A thought provoking essay Waleed.

Like Irfan you’re unusually articulate and principled (for a lawyer that is mate ;-)

I'm a little more wary about the thesis al Qaeda may be on the decline:

- Terrorist groups (including Muslim ones) often reinvent themselves. While bin Laden may have been isolated from the rank and file of al Qaeda (AQ) deep, organised groupings (or quickly mobilised sympathisers) may still exist in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

- Its known AQ is still strong in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there is any reduction in the fight against AQ in those countries then AQ energies might be directed back to bombing Western soil or aircraft. A major pullout of US forces from Iraq is likely pre US November 2008 Presidential elections. The West’s Iraq occupation at current force levels is financially unsustainable.

- One major AQ bombing on Western soil will unmake the thesis and your optimism. Prior to 9/11 AQ was assessed as no great threat. AQ reads the media and reacts to complacency.

- The recent perceived success of Hezbollah in fighting Israel may agitate AQ to try harder - either in concert with Hezbollah (putting aside Shia-Sunni animosity) or alone.

- AQ has a well documented history of working with JI in our region (Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia). With the anti Pope campaign going on and JI's Bashir again free to stir up Indonesia jihadists, JI is still a threat, particularly in Jakarta and Bali.

- The Chatham thesis refers to home-grown terrorism as a continuing threat (due to AQ linking Western invasions and occupations).
= With Lebanon's Hezbollah seen as "heroic" among some locals and with increasing Australian commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn't take mind readers to see possibilities.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

It is only Muslims who can stop the terrorism but it would have to be a whole hearted affair and it is obvious by the screaming whipped up hysteria of demonstrations, burning of churches, murder of a nun, placards ,all over a few misunderstood words, where the Muslim heart really lies.
One picture on television was particularly telling, two very small children dressed in Muslim clothes, were holding a placard that said,"KILL THE POPE".
Why?

Dear Waleed
It seems your thesis is:

"Political Assasination and Violence does not advance the cause of true Islam"

The classic case of this being done, sadly is by Mohamed your prophet.

His view was.. "Mocking Poetry and illicit political Liasons by Kaab bin Al Ashraf, the Jewish chief of the Bani Nadir tribe in Medina, to the Quraysh in Mecca are deserving of death."

BACKGROUND.

1/ 2 large Arab tribes and 3 smaller Jewish tribes inhabited Medina.
2/ When Mohamed fled Mecca due to persecution, he managed to persuade all tribes in Medina to sign up to a document called the 'Pact of Medina' Kaab also signed this as leader of the Banu Nadir tribe.
3/ The Meccans attacked Medina but were unsucessful, and Mohamed's forces captured some of the top Meccan nobles, who he then executed.
4/ Kaab was outraged by this brutality, and began writing poetry lamenting their loss, and began seeking an alliance with the Quraysh against Mohamed.
5/ Mohamed, irritated by the poetry and the political overtures toward the Quraysh, asked "Who will rid me of Kaab bin al Ashraf"
To which question Muhammed Ibn Maslama replied "I will" and he had Mohamed's approval for this assasination.

The 'Hit' was arranged and planned to be through deception, (Lies) and 'on the quiet'. There was no trial, no arrest, just 'assasination' at night.
It is even described as the 'Murder'... in Islamic Hadith.

ISLAMIC PRECEDENT.

Given that Mohamed is the 'pre-eminent example' of Islam, and his actions are mean't to inspire others. Does this one incident alone, suggest that Islam by precept and practice of its founder, justifies political assasination without trial or public hearing ? YES !

Without a trial, it was pure speculation and this murder was carried out at the whim of the prophet.

VIOLENCE in DEFENSE of ISLAM, YESTERDAY and TODAY. Here, we see the direct connection between violent defense of the 'religion' at it's core. We also see the inseparable connection between 'State' and 'Religion'.
Dangerous at any time. Note the violent Muslim reaction to the Popes legitimate use of History.

Nice article but is it accurate? From the BBC there is this item:

"Iraqi tribal chiefs in the so-called Sunni Triangle have agreed to join forces to fight al-Qaeda, and have pleaded for US supplies of arms.

"People are fed up with the acts of those criminals who take Islam as a cover for their crimes," Sheik Fassal al-Guood told the Associated Press news agency on Monday.

He said 15 of the 18 tribes in Ramadi "have sworn to fight those who are killing Sunnis and Shiites", and had put together "20,000 young men".

Here was the response from:

"a young al-Qaeda leader called Abu Farouq told Reuters that the fight would go on until an Islamic caliphate had been imposed across Anbar."

"This tribal system is un-Islamic. We are proud to kill tribal leaders who are helping the Americans," he said.

Neither side seems to get it!

The very LAST thing anyone needs in Iraq or elsewhere in the world is yet another group of fanatical young men who are provided with more weapons, whatever their cause, to run around rampant with only killing, maiming and violence on their mind.

Waleed
Thank you so much for your contribution. It is one of the best opinions I have ever read on the so called War on Terror.

The tenor of some of the comments above leave me very troubled, which goes to show, I suppose, that there are many people who are invested in dividing up the world between us and them.

Please post more articles

David James.... in an ideal world there would be no need to highlight ideological danger points, but alas, the world is not ideal.
A war is indeed going on, and I see it as an important role to determine where this is coming from.

Clearly, Christians are not up in arms about insults to their faith. Do we care ? Sure we do. I was just watching Southpark and the episode was to do with 'Stations of the Cross' and it had Kartman crucified and mouthing off at the other guys. Clearly it was disrespectful of the deep and serious meaning of the Crucifixion of our Lord, but I am more concerned that people gain a right view of the event than wreaking 'vengance' over a cartoon misprepresentation.

ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD ?
Such a claim is often repudiated by Muslims, who will often point to the "grateful defeated who happily embraced Islam when they experienced the mercy and just treatement of the Muslim Armies."

THE REALITY.
The Campaign of Tabuk. Mohamed saw the need to have a buffer zone between his forces and the Byzantines. The Northern Arabian tribes were mostly Christian and allied to the Byzantines. He send his general Kalid bin Al Waleed to challenge them to "fight me or become my ally". Many surcumbed to this threat, embracing Islam out of fear.
One prince Ukaydir of Dumah refused. Walid murdered his brother in his presence, and sacked the city, then took Prince Ukaydir back to Mohamed, who 'offered him Islam'. Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that having just seen his brother hacked to death by Waleed, this 'offer' was of the type you 'cannot refuse'...
So, he embraces Islam and returns as Mohammed's Ally.
The prince would have made social changes to suit this new faith, and people would have followed their prince.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm

Islam, spread....by the sword ! This is inescapable.