Ah yes. Legendary!
That word we usually reserve for Bowie, Monty Python, or at a push a perfectly poured pint. Not, you’d think, for a day that involved the mass murder of civilians, families butchered in their homes, women raped, children dragged away, and bodies paraded like trophies. But here we are.
According to Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, a Muslim woman who has publicly converted to Islam, 7 October, the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history, was “legendary”. She went further than political framing. She invoked the Qur’an, praised Allah, and described the day as something “great for Muslims”.
That is not a neutral observation. It is not analysis. It is religiously framed praise for an act of mass civilian slaughter.
Which is quite a statement. One that reframes murder, rape, and hostage-taking not as crimes, but as something to be admired. A moral judgement reached not through facts or empathy for the victims, but through ideological and religious alignment so rigid that atrocity itself becomes secondary to the cause it is claimed to serve.
Let’s pause for a moment and admire the gymnastics.
Calling a massacre “legendary” isn’t just offensive, it’s impressively empty-headed. Calling it great for Muslims, while invoking scripture, adds something darker. It takes an act of terror and places it in a sacred frame, where criticism can be waved away as ignorance, hostility, or bigotry. Violence is no longer just justified. It is sanctified.
This is the point where politics stops being about people and turns into a football chant. Your side scores; therefore atrocities are vibes. Add a religious gloss, and suddenly the victims don’t just disappear, they become irrelevant.
This is the bit where we’re told it’s “contextual”. Or “complicated”. Or that outrage is selective. True enough, but not in the way its defenders think. Because when civilians are butchered by people we dislike, it’s a tragedy. When civilians are butchered by people we’ve decided are fashionable revolutionaries, or spiritually aligned, it becomes content. Or worse, a moral victory.
There is something uniquely grotesque about the comfortable Western radical, sipping a flat white while romanticising mass murder from several thousand miles away. No risk. No cost. Just slogans, religious references, and the quiet thrill of feeling morally elevated while cheering barbarism from the safety of Zone 2.
Let’s be clear about something else.
This is not an attack on Islam. Faith does not require celebrating slaughter. The Qur’an does not demand that civilians be butchered and hostages taken. Millions of Muslims would find the praise of such acts abhorrent.
But when a Muslim public figure explicitly frames a massacre as good for Muslims, invoking religious language to do so, that framing matters. It turns terror into testimony. It discourages moral scrutiny. It dares critics to speak, knowing they will be accused of attacking faith rather than condemning violence.
And let’s also be clear: this isn’t about criticising Israel. Criticism is legitimate. Governments should be criticised. Policies debated. Power scrutinised. None of that requires calling a pogrom “legendary”. None of it requires describing mass murder as spiritually uplifting.
That word doesn’t mean anti-imperialist. It means you’ve lost the ability to distinguish between resistance and slaughter.
Imagine, for a moment, someone describing 9/11 as “great for Christians”. Or the Bataclan as “a proud day for Catholics”. We wouldn’t debate context. We wouldn’t nod thoughtfully. We’d recognise it instantly for what it is: moral rot dressed up as belief.
But apparently, change the victims, add activist language and selective scripture, and suddenly the bar for basic human decency sinks straight through the floor.
This isn’t radicalism. It isn’t courage. It isn’t solidarity. It’s the luxury belief of people who will never face the consequences of the violence they applaud, wrapped in religion to make it harder to challenge.
So no. 7 October wasn’t legendary.
It wasn’t great.
And it wasn’t something to be proud of, for Muslims or anyone else.
It was murderous. It was sadistic. It was a reminder of how easily human beings can be reduced to symbols, and how quickly cruelty can be excused when it flatters ideology or faith.
If that offends you more than the massacre itself, congratulations.
You’re exactly the problem.
