Islam’s War Doctrines Ignored
by Raymond Ibrahim - MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard)
At the recent inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), presenter Ltc. Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration: that, though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine — such as Clausewitz’s On War, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch — Islamic war doctrine, which is just as, if not more, textually grounded, is totally ignored.
As recent as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.”
This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) are still studied, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s much changed landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Whatever validity this argument may have, it certainly cannot be applied to Islam’s doctrines of war; by having a “theological” quality, that is, by being grounded in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are thus believed to be immutable, Islam’s war doctrines are considered applicable today no less than yesterday. So while one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the same cannot be said of Islam, particularly the exploits and stratagems of its prophet Muhammad — his “war sunna” — which still serve as an example to modern day jihadists.
For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s 7th century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15:4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or hudna, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.
Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of taqiyya, which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage” (The Al Qaeda Reader, 142).
Aside from ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling is the fact that the Defense Department does not seem to appreciate Islam’s more “eternal” doctrines — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which in essence maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.
Yet despite all these problematic — but revealing — doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and time again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, apparently the senior governmental leaders charged with defending America do not.
Why? Because the “Whisperers” — Walid Phares’ all-too-apt epithet for many Middle East/Islamic scholars, or, more appropriately, apologists — have made anathema anyone who dares imply that there may be some sort of connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamist terrorism, such as in the recent Steven Coughlin debacle. This is a long and well known tale for those in the field (see Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: the Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America).
But consider for a moment: though there are today many Middle East studies departments, one will be sorely pressed to find any courses dealing with the most pivotal and relevant topics of today — such as Islamic jurisprudence and what it has to say about jihad or the concept of Abode of Islam versus the Abode of War — no doubt due to the fact that these topics possess troubling international implications and are best buried. Instead, the would-be student will be inundated with courses dealing with the evils of “Orientalism” and colonialism, gender studies, and civil society.
The greater irony — when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound — is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it had adopted the recommendations of a memo stating that the government should not call al Qaeda-type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahidin,” or to incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).
Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare — Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “Know thy enemy” — the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Ahhhh….just dreaming of a world without Islam…heaven on earth…
June 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pmThis article is so true.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pmI have worked with Islamists who moved to the US.
Its Islam or nothing. These people want all Non-Islamists dead or converted there is no alternative. None.
Don’t worry! Hussein will talk to these Muslim warriors and they will soon turn in their swords for campfire sticks so they can all sit a round the fire, roast marshmellows and sing Kumby(obam)a!
June 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pmIt would seem, today, that the west has to choose between surrender to Islam and the complete and utter demolition of all Islam following people. If their so called religion preaches that they must war until we are subjugated then we must give them war to the end. We are a free people. They are slaves. We will kill them all.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:28 pmEffeminate liberal ideals and moral relativism is half the problem here, it doesn’t take rocket science for the other half to name the enemy and to acknowledge direct links to Islamic “holy war”. It’s an effing no-brainer..
The reason Alexander (Eskandar - Persian) and the Crusades are often still discussed in Islamic states and feared, is because both Persia and later Islam had their asses wooped big time. Humiliating defeats rarely age in Islamic states. As far as I’m aware there is no historical evidence to the contrary to prove that peaceful dialogue and activism has remotely thwarted Jihad - ever. In fact the opposite is true, history shows us appeasing Islam has always advanced and emboldened its cause. Ya hear me Jimmah, Congress???
For example, there is no way Ghandi could have overthrown an Islamic stronghold as he did in a declining Commonwealth India. His carcass would have been strung up and pelted with stones and his head then paraded through streets long before any uprising could occur.
The biggest lesson History teaches us is to not ignore it..
June 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm“For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s 7th century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15:4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or hudna, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.”
Just ask Israel …
We are FAILING to recognize and, worse, understand we are NOT dealing with a ‘civilization’ … but with several groups of ‘tribes’ that have NO designated ‘homeland’, as it has ALWAYS changed hands from victorious and ruling tribes age after age … and if they weren’t fighting with us, they would be fighting with each other.
When I hear ‘civil war’ over in that region I think, ‘Hmm, good … they can do worse to each other, quicker and with NO politics than we could … and we don’t particularly have a favorite side …’
June 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pmThe Crusades weren’t even discussed in Islam until the 1920 founding of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Crusdsader medacity in Islam today is a result of the Orientalist propaganda of Quutab and Said and useful idiots like Bernard Lewis.
Islamic studies in America are dominated by the jihadi progeny of Quutab and Said. There is no practical way to study Islamic military doctrine or philosophy unless you do the study on your own.
As to treaties, in the west, Pacta Sunt Servanda — the principle that “Treaties Are to Be Obeyed” applies.
In Islam, treaties are all Al-Hudaibiyya. Learn about it.
Great article. Good book too. Get a copy.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:31 pmDrill and Dan you are both spot on.
This is an insightful article, my greater concern is that most libtards will never realize or as Dan says make the effort to study even the fundamentals of Muhammadan doctrine and specifically its strong references to warfare and defeating the infidel at all costs - to progress Islam.
They’re either too afraid to, or apathetic; and already convinced by a msm and liberal intelligentsia/revisionist in academia that the West is the cause of every ill in existence today.
Deception, stonewalling critical analysis of Islam are all tools to advance this death cult, and play an integral role in military warfare and in the type of social engineering plaguing Europe and the UK today. The war fronts are several.
In the years leading to the fall of Constantinople, Islamic scholars flooded the region and neighboring countries with false promises of peace and wealth in order to win confidence. What transpired was bloodshed, outright misery and slavery for the next 450yrs. That is all this cult brings with it, always has and always will, Islam’s teachings demand nothing less or more for infidels.
Pacifist Buddhist monks in Sth East Asia are experiencing a deadly pogrom of late, Christians in the Philippines have been fighting Islamic extremism for well over a century, Islam is now extending its deadly network into Latin America, spineless Europeans who neglect their own history and past with Islam are bending to its will everyday; on and on and on.. There is no mistaking Islam’s malevolent ambitions as real and global.
The sooner we all understand the threat and nature of this enemy the better equipped we’ll all be in defeating it.
Of course we can always blow the fuckers of the face of this Earth, which is where it’s heading anyway..
June 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm“Of course we can always blow the fuckers of the face of this Earth, which is where it’s heading anyway..”
Before we come to the realization that this is what has to be done, how many innocents will be slaughtered?
Catapults>hijacked airplanes>nukes
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 amA freaking moon cult?
Every time I think about it I just can’t believe it.
Why do the elites think they can talk to these ass backward apes about anything?
Nevermind
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 amStorm 0311
@ NC Steve,
How many innocents have been slaughtered the last 1400yrs to Islamic overlords to date, or are you asking how many face being slaughtered in the event of tactical nuclear strikes by the West, or until mushroom clouds start rising all over the place? Way too many innocent lives sadly..
In any event if we were to use the argument of parity that Islamist often cite for jihad against the West .. then we have a lot catching up to do i.e. in order to square the ledger and equally meet the extent of the destruction committed in the name of Mohamed (over the last millennium plus).
If we were to use their shallow reasoning, a ball park figure of maybe 6-700 million muslims need to be vaporized. However that’s way extreme and irrational.. a couple of well positioned nuclear strikes on choice Islamic landmarks/symbols might suffice and be enough to shake some sense into them..
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 amUh, Dan;
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 am“Good book too. Get a copy.”
What one would that be?
@Brian H:
The Al Queda Reader. It is pictured above. Raymond Ibrahaim is a brilliant Islamic scholar.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am> RC
The only history relevant to many is what has occured during their personal lives.
The next wave of attacks will likely be by true WMD’s, and at that time decisions will have to be made. I would hope it would be for a final solution.
Until then we talk with the savages pretending words a paper will bring them to reason.
……
(This article and the following posts mixed in are what makes this site so addictive.)
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:07 amI agree Steve, WMD’s are an imminent and very real threat to us all and ultimately Islam risks being demoted alongside other failed religions of the past by even entertaining their use. Here’s hoping for a final solution too.
I think one element not often discussed or understood about Islam is that its history and teachings are considered sentient by its followers. What I mean by that is, is that events that occurred even as far back as a millennium ago, muslims feel they could have happened just yesterday or last week. Although we in the modern west rely on personal experience to “rationalize” Islam in the present, their end game hasn’t changed one iota from its beginnings. It’s more than holding old grudges, it’s living old grudges every day - they truly believe seeking retribution against unbelievers is a moral duty (the highest honor). There was method in Mohamed’s madness to forever keep his followers in a 7th century state of militant observance. The mere stating that the Koran is the literal word of God and cannot be altered guarantees his savage legacy to continue.
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 am