First published, 9th January 2015
In November 2011, soon after the fire bombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices, Time Paris bureau chief, Bruce Crumley wrote a diatribe against Charlie Hebdo. Crumley began:
Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?
He went on:
Though police say they still don’t know who staged the apparent strike, the (sorry) inflammatory religious theme of the new edition has virtually everyone suspecting Muslim extremists were responsible. Which, frankly, is exactly why it’s hard not to feel it’s the kind of angry response–albeit in less destructive form– ‘Charlie Hebdo’ was after in the first place. What was the point otherwise? Yet rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies. In doing so they weren’t entirely alone. Muslim leaders in France and abroad also stepped up to condemn the action–though not without duly warning people to wait for police to identify the perpetrators before assigning guilt, especially via association.
And on:
‘Charlie Hebdo’ has cultivated its insolence proudly as a kind of public duty—pushing the limits of freedom of speech, come what may.
And on:
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.
In the light of more recent events, one must assume that Crumley’s right to express his own obnoxious and offensive opinions legitimises the firebombing of Time offices in Paris? I’m not sure. I mean, Crumley’s thinking was horribly muddled enough back in 2011. The recent murders by orthodox Muslims (or possibly enraged Catholics, narked Hindus, miffed Buddhists, whoever – of course, we must not presume the two suspects are/were Muslims) don’t legitimise a greater condemnation of Crumley’s dhimmitude simply because murders are more emotive than arson. I mean to say, changes in circumstance don’t necessarily determine the extent of one’s idiocy but they can expose it.
Of course, in the dance of death between so-called terrorists and journalists, most recent events in Paris have got us all scribbling and pondering, pontificating our own muddleheadedness. Guilt and indignation (the Sin and Death) of morality spray the pages and websites of journals, periodicals, newspapers. Reading many of these expressions of free speech and opinion, it strikes me how important language is and how journalists manipulate how we think by playing around with terminology. I’m intrigued by how certain words and phrases are bandied about and how journalists – those lovers of catch phrases, simple sentences and economy of expression – determine the simplification of thought.
One of the most interesting discussions relates to causes. After all, if we (in the civilised West) could simply work out what caused other human beings (in/from the Middle East) to want to kill us and themselves so barbarously could we not curb at least these excuses for killing each other? And that would be something, wouldn’t it?
Well, I don’t want to explore the plethora of theories currently emerging – political, social, historical, ethical or psychological – because language is far more interesting and relevant at the minute and, in any case, much of the muddle and confusion stems from poorly considered language use, most particularly terminology and/or nomenclature, reference and connotation.
The first term of importance is ‘faith’. Governments, journalists and people who believe in God or gods all use this as a pro-word. It has been given unquestioned positive connotation and meaning. Furthermore, it has been given a narrow scope in order to protect its positivity. (I’ll explain what I mean by this a little later on).
Even before the term ‘faith’ was hijacked as being exclusively related to religious belief, it was an oddly imprecise word. In one sense it seems to refer to a whole body of believers or a creed, a system of belief, a cosmology. For example, when used like this: ‘We should respect people of all faiths’, it seems to refer to differing belief systems. In another sense, it seems to refer to a way of thinking. I’ll examine this sense of the word.
Religious faith is subjective belief that ultimately rejects the need for justification. Any justification seems to be self referencing once basic premises are accepted on faith. In defence of faith, the Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard states:
Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and objective uncertainty. If I can grasp God objectively, I do not believe, but because I cannot know God objectively, I must have faith, and if I will preserve myself in faith, I must constantly be determined to hold fast to the objective uncertainty.
It is this facile circularity of muddled thinking that characterises fideism. If we are looking for causes for faith based killing, then this is the root cause. Kierkegaard unwittingly identifies the first cancer cells. The more uncertainty in external reality (i.e. the more external evidence against my inner belief and the lessexternal evidence for my inner belief) the better! Quite extraordinarily stupid. Kierkegaard also implies, of course, that were there indisputable evidence for the existence of God, this would devalue the meaning or importance of faith. It takes a Christian so-called philosopher to pull himself up by his own boot straps in this way.
To generalise for the sake of time, ‘faith’ when characterised for religious belief is a term that refers to a belief or set of beliefs in which a person neither requires indisputable evidence in the first place nor does a belief alter when indisputable evidence is provided that contradicts the belief or set of beliefs. Fideism has somehow wangled its way into the modern world and now stands proudly proclaiming itself to be some sort of human intellectual triumph. Here’s a simple thought experiment to show how desperate this is:
A faith based court of law is presented with a defendant accused of murder. The presiding judge has an experience of the ‘infinite passion of inwardness’ and this experience is all that is needed in order to try the accused. No evidence is required. Any evidence for the accused’s innocence or guilt is seen merely as a test of the inner conviction of certainty. Accordingly, the judge is able to reach a verdict within seconds. Whether or not the accused did commit a murder is actually irrelevant in a faith based court. It seems insane because it is.
But it gets worse of course. Fideism as a way of forming beliefs is praised and valued even by non fideists. We are told by politicians, social thinkers, liberal pluralists to respect those who construct their belief systems in this mad way. Of course this is a cancer in human society. I don’t honestly know how human beings, progressing as we are, will ever get to understand that ‘faith’ is a dirty word. But there you go. It’s fascinating in its own diabolical way.
The dangerous thing about faith, or what I shall continue to call fideism, is the utter certainty in the belief. This rigidity of thought and belief is common to all fideisms. The violent grim effects of rigidly held and extolled beliefs emerge now and again on our streets and look destined to continue.
I think it is also important to ensure that fideism is not just seen as a religious or theistic phenomenon. Nazis, racists, all supremacists and other groups of human beings who require no more than indoctrination and dogma to form beliefs also utilise faith. Again, the horrible danger of any form of fideism lies in the power of convictions and the irrelevance of evidence either for or against the belief system. No Nazi, when confronted with facts and objective evidence against their beliefs steps back with blushing humility and apologies. Same goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other deluded folk, dangerous or otherwise.
What about these terms: ‘extremism’, ‘fundamentalist’? How are these being used? There is a constant attempt to remind the public, it would seem, that acts of so-called terrorism are being perpetrated by a loony mutation fringe element of murderers who have little or nothing to do with mainstream Muslims. Muslims, we are repeatedly reminded after every atrocity, are peace loving. Islam is a religion of love and peace. Anyone who commits acts of hatred and violence is not a true Muslim. The term ‘extremists’ is used in an attempt to marginalise and to distance the majority from a lunatic fringe.
Some, not all, Islamic governments and institutions have condemned the recent murders in Paris using this marginalisation technique. They have done so in the past. They will continue to do so in the future. But it’s a lie. There will be people who have embraced non-Islamic cultures but would still refer to themselves as Muslims. They will be embarrassed and maybe a little pained by the endless atrocities committed in the name of their god and prophet. Many (many more than would admit) will, like Bruce Crumley, harbour a secret sense of satisfaction at seeing ‘justice’ delivered. Don’t mess with us!
These acts of violence against non Muslims are not examples of extremism counter to the apparently peace loving religion of the true faithful. They are perfectly orthodox acts vibrantly encouraged in the Qu’rân, the hadiths and by clerics. I’ll provide some scriptural evidence in a moment. To fight, with violence if necessary, in defence of what is perceived to be a threat to or attack on Islam is highly valued by Muslims. So-called terrorists are actually mujahideen. They are not extremists. We don’t call Orthodox Jews or orthodox Greek church goers ‘extremists’. They’re orthodox. This means there are dogmas and rules and writings accepted and extolled by the religion and its leaders that are commonly and proudly accepted as true and valuable pillars of their faith. Likewise, we need to learn to understand that those Muslims fighting holy war are orthodox Muslims, not some loony fringe. Failure to understand Islamic orthodoxy for what it is allows every act of violence, every beheading, every stoning of a witch, every bomb attack to be neatly rubbed out as being irrelevant and ‘nothing to do with us’. Hmm.
Well, here are some quotations from my own Qu’rân. I would strongly recommend everyone in the free world to get a copy of their own Qu’rân . It’s a text that will have increasing impact on our lives for at least the rest of this century. Find out for yourself. Don’t let Islamic apologists, journalists and politicians pull the wool over your eyes. I bought my own copy in Cairo several years ago. It is a translation into English with the Arabic original alongside. The editors are Dr Muhammad Taqî-ud-Dîn Al-Hilâlî, PhD (Berlin), Professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madînah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khân also at the Islamic University in Madinah. The edition is authorised at the highest level with additional guidance from Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia.
Throughout the Qu’rân there are references to Jihad. I cannot quote all of these but there is such a significant number and strongly and clearly expressed, that it would be unreasonable to conclude that jihad was either unorthodox or even frowned upon by orthodox or believing Muslims. If you want to find more references, get your own copy and have a leaf through. Here goes:
Jihâd (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and your lives in the Cause of Allâh. This is better for you if you but knew. (V.2:216)
If you do so [fight in Jihâd] He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eternity…that is indeed the great success. (V.61:12)
Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for [the price] that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s cause, so they kill (others) and are killed…Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success (V.9:111)
Then fight in the Cause of Allâh, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers to fight along with you, it may be that Allâh will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allâh is stronger in might and stronger in punishment. (V.4:84)
Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the cause of Allâh; and whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh and gets killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. (V.4:74)
Verily! Allâh loves those who fight in His Cause in rows (ranks) as if they were a solid structure (V.61:4)
So, when you meet (in fight – Jihâd in Allâh’s cause) those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (V.47:4)
If you March not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people (V.9:39)
Well, of course, many apologists for Islam will point out that, as with all holy scripture, believers can pick and choose from many many contradictory verses to support one point or another. That’s true. Certainly it is another extraordinary feature of fideists that they have the ability to hold a system of inconsistent and contradictory beliefs in their minds and consider them all to be true.
My point here is not to suggest there are not some few verses relating to looking after the sick, protecting the weak and oppressed (Muslims conveniently gloss over the fact that looking after the weak and oppressed and being generally civilised and decent only relates to other faithful Muslims. Love is for fellow group members – as with all intolerant fideisms). My point is to demonstrate that violence and hatred towards non believers is a perfectly orthodox Muslim position, not an extremist one. Interestingly, in my Qu’rân edition, the Chief Justice Minister of Saudi Arabia devotes a lengthy appendix to the call to Jihâd in the Qu’rân. He writes:
Also think deeply how Jihâd is connected with Salât (prayer) and Saum (fasting). It is made obvious that Jihâd is similar to both of them and all the three (Jihâd, Salât and Saum) are ordained (by Allâh) for the believers.
It is important for those of us living in the relatively free non Islamic countries that we understand fully the nature of orthodox Islam, that we don’t pretend it has a prettier or kinder regard for non believers, that jihadists are, in some sense, untrue to the teachings of their clerics and scriptures. We should remember that the teachings of the Prophet Mohamed in the hadiths and the verses of the Qu’rân are drilled into all young Muslims in mainstream and private schools and madrasahs by law. Verses like these are not ever going to be allowed to drift into cultural forgetfulness, to be allowed to become vague memories of a past, more primitive culture.
What of Islamophobia? It might be worth returning briefly to Bruce Crumley’s article of 2nd November 2011 for an illustration of the prevailing Islamophobia phobia. In the same Time article he writes (I’ll requote the paragraph):
Though police say they still don’t know who staged the apparent strike, the (sorry) inflammatory religious theme of the new edition has virtually everyone suspecting Muslim extremists were responsible. Which, frankly, is exactly why it’s hard not to feel it’s the kind of angry response–albeit in less destructive form – ‘Charlie Hebdo’ was after in the first place. What was the point otherwise? Yet rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies. In doing so they weren’t entirely alone. Muslim leaders in France and abroad also stepped up to condemn the action – though not without duly warning people to wait for police to identify the perpetrators before assigning guilt, especially via association.
Hmm. Well, is it me or does Crumley have his own problems relating to reality? This paragraph captures nicely the sort of ultra politically correct anti Islamophobia so trendy in journalistic circles. I’m wondering if there are those right now condemning the police and French authorities for daring to suggest the latest deadly attacks might be the work of Muslims. Perhaps this was the work of Tibetan terrorist monks fighting against Chinese occupation. Why not? Could be. Obviously, it is just as likely. Of course, we should not refer to the killers, if they are Muslims, as ‘Muslims’. Let’s just call them terrorists. But why not call them Muslims if that is what they are? Why not be frightened of them? I mean, they’re proud of being Muslims, it’s not an insult or anything. It’s just who they are. And we’re meant to be afraid. That’s the whole point of terrorism. Isn’t it?
Well, maybe I’m being deliberately obtuse here. Islamist apologists are making the point that not all Muslims are as violent as these jihadists. This is absolutely true. But let’s be clearer. Islamophobia is a phobia of Islam. Islam is a particularly militant, inflexible and aggressive/defensive religion. The era of Islamic terrorism is also very much connected to further dangerous and life threatening fideisms namely Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhoods (both pan Islamic and Egyptian) and Qutbism. Wikipedia provides a thorough and accurate description and explanation of these aspects of Islam. Certainly one cannot be complacent about Saudi/Sunni political intentions and that the spread of radical orthodoxy, by whatever means within Saudi power, is regarded as progressive:
Wahhabi mission, or Dawah Wahhabiyya, is to spread purified Islam through the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the Saudi government and charities on mosques, schools, education materials, scholarships, throughout the world to promote Islam and the Wahhabi interpretation of it. Tens of thousands of volunteers and several billion dollars also went in support of the jihad against the atheist communist regime governing Muslim Afghanistan.
Particularly relevant to modern times is the teaching and influence of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Islamic revolutionary. You might want to think of him as being the Lenin/Marx of modern Islam. There’s nothing vague, individual, nutty or directionless about Islamic terrorism. There’s a very clear political agenda:
The main tenet of Qutbist ideology is that the Muslim community (or the Muslim community outside of a vanguard fighting to reestablish it) “has been extinct for a few centuries” having reverted to Godless ignorance (Jahiliyya), and must be reconquered for Islam.
Qutb outlined his ideas in his book Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq (aka Milestones). Other important principles of Qutbism include:
1. Adherence to Sharia as sacred law accessible to humans, without which Islam cannot exist
2. Adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery, complete freedom from servitude, and other benefits
3. Avoidance of Western and non-Islamic “evil and corruption,” including socialism , nationalism and consumerist capitalism.
4. Vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam.
5. A two-pronged attack of 1) preaching to convert and 2) jihad to forcibly eliminate the “structures” of Jahiliyya.
6. The importance of offensive Jihad to eliminate Jahiliyya not only from the Islamic homeland but from the face of the earth.
This extract is also from Wikipedia. Again, there is an excellent and freely available description fully referenced for further reading relating to the fideisms and ideologies directly behind what’s going on.
Should I be Islamophobic? Of course I bloody should. Why not be? It fascinates me that the United States was driven beside itself with anxiety and fear during the Cold War and the spread of communism. Yet more death and destruction has been caused by Qutbism and the implementation of orthodox Islam than anything the USSR or Cuba ever managed to achieve. North Korea is feared more than Saudi Arabia. No one ever stood up to MacArthur and accused him of Communistophobia. Why not? Well, I guess it has something to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia has all the oil and America is a profoundly monotheistic cousin.
At the end of the day, orthodox Muslim acts of violence against non believers has nothing to do with French or Western imperialism, socio-economic problems caused by the West or any other such bullshit. (Saudi) Arabia, Egypt, the Levant etc. were far more exploited for far longer by the Ottomans than the Americans, British or French put together. No planes have yet been flown into the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, or Turks shot in the streets of Turkish towns and cities, as far as I am aware. Tibet languishes under Chinese imperialism. The Dalai Lama lives in exile. There are no Buddhist terrorists cutting the heads off Chinese tourists. This is not a geopolitical problem, its roots lie unequivocally in a particularly potent form of monotheism. Yes, let’s be worried. Let’s stop trying to tolerate those who are intolerant.