You are on page 1of 13

AN ANALYSIS OF AL-QA’IDA’S WORLDVIEW: RECIPROCAL TREATMENT OR

RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION
Raymond Ibrahim*

By analyzing what al-Qa’ida preaches to Muslims regarding Islam’s relationship to the non-Muslim
world at large, and what it states to the West are its reasons for battling it, this essay seeks to
highlight the many disparities behind al-Qa’ida’s words. Juxtaposed in themes, the following
excerpts are all derived from Usama bin Ladin’s and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s writings and speeches as
found in The Al Qa’ida Reader. 1

Is al-Qa’ida waging war on the United After September 11, when several more
States--issuing a fatwa to “kill the Americans terrorist acts were committed around the
and seize their money” 2 (p. 13)in retaliation to world, targeting mostly Europeans, bin Ladin
U.S. oppression, or is this animosity founded declared:
on something else? Is it mere reciprocity or is
it a religion-based ideology? Talking to the The events that have taken place since the
West, al-Qa’ida insists it is reciprocal attacks on Washington and New York
treatment; talking to fellow Muslims it insists [September 11]----such as the killing of
that Islam demands this animosity. Consider Germans in Tunisia, the French in Karachi,
the following discrepancies: the bombing of the giant French tanker in
When addressing the United States, bin Yemen, the killing of marines in Failaka, of
Ladin writes in response to the rhetorical British and Australians in the Bali
question “Why we [al-Qa’ida] are fighting explosions, the recent operation in
you,” “[b]ecause you attacked us and continue Moscow, and various other sporadic
to attack us.” (p. 197) In fact, reciprocal operations 3 --are all reactions of reciprocity,
treatment has been al-Qa’ida’s sole carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in
justification for all the terrorist acts it has defense of their faith and in response to the
perpetrated against the West. The West attacks order of their Lord and Prophet. [p. 231]
Muslims----for oil, Israel, land, or “Crusader”
hatred----and al-Qa’ida retaliates on behalf of After the bombings in Madrid, where 191
Muslims. people were killed and 1460 injured, bin
Even the September 11 strikes are Ladin again addressed the Europeans:
rationalized as mere acts of reciprocity. After
describing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in There is a lesson [to be learned] regarding
1982, where a massive bombing campaign what happens in occupied Palestine and
leveled several high-rise apartment buildings what happened on September 11 and
and left thousands of Arabs dead, bin Ladin March 11 [Madrid train bombings, killing
said, “[A]s I looked upon those crumbling 191 and injuring 1,460]: These are your
towers in Lebanon, I was struck by the idea of goods returned to you. It is well understood
punishing the oppressor in kind by destroying that security is a vital necessity for all of
towers in America----giving them a taste of mankind--though we do not agree that you
their own medicine and deterring them from should monopolize it for yourself. [p. 234]
murdering our women and children.” (p. 215)

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 1
Raymond Ibrahim

After the July 2004 London bombings,


Zawahiri addressed the citizens of the United Islam, or “submission” to Allah, is the
Kingdom thus: “I speak to you today about the ultimate form of justice, the Islamists argue;
blessed raid 4 on London that… made it take a everything else, depending on how far it
sip from the same glass from which it had long deviates from Shari’a is oppression, injustice,
made the Muslims drink…. So taste some of and corruption. To be sure, under Shari’a,
what you have made us taste.” (p. 238) Muslims are to defend themselves against
There is no question, then, that al-Qa’ida’s infidel aggression--to wage a “Defensive
defense for committing all these acts of Jihad” as al-Qa’ida claims to be doing. Indeed,
terrorism is that it is merely, as bin Ladin puts most of Shari’a’s divine guidelines concerning
it, returning the West’s “goods”--that is, jihad have to do with the legitimacy and
“terrorism”--back to itself. Such a defense is obligation of waging Offensive Jihad, simply
plausible--provided, of course, that the West is to gain territory and lord over infidels; how
guilty of initiating the terror. Under this necessary is Defensive Jihad, then, when there
interpretation, al-Qa’ida gouges the West’s is a need to repulse the infidel from Islamic
eye since the West first gouged Islam’s eye. lands? 5
Moreover, this defense is ultimately rooted However, Shari’a has other notions--
in the “universal” concept of justice. Most equally binding according to Islamists like
people around the world, irrespective of those who make up its leadership--that do not
religion or race, understand the concept of comport so well with al-Qa’ida’s claim that all
crime and punishment. And the Torah’s “eye this terrorism is simply due to Western
for an eye” injunction has been the standard aggression and Muslim retaliation. In other
for many people--no doubt due to its words, under Shari’a law, even if the West
primordial, and thus universal, sensibilities. completely ceased all its hostilities, real or
Yet even though al-Qa’ida implies that it is imagined, against the Islamic world, total
acting under some sort of “universal law” that peace would still not commence. Under
both Muslims and non-Muslims can Shari’a, permanent peace can only commence
appreciate, that is not fully true. For Muslims when the entire world either embraces or at
there is only one particular set of laws that are the very least is governed by Islam. 6
to be adhered to--Shari’a --and even if Shari’a Discussing the need to overthrow those
contradicts something that non-Muslims Muslim “apostate” governments that do not
consider a “universal right”--such as equality-- rule in accordance to Shari’a, bin Ladin,
still, Shari’a must have the final word. addressing Americans, says: “The removal of
When a group of Muslim scholars wrote to these governments is an obligation upon us,
the Americans saying that there should be and a necessary step to free the Islamic umma
equality, justice, and freedom, between the [community], make Shari’a law supreme, and
West and Islam, bin Ladin had this to say regain Palestine. Our fight against these
about it: governments is one with our fight against
you.” (p. 199)
[The Muslims’ declaration] came
supporting the United Nations and their Ayman al-Zawahiri similarly exhorts
humanistic articles, which revolve around Muslims:
three principles: equality, freedom, and
We also extend our hands to every Muslim
justice. Nor do they mean equality,
zealous over making Islam triumph till they
freedom, and justice as was revealed by the
join us in a course of action to save the
Prophet Muhammad [Shari’a]. No, they
umma from its painful reality. [This course
mean the West’s despicable notions, which
of action] consists of staying clear of
we see today in America and Europe, and
idolatrous tyrants, warfare against infidels,
which have made the people like cattle. [p.
loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the
26]
path of Allah. Such is a course of action

2 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

that all who are vigilant for the triumph of charity--this is the equity that Allah loves and
Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing has commanded us with [p. 42],” bin Ladin
in the cause of liberating the lands of the was quick to clarify what true justice is:
Muslims, making Islam supreme in its
[own] land, and then spreading it around As to the relationship between Muslims
the world. [p. 113] and infidels, this is summarized by the
Most High’s Word: “You have a good
That last sentence--“making Islam supreme example in Abraham and those with him.
in its [own] land, and then spreading it around They said to their people: ‘We disown you
the world”--raises questions regarding al- and what you worship besides Allah. We
Qa’ida’s statements to the West, the renounce you. Enmity and hate shall
fundamental one being: Even if all of the forever reign between us--till you believe
West’s perceived or real hostilities vis-à-vis in Allah alone’ ” [Koran 60:4]. So there is
the Islamic world were to cease, would Islam an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility,
then be at peace with the outside world? and an internal hate from the heart. And
Concerning this question, bin Ladin has this fierce hostility--that is, battle--ceases
been forthright--though only when speaking to only if the infidel submits to the authority
fellow Muslims. “Moderate Islam is a of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from
Prostration to the West” (p. 17-61)--the most being shed [a dhimmi], 9 or if the Muslims
revealing and straightforward document are [at that point in time] weak and
produced by al-Qa’ida--puts its vision of incapable [of spreading Shari’a law to the
Islam’s relationship with the rest of the world world]. But if the hate at any time
in clear context. extinguishes from the hearts, this is great
In this essay, Muslims (in the guise of apostasy; the one who does this
Saudi intellectuals who, in response to a letter [extinguishes the hate from his heart] will
of cooperation 7 written by Americans, stand excuseless before Allah. Allah
responded with their own letter 8 ) are chastised Almighty’s Word to His Prophet recounts
for even daring to want to coexist with the in summation the true relationship: “O
infidel West. Bin Ladin makes clear that the Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and
animosity between the Muslim and the infidel- hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is
-which should always be “directed from the hell--an evil fate!” [Koran 9:73]. Such,
Muslim to the infidel” (p. 43)--far transcends then, is the basis and foundation of the
any talk of grievances. relationship between the infidel and the
Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred--
UNIVERSAL JUSTICE VS. SHARI’A directed from the Muslim to the infidel--is
JUSTICE the foundation of our religion. And we
consider this a justice and kindness to
Here, the concept of “universal justice,” them. The West perceives fighting, enmity,
which al-Qa’ida constantly makes appeals to and hatred all for the sake of the religion as
in its messages to the West, is ridiculed with unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s
contempt. For example, when writing to the understanding is right--our notions of
Europeans bin Ladin said: “I call upon just justice and righteousness, or theirs? [p. 43]
men--especially ulama [scholars], media, and
businessmen--to form a permanent The Saudi intellectuals had tried to clarify
commission to enlighten the European peoples to the West that all peoples--irrespective of
of the justice of our causes, particularly religion--were entitled to justice and should
Palestine.” (p. 235) never be oppressed: “Justice between
Yet when the Saudi intellectuals wrote, people is their right, while oppression
“the heart of the relationship between Muslims between them is forbidden--no matter what
and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and their religion, color, or nationality is” [p.

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 3
Raymond Ibrahim

44]. When addressing and accusing the The cause of the reaction must be
West, al-Qa’ida has relied on similar sought and the act that has triggered
language. Writing to the Americans bin this reaction must be eliminated.
Ladin, implying that he shares universal The reaction came as a result of the
notions of justice and injustice, U.S.’ aggressive policy towards the
sarcastically asked, “How many acts of entire Muslim world and not just
oppression, tyranny and injustice have you towards the Arabian Peninsula. So
carried out, O you ‘callers to freedom?’” if the cause that has called for this
(p. 204) act comes to an end, this act, in
turn, will come to an end. So, the
Yet writing to the Saudis, bin Ladin Defensive Jihad against the U.S.
clarifies al-Qa’ida’s true notions of oppression does not stop with its withdrawal
and injustice: from the Arabian Peninsula, but
rather it must desist from aggressive
As for the word “oppression,” those intervention against Muslims in the
addressed [Americans] take it to mean whole world. 10
being placed under the authority of Islam
by the sword, as the Prophet did with the However, bin Ladin’s ultimate motives
infidels. They think that something that became apparent after the Saudi intellectuals
denies them [the freedom] to pursue wrote: “Thus we say in all earnestness and
obscenities, atheism and blasphemy, and plainly that we can open a mature dialogue
idolatry is an “oppression.” They think that around every issue that the West submits, ever
an attack launched against their ground, as cognizant that we share a number of
in an Offensive Jihad, is an “injustice.” understandings, moral values, rights, and ideas
And so forth. Then come the [intellectuals] with the West, which, if fostered, can create a
declaring that justice is a right while better [world] for all concerned” (p. 37)
oppression is forbidden. If they mean To this “blasphemy,” bin Ladin wrote
justice and oppression, as understood by extensively:
those addressed… then this is a great Regarding which shared
calamity, and a blasphemous understandings, exactly, is it possible
conversation…. As for oppression, the only that we agree with the immoral
oppression is to forsake them in their West?... What commonalities, if our
infidelity, and not use jihad as a means to foundations contradict, rendering
make them enter into the faith--as the useless the shared extremities--if they
Prophet did with them. [pp. 45-46] even exist? For practically everything
valued by the immoral West is
UNIVERSAL COMMONALITIES condemned under sharia law…. [T]he
VS. OFFENSIVE JIHAD issues most prominent in the West
revolve around secularism,
In fact, Offensive Jihad, something about homosexuality, sexuality, and atheism
which al-Qa’ida dissembles vis-à-vis the [p. 37]…. As for this atmosphere of
West, figures prominently in bin Ladin’s shared understandings, what evidence
diatribe to the Saudi intellectuals. In 1997, a is there for Muslims to strive for this?
direct question was asked of bin Ladin by a What did the Prophet, the Companions
Westerner: “Mr. bin Ladin, will the end of the after him, and the righteous forebears
United States’ presence in Saudi Arabia, their do? Did they wage jihad against the
withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad infidels, attacking them all over the
against the United States?” Bin Ladin earth, in order to place them under the
responded: suzerainty of Islam in great humility
and submission? Or did they send

4 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

messages to discover “shared and rights” as understood by the masses.


understandings” between themselves No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation.
and the infidels in order that they may [pp. 32-33]
reach an understanding whereby
universal peace, security, and natural FREEDOM VS. TERRORISM
relations would spread--in such a
satanic manner as this? The sharia Al-Qa’ida has maintained that its hostilities
provides a true and just path, securing to the West have absolutely nothing to do with
Muslims, and providing peace to the the latter’s freedoms. Speaking to the
world [p. 31]. Americans, bin Ladin asserted, “From the
start, I tell you that security is an indispensable
Moreover, when the Saudi intellectuals pillar of human life; free men do not
dared write: “It’s imperative that we bid all to underestimate their security--contrary to
legitimate talks, presented to the world, under [President George W.] Bush’s claim that we
the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights, hate freedom. 11 If so, let him explain to us
ushering in legislations creating peace and why we have not attacked Sweden, for
prosperity for the world,” [p. 31] bin Ladin instance.” [p. 214].
lamented: Speaking to the Europeans, bin Ladin tries
to define terrorism: “[W]e inform you that
Surely there is no power save through your description of us as ‘terrorists’ and our
Allah alone! We never thought that such actions as ‘terrorism’ necessarily means that
words would ever appear from those who you and your actions must be defined
consider themselves adherents of this likewise. Our actions are merely reactions to
religion. Such expressions, and more like yours....” (p. 234)
them, would lead the reader to believe that Finally, bin Ladin makes it quite clear that
those who wrote them are Western terrorism is used only in reciprocity since al-
intellectuals, not Muslims! Those previous Qa’ida has no other choice: “Shall a man be
expressions are true only by tearing down blamed for protecting his own? Self-defense
the wall of enmity from the infidels. They and punishing the wicked in kind--are these
are also expressions true only by rejecting shameful [acts of] ‘terrorism’? And even if it
jihad--especially Offensive Jihad. The is, we have no other option.” (p. 216)
problem, however, is that Offensive Jihad Taken together, all these messages assert
is an established and basic tenet of this that the terror al-Qa’ida inflicts upon the West
religion. It is a religious duty rejected only has nothing to do with Western freedoms and
by the most deluded. So how can they call everything to do with reciprocal treatment.
off this religious obligation [Offensive Moreover, by stating “we have no other
Jihad], while imploring the West to option” than to engage in acts of terrorism, bin
understandings and talks “under the Ladin clearly implies that terrorism is being
umbrella of justice, morality, and rights”? relied upon as a last resort out of desperation.
The essence of all this comes from right Thus al-Qa’ida maintains that there is no
inside the halls of the United Nations, correlation between Western freedoms and
instead of the Divine foundations that are Islamic terrorism--that the latter is never used
built upon hating the infidels, repudiating simply to suppress the former.
them with tongue and teeth till they This is not the case when addressing the
embrace Islam or pay the jizya [tribute] Saudis. After they wrote to the Americans
with willing submission and humility…. saying that Islam does not allow coercion in
Muslims, and especially the learned among matters of religion, bin Ladin, once again,
them, should spread sharia law to the revealed his true beliefs and ultimate goals.
world--that and nothing else. Not laws The Saudi intellectuals had declared, “It is not
under the “umbrella of justice, morality, permitted to coerce anyone regarding his

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 5
Raymond Ibrahim

religion. Allah Most High said: ‘There is no him, no matter what his color, race, or
compulsion in religion’ [Koran 2:256]. Thus religion.” Bin Ladin, after mocking their
Islam itself does not comport with coercion.” language for its “UN” tone, wrote extensively:
(p. 40) After explaining that this verse has to
do with matters of the heart and not Islam’s Now, then, how can you speak about Allah
destiny to rule the whole world, 12 bin Ladin without knowledge? Who told you that
quotes the Hadith: transgression against man is impermissible-
-if he is an infidel? What about Offensive
Whenever the Messenger of Allah Jihad? Allah Exalted, the Most High, said:
appointed someone as leader of an “Fight them! Allah will torment them with
army or detachment, he would your hands”…. [Koran 9:14] Indeed, these
especially exhort him to fear Allah and expressions of yours are built upon the
be good to the Muslims with him. principle of equality, as found in the
Then he would say: “Attack in the charters of the United Nations, which do
name of Allah and in the path of Allah not distinguish [among] people, neither by
do battle with whoever rejects Allah. way of religion nor race nor sex. Islam
Attack!... If you happen upon your improves; it is not improved…. [p. 38]
idolatrous enemies, call them to three Furthermore, how can they [intellectuals]
courses of action. If they respond to claim that we have no right to force a
any one of these, accept it and stay people to change its particular values, when
yourself from them. [1] Call them to they transgress the bounds of nature? Such
Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to
accept this and cease fighting them….. raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them,
[2] If they refuse to accept Islam, and exchange their systems of governance
demand of them the jizya: If they for an Islamic system, barring any practice
respond, accept it and cease fighting that contradicts the sharia from being
them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the publicly voiced among the people, as was
aid of Allah and fight them.” Thus our the case at the dawn of Islam….[p. 50]
talks with the infidel West and our Thus they make claims and speak about
conflict with them ultimately revolve Allah without understanding. They say that
around one issue--one that demands our sharia does not impose our particular
our total support, with power and beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion.
determination, with one voice--and it For it is, in fact, part of our religion to
is: Does Islam, or does it not, force impose our particular beliefs upon others.
people by the power of the sword to Whoever doubts this, let him turn to the
submit to its authority corporeally if deeds of the Companions when they raided
not spiritually? Yes. There are only the lands of the Christians and Omar
three choices in Islam: either willing imposed upon them the conditions of
submission; or payment of the jizya, dhimmi[tude]. These conditions involve
through physical though not spiritual, clothing attire, specific situations, and class
submission to the authority of Islam; or distinctions known to ulama as the pact of
the sword--for it is not right to let him Omar, 13 and they are notoriously famous.
[an infidel] live. The matter is summed Let the signatories review them so they
up for every person alive: Either know that we are to force people by the
submit, or live under the suzerainty of power of the sword to [our] particular
Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42] understandings, customs, and conditions,
all in order to induce debasement and
When the Saudi intellectuals wrote: “Man, humility, just like Allah commanded when
from his very make-up, is a sacred creation. he said: “[…]until they pay the jizya by
Thus it is impermissible to transgress against hand, in complete submission and

6 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

humility.” [Koran 9:29] Now, if you are transcends any and all notions of “universal
incapable of jihad and placing people into justice” and claims to grievances. However,
the religion, like the Companions did, your there are two more notable contradictions
impotence does not mean that it is not a between what they say to the West and what
legitimate aspect of the religion. [p. 51] they affirm to Muslims. Consider the
following disparities:
As for direct support for terrorism, bin Ladin
again refers to the Koran: TRUCE VS. TAQIYYA

“Muster against them [infidels] what On two separate occasions, al-Qa’ida, in


fighting-men and steeds of war you can, in the person of bin Ladin, has offered the West a
order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah truce. In April of 2002, bin Ladin offered
and your enemy, and others besides them European nations an apparently long-lasting
whom you do not know, but Allah knows truce: “I therefore offer them this peace treaty
well.” [Koran 8:60] Thus whoever refuses [mudabarat sulh], which essentially is a
the principle of terror[ism] against the commitment to cease operations against every
enemy also refuses the commandment of country that pledges not to attack Muslims or
Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His interfere in their business--including the
sharia. The West prepares to defend itself American conspiracy against the greater
in face of this extremist verse. [p. 54] Islamic world…. Stop shedding our blood and
thereby save your own.” [p. 235]
The Saudi intellectuals wrote: “Terrorism, In late January 2006, bin Ladin, who had
according to the universally agreed meaning not been heard from for over a year,
being used today, is but one of many resurfaced by way of an audio-tape and
manifestations of unjust aggression against life offered the Americans a truce: “So we have no
and property.” Bin Ladin, outraged, responds: qualms in offering you a long-term truce on
fair conditions that we adhere to. For we are
Behold! Today they are agreed to the the umma that Allah has forbidden from
meaning and definition of “terrorism” as double-crossing and lying.” [p. 224]
acknowledged and agreed to by the However, while Islam does permit the
Americans, that is, “unjust aggression making of truces with infidels, it only allows
against life and property.” And such this under certain conditions--namely, when
acknowledgment by necessity must apply Muslims are in a weakened position and
to and include the Prophet who assaulted unable to wage an Offensive Jihad
the lives, properties, and women of the effectively. 15 In “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the
infidels, who were living in secure and Killing of Innocents,” Ayman Zawahiri
settled cities. As did his Companions after declares:
him. Such aggression, as understood by the
West, is not justified; nor does such Whenever they are able… believers are to
hostility agree with the Western notion of enjoin good and forbid evil [i.e. enforce
“freedom of religion.” Thus our Prophet Shari’a law]--which, by nature, is [waging
and his Companions and the righteous Offensive] Jihad in the path of Allah and
forefathers have all now become spreading the call to [conversion to the
“terrorists.” 14 [p. 58] religion of] the Most High: “Those whom
we have given mastery over the earth
Taken together, the above three sections all uphold prayers, render alms, enjoin good
demonstrate that for al-Qa’ida, hostility and and forbid evil; Allah controls the destiny
violence towards the West is not merely of all things” [Koran 22:41]…. Therefore if
“reciprocal treatment”--that is, “an eye for an believers are weak, they are to wage jihad
eye”--but rather religious obligation that far with their hearts and tongues; if they are

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 7
Raymond Ibrahim

able, they are to enjoin what is good and that they also subscribe to these doctrines of
forbid what is evil, fight the infidels, and deceit, what is to be made of al-Qa’ida’s truce-
spread the call of Tawhid. [pp. 150-51] offers?

In this same treatise, Zawahiri stresses the WHY THE WEST IS HOSTILE TO
need for deception in warfare. Based on ISLAM
Muhammad’s assertion--“War [is] deceit”--
Zawahiri goes on to say: As aforementioned, in their messages to the
West, al-Qa’ida maintains that the former is
Deception in warfare requires that the unjust towards Islam for a plethora of reasons-
mujahid bide his time and wait for an -Israeli interests, oil, land, and Crusader hatred
opportunity against his enemy, while being prominent among them. A quick perusal
avoiding confrontation at all possible costs. of The Al Qaeda Reader’s “Propaganda”
For triumph, in almost every case, is section will clearly confirm this. Even in most
[achieved] through deception: triumph of their messages to Muslims, al-Qa’ida is
achieved through confrontation possesses quick to stress these reasons in order to incite
many dangers…. And in the Hadith, Muslims, gain their sympathy, and grow in
practicing deceit in war is well recruits. However, in “Moderate Islam is a
demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more Prostration to the West,” bin Ladin changes
stressed than [the need for] courage. [p. his tune. He repeatedly states that the West is
142] ultimately hostile to Islam because it knows
that Islam is hostile to it--that “the West
More importantly, however, in Ayman al- avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels
Zawahiri’s treatise “Loyalty and Enmity,” but three options: Islam, jizya, or the sword.”
Muslims are flat-out told that lying and (p. 42)
dissembling in front of infidels is permitted.
This is the doctrine of taqiyya (religiously The West is hostile to us on account of
sanctioned lies for purposes of self- Loyalty and Enmity, and [Offensive]
preservation), 16 which has plenty of Koranic Jihad…. What the West desires is that we
but especially Hadith support. The Koran abandon [the doctrine of] Loyalty and
states: “Let Believers not take for friends and Enmity, and abandon [Offensive] Jihad.
allies infidels rather than Believers: and who This is the very essence of their request and
so does this shall have no relationship left with desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then,
Allah--unless you but guard yourselves against think it’s actually possible for Muslims to
them, taking precautions.” (Koran 3:28) Two abandon these two commandments simply
of the more famous Hadiths evoked by al- to coexist with the West? [p. 30] In fact, the
Qa’ida say, “Truly, we grin to the faces of West did not treat Islam in this atrocious
some peoples, while our hearts curse them”; manner until after it [first] understood the
and “Protection is not secured by deeds but truth about Islam--comprehended its
with the tongue.” (p. 73) essence and soul. And the West is
Finally, there are also several Hadiths of knowledgeable of all religions, but it would
Muhammad that justify oath-breaking. For never confront any of them, nor persecute
instance, “Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] their people. But it is bent on pulverizing
said, ‘He who takes an oath but eventually the Muslims, since first learning of their
finds a better way should do that which is enterprise [Offensive Jihad and the “three
better and break his oath.’” (Sahih Muslim 15: choices”]. [p. 55]
4057)
Considering that al-Qa’ida subscribes to the
view that Islam must war with the non-Muslim
world till the former subsumes the latter, and

8 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

RECIPROCITY OR RELIGION? Nor should Westerners believe that al-


Qa’ida is the root of the problem. The
All of the above clearly demonstrates that, “problem” between the West--in fact, the
for al-Qa’ida, the war with the West is not world--and Islam is the “radical” version of
finite but eternal. The current battles may the latter articulated by al-Qa’ida but also
ostensibly revolve around U.S. presence in other Islamists--past, present, and no doubt
Islamic lands, or support for Israel, or support future. This is even historically demonstrable:
for secular though dictatorial regimes, or even When Hasan al-Bana and Sayyid Qutb
oil. Even so, the ultimate war does not end (respectively, founder and ideologue of
with a cessation of these real or perceived Egypt’s famous Muslim Brotherhood) were
injustices, but rather with the West’s--indeed, assassinated, that organization did not fall
the rest of the non-Islamic world’s-- apart but continued thriving underground for
submission to Islam. As the words of Usama decades until to international dismay it won a
bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri--all fair number of seats in Egypt’s recent
grounded in the traditional sources of Islam-- elections; the Iranian Islamic Revolution did
make clear, the war with the West revolves not die with its spiritual leader, the Ayatollah
around something more transcendent than Khomeini, but is as strong now as it was then-
temporal grievances. It revolves around -with the exception that its nuclear aspirations
“eternal truths.” are nearly realized; after the spiritual leader of
How, then, should al-Qa’ida’s messages to Hamas, Ahmad Yassin was assassinated, far
the West--wholly crafted to vindicate al- from losing influence, Hamas won the
Qa’ida, weaken Western resolve, and incite majority of house seats in Palestine’s recent
the umma--be taken? Should one conclude elections. Ayman al-Zawahiri summarizes this
that all those grievances that al-Qa’ida cite are phenomenon well:
wholly unfounded? Not necessarily. In fact, it
is precisely because the vast majority of the Jihad in the path of Allah is
world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, not to mention a greater than any individual
considerable number of non-Muslims, believe or organization. It is a
these grievances to be true that al-Qa’ida struggle between Truth and
enjoys the apparent widespread--sympathetic Falsehood, until Allah
if not actual--support that they receive. 17 Almighty inherits the earth
All that said, Westerners should also be and those who live in it.
cognizant of what al-Qa’ida and like-minded Mullah Muhammad Omar
Islamists ultimately want as the former and Sheikh Osama bin
consider the long list of alleged wrongs the Ladin--may Allah protect
Islamic world has suffered at the hands of the them from all evil--are
West. In other words, if al-Qa’ida’s arguably merely two soldiers of Islam
“just” demands are met--if the United States in the journey of jihad,
evacuates Iraq and Afghanistan, if the West while the struggle between
keeps its nose out of the Islamic world’s Truth and Falsehood
affairs, even if Israel were to disappear--would transcends time. [p. 182]
all that be enough to satisfy al-Qa’ida and
their supporters? Certainly, it would be a start. The bottom line is, perceived Western
Yet based on their words and convictions that injustices--as propagated by bin Ladin’s
all injunctions of the Koran must be fulfilled, mantras--have nothing to do with the ultimate
it is clear that, when the time is ripe, the jihad source of hostilities between Islam and the
would merely shift from being Defensive to West (Infidelity). The doctrine of Offensive
being Offensive--the latter being the true and Jihad, spreading the laws of Allah to every
historic manifestation of jihad. 18 corner of the world by the sword and
enforcing the practice of dhimmitude (that is,

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 9
Raymond Ibrahim

discriminating and humiliating those who, [Offensive] Jihad against them till they submit
having been conquered and living under to the faith--as the Prophet did with them.” (p.
Islamic suzerainty, still do not embrace Islam 46)
officially), was and remains a basic tenant of At this point many will proclaim that al-
Islam--well before it ever encountered the Qa’ida is misusing, misinterpreting, or taking
West: these otherwise straightforward verses out of
context. That is hardly the point here: Even if
Fight those amongst the People of the Book this were true, that does not change the fact
[Christians and Jews] who do not believe in that many men before al-Qa’ida, going back to
Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid the first jihads of the seventh century, have
what Allah and His Messenger have also “misused” them, or that many today who
forbidden [i.e. enforce Shari’a law], and have nothing to do with al-Qa’ida,
who do not embrace the religion of truth “misinterpret them,” or ultimately that many
[Islam], until they pay the Jizya with after al-Qa’ida will also be taking them “out of
willing submissiveness and feel themselves context.” In other words, even if those verses
utterly subdued. [Koran 9:29] really do not mean what they seem to be
saying, they certainly led themselves to the
The word “until” (hata) highlights the sort of hostile interpretation that al-Qa’ida and
perpetual nature of this command. Enmity for other Islamists, past, present and future, give
non-Muslims, irrespective of whether or not to them. This is all the more troubling since it
they harm the Muslim is also a basic tenant of took only 19 men who follow such
the faith, established before Islam and the “interpretations” to cause September 11.
West met: Irrespective of real or imagined Western
injustices, the real question of permanent
“O you who have believed! Do not take the peace revolves around the above Islamic
Jews and the Christians for friends; they are doctrines. In this sense, then, real peace
but friends of each other; and whoever ultimately depends on Islam and how it
amongst you takes them for a friend, then defines itself: Either Islam will dominate the
surely he is one of them [i.e., he apostasies whole world fulfilling its destiny, or else
from Islam].” [Koran 5:51] Muslims themselves will reject the doctrines
of jihad, dhimmitude, and general enmity for
You have a good example in Abraham and non-Muslims. The problem, however, is that
those who followed him, for they said to even if all these divisive doctrines are formally
their people, “We disown you and the idols repudiated--will that be merely a show of
which you worship besides Allah. We taqiyya, a stratagem of war?
renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign Based purely on al-Qa’ida’s, that is, radical
between us until you believe in Allah Islam’s, worldview, it is readily apparent that
alone.” [Koran 60:4] the West is given no choice but to fight--to
gain the upper-hand and strive to keep it, even
It is important to keep in mind that these at the risk of being oppressive. What good are
verses have nothing to do with reciprocity; al-Qa’idist appeals to justice in face of its
instead they express the standard relationship belief that every person has but three choices
between Muslims and infidels--even when the (convert to Islam, live the life of a dhimmi, or
latter do not interfere in Muslims’ affairs, die)? What good is it telling the West that they
militarily, economically, politically, or have “choices” in face of an immutable
culturally, and completely mind their own Shari’a? What good is a truce in face of
business. Moreover, such hostility is perceived doctrines of deception?
as altruistic, as bin Ladin concludes: “As for This is unfortunate for Muslims, and in this
oppression, the only oppression is to forsake sense al-Qa’ida’s “version” of Islam brings
them in their unbelief, and not launch an them more harm then good. If Islam is

10 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

perceived as being intrinsically hostile to the Thus, the West is damned if it does,
infidel world at large--as al-Qa’ida and many damned if it doesn’t. If the West voluntarily
other Muslim insist--all of the possibly concedes to the demands and grievances of al-
legitimate grievances that many Muslims Qa’ida, it will be perceived as a weakness or
believe they are suffering become moot, since an admission of defeat, and will eventually
the West is doing what it must to stay only encourage an Offensive Jihad, when the
dominant against a potentially hostile force. time is right. If the West actually loses the
Thus even if Muslims are being oppressed, as current war, that too will provoke an offensive
long as these grievances are being articulated response, one seen as the natural next stage in
through an Islamic paradigm that perceives the struggle toward the total victory of Islam.
justice solely through Shari’a and not through This is an important reminder to those many
anything universal or innate to the human who, while condemning al-Qa’ida’s methods,
condition, the West--in the interest of self- agree or sympathize with their grievances. The
preservation as well as the preservation of current battle at hand may ostensibly revolve
freedoms--has no choice but to reject all around those grievances; but the forthcoming
accusations, offers, and threats from Islamists, war will ultimately be about militarily
and fight. establishing Islamic supremacy over the entire
Indeed, according to this worldview, globe.
upheld by al-Qa’ida, where the Abode of Some will discount this possibility as
Peace (Islam) and the Abode of War (the rest) implausible since it seems so distant; but the
are forever in a struggle of life and death, the wild vicissitudes of history are constantly
West can hardly be blamed for behaving proving otherwise.
oppressively, if in fact it does, towards the
Islamic world. In this context, such oppression *Raymond Ibrahim writes regularly
can be understood as a sort of “preemptive” about radical Islamism and is the
reciprocal treatment, as the argument can be author of The Al Qaeda Reader
made that if the West does not keep Islam (Broadway, 2007), translations of
suppressed, Islam will suppress it. A survival religious texts and propaganda.
of the fittest mentality--“get them before they
get us”--is the only mentality that can NOTES
withstand radical Islam, as so well represented
by al-Qa’ida.
1
In fact, bin Ladin’s many statements of Though they are representative of the entire
reciprocity work both ways: “Shall a man be book, many of the more revealing remarks
blamed for protecting his own?” “The road to come from “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to
safety begins by eliminating the aggression.” the West,” where Saudi bin Ladin, writing to
“Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.” “He fellow Saudis and “pouring out his heart,”
who initiates aggression is the unjust one.” unrestrainedly discusses many topics related to
“We believe that this right to defend oneself is Islam that are otherwise taboo, especially here
the right of all human beings.” 19 “We want to in the West.
2
defend our people and our land. That is why I Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader
say that if we don’t get security, the (New York: Broadway, 2007). Excerpts from
Americans, too would not get security. the book are followed by the page number in
This is a simple formula that even an the text.
3
American child can understand. This is the Germans in Tunisia: On April 11, 2002, a
formula of live and let live.” 20 Ironically, 24-year-old Tunisian man, who is suspected of
every single one of these statements actually spending some time in Afghanistan between
justifies Western aggression against radical 2000 and 2001, carried out a suicide operation
Islam. in the Tunisian island and popular tourist
destination Djerba: Fourteen German tourists,

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 11
Raymond Ibrahim

one Frenchman, and six Tunisians were killed, critical form of warfare, [since we are]
and 30 were wounded. French in Karachi: On warding off an invader from [our] sanctities
May 8, 2002, a suicide bomber detonated a car and religion. It is a unanimously accepted
bomb alongside a crowded bus in Karachi, duty. After belief, there is no greater duty than
killing 11 Frenchmen and two Pakistanis. to repulse the invading enemy who corrupts
Fifty others were wounded. French tanker in faith and the world. There are no rules or
Yemen: On October 6, 2002, the Limburg, a conditions for this; he must be expelled by all
French oil tanker carrying 397,000 gallons of possible means. Our learned ulama and others
crude oil stationed in the Gulf of Amen off the have all agreed to this. It is imperative to
Yemeni coast, was rammed by an explosive- distinguish between repulsing the invading,
laden boat. One Bulgarian crewman died, 12 oppressive infidel [Defensive Jihad] and
were injured, and nearly 100,000 barrels of oil pursuing him in his own lands [Offensive
leaked out. Marines in Failaka: On October 8, Jihad].”
6
2002, while U.S. marines were conducting war This is the standard view adopted by, for
games on the Kuwaiti island of Failaka, two instance, the Four Schools (madhahbs) of
Kuwaiti nationals walked up to the troops and Sunni jurisprudence, and is attested by many
opened fire, killing one American and standard works of Islamic law. For example,
wounding two. British and Australians in the Encyclopedia of Islam’s entry on jihad
Bali: On October 12, 2002, three bombs were simply states, “The duty of the djihad exists as
detonated in the town of Kuta on the long as the universal domination of Islam has
Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people not been attained.”
7
and injuring a further 209. It is considered the
deadliest act of terrorism in Indonesian http://www.americanvalues.org/html/what_we
history. The majority of the dead were foreign _re_fighting_for.html.
8
tourists, including some 88 Australians, 26
British, and 38 Indonesians. Operation in http://www.americanvalues.org/html/saudi_sta
Moscow: On October 23, 2002, 40 armed tement.html.
9
Chechen rebels seized a crowded Moscow Non-Muslims, Jews and Christians, who are
theater, taking over 700 hostages and "protected" in exchange for sociopolitical
demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces submission and the payment of special taxes.
10
from Chechnya. After a siege of two and a http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm
11
half days, Russian special forces stormed the In several public addresses, the American
building after firing in some sort of anesthetic president has often referred to al-Qa’ida and
gas. All of the Chechen rebels were killed, its affiliates as “enemies of freedom” and
along with 130 of the hostages. “people who hate freedom.” In his address to a
4
The “blessed raid” on London occurred on joint session of Congress and the American
July 7, 2005, during rush hour and consisted people delivered nine days after the September
of a series of coordinated suicide bombings 11 attacks, the president remarked,
that struck the city’s public transport system. “Americans are asking, why do they
The bombings killed 52 civilians and injured [perpetrators of September 11] hate us? They
over 700. hate what we see right here in this chamber--a
5
As far as the thirteenth century jurist Ibn democratically elected government. Their
Taymiyya--known as the Shaykh of Islam--is leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
concerned, Defensive Jihad is second only freedoms--our freedom of religion, our
after belief itself. Al-Qa’ida often quotes the freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and
following passage from Taymiyya’s fatwas to assemble and disagree with each other.”
12
demonstrate the obligation for Muslims to join Bin Ladin’s position towards this verse is
the Defensive Jihad against the United States simply that, either it has been abrogated by the
and its allies: “Defensive warfare is the most “sword verse” (Koran 9:5)--which, in fact,

12 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008)
An Analysis of al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation

most ulama agree has abrogated some 120 Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaybiyya.
Meccan (peaceful) verses--or else that it has According to the Encyclopedia of Islam,
nothing to do with Islam’s command to rule “Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore,
the world, but rather deals with freedom of a provisional state of affairs only; the chance
conscience. of circumstances alone can justify it
13
The “pact of Umar” is the treaty that was temporarily. Furthermore there can be no
made between the People of the Book and the question of genuine peace treaties with these
second Caliph, Umar. In order to continue nations; only truces, whose duration ought not,
practicing their faiths, Christians and Jews had in principle, to exceed ten years, are
to agree to several social conditions authorized. But even such truces are
enumerated in the pact that, among other precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they
things, were meant to induce humiliation and expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it
debasement in accordance with the verse cited appear more profitable for Islam to resume the
(Koran 9:29). For instance, they were to rise conflict.”
16
from their seats if a Muslim wanted it; they For more on the topic of taqiyya, see
were forbidden from riding on saddles or Raymond Ibrahim, “Islam’s Doctrines of
bearing any arms; they were forbidden from Deception,” Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst,
publicly showing their crosses or worshipping September 26, 2008.
17
too loudly, lest Muslim eyes or ears be That a bounty combined to amount nearly
offended; they were forbidden from building 100 million dollars placed on bin Ladin and
new churches, or even repairing old ones. Zawahiri’s heads has not been collected in one
Some apologists maintain that these conditions of the most impoverished regions in the world
were not strictly enforced at all times. is telling enough.
18
However, what is important here is that All the original Islamic texts, from Hadiths
“dhimmitude,” like bin Ladin asserts, is in fact to books on Islamic law, that discuss the term
a basic tenant of Islam and thus should be “jihad,” explain it as war to simply spread
enforced under Shari’a law. Islamic authority. It was only after the
14
In fact, Shaykh Abdallah Azzam (1941- Crusades and Mongol invasions that the ulama
1989), the highly influential Islamic scholar, began delineating the concept of “defensive”
mujahid, and bin Ladin’s onetime mentor and jihad which, according to premiere jurists such
hero, often boastfully referred to Muhammad as Ibn Taymiyya, is second only to faith, and
as, not only a terrorist, but the first terrorist: obligatory on the entire Muslim umma, as
“We are terrorists. Every Muslim must be a opposed to offensive jihad, which is deemed a
terrorist. Terrorism is an obligation as “communal duty,” or fard kifiya.
19
demonstrated in the Koran and Sunna. Allah http://www.robert-
Most High said: ‘Muster against them fisk.com/usama_interview_aljazeera.htm.
20
[infidels] all the men and cavalry at your
command, so that you may strike terror into http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm.
the heart of your enemy and Allah’s enemy’
[Koran 8:60]. Thus terrorism is a [religious]
obligation. And the Messenger of Allah is the
first terrorist and the first menace” (al-Hijra
wa al-I‘dad). Some have accused bin Ladin of
falling out and assassinating Azzam in order to
assume control of the then nascent base (“al-
Qa’ida”).
15
Most jurists are agreed that, theoretically,
ten years is the maximum amount of time for
peace between Islam and infidels, based on

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 2008) 13

You might also like