Telegraph writer Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi of the Muslim Debate Initiative, by implying that Abdullah is a sympathiser for ISIS and terrorism. This claim contradicts Abdullah’s public talks and writings, as well as private conversations with me and other members of Atheist Ireland.
Andrew’s Telegraph article, titled “By day, at heart of counter-terror policing. And by night, preacher of extremism,” selectively and misleadingly quotes from an article Abdullah wrote last year titled “Has the Caliphate been re-established by ISIS?” Abdullah has since countered Andrew’s claims in a new article titled “A response to Andrew Gilligan’s disingenuous distortion of my views.”
I have publicly debated with Abdullah twice, and I have dined with him and others on three occasions, during which we had time to discuss our beliefs in a more considered way. On each of these occasions, both I and other members of Atheist Ireland were satisfied that Abdullah is a sincere person who condemns terrorism and ISIS in particular.
Unsurprisingly, we disagreed with him fundamentally (and he with us) on the theological arguments for the existence of a god; on the benefits of liberal democracy, which we believe to be the best basis for a fair and just society; and on many of the rules of Islam, which we believe infringe on the human rights of women and various minorities. However, there was no disagreement between us on the point that terrorism is unjustified.
I have no vested interest in defending the Islamic worldview. I disagree with it fundamentally. I believe that religion corrupts our sense of reality and our sense of morality. I campaign actively against injustices perpetrated by Islamic States. I also believe that Abdullah al Andalusi is sincere and nuanced in his beliefs, and that he has the right to have his beliefs reflected accurately and debated rationally.
Now, it may of course be the case that Abdullah holds private views that are the opposite of his public views, but then you could make that claim about anyone, including you or me or Andrew Gilligan. The test of such a claim is whether you can provide evidence to support it, and my first examination of Andrew Gilligan’s evidence fails this test spectacularly.
If we (whether from a secular or Islamic viewpoint) are to collectively defeat ISIS, we need prominent Muslims who are prepared to publicly and explicitly condemn terrorism. When somebody like Abdullah repeatedly does this, from an Islamic rather than a secular perspective, it is both defamatory and counterproductive to imply that he is doing the opposite.
What Abdullah al Andalusi said in NUI Galway
Here is video of our debate in NUI Galway on the topic “Is Islam a religion of peace?” Abdullah was speaking for the motion, along with Dr Oliver Scharbrodt and Shaykh Dr Umar al-Qadri. I was speaking against the motion, along with Ian O’Doherty and Mark Humphrys.
I argued that this was like asking is a rainbow yellow? Parts of it are, but the rainbow itself is not. I argued that Islam, like most other religions, is a religion of contradictions, and that in a wider context Islam is an integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance that is imposed by force.
Abdullah repeatedly said that Islam cannot be used to justify terrorism. He cited a journalist in 2002 saying to Osama Bin Laden that Islam prohibits the killing of non-combatants, so how does he justify terrorism? Bin Laden acknowledged the Quran does prohibit this, but said the law is not set in stone.
Abdullah said he disagreed with Bin Laden. He said that the law is set in stone, and that even if the enemy kill your women and children, you cannot retaliate in equal measure.
He said that Bin Laden responded that the Americans did not care about women and children when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he (Abdullah) wondered if Bin Laden was following the prophet Mohammed or following American foreign policy as his model?
Abdullah said that revenge is for God, and it is not for humans to undertake. We should work for justice in this life, but not for revenge in this life.
Abdullah said that terrorism has a sociological explanation, and that it is committed by humans in extreme situations. He said that this does not justify terrorism, and the whole point of religion is to give people a justification to not commit terrorism, because justice will come from God.
How Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi
In his Telegraph article, Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi repeatedly, by selectively quoting from an article that Abdullah wrote in 2014 titled “Has the Caliphate been re-established by ISIS?”
Andrew implies that Abdullah believes that most Muslims would be jubilant that ISIS has re-established a caliphate, that the behaviour of ISIS is as morally justified as that of Western armies, and that Muslims cannot reject ISIS’s claims as being outside the fold of Islam.
However, in the article, Abdullah is actually arguing the opposite of these claims: that ISIS has not in fact established a caliphate, that the behaviour of ISIS is as morally unjustified as that of some Western armies, and that Muslims can reject ISIS’s claims because ISIS’s claims are outside the fold of Islam.
Are Muslims jubilant at ISIS declaring a caliphate?
In this first quote, Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi by implying that Abdullah believes that most Muslims would be jubilant that ISIS has re-established a caliphate:
“After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”
But Abdullah is actually arguing that ISIS has not in fact established a caliphate, but has falsely claimed to have done so:
“Has the Caliphate been re-established by ISIS? Yesterday, the group that has swept to mass media attention in the last month, ISIS, claimed that the Caliphate has been restored in its ‘domains’… While most Muslims would be jubilant at the claim of the return of the Khilafah (Caliphate), which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long, a self-proclamation does not a Caliphate make.”
Here, Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi by leaving out the ‘while’ at the start of Abdullah’s sentence, and the conclusion at the end of it, and also deleting the words ‘the claim of’ from the middle of the sentence, thus completely changing the meaning of the sentence.
Abdullah then concluded that ISIS had not in fact established a caliphate:
“For the reasons mentioned above, IS is not a State, if they were they would not be recognisably Islamic when compared to the mercy and wisdom of the Prophet’s (saaw) example. Lastly, they are not a Caliphate as their ‘areas’ are too small, vulnerable and unstrategic within the Muslim world to claim leadership of it.” [bold in original article]
Can the West morally judge ISIS?
In this next quote, Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi by implying that Abdullah believes that the behaviour of ISIS is as morally justified as that of Western armies:
“He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”
But Abdullah is actually arguing that the behaviour of ISIS is as morally unjustified as that of some Western armies. Firstly, here is what Abdullah al Andalusi actually wrote about ISIS killing civilians:
“However, while it is true that IS currently ‘rule’ over active war zones, this does not exempt them from adhering to the Islamic rules of war, and protection of civilians. In this IS have adopted patently unIslamic practices and strategies, like blowing up civilians in market places (e.g. Baghdad), kidnapping of innocents for ransom, and execution of those from other Islamic groups who voice criticism and political dissent (this is not only practiced by ISIS…
Furthermore, IS should not target, declare war on, or kill Shia civilians, even if they consider them to be non-Muslims. This is because non-Muslims are also protected under Islamic law, and even if Shia are considered non-Muslims, then Shia shrines should be protected like Islam obliges Muslims to protect Churches and Synagogues. So we should ask IS to DECIDE, either Shias are Muslims that can’t be killed, OR Shias are non-Muslims that STILL can’t be killed or molested. The choice is theirs – there is no middle ground, except for those looking for excuses to kill those they hate…”
Note that this is an extensive and explicit condemnation of killing civilians, while Andrew’s selective quoting makes it appear to be a metaphorical throat-clearing before moving into a ‘but’…
Secondly, here is what Abdullah actually wrote about the West judging ISIS:
“Some Muslims are concerned that IS actions send the wrong message about Islam to the Western audience. In this, they are correct. However, it is wrong for Muslims to permit the West to have a higher moral ground, or judgment upon IS or Muslims. The simple reason is if IS do create a state using terrorism and brutal actions – it wouldn’t be any different to how many Western nations were formed and rose to power…
[Abdullah then discusses historic atrocities in the foundation of France, USA, Britain, Israel and South Africa]
Our response is, IS are no different to the history of some Western armies, Western covert-backed groups and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations – therefore they certainly have no basis to judge IS – IS’s crime is being actually being a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media!
The Muslim response to Western media regarding IS is that Islam condemns ISIS as it considers that both the cause and the tactics must be correct, and Islam unreservedly condemns terrorism and the targeting of civilians. [bold in original article] However, we should also explain to them that IS are the product of a reaction to Western foreign policy in the region that arose out of the actions of the U.S, UK and their puppets in the region.”
Can Muslims reject ISIS’s school of thought?
In this next quote, Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi by implying that Abdullah believes that Muslims cannot reject ISIS’s claims as being outside the fold of Islam:
“He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”
But Abdullah is actually arguing that Muslims can in fact reject ISIS’s claims because ISIS’s claims are outside the fold of Islam, as they are not validly derived from Islamic texts (a qualification Andrew ignored):
“Those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them, should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity amongst Muslims (when those opinions are validly derived from Islamic texts).”
Abdullah elaborated:
“However, while it is true that IS currently ‘rule’ over active war zones, this does not exempt them from adhering to the Islamic rules of war, and protection of civilians. In this I.S. have adopted patently unIslamic practices and strategies, like blowing up civilians in market places (e.g. Baghdad), kidnapping of innocents for ransom, and execution of those from other Islamic groups who voice criticism and political dissent (this is not only practiced by ISIS….
It is IS’s JUSTIFICATION of their practices that are against the Islamic rules in warfare and treatment of civilians, that alone, immediately renders false any claim to being Islamic. If IS is sincere, they should renounce terrorism and renounce their declaring war on all Shias indiscriminately, in order to at least render themselves compliant with basic Islamic requirements.”
Summary
Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi, creating the opposite impression of what Abdullah actually wrote about ISIS’s claim to have established a caliphate, ISIS’s behaviour compared to some Western armies, and whether Muslims can reject ISIS’s claims as being outside the fold of Islam.
Andrew also makes other claims, which I do not have the time to examine. It may be that all of those claims are accurate, and that by coincidence I checked the only source material in which Andrew Gilligan misrepresents Abdullah al Andalusi repeatedly. However, as of now, my default position is to distrust these other claims until I have independent supporting evidence.
Abdullah has written a detailed rebuttal of these other claims, in which he again explicitly condemns terrorism and ISIS, and argues that Andrew “appears to have done a deliberate hatchet job on an intellectually objective article I wrote actually about the correct way to refute ISIS propaganda.”
To repeat, if we (whether from a secular or Islamic viewpoint) are to collectively defeat ISIS, we need prominent Muslims who are prepared to publicly and explicitly condemn terrorism. When somebody like Abdullah repeatedly does this, from an Islamic rather than a secular perspective, it is both defamatory and counterproductive to imply that he is doing the opposite.
It might have been a good idea to scrutinise Mr. Abdullah al Andalusi AKA Mouloud Farid, AKA Wazir Leton Rahman a bit more closely
http://abdullahalandalusi.com/2011/09/11/thought-for-the-day-11th-september-2011/
From his own blog: “A thought regarding the 11th September 2011 commemoration”
…Today we should all remember a tragic event – the day a vicious world empire found a publicly acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people, in pursuit of economic and political objectives.”
So there you go. Ever sane person agrees that America didn’t “find” an excuse for anything. America found itself mourning over three thousand innocents who were murdered by Islamist maniacs. That Mr. Abdullah al Andalusi AKA Mouloud Farid, AKA Wazir Leton Rahman (or whatever he’s calling himself today) finds the commemoration of 9/11 to be the commemoration of anything other than the slaughter of innocents tells me as much as I need to know about this specimen.
It looks like it’s you who have got Mr. Abdullah al Andalusi AKA Mouloud Farid, AKA Wazir Leton Rahman wrong, not Andrew Gilligan.
Michael Nugent, you are a gullible sap who has been taken in by an artful bullshit artist
Too scared, I disagree with that quote as much as you do, but it does not support the claim that Abdullah supports ISIS.
Bobby, thanks for the personal insult, but let me assure you that I haven’t been taken in by you.
“but it does not support the claim that Abdullah supports ISIS.”
On the contrary it very much does “support” that claim. What it doesn’t do is “prove” it. Proof and Support are two different standards.
Oh and I just love the idea that “not supporting ISIS” seems to be the new code for “moderate muslim.” Al Nusra front supporter, no problem, get over into the Pullman Car marked “Moderate.”
“Too scared, I disagree with that quote as much as you do”
No you don’t, you certainly don’t! If you did you wouldn’t have wasted however long it took you to scribe this 3000 word apologia for the poisonous and sick individual who owns those words.
[I have removed the content of this comment as it links to allegations that are on the face of it defamatory – MN]
Too scared, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your feedback.
No, it doesn’t support the claim that Abdullah supports ISIS. You might have a point if he had written that post while refusing to say whether or not he condemns ISIS, but that is not the case. He repeatedly and explicitly condemns ISIS and terrorism. It is not even ambiguous.
You have on this very page a a link to an article in which Abdullah says that Islam condemns ISIS as it considers that both the cause and the tactics must be correct, and that Islam unreservedly condemns terrorism and the targeting of civilians. He says that if ISIS is sincere, they should renounce terrorism and renounce their declaring war on all Shias indiscriminately, in order to at least render themselves compliant with basic Islamic requirements.
You have on this very page a video in which you can listen to Abdullah disagreeing with Bin Laden’s justification for terrorism, and saying that the law is set in stone that even if the enemy kill your women and children, you cannot retaliate in equal measure. He adds that revenge is for God, and it is not for humans to undertake; that we should work for justice in this life, but we should not work for revenge in this life.
It is not reasonable, in the face of that repeated explicit condemnation by Abdullah of of ISIS, to interpret a comment about the behaviour of USA as being supportive of the claim that Abdullah supports ISIS. It is reasonable to interpret it as supportive of the claim that he condemns both ISAS and the behaviour US foreign policy. In fact, you don’t even have to do much interpretation, because he explicitly says that in the linked article.
No, “not supporting ISIS” is not the new code for “moderate muslim.”
“Not supporting ISIS” is the already-existing code for “not supporting ISIS,” and deserving of not being accused of supporting ISIS when you don’t.
If you want to have a separate discussion about moderate Muslims, I’m happy to do that.
Yes, I do. I make a huge distinction between the behaviour of democratically accountable armies and police forces in developed democracies, which should be reformed if they systematically infringe on human rights, and democratically unaccountable terrorist criminal gangs anywhere, which should be disbanded and their members tried for their crimes.
And please don’t accuse people of being poisonous or sick on this blog. You have much of the rest of the Internet for such personal abuse, but please keep things civil here, though feel free to be as robust as you wish in discussing ideas and behaviour as distinct from people.
Although I will disagree with your beliefs (and you mine) I respect you for your honesty. You seem like a rarity these days not stooping to the depths of the popular anti-Islam propagandists like Gilligan (and armies of other trolls on the internet) and not relying on deception and misinformation to make your points.
You might not want to hear this but I think you are a rare specimen and if you remain more concerned with a fair and just research methodology I believe you will eventually end up—like swathes of others I know—a Muslim, or at least an admirer or those aspects of Islam that you may currently have an automatic aversion to. The penny usually drops when we separate the rational clarity of propositions we disagree with from the cultural sentiments that we inherit (despite thinking we do not) concerning what is right and wrong, correct and incorrect…
“It is not reasonable, in the face of that repeated explicit condemnation by Abdullah of of ISIS, to interpret a comment about the behaviour of USA as being supportive of the claim that Abdullah supports ISIS.”
Does that apply to Mr. Mouloud Farid and Mr. Wazir Leton Rahman too?
Too Scared To Give Real Name
excellent question! Btw you left out Philipe…
I assume so. Even if you believed that Abdullah expressed different opinions while using different names, presumably his opinions would be less extreme, rather than more, while using those other names?
But on the central point we are discussing, do you accept that he explicitly condemns ISIS, Osama Bin Laden and terrorism?
This is what your friend had to say about the Fort Hood Massacre.
Hi guys,
Firstly, no one says that Muslims should ‘rise up to kills all americans’ – READ THE FULLY QUOTE “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.”
Which I believe in too – which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base – they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000’s of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?).
I’m sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn – soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed – big deal!
Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you”. Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a ‘judgement of God’ upon the wicked american army.
p.s. One thing I have noticed, for people who profess to love everyone, most of you are full of hate (your emotions are hateful, whether or not your tongue issues peaceful platitudes – repent now to the only God ‘the Father’).
Some Guy, I’m not sure who you mean by “your friend,” but can you please provide a link for that quote? Thanks.
If you believed in God, i would have said God bless you ! 🙂 ……i’ll suffice with “cheers mate”
Andrew Gilligan has obviously gone on a rant without doing proper research. I met Abdullah al Andulasi in Galway (in a Pub) and I had attended 2 debates that he took part in with 2 other Muslims (Islamists). Abdullah is a Muslim, the other 2 in the debate that I had attended in NUIG (Galway) were `Islamists’, Abdullah was prepared to listen, debate, and enjoy our social scene, ie, an Irish Music filled pub in Eyre Square in Galway, mind you he didn’t partake of a `Pint of Guinness’, couldn’t blame him, bad Pints there that night. Thanks to Michael Nugent again for opposing poor, lazy and factually incorrect Journalism, this time by Andrew Gilligan.
What a foolish post
I’ve come to the conclusion that many atheists are merely anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. When I see so many of them engaging in craven apologetics for a belief system Sam Harris referred to as “The Motherlode of Bad Ideas”, one cannot help coming to such a conclusion.
Atheists who consistently take a muscled approach when denouncing Christianity and its countless idiocies go all soft and patronizing when dealing with a member of a religion they apparently believe to be ‘brown’, third-world, impoverished and therefore worthy of protection and additional ‘understanding’.
Andalusi represents the beguiling and smiling *Armani* side of Islam. The side that is gentle, that is congenial and that is quite adept at using ‘progressive’ terminology to advance the cause of what is by far the very worst form of reactionary, clerical fascism. He stalks the gullible, firm in the knowledge that there’s a sucker born every minute.
Muslims invented the zero, ya know!
Andalusi’s reading from the same script as ISIS. His difference is merely one of tactics.
And it’s a superficial difference lost on those whose atheism is shallow.
[Gerald, I have edited out of your comment the long list of quotes from the Quran. I’ve left the rest of it, but in future please try to express your own opinions here, and to respond to the discussion, rather than just post a list of quotes from elsewhere. – MN]
WHY?
Why are so many people ignorant of Islam?
There is the BOOK aka Quran!
There is the PROPHET aka Muhammad!
There is the god aka Allah!
There is the SUNNAH aka the lifestyle!
What did the god of the prophet tell him to do and what did he do?
What did his Companions do?
We have this account in the Quran, Hadiths, and Sira.
It seems that Muslims in the West are giving Muhammad and Islam a BORN AGAIN experience, so much so that Muhammad is portrayed as Jesus of Nazareth and his Companions as Jesus’ Apostles. THIS IS A LIE!
TAQIYYA (Holy Lying)
All sects of Islam practice it, when dealing with Kafirs/Infidels/Non Muslims
WESTERN MUSLIMS ARE IN ERROR
THE RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law:
r14.0 EXPLAINING THE KORAN BY PERSONAL OPINION
r14.1 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
“Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah from his own opinion is in error.”
r14.2 (Nahlawi:) The jurist Abul Layth says in Bustan al-‘arifin, “The [above] prohibition only applies to the allegorical parts of it (dis: w6), not to all of it, since Allah Most High says, ” ‘As for those with deviance in their hearts, they pursue the allegorical of it’ (Koran 3:7).
“The Koran came as a proof of moral answerability against all mankind and jinn, while if interpreting it were not permissible, it could not be a decisive proof. Since it is decisive, it is permissible for someone acquainted with the dialects of the Arabs and the circumstances under which various verses were revealed to interpret it. As for would-be exegetes who do not know the dimensions of Arabic, the figurative, literal, and the types of metaphor, it is not permissible for them to explain it beyond what they have heard, by way of reporting and not actual interpretation. ”
The generality of the prohibition also entails that whoever does not know which verses abrogate others and which are abrogated, the points upon which there is scholarly consensus (def: b7), and the tenets of faith of Ahl al-Sunna, is not safe from error if he interprets the Koran with nothing beyond the implications of the Arabic. Mere linguistic familiarity with the language is insufficient, and one must also know what we have just mentioned.
When one knows both, one may interpret the Koran, and is not doing so by mere opinion (ibid., I58}.
r14.3 (A: The above is equally true of hadith. Koran and hadith commentaries are of tremendous importance to teachers, speakers, writers, and translators who are preparing materials to present to Muslim audiences. The dictionary is not enough.)
NO FRIENDSHIP WITH KAFIRS
A KAFIR IS A NON-MUSLIM
Characteristics of Kafir
* 1 Kafir are Arrogant and Divided
* 2 Kafir are close-minded
* 3 Kafir are Deaf, Dumb and Blind
* 4 Kafir are Evil
* 5 Kafir are Greedy
* 6 Kafir are Like Animals
* 7 Kafir are Perverse
* 8 Kafir are Unclean
* 9 Kafir are Unintelligent
* 10 Kafir are the Worst of Creatures
FRIENDSHIP WITH KAFIRS ARE HARAM & SINFUL; MUSLIMS MUST HARBOR ANTIPATHY FOR THEM.
It was only when Muslims rejected DOGMATIC ISLAM, that they turned to studying the Clasics etc.
When they are DOGMATIC, they burn the Classics and destroy other cultures!
DENIAL IS NOT A RIVER IN EGYPT!
Wheee! Mad religious proselytizing and evangelizing on Michael’s blog!
Whoda thought?
Gerald, tell us what you really think.
Is it possible you’re being a little hasty in claiming that, because Abdullah says he’s against terrorism, he’s against what you or I regard as terrorism? For instance, I would regard the Fort Hood Massacre in America as an act of terrorism. Yet Abdullah was quick to defend the massacre. He declared:
“Firstly, no one says that Muslims should ‘rise up to kills all americans’ – READ THE FULLY QUOTE “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” Which I believe in too – which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base – they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000’s of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?). I’m sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn – soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed – big deal! Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you”. Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a ‘judgement of God’ upon the wicked american army.” (For Abdullah’s response to me quoting him, there’s more here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/abdullah-al-andalusi-defends-terrorism.html)
The same reasoning Abdullah uses here would justify the murder of four marines yesterday in Tennessee. Hence, I’d be careful about confidently declaring that Abdullah condemns terrorism.
You make some interesting points David.
““Not supporting ISIS” is the already-existing code for “not supporting ISIS,” and deserving of not being accused of supporting ISIS when you don’t.”
Let’s cut to the chase. Do you believe this guy is a moderate who has been honest about his views in all contexts and should be given access to counterintelligence documents, or do you not believe that?
To be honest,
I feel that this post, while admirable in its attempt to bring clarity to this debate, ignores key points. 1: the harsh truth is that many of these ‘debate’ organizations help to propound ideas leading to radicalization of young Muslims. Andalusi/Moloud whatever may not be doing this, but I doubt he’s working actively against it either. 2: We have a whole new generation of Islamic speakers/Debaters who are extremely well-versed in Western legalistic and cultural terminology, and are able to use weasel-words to tread a fine line yet maintain their extremist views, just below the level of being arrested and still maintaining maximum efficiency. Simply criticizing ‘Terrorism’ is easy: much like David wood said, what ‘terrorism’ has he meant, when he was having these ‘private’ discussions with you? Have you personally seen him talk to Muslims, especially other young Muslims in student societies?
Honestly, I feel that he might even have some good points (if disrespectful) about the aftermath of 9-11, (this doesn’t make me a terrorist BTW- just someone who has a sense of proportion: the whole ‘terrorist’ thing is a dehumanizing term much like ‘Kufaar’ is.) but I think that we need to be clearer about what we’re actually talking about, and what this individual is involved in – especially here in Ireland, which is NOT responsible for anything other westerners have done.
Regards,
Ronan.
I agree that there are wider issues involved, and I referred to that at the start of the post:
This particular post is about the misrepresentations of Abdullah by Andrew Gilligan. I will of course continue to address my differences with Abdullah about the wider issues.
Once both the parties decide to “fight it out” by “violence” or Whatever new terminology Vinavu and his “Thozharkal” uses for that… settle it that way.Why wasting so much of time by doing “therumunai Pracharam” etc etc… One thing is very clear : Vinavu is trying very hard to justify the violence in Maruti but somehow it is going in vain. Again this is also not a surprise as vinavu always try to justify something wrong in the name of “Puratchikara Sinthanai”