by Raymond Ibrahim<\/p>\n
MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard)<\/p>\n
A<\/span>t the recent inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), presenter Ltc. Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration: that, though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine \u2014 such as Clausewitz\u2019s\u00a0On War<\/i>, Sun Tzu\u2019s\u00a0The Art of War<\/i>, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch \u2014 Islamic war doctrine, which is just as, if not more, textually grounded, is totally ignored.<\/p>\n As recent as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that \u201cthe senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.\u201d<\/p>\n This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) are still studied, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today\u2019s much changed landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Whatever validity this argument may have, it certainly cannot be applied to Islam\u2019s doctrines of war; by having a \u201ctheological\u201d quality, that is, by being grounded in a religion whose \u201cdivine\u201d precepts transcend time and space, and are thus believed to be immutable, Islam\u2019s war doctrines are considered applicable today no less than yesterday. So while one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the same cannot be said of Islam, particularly the exploits and stratagems of its prophet Muhammad \u2014 his \u201cwar sunna\u201d \u2014 which still serve as an example to modern day jihadists.<\/p>\n For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad\u2019s 7th<\/sup>\u00a0century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15:4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or\u00a0hudna<\/i>, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.<\/p>\n Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad\u2019s famous assertion, \u201cWar is deceit,\u201d have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation \u2014 the most notorious among them being the doctrine of\u00a0taqiyya<\/i>, which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: \u201c[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage\u201d (The Al Qaeda Reader<\/i>, 142).<\/p>\n Aside from ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling is the fact that the Defense Department does not seem to appreciate Islam\u2019s more \u201ceternal\u201d doctrines \u2014 such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which in essence maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-\u00e0-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam\u2019s worldview and is deemed a\u00a0fard kifaya<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, \u201cjihadists,\u201d actively uphold it.<\/p>\n Y<\/span>et despite all these problematic \u2014 but revealing \u2014 doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and time again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, apparently the senior governmental leaders charged with defending America do not.<\/p>\n Why? Because the \u201cWhisperers\u201d \u2014 Walid Phares\u2019 all-too-apt epithet for many Middle East\/Islamic scholars, or, more appropriately, apologists \u2014 have made anathema anyone who dares imply that there may be some sort of connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamist terrorism, such as in the recent Steven Coughlin debacle. This is a long and well known tale for those in the field (see Martin Kramer\u2019s\u00a0Ivory Towers on Sand: the Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America<\/i>).<\/p>\n But consider for a moment: though there are today many Middle East studies departments, one will be sorely pressed to find any courses dealing with the most pivotal and relevant topics of today \u2014 such as Islamic jurisprudence and what it has to say about jihad or the concept of Abode of Islam versus the Abode of War \u2014 no doubt due to the fact that these topics possess troubling international implications and are best buried. Instead, the would-be student will be inundated with courses dealing with the evils of \u201cOrientalism\u201d and colonialism, gender studies, and civil society.<\/p>\n The greater irony \u2014 when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound \u2014 is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (\u201cIt seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous\u201d), the State Department announced that it had adopted the recommendations of a memo stating that the government should not call al Qaeda-type radicals \u201cjihadis,\u201d \u201cmujahidin,\u201d or to incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (\u201ccaliphate,\u201d \u201cIslamo-fascism,\u201d \u201cSalafi,\u201d \u201cWahhabi,\u201d and \u201cUmmah\u201d are also out).<\/p>\n Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare \u2014 Sun Tzu\u2019s ancient dictum, \u201cKnow thy enemy\u201d \u2014 the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.<\/p>\n