This is a repost concerning my essay recently published by the Middle East Review of International Affairs. As I have learned, and thanks to the commenters who pointed this out, the original posting did not clearly differentiate between my commentary and al-Qaeda's words, resulting in a very jumbled and incoherent read. This link takes to the PDF version, which is much more reader-friendly.
The purpose of this essay is to clearly demonstrate that al-Qaeda justifies its actions to non-Muslims through one paradigm (retaliation to "oppression"), while justifying its actions to Muslims through another (sharia law, specifically the doctrines of jihad, Loyalty and Enmity, and dhimmitude -- all which stand regardless of "grievances," real or feigned). I briefly touched upon this phenomenon for the Chronicle of Higher Education; a much shorter version (the MERIA essay is 13 pages long) can be read here.
Good stuff Ray...must be nice to speak the language and be able to shoot down the 'problems with translation' cop-out.
well done Mr. Ibrahim.
JDAM - time to update your handle
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83775
Outstanding article Raymond.
This should be required reading for every member of western governments, including those in the US government. I am glad there is still some "Common Sense" out there!
You do the world a great service, I and others appreciate your fine work greatly.
It took me some time to wrap my brain around and translate the Islamspeak found in Raymond's link (Chronicle of Higher Education). I hope I'm not being presumptuous or patronizing by offering a translation of what, to non-Muslims, would make no sense:
In their open letter to the USA, the Saudi authors assert: "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness and charity."
Bin Laden responds to this by averring "Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion, and we consider this a justice and a kindness to them."
While these statements appear to contradict each other, they actually do not. Both are saying that Muslims are obligated to despise and wage war against unbelievers. The purpose in doing so is to bring the unbelievers into Islam. This consequence (placing the unbelievers onto the Straight Path, so that they are favored by Allah) is ultimately, to Muslims, an act of kindness and charity. If hatred and warfare result in bringing about the conversion of the infidel, the consequences justify the means, even if this entails widespread death, rapine, and enslavement.
The two seemingly contradictory messages, then, are actually the same. They differ in one respect, however - the Saudis' message employs taqiyya and is slyer, whereas bin Laden's response is somewhat more forthright.
commonsense,
Yeah. What you point out is a lunatics' (believers in the lunacy of islam) version of goodcop/badcop aimed at us, the non-lunatics (unbelievers).
commonsense-
I would say you pretty much "Nailed it".....
Differing Moslem groups both say the same thing- but in different ways.
Very astute of you to point this out. Thanks!
It's called "sociopathic psychosis."
No More Ham, Ed, I'm going to keep it old-school for now. If a taller, lankier version of myself comes along, they can be the JDAM-ER (the "ER" is for "extended range"). I actually became "jdamn" out of my refusal to adopt a nickname when I was "required" to when I was a roller derby jammer. "Jdamn" is for "Justin, damnit." Funny how things work out sometimes.
Thanks Deus_Vult!, No More Ham, Ed, Cornelius.
Commonsense: Of course I agree with the notion that various Islamic groups wants the same thing but that they articulate/rationalize their goals differently. The point is that al-Qaeda contradicts itself by insisting to Westerners that if a certain number of grievances were addressed, so too would al-Qaeda's hostilities. As their words to fellow Muslims make clear -- words based on sharia law, which transcend all temporal actions and grievances -- the West, the entire non-Muslim world, in fact -- is by default an eternal enemy that needs to be battled in perpetuity,just by virtue of it being non-Muslim. Thus their "grievances" are a moot point.
You may say, "Well, duh!" To which I would respond, the vast majority of Westerners are still unaware of this hypocrisy, and think if only certain concessions were made, groups like al-Qaeda would go away, which is not the case, since that is like saying, if only we made certain concessions, sharia law would go away.
Raymond:
Yes, I did understand your point, which was made very effectively, and which indeed needed to be made, as most non-Muslims are unaware of the tactic you identified. (I confess I learned a thing or two myself.) My post, however, was intended to emphasize how Muslims can justify and construe acts of war, murder, and destruction as acts of kindness and justice.