Slack-tivism Is Stopping Us From Tackling Terrorism

opinion

Activism, Religion,
(Image: The Cord)

Follow Jacob on Twitter

Islamic terrorism is bubbling up through the cracks of European society and the world as a whole, but our strategies of addressing seem to have failed. Terror shows little sign of abating. There is a vast chasm between those researching the history, trajectory and prevention of jihadist terrorism and the way the public and media discuss it.

In short: the reason we are not succeeding is because we are not discussing the problem.

Little over two years ago, shaken by the merciless slaughter of 12 cartoonists in January 2015, we poured into our streets and city squares to proclaim our civic solidarity and rejection of terror. A month later two more were killed in Denmark. Brave passengers stopped a would-be terrorist, wielding a Kalashnikov, in August of 2015, but this brief respite was later met with the death of 130 at the Bataclan and elsewhere across Paris in November. A month later, 14 were shot dead in San Bernadino. In March 2016, 32 were shot and killed in Brussels. In June, 50 were gunned down in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In July, 77 were mowed down in Nice as they celebrated Bastille Day. An 85-year-old priest had his throat slit to exclamations of ‘Allahu Akbar’ on the altar of his 16th century Norman church. October and November of 2016 saw further so-called lone wolf strikes in Hamburg and Ohio. In December, a further 12 were mowed down at a Christmas market in Berlin. Following a failed attempt on the Louvre in February of this year, a spree at Westminster took the lives of 5 more. This April, a dozen were murdered at the St Petersburg underground, five more run down on the streets of Stockholm, and another gendarme slain in Paris. Now, we’ve added Manchester to the bottom of a list that has no foreseeable end.

Terrorism, Terror

Messages of love, hope and solidarity have always poured out after merciless slaughters such as that which took place at Manchester Arena. It is morbid to imagine that we could ever become numb to grief and police sirens. Many, including myself, were shaken by the incomprehensible depravity that drives a man to detonate himself as a human nail bomb amongst children enjoying a concert. If, however, we think that any of our symbolic gestures will address the problem, then we are sorely mistaken. Calm and considered discussion is critical to our resilience as a society, but without the proper action and civic resistance to extremism, our efforts to quash the spectre of jihadist terror haunting Europe are doomed to fail.

The frequency of these occurrences has become such that the reactions that follow have become predictable themselves. Yet how we react is critical in addressing this problem. The initial reaction of many well-intentioned individuals is to hold out, postpone judgement, and maintain some semblance of virtue by pretending to not expect the all too obvious. It would, of course, be disastrous for the public if every alarming incident was assumed terroristic and allowed to feed hysteria. Journalists do have responsibilities to prevent this, after all. Additionally, it is entirely understandable that many Britons from Muslim communities, anticipating a backlash in bigotry, hold out hope that the assailant is not a self-proclaimed foot soldier of Islam.

More concerning than either of these, however, is the increasing cult of virtue that has developed amongst ‘progressives’ in the western world who pretend that we are not living under the threat of a radical ideology at all and who claim that to suggest otherwise is an admission of bigotry, racism or Islamophobia. This has been described as the ‘Voldemort effect,’ a phenomenon in which fear of describing and discussing the threat supersedes fear of the thing itself. It might better be described as the ‘narrative narrative’, wherein we must at all costs avoid ‘confirming the narrative’ of the Islamists and anti-Muslim bigots.

Terrorism, Islam, Manchester, Terror

Underpinning this seemingly well-intentioned line of thought is a very troubling notion: that any discussion of a relationship between adherents of Islam and the political ideology of Islamists would drive legions of otherwise good people into the arms of genocidal theocrats who throw gays from rooftops, behead journalists and fetishise martyrdom. It is this cognitive dissonance amongst self-proclaimed progressives that infantilises Muslims as incapable of having a discussion of ideas without abandoning their entire moral compass. It is the bigotry of low expectations.

When reasonable people cannot both recognise the historical and political illiteracy of making sweeping statements about IS and Islam, whilst also recognising that jihadists are not experiencing false-consciousness when they fight under the black flag of the Prophet bearing the ‘shahada’ (declaration of faith) and proclaim their battle cry ‘God is great’, then we preclude all rational dialogue. Pronouncing ‘takfir’ on jihadist terrorists, declaring them non-Muslim, is not only theologically problematic but an abdication of engagement with their crude interpretations.

The tyranny of silence created by current discourse on terrorism leaves the power with two extremes; those in the Muslim community and on the left who say Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and those on the right who say that it has everything to do with Islam. Not only does this gridlock produce immense frustration, it prevents any progress in getting at the core precepts of those who justify a nihilistic and apocalyptic struggle in which cartoonists, Muslims, atheists, tourists and children enjoying a concert are the principal and justified target of jihad.

We cannot begin to resolve the threat of Islamism or shore up our civil resistance until we are all able to start having a conversation and learning to understand what drives those self-proclaimed foot soldiers of the Islamic State abroad and those in our midst. In the 20th century, democratic societies grappled in a battle of ideas against communist tyranny. Today we grapple with an ideology that does not discriminate between rich and poor, or east and west. Islamism’s founding texts are not Marx’s Communist Manifesto but Sayyed Qutb’s Milestones; the utopia of the jihadist is not the communist state but the caliphate and the rewards of martyrdom. Those of us who have not engaged in the civic battle of ideas must do so beyond righteously tweeting #lovewins and #terrorismhasnoreligion. We must collectively understand and root out the malignant perversion festering in our families, friends and communities. For the loved ones of those 22 persons who will not be coming home, there is little we can offer but our collective sorrow and support. Honesty, engagement and action in the future, however, no matter how insignificant, could be the difference between successful prevention and another legion of weeping relatives and funeral caskets.

5 Comments

    • The Israelites committed genocide against the Amalekites:

      “From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying “This animal belonged to Amalek.””

      I don’t know if that’s what you intended to imply but I would be far more worried about the Israelites than the Amalekites in this analogy.

  1. Amalek was an ancient people of Sinai. When the Israelites abandoned Egypt they were kindly received by the priest of Midian, whose name appears as both Reuel and Jethro, father of Moses’s wife Zipporah. Some writers have speculated that this had much to do with the monotheism of the Hebrews. The Amalekites however fell upon this distressed people piecemeal as they wandered in hunger and weakness, killing the weak and defenseless. For this Amalek came to be regarded with a special horror, and failure to remember the detestation of this act became a commandment for Israel: Deuteronomy 25:18-19 says: “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when you were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God; Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about,….., that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.” (King James Version) Henceforward all that is dark, primitive, hateful, evil and treacherous is spoken to and of by reference to this people. All of which poses a question for us now: what do we do with this evil? After the Holocaust Germany, aided by forgotten American de-Nazification efforts, decided that Mein Kampf should be blotted out of remembrance in Germany, to the best of their ability. In America we believe that the response to evil should be public discourse, that evil will expose its true colors if vigorously examined. You can buy or check out Mein Kampf here and now. And in the Muslim countries where millions of western Muslims originate, Mein Kampf is published by the governments, in Arabic of course, along with the scurrilous, demonstrably forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” When something like the Manchester atrocity occurs it reminds us that Amalek lurks in the dark and hateful places of humanity. And G-d has not given Israel rest from her enemies, so the time to blot out the memory of this evil has not come yet.

    • G-d? Gotterdammerung? Gooseberry dessert? Gone for a dump? Give us a clue… Still, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you justifying the Israelites’ genocidal revenge because some fictional god-in-the-sky (sorry, G-d-in-the-sky) gave them authority to wipe out men, women, children and animals? I’m not sure that modern Israel needs more of an excuse to mistreat other people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*