Portrayal of Mumbai attackers as just “extremist Islamists” ignores wider context
The disgraceful attacks in Mumbia may have been committed by Muslims, but the targets of the violence would indicate there is a wider context that is not being explored yet.
By Gizem Yarbil on Thursday, November 27th, 2008 - 322 words.
“It certainly looks to have been inspired by Islamic extremist ideology,” a British security official said to the Associated Press when discussing the Mumbai attacks last night. It’s happening again… careless and ignorant words about “Muslim terrorists”, “extremist Islamists” running around in news reports everywhere. According to the AP, British security officials are already monitoring 2,000 “terror suspects” across England. It’s happening again…
No one was expecting an attack of this scale. Although there are still wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and still hundreds of people dying every month, a terror attack that’s aimed specifically at “Westerners” committed by people who are “inspired by Islamic extremist ideology” is of a much bigger concern to the American and British security officials. And in the mean time I’m asking myself when was the last time I read something about “Christian terrorists” when the Basques attack somewhere. Anyone?
But I’m wondering if these security officials are really watching the media reports. Yesterday, on the AP video feed, there was an Indian-British eye-witness from the Taj Hotel in Mumbai talking to reporters about his experience. “They wanted anyone with British or American passports, so anyone who had a British or American passport they wanted to know,” said the eyewitness. I’d like to ask these British security officials why these guys would specifically want to know the British and the American people in the hotel? Is that part of the “Islamic extremist ideology”? Or does it have a larger, more important context that no one will discuss in the mainstream media.
I guess unless they ask themselves that question, and look further and deeper into the root causes of these despicable acts of murder, terror will not end. Blaming these attacks wrongly, ignorantly and disrespectfully on a religion that is practiced by millions in the world is the easy way out surely. And not only will it not stop these attacks, it will certainly evoke more to come.
(+2 rating, 4 votes)
Loading ...18 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
Turkey, coups and the 'Sledgehammer' operation
-
Documentary tells story of Burma’s undercover journalists
This year, a documentary film that portrays the plight of these audacious undercover journalists is in the running for an Oscar as Best Documentary Feature. Burma VJ, directed by the Danish filmmaker Anders Ostergaard, tells the heroic story of Burma’s bold video journalists, armed with their battered handycams to report the uncensored truth from their country while risking torture and jail sentences
-
Controversy flares over use of the word ‘Allah’ in Malaysia
Critics argue that the word “Allah” predates Islam and Christians had been using the word for generations, long before the Muslims even existed. The word is Arabic and has been used by various cultures and societies where Arabic is the main language
-
Kurdish activists and politicians detained in Turkey
The detention of human rights workers and elected officials for being part of an alleged “urban network” of an armed, militant group without any real proof except for speaking in parliaments and participating in film festivals, is an outright abuse of democracy and will undoubtedly stall the peace process in the region
-
Investigating Turkish atrocities against their Kurdish population
When I was growing up, everything I heard from Diyarbakir involved death and tragedy. Turkish media has covered the conflict extensively through the years, but generally only from the Turkish military’s point of view. Visuals of crying mothers of dead soldiers, coffins and military funerals on the evening news often accompanied our family dinners. But I don’t remember ever seeing a crying Kurdish mother or anything about the other side of the story on the news. For many of us, Kurds were the enemy, the “Other” that existed to destroy the Turkish people and the nation
-
Turkey, Islam and democracy: A reckoning
I think rather than going towards the East or West, Turkey is becoming more like itself. It is rediscovering its Ottoman past and coming to terms with its history and multiple identities. As long as Turkey remains democratic it will be Janus-faced, looking both to the Islamic world and Europe, just like the Ottoman Empire did for centuries
-
Israel condemns Turkish TV drama for “incitement”
In that case, considering the already strained relations between the two “allied” nations, the question becomes, is the Turkish government interested in enlarging the rift between the two countries? And if so, what would this say about the future of the Middle East?
-
Talented girls level the gender playing field in Turkey
I think it's a huge step forward to have a professional women's football league in Turkey; after all, it has been established in so many European countries for many years. Girls playing football or lifting heavy weights are at the beginning of a long road to establish total equality for women and men in Turkey
-
Portrayal of Mumbai attackers as just "extremist Islamists" ignores wider context
The disgraceful attacks in Mumbia may have been committed by Muslims, but the targets of the violence would indicate there is a wider context that is not being explored yet.
-
Religulous is ridiculous
Bill Maher's latest movie, Religious, is a vainglorious and toothless attack on religion by an atheist who thinks he is actually God.
I half agree with this article. I think it's obvious that the attackers were Islamists of some stripe, that's what experts seem to think, and I don't think that's outrageous to say, it's a fact. But then it is true that there was probably was some response to some Western actions; although this was a mass murder, I don't think the press can be blamed for not having an in-depth discussion of the motives in the middle of such an atrocity.
I don't understand the fundamental questions you've asked.
It don't think that referring to the perpetrators of these attacks as Islamist terrorists is “careless and ignorant” given that from what we know the attack has been claimed by a group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen. If correctly identifying these perpetrators as Islamic terrorists “wrongly, ignorantly and disrespectfully” means laying the blame on a religion practiced by millions worldwide as you assert, then what would you have reporters do?
And the ETA were never referred to as “Christian terrorists” because they weren't a religious militant group, rather a secular one, like the ANC or Baader-Meinhoff.
If correctly identifying the perpetrators as “Islamic terrorists” means
Yeah I'm with you Zach. It like saying it's wrong to call the Crusaders “Christian terrorists” when that is exactly what they were.
And I also agree that it's impossibe to refer to them any other way; do you write “terrorists who call themselves Islamists but actually don't represent the true religion of the majority of followers, and anyway their motives were actually more about Western foreign policy”.. It's a bit of a tongue twister and also I don't think accurate….
Although Gizem is saying that essentially these acts were done not for religious reasons but rather anger at Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir etc., which I think is an interesting point, and it could be called “political terrorists” instead of “Islamist terrorists”; although I think this is not a very important point.
I think I am not making myself clear enough here. Or maybe my english is not good enough. The group is an Islamic group and the militants who committed the acts are Muslim. What i don't agree with is the fact that these security officials have been calling these acts as “inspired by Islamic extremist ideology.” I'm saying this is of course quite an easy way out. But is it the only reason these guys are committing these acts? Asking specifically for passports of americans and british doesn't mean anything? why are they specifically targeting Americans and British? Is that written in the Kuran?
i don't understand why it's so hard to understand my point.
Hamas is also a militant Islamic organization but do they commit their violent acts because of Islam.
All I'm saying is that we need to be careful with the way we use the word “Islam.” It is a religion practiced by many peacefully and when somebody says “inspired by radical Islamic ideology'” it makes me think that it's written in the religion to commit these acts.
We need to look further and deeper into the reasons why these acts of terror are happening. And i certainly don't believe the reason is Islam.
it's probably not important because you are not Muslim. But I find it quite disrespectful to the people who practice this religion peacefully that all these acts of terror committed by Muslim militants are a consequence of the religion they practice.
They call themselves the mujahideen, they are inspired by “Jihad” which is written in the Koran actually. Otherwise all resistance movements would be the same, but they are not; the IRA, a Catholic organization, would phone in all attacks before they happen and try not to kill as many people as possible. These people do, so there is a difference in terrorist groups.
Hamas are an explicitly Islamist organization and they frame their atrocities as “Jihad”, so you are saying they are wrong too?
There are obviously peaceful Muslims, but saying people are inspired by something doesn't mean that everyone who adheres to it also acts the same. I still call Stalin a communist, but that doesn't mean I think all communists are brutal totalitarians. I call Bush a Christian, doesn't mean I think all Christians are warmongering nutcases.
So what would you say about the Phalangist militias that massacred so many people at Sabra and Shatila. I'm not allowed to call them Christian terrorists? That's what they were.
If this is about feelings, then I can't relate, because I'm not a Muslim of any stripe.
On a personal level, I might take greater distance from my co-religionists than you, but I don't wince when Baruch Goldstein is referred to as a Jewish terrorist, or when the Kakh movement is referred to as a Jewish terrorist organization.
But I can't deny the existence of a stream of Islamist extremist ideology that draws on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Bana, Sayyid Qutb, and the actions of Omar 'Abd al-Rahman, weaving notions of jihad together with an outlook of takfir.
It seems to me that the folks doing a disservice to Islam might be the ones with the guns and bombs, not the folks with the notebooks and cameras.
I think that is a different context because Sabra and Shatila took place during the Lebanese civil war which involved Christian – Muslim interreligious animosity. Religion played a big role and one of the most crucial factors behind the civil war.
I think most Muslims agree that terrorism is nothing to do with Islam. But, imagine if in the Muslim world, these seemingly religiously Christians launched into major city centres like Dubai or Islamabad and started killing hundreds of people under the name of Christianity. What would we call them? As much as I would like to say the media would try and come up with words which neither offend Christians, nor water down the gravity of their crimes, it is probably not that easy. Especially amid a crisis.
I'm with Gizem on that example, Matt. That's a different type of “Christian” terrorism. The Phalange and the LF weren't motivated their readings of the New Testament. They were Maronite Lebanese in a communitarian, rather than religious, conflict.
And you think the Kashmir conflict is purely religious? Don't be silly. This is a ridiculous debate, there's no strict point when you can classify a terrorist atrocity as being motivated by religion; every single one has so many factors, so this whole argument is really irrelevant and a bit ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether the Phalangist were motivated by Christianity, the point is they were Christian and that was part of the identity of their group, just like the groups that attacked India, whether that was their inspiration or motivation we can never know, because it's too complicated.
I agree with Gizam. It was irresponsible of these British security officials to make such comments. To say that these violent acts were inspired by “Islamic extremist ideology,” is just as idiotic as when one says that a thief was motivated to steal because it's human nature, or when someone blames video games for their violent behavior, and not because of other reasons. It's easy, and convenient now a days to blame almost all deadly attacks on “Islamic extremist ideology.”
These security officials must be careful about their choice of words, such ignorant comments are useless just like the bureaucrats that made them.
why don't you guys watch this report by Al Jazeera English. Maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about more clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZnbo1OJAYo
You're ignoring the fact that this is how the groups define themselves, so essentially you are complaining about the media taking these groups at their word…
I agree with Gizem's basic point that labeling the attacks as “Islamist extremist” is very problematic, though I fear that her solution for (presumably western reporters) to place things in an even “wider context” would make things even worse.
Easy labeling serves to displace informed and critical judgment about the causes of such violence. Matt, it is true that these attackers have called themselves the Deccan Mujahideen, but whenever a group of Muslims has a gripe about something and wants to make its message seem much larger than itself, it seems to me only natural that it will try to tie its message into a broader ideology, especially when the press and the so-called “experts” you speak of are so willing to accept that narrative in the place of real investigation. Over the past few days, we've heard that the militants have targeted Westerners, Jews, Indians, that they're from the Deccan region (Hyderabad is the city most associated with this region, and Hyderabad has had its share of Hindu-Muslim violence over the past 20 years. Just one and half year ago, on May 18, 2007, the Mecca Masjid, the main Mosque of Hyderabad, was bombed and 15 or so Muslims killed by the bomb and by police gunfire), that they're attacking India because of its treatment of Muslims , etc. etc. My point is, the terrorists themselves have spewed off a variety of motivations for the violence ranging from India's treatment of its own Muslims to random angst against Westerners. Add to this the views of the “experts” and Indian government that the group is from Pakistan (anyone who knows anything about such violent attacks in India knows that political wisdom mandates that the Pakistani government be blamed first after every an attack) or that the attacks are reprisals for Indian acts in Kashmir or the quasi-genocide of Muslims in Gujarat n 2002, and it becomes obvious that we have absolutely no idea, collectively, what the motivations or sources of this violence are.
The problem with labeling this attack with broad terms used in international contexts is that the terms are often loaded and carry with them all kinds of connotations that will no doubt cloud how we investigate what happened. The terms may force us to look at this only through the prism of a broader global struggle, for example, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as it causes us to overlook events such as the one in Hyderabad, or about the two bombs that went off outside a mosque during Ramadan prayers and killed 7 people in Malegaon, a town near Bombay, just a month and a half ago, or countless other events that do not easily fit into whatever narrative is being pushed on us by the terrorists themselves, the Indian Government officials, and the press outlets, pressured as they are to be the first to deliver us a neatly packaged story.
I'm not saying that these attackers aren't 'extremist' or 'Islamist,' but know that terrorism is a method to control popular opinion, and it is strategic, and I fear that far too often we all take the bait.
The reason the terrorists, whoever they are/were, asked for American and British passport holders is due in part to the fact that terrorist acts, and enormous tsunamis, tend to get more international press if one of two criteria are met: 1) A mindboggling number of people get killed 2) Some Americans or Britons get killed. The ''wider context'' media organizations aren't pointing out is their obligations to the shareholders. Since the largest international news organizations (CNN, BBC) are based in rich English speaking countries with relatively wealthy English speaking viewers, companies want to advertise their products to these people. The story of ''Westerners'' beseiged abroad in exotic resorts is one that can keep paying the bills for multiple news cycles. Ironically enough, like the rest of us, GE has an electric bill to pay to light up that Christmas tree.
In other words, the fact that the terrorists singled out Americans and Britons was aimed at maximizing the media exposure of the attack. Remember that giant attack on Mumbai's trains in '06? Well, if so, then you were paying attention. That attack didn't target American tourists, so American dollars in the pockets of American television viewers weren't at stake. As such, it didn't get half the air time the latest attack has.
When it comes to the terminology used to describe the ideological motivations of the attackers, I am always irked when I see ''extremist'' and ''Islamic'' in tandem. What I see is a quiet assumption that faith in Islam leads naturally to violence and that for such violent impulses to be supressed faith in Islam itself must be moderated. I guess the word that bothers me the most is ''moderate Muslims'' or something to that effect. How often do you hear something like: “Moderate Christian voters this year decided to put down their concerns over Barack Obama's positions on some issues and give him responsibility over an economy and two wars the Bush administration and the Republican party have mismanaged.” Or something to that effect.
I will say though that there are people who will distort religions of all kinds to motivate people to violence. Islam is no exception. Since the 1980s, extreme religious movements all over the world have gained political power. Remember like, the last 30 years of American political history from Reagan to Rove? Yeah, that all happened. There are all sorts of explanations for this phenomenon. Millenarian hysterics, reaction to modernity and globalization, or cyclical quirks in political systems are all culprits.
Unfortunately, the lack of terms to properly describe all these things persists as a problem.
How can we forget all the hell break loose when we watched a minute-by-minute footage of this hideous crime in the name of religion…
One thing I’d like to add is the fact why Israelis were targeted at the Chabad (now Nariman) house. I think there could be a greater force in training/ funding these terrorists than Pakistan and Saudi… Has anyone questioned the Islamic Republic of Iran coz its president is always at loggerheads with Israel? Another reason could be that the terrorists wanted to trigger a world war by targeting every ethnic group from the world which is in limelight and according to them is “un-Islamic”…. Wind the clock back to 2006 when Ahmadenijad spoke about his beliefs that the motive of his revolution was to call the 12th Imam, the Mahdi two years from then, i.e, now. (simply a shameless and irrational reason to trigger WWIII)…
Whatever be the reason, the Islamic countries on a political level have a lot of venom stored for non-Islamic groups. It could well be speculated that from here things get worse before they get better…