It is true that there were some Palestinians “dancing” in the streets, jubilant that “America got what it deserved” on 9/11. But do those Palestinians who did celebrate represent the feelings of the entire Muslim world? All Palestinians (many of whom have grievances with the U.S. for reasons as much to do with politics as it does with the Quran)? Or can it be chalked up to something other than religion?

Consider:

The Images below are from a peaceful candlelight vigil on the streets of Tehran, Iran. (September 18th, 2001)
The pariticipants lit candles, mourned, and prayed to showed their grief over the loss of innocent life in the tragedies of Sept. 11th.

The following image is from a peaceful rally in the Muslim country of Bangladesh,
who were showing this sympathy with Americans
who have lost loved ones in this Tragedy

The picture to the right is a poignant image of two Palestinian women mourning the loss of life in the tragedies of September 11th.

- The terrorist act was strongly condemned by every single Palestinian organization including Fatah, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, Workers Unions and Committees, Human Right organizations (AlHaq, Law, Palestine Center for Human Rights), student associations, municipalities, mosques and churches, etc.

- The US Consul General in Jerusalem reported that he has received a huge stack of faxes from Palestinians and Palestinian organizations expressing condolences, grief and solidarity. He himself was pained to see that the media chose to focus on the sensational images of a few Palestinians rejoicing.

- The Palestine Legislative Council condemned the terrorist attack on the United States and sent an urgent letter of condolences to Mr. J Dennis Hasterd, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

- Palestinians in East Jerusalem held a candle-light vigils on 12 and 14 September to express their grief and solidarity with the American families struck by this tragedy. Mr. Abdel Qader Al-Husseini, son of the late Palestinian leader Faisal Al-Husseini led one of the vigils.

- Jerusalem University students, along with the President of the University and the Deans of the various Faculties, began a blood donation drive in East Jerusalem. Students and professors went to hospitals in order to donate blood for the American victims who need it.

- The 1 million Palestinian students in the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, stood five minutes in silence to express their solidarity with the hundreds of American children who have been struck by this strategy, which resembles in its shocking effects their daily sufferings. (see image to the right)

-In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.

-Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilise against terrorism.

Were the expressions of condolences sincere? Or just “obligatory” governmental lip service and image propaganda? After all, it’s easy to be cynically skeptical of Hamas and Yasser Arafat shedding one teardrop of sympathy for the United States for anything other than political cover. But what about the people themselves? “Ordinary”, everyday Muslims, whether defined as “radical” or “moderate”?

And if our skepticism for the sincerity of the well-wishes is well founded, then it should also extend to those that have nothing to do with Islam itself, but to anti-Americanism in general; anti-Americanism that isn’t fueled by religious fanaticism but rather perceptions of American imperialism and wrongful foreign policy bullying by the world’s sole hyperpower.

Were the French and our other European allies sincere in their mourning? I’m sure many were; but along with that, there were probably those who felt “America’s chickens have come home to roost”, and this was all “blowback”.

From pg 8-9 of Jean Francois-Revel‘s Anti-Americanism,

After the first gushings of emotion and crocodile condolences, the murderous assaults were depicted as a justified retaliation for the evil done by the United States throughout the world. This was the reaction of most Muslim countries, but also of rulers and journalists in some sub-Saharan African countries, not all of which have Muslim majorities. Here we see the habitual escape hatch of societies suffering from chronic failures, societies that have completely messed up their evolution toward democracy and economic growth; instead of looking to their own incompetence and corruption as the cause, they finger the West in general and the United States in particular. Classic displays of voluntary blindness to one’s own shortcomings though these were, they were but overtures; even more remarkable performances were to come. After a discreet pause of a few days, the theory of American culpability surfaced in the European press- in France above all, it goes without saying- among intellectuals and politicians, of the Left and the Right.

Shouldn’t we interrogate ourselves about the underlying reasons, the “root causes” that had pushed the terrorists to their destructive acts? Wasn’t the United States in part responsible for what had happened? Shouldn’t we take into account the sufferings of the poor countries and the contrast between their impoverishment and America’s opulence?

This line of argument was not only made in countries whose populations, keyed up to fever pitch by jihad, instantly acclaimed the New York catastrophe as well-deserved punishment. It was also heard in the European democracies, where soon enough, insinuations were made that- with all due respect for the dead, of course- a careful look at the terrorists’ motives was called for.

I believe that the anti-Americanism that saw fit to celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. as a well-deserved “bloody nose” longtime in coming can be chalked up not to religious extremism, but to world politics.

In David Killcullen’s The Accidental Guerilla, he writes on pg 249-250:

Observers of the situation are often confused by their own category errors, for example, equating liberal politics with nominal theology and nonviolence, or fundamentalist theology with extremist politics and terrorism. These traits may in theory cluster together, but are not the same thing. In fact, Quintan Wiktorowicz has argued, theology is a poor predictor for political extremism and violence. He argues that though Salafist groups share a common religious perspective, political divisions emerge when they apply enduring religious principles to contemporary problems:

Although Salafis share the same approach to religious jurisprudence, they often hold different interpretations about contemporary politics and conditions….The different contextual readings have produced three major factions in the community: the purists, the politicos, and the jihadis. The purists emphasize a focus on nonviolent methods of propagation, purification, and education. They view politics as a diversion that encourages deviancy. Politicos, in contrast, emphasize application of the Salafi creed to the political arena, which they view as particularly important because it dramatically impacts social justice and the right of God alone to legislate. Jihadis take a more militant position and argue that the current context calls for violence and revolution. All three factions share a common [theological] creed but offer different explanations of the contemporary world and its concomitant problems and thus propose different solutions. The splits are about contextual analysis, not belief.

~~~

in 2004, an International Crisis Group report found that Salafism and terrorism rarely occur together in Indonesia, and another report made the same finding in Saudi Arabia; earlier, Francois Burgat identified a similar pattern in North Africa. Many of the most violent Iraqi groups are primarily nationalist and only nominally Islamic, as are some of the most extreme Palestinian groups. And the Netherlands security service (AIVD) identified the same wide spectrum in European radical Muslim communities in 2003. Hence, regardless of theological or political categorization, field evidence suggest that Islamic theology as such has little functional relationship with violence. On the basis of this demonstrated analytical weakness of theology as a predictor for violence, Wiktorowicz argues that we “should focus on the competing political analyses and interpretations and not necessarily the specific [theological] content of jihadi beliefs.”

If theology is a poor predictor for violence, it follows that radicalization (which includes political or theological components, or both) is relevant to counterterrorism in its political, not its theological dimension. Indeed, a focus on Islamic beliefs (equating “radical” theology with violent extremism) may be an analytical sidetrack. Rather than theology, the evidence suggests, it may make more sense to focus on recognized behavioral and sociological indicators of propensity to violence. As Marc Sageman has shown, biographical, psychological, and sociological factors are more useful predictors for terrorist activity than religion. Membership in a subversive or revolutionary political group may also indicate that an individual is “primed” for violence if an appropriate catalyst emerges- but a trigger event is needed and, again, the driving factor is political, not theological.

John Esposito:

The charge that Muslims do not condemn terrorism has been made repeatedly, despite that post-9/11, many Muslim leaders and organizations in America and globally have consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But major media outlets do not seem to find them newsworthy, and thus they must be found in smaller outlets on the internet.

The Myth of the Silent Muslim Majority:

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001 ‘Western’ academics, intellectuals, and politicians have been apparently blind to the massive amount of condemnation coming from the Muslim majority; that is, those who oppose Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the question of “why haven’t Muslims condemned the atrocities of 9/11 and other terror” is more a definitive statement than an open-ended issue for many commentators. Moderate Muslims are seen as a weak majority, unwilling to condemn and work against the ‘radicals’ like bin Laden and others.

~~~

This conception of Islam is quite commonplace among Evangelical Christians, Atheists, Zionists, politicians in the West, and media commentators generally. However, the belief that Muslims believe that the tragic events of 9/11 were justified or that bin Laden represents “mainstream” Islam is quite ridiculous. Even commentators who should know better seem to have amnesia or deliberately lie to make their case. For example, after the London bombings, Thomas Friedman stated that:

“To this day–to this day– no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden”.

Apparently Friedman did not read his own newspaper on October 17th, 2001 in which a full page ad from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty proclaimed that “Osama bin Laden hijacked four airplanes and a religion”. This ad also published statements from some of the most prominent Muslim leaders and institutions. Among those who signed were Sheikh Abudulaziz al-Shaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairmen of the Senior Ulama), Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of Pakistan, Zaki Badawi (Principal of the Muslim College in London), King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Even earlier, on September 14th, 2001 the BBC reported condemnations of the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror by significant and influential clerics; for example Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University (viewed by many as one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam), and Ayatollah Kashani in Iran.

Yet another example of over forty Muslim scholars and jurists condemnation of the events on 9/11.; a few notable scholars were Mustafa Mashhur (General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt), Qazi Hussain Ahmed (Ameer, Jamaat-e -Islami, Pakistan) Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (founder, Islamic Resistance Movement-or Hamas, Palestine), and Fazil Nour (president, PAS- Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia). Just a piece of their condemnation:

The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms [my emphasis]. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Surah al-Isra 17:15).

Surprising to many in the West, Hamas and Hizbollah condemned the atrocities in London in 2005. Hamas claimed that “targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected”, while Hizbollah joined on “humanitarian, moral, and religious grounds”.

Commentators like Harris, Graham, and Friedman obviously didn’t do any research or have motives for distorting the truth. Whatever conclusion one may come to, the scholarliness and truth of work by any of these men is questionable. This conclusion should not be surprising. According to Edward Said in his Covering Islam:

From at least the end of the eighteenth century until our own day, modern Occidental reactions to Islam have been dominated by a radically simplified type of thinking that may still be called Orientalist. The general basis of Orientalist thought is an imaginative and yet drastically polarized geography dividing the world into two unequal parts, the larger, “different” once called the Orient, the other, also known as “our” world, called the Occident or the West”. (pg. 4)

Said goes on to outline a entrenched bias in the West in its coverage and reaction to Islam. Whether one accepts his conclusion about the inherent bias of the West towards Islam and the long history of Western imperialism (See: Orientalism), it is quite clear that “mainstream America” seems haphazardly ignorant on Islam, its history, and contemporary Islamic/Arab reactions to current events. Condemnation of Osama bin Laden and the atrocity on 9/11 has been supplied by literally thousands of Islamic scholars, jurists, and ordinary muslims. As has been shown, these condemnations were immediate and strong.

Lets recall the Qur’anic verse that reads:

“Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind,” (Al-Ma’dah:32).

While almost every nation condemned the 9/11 attacks and joined the US in fighting a defensive “war on terror”, there was one particular “secular” Arab-Muslim leader who did not condemn the September 11th attacks:

Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the September 11 attacks against the United States. A commentary of the official Iraqi station on September 11 stated that America was “…reaping the fruits of [its] crimes against humanity.” Subsequent commentary in a newspaper run by one of Saddam’s sons expressed sympathy for Usama Bin Ladin following initial US retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan. In addition,the regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist
groups,

Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001

Saddam was not exactly a pious Muslim, for which he was hated by radical, puritanical Islamists who saw his regime in a similar light to how they saw Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and all the other “apostate”, secularlized Muslim states. And like the Saudi government who funded the extremism of wahhabi Islam, Saddam might not have trusted jihadists, but he was willing to “do business” with Islamic terrorists anyway and provide training, funding, and safe haven as a kind of insurance policy agreement that takfiri terrorists would direct their assaults outside of Iraq and at other apostate secular Muslim regimes as well as at mutual enemies.

Even though the war in Iraq (especially after abu Ghraib) probably did give al Qaeda and the global jihad movement new life, it also exposed al Qaeda for the monster it is, and delegitimize its ideology in the eyes of most in the Muslim world:

Last year, Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, a popular Saudi Islamic scholar criticized Osama bin Laden who once lionized him.

Mufti Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest Islamic religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. Tareq Al-Humaid, the editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, points out the significance:

“It is true that some of these [young people] have become enslaved by Al-Qaeda and its ideology, and are now beyond hope; however, the importance of the fatwa lies in the impact that it will have on most of the Saudi public, and in particular the fathers and mothers. Its value lies in the fact that it will wrest from the hands of the ‘politicized sheikhs’ the card that they have been using all this time.

“Where are the moderates?” Mainstream Muslims have been rejecting terrorism and al Qaeda’s brand of Islamic ideology, even as we remain suspicious of the sincerity and heart of those who profess to be practitioners of the Islamic faith.

The most recent astonishing and important rejection and condemnation of al Qaeda comes from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.

Who is Dr. Fadl?

Lawrence Wright, author of the most definitive account of the history of al-Qaeda, The Looming Tower, writes in the New Yorker:

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad [Egyptian Islamic Jihad], and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

A year ago, MataHarley had blogged on the NIC Global Trends 2025 Report:

The two primary strategic aims of al-Qa’ida—the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate and the removal of US and Western influence so that “apostate” regimes can be toppled—are clearly threats to many existing Muslim governments and are resulting in stronger counterterrorism measures.

There is little indication that the vast majority of Muslims believe that such objectives are realistic or that, if they could come to pass, would solve the practical problems of unemployment, poverty, poor educational systems, and dysfunctional governance. Despite sympathy for some of its ideas and the rise of affiliated groups in places like the Mahgreb, al-Qa’ida has not achieved broad support in the Islamic World. Its harsh pan-Islamist ideology and policies appeal only to a tiny minority of Muslims.

According to one study of public attitudes toward extremist violence, there is little support for al-Qa’ida in any of the countries surveyed—Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The report also found that majorities in all Arab countries oppose jihadi violence, by any group, on their own soil.

Al-Qa’ida is alienating former Muslim supporters by killing Muslims in its attacks. Recent scholarly research indicates that terrorist groups that kill civilians seldom accomplish their strategic goals. Although determining precisely the number of Muslims worldwide who have died in al-Qa’ida attacks is difficult, examination of available evidence suggests that at least 40 percent of the victims have been Muslims.

The roughly 40-year cycle of terrorist waves suggests that the dreams that inspire terrorist group members’ fathers to join particular groups are not attractive to succeeding generations. The prospect that al-Qa’ida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives, and inability to become a mass movement.

Mata writes:

Muslim supporters are alienated by jihad movements killing Muslims!

And where has the global Islamic jihad movement gained the majority of their PR by wreaking bloodthirsty welfare on fellow Muslims?

Iraq. Point made.

This single element… changing the hearts and minds of Muslims… come to us not only because of the courage and fortitude of our US and allies’ military personnel, but also because of the very failings of the enemy itself. We can be certain that it was not part of Iraq strategy to have the jihad and rebel movements shed the blood of so many innocent Iraqis merely to allow them to show their true colors. But we can also be certain that had we not made them so desperate as to attempt to tear Iraq in two, it’s likely the Muslim world may have continued to hold them up as honorable religious fighters.

Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, the definitive account of al Qaeda history, wrote about al Qaeda’s Master Plan in the New Yorker. Toward the end of the article, he writes:

Al Qaeda’s apocalyptic agenda is not shared by all Islamists. Although most jihadi groups approve of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America and Europe, their own goals are often more parochial, having to do with purifying Islam and toppling regimes in their own countries which they see as heretical. Many of these groups would be happy to see Al Qaeda disappear, so that their campaigns can be understood as nationalist guerrilla struggles with specific political goals.

This rupture has grown increasingly apparent in the past five years. Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, publicly denounced the September 11th attacks and condemned Al Qaeda’s use of suicide bombers, even though the tactic was employed in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the barracks of American and French troops in Lebanon, both of which are believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah. After September 11th, leaders of the Egyptian Islamist organization, Gama’a Islamiya, which has worked closely with Al Qaeda in the past, publicly condemned Al Qaeda’s tactics and its goals of worldwide jihad. Even some of Zawahiri’s former colleagues in the Egyptian terror group he formed, Al Jihad, argue that Al Qaeda has undermined the cause of Islam by instigating anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and the West.

It is notable how seldom these ideologues refer to the words of bin Laden or Zawahiri, the nominal leaders of the movement, perhaps because the declarations of Al Qaeda’s leadership are directed more at Americans and Europeans than at the jihadis. “Beware the scripted enemy, who plays to a global audience,” David Kilcullen, the counterterrorism strategist at the State Department, wrote in a paper now being used by the U.S. military in Iraq as a handbook for dealing with the insurgency. Al Qaeda, he wrote, propagates a “single narrative” aimed at influencing the West; but each faction within the jihadi movement has its own version of this narrative, often sharply different from the message being put forward by bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Here are more useful links:

Statements from leading Muslim leaders, condemning the terrorist attacks of September 11th

* Organization of the Islamic Conference, Doha, Qatar. October 10th, 2001: (representing 56 Muslim nations)
“These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human and moral values.”

*“Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs”, states Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

*“Bin Laden’s Violence is a heresy against Islam”, states Abdul Hakim Murad

*Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks against civilians in the U.S.

*Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed al-Tantawi of Al-Azhar, the highest institution in Sunni Islam, warned that those who attack innocent people will be punished by Allah, in his weekly sermon to thousands of worshippers in Cairo. “Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the Day of Judgment,” the moderate Sheikh Tantawi said at Al-Azhar mosque. “It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack,” he said.

* “Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.” Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

*The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society).” Sept. 27, 2001 fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar)
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d’etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari’a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

*“Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.” Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to Praise those who kill innocent people.” Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in NY Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in.” King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in Middle East Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the NY Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17)

*CANADIAN MUSLIM SCHOLARS REJECT “MISGUIDED” CALLS FOR JIHAD : The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR CAN) and the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA) today denounced a series of recent statements made by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network that state that Muslims should wage a “jihad” against Americans.

“Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people. Despite our disagreement with certain American policies, we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians.

Jihad, which literally means ‘struggle,’ has an internal, societal and combative dimension. The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self, and the spiritual project to adorn the self with virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness. The societal dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality. Finally, the combative aspect of jihad is only to be used as self-defense against aggression or to fight oppression, and, even then, to be observed with strict limits of conduct that preserves the life of innocents and the sanctity of the environment.

Moreover, this latter type of Jihad can only be declared by a legitimate, recognized religious authority. Using the concept of Jihad to justify harming the innocent is contrary to the letter and spirit of Islam.We condemn any violence that springs from this misguided interpretation.”

*Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies and Muslim-Christian relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, said there was no basis in Islamic law or sacred text for Mr. bin Laden’s remarks. “The basic theological distortion is that any means are permitted to achieve the end of protesting against perceived oppression,” said Dr. Mattson, a practicing Muslim.

“Islamic law is very clear: terrorism is not permitted,” she added. “Even in a legitimate war — even if Osama bin Laden were a legitimate head of state, which he’s not — you’re not permitted to indiscriminately kill civilians, just to create terror in the general population.” (“Experts Say Bin Laden is Distorting Islamic Law“, NY Times, Oct. 8, 2001)

Al-Sheikh

An Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia has said the terrorist network alqaeda goes against the principles of Islam. The statement was issued after al-qaeda militants were arrested last month in S. Arabia.

The Saudi scholar, Al-Sheikh said:

“The things that al-Qaeda members do in Saudi Arabia must be unacceptable to any Muslim,”

“He who commits crimes such as those of the deviant sect (refering to al-qaeda) is nothing but a wicked person who has abandoned his faith and behaves like animals or barbarians.”

“Supporting them means committing one of the biggest sins.”

Given that “Muslims dancing in the streets” in celebration of the 9/11 attacks appears to have been overexaggerated by media sensationalism and that most Muslims either were never on board with the global jihad movement or have since rejected al Qaeda’s theology of hate, who then are we at war with? Who attacked us on 9/11 if Islam is not to blame?

You’d think it would be the bleeding heart liberals who would want us to stay indefinitely, spending blood and treasure in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons…but no…

They’d probably reason this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening if we weren’t over there to begin with. As if Taliban brutality weren’t a reality prior to OEF.

Taliban hang 7-year-old boy accused of being a spy:

Twisted Taliban militants took terror to a new low by accusing a 7-year-old boy of spying – and hanging him high.

That outrage drew immediate condemnation from the Afghan president, who called the execution a “crime against humanity.”

“I don’t think there’s a crime bigger than that, that even the most inhuman forces on earth can commit,” Hamid Karzai said Thursday. “A 7-year-old boy cannot be a spy. A 7-year-old boy cannot be anything but a 7-year-old boy

The execution happened Tuesday in the embattled Helmand province, said Dawoud Ahmadi, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

“The innocent boy was not a spy, but he may have informed the police or soldiers about planted explosives,” Ahmadi told Central Asia Today.

“If this is true, it is an absolutely horrific crime,” added British Prime Minister David Cameron, while on a stop in Kabul. “I think it says more about the Taliban than any book, than any article, than any speech could ever say.”

The victim was reportedly the grandson of a tribal elder.

The Taliban has targeted tribal leaders who have supported the Karzai government or took part in U.S. directed reconstruction programs.

Hanging is a favorite Taliban terror method for getting rid of enemies – and sending a message to other would-be opponents.

Nor is this the first time the Taliban has killed kids. Three years ago, they strung up a 70-year-old woman and a child in the Musa Qala district on trumped up spying charges, Ahmadi said.

Also 3 years ago, they hanged a 12 year old boy from a mulberry tree, claiming he was passing off information on roadside bombs to police and British forces.

Reminds me a bit of the story about the boy spies in Lawrence Wright‘s “The Looming Tower“; only there, Zawahiri had to find justification for executing the boys as fellow Islamists protested it was against Islamic Law to kill children; Zawahiri found the justification he craved for by checking the boys for pubic hair, determining that the 13 yr old boys were old enough to be tried as men….and then he executed them.

Many members of al-Jihad and al-Qaeda objected to putting children on trial, saying it was against Islam.

~~~

When Turabi and his people learned of the firing squad, they were incensed. The Sudanese government accused al-Jihad of behaving like a “state within a state” and ordered Zawahiri and his organization out of the country immediately. They did not even get time to pack. “All we did was to apply God’s Sharia.” Zawahiri complained. “If we fail to apply it to ourselves, how can we apply it to others?”

Al-Jihad scattered, mainly to Afghanistan, Jordan, and Sudan. Many members broke away, scandalized by the cold-blooded execution of the two young boys. In Zawahiri’s hands, al-Jihad had splintered into angry and homeless gangs.
-Ch 12, The Boy Spies, from Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower“, pg 216

Iranian legislators on Sunday decided to not allow a visit from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), according to Iranian media.

“Members of the Iranian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee (a subcommittee of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission) voiced opposition to the request after studying the issue,” Hassan Ebrahimi, head of the committee, told the semi-official Fars News Agency.

If this doesn’t mean diplomacy w Iran has failed…I dunno what could.

There are several reasons that the failed Christmas attack stirs Americans. One of them is the Obama Admin’s politically correct approach to war. Another is the political divide people have between admitting there is a global holy war against Americans vs believing Al Queda attacked American in 2001 because they didn’t like George Bush or his invasion of Iraq in 2003. The biggest stir factor, however, is the fact that a moron w explosive underwear was able to get on a plane (despite lots of intel given to the Obama Admin warning of this attack), and the only thing that stopped him was a bad detonator; ie, luck.

Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.”

Obama reassured the nation that this “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

One should wonder not if Obama is defending the American people (he’s not), but rather…when Al Queda gets a good detonator and succeeds in killing Americans, what will Obama’s excuse be? He can’t blame Bush. He can’t say he was taking the threat seriously (he’s not). He can’t blame Republicans who barely have a minority in Congress. He can’t blame American imperialism as he’s practiced the opposite. So, if all those tried and true excuses and conspiracy theories of the past don’t sell….does that mean HE screwed up, and something (anything) that the Bush Admin did to prevent terror attacks was correct? That’s a question that-if answered in the affirmative, collapses the far left nutroots house of conspiracy theory lies.

Well, it’s gone. 2009 is finally freaking GONE

The year started with my wife outta work, no family income (I just get beer money for my books), two sick kids, the neighbor’s trampoline had just taken flight into the back of our car-almost totaling it.

The year continued…

Obama took office. He and Dems gave a trillion dollars in “stimulus” money to their organized labor donors who paid 80% of their campaign money (according to the Federal Election Commission website) with the idea that if the kickback wasn’t given right away unemployment would rise above 8%.

Then unemployment reached almost 11% (almost 25% in some states…states that probably won’t be blue again in the fall-not w 1:4 voters outta work!).
The war in Iraq continues under the Bush plan, and Obama-who had pledged for 2yrs to focus on Afghanistan-took 10 months to decide on what to do.

Also in Afghanistan, our own Flopping Aces writer, Chris Galloway returned from his tour there in April, but on June 30th his months of being unable to adjust, his frustrations w Obama and the left’s ignorance of the war on terror among other challenges drove him to take his own life. God bless you Chris! You’re missed more than you know.

My wife did find a job, but 3 more of my friends lost their jobs (2 of em far left, unabashed moonbat Obama lovers).

Last night, my wife and I did the usual. We looked back on the year, we complained about some things, and we thanked God for others (a trip to Disneyworld with our kids that was the greatest vacation in our lives!). We talked about making resolutions, and decided on a list of things we wanna try and do instead. As we waited up for the ball to drop on TV, I got a facebook message that a friend of mine’s mom had just died. 2009 was going out like bitch.

I dunno what 2010 will bring. I know the deadline for Iran to give up its nuclear program has come and gone, and that Obama “strongly objected” to the tyrannical oppression of the Iranian people. I know that even if the current plan in Iraq works, 50-70,000 American combat troops will just be re-named “security forces” in October. I know that there’s no plan for fighting terrorists in Afghanistan other than to make soldiers read Miranda rights if they choose to capture a suicide bomber (should Marines get badges now, or will those grunts just toss em on the ground w a firm, “Badges!? We don’t need no stinking badges!”?). I know that even TIME Magazine reported that there is no military option for Yemen. I know from a friend just back from the region that Somalia is a war zone w Americans fully involved and the world ignoring it (but Obama did get a peace prize). I know that Israel is not gonna wait forever re: Iran, that Russia’s making offensive weapons again for the first time in 20yrs, and I know that if I look around the web or TV I can still find some leftwinger nutroots moonbat moron blaming Bush for something-anything-even though Obama’s been President for a year now.

More than anything, I know that 2009 changed me. Chris’ death effects me harder than any other that I’ve known in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that what pissed him off politically and militarily pisses me off too. I know that the trip I took w my wife and kids to Disneyworld in December changed me somehow. I no longer care as much about trying to warn people on the left of threats. I no longer care to debate them about the validity of the war in Iraq, about the need for the war in Afghanistan, or the (4) 911 Commission report causes that drove Al Queda to start killing Americans in 1992 (3:4 of which were blowback from America’s war on Iraq).

I care more about my family now. I care more about my friends. I don’t live in a leftist nest like San Fran, LA, NYC, DC, or Boston, and since I live between the burbs and farm country in Ohio…I don’t think the war whose name must not be spoken is gonna effect me as much as it will those who cannot dare to speak its name. I will not be attacked. Al Queda’s not gonna waste operatives in the Akron area as much as they gonna aim for someplace where the leftnuts are all gathered-like NYC and DC on 911.

So, when the next attack comes, and it will, it’s gonna be aimed at those who continue to try and pretend there is no war, there is no threat, and if we’re just nice to everyone around the world (except Republicans who they wish would die ala Rush Limbaugh), then everything will be fine. I’ve tried for years to explain documented threats and ties, and now those people need to learn on their own. How? Well, Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, was asked by the 911 Commission back in 2004, and he told them there’s only 1 thing that gets Americans to recognize the threat: “more body bags.”

Maybe the same is true with the economy. Maybe the leftnuts who lose their jobs and can’t find another will start to ask why they can’t? Maybe they’ll start to see that repealing the Bush tax cuts (or letting them expire) is not a good idea ’cause it raises the tax on those same people who do the hiring? Maybe they’ll see that they can’t find a job because small business owners had their taxes increased, and they have less to spend on new hires? Maybe they’ll see that forcing businesses to spend more on healthcare means less money for hiring them? Maybe the nutroots people who are outta work will say, “Gosh, I like taxing people who make $250,000 a year, but…now those people are spending their money on these new taxes instead of spending it on hiring me? With 1:4 people in the blue state of Michigan looking for work…it could happen.

2009 was a good year and a bad year. Obama gave himself a B+ for having accomplished nothing. Since, by the Bush standard, he is responsible for everything then 2009 gets a B+. If you agree, then great. If you don’t, then you must be some sort of right winger teabagger conservative wackjob (at least by MSNBC, Huffpo, and NYT standards).

In the end, I’m optimistic about 2010. Why-with so much potential horror looming?! I’m optimistic because like no other time in our recent history…there is no place for the left to hide. No conspiracy theories, no blaming Bush, not denial or deliberate ignoring of wars, nothing can hide them from the cold dark realities of the world, from the broken promises of their leaders, from their own cowardly refusal to open their minds to the scary scary thought that if something wasn’t Bush’s fault or the Repubs’ fault, then what caused it?

What caused the recession?
Why are so many out of work?
Why are Dems supporting the indefinite war in Iraq now?
Why did Al Queda start killing Americans?
What if Bush’s anti-charisma wasn’t to blame for “the world hating us?”

So many more cold questions that they didn’t even dare to ask before, but this year…this year they cannot even escape the answers.

Welcome Dems, welcome to reality

Words have consequences. This is by no means comprehensive, but a sampling of a few benchmark statements from Senator Obama and President Obama, as well as editorials and op-ed analysis:

8/13/07

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,”

July 20, 2008, Face the Nation with Lara Logan:

Obama: “The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.”

Logan: “Why does it have to be the central focus? What is so critical to U.S. interests here?”

Obama: “This is where they can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region. And so that global network is centered in this area. And I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.

“And despite what the Bush Administration has argued, I don’t think there’s any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were to here to stay over the long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve the quality of life for people. And now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those areas.

“There’s starting to be a broad consensus that it’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now’s the time for us to do it.

“I think what’s important for us to do is to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we’ve got to start doing something now.

~~~

Logan: “What would be a ‘mission accomplished’ for you in Afghanistan?

Obama: “Well, a ‘mission accomplished’ would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can’t target the United States or its allies.”

Logan “Losing is not an option?”

Obama: “Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. And it never has been.

February 17, 2009:

As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.

March 27, 2009:

“…if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”

August 17, 2009 (speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars):

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

And going forward, we will constantly adapt to new tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future that they seek.

And now as public opinion has turned south and his left-wing base continues their chorus of retreat and defeat, President Obama has begun wavering and displaying the perception of weakness.

September 20, 2009, on NBC:

“if supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy” of defeating al-Qaeda, “then we’ll move forward. But if it doesn’t, then I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan.”

~~~

The generals believed they had Mr. Obama’s commitment to their approach after the policy review last spring. Now the president appears to be distancing himself from his commanders — including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who testified before Congress last week that more forces would be needed.

September 20, 2009:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Afghanistan is a big issue facing the country right now.

OBAMA: That is a big issue. That’s worth talking about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were for a flexible time line in Iraq. Some people now are saying that’s exactly what should happen in Afghanistan if the same conditions hold. Do you agree with that?

OBAMA: Here’s what I think. When we came in, basically, there had been drift in our Afghan strategy. Everybody acknowledges that. And I ordered a top to bottom review. The most important thing I wanted was us to refocus on why we’re there. We’re there because al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans and we cannot allow extremists who want to do violence to the United States to be able to operate with impunity.

Now, I think we’ve lost — we lost that focus for a while and you started seeing a — a classic case of mission creep where we’re just there and we start taking on a whole bunch of different missions.

I wanted to narrow it. I did order 21,000 additional troops there to make sure that we could secure the election, because I thought that was important. That was before the review was completed. I also said after the election I want to do another review. We’ve just gotten those 21,000 in. General McChrystal, who’s only been there a few months, has done his own assessment.

I am now going to take all this information and we’re going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is if by sending young men and women into harm’s way, we are defeating al Qaeda and — and that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me — somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops, then we will do what’s required to keep the American people safe.

I agree with Peter Feaver that the President of the United States should be able to conduct internal deliberations on issues of national security without being Woodwarded through leaks to the media.

Even the perception of a lack of resolve on “staying the course” in Afghanistan will only embolden our enemies there.

Thomas Ricks:

“I would characterize the Taliban strategy in very simple terms,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno. Speaking at the Marine conference on counterinsurgency last Wednesday, Barno, who was the overall commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, and was one of the more competent generals we’ve had there, said the Talibian think that they are winning and that the war is nearly over, and so “their strategy is simply to run out the clock.“

WSJ:

In two television interviews, Mr. Gates argued that the Afghan war was vital to U.S. national security. Laying out a timeline for removing American troops from Afghanistan would be “a strategic mistake” that could embolden al Qaeda and the Taliban, he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Heritage Foundation (The Foundry) blog:

According to the Washington Post, Obama has scheduled at least five meetings with his national security team over the next two weeks to reexamine the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. When this review is completed, the President should announce his decision in a nationally televised speech. He should explain to the American people what is at stake in Afghanistan, why it is necessary to make continued sacrifices to defeat distant enemies there, and why the war is not only necessary, but winnable. President Obama’s March troop surge has not even been implemented yet.

Also:

President Obama needs to demonstrate leadership on Afghanistan, repeating the truths he has spoken in his past speeches on March 27th and again to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 17th. He needs to demonstrate he is willing to properly resource the war in Afghanistan as he promised to do so many times during the presidential campaign last year. And he should realize that while the election outcome has not been ideal, it alone should not force the U.S. to pull up stakes in the country. Both the leading presidential candidates, President Hamid Karzai and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, represent broad constituencies that vehemently oppose the Taliban. That is the key point. The U.S. can work with whichever candidate is finally named the winner.

Obama’s statements on Afghanistan at the UN today will likely be interpreted by our allies as a sign that he is beginning to waver in his commitment to finishing the job of stabilizing and securing Afghanistan and preventing it from returning to serving as a safe haven for international terrorists. This is highly unfortunate. Without American leadership on Afghanistan, the entire civilized world will remain hostage to international terrorists intent on attacking innocents at the times and places of their own choosing.

Osama bin Laden, May 1998:

the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

8 years is just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. We seem to think 8 years is a long time; but our enemies think in terms of generations. Time ran out for the Bush Administration. The opposition team is still in the game, without term limits. Will the Obama Adminstration pick up the ball, or fumble?

Ultimately, this is a test of wills, resolve, and commitment. Which side wants it more? Which side has the intestinal fortitude to sustain the losses it may take in order to achieve success/victory?

Will our president have the strong leadership it takes to make the tough decisions even when the weathervane of public opinion has turned south? Can he do what’s right, even when that decision is not popular?

American cannot endure another Vietnam. War of Choice or War of Necessity, America should not lose wars. The price of even the perception of an American defeat is too high. We didn’t allow it to happen in Iraq. We should not let it happen in Afghanistan.

*UPDATE*

One more example of how even the perception of defeat can have drastic consequences and repercussions. From Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower, page 119-20:

There were only nine brothers against one hundred Russian Spetsnaz Special Forces troops, but out of sheer fright and panic in the dense forest, the Russians were unable to make out the number of brothers,” bin Laden related. “All in all, about thirty-five Spetsnaz soldiers and officers were killed, and the rest fled….The morale of the mujahideen soared, not only in our area, but in the whole of Afghanistan.”

He had achieved his greatest victory immediately following his worst defeat.

~~~

The entire action lasted three weeks. It was waged by more by Sayyaf (who then took over the Lion’s Den) than bin Laden, but the Arabs gained a reputation for courage and recklessness that established their legend, at least among themselves. Their guesthouses quietly reopened i Peshawar. From the Soviet perspective, the battle of the Lion’s Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan. In the heightened religious atmosphere among the men following bin Laden, however, there was a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion’s Den became the foundation for the myth that they defeated the superpower. Within a few years the entire Soviet empire fell to pieces- dead of the wound the Muslims inflicted in Afghanistan, the jihadis believed. By then they had created the vanguard that was to carry the battle forward. Al-Qaeda was conceived in the marriage of these assumptions. Faith is stronger than weapons or nations, and the ticket to enter the sacred zone where such miracles occur is the willingness to die.

*UPDATE II* 10/04/09 15:50

Michael Barone:

“War of necessity” versus “war of choice” was a meme you heard a lot from Democrats when George W. Bush was president, and one you’re not likely to hear if Obama decides not to fight the “war of necessity” in the way the general he carefully selected says is necessary. Another meme we often heard was that we should rely more on military help from our allies. The argument was that Bush had so antagonized our allies that we were not getting from them military assistance which could have reduced the number of American military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This meme never made much sense. We had more than 30 allies providing military assistance in Iraq at some time or another, and the operations in Afghanistan have long been a NATO rather than just an American exercise. The problem is that not many of our allies can provide very much, quantitatively, in military assistance. Britain and France have significant out-of-area military forces, and other nations have provided very effective troops—Poland and Australia, Italy and Canada come to mind. But not in huge numbers. My guesstimate is that the United States has something like 50 or 60 percent of the out-of-area military capacity in the world, depending on what aspects of military force you are talking about. Moreover, some nations impose very restrictive rules of engagement on their militaries, as Germany has in Afghanistan for instance. It’s great to have the support of other nations, but there are limits on what they can do. Britain has been a stalwart ally in Afghanistan, and despite problems there its Foreign Secretary David Milliband is calling for more troops there. But Canada will be withdrawing its troops.

So it’s been interesting to see that in the debate over what should be done in Afghanistan, none of the Democrats opposed to sending more U.S. troops seem to be saying we should be getting troops from our allies instead. With George W. Bush gone, with the limits of what other nations can do painfully apparent, with the realization (the latest lesson was delivered at Copenhagen by the International Olympic Committee) that the charm of Barack Obama does not overwhelm all other considerations in other nations’ decisions, the cry of “more help from the allies” is no longer heard. Like the distinction between “wars of choice” and “wars of necessity,” it was never a serious argument but just an example of cheap partisan rhetoric.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? The salafi fundamentalists? Sufi Islam? Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam? Baha’ism? Sunni or Shi’a? The Ayatollahs who wish to bring about the end time and reign in the 2nd coming of the 12th Imam? Modern “reformers” like Sayyid Qutb and Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the inspiration for al Qaeda and modern Islamic fundamentalism? What gives them the religious authority to define a religion that does not have priests? Is CAIR really the voice of “moderates”? Is Islam inflexible and incapable of embracing modernity and a divorce from the violence and hatred of political Islam and 7th, 12th century backwardness? Or, can it be reformed by those devout Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser?

Z, a friend of mine, had an opportunity to listen to Dr. Jasser speak; and I think came away from the talk, a better person for it, and a better advocate for fighting the war against Islamic terror and Islamism, without lashing out at at the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice the faith, in peace.

I know this doesn’t sit well with many right-wingers. Good. Sometimes, we need the stupid smacked out of us. We’ve become so educated on the dangers of the Islamist threat by immersing ourselves in Robert Spencerian research and anti-Jihad books, blog any and every news story on honor killings and Islamic cultural encroachments upon our western society, that we find validation in our dim view of Islam as a whole.

I’m not saying there aren’t real dangers and a real threat from wahhabism and Islamist fundamentalism. But I am saying that some of us are becoming religious bigots, where our prejudice and hatred are based upon self-indoctrination of anti-Islam literature. Our views against Islam are shaped not by a lack of education, but by an overabundance and an overbalance of education, tilted in one direction. We are all-too willing to believe the worst about Islam, and zero-in only on repeating the negative stories. Positive stories about Muslims get ignored or dismissed as the exception; we seize upon the negative news, then cry out “where are the moderate voices?” We don’t see them, because we’re too busy looking for the worst.

We are under threat of becoming the stereotype that multicultural liberals wish to see us as: intolerant, warmongering, religious and ethnic bigots.

I have an anti-Islam troll living under the bridge of my blog; anytime I come out with a post that doesn’t condemn the entire religion, he will crawl out of his hole to tell me how I am a dhimmi and defender of evil. Bigots like him are part of the problem and have their heads up their asses every bit as much as they rightfully accuse some of us as having our heads in the sand.

bin Laden and Zawahiri tried to convince the Muslim world that the West are at war with Islam. They have failed. That is, unless they’ve simultaneously convinced the West that Islam is at war with them.

Dr. Jasser represents the kind of modernity and reformation that Islam needs to undergo if it is to survive peacefully alongside the other great world religions in the 21st century. We should not fall into the trap of becoming what we hate.

Here’s an excerpt from Islam vs. Islamists (apparently uploaded by Tarek Fatah):

Another clip:

This is the PBS episode from their program series that they had initially pulled, apparently influenced by the likes of CAIR, who they deem to be the “true” “moderates”, because they are bearded. I got to see a free screening of this documentary in June of 2007 and highly recommend it to everyone. It is the irony of ironies that the multiculturalist liberals at PBS would suppress Islam vs. Islamists, when the four voices of those in the program are the very “moderates” people need to hear from.

When we lament, “where are the moderate voices in Islam?”, “Why aren’t they speaking out and denouncing Islamic terror?”…..well, you can thank, in part, PBS.

Ok, readers: Let me have both barrels in the face, and tell me why I’m wrong.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Lawrence Wright yesterday, the author of the excellent book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, and the author of a brand new long article in The New Yorker.

Hugh and Lawrence go over the beginning of al-Qaeda and the radical Islam movement as they have done in the past, its always good to go over it one more time. But the real meat of the interview is where the radical Islam movement is at right now, and it all hinges on a very important man in the movement….Dr. Fadl:

HH: Of course, Zawahiri goes with bin Laden now, Fadl’s been sidelined to Yemen, and the blind Sheik is in America, and in jail, and so the leadership goes to Afghanistan. But then 9/11 happens, and Fadl says al Qaeda’s committed group suicide. Did he disapprove of the action on a theological basis or because of its practical consequences?

LW: Well, actually, Hugh, this…the point of this argument is that there are two tracks.

HH: Yup.

LW: One is practical, you know, does it accomplish our goals. And in terms of 9/11, no. If you wanted to wound America and cause it to withdraw from the Middle East, the consequence is the opposite. You wounded America, but now we invade two Muslim countries, and we and the West are much more deeply engrossed in Middle Eastern affairs than we were previously. And then the second is theological – is this the correct Muslim practice? Are we doing the right thing? And what Dr. Fadl had sold in his previous books to young Muslims who were considering joining al Qaeda, is the philosophy that this is the only route to salvation. Islam has to be purified. No Muslim can go to Heaven without reestablishing the kind of pure Islam we stand for. And now, you know, one of his arguments, for instance, about 9/11 is indiscriminate killing is against Islam. And that was part of his reaction to 9/11.

HH: Now let’s update it to where we are today. In 2003, Fadl was arrested in Yemen, and shipped to Egypt secretly. And this past year, he wrote a new book called Rationalizing Jihad, primarily composed in the Scorpion, within Tora prison…by the way, the Scorpion sounds like about the last place in the world anyone wants to be.

LW: Yeah, it is. Well, Egyptian prisons are infamous.

HH: And in this 2007, Rationalizing Jihad, Fadl, the author of so much, writes, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that, and there is nothing that invokes the anger of God and His wrath like the unwarranted spilling of blood and wrecking of property.” Lawrence Wright, this must have sent earthquakes through al Qaeda.

LW: Well, yeah, you can judge their reaction by the fact that Zawahiri has responded in repeated videos, and has written a 200 page book trying to refute Dr. Fadl’s arguments. And he’s not the only member of al Qaeda. They’ve brought out ever legion, you know, that they can to attack Dr. Fadl to try to dampen the argument that’s going on right now.

HH: Now the obvious question will be, how much coercion is in Dr. Fadl’s renunciation of his previous ideology? What do you think on this?

LW: Well, I don’t know. I mean, the honest answer is that he’s in an Egyptian prison, and they can do horrible things to him. On the other hand, he’s one of many voices, some of which have come out of the prisons, and others of whom are free. There was a movement that has started in the Egyptian prisons in the 1990s, on the part of another organization called Gama’a Islamiya, or the Islamic Group. And they had begun, after years, decades of being in Egyptian prison, to reexamine their violent views. Now this is long past the time when torture and that sort of thing might have been used on them. And they began to write a series of revisions. Now, a lot of these guys are out of prison, and I’ve talked to them. And they are no longer under the kind of subjugation that they were in the Egyptian prisons. It’s pretty clear that they have had a sincere rethinking of their previous views. And Fadl’s views track theirs very closely.

~~~

HH: You also mentioned in The Rebellion Within the work of the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia who issued a fatwa in October of 2007, forbidding Saudi youth to join the jihad outside of the country.

LW: And then al Qaeda tried to kill him. Saudi authorities rounded up a bunch of young al Qaedaistas after that. They stopped a plot.

HH: And Sheikh Salman al-Oadah, who is another former bin Ladenist whose now rebuked him on television, are these outliers? Or do they represent a sort of generalized revulsion against al Qaeda?

LW: Well, I think that you’re beginning to see a consensus developing not among moderate Muslims, but among radical ones, that first of all, these actions are not productive, and secondly, they are not Islam. They are indiscriminate violence, they…bin Laden and al Qaeda use principles that are opposed to the fundamental tenets of Islam. And this is an attack from within radical Islam itself, and that’s why I think it’s so significant.

~~~

LW: Yeah, I mean, for one thing, Dr. Fadl’s argument places the relevance of al Qaeda at question right now. Al Qaeda can’t exist without terror. That’s all it is. It can’t really very well defend its philosophy. It’s own philosopher has overturned the apple cart. And so the only thing that al Qaeda can do to demonstrate its relevance is to create some other radical, terrible, tragic action. And I think they’re under a lot of pressure right now to do something like that.

They both then discuss the response to Dr. Fadl’s book by Zawahiri who tries to rationalize 9/11 by comparing it to the Clinton aspirin factory bombing which killed one man along with attacking Hezbollah….apparently because they grow strong as al-Qaeda grows weaker:

HH: Now let’s talk a little bit about, though, where it goes from here. I’m reading from the last couple of pages of your article, is al Qaeda finished? “It is, of course, unlikely that Al Qaeda will voluntarily follow the example of the Islamist Group and Zawahiri’s own organization, Al Jihad, and revise its violent strategy. But it is clear that radical Islam is confronting a rebellion within its ranks, one that Zawahiri and the leaders of Al Qaeda are poorly equipped to respond to. Radical Islam began as a spiritual call to the Muslim world to unify and strengthen itself through holy warfare. For the dreamers who long to institute God’s justice on earth, Fadl’s revisions represent a substantial moral challenge. But for the young nihilists who are joining the Al Qaeda movement for their own reasons—revenge, boredom, or a desire for adventure—the quarrels of the philosophers will have little meaning.” Expand on that, Lawrence Wright. What are the relative numbers here?

LW: Well, you know, when we talk about al Qaeda, al Qaeda central, the core of al Qaeda, a member of Egyptian intelligence puts a number at fewer than 200. American intelligence says they estimate between three and five hundred. But it’s not a very large organization. It’s much reduced from what it was. On the other hand, al Qaeda is a movement, and there are many affiliates that are connected to some extent with al Qaeda central, and then there are a lot of wannabes that are al Qaeda sympathizers. Those people, and I think especially among the wannabes, there are a lot of nihilists who are only in this for action. There’s been some interesting European studies, especially a Dutch study, of this third generation of al Qaeda. And they’re so much less focused politically than their forbearers in that group. They have very poorly formed ideas about what they’re up to. They’re just striking out. And for them, I don’t think they’re going to care about what Dr. Fadl has to say.

HH: And so what is the, in that Dutch study, or in the other reading that you’ve done, how to combat that?

LW: Well, I think that one thing that we’ve done, I think the best thing that we’ve done since 9/11, is to model the behavior that we’re doing right now with this magnificent election we’re having, where we’re really talking to ourselves about who we are and what kind of country we want to become. And I can tell you the Muslim world is fixated on it, because it’s such an example of what they don’t have, the opportunity to change their governments, to really reform their own countries. This has been a lesson that America has given to the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world, that I think is very valuable. And that’s one way, I think the most productive way, that we can address this problem.

I agree, it is the most productive way to address the problem. But we’ve had free Democratic elections for centuries now. Why the interest all of sudden? could it be because of what we accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan? Could it be that we are no longer viewed as that paper tiger super power who talked a good fight but ran once it got tough?

The rest of the middle east now views a free Iraq. Where they have their own form of Democracy and elections, no tyrant or dictator ruling for decades. Infrastructure being improved daily and a government that has accomplished more then the United States own government.

They see this, they see our own election season and now may very well believe that Democracy isn’t just a fantasy for middle easterners. It IS possible.

We’ve often heard critics of the war in Iraq assert that we’ve diverted attention away from the real war on terror, and need to focus attention on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as if we aren’t engaged against al-Qaeda operatives all over the world). Even Presidential candidates think it’s a winning statement, to push forth the belief that Iraq is still a disaster, and that we’ve only succeeded in “emboldening our enemies” and “We are seeing al-Qaeda stronger now than at any time since 2001.” The other criticism is to dismiss the level of influence of al Qaeda in Iraq, because foreign fighters make up a low percentage number of the insurgents.

Yet developments in Iraq have seen not only the success of the Surge, but also a rejection of al-Qaeda by all Iraqis including (and especially by) Sunnis; as well as a growing rejection of al-Qaeda theology in the Muslim world, in general. Iraq damaged al Qaeda’s image and any prestige they might have commanded, at one point. Al Qaeda knows this. Why doesn’t Senator Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ariana Huffington?

Last year, Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, a popular Saudi Islamic scholar criticized Osama bin Laden who once lionized him.

Mufti Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest Islamic religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. Tareq Al-Humaid, the editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, points out the significance:

“It is true that some of these [young people] have become enslaved by Al-Qaeda and its ideology, and are now beyond hope; however, the importance of the fatwa lies in the impact that it will have on most of the Saudi public, and in particular the fathers and mothers. Its value lies in the fact that it will wrest from the hands of the ‘politicized sheikhs’ the card that they have been using all this time.

“Where are the moderates?” Mainstream Muslims have been rejecting terrorism and al Qaeda’s brand of Islamic ideology, even as we remain suspicious of the sincerity and heart of those who profess to be practitioners of the Islamic faith.

The most recent astonishing and important rejection and condemnation of al Qaeda comes from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.

Who is Dr. Fadl?

Lawrence Wright, author of the most definitive account of the history of al-Qaeda, The Looming Tower, writes in the New Yorker:

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad [Egyptian Islamic Jihad], and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

Why my emphases? Because of my recent arguments with fellow war-on-terror conservatives, regarding the nature of Islam, and what approach to use in dealing with a religion of 1.5 billion, that seems to have a serious anger management problem.

Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, estimates that perhaps 20% of Muslims are an issue, when it comes to Islamic terror and Islamism. They are a vocal, “dynamic minority”, he said yesterday in an interview on the Dennis Prager Show. Most readers find Spencerian agreement with McCarthy in his assessment of the Islamist threat. But I do not think he goes so far as to condemn Islam as a whole, falling into the pitfalls of educated religious bigotry.

Can terrorists be reformed? Yes. Dr. Fadl may still be an Islamist whose values we still differ strongly with; but if he rejects the violence of terrorism and is a legitimate, influential voice for Islamic scholarship, then he is an important chess piece in winning the Long War.

The fact that a major, influential player in the “jihad” movement has now come out in rejection of violence as a method to spreading Islam should be welcomed and encouraged. And he is not alone:

Another important event occurred in October 2007, when Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad.

~~~

Sheikh Salman alAwdah, an influential Saudi cleric whom Mr bin Laden once lionised, wrote an “open letter” condemning Mr bin Laden. “Brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocents among children, elderly, the weak, and women have been killed and made homeless in the name of al-Qaeda?” Sheikh Awdah wrote. “The ruin of an entire people, as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . cannot make Muslims happy.”

If we are going to win the War against Islamic Terror, it will not be by violently eradicating 1.5 billion plus Muslims into extinction, but by converting hearts and minds to reject terrorism; by convincing those who practice Islam that what they have been told by the Zawahiris regarding persecution from the West, is propaganda and lies. al-Qaeda has murdered more Muslims than President George W. Bush; and they have deceived and misled many more.

Islam critics claim that Islam cannot be reformed (unless, of course, it’s in the direction of more violence), that it’s incompatible with democracy, that there is no such thing as “radical” Islam. But a “pacified” Islam is exactly what was and has been taking place in Muslim countries. Many Muslims have accepted living under secular governments and not Sharia. It is the wahhabists, salafi fundamentalists, and modern “jihad” movement, as instigated by the likes of Zawahiri, Dr. Fadl, and Sayyid Qutb, who wish to derail the secular modernization of the Islamic faith- what they see as the erosion of “true” Islam- with their own backward reformation movement.

But al Qaeda is the enemy of us all, including Islam. it is influential modern works of Islamist scholars, such as Dr. Fadl’s ” “The Compendium of the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge” as much as anything found in the Koran or Hadith, from which “jihadis” draw their inspiration and motivation. Good, peaceful Muslims also read from the Koran. Not from the interpretive writings on Islam by radicalizers such as Sayyid Qutb and Abdul Qader bin Abdul Aziz (Dr. Fadl’s pen name under which he wrote the Compendium used for al Qaeda recruitment).

Today, Dr. Fadl’s most recent book “undermined the entire intellectual framework of jihadist warfare.” and is “a trenchant attack on the immoral roots of Al Qaeda’s theology”. And that’s a good thing.

There is an ideological/theological split in the “jihad” movement, and we should take advantage of that. Merely condemning Islam as an evil religion, as some commenters have done on my previous posts of this nature, does nothing to encourage this tearing asunder and fomenting of an ideological “civil war”.

If Islam wishes to survive beyond the 21st century, it will not be by embracing the romanticized, revisionist delusions of political Islamic scholars who wish to reform Islam away from secularized compatibility and modernity, and back toward 7th and 12th century intolerability and past glory.

Read the entire Lawrence Wright article. And also Peter Wehner’s take on it.

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt
(*UPDATE*: Curt posts part of yesterday’s Hewitt interview with Lawrence Wright)

Related post: CiA tells Congress Al Queda is losing hearts and minds

Thought this passage from Lawrence Wrights book The Looming Tower was interesting enough to reproduce it for you.  It’s about the beginning of the Death Cult in Islam in which the culture begins to accept suicide bombers and the death of innocents to achieve their objective.  Not only do they accept this, they embrace it.  This period began during the Afghan/Russian war of the 1980′s and with a man name Abdullah Azzam:

"I reached Afghanistan, and I could not believe my eyes," Azzam would later recall in his countless videos and speeches around the world.  "I felt as if I had been reborn."  In his renderings, the war was primeval, metaphysical, fought in a landscape of miracles.  The Afghans, in his tableau, represented humanity in a pristine state – a righteous, pious, pre-industrial people – struggling against the brutal, soulless, mechanized force of modernity.  In this war, the believers were aided by the invisible hands of angels.  Azzam spoke of Russian helicopters being snared by ropes, and he claimed that flocks of birds functioned as an early warning radar system by taking wing when Soviet jets were still over the horizon.  Repeatedly in his stories mujahideen discover bullet holes in their clothes when they themselves are not injured, and the bodies of those who are martyred do not putrefy but remain pure and sweet-smelling.

The struggle of Islam, as Qutb had framed it, and as Azzam deeply believed, was against jahiliyya – the world of unbelief that had existed before Islam, which was still corrupting and undermining the faithful with the lures of materialism, secularism, and sexual equality.  Here in this primitive land, so stunted by poverty and illiteracy and patriarchal tribal codes, the heroic and seemingly doomed Afghan jihad against the Soviet colossus had the elements of an epochal moment in history.  In the skillful hands of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, the legend of the Afghan holy warriors would be packaged and sold all over the world.

Later in the book:

It was death, no victory in Afghanistan, that summoned many young Arabs to Peshawar.  Martydom was the product that Azzam sold in the books, tracts, videos, and cassette tapes that circulated in mosques and Arabic-language bookstores.  "I traveled to acquaint people with jihad," Azzam said, recalling his lectures in mosques and Islamic centers around the world.  "We were trying to satisfy the thirst for martydom.  We are still in love with this."  Azzam visited the United States each year – Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, all over the heartland and the major cities as well – looking for money and recruits amoung the young Muslims who were mesmerized by the myths he spun.

He told stories of the mujahideen who defeated vast columns of Soviet troops virtually single-handed.  He claimed that some of the brave warriors had been run over by tanks but survived; others were shot, but the bullets failed to penetrate.  If death came, it was even more miraculous.  When one beloved mujahid expired, the ambulance filled with the sound of humming bees and chirping birds, even though they were in the Afghan desert in the middle of the night.  Bodies of martyrs uncovered after a year in the grave still smelled sweet and their blood continued to flow.  Heaven and nature conspired to repel the godless invader.  Angels rode into the battle on horseback, and falling bombs were intercepted by birds, which raced ahead of the jets to form a protective canopy over the warriors.  The miracle stories naturally proliferated as word spread that Sheikh Abdullah was paying for mujahids who brought him wonderful tales.

The lure of an illustrious and meaningful death was especially powerful in cases where the pleasures and rewards of life were crushed by government oppression and economic deprivation.   From Iraq to Morocco, Arab governments had stifled freedom and signally failed to create wealth at the very time when democracy and personal income were sharply climbing in virtually all other parts of the globe.  Saudi Arabia, the richest of the lot, was such a notoriously unproductive country that the extraordinary abundance of petroleum had failed to generate any other significant source of income; indeed, if one subtracted the oil revenue of the Gulf countries, 260 million Arabs exported less then the 5 million Finns.  Radicalism usually prospers in the gap between rising expectations and declining opportunities.  This is especially true where the population is young, idle, and bored; where the art is improverished; where entertainmen – movies, theater, music – is policed or absent altogether; and where young men are set apart from the consoling and socializing presence of women.  Adult illiteracy remained the norm in many Arab countries.  Unemployment was among the highest in the developing world.  Anger, resentment, and humiliation spurred young Arabs to search for dramatic remedies.

Martydom promised such young men and ideal alternative to a life was so sparing in its rewards.  A glorious death beckoned to the sinner, who would be forgiven, it is said, with the first spurt of blood, and he would behold his place in Paradise even before his death.  Seventy members of his household might be spared the fires of hell because of his sacrifice.  The martyr who is poor will be crowned in heaven with a jewel more valuable then the earth itself.  And for those young men who came from cultures where women are shuttered away and rendered unattainable for someone without prospects, martyrdom offered the conjugal pleasures of seventy-two virgins – "the dark-eyed houris," as the Quran describes them, "chaste as hidden pearls."  They awaited the martyr with feasts of meat and fruits and cups of the purest wine.

The pageant of martyrdom that Azzam limned before his worldwide audience created the death cult that would one day form the core of al-Qaeda. 

Of course, trying to bring hope and democracy to these countries is a fools errand right?  Bringing hope, freedom, education to the Middle East may be the only way to defeat terrorism in the long run and if we had never even tried what would future generations have said of us?