Metro Says 'Allahu Akbar' Means 'Hug One Another'
“'Allahu Akbar’ means 'God is greatest'.”
Well, that's an improvement because many non-Muslims (at least those involved in the Church of Interfaith) usually translate it as “God is great”; as does one tweet used in the article itself. Of course, that means that such an innocuous translation loses a very important aspect of this Islamic phrase.
It's this accurate or genuine translation which gives the game away. That is, the phrase is comparative to other gods and religions. The Muslims who use it are effectively saying: Allah is greater than your god! That's how it was originally used some 1,400 years ago and that's how it's used today. Thus, the words “Allahu Akbar” are a statement of Islamic supremacism and war. And that's the case no matter how many times Metro willingly allows itself to be hoodwinked by various Muslims. (Presumably Metro does this because it believes it will help the fight against racism/Islamophobia.)
Metro also claims that
“many Muslims have been speaking out to reclaim a key part of their religion from extremists who have given it that negative connection”.
How can the word “Allahu Akbar” have been misappropriated by extremists when it was first used by the Prophet Muhammad himself in the Battle of Badr, which is itself classed as “the first battle in Islam”?
If we jump forward to the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, it was then proclaimed from the rooftops as a form of Islamic “revolutionary” action.
Now let's move to the 9/11 attack in New York. These words were found in Mohamed Atta's suitcase:
"When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."
Now for Iraq in 2004. In Nick Berg's beheading video the Muslim killers can be seen and heard shouting "Allahu Akbar." Then, in 2009, the Fort Hood killer, Nidal Malik Hasan, also shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire and killing 13 people. It can also be seen that all the Muslim participants in the Syrian civil war -- from the pseudo-moderates to the Islamic State -- shouted "Allahu Akbar" after a killing or a successful bombing. Even the Free Syrian Army (officially designated a “secular” outfit by Westerners) shouted "Allahu Akbar" when a killing was made.
Metro's PC Version of “Allahu Akbar”
Metro also interviews a Muslim woman (called Rabia Chaudry) who says that the words “Allahu Akbar” have
“no inherent political/violent connotation meriting instant terror diagnosis”.
In a sense, that can also be said of the words Sieg Heil. After all, it just means "Hail Victory." Thus, a sportsman could say it. Nonetheless, like “Allahu Akbar”, it is historically associated with totalitarianism, violence and war. In the context of “Allahu Akbar”, it's innocent usage doesn't stop it being a fact that it's always used by Islamic terrorists. And it doesn't erase the parallel fact that the “role model” of these Islamic terrorists is the Prophet Muhammad's own violence.
In any case, I've never personally heard a Muslim use it in any other context other than war or conflict (unlike, say, the word InShaAllah). So it's unlikely to be used in the context of an interfaith meeting or during an anti-racism/Islamophobia demonstration organised by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.
So it's also strange how oddly Metro comments on the words “Allahu Akbar” when its says that
“some people believe it’s code for a terror attack, because that’s the only context they have heard it reported in”.
Some people? I would suspect that all non-Muslims see the phrase that way. Indeed, I even suspect that even this pious anti-racist journalist (Jen Mills) does so too; though, of course, she'll probably never say that when she attends London's dinner parties or in other Metro articles on “Muslim issues”.
The word “code” seems slightly patronising (or at least judgmental) too.
The phrase “Allahu Akbar” isn't “code for a terror attack” -- it's part of an Islamic terror attack! It's a vital part because it shows victims, other non-Muslims and the terrorists themselves exactly why they're doing what they're doing. That is, they are blowing people up because Allah is greater, not because Allah is great.
Two Typical Muslims?
Rabia Chaudry, according to Metro, also says she states it “like 20 times a day.” Wajahat Ali, on the other hand, trumps Rabia Chaudry by saying that he states “'Allahu Akbar' out loud more than 100 times a day.”. Really? Well, Mr. Jeremy Hussein Akhtar says it 1000 times every hour while simultaneously fighting racism, attending interfaith meetings, and hugging Jews.
Do Rabia Chaudry and Wajahat Ali really say it between 20 to 100 times a day? How would Metro readers know that to be true? Should we believe them? And how would we know that thoughts of “Islam's ultimate victory” aren't also on their minds –- at least some of the time?
The thing is, even if Metro's choice specimens are indeed ultra-moderate, it doesn't make much difference anyway. No doubt had Metro been around in the 1930s it could have found very moderate Nazis or communists too. That wouldn't have made much of a difference either. The fact is that when Nazis used the phrase Sieg Heil (or communists say “smash capitalism”) we know what they mean. And we know what “Allahu Akbar” really means too, despite the dissimulation and obfuscation.
Finally, Metro really takes the biscuit when it decides to indulge in some Islamic Da‘wah itself. It recounts a Muslim saying:
“But if we’re blessed enough ALLAH can easily turn them into the most amazing of life’s moments.”
Still, if by selling Islam to the non-Muslim British public, Metro helps the fight against racism/Islamophobia, then so be it. Metro's anti-racist piety (or gullibility) is worth it. Perhaps allowing in another five million Muslim immigrants into the UK or imprisoning all critics of Islam will also help the fight against racism/Islamophobia. After all, anything goes in that sacred fight; including dissimulation and lies about Islam's battle-cry -- “Allahu Akbar.”