Muslim. He's a Catholic.

BLITZER: Does he go to church?

PHANOR: Excuse me?

BLITZER: Does he go to church?

PHANOR: Yes, he goes to church. He's a Catholic. We're at the St. Mary's Catholic Church...

Ms Phanor added that her brother also attended a temple, where meetings were held. Smelling blood, Blitzer pounced,

BLITZER: Was that temple a Muslim temple?

PHANOR: I'm not sure, but I know my brother is a Catholic.

BLITZER: Why did -- does the government say he is also known as Brother Sunni?

PHANOR: Well, no all call themselves brothers. Why, I don't know, but the whole little group call themselves brother.

BLITZER: Did you ever hear your brother being called Sunni?

PHANOR: Yes, that's his nickname. It's not Sunni, it's sunny, like, is it a sunny day. Yes, that's his name.

BLITZER: So, confusion is that he was called Sunny, not Sunni, because Sunni, as you know, is one of the religious groups in Islam.

So much for Brother Sunni. And the temple itself is no mystery. If Wolf Blitzer had done his homework, he might have stumbled on the fact that the group derived most of its teachings from the Moorish Science Temple of America, an early 20th century religion founded by the Timothy Drew, a wandering African-American circus magician who claimed to have been raised by Cherokee Indians and to have learnt "high magic" in Egypt. Drew went on to style himself an "angel" and prophet of Allah.

Interestingly, Drew's students included Wallace Fard Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam, a group that is considered heretical by Muslims.

It is eminently clear that the media reports on the arrest of the seven men have more the flavor of a witch-hunt than anything else. Another chink in the so-called war on terror.

When blindness kills

The latest bombings in Egypt effectively nail the coffin shut on the lie that terrorism is the West's problem. In fact, because of the increased security in the United States and Europe, major terrorist strikes have unsurprisingly moved into predominantly Muslim capitals. From the bombings of the Hazrat Shahjalal shrine in Bangladesh, to the demolition of the golden dome in Samarra, Iraq. From the triple suicide bombings in Jordan to the slaughter of Muslim ulema (scholars) who had arrived at Karachi, Pakistan to commemorate Mawlid (Prophet Muhammad's birthday); the attacks increasingly point to an ideological divide between Muslims. In fact, the targets themselves offer the first clues to the shape of the ideology that perpetrated the attacks

Unfortunately, unless Muslim governments are willing to take the all-important first step in identifying the ideology, their cities remain vulnerable to terrorists who recognize no other rules except their own.

When the blinkers will be removed is anybody's guess.

Terrorism nearly killed Saladin

Malaysia plans to break into the lucrative animation industry in a big way, by tackling no less a personage than the great Saladin al-Ayubbi himself.

Saladin's chilvary, courage and military brilliance are well-known both inside and outside the Muslim world. Little wonder then that Moustapha Akkad (The Message: The Story of Islam) had chosen the Kurdish commander as the theme of his latest film, with the ageless Sean Connery playing what might have been a leading role. Akkad explained,

"In the light of unjustified accusations of terrorism directed towards the Arab world, Saladin is- in my perspective- the most suitable character to present to the West as our mouthpiece. Is there a more barbaric example of religious terrorism than the medieval Crusades that Saladin confronted? However, nobody accuses Christianity of breeding terrorism."

This was all before the hotel bombings in Jordan, of course. Along with sixty other civilians, Moustapha Akkad and his daughter were killed by bombs strapped onto a troupe of suicide bombers. An al-Qaeda website later clarified that those hotels were valid targets because they had become the favorite haunts of, amongst other things,

"American and Israeli intelligence and other Western European governments."

I suspect that the newfound interest in Saladin was sparked by two relatively recent developments. The first was Steven Spielberg's splendid Prince of Egypt, which showed how good animation could be used to tell even the most careworn stories. The second was the positive potrayal of Saladin in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Malaysia wades into the Saladin franchise with what seems to be a unique narrative.

According to the feature's official homepage,

...the series proposes a fictional period in his life as a young adventurer, the experience of which shaped the great leader he would become. 18 years old and ready to take on the world, Saladin leaves his home city of Damascus with his lifelong friend Tarik...

Dare I say it? There seems to be a healthy dash of Ibn Battuta thrown into the series.

No matter how historically inaccurate the animated feature turns out to be, it's a monumental step for a country many Muslims once considered to be an outpost of the ummah. The trailer doesn't look half bad, either.

View the trailer

Google can help in the war on terrorism

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) wants Google to hand over data about what people are looking for on the Internet. Ostensibly, it's to shut down child-pornography rings, which is good and proper, but what must worry terrorists is the possibility that the DoJ is putting up a smokescreen; that what the Americans are really after is information on their online habits.

After all, in the World Wide Web, Islamists have found a place where they can act out all their sadistic fanatasies. From providing detailed instructions about how terrorists could attack and kill individual Westerners on the streets of Jakarta, to posting video clips of frightened hostages in Iraq. From elaborate bomb-making manuals to releasing the latest suicide-endorsing fatwas- it's a wiki-wiki world for these Islamists.

Thanks to its almost daily crawls of the Internet, Google is armed with an extensive database on website contents; unless of course, Islamists have enough tech-savvy to place a robots.txt file in their root servers, effectively telling Google's "webspiders" to stay out.

But Islamists want their websites to be found. They can't stand nonchalance from us. That's why they're so into bombs.

No doubt, if the DoJ succeeds in bringing Google to heel, it would be well-placed to sieve out what's terrorism-related, and what's not. However, there's always the question of how much intrusion is too much?

The Bush Administration is currently reeling from recent revelations that it authorized the bugging of phone lines, without the DoJ's approval. More astonishingly, federal authorities have been monitoring the radiation levels of some mosques.

Though a recent study conducted by the non-partisan Freedom House has highlighted the existence of 'hate materials' published by Saudi Arabia in American mosques, I hardly think that a mosque is an appropriate place to store an atomic bomb. I am forcefully reminded of the intrusive raids by the FBI into mosques after the 9-11 attacks. An attorny representing 18 Muslims who had been held in connection with 9-11 investigations retorted:

"Why is our places of worship the focus of your attention, when you know the hijackers weren't worshipping at religious centers, but they were hanging out at bars?"

Little known to the general public, though, are the efforts taken by Google to resolve once and for all, some burning questions on the "war on terrorism". The outcome of a showdown between Hamas and Israel, for example, has been emphatically decided. Of more interest to Islam-insiders is this ongoing battle.

Terrorism exposes ugly truths

What hurts Muslims most is the fact that militants have begun to target predominantly Muslim countries. The bombings in Jordan are not likely to be the last ones that kill Muslims. As long as sections of the Muslim community continue to support suicide bombings in other countries like Israel, terrorists are not going to stop strapping bombs to themselves, not for the convenience of Muslim bystanders.

Most Muslims don't get it.

In the wake of the Bali bombings, Indonesian Indonesian Vice President Yusuf Kalla famously remarked:

"Suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq are perhaps understandable because there is an 'opponent' there..."

But suicide is clearly forbidden by Islamic law. No matter who the opponent is, suicide bombings can never be placed in the realm of 'understanding'. The same Muslims who express 'understanding' on a violent and religiously-objectionable tactic are the same ones who remain silent when Israeli civilians are snuffed by a Hamas bomber. The moral high ground from which they reject suicide bombing Muslim civilians is hence merely an euphemism for tribalism.

Just last week, Yusuf Kalla gathered 18 prominent Muslim leaders and scholars to show them footage of threats allegedly made by Noordin Top against the United States, Australia, Britain and Italy. Naturally, the scholars expressed outrage and dismay. The chairman of the prominent Muhammadiyah Islamic organization, Din Syamsuddin, exhorted the police:

"If possible, he (Noordin Top) must be caught alive and hopefully he can explain what exactly are the motives behind his actions here...,"

Chances are, these religionists are demanding answers to stock questions like: "How can Muslims do this to Muslims?" It's the identity of the victims that bothers them, not the tactic.

Despite annoying lapses, the Indonesian authorities and religious leaders do recognize the danger of ideological Islam. Scholar Komaruddin Hidayat of the Paramadina Foundation isolates the ingredients that ideologues are constantly on the lookout for:

"The combination of hard life and partial understanding of the concept of Islam and jihad..."

It helps that Indonesia has a rich intellectual aversion to forcing Islam down the ideological chute. Abdurrahman Wahid is perhaps the strongest example of this. In many respects, he is a giant on the Islamic stage in modern Indonesia and his election as fourth president in 1999 only enhances his already substantial profile.

Better known as Gus Dur, he was born into a famous family; his grandfather being Kai Haji Hasyim Asy'ari who studied Jurisprudence, Tradition and Sufism with both Shaykh Ahmad Khatib and Muhammad al-Nawawi during a period of seven years in Mecca in the 1890s, before returning to become famous as the kyai at the Pondok Pesantren Tebuireng. His greatest legacy lies in the foundational role in establishing Nahdatul Ulama (NU) in 1926. [1]

Gus Dur attained NU's supreme position as Chairman in 1984. In 1994, he opposed the late President Suharto's creation of ICMI (the Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals), saying that it could become the 'thin end of the wedge' as far as political Islam was concerned, leading to a threat from Islamist thinking to Indonesian democracy.

"As long as they think Islam is an ideology, then I will not participate. Islam is a way of life. Its adherents should follow it voluntarily, not needing any legislation from the state."

He was joined by eight other prominent scholars, one of whom was the late Nurcholis Madjid, who famously proclaimed in 1972: "Islam, yes; Islamic parties, no." The dictum that these Indonesian intellectuals held from very early on was critical in curbing the proliferation of Muslim extremism.

Singapore's Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean acknowledges that Southeast Asia is a "key battleground", simply because the war so far has been waged between secular Muslim states like Indonesia and extremists who want to replace them with an ideological, intolerant alternative. Fortunately, Muslim leaders in the region remain cognizant of the roots of the danger. In a speech during Eid celebrations, Singapore's Minister for Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim warned religious leaders to guard against "the influence of seemingly fashionable and even seemingly 'Islamically-correct' ideas from abroad". He added:

"The promise of an idealized past is in fact a response of a mind unable to grapple with current realities and a complex future."

It is important to note that Dr Yaacob drops several hints as to what this pernicious influence really is.

Hint 1: It comes "from abroad"
Hint 2: Its ideology is based on an "idealized past".

It's not too difficult to connect the dots, is it?

It is a testament to Islam's genuine cultural and spiritual power- and actually the ideologue's own poverty in these respects- that ideology and extremism has not reached more Muslims, despite traditional Islam's sometimes bizarre meekness before them. The recent bombings in Bali, Indonesia and the daily slaughter of Shia Muslims in Iraq show that ideological Islam is making dangerous gains, and will continue to do so unless an international, concerted effort is made to thwart it.

=============
[1] Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World, Peter Riddel

The Gospel according to Hamas

Because terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda do not adopt the positions of traditional scholars on a wide array of issues, they can be placed against the context of a wider movement that has sought, with varying degree and success, to 'modernize' Islam. The adherents of extremist groups thrive on the 'exclusion clauses' that are woven into their ideology. When the need arises, new understandings, such as those justifying suicide bombing, can be drawn from the sacred texts. Religion becomes an expediency, rather than a moral compass.

Traditionally, the shaping of Islamic guidance has always lain in the hands of specialists and scholars who go through extremely rigorous training in a broad range of disciplines. To give you an example of how convoluted the field actually is, I shall use Imam Bukhari's own warning to his student, Abul-Abbas Walid ibn Ibrahim as an example of just what is required:

"Son, before you set out to pursue any field, make sure you are well-grounded with its prerequisites and demands. And remember that a person cannot become a perfect scholar in the science of hadith [muhaddith] until and unless he writes four things with four other things, which are as indispensable as four things, which resemble four other things. (He must write these things) in four times, with four conditions, in four places, upon four things, from four types of people, and for four objectives. All of these four-angled things can only be achieved with another four things coupled with another four. Once all these things are achieved, four things will become insignificant before him and he will be tried with four other things. If he exercises patience in these four trials, Allah a will honor him with four things in this world and award him four things in the hereafter."

I said, "May Allah have mercy upon you. Please explain these four-angled things for me."

He said, "Certainly. The four things he has to write are:

(1) the statements and commands of Allah's Messenger
(2) the sayings of the Companions and their relative ranks,
(3) the sayings of the Followers and their ranks (i.e. who among
them are reliable and who are not), and
(4) the conditions of all the narrators who narrate hadiths.

These (four pieces of information) must be written together with the following four things:

(1) the actual names of the narrators,
(2) their appellations or titles [kuna],
(3) their places of residence, and
(4) their dates of birth and death (to determine whether the narrator actually met the people he has narrated from).

(These are indispensable to him) just (as four things are necessary with four other things:)

(1) as praises [tahmid] of Allah (are necessary) with the khutba,
(2) as salutations [salawat], (are necessary) with mention of the name of Allah's Messenger
(3) as (the recitation of) bismillah (is necessary) with a sura (of the Qur'an), and
(4) as the takbir (is necessary) with the salat.

'These resemble four other things (which are names of four categories of hadith):

(1) the musnadat [narrations traceable to the Messenger],
(2) the mursalat [narrations transmitted by a Follower from the Messenger directly without a Companion in between],
(3) the mawqufat [narrations traceable only to a Companion], and
(4) the maqtu'at [narrations traceable only to a Follower].

(These things must all be written) in four times:

(1) in his childhood,
(2) in his age of discernment (i.e. close to maturity),
(3) in his youth, and
(4) in his old age.

(In other words, he must continue acquiring hadiths at all times throughout every stage of his life. They must be written) under four conditions:

(1) while his is occupied,
(2) while he is free,
(3) in his poverty, and
(4) in his affluence.

(In other words, he must diligently pursue the knowledge of these things no matter what his circumstances may be. This is done) at four places:

(1) in mountainous terrain,
(2) on the seas,
(3) in cities, and
(4) in rural areas.

(In other words, he must endeavor to acquire this science from the right teacher, no matter where that teacher is located. He writes what he has acquired) upon four things:

(1) upon stones,
(2) upon shells,
(3) upon skins, and
(4) upon bones.

(In other words, even when he does not find paper he will continue recording it somewhere) until he finds the paper upon which to preserve it. (He acquires it from four different types of people:)

(1) from his seniors,
(2) from his juniors,
(3) from his counterparts, and
(4) from the books of his father, provided he has firm conviction
that these are his father's books.

(In other words, he endeavors to acquire this science in every way possible without feeling ashamed to obtain it even from his juniors. He has four objectives for doing all of these things:)

(1) to acquire (this science) solely for the pleasure of Allah ~41,
(2) to practice upon the hadiths which conform to the verses of
the Holy Qur'an,
(3) to propagate (the science) to those who seek it, and
(4) to write it out so that it can be a source of guidance to those who will come after him.

Thereafter, the aforementioned four things cannot be acquired (unless he has first acquired) four other things that are part of human acquisition:

(1) the knowledge of how to read and write,
(2) lexicography and vocabulary,
(3) morphology, and
(4) syntax,

together with four other things that are not of human acquisition, but are bestowed by Allah:

(1) sound health,
(2) ability,
(3) an ardent desire for learning, and
(4) a retentive memory.

Once all the aforementioned four-angled things are attained by him, then four things will become insignificant before him:

(1) his family,
(2) his children,
(3) his wealth, and
(4) his native land.

He will then be afflicted with four things:

(1) his enemies will rejoice at his distress,
(2) his friends will reproach him,
(3) the ignorant will taunt him, and
(4) the scholars ['ulema'] will be jealous of him.

Once he exercises patience on these calamities, Allah will honor him with four things in this world:

(1) the honor of contentment [qana'a],
(2) conviction coupled with awe and dignity,
(3) the pleasure of sacred knowledge ['ilm], and
(4) eternal life.

(On top of that,) Allah will honor him with four things in the hereafter:

(1) the honor of intercession on behalf of whomever he pleases,
(2) the shade of the throne of Allah a on the day when there will be no shade available except the shade of His throne,
(3) the privilege to provide water to whomsoever he pleases from the pool of Muhammad [al-Kawthar], and
(4) close proximity with the Prophets [anbiya'] in the Highest of the High Places [ala illiyyin].

So now, my son, I have told you whatever I have heard from my teachers. Now you have the choice to either pursue this field or to abstain from it."

Muslims against terrorism

Here is an interesting selection of banners that I picked up from Spiritual Tendencies. The creator of these masterpieces has very kindly allowed me to reproduce them here.

If you want to use them on your own websites, kindly drop Abdul Khafid a note.

Why Bali?

Once again, the resort island of Bali is hit. Three suicide bombers, taking with them the lives of 36 people. Police are hunting Noordin Mohamed Top, a Malaysian Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) operative and elsewhere, Vice President Yusuf Kalla urges Muslim leaders to condemn terrorism that is worked on Indonesian soil. He says:

"Suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq are perhaps understandable because there is an 'opponent' there..."

I must confess. Yusuf Kalla's statement makes absolutely no sense. First of all, Afghanistan has seen very little suicide bombings and the almost weekly suicide bombings in Iraq have killed more Muslim civilians (albeit Shia) than Americans, whom I presume are Yusuf Kalla's real opponents. Yusuf Kalla himself makes for a remarkable study, but I'll leave him for another time.

From the outset, suicide bombing gravitates toward a specific kind of target. Proximity to the victim, coupled with the aim to inflict maximum damage almost ensures that the target will not be military, but a civilian one; what is known today as a soft target. Doing the math, terrorists know that between a military and a civilian target, the latter is entirely predictable and can always be relied on to produce a devastating result.

Unlike the medieval holy warrior or assassin, who was willing to face certain death at the hands of his enemies or captors, the new suicide terrorist dies by his own hand. This raises an important question of Islamic teaching. Islamic law books are very clear on the subject of suicide. It is a major sin and is punished by eternal damnation in the form of endless repetition of the act by which the suicide killed himself [1].

A sahih (authentic) hadith narrated by Abu Hurarira strikes right into the heart of the matter:

"We witnessed along with Allah's Apostle the Khaibar (campaign). Allah's Apostle told his companions about a man who claimed to be a Muslim, "This man is from the people of the Fire." When the battle started, the man fought very bravely and received a great number of wounds and got crippled. On that, a man from among the companions of the Prophet came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you know what the man you described as of the people of the Fire has done? He has fought very bravely for Allah's Cause and he has received many wounds." The Prophet said, "But he is indeed one of the people of the Fire." Some of the Muslims were about to have some doubt about that statement. So while the man was in that state, the pain caused by the wounds troubled him so much that he put his hand into his quiver and took out an arrow and committed suicide with it. Off went some men from among the Muslims to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allah has made your statement true. So-and-so has committed suicide."

Obviously, Muslims who try to justify suicide bombings in the light of either Islam or jihad tread a virtually non-existent line, since the real face of suicide bombing, unmasked in places as diverse as Iraq, Israel and Indonesia, is its perverse taste for unwitting women, children and the elderly. The latter are categories of people that the Prophet Muhammad steadfastly forbade his followers from molesting, even in the fever-pitch of battle.

The Malaysian press' use of the label pengebom berani mati (or men who are brave enough to die) to describe suicide bombers, especially in Bali's context, seems especially sadistic. The journalists lament that they don't have another apt term for it; one that properly highlights the bomber's cause.

What eludes them is that these acrobatics; the reluctance to use the far more accurate Malay word, pengebom bunuh diri (men who kill themselves) leads directly to justifying the act itself, and hence the deaths of its victims. Or perhaps, that is the deal all along. Suicide, after all, is clearly condemned in Islam. Thus, if a linguistic loophole is available, exploit it.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's quick characterization of the Bali bombings as terrorist acts is to be commended. His government had received reports of an impending attack on Jakarta, so had only made security arrangements for the capital. However, if the President had attended to regional analyses of JI, he'd have known that a split had emerged within its fecund ranks. The 2002 Bali and Marriot bombings, in which JI members had been implicated, had killed a lot of Muslims. This had sickened many, including JI members.

Sidney Jones, from the International Crisis Group, said JI could be moving back towards its vision of setting up an Islamic state, distancing itself from the hardline pro-bombing faction led by Malaysians Azahari bin Husin and Noordin Top.

Sadly, if this had been taken into account, President Yudhoyono would have quickly realized that in the terrorists' minds, the demographics of islands like Bali, Bintan and Irian Jaya (where 'disbelievers' outnumber Muslims) make them succulent targets. In killing non-Muslims, the terrorists seek perhaps to reach a compromise with their war-weary brothers and sisters. This isn't far-fetched at all, since the terrorists' core audience remain the Muslim community itself. Al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri clearly grasps this reality in a recent letter to the terrorist organization's Iraqi front-man. In it, he flatly warns Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that his brutal tactics might serve to alienate the wider Muslim population.

The question that should have been asked is "Why not Bali?

=============

[1] The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis

Terrorists, always on time

"There is no nation that has shown greater readiness than the Turks to avail themselves of the useful inventions of foreigners, as is proved by their employment of cannons and mortars...They can not, however, be induced as yet to... establish public clocks...if public clocks were introduced, the authority of their muezzins...would be thereby impaired."
--- Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, ambassador from the Holy Roman Emperor to the Ottoman Sultan, in a letter written in 1560.

Mechanical clocks weren't widely used in Muslim heartlands until the sixteenth century. While the Middle East had inherited the Babylonian sundial and Egyptian water-clock, both were inaccurate and clumsy. Apart from prayer, which required only approximate timing, Islamic society was devoid of parliaments, councils or the conducting of public business. Time relied on notoriously subjective observation of the natural phenomenon; such as the rising and setting of the sun. It was expressed in a range, rather than a tick-point along a circular face.

We can't do without an accurate accounting of time. Our life would literally break down without mechanical clocks. It is a requirement of modern society and scientific study. While medieval Islam adopted a considerable bulk of scientific wisdom from ancient civilizations, and contributed extensively to it, the precise and delicate calculations of time that were invented by Arab scientists hardly trickled to ordinary life.

Through the accurate measurement of time, Western society developed an appreciation of polyphony in music, by harmony and counterpoint. This begins in its simplest form with the choir, in which matched voices sing different notes in planned sequence to produce a combined effect [1]. The musical ensemble, duet and orchestra sprang from such meticulous synchronization.

With a little imagination, one might discover similar features in other aspects of Western culture- in democratic politics and team sports, both of which require cooperation and harmony. Even the manner in which modern warfare is conducted, as demonstrated by American forces in the Middle East, is a reflection of the West's love affair with polyphony.

Presumably, jihadists have learnt to play the western game. There is no greater evidence of modern ideas infusing the jihadists' ideology than the careful timing of their attacks. From the hijacks of four planes in the United States, to the near-simultaneous bombings of trains and buses in London. From the 350 daisy-chain explosions across Bangladesh to the 10 bombs in Madrid's rush-hour. The militants might profess great loathing for Western music, but they certainly appreciate the gruesome usefulness of its offspring. Terrorists found their greatest expression of the fine arts through their use of the European invention of the mechanical clock.

============

[1] From What Went Wrong?, by Bernard Lewis.

Al Qaeda & What It Means to be Modern (John Gray)

The title caught me off-guard. I thought it was a Dummy's Guide to Jihad kind of deal, written by none other than 'shaykh' Usama bin Laden himself. But cursory leafing soon banished that fancy. Little did I expect that with it would go all my pompous impressions on al-Qaeda.

The book is roughly divided into two parts. In the first, Gray firmly refutes the popular notion that al-Qaeda, with its turbaned and bearded ambassadors, is a throwback to medieval times. The title's meaning rapidly becomes clear. He asserts that militant groups are run along similar lines as virtual business conglomerates and even the mafia, taking advantage of globalization's sacred precepts; open borders and a free market that permits virtually unlimited movement of cash and capital.

Incidentally, both tenets form the backbone of any aid that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank offer developing countries, with dramatic and often chaotic outcomes on already-impoverished economies. Africa, Argentina and Indonesia are cited as perfect examples of the short-circuits that IMF policies introduce. Poverty builds up, thus fueling a population's disillusionment with 'the system'. Such grounds are a perfect source of what Gray disarmingly calls "suicide warriors". It is these grievances that al-Qaeda successfully drafts into its ever-growing list of Western Sins.

The book persuaded me that radicalism, and a general shift of political parties to the right, is the certain result of modernity's march under the shadow of globalization and capitalism. My view is strengthened by the fact that all across Europe, right-leaning politicians have garnered increased influence and power. Even traditionally left-centric governments like Blair's Labor is changing its flavor to a more conservative and trade-protectionist stance.

Because the book is so slim, it is inevitable that Gray's second, more philosophical portion comes somewhat as a rude shock. Tread warily, for this section assumes two things: that you are familiar with western current affairs, and possess a basic understanding of Enlightenment ideas.

Gray convincingly traces the deep impression that Positivism- a 19th-century intellectual movement- left on modern concepts like socialism, democracy and even the IMF's frighteningly blinkered manifesto. The belief that as societies come to be based on science, they are bound to become alike finds comfortable resonance in the American mythos that democracy, with all its traps and pitfalls, is the natural destination of every man. Because of this, al-Qaeda is mistakenly viewed as a relic of the past. Positivism's inherent narcissism is the main stumbling block to properly defining the 'war on terror'.

The author's brief but insightful study of the late Sayid Qutb- Usama's ideological muse- is rooted in the premise that his writings were greatly influenced by European anarchism. Like Karl Marx, Qutb's writings are crammed with horror of the West. This straw man (largely erroneous) becomes the staging point for his idea of a revolutionary vanguard dedicated to bringing into existence a world without rulers or ruled. He infamously accused the contemporary generation of Muslims and Muslim countries as being regressions to jahiliyah, the pre-Islamic dark ages.

Gray maintains that both concepts have no precedence in Islamic tradition. Indeed, both flatly contradict traditional Islam's prohibitions on rebelling against a leader, and equating any Muslim circumstance- post-revelation- with jahiliyah.

Because of Positivism's impact on the American psyche, it saw itself as the champion of democratic and hence, universal ideals of freedom. At the height of the Cold War, America played an active role in creating al-Qaeda, and more importantly, the sloppily-articulated ideology of global jihad. Her unfettered and unconditional support of 'mujahideen' in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan came at a critical juncture of Muslim history. It was a low-point for Arab pride since after the watershed Six-Day War with Israel. Population growths in Muslim regimes lay close to breaking point and governments seemed unable to cope with the resultant rise in unemployment and poverty.

The channels for weapons, often the black market itself, and the lines of communication were set and nurtured by CIA operatives to arm jihadists against Soviet forces. Training centers and tactics (guerilla and cellular warfare) were established, often with American approval. The brutal logistical efficiency of latter-day al-Qaeda was born here.

More than anything else, Gray argues, the real target of al-Qaeda is the Saudi monarchy. The Americans are only in the picture because of their cozy financial and economic links with the House of Saud. In October 2001, MIT's Professor Noam Chomsky witheringly observed, "The only way we can put a permanent end to terrorism is to stop participating in it."

The twin towers of New York's World Trade Center were not arbitrary marks. Carefully chosen for their import, the hijacked planes were nothing less than a warning shot across the bow of Saudi Arabia's ship.

The book's philosophical bent is not helped by Gray's obvious rawness in writing. The ideas are compelling, but he resorts to annoying repetitions of themes where competent writing would have made a stronger case.

Nonetheless, Gray's deep fluency in abstract thought and western trends is to be marveled. What is refreshing about "Al Qaeda & What It Means to be Modern" is the direction Gray takes in trying to establish irresistable links between modernity and the phenomenon that is al-Qaeda. In so doing, he shatters all pre-conceived notions about Islamic fundamentalism. The book also forced me to re-evaluate the age-old question of 'what comes next?'. If history has proven one thing, it is that the future is as uncertain as it is irreversible.

Singaporean Muslims deal with terror

Slowly but surely, Singaporean Muslims are making good progress against the forces of intolerance that has elsewhere, torn communities apart. No other Muslim minority living in a secular, non-Muslim country enjoys the same rights as Singaporean Muslims. Despite the demographic majority of the Chinese in Singapore, Bahasa Melayu, which is the lingua franca of most Singaporean Muslims, continues to be the national language. The protection of rights of Muslims, who were the island's indegenious people, is enshrined in the Constitution. There are halaal eating places at every corner. Even American institutions like MacDonald's, Burger King and Swensen's are halaal-certified.

While Singaporean Muslims predominantly follow the Shafi'i school of thought, the traditional Ahl As-Sunnah Wa'l Jamma's creed of tolerance and respect is generally adhered to, thereby promoting synergistic links between Muslims of different schools, including the sufi discipline and tabligh jamaat.

Muslims in Singapore represent the best of both secular and religious worlds. The relationship between the two is not often easy, as evidenced by the hejab storm that some parents attempted to stir in state schools, but the Malay's custom (called adat) of not causing controversy forced many in the community to look for more peaceful alternatives.

Because Singapore is a cosmopolitan city with access to a competent education system and a wide choice of media, Singaporean Muslims have been making very astute comments on terrorism. On the Jemmaah Islamiyya, for example, Yayasan Mendaki, a self-help group, laid out the following analysis:

1. JI gives impression that their political ideology is integral to Islam by using Arabic terms
The use of terms and concepts in Arabic to prescribe their intent and method is of concern as it may invariably give the impression or confuse people, perhaps even innocent Muslims, into thinking that their political ideology is inextricably linked to the religion of Islam, when it is not.

2. JI ideology co-opted from past Middle-East anti-colonialist political movements
The fact of the matter is that their vision and ideology are rooted in national liberation ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries rather than Islamic tradition. Clearly, they reflect the sentiments of anti-colonialist political movements and parties originating in the Middle East. The ideologies of these movements were shaped by exigencies of circumstances then and a distinction should always be made between Islam and these political ideologies.

3. Policing must start upstream to battle ideology
Terrorism has moved their theatre of operations to South-east Asia and it is important that their ideological foundations be uprooted. To do so, we have to take the policing upstream and battle the ideology in a pro-active fashion.

4. Our religious scholars capable of leading the ideological battle
The Muslim Community is best placed to do the ideological battle for continued peace and stability. In Singapore, we have a critical mass of religious scholars whom we are confident would be at the vanguard of efforts and are worthy of support. To be truly effective, the efforts have to be co-ordinated and concerted. Islam is a great world religion that has produced a rich life of ethics, arts and sciences.

The efforts would not only ensure that the honour and sanctity of Islam is protected but that it will continue to be a source of progressive inspiration.

They tread the edges of identifying the roots of fundamentalism with inordinate care, dubbing it national liberation ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries. It's an euphemism, certainly, but at least it's a useful one.

For reasons that are hard to fathom, Muslim scholars in Singapore believe that it is unconstructive to confront these 'roots' head-on. In the book entitled Moderation in Islam, PERGAS (Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association) even went so far as to assert:

"There is a new tendency among non-Muslims to view the Salafi and Wahabi negatively. Among these perceptions is that the Salafi and Wahabi teachings incline towards extremism, and inevitably towards terrorism.

We do not wish to clarify at length as to what the Salafi and Wahabi, for it will require its own research and forum.

We only wish to state our stand on these two strands among Muslims today.

The Salafi and Wahabi schools of thought have long existed among Muslims, and have spread all over the Muslim world. As it is with other schools of thought, there is diversity within the Salafi and Wahabi, ranging from moderate to extreme.

On this basis, indiscriminate condemnation of both schools of thought is overly simplistic and not justifiable. We reject extremis no matter where it originates from, be it from Salafi, Wahabi, secularism, clerics or professionals; we always stand for moderation.

To us, the Salafi and Wahabi are in principle, a part of the diversity within the Muslim community. The extremists amongst them need to be corrected, according to the principles of amr makruf and nahi munkar (encourage good and forbid evil)."

The sheer confidence of the book is refreshing, and the good intentions of the writers cannot be doubted. More importantly, it is clear, albeit indirectly, that they recoginze there is a problem. However, I disagree with its overly-genial tone. They reiterate the traditional Ahl As-Sunnah Wa'l Jamma's creed of inclusiveness and toleration and view Salafism as just another sect within its fold. Undoubtedly, those they call Salafi and Wahabi will never extend the same courtesy to the writers, especially since the latter part of the book states quite unequivocally that "sufism and tasawuf are accepted as practices which aim to purify the soul and bring oneself closer to Allah" (point 24 of the Charter on Moderation in Religious Practice).

It is a shame that Singapore's place in the Muslim world often goes unnoticed since the island-bound Muslims have produced two immensely important books. Moderation in Islam is one of them. FSA Majeed's The Religion is Simple is another.

London bridge is falling down

LONDON HIT BY BOMBS! That's all over the newspapers today. Three train stations and a double-decker bus. 37 people killed, 700 injured. Main suspects: Muslims!

It's frightening how easily my mind latches on to that name. I watch the carnage on the news, and it's not easy to control the wave of anger. I mean, I seriously want to kick some butt here. But whose butt?

The English are good people. When Blair wanted to drag the country into war, who can forget the tens of thousands who turned up at Hyde Park to protest? Does it matter that the Brits went into Iraq anyway? Presumably yes.

Soft targets. That's what the police called the victims of the bombings. Why do we need to cover their real names up? Men, women, children, the elderly. These are the people whose lives the terrorists have ruined. They should watch Simple Plan's "Why did this happen to me?" MTV. One drunk driver colliding into an attractive woman doesn't just kill the attractive woman. The whole family gets the ticket too.

The most surprising condemnation has got to be the one from Hamas.

"Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected..."

Moussa Abu Marzouk, the group’s political bureau deputy chief said.

I wonder whose leg he's trying to pull here?

Filed in: Terrorism