Libyan Muslim Declaration a Model for Islamic Nations

As reported by Reuters today, a coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders has issued a declaration that it is the duty of all Libyan Muslims to rebel against Libyan Government leaders because of their "bloody crimes against humanity."  The language of the declaration is noteworthy because of its potential ideological applicability to citizens of all Islamist governments that foment violence or support radical Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others.

Here is the statement against the Libyan government:

They have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity. They have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and His beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).  This renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely ordained duty.

This statement is equal parts powerful and muddled.  When applied by Libyan Muslims to violent elements within their own government, it is a call to revolution, directly stating that because the government uses violence ("bloody crimes against humanity"), the government is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam and is thus unworthy of allegiance or obedience from its people.  However, when applied to eliminating radical Islamist terrorists from Muslim nations, bold statements such as this one are few and far between.

When taken at face value, the statement from the Network of Free Ulema of Libya could be applied to al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and hundreds of other terrorist organizations worldwide.  They commit "bloody crimes against humanity", such as bombing hotels, pizza parlors, World Trade Center towers, and lines of civilians waiting to vote in democratic elections.  Does this not demonstrate"total infidelity to the guidance of God" as the Libyan Muslim leaders imply?  Or is it only infidelity to Muslim principles when violence is used on other Muslims?  Are non-Muslim peoples part of "humanity", thus violence against them makes the group who brought the violence undeserving of obedience or support from other Muslims?


The Libyan Muslim leaders made a bold and laudable declaration, removing any sense of guilt Libyans might have about protesting and physically rebelling against their government.  The logic of the statement is reflective of the language set forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which presented a list of grievous acts committed by King George that rendered the Crown undeserving of any further allegiance from the Colonials.  In any revolutionary movement, it is critical to keep the government's sins in the forefront of popular memory.  By removing any religious hesitations Libyans may have because of their Islamic beliefs in obedience to government, the Network of Free Ulema of Libya makes the revolution's success more likely.  For those Muslims who adhere to this declaration, it has become religious duty to rebel in every way possible.  Gaddafi's guns, tanks, helicopters, and brutality will be no match for a united people who view it as their divinely ordained duty to rebel against him and remove the current government from power.


Capital Cloak applauds the statement from this coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders.  Now, if only more Muslim leaders worldwide would be similarly outspoken about the infidelity to God and his Prophet displayed by Islamic terrorist groups who have been killing through "bloody crimes against humanity" for decades.  If such statements are not issued, the non-Muslim peoples of the world are left with little doubt that they are not considered part of "humanity" by their Muslim friends and neighbors.

Pakistan a Moderate Muslim Test Case

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf could not have been more clear: "We are in direct confrontation with the extremist forces - it is moderates versus extremists." Yet instead of being encouraged by Musharraf's newly launched war to reform Islam from within, Lee Hamilton, former 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group member, recommended that the U.S. strike at al Qaeda in its Pakistani mountain safe haven on the Afghanistan border without Musharraf's consent. Hamilton cited several good reasons for taking unilateral action, specifically the importance of keeping al Qaeda on the run and unable to replenish itself. Hamilton also expressed evident disdain for Musharraf's insistence that Pakistani military forces conduct all raids against radical Islamist groups operating in Pakistan, an arrangement that Hamilton described as unacceptable. Hamilton joined Fox News Military analyst Colonel David Hunt in the "Musharraf is not our friend" chorus, and if Americans continue to sing that tune long and loudly enough, we will soon find few friends among the moderate Muslim leaders of the world.

Hamilton and Col. Hunt want what we all want: to see al Qaeda hunted down ruthlessly in their mountain sanctuaries as a deterrent to the rest of the world's radical Islamic terrorists and their potential recruits. The problem is that both men are fixated on the American "right" to conduct military operations within Pakistan even though Pakistan's moderate Muslim president and military leader has declared war on the extremists in his own nation and has now promised to confront radical Islamists in every corner of Pakistan.

Of course we want to strike al Qaeda, but doing so unilaterally without the consent of the president of the world's only Muslim nuclear nation would send precisely the wrong message to Muslims everywhere. Americans complain that not enough moderate Muslims are working to reform Islam by confronting its extremists, yet when we find one who happens to be a powerful figure with control of a small nuclear arsenal, Hamilton and Col. Hunt question his friendship and urge our leaders to ignore Musharraf's promise to purge the terrorists internally. Either we want Islam to reform itself or we don't. Hamilton and Col. Hunt cannot have it both ways.

I wrote previously about Musharraf's need for sovereignty, further postulating that the United States would never allow a foreign military to conduct strikes within our borders, as we would, like Musharraf, exercise our sovereignty and insist that our military remove the enemy from within our borders. It is no small matter for a president to permit a foreign military to cross his nation's borders and attack members, albeit radical ones, of his national religion. Therein lays the danger inherent in circumventing Musharraf's authority. His decision to publicly distinguish between moderate and extreme Islam, and further vow to "fight against extremism and terrorism no matter what province," has worsened his already precarious political position because a long-term battle against terrorists in Pakistan will require Musharraf to not relinquish command of the Pakistani military, a power he has personally retained despite calls for separation of his political and military role as President-General. Musharraf's military command, if he continues on the moderate path, is of great benefit to global security, as he keeps nuclear weapons in moderate hands.

Meanwhile, radicals within Pakistan salivate at the prospect of electing a president who shares their views and might use that arsenal to intimidate or annihilate their enemies. America finds itself in the position of having a moderate Muslim president-military dictator as perhaps its most valuable and vulnerable ally in the War on Terror.

Musharraf has successfully remained in power because of his strong hold on Pakistan's military establishment, though he faces danger in that realm from radical infiltration. If the United States were to ignore Musharraf's sovereign authority and send our military to conduct operations within Pakistan, it would directly challenge the one core strength he possesses: electorates rarely choose to change leaders in war time or when military confrontation is imminent. A U.S. strike, rather than a sustained Pakistani operation, would convince Pakistanis that Musharraf did not wield any international influence and could be replaced, since the U.S. would have shown little regard for whomever was Pakistan's president by handling the matter unilaterally. Musharraf is receiving criticism from every political party in Pakistan, some opposing his combative stance against radical Islam, and others decrying his determination to run for re-election without relinquishing control of the military.

Impatience is our sorest affliction in Iraq, as the House and Senate worked feverishly and at least for one night, sleeplessly, to withdraw from Iraq long before the full results of the surge strategy can be evaluated. That same impatience must not dictate precipitous U.S. action in Pakistan before allowing Musharraf's confrontation strategy to yield tangible results. Arguably the most militarily and politically powerful moderate Muslim in the world, Musharraf embodies the great question the non-Muslim world wants answered: Is Islam truly a moderate religion of peace, or does radical Islam hold sway in the hearts and minds of the majority?

If Musharraf's declared war against extremism within Islam succeeds in Pakistan, it would set a precedent to be followed in Muslim nations worldwide. If it is also true that moderate Muslims live in fear of the radicals in their midst, then we, and they, should sing Musharraf's praises for pitting himself squarely against the terrorists, rather than forming choruses that shriek about his perceived limitations.

Musharraf left no doubt about his commitment to victory in Pakistan's new war on extremism, reassuring his countrymen, "We will finish it off in every corner of the country." What greater victory could there be in a war against extremist terrorism than for a Muslim nation to clean its own house of terrorists? Let us not allow our national epidemic of impatience to cripple in Pakistan what may be the ultimate death knell for radical Islam: internal reform, by ideology if possible, but by the sword if necessary.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Lee Hamilton, Colonel David Hunt, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, War on Terror, Moderate Muslims, Radical Islam

Musharraf: I Will Not Allow Extreme Islam

I had no sooner published my previous post about Colonel David Hunt’s assessment that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf “is not our friend,” titled “Fox Analyst Flays ‘Friend’ Musharraf,” when I came across today’s UK Telegraph article “Musharraf Declares War on Muslim Extremists.” After reading my earlier post and the following excerpts from the Telegraph story, it should be clear which side Musharraf is on in the War on Terror. While he may not be the perfect “friend” Col. Hunt apparently expects, his efforts to battle terrorists within Pakistan are exactly what we need from the leaders of all Muslim nations if Islamic extremism is ever to be defeated. In that light, Musharraf is our imperfect but certainly welcome friend despite Col. Hunt’s low opinion of him. Readers should decide whether these words published in the Telegraph are those of a friend or of an enemy, as Col. Hunt implied, in the War on Terror (Reuters photo courtesy of UK Telegraph):

…In a televised address to the nation, Gen Musharraf said that those inside the mosque and its adjacent madrassa, or Muslim college, were "terrorists" who directly threatened Pakistan's security. They had also tarnished Islam's reputation as a tolerant and peaceful religion.

"What do we as a nation want?" he asked. "What kind of Islam do these people represent? In the garb of Islamic teaching they have been training for terrorism. They prepared the madrassa as a fortress for war and housed other terrorists in there."

Gen Musharraf praised the army for wresting the mosque and its madrassa "from the hands of terrorists" and said: "I will not allow any madrassa to be used for extremism."

Isn’t this precisely what we have longed to hear from every Muslim leader in the world, a call to Muslims from Muslims to reject extremism and fight against those who tarnish Islam’s reputation? Other than allowing direct U.S. military action in Pakistan, which I discussed in more detail in my post earlier today, what more could Col. Hunt and other Musharraf critics hope for out of an embattled but courageous leader of the world’s only Muslim nuclear nation? For critics like Col. Hunt, what’s not to like about a moderate Muslim leader who raids radical mosques, kills barricaded extremist clerics firing upon government forces, and tells a nationwide audience that extremism is not consistent with true Islam and must be destroyed?

Musharraf’s televised address contained the strongest and most specific condemnation of extremism yet heard from a Muslim political figure, but perhaps more important than the condemnation was the call for Pakistani’s to ask themselves what kind of Pakistan and brand of Islam they want to represent, to themselves and the rest of the world.

Pakistan is rapidly careening towards a crossroads in its place in world history. It is a complicated combination of technological scientific achievement on the one hand and radical anti-modernization and religious oppression on the other. Musharraf’s statements and actions, placing his personal safety at continuous risk, clearly establish that he wants to help Pakistan develop into a modern and moderate Islamic nation. America and her allies should help Musharraf in every way possible to help Pakistan purge itself of the scourge of radical Islam rather than criticize him for not doing as much as we think he should within his own nation. If he invites U.S. military support in raiding the northern tribal areas infested with al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, then we should do so with relish. If, however, he continues to request that only Pakistani forces conduct these operations in Pakistan, then we should respect his authority and assist in every other way available.

It may well be crucial for Pakistan’s internal stability in the future that the nation purges its own Islamic extremist elements rather than allowing the U.S. to do so. Such a purge, conducted by Muslims against other Muslims by their own forces would be a clear statement of national purpose and unity in the name of preserving moderate Islam.

President Musharraf is a brave man who needs stalwart and patient friends to stand by him while he attempts to lead Pakistan through a period of nationwide religious introspection on the future direction of Islam in Pakistan. His address to his people, consistent with his continued contributions to the War on Terror, will hopefully silence Col. Hunt’s and other critics’ complaints that Musharraf is not “friend” enough for their liking.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, Red Mosque, Islamic Extremism, Televised Address, Madrassas, Terrorists, War on Extremists, War on Terror, Colonel David Hunt, Moderate Islam

Bomb Doctors Sign of Radicalism's Reach

What would you think if, while conversing with an Iraqi Sunni sheikh at a meeting of sheikhs attempting to broker “peace” in Iraq, he began spewing a litany of anti-American rhetoric, warned you that militants would expand their operations to include direct attacks on Britain and America, and further warned you that “those who cure you will kill you?” Would that last phrase stand out in your mind? What would you conclude that the sheikh meant by his comment about “those who cure?”

You don’t have to be an intelligence specialist or counterterrorism expert to take the sheikh’s warning at face value and put two and two together, but apparently British Anglican cleric Canon Andrew White had difficulty seeing the proverbial forest for the trees. Instead of reporting the verbatim warning to the British Foreign Office in April, when the disturbing conversation occurred, White left out the statement “those who cure you will kill you,” and merely told authorities of the anti-American rhetoric at the meeting, warning in generic terms only that militants were going to target America and Britain directly.

White has received recognition from coalition forces in Iraq for his work among Iraqis and attempts to reconcile the various religious factions there. He was no stranger to radical ideology, having witnessed its brutality firsthand, and that is why it was stunning that he did not recognize the sheikh’s comments as a reference to doctors. White deserves standard kudos for reporting what little he did report to the British Foreign Office at the time, but unfortunately it took failed car bombings in London and Glasgow last week, and the subsequent arrests of 8 doctors, medical students, and laboratory technicians in Britain for it to dawn on White what the sheikh’s warning actually meant and to go public with his “discovery.” There is no question that had White shared the sheikh’s precise phrase with government authorities in April, British intelligence would have begun immediately to inquire with its informants about doctors or others in the medical profession and may very well have detected the London-Glasgow plot before its unsuccessfully execution last week.

The UK Telegraph reported today that the post-attack investigation has revealed that a group of 45 Muslim doctors may have participated in an extremist Internet chat room as long as three years ago in which they threatened to use car bombs to attack targets in the United States. One can only imagine how deeply British or American intelligence/counterterrorism agencies might have penetrated, or how closely they could have monitored such a group of doctors had they known of its existence as early as April of this year, when White first received an explicit warning about “those who cure.”

Yesterday I asked my wife, an astute thinker in her own right but who had not heard any coverage of White’s restored memory, to imagine what she would conclude if an anti-American Islamic sheikh told her “those who cure you will kill you.” She replied that not only would she immediately think of doctors, but that her concern would focus not on car bombs but rather on chemical/biological attacks that could be launched quietly through unsuspecting patients by doctors with access to biological and radiological materials. She was thinking of pandemics or radiation poisonings caused by doctors in whom Americans (or the British) would have placed their implicit trust for routine treatment, a much more frightening prospect than propane tank car bombs. Considering the large number of Muslim doctors in the United States, particularly in the Washington, DC area, it is possible that patients may reconsider their choice of doctor with the revelations of willing terrorists among the ranks of Muslim medical personnel in the west.

American and British Muslim physicians and medical staff may chafe at the suspicion and patient cancellations that are sure to come on the heels of current investigations into the London-Glasgow terror doctors. They may consider it unfair and unwarranted, but moderate Muslims, including respected physicians and other successful Muslim professionals, need to purge their own ranks of extremists like the eight medical personnel arrested since Friday’s initial botched bombing. Radio personality Fred Grandy posed a timely question to Muslims during the “Grandy and Andy Morning Show” today: “Where is the anti-Bin Laden? Where is the anti-al Zawahiri?” He explained that the world is mesmerized by each new videotaped statement by Bin Laden, but there is no corresponding moderate Muslim leader to issue rebuttals to Bin Laden or condemn his rhetoric and offer a better alternative for impressionable Muslims throughout the world.

The arrested doctors in Britain illustrate an important truth of radical Islam: it is not limited in social or educational status and has quiet support even among those who are supposedly dedicated to preserving life. It has followers in every profession, in every walk of life. When doctors, well-educated and engaged in a lucrative profession, are willing to throw away years of training and achievement by risking detonating themselves along with hundreds of innocent British or American citizens, radical Islam demonstrates the expanse of its reach and indoctrinating power. In its appeal to base human impulse, radicalism is more compelling than reason.

In an interesting concluding paragraph to its report of cleric White’s hindsight, CNN unintentionally published a compelling argument for America to remain engaged in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries until Islamic terrorists are dealt an ultimately fatal blow. Whether it meant to or not, CNN supported President Bush’s premise that “we are fighting the terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” From CNN’s report:

According to officials, there has been long-standing concern that Iraq is a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists who have been testing tactics of urban warfare, which can then be used in Western nations.

Terrorism analyst Marco Vicenzino, the director of the Global Strategy Project, says the world could be seeing a shift in jihadist tactics.

Confident after wounding the United States and its allies in Iraq, jihadists "are determined to take their combat experience directly to the superpower and its allies at home and around the world," Vicenzino said.

If the jihadists are “confident” after wounding the U.S. in Iraq, then it stands to reason that America’s response to a wounding should not be retreat, withdrawal, or “redeployment,” as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and other prominent Democrats have euphemistically recommended. Rather than allow an emboldened enemy to be confident, grow stronger, and launch widespread attacks, the enemy must be defeated and discouraged from ever attempting to “wound” America again. If they are determined, we must be doubly so. If they are confident of eventual victory, we must deny them of achieving it by dealing them defeat and crushing their capacity to strike us. If radical Islam is a disease slowly consuming the world even through the assistance of professional healers, and moderate Islam will not treat the disease devouring its ranks, who then holds the cure?

Technorati Tags:
Muslim Doctors, London Car Bombs, Radical Islam, Terrorism, Fred Grandy, Canon Andrew White, Iraq War, Muslim Medical Students, Moderate Muslims, Jihad