In the Name of Allah - Part 2

Photos

In the Name of Allah - Part 2

see larger image

uploaded by Ahmadsherif

Since 9/11 we've been having a hard time parting Islam from "Islamist acts of terror". In "In the name of Allah? No. Please rephrase" we addressed this issue and suggested the beginning of a might-be solution. We wish now to provide even more clarity as to how we should comprehend Al Qaeda and its ramifications.

Al Qaeda's idelologists and martyrs claim they are religious, islamic.

Is that enough for us to believe that, yes, they are religious and Islamic? 

Is it enough for Al Qaeda members to quote the Quran relentlessly, to wear beautiful cotton dresses and head scarves as signs of sanctity, to surround their crimes with holy inscriptions for us to call them... religious?

Where is the peace? The kindness? The tolerance? The respect of human life ? The dignity ? Any Muslim -- no need to be a theologist to say so -- would tell you he/she cherishes these values. Imams, muslim scholars and authorities around the World have condemned these organizations and have stated they were an insult to Islam.

Let us hang on to that and state that voicing or staging the religiosity of terror cannot fool any sensible and pragmatic mind.

In other words, if ever you find yourself facing a suicide bomber about to kill himself in the name of Allah, feel fully entitled to tell him: no young man, you are not going to die as a muslim martyr. You're just a very desperate man who's been fooled by criminals.

There is nothing politically incorrect about that.

On the other hand, my real advice would be: are you crazy, don't you see the kid has a belt-bomb??? RUUUUUUUUUUN.

I believe that, to this date, we haven't massively reacted to terrorism as pragmatic and sensible people. In our repeated wordings and thoughts -- islamist terrorist organization, religious groups, religious fanatics, etc -- we have always been maintaining the confusion between terror and religion, just as much as Al Qaeda wishes to maintain it.

Al Qaeda is maintaining the confusion so that it can recruit more and more suicide bombers and "martyrs", to achieve goals described in the article I mentioned above.

But, what are we maintaining the confusion for ?

Whoever we may be, I believe we need to separate these two words, once and for all. Terror is just terror. Because of its very nature, any word coming before it, or after it, is necessarily fully demeaned. Let us no longer blur our visions.

To help us un-blur our vision, let us engage in a comparison.

What if John Doe introduced himself as a Very-Funny-Person, always surrounded with posters of Woody Allen, Monty Python and Whoopy Goldberg; always quoting the Marx Brothers and getting from you a great laugh. His imitiations are really great. No, they are perfect. 

Then the big day arrives. You're finally going to see what John Doe is able to produce himself. John Doe introduces you to his first Very-Funny-Movie: The Shining returns. The movie actually gives you the creeps and half the people in the theater rush out, shaking and sweating.

John Doe: Any complaints? Do I hear someone in the back? Yes ? Yes sir, please speak up :

Man in the back (terrified) : Excuse me John Doe... have you been pulling our leg so far? I didn't find your movie funny... I really related to your previous imitations of the Marx Brothers but... Isn't your movie a... terrifying horror movie ?

Answer of John Doe: WHAT??? YOU DARE SAY I AM NOT FUNNY ??? ARE YOU SAYING WOODY ALLEN ISN'T FUNNY??? DO YOU THINK THE MARX BROTHERS AREN'T FUNNY??? DO YOU EXPECT THE WORLD TO BELIEVE YOU??? CAN'T YOU SEE ALL THESE POSTERS ALL AROUND ME? DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FAKE???

The frightened man goes back home and says to his wife:

Frightened man - I've just seen a Funny Horror Movie.

Wife - Great, was it funny ? Did you laugh ?

Frightened man - No, it was only creepy, not funny.

Wife - Then why did you just say it was funny ?

Frightened man - Because John Doe said so, and he really scared me.

Ahmad Sherif