The Regrettable State of Being non-Muslim

Raymond Ibrahim, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, on the two faces of Al Qaeda:

Soon after relocating to Washington in order to attend Georgetown, I landed an internship, which later evolved into a full-time position, at the Near East Section of the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, where thousands of new books, serials, and microfilms arrive yearly from the Arab world.

Numerous Arabic books dealing with Al Qaeda passed through my hands in this privileged position. A good number contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.

It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."

Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.

Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad."

In an article titled "I was a fanatic ... I know their thinking" published by the Daily Mail soon after the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, helps explain the Islamist dichotomy between the propaganda of reciprocity and the theology of eternal hostility toward the infidel: "When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network ... 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."

Comments

[IanCroydon]

It's all a bit of a no-brainer really, I often wonder how people miss it.

Jesus was born at least 500 years before Mohammed.

Christianity had been active in the same region for a quarter of its existance before Islam began taking root. The entire Roman empire was Christian by 450 ad, even after division between east and west, this was an area that encompasses a lot of the modern day "middle east", and Christianity had spread far beyond the official church borders, the Nestorian churches reached China by 650 AD.

The early church consisted of five bishoprics representing large orders of Christians; Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, all but one remain in Christian hands today. How did Islam enter a Christian world and attain this vast regional, and later global, dominance ? Was it by being nice to everyone ?

Bin Laden spoke of the "tragedy of Andalusia", the once Muslim lands of southern Spain recaptured by Christians. If you look at this historically, _any_ region occupied by Muslims can be "recaptured" by Christians (or Hindus), thereby this presents a problem (to al-Qaeda), no wonder the doctrine supports all out hatred, it is their only excuse.

[Alcuin]

Being a religion of war, Islam necessarily invokes Sun Tzu's dictum "All war is based on deception". Hence the innate duality, doublespeak, two-facedness. It is all thoroughly analysed in the Ethics of Jihad (see my link). You cannot negotiate with such people, as they always negotiate in bad faith. Arafat made allusions to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, which Mohammad broke as soon as his forces were strong enough to fight again. After a war, you can only negotiate with a foe who acknowledges he was been beaten. Israel has beaten the Arabs many times, yet finds it still has no peace. Of all Jihadi groups, only the Assassins were truly beaten - exterminated by the Mongols.

[vitae]

"After a war, you can only negotiate with a foe who acknowledges he was been beaten. Israel has beaten the Arabs many times, yet finds it still has no peace. Of all Jihadi groups, only the Assassins were truly beaten - exterminated by the Mongols."

There is your problem -- yvou confuse war with fisticuffs. You don't negotiate with a foe and you don't worry about what they acknowledge, and even if they surrender, you'll have to kill the vectors in order to destroy the culture that you're at war with. If you could negotiate, you didn't need a war in the first place...