Civitas Blog

One such consideration was well summarised in an unsigned article that appeared at the end of last month in the Investor’s Business Daily under the title ‘Religion of Peace?’ [hat-tip: Little Green Footballs].

What the article suggests is that the roots of the current conflict between Britain and the USA and those Islamists against whom they are currently contending may be more integral to Islam – or, at least , to how many of its adherents conceive of elements of that religion, than would be suggested by those who think Western countries have brought the risk upon themselves by their foreign policy.

In essence, so the article contends, the Quran lends itself to being construed as calling upon Muslims to wage war against all non-believers in order for their religion to achieve world-wide acceptance. By drawing attention to specific verses in the Quran that bid Muslims engage in jihad, the article poses some disturbing questions for those who think the current troubles the UK and the US have with parts of the Muslim world were brought on by their own actions in the Middle East. The article asks:

‘Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?

'Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

'Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

'Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

'And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?

'Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

'Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

'Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?’

Having posed these questions, the article ominously concludes by observing of them:

‘If the answers are “yes”, then at least [we] … will know there’s no such thing as moderate Islam, even if there are moderate Muslims who do not act out its violent commands.’

Grounds for affirmative answers to these questions are contained in a new book on the subject entitled Islamic Imperialism: a History . Its author is Efraim Karsh, a professor and head of the Mediterranean Studies programme at King’s College, London. He offers a very good summary of its central thesis in an article entitled ‘Islam’s Imperial Dreams’ that appears in this month’s issue of Commentary.

In his book, Karsh argues such current militancy towards the West as emanates from so many parts of the Muslim world today is less a frustrated response to that region's long historic decline relative to the West, as some have claimed. Nor is it, as others have contended so Karsh claims, a reaction to current US and British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Rather, according to Karsh, ‘the real root cause “ of Islamic jihad is the teachings and traditions of Islam itself.’
The following quotations from Islam’s founder and other well-known Muslims are offered in the book’s advance publicity to illustrate and bear out its central thesis:

‘ Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'. Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah". Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world". Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad".

These are chilling words, if Karsh is right.

Still more chilling, should Karsh be right, are recent reports to the effect that, for several years now, Saudi Arabia has, with the connivance of another supposed ally of the US Pakistan, been secretly at work developing a nuclear weapons programme of its own. The first of these reports appeared in the German magazine Cicero [hat-tip: Little Green footballs]. According to it, somewhere south of Riyadh, the Saudis have built ‘a secret underground city and dozens of underground silos for missiles’ which the report claims some unnamed western security services maintain house ‘long range Ghauri-missiles of Pakinstano-origin’.

As one wag who commented on this report on the Little Green Footballs web-site that reported this story observed: With friends like these, who needs friends?

A second report posted yesterday on The Middle East Newsline [again, hat-tip: LGF] appears to confirm the first. It claims that, at a recent seminar in Qatar, a Kuwait researcher told his audience that Saudi Arabia is preparing a nuclear programme.

How worried the West should be about the idea that Saudi Arabia might be in process of gaining or have acquired a nuclear weapons capability ultimately depends on the intention with which it, and other nuclear armed Muslims states like Iran, should have acquired such a capability. This, in turn, depends upon how their ruling elites interpret the call that their religion makes upon them to engage in jihad.

I conclude by repeating the question posed in the title of this posting: Exactly Who or What Might the West Really Be Up Against?