| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Love ya to pieces
While ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer likened Osama bin Laden to figures such as Robin Hood and Saint Francis of Assisi in his 2004 book, Imperial Hubris, one would've assumed that with the publication of The Al Qaeda Reader in 2007, which presents a very different picture of bin Laden, based on his own words, that Scheuer, at the very least, would have stopped depicting the former as nothing more than a man with grievances fighting tyranny and oppression. Yet, according to this article, in his latest book, Scheuer is now presenting Osama's writings as being similar to Thomas Jefferson's!
I simply had to opine.
"Osama Bin Laden: man of love?" Middle East Strategy at Harvard, September 11:
In many ways, Michael Scheuer is the paradigmatic case of an otherwise knowledgeable and experienced Western adult who takes Al Qaeda’s word at face value. According to his book, Imperial Hubris, his credentials and thus authority to speak about Al Qaeda and its goals are impressive: “For the past seventeen years, my career has focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam… I have earned my keep and am able to speak with some authority and confidence about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, [and] the dangers they pose and symbolize for the Unites States…”The remainder of his book makes several fine points, articulating well—arguably even better than bin Laden—the grievances that Al Qaeda and the Muslim world have vis-à-vis specific U.S. policies. However, the book’s fundamental thesis is bin Laden’s own: Al Qaeda’s terrorism is simply a reaction to U.S. foreign policy. Writes Scheuer emphatically: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.”
He then proceeds to quote and accept, rather naively, several of bin Laden’s messages to the West, such as: “Therefore, I am telling you [Americans], with Allah as my witness, whether America escalates or de-escalates the conflict, we will reply to it in kind….” Bin Laden, of course, often begins every message directed at the West by saying “reciprocal treatment is part of justice”—i.e., “leave us alone, we leave you alone.”
Scheuer takes it one step further by concluding that Al Qaeda’s war revolves around “love”:
Bin Laden and most militant Islamists, therefore, can be said to be motivated by their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific, U.S. policies and actions they believe are damaging—and threatening to destroy—the things they love. Theirs is a war against a specific target, and for specific, limited purposes. While they will use whatever weapon comes to hand—including weapons of mass destruction—their goal is not to wipe out our secular democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al are not eternal warriors.Thereafter, bin Laden is likened to heroes like Robin Hood or (of all people) Saint Francis of Assisi—a friar known for his benevolence towards animals. Surprisingly, Scheuer overlooks the theological underpinnings—offensive jihad, enforcement of “dhimmitude,” and enmity for non-Muslims—that dominate Al Qaeda’s worldview (and which are delineated over and over in The Al Qaeda Reader). These hostile doctrines, innate to Al-Qaeda’s worldview, clearly demonstrate that, contrary to Scheuer’s assessment, Al Qaeda and their kind do—indeed must—hate the United States for more than a “few, specific policies,” and that their war transcends “specific, limited purposes,” and thus that they are “eternal warriors.”
Here is bin Laden himself explaining the “true” nature of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, such as Americans, AKA, “infidels”:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Qur’an 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about “foreign policy,” nothing more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion.Note that, contrary to Scheuer’s assurances, at no time does bin Laden indicate that U.S. foreign policy is behind such animus; it is entirely a theological argument—transcending time, space, and circumstance. In his attack against “moderate” Muslims, bin Laden rhetorically asks and answers the pivotal question:
Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.How do these quotes accord with Scheuer’s statement that “None of the reasons [for Al Qaeda’s antipathy] have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy”? (My emphases.)
Nor is this worldview “peculiar” to bin Laden. Here’s his “second,” Ayman Zawahiri:
Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of Jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time.That Al Qaeda’s messages to the West are being understood uncritically and taken at face value by the public is one thing; that a former CIA veteran whose expertise revolves around Islam buys into this calculated sophistry is quite another. Since, as Muhammad said, “war is deceit,” Scheuer and other analysts of like mind would do well to consider that perhaps when Al Qaeda sends a communiqué to the West, it is not necessarily sincere but meant solely to elicit a particular response; such as, that Al Qaeda’s war is predicated on a “few, specific, U.S. policies and actions.” This is tailor-made to accord with the West’s preconceived notions of “justice,” “equality,” “poverty causes violence,“ and especially “guilt,” and is intended to demoralize Americans from, for instance, supporting “the war on terror” which obviously directly affects Al Qaeda.
Here’s Osama, one more time, relying on an anecdote from Muslim history indicating what all non-Muslims can expect—even after they make concessions to Islam:
When the king of the Copts of Egypt tried improving relations with the Prophet by dignifying his messenger and sending him back on a beast of burden laden with clothing, and a slave-girl, did such niceties prevent the Companions from raiding the Coptic realms, forcefully placing them under Islamic rule?The answer is no. As both Islamic theology commands and history attests, “concessions” or “niceties” are never enough: submission to Islam is the price for peace. Mr. Scheuer can be certain, then, that no matter how many political concessions the United States makes to the Islamic world, so-called “Salafists” like bin Laden—that is, Muslims who follow the letter of the law (sharia)—will continue the jihad “till all chaos ceases and religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:38). Instead of thinking of them as Robin Hoods and Francis of Assisis, or simply idealistic, wayward children, it’s best to start seeing them as they see themselves: mujahidin—warriors of Allah out to make Islam supreme, as there have been for some 1,400 years.
Posted by Raymond at September 12, 2008 9:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Our leaders answer with the same dull refrain:
Osama and company are "a tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a peaceful religion".
They don't speak for all Muslims.
Well, WHO DOES?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 12, 2008 10:34 AM
Excellent piece Raymond.
Scheurer is an iqnorant, yet dangerous tool. Any sane person, when personally lauded by Bin Laden in one of his manifestos, as Scheurer was, would rethink their position.
With regards to Scheurer's ignorance on the topic, whether willful or not, he is clearly "all in".
I feel a "tribute" by Hugh on the man is in order, if not already done so in less specific terms.
Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 10:36 AM
you know why l despise the elite msm types, and those above are clearly dangerous. let this man go to the ME and find his true love!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 12, 2008 10:39 AM
I agree with Raymond.
Michael Scheuer is like so many government types, in that he does not have the capacity to get into the Islamic religion and its founder, Mohammad. As a result, like so many (mostly Democrats), he comes to a very wrong conclusion. I also sensed some hostility toward Israel in his book. It is human nature to want to help an ally. But he shows no such human nature anywhere in his book toward Israel or any other country. He seems to view the USA as an island unto itself where everyone would be peaceful every else if only the USA would not interfere and that the USA has no need for allies. It almost seems that the Democrat template was at work in his book.
Posted by: Spot on at September 12, 2008 10:42 AM
I've had quite enough of Michael Scheuer. A more damaging useful idiot would be hard to find since he is deferred to by so many in the media and government.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 10:46 AM
Where are the quotations from bin Laden taken from? It is always helpful to have the sources of such quotes provided. Thanks.
Posted by: Chatillon at September 12, 2008 10:53 AM
History provides us no example of longterm peaceful coexistance between Muslims and others based as equals. It's wishful thinking to expect it.
Posted by: Ruebacca at September 12, 2008 10:59 AM
"Al Qaeda’s terrorism is simply a reaction to U.S. foreign policy."
There is no question that this is true.
US foreign policy has been an impediment to the goals and aspirations of Jihad for the last half century. We've helped prevent the destruction of Israel; we've helped prevent the overthrow of "apostate regimes" in the Muslim world; we've helped non-Muslim regimes like Thailand and the Philippines battle Muslim insurgencies. We've helped isolate terrorist-facilitating regimes like Iran and Syria. We've removed terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We have nothing to apologize for.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 11:15 AM
Very good, clear and informative.
I agree with the above responses.
One question, To Raymond or anyone who cares to reply:
Critics of Robert Spencer have sometimes denounced him on the grounds that he, or his arguments, serve Bin Laden's purpose by confirming the Jihadist interpretation of Islamic doctrine.
I believe the usual RS reply is to deny the charge.
However, surely in the light of these and other similar verses, it is true to say that Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri et al are correctly interpreting the Islamic scriptures, at least in some important respects, and the 'moderates' are bad muslims who are misinterpreting.
Is that a fair statement or is it too simplistic?
at September 12, 2008 11:34 AM
Mr. Scheuer seems like a fool at a muslim led, or attended, "interfaith gathering", where the non-muslims are the propaganda target, and are therefore fed misleading dishonesty. Scheuer swallows the propaganda: hook, line and stinker. And worse, he keeps regurgitating his own vomit, which he considers a delicacy.
The way, the right path, to understanding islam is to listen to, or read, what muslim leaders say to their own constituencies when the kafirs aren't around, combined with attention to the words of the texts of islam, especially the koran and ahadith. Note the congruence, between the example of their "prophet", and the teachings of contemporary muslim leaders, for example on MEMRI, as these sheikhs and mullahs repeatedly quote the actions and words of their supposed prophet to justify barbarity and their own idiocy.
This right path is the approach of Mr. Ibrahim. Scheuer follows another (foolish) path.
Posted by: del at September 12, 2008 11:39 AM
Cornelius: You're correct. We've foiled the Islamic agenda time and time again because of our power and decency and many Muslims hate us for that, though I suspect these same folks would hate us anyway even if we hadn't done such deeds because their religion is in the hate business from top to bottom. Of course, Scheuer remains clueless here, as usual.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 11:47 AM
StephenA55,
Reporting on what the Jihadists say is not the same as "confirming" their interpretation as correct.
There is no such thing as a "correct" or "incorrect" interpretation of Islam.
What Robert and Raymond and others here do consistently is show how Muslim scholars, thought leaders, and institutions over the centuries have and continue to interpret Islam, using thorough and exacting methods of studying the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the life of Muhammad.
And as Robert has pointed out over and over, the leading mainstream schools of Islam continue to this day, based on these interpretations, to affirm Islam's goal of world supremacism and dominance over non-Muslims, with Jihad (slow/fast/explicit/stealth) as a primary enabling mechanism.
There are no mainstream Islamic groups that explicitly reject Islamic supremacism. That is NOT to say that there are no such Muslim individuals or groups who do. But very few do it out loud.
In fact, the "tiny majority of Muslims" are those who are vocally outspoken and explicit about rejecting Islamic supremacism. Rather, the vast majority, at least of public figures, dissemble non-stop; when you see or hear these words, alarms should go off: "Islamophobia," "oppression," "justice," "innocent," "dialogue," "Abrahamic faith."
Posted by: kamala at September 12, 2008 11:53 AM
kamala: Excellent rejoinder to StephenA55. I can't imagine it being done any better. My compliments.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 12:02 PM
Oops, meant to write "tiny minority of Muslims" in the last paragraph.
Thanks Wellington.
Posted by: kamala at September 12, 2008 12:13 PM
Kamala,
Thank you.
I agree with Wellington, you put the position very clearly.
One thing still bothers me, though:
It seems plain to me, and getting plainer every time I learn a bit more about Islam, that despite it's pluralism, the dominant message is that of militant supremacism to all non-muslims. As you confirm.
Therefore Bin Laden is a good Muslim. Doing his Jihadi duty.
How can his interpretation be anything but correct?
Evil and wicked, yes, but also correct.
In accord with the evil, wicked textual sources.
at September 12, 2008 12:43 PM
StephenA55,
I'm not sure why you're pushing to get to some conclusive definition of "correct." Islam does not have any explicit overarching authority to determine a correct or incorrect interpretation.
If you'd like an example of a different yet thorough interpretation of Islam that rejects Islamic supremacism, try reading up on Muhammad Taha. A very fascinating guy who thought through and espoused a legitimately peaceful interpretation of Islam: http://alfikra.org/index_e.php
Of course, the telling point is that he was deemed an apostate and executed for his beliefs.
Was Taha's interpretation correct? Incorrect? It's impossible to say. It's certainly not a mainstream interpretation.
Bin Laden believes he is a good Muslim. So do his followers. He has detailed theological and historical arguments as to why he's a good Muslim and uses these arguments to recruit and gain support from Muslims (buy Raymond's book, if you haven't yet). Few Muslims who disagree have offered clear refutations of his (Islamic) arguments. I'd leave it at that.
at September 12, 2008 1:02 PM
Whenever I hear that some terrorist is being prosecuted for war crimes, I cring. The reason that I cring is that in fact the terrorist is being punished for doing exactly what he knows his god has willed him to do. He is a soldier of allah. He believes in his god.
This is much like the Japanese during WWII. They had their man-god that they were fighting for. At the time, we were quite willing to kill them. They knew this and became very freightened of us. We then defused their man-god, imposed our will, kept a standing army on hand, shook their hand, and went on.
Prosecution of terrorists by our laws will not work. There is no possibility of rehabilitation and no sense of wrong doing on the part of the terrorist. The only way to fight this kind of enemy is to kill them or to beat them into submission, like we did the Japanese.
Posted by: Spot on at September 12, 2008 1:34 PM
Kamala,
Thanks for the tip about Taha. I have heard of him, but not read his work. I'll look it up.
I suppose why I want to push the question of correct interpretation is because I feel that the sources of Jihad terrorism need to be publicly identified with the Quran, Hadith and Sira, rather than left open and ill-defined.
As long as the Jihadi interpretations are plausibly questioned or denied as 'neither correct or incorrect', then the blame can be passed back rather than where it belongs: namely on Mohammed and his pals.
If it is appropriate then we have to implicate mainstream Islam with the sins of Jihad in all it's forms, not let it pass the buck solely on those who do their religious duty. As Geert Wilders says, until the hateful verses of the Quran are taken out, they will surely continue to inspire more generations of Jihadis.
at September 12, 2008 1:44 PM
WELLINGTON: "...though I suspect these same folks would hate us anyway even if we hadn't done such deeds because their religion is in the hate business from top to bottom."
Well old buddy, they would surely hate us - as is taught in their theology - but, if we were compliant dhimmis or even just passive by-standers like the Swedes or the Finns, they wouldn't be trying to kill us. It is the fulfillment of our responsibilities as an infidel great power that compels them to attack us violently.
The Left would answer by having us abandon those responsibilities and capitulate to the demands of the Jihadis...in the hopes that doing so will somehow make this a better world.
We know better.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 1:57 PM
Cornelius: Well said.
Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 2:45 PM
Raymond,
This is a little off topic, but I thought you might find it interesting given your previous writing (July 26, 2008 Ibrahim: Islam's appeal and Captain Hook http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021957.php).
Young Guys Try to Read Society's Road Map for Behavior
Researchers Say Young Men Fall Prey to Mixed Messages About Male Behavior
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/Story?id=5658629&page=1
at September 12, 2008 6:11 PM
One more time ...( July 26, 2008 Ibrahim: Islam's appeal and Captain Hook http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021957.php ).
at September 12, 2008 6:13 PM
Thanks for the comments/links -- Awake, Spoton, Kamala, and Ralphinfidel
Posted by: Raymond at September 12, 2008 8:05 PM
Sir,
Being criticized and patronized by Raymond Ibrahim is high praise indeed.
Mr. Ibrahim's "Al-Qaeda Reader" is an excellent example of what passes for solid analysis and intellectual honesty among Neo-conservatives. These men and women are quite willing to see America fight an enemy that does not exist --that is, one they hates Americans and their liberty, not what their leaders do -- until it is defeated by an al-Qaeda-led Islamist movement which is held together only by the Muslim world's nearly universal perception that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam and its followers.
In this highly selective collection, Mr. Ibrahim picks and chooses from the enormous corpus of writings, statements, and interviews by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to produce a slim volume which he claims will once and for all prove that al-Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate to be governed by what the Necons are pleased to call Islamo-fascism. While the Caliphate is certainly a goal of bin Laden and other Islamists -- because God has said the world will eventually be all Islamic -- the Islamists know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons' lifetimes as Christians know that a uniform world of turning-of-the-cheek or loving-thy-neighbor is at best light years over the horizon. And though it must be agreed by all that the world is rife with Islamo-fascists, they all happen to be on the side of the United States, governing and terrorizing the Muslim populations of such states as Egypt, Algeria, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Muslim states.
The problems with of Mr. Ibrahim's work are twofold. First, the book deliberately misleads an America public that is already lied to about the nature and goals of al-Qaedaism by the leaders of both parties. The small selection of writings included in the "Al-Qaeda Reader" compounds the damage done by those lies. The volume's contents are intended to reinforce the absurd, self-defeating idea that the United States and the West are confronted by 1.4 billion Muslim automatons eager to enforce fascist rule not only on Christians, Jews, and others, but also to lock it firmly on themselves.
Second, Mr. Ibrahim is obviously a very talented linguist, researcher, and political scientist. The endnotes to the "Al-Qaeda Reader" offer readers an important, concise, and insightful discussion of many Islamic issues and points of doctrine.
It is, in my opinion, a shame that Mr. Ibrahim has used his obvious talents to be the cat's paw of his former professor, Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar who was once a well-respected historian, but is now the Necons' fantasist-in-chief in charge of misleading his fellow citizens.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA
at September 13, 2008 8:40 AM
When the issues of arab supremacism and terror methods to facilitate it first came to my attention, I thought it familiar how two sides came out and immediately projected their own ideologies on the issue. One side thought that "they hate us for our specific actions" which included stationing troops on the arab peninsula, enforcing sanctions on saddams Iraq, supporting Israel. The other side came up with "they hate us for our freedoms", democracy, a free press, freedom of speech, religious freedom.
It seemed to me then, and still does that the main failure of both views was that they were ideocentric, that in both views the terroristas were passive and only reacted to us, and thus in either case it comes into our sphere of responsibility.
I tend to think that Raymond Ibraham does not fit neatly in either party, and thus will seem to members of the duelling ideologies seem to belong to the opposite party.
So the criticisms that are made of a scholar like Mr Ibrahim are made in the narcissistic mindset that passes for civil discourse today, and thus we see attempts to tie Ibrahim to "neocons, real or imagined" while on the other side Ibrahim is also faulted for not falling into the religion of peace newspeak that has come down the pike since 911.
Posted by: stickman at September 13, 2008 3:17 PM
The obvious answer to either of the duelling ideologies is to show how they do not explain certain realities. First if the whole problem is american foreign policy and actions that does not explain the Islamic wars against subsaharan africans, or the actions against Thailand or the Phillipines or Red China.
The they hate us for our freedoms paradigm also fails because even authoritarian societies have been targetted by Islamofascists, chechnya, iran, and Pakistan spring right to mind.
I think Ibraham and the other JW/DW writers place light on the reasons for the conflict, it comes from the original sources, koran, and the example of mahomet, but that view does not play the political game that is more important to some than actually understanding what is motivating the purveyors of terror.
Posted by: stickman at September 13, 2008 3:25 PM
Ahh....the ex-CIA guy who knows nothing of Islam dropped by. He might actually want to check with all the Muslims in the UK who want Sharia law.
You see ex-CIA guy, Muslims want to dominate the world and that includes you. Them wanting to get our troops out the Middle East is just so they can control the entire Middle East.
The bombings that just happened India, was that because of the US troops in the Middle East, or how about the Islamic attacks in China?
As for the number of Muslims invovled, it does not have to be all of them, does it?
You are sir are the only one who is misleading the public and it is time for the West to end all Muslim immgration. Because no matter what we do, it will never be enough. A truth that is clearly lost on you.
Chris
Posted by: Exposing Islam at September 13, 2008 10:07 PM
Scheuer might also want to realize that political Islam is even more dangerous to life as we know it then potential suicide bombers. The two ways of life just do not mix.
Posted by: Exposing Islam at September 13, 2008 10:12 PM
From the sign-off on his posting, I wonder if Scheuer attends the Fall Church terror mosque?
at September 15, 2008 5:29 AM
A rather simple yet, almost unanswerable question I would like to pose to Mr. Scheurer.
If Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are acting against American imperialism, I was wondering what Islamic country the US was occupying specifically just prior to, and that lead to Al Qaeda's response pn 9/11?
I guess we should be grateful that Mr. Scheurer is reading JW, although it is apparent that he needs to read quite a bit more.
You cannot expect him to embrace this viewpoint as it directly contradicts his own, thus adversely affecting his ability to publish additional books from his current position position.
He is indicative of the CIA we know now, grossly uneducated, but well indoctrinated. what else can be expected from him, a product of an administration that started this global war against "terror" to rid the world of the "tiny minority of extremists" who have clearly hijacked "the religion of peace".
Scheurer's self-delusion, coupled with his influence, is nothing less than treasonous.
Posted by: awake at September 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)