One of the wisest old heads on Islam and the Middle East is issuing a shocking warning: Beware of August 22:
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
Bernard Lewis is no tin foil hat nutcase. He is as sober and as realistic as anyone you’re likely to listen to about Islam. Here’s a good backgrounder on Lewis written by Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Lewis also makes a chilling statement about why mutual assured destruction (MAD) may not work with President Ahmadinejad:
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.[snip]
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians—but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent—the threat of direct retaliation on Iran—is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
Lewis has fingered something that most other “experts” either refuse to acknowledge or are simply unable to grasp; the determined fanaticism of our enemy.
This weird and dangerous blind spot in many leading academics, diplomats, and even military and intelligence analysts is something I’ve noted before. By insisting that fanatics like Ahmadinejad can be reasoned with, or bargained with, or deterred in any “traditional” way, the experts are able to rationalize almost any policy or proposal except confronting the madness in an effort to totally marginalize it or destroy it.
We’ve all heard the “explanations.” The Iranian President is “playing to his domestic supporters” with his apocalyptic rhetoric. He really doesn’t mean it. He’s a “rational actor” on the world stage and can be trusted to keep any agreement he reaches because it is in his “interest” to do so. He won’t give nukes to terrorists because he is deterred from doing so by the prospect of a massive retaliatory strike by the US or Israel.
Like colonial Indian negotiators trying to end border predations, the diplomats believe that by offering nice, shiny baubles to the Iranian President – WTO membership, unlimited enrichment of reactor fuel, a place at the table of civilized nations – they can entice him to give up his dream of building a nuclear weapon and destroying the “Great Satan.” This attitude presupposes that the Iranian President is interested in any of those things except as a strategy that would lull the West into somnolence and assuage their fears for a time.
With almost a childlike faith in inspections and monitoring, the experts would then pronounce the fanatic “in a box” and made relatively harmless.
And we all lived happily ever after…
The idea that Ahmadinejad can’t be deterred, or bought off, or deflected in any way from his fanatical, religiously inspired goal is such an anathema to most of our “wise men” that perhaps it is a concept that simply escapes them. Like the theory of quantum mechanics escapes almost everyone, maybe there is nothing in these very smart, very able people’s life experience that would allow them to face up to and recognize that, like Hitler, Ahamadinejad is announcing exactly what he intends to do, so pleased he is with his grand designs that he simply must share them with the world.
It took American soldiers fighting in the Pacific only a few run ins with the Japanese army to understand the kind of fanaticism they were up against. The average GI being a practical sort of fellow and very interested in staying alive, realized very quickly not to trust the Japanese when they surrendered. This led to many incidents where the Japanese (whose martial code saw surrender as the ultimate disgrace) would only pretend to surrender in order to get the Americans to expose themselves. Not a few GI’s were killed as the enemy would reinitiate combat once the Americans were in range.
And the Japanese human wave attacks were enormously disconcerting at first to our men. These “Banzai charges” where the enemy was killed to the last man in what appeared to be a futile gesture but was actually part of the Bushido (“Code of the Warrior”), troubled the GI’s. But they adapted very quickly so that even the psychological impact of the charges were lessened over time.
Perhaps our experts simply have not been able to apply the necessary lessons of history to the present circumstances with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps, like most diplomats, they are so in love with the idea of “process” that the end result of any negotiations aren’t as important as the negotiations themselves. This is a mindset that seems especially prevalent with our Middle East diplomatic community. For 60 years, the “process” has dominated. But what have been the practical, real world benefits accrued over that time? To the United States? To Israel? During the cold war, this “process” kept the lid on the Middle East so that there would be no direct confrontation between the superpowers who might feel obligated to come to the rescue of one of their surrogates if things got too out of control.
We saw this in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War as the Russians, fearing a complete collapse of their Egyptian client, almost sent combat troops to assist Sadat. Nixon responded by going to a high nuclear alert. That disabused the Russians of any idea they may have had of intervening in the conflict and Nixon cancelled the alert within 48 hours.
The Russians, being rational actors, understood Nixon’s message and stood down. Would Ahmadinejad do the same? Bernard Lewis has his doubts. And when an old wise man like Lewis can look fanaticism in the face and speak the truth, we should listen closely. And we should hope that anyone anywhere who has anything to do with any potential negotiations with that dangerous fanatic is listening also.
3:44 pm
That an academic is casting warnings troubles me. I am a grad student in political science and I know how out of touch or apathetic academics generally are to the world outside their research agenda. Even more, serious academics do not like to comment on current events; they tend to look down on those who do as pundits rather than scholars. Maybe because Lewis is old he can get away with it, but still, that he even gives us the date, Aug 22, makes me take his word very seriously.
3:45 pm
TAQIYYAH:
Rick, in case I haven’t posted it here before; please keep in mind, this article I wrote for the US Military, prior to the Iraq War; so it was Sunni specific; it MORE than equally applies to the Shias in Iran, who with their Hezbollah lackeys, follow the Usuli canonical school of Ithna Asheri (“Twelver”) Islam!
Taqiyyah is a way of life with them; thus you can never trust anything they say, say they will do, commit to, sign, etc.
Especially, when dealing with us “kafirs” or “infidels”!
It’s not Required to tell the truth, nor honor any commitment you make to an “infidel”!
The Practice of Taqiyyah among Muslims
© Copyright: Dale 30th March 2003
Some comments on the Muslim practice of al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation:
The practice of “Taqiyya†(from the Arabic root word “waqa†= “to safeguardâ€) within Islam, is most often associated with the Shi’ites; however, it is in fact, practiced almost as widespread among Sunnis, and especially among Sufi Sunni sects, who like the Shi’ites, view themselves as open to discrimination or attack, because of the deviancy of their particular Sufi doctrine from mainstream Islam.
Sunni Muslims will resolutely deny that taqiyya is a Sunni practice, almost universally citing it as a heretical practice by Shi’ites. Supposedly, since Sunnis believe more in Pre-destination than Shi’ites, who believe more in “free willâ€, taqiyyah is not necessary among Sunnis; since one’s fate is already determined by Allah.
Thus practicing taqiyyah supposedly would not alter one’s fate, is the Sunni rationale! Both sides, have for centuries, issued religious tracts either variously condemning or praising the practice, and either side is able to point to multiple Suras (revelations or sayings) in the Qu’ran, or tracts from other Religious works, to support their various positions.
However, this is how a leading Western Islamist Scholar, the Frenchman Cyril Glasse, himself a convert to Wahhabi-style Sunni Islam, defines “Taqiyya†in his Concise Encyclopedia of Islam:
…“self-protection†and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]â€. The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them. It is contained in the Qu’an 16:106:
Whoso disbelieves in God, after he has believed – excepting him who has been compelled, and his heart is still at rest in his believe – but whosever’s breast is expanded in unbelief, upon them shall rest anger from God, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement….
A Prophet however cannot dissimulate the truth. Otherwise, recourse to this refuge is universally accepted in Islam!! (Emphasis Mine) It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims.
Who better to define the practice, than a Wahhabi Muslim!
And since Al Qaeda, Usama bin Laden’s “movementâ€, is in fact a Sufi – based movement (more on this in a later analit; the Sufism practiced by bin Laden and his followers, is Metaphysical Sufism, and must not be confused with the “folk†Sufism of groups such as the Whirling Dervishes, whom Sufis like bin Laden despise, and regard as just as heretical as Shi’ites!), under intense pressure from outsiders/non-Muslims/infidels/heretics, it is only logical to assume that they are practicing “taqiyyah†as much as possible!
In an extract from an article I wrote over a decade ago, an example of Sufi taqiyyah being practiced by a Western convert is illustrated:
“The famous example of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton, the great nineteenth century British soldier, explorer, adventurer, writer, linguist, spy, and Islamist, is a case in point. At the early part of his career, during a seven-year sojourn in India, Burton became enamored with Islam, and eventually converted to Islam and became a member of an Indian Sufic sect. He later joined another Sufi sect while in Cairo, and maintained the religion, seemingly intermittently, until the day he died.
However, a new recent in-depth biography about Burton almost conclusively proves that Burton practiced “taqiyya” as a means to mislead his devout Catholic wife, the British Government, and his adoring public, as to the extent of his Sufi devotion.â€
The challenge to us, as Westerners/non-believers, is realize that this phenomenon exists, and how to deal with it! One of the basic ironies of the practice of taqiyyah itself is to deny the very existence of taqiyyah! How can one practice something, that doesn’t in fact, exist? But for any Westerner, who has dealt intimately with Muslims, for a long time, the continued frustration of feeling deceived, or “lied†to, on a constant basis, does in fact have it’s basis in the practice of “taqiyyahâ€.
Thus, when we are watching Saddam Hussein on a newscast, deny he has weapons of mass destruction; or listening to Usama bin Laden, in some audio broadcast, deny, or dissemble as to whether he was involved in, or had knowledge of 9/11, it’s a deceit that causes us to vent in frustration at the TV screen, or radio, but it’s also a kind of wink-wink/nudge-nudge kind of deceit that is immediately understood by the Arab/Muslim audiences (who by the way, believe that we (westerners/non-Muslims) don’t “get itâ€) as “deceit†that is necessary, and “allowable†because the intended recipients are intent upon doing harm to the speakers!
Thus, with hundreds of Al-Qaeda followers in captivity, and more to come, as well as possibly soon in the future, Iraqi leaders, etc., an understanding of the phenom is paramount. For the Al Qaeda, it’s a belief system inherent in their Sufic believes. For Iraqis, the majority of whom are supposedly secularist, it would be utilized to protect oneself from legal retribution.
For military and civilian interrogators, dealing with Al Qaeda members, being aware of “taqiyyah†may in fact give them an edge. Also, being aware of the fact that Al Qaeda is a Sufi movement, with Salafiyyah origins (Arabic for “the pious ancestorsâ€)1
This will also give them a basis to begin understanding the theology behind the movement.
1.Salafiyyah such as Usama bin Laden, trace the origins of their movement back to the 10th Century Islamic theologian, Ibn Tamiyyah. Islam, in the 10th century, was under assault by the Mongols, after four centuries of unprecedented growth. The Mongol leader Hagulu, who bin Laden has compared President Bush too, even today, inspires dread among Muslim historians. Ibn Tamiyyah’s response, was that Islam was under assault, for the first time since it’s founding, because Islam had grown corrupted by non-Islamic thought and practices (Hinduism, Christianity, Greek Philosophy, Shi’ites, etc.); thus, the only way to defeat this threat, and re-assert Islam to it’s rightful place, was to harken back to a more “pure†form of Islam as practiced by the Islamic “ancestorsâ€, such as the Prophet Mohammed and the Four “Divine†Caliphs. One of the reasons that bin Laden wants to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate!
Thus Ibn Tamiyyah spawned the Salafiyyah movement, which has had many incarnations, but one that is most closely followed by Hanbali Sunnis, their offshoot the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and it’s various manifestations in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. For the GIA in Algeria, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qaeda in Saudi/Yemen, are all Salafiyyah movements, as are various other Islamic “movements†in such trouble spots as Aech in Indonesia, certain of the Somali “tariqa†(Sufi brotherhoods); the Hadramut Wadi in Yemen (bin Laden’s ancestral homeland!!); the former Sokoto Caliphate in northern Nigeria; Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even the Deobandis in Pakistan and India (the same Sufi “tariqatâ€, by the way, that President Musharraf of Pakistan and most of the upper-level Pakistani leadership and Pakistani security forces belongs to! Hence the “influence†of bin Laden on them, and vice versa. In fact, Musharraf’s “conversion†to strong U.S. ally in the War on Terror, may be the most astonishing case of “taqiyyah†that’s taken place in recent memory!)
3:45 pm
The problem is we don’t know for sure what this nutcase is gonna do. We’ve seen alot of anniverseries come and go, ones I thought maybe we’d see some terrorism again here, but it is scary, cuz we just don’t know.
4:22 pm
As I have thought for a while now, it is time for individuals to get serious about disaster preparation in the U.S. If you thought the government’s response to Katrina was incompetent, just wait until (god forbid) a WMD goes off in an American city. It will be utter chaos for a period of several days. People in the surrounding areas who survive need to be prepared to get out of Dodge FAST, and be able to feed, shelter, and protect themselves for a substantial period of time until the beauracrats figure out left from right and respond with some degree of effectiveness (if they can do so at all).
7:31 pm
I keep telling people that the only thing that will wake up the world to the dangers of islamofacism and its prince of darkness, abinanutjob, is the utter destruction of Israel because apparently 9/11 wasn’t enough. How sad.
9:02 pm
“Allah will know his own”
The eminent historian Bernard Lewis has earned a reputation as a meticulous and thoughtful scholar of Middle East culture. He’s been well ahead of the curve on many developments, which is what makes his latest op-ed for the Wall Street
9:14 pm
August 22, less than two weeks away. This is one time in which I am very happy there are so many miles between the US and Iran. This luxury becomes more meaningless with each passing day as missile technology grows more sophisticated, and as Iran can play the odds by trying to slip a nuclear weapon within range by ship.
11:35 pm
Can’t we just bomb Iran already?
Rick Moran points us to a warning that we should beware August 22, an otherwise obscure date that apparently bears some significance on the Islamic calendar.
You simply cannot negotiate with wackos like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. You have to kill them….
4:30 am
John Derbyshire recently observed that wishful thinking, not love, hate or greed, is the most persistent human characteristic. My biggest criticism of liberalism is its tendency to indulge in wishful thinking. Here, we are indulging in the worst kind of fantasy, hoping against hope that a fanatically religious Iranian government will respond to rational cues, ignoring rhetoric (and actions) to the contrary. A child denies or ignores facts, hoping they will go away. We’re engaged in child-like behavior.
5:40 am
But there’s plenty of criticism to go around, as Stanley Kurtz at NRO notes:
“If liberals are lost in wishful thinking about the prospects of negotiated settlements and nuclear containment, conservatives are naive about the possibility of ending terror by a decisive military blow. Gerges is right that Hezbollah is not some finite terror force, but the expression of the will and aspirations of a massive portion of the Lebanese people. As such, it is unlikely to be bombed out of existence.”
The same principle applies to Iran.
12:51 pm
I’m with kreiz: I don’t think even a nuclear strike by Iran on Israel would be enough for the US to use nukes. The left would argue against it because it’s mean, the Republicans would argue against it because it would “make enemies.”
Me, I’d be held back by guard from pushing the damn button. I don’t think we have the will to use nukes, and I think Iran knows it.
8:58 pm
lets hope no one does any thing stupid because
the jews will make iran glow in the dark for 40 years
9:58 pm
While it’s obvious that crazy critter in Iran has to be stopped and soon, did I miss something regarding the risks of August 22nd? I thought Iran was trying to get, but doesn’t yet have nukes!
12:49 am
obhwjexolc
hmgefuwsagi hwqasycu rbthwxi hruyfxo