On Wednesday, an Islamist group claiming links to Al Qaeda released a letter instructing terrorists in Spain to stop operations. The letter was received and published by the London based Arab news daily, al-Hayat, and is referenced in an online report by Reuters.
Citing the recent Spanish vote for a change of government, and the campaign promise of the incoming Socialist party to withdraw Spanish troops from the Iraqi front, the letter states that, “… the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq." The letter also urges, “… all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."
The letter has been much analyzed by the media in the context of Spanish and European politics and the dilemma posed by Spanish participation in the liberation of Iraq. To withdraw troops in the aftermath of the March 11 train bombings may be construed as rewarding terror. On the other hand, the incoming Socialist party campaigned on exactly that promise for months before the Madrid attacks and is understandably reluctant to stand down from it. This dilemma reveals the shrewdness of Islamist planners in manipulating the anti-war position of opposition political parties in those countries counted amongst the “Coalition of the Willing”.
The media has not, to my knowledge, analyzed the language used by the Islamists in the letter, specifically, the reference to the “Spanish territories” and the offer of a “truce.” There is no proof of a connection between the authors of the letter and the sponsors of the train bombings; however, the language in the letter is every bit as purposeful as the planning that went into the bombing.
Referring to Spain as a territory is a subtle reference to Islamic doctrine, which divides the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Dar al-Islam refers to the land of the Muslims under the historical Caliphate and is defined in the most expansive terms. Any land that has been ruled by Muslims is considered an irrevocable part of Dar al-Islam. Spain, for example, is considered Dar al-Islam, as are Portugal, India and Israel. Describing Spain as a “territory” carries the semantic implication that Islam has a claim to governance over Spanish people and lands.
The concept of “truce” also has specific meaning in Islamic history and doctrine. A story central to the Koran and the life of Muhammad involves his entering into a truce with the tribes of Mecca in 628 AD. In the Treaty of Hudaibiya, Muhammad agreed that he would refrain from attacking Mecca in exchange for pilgrimage access to holy sites in the city. He later broke the truce and conquered the city, establishing a precedent that was used by the Caliphs to justify entering into and breaking treaties according to the needs of Islam.
One might think understanding Islamist language and the history from which it is derived a waste of time, but such an understanding is critical in the war against terror. Islam is both a religion of conquest and a highly codified religion. Islamist leaders today are well versed in the details of their faith. They understand the roots and doctrine of Islam and are faithful in pressing their interpretation of both in the active service of Jihad.
For example, the Western media often mention the first demand of the early fatwahs issued by Osama bin Laden- that the American military presence be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. Rarely mentioned are the other demands contained in the fatwahs, namely, that Muslims reconquer Dar al-Islam and that they then engage in Jihad to Islamicize the whole of the world. When bin Laden issued his early fatwahs he lacked the international notoriety that followed with the World Trade Center attack on 11 September 2001. We now know he will not recoil from murder, but do we take seriously his stated objectives.
In another example, documented by Commentary Magazine (subsciption necessary), Yasir Arafat, in a private meeting with South African Muslim leaders, defended entering into the Oslo Accords as an act of expediency comparable to the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Arafat’s response demonstrates that he and other Muslim leaders understand the precedent established in the Treaty of Hudaibiya and believe it valid even today. In hindsight, the incitement and manipulation of the second Intifadah is predictable from a man who entered the Oslo Accords out of Islamic expediency.
The West must understand the language and history of Islam in order to appreciate Islamist objectives and anticipate Islamist tactics. Perhaps of greater importance, to accept Islamic semantics without argument is the beginning of dhimmitude.
Posted by publius at March 18, 2004 11:00 AM