Posted on 01/21/2006 5:18:21 PM PST by FairOpinion
The former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit says bin Laden’s “truce” offer comes from a long-established Muslim tradition of warfare -- sending a clear signal to the United States that an al Qaeda attack is more than likely.
Twenty-two-year CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, who wrote “Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror,” says bin Laden has offered his final warning before launching his next strike.
“Warning your enemy before you attack him is very much a tradition in Islam from the prophet to the times when Saladin was fighting the Crusaders, he would warn them, he would offer them a truce, he would try to go the extra mile before attacking him,” Scheuer said on “The O’Reilly Factor” Thursday.
“So I think it's very important that we understand the context in which bin Laden is speaking,” Scheuer continued, “because I've heard other people today already saying that he's offering a truce because it's a sign of weakness, because we're beating him. And I think that's pretty far from the truth.”
Following Al-Jazeera’s disclosure of the tape yesterday, several bin Laden experts -- including journalist Richard Miniter on Human Events Online -- dismissed bin Laden’s latest message as nothing more than a bid to reassert himself as the world’s preeminent terrorist.
I asked two experts on the Middle East and Islam their thoughts about Scheuer’s assertion. They cited historical parallels to Scheuer’s contention.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),” told me: “Traditional Islamic theology actually does support the idea that Osama was asking for a truce because he perceives weakness in his ranks.”
Spencer pointed me to a passage (below) from “Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller),” a Shafi'i Sharia manual endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo as conforming to the "practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." Here’s what it says:
“Truces are permissible, not obligatory. ... Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim. ... If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. ... The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax; namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.”
A second scholar, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, told me: “Bin Ladin has a history of making threats he did not carry out -- for example, versus Israel after the execution of Ahmed Yassin. It is more useful to see his tape as an attempt to stay relevant than in the tradition of Muslim warfare.”
Can you hear the Dems saying after we kill Bin Laden -- "Evil Bush killed Bin Laden after Bin Laden offered a truce. Evil Bush killed a "reformed" terrorist" Shades of Tookie Williams.
American tradition is to shoot first and ask questions later.
Did I miss something?
bttt
They have been murdering innocents for decades. HOW THE HELL DOES THIS MONSTERS RANTS change a DAMN THING?
It is now OUR CUSTOM to KILL them.
"Arabs are notorious for making boasts they cannot back up."
Remember Baghdad Bob?
The reason Usama bin Laden is offerering a truce is because Bush is hurting him and he needs a breather to regroup.
I hope the President won't give him one and I don't think he will.
Funny I don't recall that he offered a truce prior to 9-11.
I didn't see it in the article, so I'll ask.
Did he offer a truce before 9/11?
The proposed truce serves many functions. It allows time to gather forces to prepare for attack. It lulls your opponent into carelessness. And it salves the conscience, such as may exist, of the conqueror, because he gave the subjected people "one last chance" before he killed them.
In any case, the offer of a truce is almost certainly a prelude to attack. I would say some time between 12-18 months from now.
Isn't it nice to know that militant Islamist terrorists have a sense of propriety and ethical obligation? Makes my heart warm to know that the war is being conducted with such chivalry.
Before Bali
Before Spain
Before London
What a crock, just some know nothing trying to add to the terror quotient.
Coward.
I must have missed the warning before 9/11. Scheuer is an idiot. Is there any wonder why the USA was completely unprepared for the WTC attacks with people like Micheal Scheuer and Richard Clarke working in the intelligence agencies.
The actual Islamic tradition is to offer a truce when you've been beaten and need time to regroup, re-arm, and plan for the next offensive. See "Arafat".
Scheuer seems to be trying to position the left into being able to say "I told you so" if a nuclear 9-11 happens after we attack Iran or whatever.
Little does he know that the left is over in the USA if even a car bomb goes off in this country.
This is such a charming culture.Full of such fine traditions. 'Specially love the one about it being ok to decieve in the name of Allah. I like our traditions: "Power resides at the end of a gun."
"Did he offer a truce before 9/11?"
He doesnt speak for all of islamo facism either.
He doesnt have that kind of power.
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.