Daniel Pipes: Islamists seek “world domination”

In another charming nugget for Jewish World Review July 26, official Islamophobe Daniel Pipes writes “The attempt to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and the Shari’a has begun — but the world is in denial”:

What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.

A generation ago, terrorists did make their wishes very clear. On hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Great Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. On attacking the B’nai B’rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of G-d, US$750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader’s family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.

Such “non-negotiable demands” lead to wrenching hostage dramas and attendant policy dilemmas. “We will never negotiate with terrorists,” declared the policymakers. “Give them Hawaii but get my husband back,” pleaded the hostages’ wives.

Those days are so remote and their terminology so forgotten that even the American president now speaks of “non-negotiable demands” (in his case, concerning human dignity), forgetting the deadly origins of this phrase.

Instead, most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators’ identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.

But the reasons for the violence go unexplained. Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives. These can concern the terrorists’ personal grievances – such as poverty, prejudice, or cultural alienation. Alternately, they can respond to international politics:

* Pulling “a Madrid” and getting governments to pull their troops from Iraq.

* Convincing Americans to leave Saudi Arabia.

* Ending U.S. support for Israel.

* Pressuring New Delhi to cede control of all Kashmir.

Any of these motives could have contributed to the violence; as London’s Daily Telegraph puts it, problems in Iraq and Afghanistan each added “a new pebble to the mountain of grievances that militant fanatics have erected.” Yet none of these issues is decisive to giving up one’s life for the sake of killing others.

In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and the Shari’a (Islamic law). Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”

Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming “The caliphate or death.” A biography of Abdullah Azzam, one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, declares that his life “revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah’s Rule on earth” and restoring the caliphate.

Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that “the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan.” His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, “history would make a new turn, G-d willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government.” Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that declares “Due to the blessings of jihad, America’s countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon,” to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker he had just assassinated, “Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth.”

Interestingly, Bouyeri was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: “I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.”

Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often avert their eyes. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that “Islam is an innocent bystander in today’s terrorism.”

What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.

OK, that al-Qaeda and their ilk seek to establish a new caliphate and harbor dreams of world domination is pretty obvious. But are Afghanistan and Iraq mere “pebbles”? Apologists for the Bush-Blair position that the London terror isn’t “about” Iraq love to point out that 9-11 came before the adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan (e.g. The Scotsman editorial, July 12). But it isn’t like the US wasn’t already politically and militarily involved in the Islamic world. The al-Qaeda statements issued in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 all mention three grievances: US support for the occupation of Palestine, the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, and the Iraq sanctions. (See Osama bin Laden statement, Oct. 7, 2001; Sulaiman Abu Ghaith statement, Oct. 9, 2001.)

Since 9-11, the number of global terrorist attacks has exploded to unprecedented levels—as US government figures indicate. Whether or not Islamists seek world domination, the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have obviously only swollen their ranks and proved absolutely counter-productive to the goal of ending world terrorism. They are more like boulders—perhaps mountains—than “pebbles.”

Writes Steve Weissman in a wise commentary for TruthOut:

Addressing the July 7 bombings in London on his weekend radio address two days later, Mr. Bush could hardly wait to repeat his customary mantra:

“We are now waging a global war on terror – from the mountains of Afghanistan … to the plains of Iraq,” he declared. “We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home.”

Kill them there, or they’ll kill us here.

Never mind that Mr. Bush’s show of force in Afghanistan and Iraq did not stop the terrorists from killing and maiming in Bali, Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid, Baghdad, and London.

Never mind that the CIA’s National Intelligence Council warned over a year ago that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as both a recruiting and training ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorists, who will over time “disperse to various other countries,” including the United States.

Never mind that the CIA warned again this May that Iraq had become a real-world laboratory for urban combat, dispersing to other countries Iraqi and foreign combatants more adept and better organized than they were before the conflict.

Forget every inconvenient fact. Just suck in your gut and repeat after your president: Kill them there, or they’ll kill us here.

See our last post on the politics of Islamic terrorism.