Through Our Enemies' Eyes

by Michael Scheuer

  Allah, the Exalted and the Almighty, we implore to send down His wrath, His aversion, and His force on the U.S. troops in the Gulf and on their Jewish allies in Palestine and on all hypocrites who support them. We implore Him to send upon them from His heaven a thunderbolt that rolls their heads, destroys them to the last man and keeps none. We implore Him to awaken the spirit of jihad in the Muslim nation so it will break away from the shackle of weakness and will meet for heroic sagas. We also implore Him to bless all Muslims with a righteous state in which those who obey Him are honored and those who disobey him are humiliated; in which virtue is promoted and vice prohibited—a state that supports the oppressed and the powerless in all parts of the world and exacts justice from every oppressor on earth, and this is not difficult for Allah.79

  Beyond criticizing Muslims for standing aloof on the jihad’s sidelines, bin Laden kept an eye peeled for any group whose ardor for fighting the good fight appears to be slackening. In summer 2000, for example, the Pakistan-based Kashmiri insurgent group Hezb-ul-Mujahedin (HUM) unexpectedly announced a unilateral cease-fire and readiness to talk to Indian officials about a negotiated settlement in Kashmir. The HUM’s move immediately drew withering condemnation from other Kashmiri insurgents and the group abandoned the cease-fire after a single unpromising meeting with the Indians. After the HUM initiative failed, bin Laden wrote that Kashmiri groups must avoid even hinting at the possibility of a negotiated settlement in Kashmir. His warning was temperately addressed to all Kashmiri groups, but there is no doubt his ire was focused on the HUM.

  The mujahedin in Kashmir are engaged in a jihad to please God. We pray for them. They are part of us. All of us are like a body. If any part of the body has pain, the other parts also feel it. India’s enmity toward Islam and Muslims is growing. All Muslims are obligated to undertake jihad against India and to support the forces engaged in jihad. I am sure that the Kashmiri mujahedin would decide anything with deliberation. No mujahid can waste the 16-year-old jihad and the blood of 300,000 martyrs. All I want to say is that they should not trust the enemy’s promises, unless the enemy proves its credibility with its actions. Jihad is a very precious thing and it should be treated very carefully. I am sure that [the] mujahedin would never let it be harmed. The entire Muslim world is with them and praying for them.80

  Finally, bin Laden’s readiness to call down God’s wrath on fellow Muslims who are not participating in the jihad has implications for his attitude toward the death of innocent Muslims in the course of his military operations. While not explicitly stating such a position, there is a clear suggestion in bin Laden’s statements that the prospect of casualties among Muslims choosing to live in—and not, as the Prophet has urged, emigrate from—Western countries or in Islamic countries “occupied” or “oppressed” by Crusaders and apostates, will not prominently figure in his calculations. In the expendable category, therefore, are Muslims living, working, or shopping near U.S. military, economic, or diplomatic facilities in places such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, other countries in the Gulf, the Caucasus, Africa, and the Balkans. Bin Laden made this clear in al Qaeda’s claim of responsibility for the East Africa bombings, telling Muslims “not to get near anything American in order to avoid a repeat of what happened in Nairobi and so that they are not unwittingly affected by the flames of God’s army.”81

  All Weapons Are on the Table

  Bin Laden is in an enviable position regarding the choice of weapons with which to attack those in the West, and he knows it. In March 1998 bin Laden quoted a passage from the Koran that emphasizes and justifies not only his personal inclination vis-à-vis weaponry, but also his belief that there is a binding religious duty to acquire and use all weapons against those he depicts as the Crusaders. “Against them,” says the passage, “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemy, and others besides them, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.”82 That bin Laden believes there now is a struggle to the death between Islam and the West, and hence Muslims must be armed as well as their foes, is clear in a March 1997 statement he sent to Al-Islah. “What we are interested in,” bin Laden wrote, “is our people’s awareness of the dimensions of the current battle and the need for them to join the mujahedin and get ready for the day of the decisive confrontation, with its heavy costs in terms of money and lives. Everything is of little importance when it comes to defending God’s religion, Islamic holy places, and Muslim countries, for the sake of applying God’s law.”83

  The weapons most sought by bin Laden, and those his foes most fear he will acquire, are either off-the-shelf chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons, or their components. Bin Laden wants to use CBRN weapons, as Gavin Cameron has written, “to achieve finite (although widespread) political objectives for religious reasons”—the removal of the Crusaders from Muslim lands and the subsequent destruction of Westernized Muslim regimes. Bin Laden is not interested in using a CBRN weapon to terrorize his foes; he is seeking a first-strike capability, a strategic not a tactical weapon. Bin Laden sees CBRN weapons as “war winners” and intends to use them to pin a strategic defeat on Islam’s foes.84 “I would say that acquiring [CBRN] weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty,” bin Laden told Rahimullah Yusufzai in late 1998.

  To seek to possess the weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out and I thank God for enabling us to do that. And if I seek to acquire these weapons I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims. But how we would use these weapons if we possess them is up to us.85

  Shortly after this statement, a query about CBRN weapons again was put to bin Laden, this time by Qatar’s Al-Jazirah television. Unusually, bin Laden replied with heat, momentarily losing his imperturbable calm. Appending a lengthy excerpt here is worthwhile because it is a rare instance of bin Laden in high dudgeon and, more important, because bin Laden unambiguously pledges to use weapons of mass destruction. “We believe that the right to self-defense is enjoyed by all people,” bin Laden said.

  Israel is stockpiling hundreds of nuclear warheads and bombs. The Christian West is largely in possession of such weapons. Hence, we do not regard this as a charge [i.e., seeking CBRN weapons], but rather as a right. We do not expect to see anybody level charges against us in this regard. It is as if you were accusing a man of being a courageous knight and fighter. It is as if you were denying him this. Only a man who is not in his right mind would level such accusations. We supported the Pakistani people and congratulated them when God was gracious enough to enable them to acquire the nuclear weapon. We regard this as one of our rights, our Muslim rights. We disregard such worn-out U.S. charges.

  Let us say that there are two parties to the conflict: The first party is world Christianity, which is allied with Zionist Jewry and led by the United States, Britain, and Israel; while the second party is the Muslim world. In such a conflict, it is unacceptable to see the first party mount attacks, desecrate my [sic] lands and holy shrines, and plunder the Muslims’ oil. When it is met by any resistance on the part of the Muslims, this party brands the Muslims as terrorists. This is stupidity. People’s intelligence is being belittled. We believe that it is our religious duty to resist this occupation with all the power that we have and to punish it using the same means it is pursuing us with.86

  The use of CBRN weapons again raises the issue of causing Muslim casualties. As noted above, bin Laden has pronounced on the issue in the context of the conventional East Africa bombings, saying the losses there were religiously acceptable, and even blaming the Kenyans because “it is your government that has brought death and ruin to your country when it allowed the Americans to use its territory to kill the neighboring Islamic peoples [in Somalia] and besiege t
heir ecomomy.”87 He has not yet commented on inflicting such casualties, perhaps on a massive scale, when he uses CBRN weapons on Crusader targets. Bin Laden’s vociferous U.K.-based advocate, Omar Bakri Muhammed, however, has spoken of the civilian casualties likely to be attendant to an al Qaeda CBRN attack, and his words probably are a fair reflection of bin Laden’s perspective. “Using any biological weapons in self-defense is, in Islam, permissible,” Bakri wrote in a letter to bin Laden in September 1999, “and I believe that we [the ummah] are currently operating under a defensive jihad. Obviously, we regret what could happen to innocent people, but there are always people who are war casualties or, if you will, victims of war.”88

  No one should think that the prospect of Muslim casualties—even in large numbers—will prevent bin Laden from using a CBRN weapon on a target in the United States. As John Kelsay has written, “[C]onsiderations of proportionality are important [in Islamic law on war] since no one wants to shed more blood than necessary. But the necessities of the war effort motivated by religious considerations allow for considerable discretion.” Intentions count regarding Muslim casualties, Kelsay notes, and in a Muslim attack on Islam’s enemies, Muslims caught near or on the battlefield “are not considered legitimate targets for direct attacks by Muslims, though their deaths may be brought about indirectly.” On this point, Kelsay quotes classical Islamic jurist Muhammad ibn al-Hussein al-Shaybai’s answer when asked if Muslims were prohibited from attacking if noncombatants and Muslims would be killed. “If Muslims stopped attacking the inhabitants of the territory of war [dar-al-harb] for any of the reasons you have stated,” al-Shaybai responded, “they would be unable to go to war at all, for there is no city in the territory of war in which there is no one at all of these you have mentioned.”89

  Ominously, this judgment from classical Islamic jurisprudence was reaffirmed in April 2001 by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of contemporary Islam’s most respected scholars, and in words that also echo bin Laden’s view. Speaking in Qatar, al-Qaradawi’s statement show the enduring pertinence of al-Shaybai’s judgement.

  The basic thing for Muslims is not to kill a child, woman, or an old man who has nothing to do with war. But there are necessities sometimes. When our brethren set off a car bomb, they do not mean to kill a child. But, he gets killed without any real intention. They did not mean to kill the child. But sometimes a child happens to be on the scene and he gets killed. This is not intentional killing of children. In the Intifadah, children receive direct hits [from the Israelis] in their heads and their chests. This is the deliberate killing of children. On the other hand, the operations carried out by HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, or Fatah, or others do not mean to kill children. The child is killed accidentally not intentionally.90

  5

  GETTING TO KNOW BIN LADEN: CHARACTER TRAITS

  Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration was maturely weighted; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstacles opposed.

  Thomas Jefferson on George Washington, 2 January 1814

  As they would for any person, Osama bin Laden’s statements, interviews, and writings allow a glimpse at his personality, values, and beliefs. Having examined substantive themes in this material, it is worth noting three personality traits that also emerge prominently. These characteristics—personal responsibility, piety, and professionalism—provide a powerful base from which bin Laden has been able to persevere in the face of setbacks and delay. In addition, the material clearly shows bin Laden has a substantial knowledge of Islamic history and a strong sense that he is playing a role in a historical process that has been under way for more than fourteen centuries.

  Personal Responsibility

  Bin Laden’s actions and statements have shown that he believed that by inciting a defensive jihad he was doing no more than fulfilling his personal duty as a Muslim. “All ulema … are unanimous that it is an individual duty to fight an invading infidel enemy,” bin Laden wrote in March 1998. “The son may take up arms without his father’s permission and the indebted may do so without the debtor’s permission. This duty must be given priority over other individual duties when conditions become difficult and concerns become severe.”1 In bin Laden’s public statements there is not one hint that he is calling for jihad because he wants to be the Muslim world’s leader, the next caliph. “I am one of Allah’s worshippers,” he told ABC’s John Miller. “I worship Allah, which includes carrying out jihad to raise Allah’s word and evict the Americans from all Muslim land.”2 Bin Laden believes he is simply performing a required religious duty in circumstances not of his own making, but that have conspired to put him at the center of affairs. “Our encouragement and call to Muslims to enter jihad against the Americans and the Israeli occupiers,” bin Laden said in 1996, “are actions which we are engaging in as religious obligations…. We have given an oath to Allah to continue in the struggle as long as we have blood pumping in our veins or a seeing eye, and we beg of Allah to accept and to grant a good ending for us and for all the Muslims.” In articulating this position, Azzam’s influence is clear. In 1986 Shaykh Azzam wrote “that every Muslim bears responsibility of abandoning jihad, and the sin of abandoning the gun. Every Muslim who passes away without a gun in his hand faces Allah with the sin of abandoning fighting…. I strongly believe (God knows better) that there is no difference between who does not fight, and he who does not fast, pray, or pay zakat [tithes] … I believe that no Muslim is excused in abandoning jihad.”3

  Bin Laden will brook no dispute on this point. He adamantly defends using force to repel the Crusader offensive and stresses that each Muslim is personally responsible for participating in the effort. “Islam is a moderate religion. It is the religion of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him,” bin Laden told Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

  Everything is just and right. Words and explanations are used to clarify the matters than can be explained. And Almighty God has sanctioned Al-Da’wah [preaching]. This is justice and moderation. In regard to the matters in which spearheads need be used, it is a just right. If some people confuse the two, Islam is not responsible, since the error is in the application. If anyone means by violence and renunciation of violence to prevent us from starting the jihad, [then] he has deviated from the path. The jihad is part of our Shariah and the nation cannot dispense with it against its enemies.4

  Piety

  One can be exasperated with the West’s inability to hear what non-Westerners are saying. This frustration stems not from a naive belief that what is said is wise or accurate, but because what is said is often a threat to be taken seriously. In Middle East Policy, for example, Dr. M. C. Dunn noted in 1998 that “Bin Ladin relishes publicity. Rather than a reclusive mystery man, Bin Ladin is almost a media star…. [and] his claims to be a religious scholar are highly questionable.”5 In an otherwise excellent article, Dr. Manstorp hits the latter theme and suggests the bin Laden threat is limited because he is not a religious scholar. “Bin Ladin will inevitably fail to command a sizable following in the broader Islamic community, as he lacks any formal religious training or scholarship,” Manstorp asserts, “[t]his means there is no binding requirements on Muslims to adhere to any fatwa issued by him. In particular, Bin Ladin’s lack of religious stature is illustrated in the fatwa’s call for killing civilians, an act strictly prohibited by Islamic law and reinforced by scholars.”

  As noted above, two of the most famous Muslim soldiers, Nur al-Din and Saladin, led victorious, religiously motivated jihads, even though they were merely pious believers and not Islamic scholars or jurists. “For some contemporary Islamic groups,” Dr. Kelsay has explained, “the struggle of Saladin with the Crusaders serves as a lens through which to interpret their situation.” In a passage that mirrors bin Laden’s justification for his actions, Kelsay writes that “Muslims are said to struggle in the manner of Saladin” when “[t]heir goal is to rid themselves of th
e rule of non-Muslims and to recover a lost portion of Muslim territory.”