President Bush’s Speech on Terrorism: Meaning and Implications

President Bush’s speech on terrorism at the National Endowment for Democracy on October 6 had been billed by the White House as a major policy address that would include unprecedented detail. In the end the only piece of hard news concerned his claim that ten serious al-Qaeda terrorist plots have been disrupted since 9-11, including three plots to attack targets inside the United States, and at least five more “efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country.” The rest was rhetoric, significant for what was said and what was omitted. The results give cause for serious concern. (NB: Mr. Bush’s words in italics.)

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we’re responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom.

This is a long and important article. Why the excerpt is so short (especially that Chronicles do not limit the size of post)? More quotes below:

[...]

And once again, we will see freedom’s victory.

That victory is impossible in the sense of eliminating the phenomenon of terrorism altogether, but the “war on terrorism” can be successfully pursued to the point where America (and the rest of the West, if it follows) are made significantly safer than they are today by adopting measures—predominantly defensive measures—that would reduce the danger of such incidents to as near zero as possible. The victory will come not by conquering Mecca but by disengaging America from Mecca and by excluding Mecca from America; not by eliminating the risk but by managing it wisely, resolutely, and permanently.

[...]

We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.

“Winning” is impossible unless 1.3 billion Muslims are either secularized or else converted to something other than Islam. To put it crudely, “winning” means either that Muslims have been “westernized”—that is to say, made as willing as Christians to see their religion first relativized, then mocked, and its commandments misrepresented or ignored—or else Christianized, which of course cannot happen unless there is a belated, massive, and unexpected recovery of Western spiritual and moral strength.

[...]

Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.

Mr. Bush is simply wrong. “This ideology” is immanent to Islam. While it is possible to dispute the details of al-Qaeda’s theological justifications for terror, it is not possible to dispute that its arguments are based on standard Islamic sources, precedents, and methods of deduction. Those sources and principles are independent of any dubious or capricious interpretations of the Kuran or the Hadith. The jubilant Muslim masses thronging streets to celebrate 9-11 may not have known much about theology and jurisprudence, but their imams and madrassa teachers did. Even if the latter disproved of bin Laden’s methods, they would be hard-pressed to reject his fundamental claim that his guidance is rooted in the orthodox Islamic scripture and tradition.

These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus—and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Contrary to what Mr. Bush seems to be suggesting, “the idea of jihad” does call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and it is a distortion of that idea to suggest otherwise. “The idea of jihad” is a highly developed doctrine, theology, and legal system of mandatory violence against non-believers. It made Islam the first political ideology, already in Muhammad’s lifetime, to adopt terrorism as a systemic tool of policy, not as a temporary and unwelcome expedient.

[...]

The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American “war on Islam”—with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

To boast of “American actions to protect Muslims” in Bosnia and Kosovo defies belief, as if those actions were something to be proud of and as if they had not secured a resilient base for jihad in the heart of Europe.

[...]

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.

Mr. Bush’s Kuranic quote was a distortion of verse 5:32, which states that “if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land [emphasis added]—it would be as if he slew the whole people.” Immediately thereafter follows a list of horrid torments for those who create “mischief,” including death by crucifixion. That loophole embraces all those who resist the establishment of the Muslim rule or who disobey the sharia once it is established. Furthermore, Mr. Bush should be told that one single Kuranic verse, “the Verse of the Sword” (9:5)—which gives the infidel the choice between conversion or death—abrogates all 124 earlier verses, the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam’s apologists to prove its tolerance and benevolence.

[...]

The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

It is unclear whether, when, where, and how, a reformed variety of Islam desired by Mr. Bush can emerge. Presumably it would need to be capable of reinterpreting jihad, sharia, etc. and developing the “new Islamic interpretations” that the 9-11 Commission also called for. The problem is that it has been tried before. Attempts to reformulate the doctrine of jihad in particular are not new, but they have failed because they opposed centuries of orthodoxy. The willingness of a few to become what are objectively bad Muslims, because they are willing to reject discriminatory and offensive tenets of historical Islam, may be laudable in human terms but it will do nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine. A reformed faith that should question the divine authority on which the institutions of Islam rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change, would be Islam no longer. For the majority of Muslims, any such attempt will smack of heresy. To them, it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are. Until the petrodollars support a comprehensive and explicit Kuranic revisionism capable of growing popular roots, we should seek ways to defend ourselves by disengaging from the world of Islam, physically and figuratively.

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers.

The unprecedented danger is for us to forget that we are heirs to the greatest and best civilization the world has known, and that our inheritance is under threat. With that threat—Islam, and not some allegedly aberrant version of it—there will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization. It’s kto-kogo: either Islam gets Europeanized, or Europe gets Islamized. As things stand now the outcome is uncertain. All will be lost if our future, and that of our heirs, remains in the hands of people who do not understand the nature, complexity and magnitude of the challenge.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.