http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0408250840.asp

Al Qaeda vs. the Koran
Killing noncombatants is not the Islamic way.

By Mustafa Akyol
After my article, "An Islamic Denunciation of al Qaeda Killings," appeared on NRO, Andrew C. McCarthy published a response that both welcomed and criticized my argument. I welcome his commentary as well, for it helps me elaborate my case. But I have to be critical too.

McCarthy begins by defining jihad as "violent holy war." Yet the term "jihad" does not necessarily refer to armed conflict. It simply means "effort" and it can include nonviolent struggles, such as an intellectual endeavor against atheism. Of course, there is also military jihad in the Koran and in the Islamic tradition; that is the point we have to discuss and, perhaps, redefine.

McCarthy argues that I mined some verses of the Koran and overlooked some parts that don't fit my case. It is true that, to be brief, I did not include all the verses related to the subject in my original article. Even when all of those verses are included, however, and understood in their proper contexts, my position — that killing noncombatants or captives is against Islamic principles — still holds.

THE KORAN IN CONTEXT
Context is crucial. To understand and interpret the war verses in the Koran, one has to keep in mind that they were revealed in seventh-century Arabia, where battles were fought by swords and spears. Winning a battle meant killing a great number of your enemies. Any reluctance during the battle to attack and kill the enemy could bring defeat, and, in Muslims' case, annihilation of the whole umma, or community of believers.

The first verse that McCarthy quotes should be understood in this context. After a detailed analysis of manpower on the battlefield, the Koran states:

It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67)

Here we see a military strategy that was necessary in a battle of swords: If Muslims started to take prisoners in the middle of the encounter — which would mean collecting ransoms or "temporal goods," later — it could prove to be a grave error. The enemy would have a chance to retaliate, those captives could rejoin the fight, and the battle itself could be lost. Such an event occurred at the battle of Uhud. The pagan army had a cavalry force that stood aside during the battle, and when the Muslim army seemed victorious and started to collect the spoils, those cavalrymen hit the Muslims from behind and won. Many Muslims were killed, and the Prophet himself was injured.

So, the Koranic principle of not taking prisoners in the middle of a battle is all about assuring victory. Verse 47:4, also quoted by McCarthy, in fact confirms this conclusion:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens....

The phrase "when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight" clearly shows that the verse speaks about a battlefield. Both this verse and that quoted above order Muslim soldiers to kill enemy combatants in battle until the land or the enemy is "subdued" — or in today's military terms, "secured." Once that military target is achieved, there need be no further killing.

Yet McCarthy finds in this a justification for the beheadings in Iraq. His reasoning goes like this: (a) When jihad is ongoing, the taking of prisoners is frowned on, and (b) jihad should be ongoing until the enemy is subdued.

Here is a crucial flaw in McCarthy's argument; a failure to distinguish between a military jihad (a war) and a battle. Early Muslims of Medina were at war with the pagans of Mecca for many years, but they took prisoners of war after the battles they won. If they thought along the lines McCarthy suggests, they should never have taken any prisoners of war, which was obviously not the case.

What was the case? As I explained in my original article, Muslims were ordered by the Koran to treat POWs well, and historical accounts about the Prophet Muhammad show that this command was honored. The Prophet is even reported to have said, "You must feed them as you feed yourselves, and clothe them as you clothe yourselves, and if you should set them a hard task, you must help them in it yourselves" (Gabrielli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 138-39).

McCarthy criticized me at this point for leaving out the account of Bani Qurayza, the Jewish tribe whose men were reportedly beheaded by order of the Prophet because they had secretly collaborated with the pagan army attacking Medina. I had a reason for leaving this out: I strongly doubt its historical accuracy. There is no reference to such a dramatic event in the Koran and it only appears in the biography of the Prophet written by Ibn Ishaq, a man who died 145 years after the event. In a detailed article that questions the accuracy of this story, scholar W. N. Arafat explains why it was probably a "later invention." Ibn Hajar, an Islamic authority, denounced it and other related stories as "odd tales." A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik the jurist, denounced Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for telling such fables. Moreover, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership says, the "massacre... hardly shows up in Jewish literature."

I conclude that the Koranic order to not take POWs and instead continue to kill the enemy is limited to unsecured battlefields.

Moreover, that "enemy" refers only to combatants. The Koran is clear on this:

Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190)

Thus, war can only be waged against "those who fight" against Muslims, i.e. combatants. It is also well known that Prophet Muhammad was careful to make this distinction and strictly ordered Muslim soldiers to avoid harming women, children, the elderly, or people at temples and monasteries.

What al Qaeda did to Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Kim Sun-il, and recently Murat Yuce — a Turkish citizen working for a Jordanian company that gave service to the American army — was unacceptable according to both of the criteria in question: There was no battle, thus no battleground to be secured, and the victims were noncombatants. These were cold-blooded murders and they must be condemned from a Koranic point of view.

DISCOVERING THE GOOD "UNBELIEVERS"
Yet, the hateful rhetoric of the radical Islamists has blurred the distinction between enemies and friends, combatants, and civilians. In that rhetoric, all non-Muslims are labeled simply as "unbelievers" and then seen as enemies of Muslims, even as legitimate targets. Whereas in the Koran Jews and Christians are called "The People of the Book," and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). And Muslims are ordered to be kind to them, unless they behave unjustly:

Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, "We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him" (29:46).

Even if one is an unbeliever, i.e. an atheist or a pagan, that does not make him an enemy of Islam and Muslims. The Koran, after warning Muslims for being friendly to those who have persecuted the Prophet, makes an important distinction:

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers (60:8-9).

Therefore, besides those who show open hostility to Islam and Muslims, all non-Muslims are to be treated graciously. The Koran hints that even those enemies can be won:

It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7).

This is very different from what you can hear from al-Qaeda spokesmen and similar terrorists.

"THIS IS NOT OUR TRADITION"
The Koranic concern for noncombatants might explain why even some of the radical clerics in Iraq object to the killings in question. British journalist James Brandon, who was kidnapped by the militias of the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, was freed recently. Sadr, obviously no moderate, "apologized" for the initial rough treatment of Brandon and declared, "This is not our tradition, not our rules. It is not the tradition of Islam."

Similarly, Sheikh Abdullah al-Janabi, Fallujah's leading cleric, though a supporter of "resistance against occupation," said the beheadings are "not accepted or approved by the people [of Falluja]" or by himself, and the kidnappers "don't understand the concept of honest and true resistance."

I do not share the views of these radical clerics, but it is notable that even they disapprove of the beheadings. Those who commit them are even more radical groups such as al Qaeda, whose indiscriminate violence is alien to Islamic tradition. As Bernard Lewis confirms about September 11, those attacks had "no justification in Islamic doctrine or law and no precedent in Islamic history" (I>The Crisis of Islam, p. 119). The same is true for the recent beheadings in Iraq.

To argue otherwise, McCarthy mentions the legal opinion of the eleventh-century Muslim jurist al-Mawardi, who gave four options to a Muslim ruler on the treatment of POWs, one of which was beheading. Let me go further and give an example showing how this was implemented. When Saladin, the Muslim hero of the twelfth century, defeated the crusader army in the battle of Hattin in 1187, he had two important POWs brought to his tent: King Guy and Reynauld de Chatillion. Saladin spoke kindly to the king, offered the desperately thirsty man iced water, and later set him free. That was because King Guy was a noble man — an enemy, but noble nevertheless. Reynauld was, on the other hand, truly evil. He slaughtered unarmed Muslim pilgrims and travelers, including the sister of Saladin, and dared to attack the holy shrine at Mecca. He tortured the Patriarch of Antioch, "massacred thousands of [Orthodox Christian] men, women and children," and cut off the noses of all Greek monks he could gather (Armstrong, Holy War, p. 242). Saladin beheaded Reynauld with his own hands because, as he explained to King Guy, he had committed "great crimes and treachery." Later, the Templars, who led the most brutal massacres against Muslim civilians in the past, were executed as well, because they had "shown themselves to be dedicated enemies of Islam" (Armstrong, p. 255).

In other words, this was about killing war criminals, not even enemy soldiers. Later on, Saladin conquered the cities of the Crusader Kingdom, including Jerusalem, and he was revered for the fact that he did not harm any of their Christian inhabitants. Even Europeans of the time respected Saladin as man of honor, generosity, and chivalry.

MUSLIM REFORMATION
Still, a coherent argument against indiscriminate violence carried out in the name of Islam should go beyond all of these examples. I have tried to explain that terrorism against civilians has no justification in mainstream Islam, but there is another major issue: Some aspects of Islamic tradition are outdated, and we have to reevaluate some of our doctrines in light of modern times.

This is a very wide issue that needs extensive work. Briefly: The Koran was revealed in the seventh century and some verses refer to events that do not or could not take place today. This means there are some parts of the Koran that we can't — and aren't supposed to — implement literally now. Take the verse that orders Muslims to muster "cavalry" to frighten their enemies (8:60). Today, of course, no Muslim state would think of building an army based on cavalry. The verse can't be implemented literally. We can only infer a principle — such as that strong armies are necessary for national defense — and apply that principle in a modern context.

The same line of reasoning can be extended to some other social and political issues in the Koran, especially to the war verses such as the ones quoted by McCarthy (2:191, 5:33, 8:12). Again, it is possible that we no longer need take all of these verses literally.

Besides that, some traditional doctrines can be abandoned completely. Take the much-disputed concepts of "House of War" and "House of Islam," developed by Muslim jurists in the 8th century. Those jurists regarded all foreign lands as enemy territories, because they could not expect tolerance and safety for Islam there. Today we live in much different world, in which religious freedom is widely established, especially in liberal democracies. Thus there is no justification to see those democracies as "House of War." That very definition is simply outdated; along with many other concepts in the Islamic tradition.

I agree, then, with McCarthy that Muslims need to have reformation — to reread the Koran in today's terms, question all post-Koranic traditions, and create a new canon that will include, among other things, a doctrine of just war that leaves no excuse for terrorism and other aggressive actions. Whether we can accomplish such a reform — good for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike — will be a crucial question in the years and decades to come.

— Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist, and writer from Turkey. He is also director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul.

When corporate capitalism forces itself culturally on Islamic culture, it's response is to survive. Survival has expanded to include murder of 'infadels'. Apparently they fear emminent danger that their culture is being targeted for transition to capitalism. The world is being forced into a global consumer economy. The Islamic culture sees this and will not die willingly.

Thats a lot of leftist crap. Thiose guys are wearing levise and nikes because THEY CHOSE to buy them not because they were forced to. Capitolism is not ANTI-MUSLIM. Turkey alone can atest to that.

Have you tried this guy...

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

It's an Iraqi blogger that will blow your mind. He's a great man!

__________________
Not exactly smashing stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists, the left's entire contribution to the war effort thus far has been to whine. -- Ann Coulter

U know, I always like your posts, as I repsect your objective way of thinking. Now I need to explain a point that u may didn´t get very well for a cultural difference :

Capitalism is the Islamic economical system too. What is not Islamic in the American version of capitalism, is the evil side. In other words, throwing wheat productions in the ocean or sponsoring farmers and asking them not produce sothat the prices keep on their high rates, while claiming being deeply touched by pictures of people dying of hunger in Africa. This is what a Muslim wouldn´t do.
Now, the resistance of Islam to the western cultural invasion (which is not a resistance to capitalism, as I said) has other sides. There are a lot of features in western societies which are uncompatible with Islam, and we could spend a whole year mentioning them, so we will just stop at mentioning their existence. Resisting to cultural differences is not something very specific to Muslims. U know, in Bavaria u can see more Bavarian flags than German ones. Does it mean refusing German identity? No, it is simply the pride and the attachement to the own culture. It´s the right of every culture, and nobody can deny this right for Muslims, too.
Now let´s come to this story of "Infadels" : actually I don´t whom do u mean by this word. But I assume that u want the civilians kidnapped in Iraq, or probably all the western victims of the so called "terrorism". An advice : try to take more seriously the arguments of the "terrorists". They may look totally disoriented for u, but if the US took them more seriously, we could have saved a lot of lives today. When in 1997 Ben LAden was interviewed by CNN, he said that his goal is not to change NY to an ash tray or to an Islamic capital. He complained of the American military presence in his own land, thing that was considered as a red line by the American administrations, though, it is a very simple, normal and natural request. Freedom is a universal right for evey body, and UBL (and Arabs) are not the only ones asking for the withdrawal of AMerican troops. Japaneses have already asked for the same thing since long time. AMerican administration, being embarrassed by the legitimacy of Arabic demands, tried to show this anti-amrican movement (represented from the military-active point of view by Al Qaeda, although it had a lot of features, like the Arabic lawyers union, the Arabic writers union.. etc) as a refusal of the western values. However, refusing by itself is natural right, and every body has the right to choose what is suitable for him. So we began to hear more stupid explanations, like the jalousy of American success or American way of life.. Strangely, for a lot of Americans, this jealousy-envy was enough to explain why a hijacker would kill himself!! A valid cause, as if these people, coming from a strange and unknown culture, have nothing to do, and are very likely to kill someomne for his NKE shoes or his LEE jeans. I don´t know how much American leaders respect their own people to make them beleive such stupid arguments, but this shows at least how far the American main opinion can be manipulated, from the political leadership point of view. Sorry AMericans, but I wouldn´t feel respected when my president shows up on the TV and tells me that the American freedom was attacked.
Having said that, u should better try to look for the reasons of the acts u see as terrorism. For instance, struggle in Iraq against your soldiers is a normal resistance that u may face in every country u invade. I don´t recall Vietnamese flowers given to American soldiers. U should learn from your mistakes.
And those persons that u saw being beheaded were so treated (although I don´t agree on this treatement, it is against the Islamic rules, just like the Article shows) because they cooperate with the occupation army.
And the fact of having Arabs but non Iraqis fighting in Iraq doesn´t mean that these people are the terrorists u r looking for. I know some firends, normal students, who choosed to travel to Iraq before American invasion, simply because we beleive that our land and our people are under unfair invasion. (this is a feature of Arabic and Muslim personnality that u may not understand, but Iraq is a part of our Arabic land, and Iraqis are not foreigners, they r compatriots, although we don´t share the same "official" country).
I wish now u understand better the Arabic point of view.

Neither would I. But this is a democracy. And the majority doesnt agree with me.

Democracy is about compromise. You dont always get your way.

Democracy doesnt mean the masses have to accept anything they dont want to accept.

Ah...you mean legitimize them? Sorry, that will never happen. Negotiation is irrelevant.

By recognizing them as legitimate, it would only encourage their behavior. We are not going to encourage their behavior.

Maybe. But we would lose a lot more in the long term.

Democracy would be a pre-requisite before any of that would be acceptable. An oligarchy is not acceptable...even an arab oligarchy.

Most Arab leaders are not interested in a true democracy IMO.

Despots have no right to exist.

Frustration that America interferes with their "right" to impose their will on other people is enough to explain why a Hijacker would kill himself. They want to be a part of the oppressive government....not the solution to it.

Why should we care how despots feel?

They do not know the whole story. A free media is still a new thing to them.

We did. We learned not to let them develop weapons to attack us with in the first place. That is why we removed Saddam.

You seem to be rationalizing their actions. You seem to be saying that, while you think it is wrong under normal circumstances, that it is ok now because "they cooperate with the occupation army".

Prove it.

I dont believe you represent the view of all Arabs...probably not even most Arabs. There are a few that disagree with you - Ihttp://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ -

No, I am not just talking about iraq.

More sectarian Muslim murders. Bombings almost every day. A reminder that this war is not just about the West versus radical
Islam, but radical Islam versus the peaceful members of that religion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S...211848,00.html

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...=sd&ID=SP72104
International Islamic Conference: Genuine Call for Tolerance or Reiteration of Hollow Slogans?

In late April 2004, representatives of 65 countries convened in Cairo, Egypt for the 16th International Islamic Conference,
which was dedicated to "Tolerance in the Islamic Culture." Non-Muslim European observers were also invited, among them
Belgian intellectual Hans Miessen, [1] who found much to criticize in the conference proceedings and resolutions.

When, citing time constraints, the organizers denied Miessen an opportunity to comment, he accused the Muslims of a "lack of
transparency and failure to maintain a serious and honest dialogue with others, which has resulted in a clash between them
and the West and brought about the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan." He stated that "the conference discussions were
pointless, the research it presented was purposeless, and the participants spoke demagogically and no more." He called on
Muslims to present practical examples of tolerance in various areas, and not to settle for words, hollow slogans, and glorif
ication of bygone eras of Islam. [2]

I submit its the other side that needs to listen. Since when dose ben laden run the sovereign nation of saudi arabia????????

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...=sd&ID=SP68104
Saudi Columnist: 'The Creed that Sanctions Blowing Up Worshippers in Mosques ... Should Be Declared the Public Enemy of
Humanity'

Numerous articles in the Arab press have criticized the U.S. and world Zionism for every misfortune that befalls the Middle
East. The following article, written in the Saudi English-language Arab News by columnist Muhammad Al-Rasheed, criticized
Arabs for blaming the U.S. for the terror attacks in Karbala and Baghdad. The following is the article : [1]

Terrorists in Iraq Are More Barbarous Than Saddam
"Just when we seem to have moved a step forward, something happens to make us take ten steps back. Sacrificial blood in
Karbala and Baghdad is nothing new but the latest atrocity on the most sacred day for the Shia was a criminal act of
monstrous proportions. The carnage and the spectacle were on a scale not seen since the last sacking of Karbala over a
century ago.

"The perpetrators have an agenda more vicious than anything Saddam could have dreamed up. Saddam killed and maimed to
maintain his rule by brute force. These people kill and maim to turn people against each other and to satisfy a bloodlust
based on elitism in theological terms. In other words, they want to win in this world and go to heaven in the next. I don't
think Saddam was that optimistic; otherwise, the Americans would not have found him alive in a hole."

'Arabs Blame Others and Shun the Facts'

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...=sd&ID=SP59103
New Al-Qa'ida Online Magazine Features Interview with a 'Most-Wanted' Saudi Islamist, Calls for Killing of Americans and Non-Muslims

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000088.php

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/711

And when the french tanker was hit, the perp said ,when he found out they were not Americans< well they were still infidels anyway.

Please. The saudis have not asked us to leave and if they wanted it so strongly there would be another iran there already.

Japan has not asked us to pull out.Move trops yes, but not leave all to gether.

Vietnam is irrelavant to todays isue and none of this had anything to do with terrorist. Vietnam is not a breeding ground at all and niether is japan.

They want a calief. Name me 1 free democratic dtate that is muslim in the way you described above. Turkey is in natos corner remember and the troops there were welcomed aginst russia and are still there.

I have not yet read any article explaining how the frustrations of the oppressed Muslims of the world are alleviated by this deed, or how the wickedness of American foreign policy has brought these chickens home to roost, or how such slaughters are symptoms of "despair." Perhaps somebody is at work on such an article and hasn't quite finished it yet. (I have noticed, though, a slight tendency on the part of this school to shut up, at least for the time being.)
There is a vulgar reason for this reticence. In recent attacks from those gangs who have been busily fusing Saddamism with Bin Ladenism—and who didn't start this synthesis yesterday—it has been noticeable that Saudi citizens (the week before last), or Iraqi citizens (every day, but most conspicuously in the blasting of the Red Cross compound in Baghdad), or Indonesian citizens (in the bombing of the Marriott in Jakarta in August), or Moroccan citizens have been the chief or most numerous casualties. To this, one could add the Christian Arabs whose famous restaurant in Haifa was blown up, along with its owners, on Yom Kippur. I sometimes detect a strained note in the coverage of this. Why would the jihadists be so careless, so to speak? Have they no discrimination, no tact?


Jihad Must be Waged Even Against Countries Tolerant of Islam
"Relinquishing the Shari'a obligation for some [religious] accomplishments is a situation that can happen in other countries too, and not only in the land of the two holy places [Saudi Arabia]. It can even happen in countries in which there is no dispute about the [obligation] to fight. In Palestine, for example, the Muslims have had accomplishments even under the Zionist occupation. They can preach to Allah, conduct their religious rituals, open schools, and conduct lessons in memorizing the Qur'an - while bearing the suffering of the loss of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"In all the countries, except for rare cases, there are accomplishments in the area of preaching and Shari'a interests. Even in America, the head of unbelief and the greatest enemy of Islam and the Muslims, the centers of preaching are still open. But just because they exist does not mean that it is permitted to halt the Jihad against America while it kills the Muslims and occupies their lands, defends Israel, and preserves it [Israel] from its enemies...

"My Muslim and Mujahid brothers, don't you see the Muslims being killed in Afghanistan and in Iraq?! Don't you see, on the television screens, the bereaved women crying out for the Muslims' help?! Don't you see the torn body parts of children, and their skulls and brains scattered...? Is it conceivable to agree to such a price for those [religious] accomplishments that you demand to preserve? Haven't you seen that the [American] military headquarters in the war were located in the Arabian Peninsula, and that its logistical support was located in this country - which the Prophet ordered cleansed of the polytheists?..."
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...=sd&ID=SP65004

"A group of clerics and theology students from Iran's clerical centre of Qom have hit out at the Nobel Peace Prize win of women's rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi saying it was part of a Western conspiracy against Islam," reports Middle East Online from Tehran:
In a statement carried by the hardline Jomhuri Eslami newspaper, the group from Qom's main seminary said: "The decision by the Western oppressive societies to award the prize to Ebadi was done in order to ridicule Islam."
The paper did not say how many people signed the statement, which also lamented that a "serious revolutionary confrontation with the tribe of infidels" had not yet taken place.
As for the "infidels," it voiced hope for their "tongues to be cut from their mouths and the poisonous pens broken in their hearts."
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=7451

Here's a refreshingly candid take on exactly what we're up against in fundamentalist Islam. It's from an interview with Syed Munawar Hasan, the leader of Pakistan's largest Islamist political party in Asia Times Online:

ATO: "You reckon that there are so many contradictions between the West and the Muslim world, is there any chance of reconciliation and dialogue between the two civilizations?"
Munawar: "There is none. The basic concepts of both civilizations are in total contrast with each other. When I say this I do not address Western civilization as Christianity. I speak of a man-made system completely devoid of divine guidance. Our concepts of God, human beings, the universe, are totally in contrast with the concepts of the Western world. We cannot segregate human lives into private and public, our lives are ruled by divine guidance, not by man-made rules based on his own prejudices and specific mindset characterized by its own dilemmas and shortcomings. Our concept of the universe is not materialistic, and the result of an 'accident'. Instead, it was a very well thought out process envisaged by the creator of the universe with a plan. So these basic concepts have made the difference between ours and Western approaches."

At some point, people in the West will actually listen to what the Islamists are saying. Their problem is not Christianity as such. It is constitutional liberalism. Pity so many liberals (and some religious conservatives) cannot see this.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EL04Df01.html

Sorry but the islamists do NOT represent islam and their idea of getting out is nothing but rhetorical excuses that those sympathetic to them in some degree buy into.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20030907.shtml

Misunderstanding terrorism
Paul Marshall (archive)

September 7, 2003 | Print | Send

One distinctive feature of Islamist terrorists is that they repeatedly attempt to explain and justify their atrocities, complete with extensive Koranic citations. One distinctive feature of western analysts is that terrorists’ explicit goals are often ignored, and instead their actions are misread as reactions to Israel, third world poverty, or supposed American unilateralism.

This misreading is painfully shown in reactions to recent bombings, including the destruction of the United Nations compound in Baghdad, the Marriott hotel in Jakarta, and perhaps the murder of Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf, where early arrests suggest Al Qaeda involvement.

To avoid being attacked in Iraq, the UN took great pains to distance itself from America. Secretary General Kofi Annan instructed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the UN mission in Baghdad, to keep a careful distance from US forces and avoid all appearance of taking sides. De Mello did so, and refused American protection for the UN compound, thus making its bombing much easier.

After the carnage, pundits worried that the UN had not been distant enough from the US and so been caught in the anti-American crosshairs. The Episcopal Church pronounced itself "concerned that terrorists do not appreciate the sincere objectives of the United Nations to bring about peace and security to the world…." The assumption behind these sentiments is that Islamist terrorists could not possibly hate the UN itself.

However, the Al Qaeda web site that claimed responsibility for the bombing was quite clear. It asked ""So why the United Nations? Number one, the United Nations is against Islam…. This issue does not need to be proved. It is clear like the light of the sun at midday."

This fits Al Qaeda’s pattern. In his post 9/11 videotape, justifying his attacks on America, bin Laden declared that: "Those who … continue to appeal to the United Nations have disavowed what was revealed to Prophet Muhammad…. Under no circumstances should any Muslim or sane person resort to the United Nations. The United Nations is nothing but a tool of crime."

Al Qaeda does not regard the UN as a benevolent organization of international solidarity tainted by association with America. It knows very well what the UN is, and it hates it.

A similar interplay took place around August’s bombing of the Marriott hotel in Jakarta, as well as the October 2002 bombings in Bali. Dennis Richardson, director general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the country’s major anti-terrorism group, said that Australia’s "close alliance" with the United States was a major factor in the bombing. When asked by reporters to respond to this, U.S Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, then in Australia, avoided the question.

But Al Qaeda’s Indonesian ally, Jamaah Islamiya, gives ample reason to attack Australia for its own sake. Imam Samudra, the field commander of the Bali bombings, emphasized that he was driven by "Australia’s… aggression against East Timor, that removed it from Indonesia." In his confession earlier this year, he alleged "Australia has taken part in efforts to separate East Timor from Indonesia" as part of an "international conspiracy by followers of the Cross."

Samudra’s statements reiterate bin Laden's November 12, 2002 audiotape, which stressed that Australian victims were picked partly because of Australia's "despicable effort to separate East Timor" from Indonesia and claimed "The crusader Australian forces… landed to separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world." For good measure, he also castigated the UN and "this criminal, Kofi Annan… " for "putting pressure on the Indonesian government."

Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies are not confused. They know what Australia, supported by the UN under de Mello’s leadership, did for the independence of East Timor, and they hate Australia, as well as the UN, for its own actions.

Islamist terrorists are not fighting for third world liberation. As they announce repeatedly, they are messianic organizations explicitly fighting to restore a pan Islamic Caliphate governed by Islamic law. Throughout the world, they methodically kill people opposed to the Caliphate, whether UN or non-UN, Muslim or non-Muslim, left or right, American, British, Israeli, French or Australian.

Neither the UN, nor Australia, nor Iraq’s Shiites, will find immunity from terrorism by distancing themselves from the US. They would simply encourage those who hate them.

Paul Marshall is Senior Fellow at Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com .