American-Muslims Should Not Condemn the Mumbai Attacks « Umar Lee
A list of reasons why American Muslims should not fall over themselves to condemn the terrorist attacks in Bombay (I refuse to use the name Mumbai; although it is correct in two of the three local languages, this blog is in English, not Marathi or Gujarati, and I refuse to honour a Hindu nationalist renaming), and I think much the same applies to other western Muslims:
- As Muslims in America we are not exactly relevant to the situation. Not only are we geographically and culturally distant we are also not a part of any conflict raging in India and we are not in a position to influence any party. Does anyone believe Indian mujahedeen, the Congress Party or the BJP is waiting to see what American-Muslims think before they make their next move? This makes our condemnation little more than rhetorical nonsense that is made only to please the ears of the media and Muslim-haters.
- As of now, there are very few facts available as to what happened. Any condemnation made today is one that is made with minimal information.
- Condemning these acts plays into the trap set by those hostile to Islam in that it reinforces the notion that all Muslims become guilty if a few do something bad and therefore the entire community has to apologize for the actions of the few.
Remember that Muslim leaders have condemned every major terrorists attack for years, and still Muslims face accusations that we do not condemn it enough, or loud enough, otherwise they would have stopped. The reality is that we do not have the power to stop terrorists attacking and that we are innocent of what they do, and so we should treat the demands of haters with the contempt they, and their demands, deserve.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Attempt to link Islamic societies to terrorism
- Juan Cole: Bin Laden tape irrelevant
- Terrorism and privacy
- More scaremongering over ISOCs and al-Qa’ida
- My thoughts on Lockerbie ‘bomber’ release
I beg to differ. We should condemn them. We just should not condemn them because others demand us to do so.
We should condemn every single terrorist attrocity until we are blue in the face and until there are none.
This is because our religion teaches us to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. I just don’t care about this “we should not” because of what people think; it’s not about what people think.
It’s about getting the message through to terrorists that this is evil.
If one of you sees something bad he should change it with his hands, and if he cannot do that he should change it with his tongue, and if he cannot do that he should hate it in his heart, and that is the weakest of faith.
Your headline doesn’t sit well with me this evening I’m afraid. I utterly disagree.
Peace.
Sallam alaykum.
I totally agree with Tim. What he says is totally true. I’m really surprised at this post sidi Yusuf. I was expecting more from yourself and Umar for that matter.
My DeenPort haiku in response, which you may have read, is:
The kafirun have struck in the Name of God but God knows who they are…
We can never condone either with words or silence the killing of innocents “in the Name of God.” Period.
In that case, I assume that Muslims will be advised not to condemn Israel for defending herself against the “Palestinians”.
David Miliband has condemned the attacks although- or because- no-one has suggested the Labour Party is responsible.
We’re supposed to see Muslims “as one” when it comes to “understanding” that Muslims born in the UK get so angry about Israel or Iraq that they blow themselves up. Yet, when it comes to condemning co-religionist terrorists in Bombay, Muslims must suddenly be seen as “Indian” or “British”. Which is it? Is you is or is you ain’t one Ummah?
Agree about “Bombay”, not “Mumbai”. Also, we should stop saying “Beijing” and call it “Peking” as we used to.
salam Br. Yusuf, Actually the list of reasons offered is rather incoherent, and I am surprised that you would support it, considering your usually spot-on, articulate commentary.
1) Does it really matter who was involved in the attacks before we choose to condemn it? As Muslims, we stand up for justice wherever injustice is served, regardless of who is responsible. 2) What information should we await before condemning barbarianism? Is there really any possibility that some new information could come out that would make us eat our words (and let’s be specific to this case)? 3) Should we really care about the politics of how India is perceived in the media? Should we be that callous about our words when a human tragedy unfolds in front of us? 4) How is supporting Kashmiri resistance against government entities, which are DIRECTLY engaged in brutality against civilians, have anything to do with the killing of other innocent civilians in other parts of India? When did condemning and expressing outrage over a human tragedy somehow preclude supporting the Kashmiri right to self-determination? That is the strangest logic I have heard. 5) Finally, what does geography and politics have to do with this? We are in a age of globalization. We are all connected, like it or not. I don’t need to be in India to have a pretty good feel of what’s going on.
Ultimately, I think there is more good to be had in Muslims continuing to speak out against injustice of all forms (against them and against others). And at MuslimMatters, we will continue to do so inshallah.
The results speak for themselves, such as this one
We must condemn this sort of terrorist attack - but not apologize for it! As Muslims, we can only apologize for something that we actually did - and we(Muslims in Britain)didn’t do this!
Your headline ought to read:
Western Muslims Should Not Apologize For Bombay Attacks
I basically agree with the majority of your commenters here.
There are two traps, not one, in my view - one is set by those attempting to further the “all Muslims are guilty/ support terrorism” image as you describe it.
The other is set by those wanting to further the “all Muslims should support us in our actions” meme by those supporting this attack.
I think it is important to avoid both traps.
I don’t see why others’ not listening for a long time is a reason to stop doing the thing that is right? I think that those making unjustified accusations need to be marginalised - and not condemning the Mumbai shootings will play into their hands.
My take.
We must condemn this sort of terrorist attack - but not apologize for it! As Muslims, we can only apologize for something that we actually did - and we(Muslims in Britain)didn’t do this!
Well actually, two British Muslims did. But I agree with the general point - it’s silly to apologise for something you didn’t do. Condemnation and apology are not the same thing.
The fact that two of the perpetrators were British rather undermines Umar’s argument that this is some kind of little local difficulty.
Refusing to condemn them is a pointlessly reactionary act. I condemn these attacks because they are wicked and stupid, but I also condemn state terrorism just as vociferously. As for those who blame Islam — focus on educating the world about Islam and also about Muslim diversity.
As for those who blame Islam — focus on educating the world about Islam and also about Muslim diversity.
Start with the perpetrators of the attack, who have obviously misunderstood Islam.
Salaams, Yusuf
I don’t agree.
The Quran tells us to stand up for truth even it be against ourselves.
I find it hard to imagine that the most important facts here—the massive scale of the attacks, the fact civilians were exclusively targeted, and the indiscriminate nature of the violence—could be misunderstood and these do not allow an alternate scenario that might somehow justify or contextualize any of this. More facts will emerge, but they’re not likely to change the immorality and savagery of these attacks.
We may not know who did it, but we know what they did, and it’s horrific and completely deserving of condemnation.
These massacres are unusual even by the grisly standards of terrorism. This was truly predatory, and completely outside any theater of war. That alone makes them worthy of unequivocal condemnation.
Moreover, given the preceding point, to not condemn them would send a terrible (and inaccurate) message about how Muslims view violence.
It is true that joining in MSM hysterics and oversimplifying preaching about complex conflicts can be counterproductive, but this case is to the contrary quite simple. These people weren’t collateral damage in a conflict that was going on around them—they were hunted down randomly, far from any military front.
As for the Mumbai/Bombay issue, your refusal reminds me of Americans who insisted on calling Muhammad Ali “Cassius Clay” over his legitimate wishes. We may not understand the reason, but it’s no longer Bombay, whether you or I like it or not.
Hindutva or no—and I’m very conscious of these problems, not to mention the seconnd-class citizenship many Muslims have there—India has the right to name its cities as it pleases. So far as I know, the name Bombay has nothing particularly pro-Muslim to it other than that it happens to be opposed today by Hindutva wackos. If they name it Mahoundville or after some leader known for hatred of Muslims (or Sikhs, Buddhists, …), you might have a case, but I don’t see any cause for disregarding Indian policy merely based on some old colonial nostalgia.
Re: Mumbai/Bombay: actually, English-speaking Indians still call the city Bombay (see here. It’s only the western media which have slavishly followed the demands of the Indian fascist politicians. The city is still Bambai in Hindi/Urdu, the biggest single language in India (they are essentially the same, except for the alphabet), although locally Marathi and Gujarati are more commonly spoken.
I don’t dispute that India can name its cities what it likes. So, they changed the official name of Bombay to Mumbai. Fair enough. The official name of Florence is Firenze, and the official name of Munich is München, and the British media still calls the cities Florence and Munich, and European media still call London by their names for it (Londres, Londra) rather than ours, so why should our English media use Mumbai instead of the well-known English name? (Of course, if the BBC have a Gujarati service, they should use Mumbai, but I presume they were already doing so as that is the common Gujarati name for Bombay.)
There is no correlation with the situation of Muhammad Ali, because that was his personal name, not the name of a city. Muhammad Ali chose to disavow his old name because it was rooted in slavery, which is his choice; not every Muslim convert does this, however. However, it is common in some circles to use the local name for someone rather than that person’s spelling - this is particularly true of kings and queens (hence the Spanish call Henry VIII Enrique) and people will localise their names when they go to another country. What I am suggesting is that we use our names (other than where they are offensive) and let them use theirs. (Remember that they are not an oppressed minority - far from it; India is a nuclear-armed country with a population of a billion, so anti-colonial rhetoric doesn’t have any currency with me.)
Not a terribly important point to debate (or one I feel strongly about), but I think the problem is with your equating Western media deference to Indian wishes on this with appeasing extremists. But you get my point.
As a Athiest not knowing much about muslims till the 9/11 attacks i did go out and educate myself on this great peaceful existence we are all meant to live on the instructions of Allah. It seems to me that the religion made by the sword and for whatever economic reasons of the time..seems to contradict itself time and time again as most religions do. To condemn or not is irrevelant in the big scale of things because it cannot be put right. The whole idea of killing innocents in any cause is a cowardly attack..which seems to be on the increase with these type of attacks around the world. Not wanting to go greatly into my conclusions on Islam..let me say i think if some of the things which i have only read translated..so forgive if i have read an incorrect intpretation, seem to authorise all aspects of injustices against peoples of every race with the divine command of god. This seems to be coming up time and time again and like some of the earlier religions of this world it seems it was written for man to indulge and have power with the authorisation from a being that noone knows about. It has gone so far now that i think every now again the teachings are giving certain people of some who are very well versed in the koran, to commit crimes of which no condemnation from any person is going to make people any more hostile to islam than they already are. It is not the acts of a muslim be he british, indian or pakistani that is the problem..but the fact that the actions have been carried out by a person, who by all accounts is following a religion which was sent down by God. Up till me looking into islam i must admit when i saw discipline of the muslims i knew, i did think maybe i was missing out. Unfortunately the only things i was told was what i needed to hear. I think whether you say you are sorry or not does not matter, you have not done anything wrong yourselves. The reason the writer is so wound up he cannot believe that someone who has followed the word of Allah from the prophet mohammed who took to the sword as well..could do such a thing to innocent people who are unarmed. I think i will live my life as i have as an Athiest helping anyone i know without any conditions..so when this kind of thing happens i feel sorry for the terroist, who would have had a better life if he was like me.
As human beings we are obliged to condemn any act of injustice. The “Muslim community” is under no obligation to satisfy ridiculous demands for a public show of contrition. Neither is the “Muslim community” under any obligation to demonstrate patriotism and allegiance in order not to be terrorized and slaughtered by the state and quasi-fascist auxiliaries. Go ask the Christians of Orissa or Muslims of Gujurat about that. Notice how old pRickler puts Palestinians in quotation marks while shilling for Israeli terror. This coming from the same tramp who giddily supports the mass murder of Iraqis by Anglo-American militarists. Oh but lets shed some crocodile tears for Indians. Typical of the racist disingenuous breed.
This coming from the same tramp who giddily supports the mass murder of Iraqis by Anglo-American militarists.
I think you’ll find most Iraqis recently have been killed by other Iraqis.
We should ashamed of ourselves for we and they belong to same community and I would say it is about the community and not about who did it.
Sitting in U.S, you may feel secure which is pretty obvious from your tone but don’t try to insult the sentiments of the region. You may also be a muslim having soft corner to the muslims perpetrating this crime. But don’t forget that History repeats itself. One a blog may come in the same way by some non-muslim who do not care for the muslims sitting in U.S and other western countries when violence is perptrated on them for any unknown reason.
If India wants to name its OWN city Mumbai then that is what it should be called. What other people are doing with other city names is up to them. But I don’t understand what the big deal is to you if muslim people call it Bombay or Mumbai. I feel like you take it to heart and think that Muslims aren’t following their religion by listening to India and calling its city Mumbai instead of Bombay. It’s completely stupid you’re basically trying to make an issue about nothing.
i dont understand ,where is the need to mention relegion while condemning the act.Please condemn the act on the grounds of humanity.in addition everyone is not discerning to differentiate the two.atleast the message to the terroists is that the world stands united on the issue.i think if people want to get assurance that everyone is condemning the act accross the world then why not.how can we simly shrugg off and say it doesnt concern us.when are we going to think globally.
I see pRickler up to her disingenuous antics with the ol’ “most Iraqis were killed by Iraqis.” What else can be expected from a depleted racist maggot who refer Palestinians in quotation marks. The question why weren’t they doing BEFORE the invasion you supported. Since most Brits are killed by fellow Brits, you really shouldn’t be complaining of anyone else dispatching them. You’re scum. You know very well that training and arming death squads, including false flag attacks(like Brits dressing up as Arabs in Basra going on a shooting spree) was done the invaders. Most Iraqis died as a direct of the invasion and occupation by Anglo-American terrorists, no ifs ands, or buts about it.
And Iraqis were dying in huge numbers before the invasion thanks to Saddam.
Only thanks to the sanctions you imposed on the people of Iraq for 12 years(killing 1.5 million, a third of whom were children) preventing them from even buying medicine. Even then the death rates are no where near comparable to what happened after the invasion. Racist scum like you always lie and try to sanitize your crimes. Nothing new there given your pathological hatred of Arabs and Muslims. Typical of the failed breed.
Hear Mr Umar no Indian is awaiting for u all to condemn the bomb blasts,there are enough muslim well wishers in my own country(INDIA……….the great) to show humane reactions.