Bogus or Real?– Former Murderous Islamicist and Recruiter?
Is this bogus? If we took Mr Butt’s words to heart, would we be heartened by the words because they say something we’d love to hear? The voice of reason from a former big bad terrorist? Hmmm, Surely others have said these same things, things that sound like this: ‘Start discussing literal passages about dealing death’ re the Koran, within the Muslim community. Non-muslims, ‘stop giving passes to ‘the good Muslim’ as PC blindfolded philosophy; the issues are deeper.’ Good ideas, actually regarding and for all religions.
Yes. But these ideas have not been stated with warrior real street cred… until Butt, claiming to have been “with them” “what would best be called, British Jihadi Network,” (first vaguery, “best be called…” –what is the recognized name of the group exactly?) and now being a reformed man, wrote these sentiments as an ‘insider’.
Yes. But, Muslims/ non-Muslims aside, back to his article. Part of my professional work is analyzing written documents and photographs for possible psychological intent and quirks in lexicon, syntax, choice of words, gesture, and so on…not handwriting analysis, but content and process analysis. I work for criminal attorneys, occasionally DAs.
As I read Mr. Butt’s work, some thoughts came to mind: Misdirection. Disinformation. This is what the plover does, a bird, when it is trying to distract the prey from its nest. It pretends to have an injured wing and drags across the ground, making the predator think it is the easier prey while protecting its young.
This article by Mr. Butt, was run by Observer, Guardian, and the Mail of London yesterday… When I came to the third ‘vaguery’ in descriptive language, something didn’t ring right… and I went to Snopes, which mentions Mr. Butt as a presumed British citizen who claims to have joined up the radical Islamists, and then left them, and now comes forward with his remedy for all of Muslim and non-Muslims alike.
Shouldn’t we ask a logical question? Given what difficulty ‘real members’ say they have leaving the Mafia, Scientology, the MalaNoche, and other militaristic groups… can one really leave a Radical Islamist recruitment cell and not be given an early 4th of July gift that takes one straight to the many virgins early?
Given recent allegations about Muslim medical doctors who don’t appear to hold life dear, and certainly seem to hold a strange idea about ‘if you cannot help, do no harm,’ well, wouldn’t educated men and women planning presumably to blow up an airport, also puncture the last illusion that “just cause it’s in the Koran doesn’t mean Muslims really believe that.”
The myth about jihadis has been, the murderous are only those who live in poverty, the uneducated, the miscreants, the ones who disagree with Euro-Western culture, those who disagree with international policies, and maybe, just maybe because it is Tuesday. Or Thursday. Or any other day.
Something still smells ‘wrong’ in this article. I’m not a cynic, but I am puzzled. Is this author for real? Or is it a plover attempt? And if so, what ‘nest’ is being protected? Or is it just a wannabe? who can endanger others by irritating the big boys who take out after him and take innocents to harm too. Or is he the real deal… in either direction? I keep thinking of an old tale I heard on the radio a thousand years ago, about the Nazis signaling their far off flank by publishing a greeting in a newspaper in a town near the flank affirming in that code, that the flank should move forward under cover of night. But, then I am not one who sees a conspiracy under every black helicopter either.
But this other phrase in his writing: “I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers.”
.. also clangs… 9-11 occurred in 2001. Surely it cant take 4.5 years to reach that conclusion. Capiche? or No? or Yes?
Here is Mr. Butt’s article:
By Hassan Butt –
I was a fanatic…I know their thinking…When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network – a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology – I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.
More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.
For example, on Saturday on Radio 4’s Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: “What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.”
I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I’d be laughing once again.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network – I met him on two occasions.
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.
If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?
How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?
There isn’t enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.
For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state – typically by starting debate with the question: “Are you British or Muslim?”
But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology.
They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever – and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.
Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.
A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.
In other words, individual Muslims don’t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don’t actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.
For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we’ll stay here.
But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn’t enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.
Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.
Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence.
And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.