Publicity-hungry extremists to protest at US Embassy


2:57 pm - September 13th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Rather like moths to a flame, extremist Muslims are scrabbling to jump on the bandwagon of the anti-Mohammed film trailer some far-right Americans uploaded to YouTube.

Tomorrow, Anjem Choudhary and his band of publicity-seekers are planning a protest in front of the US Embassy in London.

For context, Anjem Choudhary used to lead Al-Muhajiroun and Muslims Against Crusades – both of which consisted of the same extremists and have now been banned.

They were also behind Danish cartoons protest (picture above) that called for people insulting Islam to be killed.

It would be useful if journalists reporting on the protest tomorrow offered this context.

Today the BBC Asian Network radio station interviewed a colleague of Anjem Choudhary about the protest, without mentioning it was organised by Al-Muhajiroun.

Anjem Choudhary and his band of idiots have been banned from almost every mosque in the UK.

On his website, Choudhary states:

Under the guise of Democracy and Freedom it is open season to insult the honour of the Prophets of God, demonstrated in the latest clip ‘Innocence of Muslims’ which has been allowed to circulate everywhere, with the capability of the US regime to ban it, insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw)

We ask all Muslim individuals, groups, organisations, masjids etc… to join us around the world in raising your voice and exposing the evil of man made law whilst defending the Honour of the Messenger Muhammad (saw)

Details:
Date: Friday, 14th September 2012
Location: 24 Grosvenor Square, London W1 A 2LQ
Time: Fom 3PM onwards

It will be interesting to see if the Metropolitan Police allow the protest to go ahead.

The police had earlier banned their poppy-burning demonstration on Remembrance Day.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


EDL have time to put their oafish position in the public domain now. As Sunny said, they feed off each other.

German embassies around the world should be happy that nobody who reads my blog and feels insulted by it, makes the connection between me and my country.

3. Chaise Guevara

“Under the guise of Democracy and Freedom it is open season to insult the honour of the Prophets of God”

Sounds like someone needs to look up what “freedom” means. Guise indeed!

Isn’t it a little hypocritical to point out the hypocrisy of Choudhary misusing democracy and freedom when you appear to be in favour of banning protests yourself?

Choudhary and his followers are mindless thugs and idiots, misusing religion to ignite tensions and violence. Just like the EDL. However, in a free society we ought to be able to let idiots like that pontificate and bluster to their hearts content. Just look at how devastating it is for far-right groups when they’re given a national platform like Question Time or Newsnight.

Instead of banning protests, invite Choudhary on to Newsnight and grill him on his views. I guarantee within 5 minutes everyone watching will see through his idiocy and see what he really is: a thug looking for a cause.

“The police had earlier banned their poppy-burning demonstration on Remembrance Day”

We should be glad that the police have realised their mistake in preventing something that should go without question in a democracy – not complaining they’re not repeating it.

Incidently, I’ll be sure to remind you of this next time you complain the police have said no to a demo for something you agree with.

6. Chaise Guevara

@ Matt

“Isn’t it a little hypocritical to point out the hypocrisy of Choudhary misusing democracy and freedom when you appear to be in favour of banning protests yourself?”

Agreed, but Choudhary isn’t so much misusing democracy and freedom as railing against them.

Hence my comment above, noting where he said that people insult his prophets under the “guise” of freedom. Freedom MEANS being able to do things like that. It’s hardly a guise. It’s a bit like saying “I ate some food in the evening, under the guise of dinner”.

Isn’t it a little hypocritical to point out the hypocrisy of Choudhary misusing democracy and freedom when you appear to be in favour of banning protests yourself?

The OP says it will be ‘interesting’ to see if the police ban the demonstration, not that they should.

And they shouldn’t – though they should arrest those who protest violently.

8. graham mitchell

You are correct that Chowdary is a publicity seeker, however he is calling for all Muslims to attend this protest. If the cops say ‘no’ to the protest, it won’t go ahead, not involving Chowdary anyway. This is the difference between Muslim protesters in a country such as Syria, where they may have something viable to protest about, and people like Chowdary who live in the lap of luxury compared to his fellow Muslims.

Sunny doesn’t usually call for things to be banned, in fact opposes banning as a rule.

10. Corporate Turtle

“It would be useful if journalists reporting on the protest tomorrow offered this context.”

It will be interesting to whether and where it is actually reported on, and in which countries.

If they’re hungry for publicity why give them what they want?

This Monty Python epic should get some extremists worked up:

Life of Brian Part 1 of 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiCgR_m1JIw

13. douglas clark

I imagine Mr Choudary will turn up with exactly the same team of seven or eight people he always turns up with. Whilst I have nowadays given up caring about him and his cohort, that was not so true back then. If one of his backing band was missing, I worried that they were ill, or had had a conversion. I was extremely relieved when the ‘missing’ person turned up at his next bit of stage managed outrage. It is, after all, very important for a repertory theatre to retain it’s spear carriers as well as it’s stars. Anjem Choudary has done that. A group of loyal actors willing to growl on queue, willing to face the cameras without fear.

Many theatre critics have likened him to Mary Whitehouse, but whilst she had a breakthough of sorts, Mr Choudary has still to find that elusive script of useful outrage which takes your average suburban drama onto the West End stage. He is trying hard and, perhaps, one day, a genuine breakthrough will occur.

Meanwhile we await in a state close to torpor…….

“Instead of banning protests, invite Choudhary on to Newsnight”

Are you kidding? Andy Choudhary is never off the tv. He’s the Fred Phelps of Islam, get between that boy and a tv camera at your own peril.

What are the odds that Choudhury and Galloway get off with each other now that Salma Yaqoub has left Respect?

A few years back, there were many calls for the banning of: Jerry Springer – The Opera. These were to no avail and the BBC went ahead to broadcast the whole show so a Christian group was reported as bringing a private prosecuion against the BBC for blasphemy:

A Christian group is to bring a private blasphemy prosecution against the BBC after the corporation screened Jerry Springer – The Opera on Saturday.
Prayer group Christian Voice said the hit musical was “totally offensive”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4161109.stm

When I read the news about this I made sure to watch the broadcast performance and then to buy the DVD. As I recall, the BBC building wasn’t burned to the ground. There wasn’t even any rioting.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ 16 Bob B

“As I recall, the BBC building wasn’t burned to the ground. There wasn’t even any rioting.”

Just like in this case, then.

You can’t compare riots in Syria to a lack of riots in the UK. It’s apples and oranges.

Chaise: “You can’t compare riots in Syria to a lack of riots in the UK.”

As far as I know, it’s not actually illegal in Britain to compare the crass movie about Muhammed with either the Monty Python movie: The Life of Brian, or with Jerry Springer – The Opera. In both cases, various religious organisations and activists in Britain were complaining about blasphemy and calling for bans.

In case readers missed: Jerry Springer – The Opera, the production at the Cambridge Theatre is available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oyDf9drMb8

19. Chaise Guevara

@ 18 Bob B

“As far as I know, it’s not actually illegal…”

Oh, I see. You’re going to take obviously non-literal statements like “you can’t compare X and Y” as if they were literal. Well, have fun acting like a two-year old.

20. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@18

thanks for the link.Brilliant!
No matter what anyone says I still think Jerry Springer should be burnt to the ground though.

Chaise: “Well, have fun acting like a two-year old.”

Personal abuse but (predictably) no rational argument as to why it is not permissible to compare the crass movie about Muhammed with the movie: The Life of Brian, and the Jerry Springer – The Opera.

I’ve encountered folk who were manifestly outraged at both but weren’t proposing to assassinate the Monty Python crew or burn down the BBC building. OTOH there was a Thirty Years War in Europe 1618-48 as various sovereign states instigated wars with neighbouring states so as to save the citizens from eternal damnation by installing the correct brand of religion.

Somehow, we managed the discard the habit albeit without overcoming other motives for engaging in catastrophic wars.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 21 Bob B

“Personal abuse but (predictably) no rational argument as to why it is not permissible to compare the crass movie about Muhammed with the movie”

Because I wasn’t arguing that it was not permissible. As you know well. It’s a rather pathetic straw man. Don’t act like a troll then complain when people are nasty to you as a result.

It looks like we’re going to be locked into this pathetic nonsense for some time to come.
There’s no point talking to Islamists who get upset by things like this silly film. Whether it be in Egypt or the UK, there are enough Muslims who cannot think rationally when their prophet is denigrated somehow. By any daft thing on the internet.
Just listening to a UK radio phone in last night, you will get some Muslim callers saying that while they disagree with the violence, America should have ”done someting” to stop this film being made.
But it’s not really the film that is the problem, but backwardness. Which isn’t particularly alleviated by education, as educated extremists are as bad as illiterate ones it sems.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ 23 damon

After the Danish cartoonist debacle, I remember someone saying that maybe people living in theocracies just didn’t understand the hands-off nature of the state in democracies when it comes to political expression. Therefore, they’d blame all of Denmark for one cartoonist’s actions because they weren’t used to the idea of media that wasn’t state-distributed or -approved. If it was published in Denmark, it must represent the country’s outlook.

This made sense to me at the time, but now I realise it’s at odds with the observation that a lot of people talk about freedom in glowing terms, but forget all about it when they see something that offends them. Hence outrage at PCism and calls for things to be banned often coming from the same tabloids.

But it’s not just people in theocracies Chaise.
I was friendly with a Sudanese guy in Belfast who seemed quite liberal and educated, until we got on to the subject of some korans being burnt in Afghanistan by the US army. He said this was more hurtful to him than if you injured his children …. and after that I couldn’t really take him seriously anymore.
Percentage wise, I think that a high number of UK Muslims would also be somewhat irrational about this matter too. Not supporting violence at American embassies, but feeling aggreived and put upon (once again).
Or maybe it’s just the whingers and those who love to feel like victims who are the ones who will call into radio shows and say that it’s just more Islamophobia, and that everyone is always ”picking on the Muslims”. But they are the ones I hear most often.

The Muslim extremists and far right need each other.

27. Chaise Guevara

@ 25 Damon

“But it’s not just people in theocracies Chaise.”

I know – hence the second paragraph of my last post!

“Percentage wise, I think that a high number of UK Muslims would also be somewhat irrational about this matter too. Not supporting violence at American embassies, but feeling aggreived and put upon (once again).”

I suspect the same – something about Islam, at the moment, seems to lend itself towards a sense of entitlement and special pleading – but I’m cautious of the representative heuristic. Put simply, the media may prefer to write about unreasonable Muslims than unreasonable Christians/atheists/whoever.

Chaise: “Put simply, the media may prefer to write about unreasonable Muslims than unreasonable Christians/atheists/whoever.”

One reason could be that unreasonable Christians/atheists/whoever do less violent rioting, arsons and murders than unreasonable Muslims. Violens, arsons and murders generally being a subject for news reporting that interests people.

I’m not saying that e.g. unreasonable Christians would not resolve to violence at all. Just that there’s much less such violence.

And violence seems to work, really: no one is any less careful about insulting Christians, but people actually do get careful about insulting the feelings of Muslims. So, apparently, senseless violence is an effective strategy to get more power and influence.

”Put simply, the media may prefer to write about unreasonable Muslims than unreasonable Christians/atheists/whoever.”

Indeed that may be true. It is true.
And could it ever really not be the case?
Which ever way you spin it, and however far we’ve come in becoming a multi-cultural society, Islam is still somewhat foreign and alien in western societies.
I’m not saying it should be, but I think it’s always bound to be. Until it become much more like western Christianity. Meaning – more wishy washy and less fundamentalist. The mainstream Muslim organistations in the UK (like MAB) are far too extremist to be considered a NORMAL part of British society I think.

Just see what the MAB said about this film.
They not only condem it (which would be fair enough), they also want the people behind it prosecuted.

In the light of these recent activities, MAB:

1) Condemns the film: “Innocence of Muslims” and all offensive material.

2) Demands that the American authorities ban the abusive film immediately, and start a thorough investigation to bring all those involved in such a production to justice; and that all other governments ban this film from being aired in their countries.

3) Calls on all governments, and especially those in the West, to work towards peace; and to legislate to prevent future attempts at offending religious people by ridiculing their religion or symbols of their religion.

http://mabonline.net/?p=4216

So they get a hard time in the Daily Express and other papers because they are ”different” like that.
It’s pretty backward IMO. How do you converse with people like that?

30. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 pjt

“One reason could be that unreasonable Christians/atheists/whoever do less violent rioting, arsons and murders than unreasonable Muslims.”

Shorthand on my part. The media could be more willing to report on unpleasant-Muslims-of-type-X than unpleasant-Christians/atheists/etc-of-type-X. All else being equal, Muslims might still get a worse press.

“And violence seems to work, really: no one is any less careful about insulting Christians, but people actually do get careful about insulting the feelings of Muslims.”

True.

“So, apparently, senseless violence is an effective strategy to get more power and influence.”

So it would seem. It can be counterproductive, though.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

Agreed with all that.

32. Just Visiting

Very good reading in the Guardian today – the Review section ‘The Satanic Verses’ – logging various people’s experiences in 1989 of the book. (I have the paper version – it’s not online yet)

a) the cases brought UK blasphemy laws to an end

Peter Sissons: I was dispatched to do an interview with the Iranian Charge d’affaires…
I was as shocked as anyone… and let my feelings show in the interview. “Do you understand that we don;t regard it as civilised to kill people for their opinions”…
As a result of that interview it was believed my life was in danger…There had been a number of phone calls… I’ve still got the transcript of one ‘he will pay the price for being rude and insulting to the representive of Imam Khomeini”‘
I had 24-hour protection for me and my family until further notice..

Ian McEwan: “They burned books in the street, they bayed for blood outside parliament and waved placards ‘Rushdie must die’. No one was arrested for incitement…
A rump of the left thought (and thinks) that to criticise Islamic attitudes towards apostasy was innately racist…
Sections of the right abandoned all principle and preferred ad hominen attacks; wasn’t Rushdie a Muslim…he must have known what was coming..he had it coming…

Lisa Appignanesi: The fear grew. Penguin which shared in the fatwa, lived behind barricades…
London book shops were fire-bombed…
Two moderate Muslims were shot by Islamists in Belgium.

Blake Morrison: …Andreas Whittam-Smith, editor of the independent, and I travelled to Bradford to meet Muslim Clerics, to see if they’d disassociate themselves from the fatwa, we didn’t get anywhere.

33. Just Visiting

Chaise

> Shorthand on my part. The media could be more willing to report on unpleasant-Muslims-of-type-X than unpleasant-Christians/atheists/etc-of-type-X. All else being equal, Muslims might still get a worse press.

But in light of some of your other posts here Chaise – you don’t think ‘all else being equal’.

Unless I’ve misunderstood your comments – you do think that more of this ‘unpleasant violence’ round the world is inspired by Islam than other religions.

So, I’m wondering why you raise hypothetical situations that in fact don’t exist – that could only exist in another universe to our own !

It’s as well to reflect that present killings in Islamic countries are more about members of one Islamic sect killing members of some other Islamic sect than about Jihadists attacking western embassies or western fast food emporia.

A Reformation of Islam is long overdue. The really sad thing is that the urgency of the need for an Islamic Reformation isn’t yet understood. Islam needs its own Martin Luther.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/luther_martin.shtml

35. Just Visiting

Bob B

It’s a common misconception that Islam needs it’s own reformation.

But it can’t happen – if you like it has already happened.

The Christian reformation was a call back to the roots of Christianity – back to the New Testamant: people reading it in their own language.
Piles of stuff the church was doing was contrary to Jesus life + teaching, once they looked into the New Testaent for themselves – so the reformers ‘cleaned up’ the church and dropped the corrupted practises.

Whereas in Islam – it is already pretty much ‘back to the roots’.
Islamic practise has not altered much in 1000 years – indeed it can’t – because core precepts include that heresy is punishable by death (so it;s hard to criticise Islam and live!) , and by the concept that the Quran is literally God’s word, dictated word for word to Mohammed and not open to being interpreted by the individual. (in contrast to Christianity’s view of the New Testament, which understands that it is inspired by God but not a word-for-word document direct from God: that it is therefore open to interpretation: and indeed having 4 gospels within it written from 4 perspectives it has that concept of ‘interpretation is allowed’ right within itself.

Anyway – from a LiberalConspiracy perspective – the idea of ‘getting back to doing what Mohammed did’ is not attractive because Mohammed did things like:
* behead unarmed prisoners
* sleep with (rape?) the wives of conquered chiefs the night of victories
* marry 9 year old girls
* was a polygamist
* said that women’s voice is half that of a man – that daughters inherit half of what son’s inherit – that women are incapable and need to be looked after by men
* sentenced women caught in adultery to murder
* advocated the killing of jews
* advocate killing of apostates
* advocate lying in the pursuit of promoting islam – (taqiyaa)
* an accusation of sexual infidelity cannot be made without 4 male witnesses to the event (an angel revealed that one to him) – hence today raped women can’t get justice under Sharia – they lack the witnesses
* go back on the adoption commitment he made to his adopted son – so that he could marry his adopted son’s wife! (Hence adoption today in the Muslim world is still not the ‘giving the full rights of a son’ that it is in the west)
* (in fact Mohammed’s sex drive seems a theme…)
* paints a picture of Allah as cold and aloof and not to be known in any meaingful sense
* paints a picture of a legalistic god who you appease by what you do, now what is in your heart (hence the focus on Muslim community websites where people ask ‘what is the rule for this situation?)

Compare that to the New Testament:
* Jesus was not a military ruler
* he never killed anyway
* the only punch up he was involved in – he healed the ear of someone on other side!
* he forgave the women caught in adultery
* his treatment of women was very radical for 1st century Palestine – he had very close female friends, eg Martha and Mary
* as Christianity spread some key people in the New Testament were women – like Lydia who started a church
* talked about God’s attitude towards us being like that of a loving father – knowable, and with a warmth to the relation
* preached in terms of principles, not detailed, specific rules- that God was interested in what was in the heart, not on the outside
* made a clear distinction between church and state (“give unto Caeser what is Caeser’s”) – which despite many breaches and cockups over history has on the whole not been a bad line for developing democracy and liberal values in the west – in cotrast to the contrast of Sharia which has at it’s centre the church and state as one thing.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 JV

“But in light of some of your other posts here Chaise – you don’t think ‘all else being equal’.”

Correct.

“Unless I’ve misunderstood your comments – you do think that more of this ‘unpleasant violence’ round the world is inspired by Islam than other religions.”

That’s not what I was talking about, and I’m not sure (because I don’t know enough about it). I do have the impression that Muslims in the UK are more likely to call for things that offend them to be banned that other religious/non-religious groups.

“So, I’m wondering why you raise hypothetical situations that in fact don’t exist – that could only exist in another universe to our own !”

I’m not. You’ve missed the point. “All else being equal” is like a casual version of stripping away all statistical factors but one, so you can see the true impact of that factor.

In this case, I’m saying I think the media is more enthusiastic about stories that reflect poorly on Muslims than any other group (especially Christians). As a simple point of logic, that means that all else being equal, Muslims would have a worse press than non-Muslims. However, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that Muslims have a bad press because of media bias AND a tendency to fly off the handle about “offence”, and I didn’t say it did. In fact, I believe that to be the case, as I made clear earlier.

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 JV

“It’s a common misconception that Islam needs it’s own reformation.

But it can’t happen – if you like it has already happened.”

A religion can have more than one reformation.

“The Christian reformation was a call back to the roots of Christianity – back to the New Testamant: people reading it in their own language.

Whereas in Islam – it is already pretty much ‘back to the roots’.
Islamic practise has not altered much in 1000 years – indeed it can’t – because core precepts include that heresy is punishable by death (so it;s hard to criticise Islam and live!)”

But that’s not taken seriously everywhere. Also, Christianity used to be like this, and got over it.

“and by the concept that the Quran is literally God’s word, dictated word for word to Mohammed and not open to being interpreted by the individual.”

Are you sure about that? Because I’m fairly certain that Muslims argue over interpretation. I’m not even sure that the concept makes sense: it’s impossible to read anything without “interpreting” it in one way or another.

“Anyway – from a LiberalConspiracy perspective – the idea of ‘getting back to doing what Mohammed did’ is not attractive because Mohammed did things like…”

Mostly, although I suspect you’re taking some of those out of context. For example, I understand that Mohammed was very positive about the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), and indeed Islam was set up using Jewishness as its model; Mohammed thought that the new religions were more sophisticated than the old ones, and wanted to create a monotheism for Arabs. So when you say he advocated killing Jews, I’m guessing what actually happened was he called for the deaths of some dudes who just happened to be Jewish.

But what you need to remember is that Mohammed was pretty progressive by the standards of the time. It’s seriously unfair to judge historical figures as if they existed today. Your great-great-granddads and mine were almost certainly racist; that doesn’t mean that they weren’t good people, or forward-looking for their time.

Mohammed’s Islam was about sticking up for yourself while pursuing paths of peace and tolerance where possible – compare and contrast to the OT and its “slay all who breatheth” passages. It had a better attitude on women and the poor than what had gone before it. And, hard as it is to believe now, Christians looked down on Islam because they considered it too sexually liberal.

Whether they’ve made a conscious decision to or not, you could say that today’s moderate Muslims have already gone back to the ways of Mohammed. They’ve just done so in a way that makes sense from a modern perspective. I’d say similar things about moderate Christians and Jesus.

38. Just Visiting

Thanks Chaise

> I think the media is more enthusiastic about stories that reflect poorly on Muslims than any other group (especially Christians)

that’s weird though. Because on LC you’ve said a few times that it’s wrong to assume all Muslims think the same, that ther is a ‘mainstream’ view – you;ve argued that they are too diverse.

But here you’re willing to portray the media as having a single bias. But in reality the media is a broad church, isn’t it ?

Anyway, can you point me to any sources that suggest the media bias you state?

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 38 Just Visiting

“that’s weird though. Because on LC you’ve said a few times that it’s wrong to assume all Muslims think the same, that ther is a ‘mainstream’ view – you;ve argued that they are too diverse.

But here you’re willing to portray the media as having a single bias. But in reality the media is a broad church, isn’t it ?”

Indeed. But start adding together the circulation figures of the papers that tend to push the “scary Muslims” line and the “PC gawn mad” line and see how high a number you end up with. Hint: it includes the UK’s most popular paper.

“Anyway, can you point me to any sources that suggest the media bias you state?”

*Googles*

Here: http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/1591-new-research-on-representation-of-muslims-in-the-british-press

It’s not very in-depth. It mainly focuses on how often words like “extremist” are connected to Muslims, which I’d argue isn’t a very good measure for several reasons:

*If there are lots of extremist Muslims about, it makes sense they’d get more of this coverage.
*It misses other forms of attack, such as articles claiming that such-and-such Very Bad Thing was done to appease Muslims (cf: Winterval).
*It doesn’t account for subtler tricks, like preferring to write about crimes with a Muslim or Muslim-sounding perpetrator. Anecdotally, I’ve formed the impression that some papers tend to move murder stories nearer to the front page if the killer is called Mohammed Something.

…But that’s what I got in a few seconds, anyway. Seriously, though, are we going to debate this? Are you honestly suggesting that the red-top press (and its faux-broadsheet brethren) doesn’t tend to take an anti-Muslim line? When was the last time you read a falsified story about Eid being replaced with a Festival of Togetherness to avoid upsetting Christians?

40. Just Visiting

39

Useful source, though as you point out – limited.

> Are you honestly suggesting that the red-top press (and its faux-broadsheet brethren) doesn’t tend to take an anti-Muslim line?

I don’t disagree with that, narrower statement of your view about the media (tho confess I’ve no evidence for my agreement).

But I am also aware that in other media outlets, there has been not infrequent bias in terms of trying to ‘tone down’ criticism of Islam.

For example, I’m not sure I’m comfortable at the content of this
Guide for Western journalists covering Islam”
(aimed at students of journalism at university) which seems to make some bold political/religious assertions about Islam – it seems to be imparting a ‘received wisdom’ to journalists which down-plays some serious issues in Islam:

For example, the word “jihad” is commonly mistranslated as “holy war” and believed to be something that is inherently wrong, dangerous, sinister, etc. While some militant groups use the term in that way, the concept has a much different meaning for mainstream Muslims.

Has the university really decided that Jihad is not a military word in Islam?!

Shouldn’t they recognise the issue is not cut and dried: when for example reputable Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis writes: “The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qu’ran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms.”

Or when the Guide says:

Likewise, the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar,” which means “God is the Greatest,” is both extremely important to and commonly used by Muslims. It is a repeated feature of Islamic prayer and also is used in place of applause and as a general cheer. However, the media often present the phrase as a battle cry. This has the potential of casting all uses of the phrase as suspicious or to be feared, which would then serve to demonize entire Muslim populations.

On what basis can they suggest that it is not used as a battle cry?
Surely here is so much evidence we have all seen on TV, that it is indeed used that way.

Here’s just one example:

‘German Taliban’ video posted on al-Qaeda website

41. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 JV

“But I am also aware that in other media outlets, there has been not infrequent bias in terms of trying to ‘tone down’ criticism of Islam.”

Agreed with this. I think it’s partly a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing, and partly a fear of appearing racist.

Disagree with your criticisms of that journalists’ guide though. It’s not saying that “jihad” is never a military word, or that “Allah Akbar” is never a battle cry. It’s saying that it’s a mistake to always interpret them this way. “Jihad” is commonly used to mean a personal struggle, such as trying to be pious. If it originates as a military term then it’s often used metaphorically. It’s very similar to “battle” or “war” in this respect. And the latter phrase is a term of worship that’s been co-opted as a partisan battle cry.

If you sent a journo into the Middle East, you wouldn’t want them to assume that everyone on a jihad was a terrorist, or to dive for cover every time they heard someone praise their god.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. UK Pride

    #edl #islam #tcot –
    Mad Mullahs to protest at #US Embassy #London. http://t.co/UaYEvYs4

  2. Geoffrey

    Hi @metpoliceuk – why are you letting this protest, by a proscribed group, still go ahead tomorrow? http://t.co/otpDo8V3

  3. rupert murdoch

    Hi @metpoliceuk – why are you letting this protest, by a proscribed group, still go ahead tomorrow? http://t.co/otpDo8V3

  4. Rupert Murdoch

    Hi @metpoliceuk – why are you letting this protest, by a proscribed group, still go ahead tomorrow? http://t.co/otpDo8V3

  5. Mark Ferguson

    Good post by @sunny_hundal but anyone who wants to know how crackers Anjem Chowdhury is should read Them by @jonronson http://t.co/OPI2umXw

  6. therightleft

    Publicity-hungry Muslim extremists to protest at US Embassy, London http://t.co/otpDo8V3 Be great if journalists reported in context.

  7. Mark Silver

    Good post by @sunny_hundal but anyone who wants to know how crackers Anjem Chowdhury is should read Them by @jonronson http://t.co/OPI2umXw

  8. Emma Burnell

    Good post by @sunny_hundal but anyone who wants to know how crackers Anjem Chowdhury is should read Them by @jonronson http://t.co/OPI2umXw

  9. sunny hundal

    Good post by @sunny_hundal but anyone who wants to know how crackers Anjem Chowdhury is should read Them by @jonronson http://t.co/OPI2umXw

  10. Glyn

    Anjem Choudhary & his publicity-hungry followers to protest at US Embassy. I wish this man would just go away http://t.co/UmQRQplB

  11. AndreaUrbanFox ©

    Publicity-hungry Islamists to protest at US Embassy London http://t.co/DEcGR0OO will @metpoliceuk allow a proscribed group to protest?

  12. karldotcom

    Publicity-hungry Islamists to protest at US Embassy London http://t.co/DEcGR0OO will @metpoliceuk allow a proscribed group to protest?

  13. lord lucan

    Publicity-hungry Islamists to protest at US Embassy London http://t.co/DEcGR0OO will @metpoliceuk allow a proscribed group to protest?

  14. EDL to join other extremists at US Embassy demo | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] Members of the English Defence League are today set to join extremists from the other side of the spectrum at the US Embassy in London today. […]

  15. WitchEnd

    Hi @metpoliceuk – why are you letting this protest, by a proscribed group, still go ahead tomorrow? http://t.co/otpDo8V3

  16. Useful Idiots Assembling For Islam Film Protests « Mediasnoops2

    […] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/09/13/publicity-seeking-extremists-to-protest-at-us-embassy-london… […]

  17. An Orwell, The Middle East And Boycotts Round Up « Soupy One

    […] Liberal Conspiracy, Sunny Hundel is direct in his criticism, Publicity-hungry extremists to protest at US Embassy London. Leaving aside the obvious provocation in the film, the reaction has angered Syrians: […]

  18. Bill McIntosh

    Publicity-hungry extremists to protest at US Embassy | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/jCDWa2AH via @libcon

  19. Ranjeev

    Hi @metpoliceuk – why are you letting this protest, by a proscribed group, still go ahead tomorrow? http://t.co/otpDo8V3





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.