“We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad.” — from a statement by the “reformist” Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
What could be clearer? Depending on who is in the audience, Al-Qaradawi tells us, he will vary his pitch. When he’s at the sober gathering of the Al-Quds Institute, with too many non-Muslims possibly present, it will be the presumed sweet reason of a merely “civil jihad.” When he can let down his hair without any Infidels overhearing, then of course, he will tell his Muslim audience, “I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations.”
Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton, and said quite another to what he assumed were all-Muslim audiences, beginning with that one he addressed in September 1994 in Johannesburg, telling them not to worry about the Oslo Accords he had just signed, because they didn’t commit him to anything; he was just following in the steps of the great Master. And then he proceeded to refer, as one might expect, to Muhammad’s deviousness with the Meccans when he signed the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. That has been the model for all subsequent treaties between Muslims with Infidels — always temporary, always to be broken. Whatever promises of friendly relations and “peace” or even “permanent peace” may be solemnly undertaken, it means nothing — Muslims are required to break such agreements the minute they feel strong enough to do so. They know, Al-Qaradawi knows, Arafat knew, Mubarak and the Saudi rulers, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, know this. Every single Muslim ruler or ordinary Muslim understands this, and understands that Muslims have a right to sign things and then never live up to them, or to break them with impunity whenever they feel like it. “War is deception,” said Muhammad.
The only strange thing is: if this is such an obvious part of Islamic treaty-making, why don’t the Israelis, even with their celebrated incompetence, begin to mention the little matter of how Muslims regard treaties. Hmmm? (See Majid Khadduri, The Law of War and Peace in Islam — say, do you think Dennis Ross, or Richard Haas, or anyone at all in the whole American State Department has ever looked at that book, or even read it, or bothered to inquire as to what, in Islam, the rule is on treaties with Infidels? No? You don’t? Neither do I.) Might the mention of such matters by the Israelis spoil Rose Garden ceremonies? Or queer somebody’s pitch for a Nobel? What, exactly?
Meanwhile, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is just doing what all Muslim leaders do. But unlike them, he, apparently unaware that everything is overheard these days, tells the truth: that is, he tells the truth about the fact that he essentially lies. He calls here for “civil jihad” and makes the gullible think that’s all he’s calling for, but over here, among fellow Muslims only, he calls as well for the other kind, the kind with bomb belts and homicide bombers on busses, in cafes, in schools and at Passover celebrations. That’s Al-Qaradawi: a nice blend of Mahmoud Abbas (the “civil jihad”) and Haniya (the other kind): the Slow Jihad and the Fast Jihad. Or rather, both the tactics of the Slow Jihad and the tactics of the Fast Jihad at the very same time.
And we are supposed to pretend we didn’t hear this. Or if we heard it, it doesn’t mean what of course any sensible person knows perfectly well what it means. It means what Muslims, speaking to other Muslims, know perfectly well it means.
For god’s sake, la commedia e finita. Or at least it ought to be. We can only stand so much willful ignorance and stupidity exhibited by those pushing for that madness, the “two-state solution” (which must be a “solution,” some will say, because otherwise why would they call it that?).
How long, O Lord, how long?