U.S.: Herodotus is right

Islamics always blame Jews and everybody else for every atrocious act they commit. Well, here's one who's saying the problem is not the Jews, but the Islamics themselves and the tactics they employ to achieve their objective.

Arab Liberal: Most Islamic Ideologues, Organization Leaders Advocate Violence

In an article titled 'Who's Responsible for the Islamic Terrorists?' that appeared in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, columnist Khaled Kishtainy, [1] of Iraqi origin, discussed the leading Muslim ideologues' positive attitudes towards the use of violence. The following is the article: [2]

Islamist Talk of 'Love and Peace in Islam' is Just a Cover for Violence

"[The phenomenon] called Islamic terrorism has many roots and causes, and much has already been written about this. But I have personal input on this matter.

"I place on the Islamic intellectuals and leaders of Islamic organizations part of the responsibility for [this phenomenon] of Islamic terrorism, as nearly all of them advocate violence, and repress anyone who casts doubts upon this. Naturally, every so often they have written about the love and peace of Islam ? but they did so, at best, for purposes of propaganda and defense of Islam. Their basic position is that this religion was established by the sword, acts by the sword, and will triumph by the sword, and that any doubt regarding this constitutes a conspiracy against the Muslims.

"The best proof of what I am saying is the 1984 world congress on 'The Nonviolent Political Arab Struggle' in Amman, that was nothing but hypocrisy and propaganda. In the congress documents in the English [version], they published my speech, but they removed it from the edition in Arabic!!! All this was in an attempt to deceive the Westerners, and not in order to educate the Arabs to peace.

"In my opinion, the sword played a minor role in Islam's triumph over polytheism. Moreover, the Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence. This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon. I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name 'Civil Jihad.'"

My Attempts to Promote 'Civil Jihad' were Rejected

"I tried to establish in London an organization to disseminate this perception among the Muslims. I contacted some Arab ambassadors and activists in Islamic organizations, and all I got from them was their turning their backs, and even threats. Only three Muslims shared my belief ? one from Ethiopia and two from Iraq. Over the course of two years, we struggled [for the sake of this goal]; then we lost hope and gave up.

"Most of the people we contacted were of the opinion that the Westerners are sons of dogs who understand only force, and that the Muslims have no choice but to strap on their weapon and fight. Some cooperated with us in private meetings [but] after the meeting was over asked us not to mention anything of it to others ? as if nonviolence and peace were a kind of adultery that must be hidden. This was the atmosphere that helped the emergence of the terrorists, the suicide bombers, and all those who use weapons and explosives."

Some Publishers Wouldn't Allow The Draft Of My Book Into Their Office

"In the framework of this personal effort, I devoted a great deal of time to writing a book about nonviolence. It is the only book that presents in depth, in Arabic, the perceptions and methods of Civil Jihad. A large section of it is devoted to peace and nonviolence in Islam.

"In vain did my friend Anis Sayegh try to find a publisher for the book. Some [publishers] refused to even permit the draft of the book to enter their office. Finally, the Dar Al-Karmel [publishers] in Amman put it out (after omitting many paragraphs), and even that was in an abbreviated edition, replete with mistakes.

"The publisher did not manage to distribute it in a courageous way, perhaps because some Arab governments prevented him from doing so. Even the Institute of Arab Unity refrained from publishing my research on this subject in its journal.

"I reiterate that the Arab and Islamic ideologues and media leaders bear much of the responsibility for the involvement in terrorism and violence of the Muslims of the world. Of course, they will reject my statement arrogantly. But my statement can be tested: The draft of my book is still in my office in two languages, Arabic and English, waiting for someone to come along and publish it. I offer it for free, without asking a fee for my work."


[1] For more on Khalid Kishtainy, please see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 545, July 31, 2003, ' An Iraqi Intellectual in London: Arab Nationalists' Interference in Iraqi Affairs Will Pound the Final Nail into Iraq's Coffin', http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP54503.

[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 11, 2004.

If Islamic intellectuals and organizations only bear part of the responsibility for the phenomenon called Islamic terrorism, then who bears the other part? Since Kishtainy does not explicitly say, one is left to conclude that the object of the violence bears the other part. After all, Islamists do blame Jews and the West for defending themselves. If the other part is borne by the recipient of the terror, then Kishtainy is arguing, implicitly, that Islamic terrorism is justifiable as a response to Israeli and Western self-defense. This is not different from the stance of his co-ideologues.

Who knows Islam best, Kishtainy or the intellectuals and Islamic organizations? If the latter are right that Islam was established by the sword, "acts by the sword" and fancies that it will triumph by the sword, then is Kishtainy, by ostensibly arguing for another way, speaking in accordance with Islam? If he is, then the intellectuals and Islamic organizations are wrong and Islam is essentially peaceful; if he is not, then they are right and he is an apostate and, under Islam, worthy of death.

I would argue that there is not much difference between Kishtainy and the rest of the Islamic intellectuals and organizations. The difference between the two is one of degree of aggressiveness of the tactic employed to spread Islam; for, both hold to the common strategy of global domination of Islam. This is apparent when Kishtainy writes: "Muslims will [only] lose by their adherence to the perception [advocating] violence. This is due first of all to the military supremacy of others, and second because in this generation the alternative of nonviolent struggle is a more effective weapon. I have adopted this perception and called it by the Islamic name 'Civil Jihad'." By these words, Kishtainy is not abandoning the militaristic jihad of terrorism. Rather, "in this generation," given the military supremacy of Israel and the West, he is merely selecting another type of "weapon" that he considers "more effective."

In another generation, if the circumstances are more proptitious, Kishtainy will likely advocate for the same position as the Islamist intellectuals and organizations. For, in his view, the conditions today do not permit victory by employing violent measures. Therefore, Kishtainy is merely a pragmatist who is awaiting the increase in military might, or even nuclear arming, of Islamic countries. He considers the reality that Islamists are outgunned, and determines that the wisest course is not armed struggled but rather "civil jihad."

By advocating this second way, Kishtainy implies that he leaves the terrorist tactics of armed jihad for another day. Thus, his words appear to be seductively peaceful, when, in actual fact, his ideas are entirely consistent with the teachings of Islam concerning the behavior of Muslims when they are not in a position of power. One may construe that, for Kishtainy, the military supremacy of Israel and the West means that Muslims are in an inferior position. Therefore, instead of fighting against a superior force, civil jihad will suffice until such time as Muslims become militarily superior. Should that ever come to pass, heaven help Israel and the West.

Herodotus paraphrased yields this: the Arabs are always liars. If Arabs are always liars, and Kishtainy is an Arab, then Kishtainy is lying when he says that civil jihad, peace, and non-violence is the way for Islam to achieve its objective of global domination.

So, what's in it for Kishtainy? Perhaps, at the least, the publication of a book; at the most, the lulling of the West into thinking that Islam may co-exist peaceably with us.