MUSSULMANIA Mussulmans and ISLAMIC WARFARE "The Quoranic Concept of War" THE ISLAMIC WAR PLAN Jihadist Strategies the Islamic way of war
[NOTE: Work in progress. Not yet complete. Keep looking in on us to see the finished post. I know, for instance, that I have yet to show you the clear connection between CAPTAIN HOWDY* and WHAT inspired the "prophet" of war hatred, and fear to come up with his guidebook (the verkakte kornukopia of ills loosed upon the world, the k-k-k-k -oran). Explanation for the post not being 100% complete: I am not a professional blogger. That is, I do not do this for money. Rather, I am an amateur, in the true sense of the term. That is, like the amateur artist, I work for the rewards inherent in the process, not for financial gain.] -Leslie White (Note: verkakte derives from German - verkakt http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528105722AAyae4U and http://www.proz.com/kudoz/hebrew_to_english/slang/2323364-fakokta_three_syllables.html#5193485)
MUZZIEMANIA or TWISTED TWISTED SISTER
message to "whom it may concern:"
TO THE DANCE
now that you're in here
WELCOME TO MY LIVING HELL DON'T TRY TO LEAVE THE DOORS ARE LOCKED AND ONLY I HAVE GOT THE KEY FORGET THE WINDOWS THEY'RE NAILED SHUT AND BOARDED UP
Now that you're in here
YOU'RE ON MY TIME
and, I warn you,
STAY AWAY FROM CAPTAIN HOWDY*
I'M SO SAD THE PARTY'S OVER AND WE CAN NO LONGER PLAY YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING HOME
YOU CAN'T SLEEP WHEN YOUR DEAD
CALL FOR STREET JUSTICE LET NO MERCY SHOW
HOW MANY HAVE TO DIE?
THE MOB ASSEMBLED
TO BRING TO JUSTICE [THIS SOULESS THING] AND SHOW THE OTHERS WHAT EVIL BRINGS
YOU CAN HEAR THE THUNDER LONG BEFORE THE STORM
YOU'D BETTER RUN, DON'T MAKE A STAND
DON'T TRY TO PLAY YOU'LL LOSE YOUR STAKES
YOU WON'T HEAR A FOOTSTEP COMIN' UP ON YOU
STAY AWAY FROM CAPTAIN HOWDY
Borrowed from, bowlderized, rearranged, shifted about from Twisted Sister's Stay hungry and Street Justice [picture above: Captain Howdy*]
Act 1, Scene 5 The time is out of joint: O cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right! (1.5.189) Nay, come, let's go together. Exeunt Hamlet, William Shakespeare
"The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting." — Majid Khadduri
The basis of Islamic warfare is the Koran. The successes of Mohammed are studied and tried to be repeated. There have been no great successes [for the Moslems] since 1492 when Spain was finally reconquered from the Moors (North African Moslems).
the warfare before the actual fighting begins agrees with Sun Tzu:
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. --Sun Tzu, TheArt of War, III-2
THIS IS WHAT ISLAM IS TRYING TO DO TO US Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. --Sun Tzu, TheArt of War, III-6
The author’s most controversial and, perhaps, most noteworthy assertion, is the distinction of “terror” as an ends rather than as a means to an end. The soul can only be touched by terror. Malik’s divine principal of war may be summarized in the dictum “strike terror; never feel terror.” Yet, he does not describe any specific method of delivering terror into the heart of Islam’s enemies.
They always go back to Mahomet and the koran, while we rely on such "authorities" as Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. Rather dated these latter, I would say. The first involved in internecine wars in the "Central Land," China, and the latter still smelling the gunpowder of the Napoleonic wars. We seem to have gone past these, although some of the dictums can be incorporated into our method of destroying the enemy's will to fight.
This (what I am doing) then is the review of a review of a book by a Paki author on "Islamic Warfare." I expect it will turn to the koran and we know what that's about. If not, read Robert Spencer's books, as referenced at jihadwatch.com .
Then go to the original sources that say the same, Dull, disappointing reading portraying a joyless world, from which anyone in their right mind would want to escape to an "unearthly" paradise at the first opportunity. (what with wiping your bottom with rocks and such, making sure you do not face Mecca when squatting down to . . . I leave it to your imagination. )
There is the same old, same old, "we do not attack, we defend, Islamic land, the umma, blah, blah, blah.
A justification for slaughtering the Koraish tribe (men only--women held for slavery and sex, as well as the children follows by this Paki Malik. Nlotyhiong new :Moslems fight only the forces of tyranny and oppression.' Which we always are--no matter if we spend billions to set up an infrastructure in one of their shithole countries.
It goes on to peace offers, treatiesm hudnas, all the same bullcrap.
“Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the objectives of policy.”
This means noty only violent jihad, but da'awa, and the silent invasion of Moslems into non-Moslem countries to outbreed the native population and set up an Islamic regime. Nothing new here. CAIR is doing that already with the masses of Moslems in the US doing the breeding and complaining about "Islamophobia."
Now, we get to the "Strike Terror into their Hearts," part which was done on 9-11 and is being tried every which way, every day by the jihadists (Moslems) among us.
here is a good one:
In terms of achieving decisive and direct decisions preparing for this type of battlefield first requires “creating a wholesome respect for our Cause”—the cause of Islam. This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies. Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.
Here is a gem: This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies.
This is what the Moslems in our midst with CAIR, in our universities, libraries, and institutions are doing: forcing us to "respect' Islam.
It may work on Bush, Cond, rice & Co. But the rest of us are way ahead of these benighted "leaders."
the “war of preparation being waged . . . in peace,” meaning that peacetime preparatory activities are in fact part of any war and “vastly more important than the active war.”
They are doing that now. Preparing for the war against us that, when their numbers are high enough, they will wage in our streets, fields, mountains, deserts, forests.
He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.”
Ok, that's important--And that is faith or no faith, the enemy must be made to feel terror. The helplessness of the terrorized sunni and shia populations in Iraq is a good example of that. BUT WE ARE BAILING THEM OUT! Idiots are sending our military--wasting our personell resources--to keep the "Moms and Dads and kiddies" as Bush put it from being terrified. Idiot of idiots, all are idiots.
Quranic or Islamic warfare. “It gives a strategy of war that penetrates deep down to destroy the opponents’ faith and render his physical and mental faculties totally ineffective
the frickin koran is the Moslem's warfare manual. we all knew that. So, if we see "what Mohammed did" and :What would he have done in a similar situation," "What would he do?" we can figure out "what they will do."
Quranic or Islamic warfare. “It gives a strategy of war that penetrates deep down to destroy the opponents’ faith and render his physical and mental faculties totally ineffective
The faith part is something that they use to keep themselves from feeling "terror." The way to get 'round that is to let 'em kill each other--as they're doing in Iraq and in Gaza.
Malik highlights the fact thatthe preservation of life is not the ultimate end or greatest good in Quranic warfare.
Except that the idiots on our side place the life of the Islamic enemy above that of our troops. Israelis do the same (to curry favor with us and the Eurorats).
The “Base” of the Quranic military strategy is spiritual preparation and “guarding ourselves against terror.”62 Readers may surmise that the training camps of al Qaeda (The Base) were designed as much for spiritual preparation as military. One needs only to recall the example of Mohammed Atta’s “last night” preparations.63
We know hat to do with the training caps. The mosques (their barracks--minarets their lances) MUST come next. This is the only way to break their spirit.
Unless we want to live under them (Islamics), we must stop being so frickin sissified (mentally in our leadership). Our militray at the troop level, wants to, and knows , how top fight. We must let them. And as for the regrettable collateral casualties . . let the chips fall where they may.
Malik’s thesis; that Islam is in a state of constant struggle with the non-Islamic world. There are examples of Muslim armies serving side by side with Christian armies in combat and campaigns are numerous, with Iraq being but a recent example.65
The way to deal with that is use 'em, and then lose 'em. Let them fend for themselves, enough of babying "Moslem armies" fighting "alongside of us."
Meyers ends with
In spite of certain ambiguities and theoretical weaknesses, this work should be studied and valued for its insight and analysis relate to jihadists’ concepts and the asymmetric approach to war that radical Muslims may adapt and execute. With respect to global jihad terrorism, as the events of 9/11 so vividly demonstrated, there are those who believe and will exercise the tenets of The Quranic Concept of War.\
Joseph Meyers, the author of the article says:
The study of ideology or philosophy is often brushed aside, it’s not the “stuff of muddy boots;” it is more cerebral than physical and not action oriented. Planners do not assess the “correlation of ideas.” The practitioners are too busy.
* * * The Hoover Institution’s Paul Sperry recently stated, “Four years into the war on terror, US intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.”4
* * * Is the political philosophy of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in fact well-grounded in western political theory and rigorously rejected it, studied in our military schools? Are there any implications to his statement in 1981 that “Iran . . . is determined to propagate Islam to the whole world”?7
To understand war, one has to study its philosophy; the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam—and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.
What is the Islamic thinking about war? Does Islam have a philosphy or treatise such as Clausewitz's On War that gives us a clue to their philosophical approach to war?
We read in the previous post the pitiful plea by the Muslim blah-blah-blah for a solution to, what he sees as, the Moslem dilemma in not being able to defeat the hated Jews and the West.
Joseph Myers than names the one work--that Robert Spencer featured on Jihad Watch--The Quranic Concept of War, by by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army.
Myers then goes on to say:
[quote] According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik’s attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet.
* * * Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”
[who'd have thought?]
That may be news to some in our Military establishment, but it isn't news to us. We just referred tp Mhatir Muhammed who went back to the koran and the ahadith to find out "What Mohammed would have done." [quotes mine]
[quote] [it] makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.” [close quote]
Nothing new about that. But in their right mind would take 'em up on that? [not even GW Bush, we hope]
Quoting again in the next paragraph:
Malik’s work . . . is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”1
Ok, we knew that already. So what else is new about "Islamic Warfare?"
The role and ends of “terror” in Malik's book
General Zia [in an "opening" of the book] states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers.
We know that, but it's diffficult to get across to the seekers after the multitude of "moderate" (that is non-jihadist) Moslems--in our military as well as civilian establishment.
A lot of bullcrap about jihad and jehad that has no bearing on how Moslems approach strategy and tactics follows the foregoing,
More bullsht about how jihad is defense and never attack (even if it is offense), of which we who read the Moslem scriptures are aware.
then comes more of the same, the offer of conversion, use of da'awa, and that it all "god's" doing that is why the whole world must be Islamic.
Malik then BSs about "divine philosophy of war" and dribbles on with more of what we are too well aware of.
Still nothing new, no revelations as to strategy beyond conquering us, after offering us the "beauty" of Islam, and like bullshit.
FROM KORAN AND AHADITH: 009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 047.004 YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
Hadith Chapter 2: APPOINTMENT OF THE LEADERS OF EXPEDITIONS BY THE IMAM AND HIS ADVICE TO THEM ON ETIQUETTES OF WAR AND RELATED MATTERS Book 019, Number 4294: It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
_________________________ *In the novel and film "The Exorcist" the name "Captain Howdy" is what young Regan MacNeil uses to describe the demonic presence during the early stages of her possession. . . . We learn that the demon inhabiting Regan actually has a name, Pazuzu . . . .
A demon (or daemon, dæmon, daimon from Greek: δαίμων [ðaïmon]) is a supernatural being that has generally been described as a malevolent spirit . . . A demon is frequently depicted as a force that may be conjured and insecurely controlled.
In Assyrian and Babylonian mythology the god Pazuzu was the king of the demons of the wind, and son of the god Hanbi. Pazuzu is often depicted as a combination of animal and human parts. He has the body of a man, the head of a lion or dog, eagle-like taloned feet, two pairs of wings, a scorpion's tail, and a serpentine penis. He is often depicted with his right hand pointing upwards and his left hand downwards.
For the ancient Semites, jinn were spirits of vanished ancient peoples who acted during the night and disappeared with the first light of dawn; they could make themselves invisible or change shape into animals at will; these spirits were commonly believed to be responsible for diseases and for the manias of some lunatics.
. . . Gabriel changed himself into the form of a man Mohammed knew personally, a man was named Dahieh دحية.[xii] . . . malignant spirits change their form and take on the guise of other humans who are known to the magician or to the medium to whom the malignant spirits give oracles in order to deceive many.[xiii] The Jinn/devils of Arabia were known to change their forms and appear in the guise of a man known to the Kuhhan or priests of the Jinn/devils.[xiv] The trance of the medium causes occult hallucinating. They call it the “journey of the soul.” We know that the trance is the condition through which Mediums of malignant spirits travel through what they call “the journey of the spirit,” leaving their bodies. Their souls as stolen from them to commune with spirits. It is an hallucinative journey under the power of Satan, through which the victim sees things that are not real. Occult Literature is full of names of people who were in trances and claimed to travel to heaven or other distant places. Often these alleged ascension are connected with people who have religious oracles. They are known to fall into comas. Those claiming to have ascended to heaven often did so while comatose or in a state of ecstasy. Mohammed claimed he obtained verses of the Qu’ran this way. While receiving the Quran, he also experienced other negative symptoms such as convulsions, sweatings and feelings of terror. The book of Halabieh describes his journeys in spirit claiming Mohammed used to “sleep in the spirit.” This expression “sleeping in the spirit” endeavors to describe the deep coma and trance in which Mohammed fell when he was experiencing such hallucinations. All who claim to have such occult journeys pass through trances and comas.In the life of Mohammed we see several experiences like this. The book of Halabieh states that Al Israa', occurred to Mohammed 30 times.[xxxvii] Al Israa, is a journey of the soul to distant places. This is actually the occult journey known to all mediums who through trances were under the hallucinate power of the spirits. Sheik Abdel Wahab Al Sharani said that the number was 34.[xxxviii] So we see what the Qu’ran claims happened to Mohammed when he boarded the Baraq, or winged camel, to go to Jerusalem. He was not in reality having a real experience, but it was just part of Mohammed’s occult life before he claimed to have the role of prophecy. Though Muslims want us to think that Mohammed really was carried bodily in the company of Gabriel by a winged camel to Jerusalem, Aisheh the youngest wife of Mohammed and the most reliable reporter of his life and Hadith says, “The body of the prophet of Allah was never missed or carried, but Allah journeyed with his soul.” So we see that the report, claiming to be a true experience of Mohammed, only confirms the nature of his journey which was part of his past occult routine, something that had occurred for many who were connected as mediums to malignant spirits. At the same time, they claimed to receive oracles or important wisdom through hallucinative journeys. We have more testimony about Mohammed’s claim from his cousin, Fatikheh فاتخة, with whom he spent the night when he claimed to journey with the angel Gabriel to Jerusalem. She confirmed that he was asleep in her house that night. She was called also Um Hani, the mother of Hani. She was the daughter of his uncle Abu Taleb. She said,” the prophet of Allah was transported while he was in my house. He slept in my house that night and prayed at night, then slept and we also slept . When it was dawn, he woke us. Then, after we prayed together, he said,” Oh, Um Hani I prayed with you the evening prayer as you saw in this valley, then I went to the temple of Jerusalem and prayed in it. This morning I prayed with you.” He claims to have prayed the Islamic prayer in the evening, slept under the watchful eyes of his cousen, woke early in the morning and prayed again. After this he claimed to have visited the temple of Jerusalem during the night. What he does not tell us is that the temple was destroyed by the Romans six centuries earlier. He could not have made that visit. http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mohammad/ascension.htm ___________________
APPENDIX Yet remember, that when confronted by a resolute foe, Muslims often withdraw and founder in fear. Their Bedouin heritage has trained them to exploit weakness, but to pull back from confrontation or any real trial of strength. A “hit-and-run” strategy is the perfect Bedouin mode of action; it is also at the core of Palestinian terrorism the last 50 years.
The daring Swiss explorer of Arabia, John Burckhardt, wrote in 1831 that Bedouin stealth is as real as is Bedouin hospitality: there is no contradiction in these traditional desert qualities.13 Much of Muslim-Arab success in the early history of Islam was facilitated by the enemy surrendering rather than facing the Muslims in battle. The city of Mecca succumbed to Muhammad in 630, Iran collapsed in the face of Arab armies in the early 640s, Spain was penetrated with ease in 711. Damascus, a Byzantine city, was an exception and resisted the Muslim assaults in 636-37 only to open its gates in the end. Much of Europe today has capitulated, while posing as the repository of democracy, tolerance, and human rights.
The Muslims are masters of bluff and bullying, no less of blackmail and threat, in overwhelming a bamboozled adversary. But when faced in battle, as we saw in Iraq in 1991 and in some Palestinian towns in 2002, the Muslims virtually capitulate.
“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”2 — Majid Khadduri
Political and military leaders are notoriously averse to theory, but if there is a theorist about war who matters, it remains Carl von Clausewitz, whose Vom Kriege (On War) has shaped Western views about war since the middle of the nineteenth century.”3 Both points are likely true and problematic since we find ourselves engaged in war with people not solely imbued with western ideas and values or followers of western military theorists. The Hoover Institution’s Paul Sperry recently stated, “Four years into the war on terror, US intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.”4
Would this be surprising? When it comes to warfighting military audiences tend to focus on the military and power aspects of warfare; the tangibles of terrain, enemy, weather, leadership, and troops; quantifiables such as the number of tanks and artillery tubes—the correlation of forces. Analysts steer toward the familiar rather than the unfamiliar; people tend to think in their comfort zones. The study of ideology or philosophy is often brushed aside, it’s not the “stuff of muddy boots;” it is more cerebral than physical and not action oriented. Planners do not assess the “correlation of ideas.” The practitioners are too busy.
Dr. Antulio Echevarria recently argued the US military does not have a doctrine for war as much as it has a doctrine for operations and battles.5 The military has a deficit of strategic, and, one could add, philosophic thinking. In the war against Islamist terrorism, how many have heard of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Project”?6 Is the political philosophy of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in fact well-grounded in western political theory and rigorously rejected it, studied in our military schools? Are there any implications to his statement in 1981 that “Iran . . . is determined to propagate Islam to the whole world”?7
To understand war, one has to study its philosophy; the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam—and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.
With respect to the war against the global jihad and its associated terror groups, individual terrorists, and clandestine adherents, one should ask if there is a unique method or attitude to their approach to war. Is there a philosophy, or treatise such as Clausewitz’s On War that attempts to form their thinking about war? Is there a document that can be reviewed and understood in such a manner that we may begin to think strategically about our opponent. There is one work that stands out from the many.
The Quranic Concept of War
The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores.8 One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik’s attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”9
In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.”10 For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”11
The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith. The lessons learned are recorded
and form an important part of Quranic surah and jihadist’s scholarship.12 Islamic scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim will find much to debate in terms of Malik’s view of jihad doctrine and Quranic warfare. Malik’s work is essentially modern scholarship; although he does acknowledge the classical views of jihad in many respects.13
Malik’s arguments are clearly parochial, often more editorial than scholarly, and his tone is decidedly confident and occasionally supremacist. The reach and influence of the author’s work is not clear although one might believe that given the idealism of his treatise, his approaches to warfare, and the role and ends of “terror” his text may resonate with extremist and radicals prone to use terroristic violence to accomplish their ends. For that reason alone, the book is worth studying.
The preface by Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi, the former Pakistani ambassador to India, offers important insights into Malik’s exposition. In fact, Brohi’s 13-page preface lays the foundation for the books ten chapters. Malik places Quranic warfare in an academic context relative to that used by western theorists. He analyzes the causes and objects of war, as well as war’s nature and dimensions. He then turns attention to the ethics and strategy of warfare. Toward the end of the book he reviews the exercise of Quranic warfare based on the examples of the Prophet Mohammed’s military campaigns and concludes with summary observations. There are important jus en bellum and jus ad bellum implications in the author’s writings, as well as in his controversial ideas related to the means and objectives of war. It is these concepts that warrant the attention of planners and strategist.
Zia-Ul-Haq (1924-88), the former President of Pakistan and Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, opens the book by focusing on the concept of jihad within Islam and explaining it is not simply the domain of the military:
Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.
This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is JEHAD. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become ‘professional’ if in all his activities he does not take the ‘colour of Allah,’ The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.14
General Zia states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers. General Zia emphasizes how the concept of Islamic military professionalism requires “godly character” in order to be fully achieved. Zia then endorses Malik’s thesis as the “only pattern of war,” or approach to war that an Islamic state may wage.
Battling Counter-initiatory Forces
In the preface Ambassador Brohi details what might be startling to many readers. He states that Malik has made “a valuable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence” or Islamic law, and an “analytic restatement of the Quranic wisdom on the subject of war and peace.” Brohi implies that Malik’s discussion, though a valuable new version, is an approach to a theme already well developed.15
Brohi then defines jihad, “The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Islam is Jehad, a word which is untranslatable in English but, broadly speaking, means ‘striving’, ‘struggling’, ‘trying’ to advance the Divine causes or purposes.” He introduces a somewhat cryptic concept when he explains man’s role in a “Quranic setting” as energetically combating forces of evil or what may be called, “counter-initiatory” forces which are at war with the harmony and the purpose of life on earth.16 For the true Muslin the harmony and purpose in life are only possible through man’s ultimate submission to God’s will, that all will come to know, recognize, and profess Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Man must recognize the last days and acknowledge tawhid, the oneness of God.17
Brohi recounts the classic dualisms of Islamic theology; that the world is a place of struggle between good and evil, between right and wrong, between Haq and Na-Haq (truth and untruth), and between halal and haram (legitimate and forbidden). According to Brohi, it is the duty of man to opt for goodness and reject evil. Brohi appeals to the “greater jihad,” a post-classical jihad doctrine developed by the mystical Sufi order and other Shia scholars.18
Brohi places jihad in the context of communal if not imperial obligation; both controversial formulations:
When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from traveling the road that leads to God, spirit of Jehad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that mankind may be freely able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven.” To do otherwise, “by not striving to clear or straighten the path we [Muslims] become passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God.19
This viewpoint appears to reflect the classic, collective duty within jihad doctrine, to defend the Islamic community from threats—the concept of defensive jihad. Brohi is saying much more than that; however, he is attempting to delineate the duty—the proactive duty—to clear the path for Islam. It is necessary not only to defend the individual believer if he is being hindered in his faith, but also to remove the obstacles of those counter-initiatory forces hindering his Islamic development. This begs the question of what is actually meant by the initiatory forces. The answer is clear to Brohi; the force of initiative is Islam and its Muslim members. “It is the duty of a believer to carry forward the Message of God and to bring it to notice of his fellow-men in handsome ways. But if someone attempts to obstruct him from doing so he is entitled as a matter of defense, to retaliate.”20
This formulation would appear to turn the concept of defense on its head. To the extent that a Muslim may proclaim Islam and proselytize, or Islam, as a faith, seeks to extend its invitation and reach—initiate its advance—but is unable to do so, then that represents an overt threat justifying—a defensive jihad. According to Brohi, this does not result in the “ordinary wars which mankind has been fighting for the sake of either revenge or for securing . . . more land or more booty . . . [this] striving must be [is] for the sake of God. Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.” In other words, everywhere the message of God and Islam is or can be hindered from expansion, resisted or opposed by some “obstruction” (a term not clearly defined) Islam is intrinsically entitled to defend its manifest destiny.21
While his logic is controversial, Brohi is not unique in his extrapolation. His theory in fact reflects the argument of Rashid Rida, a conservative disciple of the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh. In 1913 Abduh published an article evaluating Islam’s early military campaigns and determined that Islam’s early neighbors “prevented the proclamation of truth” engendering the defense of Islam. “Our religion is not like others that defend themselves . . . but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of truth and the removal of distortion and misrepresentation of it.”22
No Nation is Sovereign
The exegesis of the term jihad is often debated. Some apologists make clear that nowhere in the Quran does the term “Holy War” exist; that is true, but it is also irrelevant. War in Islam is either just or unjust and that justness depends on the ends of war. Brohi, and later Malik, make clear that the ends of war in Islam or jihad are to fulfill God’s divine purpose. Not only should that be a holy purpose, it must be a just war in order to be “Holy War.”23
The next dualism Brohi presents is that of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the house of submission and the house of war. He describes the latter, as “perpetuating defiance of the Lord.” While explaining that conditions for war in Islam are limited (a constrained set of circumstances) he notes that “in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind.”24 Brohi quotes the Quranic manuscript Surah, al-Tawba:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.25
Acknowledging western critics who believe that Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle with the non-Islamic world, Brohi counters in a clearly dismissive tone by explaining that man is the slave to God, and defying God is treason under Islamic law. Those who defy God should be removed from humanity like a cancerous growth. Islam requires believers “to invite non-believers to the fold of Islam” by using “persuasion” and “beautiful methods.” He continues, “the first duty” of a Muslim
is dawa, a proclamation to conversion by “handsome ways.” It is only after refusing dawa and the invitation to Islam that “believers have no option but in self-defense to wage a war against those threatening aggression.”
Obviously, much turns on how threats and aggression are characterized. It is difficult to understand, however, based on the structure of his argument, that Brohi views non-believers and their states as requiring conversion over time by peaceful means; and when that fails, by force. He is echoing the doctrine of Abd al-Salam Faraj, author of Al-Farida al-Ghaibah, better known as The Neglected Duty, a work that is widely read throughout the Muslim world.26
Finally, Brohi examines the concept of the ummah and the international system. “The idea of Ummah of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, is incapable of being realized within the framework of territorial states.” This is a consistent view that underpins many works on the concept of the Islamic state.27 For Muslims, the ummah is a transcendent religious and cultural society united and reflecting the unity (tawhid) of Islam; the idea of one God, indivisible, one community, one belief, and one duty to live and become godly. According to the Prophet, “Ummah participates in this heritage by a set pattern of thought, belief and practice . . . and supplies the spiritual principle of integration of mankind—a principle which is supra-national, supra-racial, supra-linguistic and supra-territorial.”28
With respect to the “law of war and peace in Islam” Brohi writes it “is as old as the Quran itself. . . . ” In his analysis of the law of nations and their international dealings, he emphasizes that in “Islamic international law this conduct [war and peace] is, strictly speaking, regulated between Muslims and non-Muslims, there being, from Islamic perspective, no other nation. . . . ” In other words, war is between Muslims and non-Muslims and not in actuality between states. It is transnational. He adds, “In Islam, of course, no nation is sovereign since Allah alone is the only sovereign in Whom all authority vests.”29 Here Brohi is echoing what Islamic scholars such as Majid Khadduri have described as the “dualism of the universal religion and universal state that is Islam.”30
The Divine Philosophy on War
General Malik begins by categorizing human beings into three archetypes: those who fear Allah and profess the Faith; those who reject the Faith; and those who profess, but are treacherous in their hearts. Examples of the Prophet and the instructions to him by God in his early campaigns should be studied to fully understand these three examples in practice. The author highlights the fact that the “divine philosophy on war” was revealed gradually over a 12 year period, its earliest guidance dealing with the causes and objects of war, while later guidance focused on Quranic strategy, the conduct of war, and the ethical dimensions of warfare.31
In Chapter Three, Malik reviews several key thoughts espoused by western scholars related to the causes of war. He examines the ideologies of Lenin, Geoffery Blainey, Quincy Wright, and Frederick H. Hartman each of whom spoke about war in a historical or material context with respect to the nature of the state system. Malik finds these explanations wanting and turns to the Quran for explanation, “war could only be
waged for the sake of justice, truth, law, and preservation of human society. . . . The central theme behind the causes of war . . . [in] the Holy Quran, was the cause of Allah.”32
The author recounts the progression of revelations by God to the Prophet that “granted the Muslims the permission to fight . . . .” Ultimately, God would compel and command Muslims to fight: “Fight in the cause of Allah.” In his analysis of this surah Malik highlights the fact that “new elements” were added to the causes of war: that in order to fight, Muslims must be “fought first;” Muslims are not to “transgress God’s limits” in the conduct of war; and everyone should understand that God views “tumult and oppression” of Muslims as “worse than slaughter.”33 This oppression was exemplified by the denial of Muslim’s right to worship at the Sacred Mosque by the early Arab Koraish, people of Mecca. Malik describes the situation in detail, “. . . the tiny Muslim community in Mecca was the object of the Koraish tyranny and oppression since the proclamation of Islam. . . . The enemy repression reached its zenith when the Koraish denied the Muslims access to the Sacred Mosque (the Ka’aba) to fulfill their religious obligations. This sacrilegious act amounted to an open declaration of war upon Islam. These actions eventually compelling the Muslims to migrate to Medina twelve years later, in 622 AD. . . .”34
Malik argues that the pagan Koraish tribe had no reason to prohibit Muslim worship, since the Muslims did not impede their form of worship. This historical example helps to further define the concept that “tumult and oppression is worse than slaughter” and as the Quran repeats, “graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Malik also notes the Quran distinguishes those who fight “in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith and fight in the cause of evil.”35 In terms of Quranic just war theory, war must be waged “only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.”36
Challenging Clausewitz’s notion that “policy” provides the context and boundary of war; Malik says it is the reverse, “‘war’ forced policy to define and determine its own parameters” and since that discussion focuses on parochial issues such as national interests, and the vagaries of state to state relations it is a lesser perspective. In the divine context of the Quran war orients on the spread of “justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” According to the author war is to be fought aggressively, slaughter is not the worst evil. In the course of war every opportunity for peace should be pursued and reciprocated. That is every remonstrance of peace by the enemies of Islam, but only as prescribed by the Quran’s “clear-cut philosophy and methodology” for preserving peace.37
Understanding the context in which the Quran describes and defines “justice and peace” is important. Malik refers the reader to the battle of Badr to elucidate these principles. There is peace with those pagans who cease hostilities, and war continues with those who refuse. He cites the following surah, “as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them, for Allah doth love the righteous.”38 Referring to the precedent setting Hodaibayya treaty in the ninth year of the hijra, or pilgrimages to Mecca, Malik outlines how Allah and the Prophet abrogated those treaties with the pagan Meccans.
Pagans who accepted terms voluntarily without a treaty were respected. Those who refused, the Quran directed, were to be slain wherever found. This precedent and “revelations commanded the Muslims to fulfill their treaty commitments for the contracted period but put them under no obligations to renew them.”39 It also established the precedent that Muslims may conclude treaties with non-believers, but only for a temporary period.40 Commenting on western approaches to peace, Malik views such approaches as not standing the “test of time” with no worthwhile role to play even in the future.41 The author’s point is that peace between states has only secular, not divine ends; and peace in an Islamic context is achieved only for the promotion of Islam.
As the Prophet gained control of Mecca he decreed that non-believers could assemble or watch over the Sacred Mosque. He later consolidated power over Arabia and many who had not yet accepted Islam, “including Christians and Jew, [they] were given the option to choose between war and submission.” These non-believers were required to pay a poll-tax or jizya and accept the status of dhimmitude [servitude to Islam] in order to continue practicing their faith. According to Malik the taxes were merely symbolic and insignificant. In summarizing this relationship the author states, “the object of war is to obtain conditions of peace, justice, and faith. To do so it is essential to destroy the forces of oppression and persecution.”42 This view is in keeping with that outlined by Khadduri, “The jihad, it will be recalled, regarded war as Islam’s instrument to transform the dar al-harb into dar al-Islam . . . in Islamic legal theory, the ultimate objective of Islam is not war per se, but the ultimate establishment of peace.”43
The Nature of War
Malik argues that the “nature and dimension of war” is the greatest single characteristic of Quranic warfare and distinguishes it from all other doctrines. He acknowledges Clausewitz’s contribution to the understanding of warfare in its moral and spiritual context. The moral forces of war, as Clausewitz declared, are perhaps the most important aspects in war. Reiterating that Muslims are required to wage war “with the spirit of religious duty and obligation,” the author makes it clear that in return for fighting in the way of Allah, divine, angelic assistance will be rendered to jihad warriors and armies. At this point The Quranic Concept of War moves beyond the metaphysical to the supernatural element, unlike anything found in western doctrine. Malik highlights the fact that divine assistance requires “divine standards” on the part of the warrior mujahideen for the promise of Allah’s aid to be met.44
The author then builds upon the jihad warrior’s role in the realms of divine cause, purpose, and support, to argue that in order for the Muslim warrior to be unmatched, to be the bravest and the most fearless; he can only do so through the correct spiritual preparation, beginning with total submission to God’s will. The Quran reveals that the moral forces are the “real issues involved in the planning and conduct of war.”45 Malik quotes the Quran: “Fighting is prescribed for you . . . and ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
The Quran instructs the jihad warrior “to fight . . . with total devotion and never contemplate a flight from the battlefield for fear of death.” The jihad warrior,
who dies in the way of Allah, does not really die but lives on in heaven. Malik emphasizes this in several Quranic verses. “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. . . . Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the Presence of the Lord.” Malik also notes that “Not equal are those Believers . . . Allah has granted a higher grade to those who strive and fight . . . .”46
The Quranic dimensions of war are “revolutionary,” conferring on the jihad warrior a “personality so strong and overbearing as to prove themselves equal to, indeed dominate, every contingency in war.”47 This theme of spiritual preparation and pure belief has appeared in the prolific jihad writings of Usaman Dan Fodio in the early 1800s and repeated by the Saudi writer Abdallah al-Qadiri in 1992, both emphasizing the role of the “greater jihad.” Becoming a purer and more disciplined Muslim serves the cause of Islam better in peace and war.48
Malik, like Brohi, acknowledges critics who say that Islam has been “spread by the sword,” but he responds that Islam is spread through restraint in war and in “the use of force [that] have no parallel.” He then argues that restraint in warfare is a “two-sided affair.” Where the enemy (not defined) fails to exercise restraints and commits “excesses” (not defined) then “the very injunction of preserving and promoting peace and justice demands the use of limited force . . . . Islam permits the use of the sword for such purpose.”49 Since Malik is speaking in the context of active war and response to the “excesses of war” it is unclear what he means by “limited force” or response.
The author expands on the earlier ideas that moral and spiritual forces are predominate in war. He contrasts Islamic strategic approaches with western theories of warfare oriented toward the application of force, primarily in the military domain, as opposed to Islam where the focus is on a broader application of power. Power in Malik’s context is the power of jihad, which is total, both in the conduct of total war and in its supporting strategy; referred to as “total or grand strategy.” Malik provides the following definition, “Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the objectives of policy.”50 The power of jihad brings with it the power of God.
The Quranic concept of strategy is therefore divine theory. The examples and lessons to be derived from it may be found in the study of the classics, inspired by such events as the battles of the Prophet, e.g., Badr, Khandaq, Tabuk, and Hudaibiyya. Malik again references the divine assistance of Allah and the aid of angelic hosts. He refers to the battles of Hunain and Ohad as instances where seeming defeat was reversed and Allah “sent down Tranquility into the hearts of believers, that they may add Faith to their Faith.” Malik argues that divine providence steels the jihadi in war, “strengthens the hearts of Believers.” Calmness of faith, “assurance, hope, and tranquility” in the face of danger is the divine standard.51
Strike Terror into their Hearts
Malik uses examples to demonstrate that Allah will strike “terror into the hearts of Unbelievers.”52 At this point he begins to develop his most controversial and conjectural Quranic theory related to warfare—the role of terror. Readers need to understand that the author is thinking and writing in strategic terms, not in the vernacular
of battles or engagements. Malik continues, “when God wishes to impose His will on his enemies, He chooses to do so by casting terror into their hearts.”53 He cites another verse, “against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts) of the enemies of Allah . . . .” Malik’s strategic synthesis is specific: “the Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy.”54 Terror is an effect; the end-state.
Malik identifies the center of gravity in war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war. The main weapon against this Islamic concept of center of gravity is “the strength of our own souls . . . [keeping] terror away from our own hearts.” In terms of achieving decisive and direct decisions preparing for this type of battlefield first requires “creating a wholesome respect for our Cause”—the cause of Islam. This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies. Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.
When examining the theme of the preparatory stage of war, Malik talks of the “war of preparation being waged . . . in peace,” meaning that peacetime preparatory activities are in fact part of any war and “vastly more important than the active war.” This statement should not be taken lightly, it essentially means that Islam is in a perpetual state of war while peace can only be defined as the absence of active war. Malik argues that peace-time training efforts should be oriented on the active war(s) to come, in order to develop the Quranic and divine “Will” in the mujahid. When armies and soldiers find limited physical resources they should continue and emphasize the development of the “spiritual resources” as these are complimentary factors and create synergy for future military action.
Malik’s most controversial dictum is summarized in the following manner: in war, “the point where the means and the end meet” is in terror. He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.57
Malik then moves to a more academic discussion of ten general categories inherent in the conduct of Islamic warfare. These categories are easily translatable and recognizable to most western theorists; planning, organization, and conduct of military operations. In this regard, the author offers no unique insight. His last chapter is used to restate his major conclusions, stressing that “The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test . . . lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of our enemies.”58
Evaluation of The Quranic Concept of War
While the extent and reach of Malik’s thesis cannot be confirmed in the Islamic world neither can it be discounted. Though controversial, his citations are accurately drawn from Islamic sources and consistent with classical Islamic jurisprudence.59 As Malik notes, “Quranic military thought is an integral and inseparable part of the total Quranic message.”60 Policy planners and strategists striving to understand the nature of the “Long War” should consider Malik’s writings in that light.
Malik makes clear that the Quran provides the doctrine, guidance, and examples for the conduct of Quranic or Islamic warfare. “It gives a strategy of war that penetrates deep down to destroy the opponents’ faith and render his physical and mental faculties totally ineffective.”61 Malik’s thesis focuses on the fact that the primary reason for studying the Quran is to gain a greater understanding of these concepts and insights. The Prophet Mohammed, as the Quran attests, changed the intent and objective of war—raising the sphere of war to a Godly plane and purpose; the global proclamation and spread of Islam. This obviously rejects the Clausewitizian politics and policy dyad: that war is simply policy of the state.
Quranic warfare is “just war.” It is jus en bellum and jus ad bellum if fought “in the way of Allah” for divine purposes and the ends of Islam. This contradicts the western philosophy of just war theory. Another important connotation is that jihad is a continuum, across peace and war. It is a constant and covers the spectrum from grand strategy to tactical; collective to the individual; from the preparatory to the execution phases of war.
Malik highlights the fact that the preservation of life is not the ultimate end or greatest good in Quranic warfare. Ending “tumult and oppression,” achieving the war aims of Islam through jihad is the desired end. Dying in this cause brings direct reward in heaven for the mujahid, sacrifice is sacred. It naturally follows that death is not feared in Quranic warfare; indeed, “tranquility” invites God’s divine aid and assistance. The “Base” of the Quranic military strategy is spiritual preparation and “guarding ourselves against terror.”62 Readers may surmise that the training camps of al Qaeda (The Base) were designed as much for spiritual preparation as military. One needs only to recall the example of Mohammed Atta’s “last night” preparations.63
The battleground of Quranic war is the human soul—it is religious warfare. The object of war is to dislocate and destroy the [religious] “Faith” of the enemy. These principals are consistent with objectives of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. “Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.”64 Peace treaties in theory are
temporary, pragmatic protocols. This treatise acknowledges Islam’s manifest destiny and the approach to achieving it.
General Malik’s thesis in The Quranic Concept of War can be fundamentally described as “Islam is the answer.” He makes a case for war and the revitalization of Islam. This is a martial exegesis of the Quran. Malik like other modern Islamists are, at root, romantics. They focus on the Quran for jihad a doctrine that harkens back to the time of the Prophet and the classical-jihadist period when Islam enjoyed its most successful military campaigns and rapid growth.
The book’s metaphysical content borders on the supernatural and renders “assured expectations” that cannot be evaluated or tested in the arena of military experience. Incorporating “divine intervention” into military campaigns, while possibly advantageous, cannot be calculated as an overt force multiplier. Critics may also point to the ahistorical aspect of Malik’s thesis; that Islam is in a state of constant struggle with the non-Islamic world. There are examples of Muslim armies serving side by side with Christian armies in combat and campaigns are numerous, with Iraq being but a recent example.65
Malik’s appraisal of the Quran as a source of divine revelation for victory in war can likewise be criticized by historical example. Were it fully true and operationalized then the 1,400 years of Islamic military history might demonstrate something beyond its present state. War and peace in Islam has ebbed and flowed as has the conduct of war across all civilizations, ancient and modern. Islam as an independent military force has been in recession since 1492, although the latest jihadist’s threat of terror against the international system is, at least in part, a possible reaction to this long recession. Malik’s thesis essentially recognizes this historical pattern; indeed, Malik’s book may be an attempt to reverse this trend. The events of 9/11 may be seen as a validation of Malik’s thesis regarding the spiritual preparation and the use of terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were intended to seed “respect” (fear) in the minds of Islam’s enemies. These acts were not only directed at Western non-believers, but also the Muslim leaders who “profess the faith but are treacherous in their hearts” (allies and supporters of the United States). The barbarity of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others in Iraq reflect a focus on extreme terror designed to wilt the will of Islam’s enemies.
Malik and Brohi both emphasize the defensive nature of jihad in Islam, but this position appears to be more a defense of a manifest destiny inevitably resulting in conflict. In their rendering of jihad both, not surprisingly, owe an intellectual debt to the Pakistani Islamist theorist, Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi. Al-Mawdudi is an important intellectual precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, and other modern Islamic revivalists. As al-Mawdudi notes, “Islamic jihad is both offensive and defensive” oriented on liberating man from humanistic tyranny.66
The author’s most controversial and, perhaps, most noteworthy assertion, is the distinction of “terror” as an ends rather than as a means to an end. The soul can only be touched by terror. Malik’s divine principal of war may be summarized in the dictum “strike terror; never feel terror.” Yet, he does not describe any specific method of delivering terror into the heart of Islam’s enemies. His view of terror seems to conflict with his earlier, limited, discussion of the concept of restraint in warfare and what actually
constitutes “excesses” on the part of an enemy. It also conflicts with the character and nature of response that the author says is demanded. Malik leaves many of these pertinent issues undefined under a veneer of legitimating theory.
In spite of certain ambiguities and theoretical weaknesses, this work should be studied and valued for its insight and analysis relate to jihadists’ concepts and the asymmetric approach to war that radical Muslims may adapt and execute. With respect to global jihad terrorism, as the events of 9/11 so vividly demonstrated, there are those who believe and will exercise the tenets of The Quranic Concept of War.
1. Brigadier S. K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of War (Lahore, Pakistan: Associated Printers, 1979). Quranic War or Quranic Warfare refers to Malik’s treatment in his book.
2. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 64.
3. R. D. Hooker, “Beyond Vom Kriege: The Character and Conduct of Modern War,” Parameters, 35 (Summer 2005), 4.
4. Paul Sperry, “The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo,” FrontPage Magazine, 14 December 2005, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20539.
5. Antulio Echevarria, Towards an American Way of War (Carlisle, Pa.: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004).
6. Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project,’” FrontPage Magazine, 11 May 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415.
7. Farhand Rajaee, Islamic Values and World View: Khomeyni on Man the State and International Politics,” (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1983), p 71.
8. Irfan Yusuf, “Theories on Islamic Books You Wouldn’t Read About,” Canberra Times, 21 July 2005, http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&category=editorial%20 opinion&story_id=410105&y=2005&m=7.
9. Malik, pp. I-ii.
10. Ibid., p. 1.
11. Ibid., pp. I-ii.
12. See for example the discussion by Dr. Mary R. Habeck, “Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism,” The Heritage Foundation, 8 November 2004, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl855.cfm.
13. David Cook, Understanding Jihad, (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2005). There is approximately 1,400 years of jihad scholarship beginning with Mohammed and his military campaigns. Classical approaches to jihad as described by Mohammed’s successors, Abu Bakr for example, and the challenges presented by the struggles of succession to Mohammed.
14. Malik “Forward.”
15. Ibid., “Preface,” p. I.
16. Ibid., p. I. Note the Christian concept of the Trinity contained in the Nicene Creed is considered polytheistic according to Islam. The Trinity is not tawhid.
17. John Esposito, Islam, the Straight Path (3d ed.; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), pp. 12-14, 89.
18. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72; Khadduri, pp. 65, 70-72; Cook, Understanding Jihad, pp. 35-39.
19. Brohi, “Preface,” p. ii.
20. Ibid., p. iii.
21. Ibid., p. iii.
22. Cook, pp. 95-96. Cook places these concepts of jihad doctrine in the lineage of contemporary and radical theory.
23. The indexed term for jihad is redirected to the term “Holy War” in this classic book of Islamic law or sharia by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, ed. and trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville, Md.: Amana Publication, 1997).
24. Malik, “Preface,” p. v.
25. Ibid., p. vii.
26. Cook, p. 107; Christoper Henzel, “The Origins of al Qaeda’s Ideology: Implications for US Strategy,” Parameters, 35 (Spring 2005), 69-80.
27. Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987).
28. Malik, “Preface,” p. x. While in the Western tradition the state is viewed as a territorial and political body, based on “temporal elements such as shared memory, language, race, or the mere choice of its members.” Khomeini rejected this view, seeing the secular, political state and nationalism as Western constructs of imperialistic design to damage the cohesion of the ummah and impede the “advancement of Islam.” Rajaee, pp. 7, 67-71.
29. Ibid., p. x.
30. Khadduri, p. 63.
31. Malik, p. 6.
32. Ibid., p. 20.
33. Ibid., pp. 20-21. (Baqara: 190).
34. Malik, p. 11.
35. Ibid., p. 22. (Baqara: 217) and (Nissaa: 76).
36. Ibid., p. 23.
37. Ibid., p. 29.
38. Malik, p. 29. (Tauba: 7).
39. Ibid., p. 31.
40. Khadduri, p. 212. Jurists disagree on the allowable duration of treaties, the operative concept is that the dar al-Harb must be reduced to dar al-Islam over time.
41. Malik, p. 27.
42. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
43. Khadduri, p. 141.
44. Malik, p. 40
45. Ibid., pp. 37-38. (Baqara: 216).
46. Ibid., pp. 42-44. (Al-I-Imran: 169-70) and (Nissa: 95).
47. Ibid., pp. 42-44.
48. Cook, pp. 77, 124.
49. Malik, p. 49.
50. Ibid., p. 54.
51. Ibid., p. 57.
52. Malik, p. 57.
53. Ibid., p. 57.
54. Ibid., p. 58.
55. Ibid., p. 58.
56. Ibid., pp. 58-59.
57. Ibid., p. 60.
58. Ibid., p. 144.
59. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Weiner Publishers, 1996), pp. 44-51, 128.
60. Malik, p. 3.
61. Ibid., p. 146.
62. Ibid., p.58.
63. “In Hijacker’s Bags, a Call to Planning, Prayer and Death,” Washington Post, 28 September 2001.
64. Malik, “Preface,” p. iii.
65. Four notable examples are the Crimean War where French, British and Ottoman Forces allied against the Russians; Fuad Pasha of the Ottoman Army served as a coalition partner with French Army during the 1860 Rebellion in Syria; more recently Muslim Arab and Kabyle soldiers served in the Harkis of the French Army in the French-Algerian War; and, of course, today in Iraq. Malik would address some of these events as alliances of convenience serving Islam’s interests in accord with the Quran and Sharia Law, others as takfir or treason.
66. Cook, pp. 99-103. Peters, p. 130.
The Reviewer: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph C. Myers is the Senior Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. A graduate of the US Military Academy he holds a Master of Arts from Tulane University. In 2004 he completed a Senior Army Fellowship at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Previous assignments include Army Section Chief, US Military Group, Argentina. He also served as Chief of the South America Division and Senior Military Analyst for Colombia at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror
A post at Jihad Watch--"US Army Colonel: 'The enemy we’re facing in the war on terror, al Qaeda, says they are fighting a jihad against the West to establish the faith of Islam'" ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021075.php )--referred me to this article, which I am reproducing here for partial reference to the post following this one (above this one)-- it's a doozy*. (Note: partially ready--May 28, 2008. Explanation for the post not being 100% complete: I am not a professional blogger. That is, I do not do this for money. Rather, I am an amateur, in the true sense of the term. That is, like the amateur artist, I work for the rewards inherent in the process, not for financial gain.) -Leslie White
This is the religious definition of war as outlined by Malik with explanations from the Quran, and it is “infinitely supreme and effective,” the general wrote.
Because the West does not associate war with the divine, however, Western interpretations of the motivations for jihad are unaccustomed to the general’s Quranic view; the ideas, for example, that “tumult and oppression [of Muslims] are worse than slaughter,” and that because of this, “war must be waged ‘only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.’ ”
As a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst in Colombia now concurrently pursuing a doctorate in public policy at Auburn University in Alabama and a homeland security certificate at Texas A&M University, Myers has a specific interest in the domestic threat presented by terrorism.
He sat down with CQ Homeland Security to discuss one of the main challenges of the global war on terrorism: developing an understanding of the enemy and a military doctrine to manage the threat. He stressed that he spoke in an academic capacity and was not offering the views for the Defense Department.
Q: You have talked about the doctrinal beliefs that have spread from Gen. Malik through various groups, and I think one of the things that I took away from that was there seems to be something of a tangible divide between what people, often in academia and other places, think about how to approach the extremism and what they say the government should be doing. And I think you made some comments to that affect.
A: What I did was give an expose of a book by Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik on the Quranic concept of war that was published in Pakistan in 1979. It is a treatise of the unique Islamic approach and the Islamic view of warfare written by a man who was a serving general in the Pakistani army, so this was a person well-versed in military matters and Western military theory.
The book was forwarded by Zia-Ul-Haq, who was the president, and former chief of staff [of Pakistan] and the advocate general, A. K. Brohi, wrote a 13-page preface that really gave the work the imprimatur of Islamic jurisprudential authority.
The reason I studied this work, once I was able to find it, is because I had heard or had read in an article that nowhere in our military education institutions are we studying the campaigns of the Prophet Mohammed in any similar way that we studied military campaigns that are famous and popular in Western military history. And I know that to be true because I do work in the military professional education system. Generally speaking, I believe that to be true.
So Malik’s treatise is an important contribution to what I think would be called the canon of strategic jihad studies, jihad, the Quranic and Islamic approach to warfare. It’s not widely read in the West, but then you could argue that a lot about Islam and understanding the war-fighting doctrines in Islam are not widely studied in the West, or studied at least professionally. Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror
You asked the question about the divide between, let’s say academia, and a lot of debates over what is the meaning of the threat we’re facing in the war on terror. Who are they? What are their roots? For me professionally, as a military officer, I think our process for doing threat analysis is fairly straightforward. We have our own doctrine for it, it’s called [the] intelligence preparation of the battlefield process. Step three is evaluate the threat. If you go to the army FM [field manual] on the IPB [intelligence preparation of the battlefield] process, it will tell you that the doctrinal assessment of your enemy is based on how your enemy expresses his doctrine to you, based on the way he sees it, says it, writes it, reads it orients on it, and organizes around it. The enemy we’re facing in the war on terror, al Qaeda, says they are fighting a jihad against the West to establish the faith of Islam. Now, if that’s their doctrine, then arguably that is the doctrine that we template, irrespective of whether their interpretation of jihad or their discussion of Islam within the theological community of Muslims is correct or incorrect; that is irrelevant to our discussion and understanding of how the enemy presents his doctrine to us, and it is his doctrine that we template over the terrain.
In the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we templated their military forces over physical ground. In the context of this irregular war or the long war, we have to template this enemy’s doctrine over the human and cultural terrain. That’s when these human, cultural, historical factors will then shape the doctrine and explain to us how it may or may not manifest itself all around the world. And we do say we’re in a global war on terror, so that means not just Afghanistan, not just Iraq, it means right here in the United States.
I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven’t distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine. Because we haven’t done that, we do not have a fully articulated global threat model for the war on terror. We do not have a common analytic paradigm that all our government agencies can access, use and understand, to explain how potential threats, like to homeland security, will manifest themselves from that paradigm. A basic principle of intelligence is to have a model that helps explain the reality of the world or the reality of the phenomena you’re trying to evaluate. We do not have a model, so we’re still failing in that regard in terms of our own structural, analytic, intelligence process, that’s my opinion.
Q: If you could speak to the members of Congress or members of the federal government, is there anything they could do about that situation?
A: As a military officer, I try to think strategically and speak strategically. These are important strategic-first questions that I think we have to answer. If you were to deconstruct, for example, our national security documents on national security strategies, the national military strategic plan for the war on terror . . . and try to define the enemy in the war on terror from those documents, you cannot do it. It is obscure, it is ephemeral. Consequently I think it’s very hard to orient courses of action against an enemy that we have not precisely defined. We have to define the enemy, who and what he is, and generally speaking, in the Cold War we were very clear on that with the Soviet Union, because we knew who they were intellectually, philosophically, we understood Soviet strategic culture, we understood the history of the Soviet Union, and we understood their authoritative published doctrine. And we haven’t published the authoritative doctrine of the enemy in the war on terror. We focus on al Qaeda and violent actors, we focus at the tip of the spear to prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland. We are orienting all our resources, intelligence, homeland defense, against preventing attacks. We have very few resources, in my view, oriented on everything that leads up to the point of attack — the radicalization process. And because we don’t have a model for the war on terror, we don’t fully even understand what that radicalization process looks like. What is the infrastructure of it? Who’s involved in it? What is the ideology undergirding that radicalization process? So we still, I would argue, seven years into the war on terror, have big gaps in our strategic thinking about the fight we’re in. I think those gaps explain some of the challenges we are facing in the prosecution of this war, such as, at least from what I’ve read in media sources, strategic communications programs.
Q: Are we getting the message out in a way that will speak to the moderates in some of these countries?
[A:] Well, part of our problem getting our message out, I think, in terms of strategic communications [is] you have to first understand who you’re communicating with, you’ve got to understand them before you try to communicate yourself to them. And the second component is you have to truly understand yourself. And, arguably, maybe Americans aren’t fully confident in who they are anymore as a people and a nation — again, my personal opinion.
Q: Do you think that academia could do more in scrutinizing the types of issues that you talk about, the real threat, what we’re dealing with — is it even a threat?
A: Well, I don’t want to speak specifically to foreign countries, because that’s not my lane to do that. But obviously academia contributes or should help to contribute to our understanding and conceptualizing the world and the global war on terror. I think that in our military professional education systems we need to do more to orient on enemy threat doctrine and try to understand who the enemy is. I am concerned about foreign influences and foreign funding in our academic programs across the country. Dr. Walid Phares mentioned once that [a high percentage] of our Middle Eastern studies programs are being funded by the Saudis.
Now, I would argue, go back to the Cold War and imagine if 90 percent of our Russian studies programs were being funded by the Soviets. I mean, there’s potential implications in terms of strategic influence that I think needs better scrutiny.
Q: And in your opinion, then, why was there so much more of a concentrated focus on the Soviet Union back in the ’50s and ’60s, not just within the military and realms of government but within the universities?
A: There was a real focus on Soviet studies, and I think you raise a very important question and an important contrast with the Cold War and the war we’re in today. One, I think there was a consensus on the nature of the threat we were facing in the Cold War. The paradigmatic doctrine for the Cold War was produced in a Democratic administration of [Harry S] Truman. And that doctrine carried forward post-World War II, and it took five years for our national security establishment to really come to grips and come to consensus on the Soviet Union in the post-World War II era. And that was promulgated in NSC-68 that drove American foreign policy and American strategic thinking for maybe 30 years until the Berlin Wall fell. We have yet to come to a strategic consensus on the nature of the war we’re in. We do not have what I would call policy consensus on it, and in fact, fundamentally, we haven’t even gone through the strategic doctrinal analysis of the enemy. We’re really not at step one. We’re basically engaged in a lot of ancillary activities, we have a lot of motion but the motion is not being directed in my view, my personal opinion, to clear objectives. You have to objectively understand the enemy. And if that enemy is an ideology then you have to be able to understand how that ideology plays out globally, and we have said we’re in a global war.
"Muslims are thus like the impoverished noble families who are unable to adapt to changed circumstances and are constantly reminding themselves of past glories. The inability to achieve the “top dog” position which Muslims believe they deserve leads to humiliation. A feeling of humiliation leads to rage against the infidel whom they were taught to despise and distrust." --Ohmyrus
When the twin towers came crashing down, many Muslims believed that it was the work of Mossad or the CIA and that Jews were absent that day. During the Asian Financial Crisis, Dr Mahathir Mohammed, then Prime Minister of Malaysia told his people that it was the Jews that were behind it. Nigerian mothers (who are Muslims) refused to allow their children to be vaccinated because they believed that the Americans were trying to harm them with contaminated vaccine. The cartoon, Tom & Jerry was invented by the Jews because people equated them to rats and they want to change the image of rats into something cute.
All these conspiracy theories are crazy. Yet millions of Muslims believe them. We tend to be mildly amused and ignore them without asking why they find it easy to believe these conspiracy theories which we know to be absurd. Yet a close inquiry into this will yield a mother lode of information into the workings and the world view of Muslim minds. So why then do so many Muslims believe absurd theories?
Firstly, Islam encourages mistrust of the infidel. Here are some Koranic verses concerning what Islam says about unbelievers (1, 2 ):
Koran 3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
Koran 4:144 O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?
(2)Koran 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
From this it can be seen that infidels (i.e. unbelievers) are out to do the Muslim in. The infidels hate Muslims and Muslims are discouraged from befriending them.
It says so in the Koran. So it must be true. If from young, you have this sort of attitude towards non-Muslims, then you are going to find conspiracy theories about infidels plotting the destruction of Muslims to be believable. No wonder they become paranoid.
Secondly, Islam has given Muslims an over-inflated self image that cannot square with reality. In the Muslim world-view, Islam is the perfect religion and Muslims are therefore the best nation charged with leading the world. Take a look at this verse from the Koran (3):
Koran 3:110 You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.
I will talk more about this later. While Muslims are supposed to be the best, it of course follows that non-Muslims are less than best. Koran 9:28 reads (4):
O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
This view is echoed by Ayatollah Sistani whom the US hopes (fat hope) will be a moderate force in Iraq . See his website (5). According to Ayatollah Sistani, kafirs (another name for unbelievers) are dirty and in the same category with urine and feces.
But am I cherry-picking some verses from the Koran just to prove my point? Do Muslims really teach their young to despise and distrust the infidels? Wafa Sultan grew up in Syria . This is what she said (6):
“Until I came to United States I used to believe that Jewish people are not human creatures,” she says. “Unfortunately this is the way I was brought up, to believe that Jews don’t have our human features, they don’t have our human voices.”
In the first week she was in the United States she and her husband went to a shoe shop in Hollywood . Her husband asked the clerk where he was from and when he said that he was an Israeli Jew, “you can’t believe what I did”, she says. “I ran away without shoes, barefoot. My husband followed me. He said, ‘How stupid you are.’ But I said, ‘I cannot tolerate him.’ I was scared to death because he was from Israel ; I reacted in a very bad, negative way, because of the way I had been raised, for the past 30 years of my life.”
She was so afraid of the Jew that she ran away without her shoes on! This is the kind of upbringing that Muslim kids in that part of the world are getting from their parents and teachers.
Coming back to the issue of Muslim superiority, you can see that this notion is also reflected in the Islamic Human Rights Declaration (7). This is in stark contrast with the Universal Declaration of Human right which assumes that all cultures and religions are equal. The first paragraph of the Islamic Human rights declaration reads:
“Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.” What a pompous statement. Muslims want to see themselves as the best nation whose role is to guide a supposedly confused humanity that is plagued with problems and lead them to the wonderful Islamic civilization. But unfortunately for Muslims, the hype cannot live up with reality.
In truth, Muslims are amongst the poorest, most backwards people on the earth. This is acknowledged by Pakistan 's President Pervez Musharraf. (5)Far from solving humanity's problems, Muslims are themselves mired in problems and often living in dysfunctional societies. Not only are they mired in their problems but they also create problems for others.
Falling behind supposedly inferior infidels has created a deep sense of humiliation. This is worsened by the fact that they have an idealized picture of their own past when Islam was once a superpower with an empire stretching from Spain to India . European school children are taught to be ashamed of their countries' imperialistic past. But Muslim kids in the Middle East at least are taught of the conquests of the Arab armies as something more than glorious. The conquests are also seen as part of Allah's will.
Muslims are thus like the impoverished noble families who are unable to adapt to changed circumstances and are constantly reminding themselves of past glories. The inability to achieve the “top dog” position which Muslims believe they deserve leads to humiliation. A feeling of humiliation leads to rage against the infidel whom they were taught to despise and distrust.
It makes even the most ridiculous conspiracy theories believable. Nobody wants to believe that failures are their own fault. It must be the work of the no-good filthy infidels (especially Jews) whom the Koran says hate and out to ruin Muslims. People with low self-esteem often blame others for their failures. Rather than blame their own incompetence, paranoid people shift the blame on some enemy.
Minds filled with humiliation, hate, anger and distrust are thus the roots of Muslim paranoia. These roots find rich nourishment on Islamic soil.
— In the history of the nations, Islam, a secretion of the Arab brain, has never been an element of civilization, but on the contrary has acted as an extinguisher upon its flickering light. Individuals under Arab rule have only been able to contribute to the advance of civilization in so far as they did not conform to Muslim dogma, but they relapsed into Arab barbarism as soon as they were obliged to make a complete submission to these dogmas.--Andre Servier, The Mind of the Musulman