Skip to comments.Bin Laden Expert: Muslim Tradition to Offer Truce Before Attack
Posted on 01/21/2006 5:18:21 PM PST by FairOpinion
The former chief of the CIAs Osama bin Laden unit says bin Ladens truce offer comes from a long-established Muslim tradition of warfare -- sending a clear signal to the United States that an al Qaeda attack is more than likely.
Twenty-two-year CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, who wrote Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, says bin Laden has offered his final warning before launching his next strike.
Warning your enemy before you attack him is very much a tradition in Islam from the prophet to the times when Saladin was fighting the Crusaders, he would warn them, he would offer them a truce, he would try to go the extra mile before attacking him, Scheuer said on The OReilly Factor Thursday.
So I think it's very important that we understand the context in which bin Laden is speaking, Scheuer continued, because I've heard other people today already saying that he's offering a truce because it's a sign of weakness, because we're beating him. And I think that's pretty far from the truth.
Following Al-Jazeeras disclosure of the tape yesterday, several bin Laden experts -- including journalist Richard Miniter on Human Events Online -- dismissed bin Ladens latest message as nothing more than a bid to reassert himself as the worlds preeminent terrorist.
I asked two experts on the Middle East and Islam their thoughts about Scheuers assertion. They cited historical parallels to Scheuers contention.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), told me: Traditional Islamic theology actually does support the idea that Osama was asking for a truce because he perceives weakness in his ranks.
Spencer pointed me to a passage (below) from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a Shafi'i Sharia manual endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo as conforming to the "practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." Heres what it says:
Truces are permissible, not obligatory. ... Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim. ... If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. ... The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax; namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.
A second scholar, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, told me: Bin Ladin has a history of making threats he did not carry out -- for example, versus Israel after the execution of Ahmed Yassin. It is more useful to see his tape as an attempt to stay relevant than in the tradition of Muslim warfare.
Can you hear the Dems saying after we kill Bin Laden -- "Evil Bush killed Bin Laden after Bin Laden offered a truce. Evil Bush killed a "reformed" terrorist" Shades of Tookie Williams.
American tradition is to shoot first and ask questions later.
Did I miss something?
They have been murdering innocents for decades. HOW THE HELL DOES THIS MONSTERS RANTS change a DAMN THING?
It is now OUR CUSTOM to KILL them.
"Arabs are notorious for making boasts they cannot back up."
Remember Baghdad Bob?
The reason Usama bin Laden is offerering a truce is because Bush is hurting him and he needs a breather to regroup.
I hope the President won't give him one and I don't think he will.
Funny I don't recall that he offered a truce prior to 9-11.
I didn't see it in the article, so I'll ask.
Did he offer a truce before 9/11?
The proposed truce serves many functions. It allows time to gather forces to prepare for attack. It lulls your opponent into carelessness. And it salves the conscience, such as may exist, of the conqueror, because he gave the subjected people "one last chance" before he killed them.
In any case, the offer of a truce is almost certainly a prelude to attack. I would say some time between 12-18 months from now.
Isn't it nice to know that militant Islamist terrorists have a sense of propriety and ethical obligation? Makes my heart warm to know that the war is being conducted with such chivalry.
What a crock, just some know nothing trying to add to the terror quotient.
I must have missed the warning before 9/11. Scheuer is an idiot. Is there any wonder why the USA was completely unprepared for the WTC attacks with people like Micheal Scheuer and Richard Clarke working in the intelligence agencies.
The actual Islamic tradition is to offer a truce when you've been beaten and need time to regroup, re-arm, and plan for the next offensive. See "Arafat".
Scheuer seems to be trying to position the left into being able to say "I told you so" if a nuclear 9-11 happens after we attack Iran or whatever.
Little does he know that the left is over in the USA if even a car bomb goes off in this country.
This is such a charming culture.Full of such fine traditions. 'Specially love the one about it being ok to decieve in the name of Allah. I like our traditions: "Power resides at the end of a gun."
"Did he offer a truce before 9/11?"
He doesnt speak for all of islamo facism either.
He doesnt have that kind of power.
It's also standard to offer a truce when someone is kicking your ass.
What we were discussing.
[The actual Islamic tradition is to offer a truce when you've been beaten and need time to regroup, re-arm, and plan for the next offensive. See "Arafat".]
Correct. Now is the time to liberate Iran after which the Saudis will have to do our bidding or we will just give the Saudi oil fields to the Shiites as well as Iraq and Iran.
Well, Mr. Scheuer, since you were still working for the goverment then, before you wrote you book and took the money, how is it that YOU missed the "signal" before 9-11 -- and what the HELL was the offer?
I think this is the time...but the Saudi's (Wahabbist's) and the Twelvers (Mahdi Shiites) are basically the same.
If the Administration doesn't understand the religious aspect of this war...they cannot understand the MO of the enemy.
Jimmah Cahtah would have called it a diplomatic breakthrough.
Thanks for the ping RR.
"If you give up now, I'll stop beating your fist to a pulp with my face."
This is something we have been discussing on the TM.
Most all of the so called experts have really been down playing this.
I fear it is a big mistake.
The nut-case is tossing red meat to the MSM and the lib-weenie bloc, hoping for backlash against GWB.
Bin Laden is tired, scared, and grasping for straws. I bet he hears the footsteps getting closer. We are going to smoke his a$$ soon.
Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
Bin laden did not offer a truce, he said he would accept a truce offered by the USA, which we are not offering.
That an offer of truce is a harbinger of a coming attack---it's counter-intuitive, and that's not to say it's invalid, but in this case I think it's wrong. More likely bin Laden is in contact with some other party that has assured him they are preparing an imminent attack on America, and a spectacular one at that; and he believes them, because he wants to believe them. Bin Laden is a fanatic, and fanatics are the easiest people to fool.
I think he was a one-trick pony, and is regarded as such even in his own shrinking circle. He and al Qaeda can never follow their own act of 9/11. Otherwise we'd hear from him every week, and he'd be taking credit for spectacular terrorist triumphs every month.
Think about it. One scratchy audio tape after a year of oblivion. Is that the signature of a world-beater?
They do survive; like roaches you can exterminate 90%, they survive and they do intend harm and they do continue to stir up fools and patsies in the Arab world. But they are in retreat. Clearly in retreat.
It's been over four years since they sucker-punched us. The Bush Doctrine is working, working very well. Bin Laden is begging for mercy the way devils always beg, by making it sound like an offer of clemency.
I don't think that AQ has what it takes (right now) to do a major, 911 style attack on the USA.
That's not to say it can't cause trouble, and lots of it, provided they have enough agents willing to sacrifice their lives on the ground.
Provided you have the agents in place, just how difficult is it to rig 10 or 12 suicide bombers all around the USA to detonate during lunch hour or evening rush hour in a half dozen major cities?
Follow it the next day with 10 or 12 suicide bombers in another half dozen cities.
The day after that, repeat.
That's only about 30-36 agents - granted they can only do that trick once. Say they go to that well every day for a week. Then start doing every other day. Then every three days. Mix it up.
That would really freak out most people in the USA, and given conventional methods we really couldn't stop it, could we?
Does AQ have enough good, loyal soldiers to keep something like that up?
That's actually a Chinese tradition/observation.
It's a no-brainer Osama. We DO NOT negotiate with terrorists. We kill them.
You're welcome RR.
OPINION: I am not any more or any less concerned with the terrorist threats. AQ is weakened, but jihadis, like gang bangers, like any terrorist by any name; will take the opportunity to do their evil deeds if they are prepared and if the opportunity presents itself.
Prayer is powerful and that's where my comfort comes from.
He has never offered a truce before. He is just rattled from his number 2 guy getting taken out and how the CIA was able to learn of the meeting on the afghan border. He is scared now and talking like a scared man.
Scheur is a rat hack moron.
He hasn't gotten the memo that the CIA had better watch its back because the kind of partisan crap that he and his fellow weasels were engaged in won't be tolerated.
I would submit that it is an exercise in futility to attempt to apply rules of logic to bin Laden.
It would however be useful to aply MOABs to him!