Prof. Paul Eidelberg

This article was published nine days after 9/11, after I had seen with my own eyes the rubble of the World Trade Center, which I had previously visited on various occasions. I am publishing the article again for two reasons: first, because American scholars and politicians, as well as Israeli scholars and politicians – including Benjamin Netanyahu – persist in denying a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, second, because my 2001 article, “A War America Can’t Win” explains why Israel can’t win her current war with the Palestinians.

America can’t win the war against international terrorism because the U.S. has failed to identify the enemy. The enemy is nothing less than Islam, and democratic, multicultural America is conceptually incapable of conquering such an enemy.

We have here a clash of civilizations of world-historical significance. The United States, including its most notable intellectuals, obscure this clash by defining the enemy as “Islamic fundamentalism” or “Islamism,” supposedly an extremist aspect of Islam.  But as I shall now show, what is called “Islamic fundamentalism” is authentic, resurgent Islam.

First, consider a booklet entitled Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel (1971) edited by D.F. Green.  The booklet is a 76-page condensation of a 951-page volume containing papers presented at “The Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research” of Al Azhar University in Cairo (1968).  Al Azhar University, it should be emphasized, is the Harvard of the Islamic world.  Al Azhar is attached to the office of the President of Egypt and unofficially represents the theological-political position of that country, if not most of the Arab-Islamic world.

Delegates from 24 countries attended the conference:  Algeria, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Sierra-Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togoland, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.

Some 22 papers were presented by Islamic theologians and professors:  Egypt 10; Lebanon 3; Jordan 2; Syria 2; Indonesia 2; and one each from Morocco, Iraq, and “Palestine.”

The papers frequently denote Jews as the “Enemies of God” or the “Enemies of humanity.”  One paper refers to Jews as “the dogs of humanity.”  The Bible of Israel is referred to in pejorative terms and as a counterfeit work.  Jews are described as evil, as deserving the hatred and persecution of all the peoples with whom they have come into contact—and this was said in full awareness of the Nazi Holocaust! Also, the State of Israel is described as a culmination of historical and cultural depravity.

Since the Conference portrays the evil of the Jews as immutable and permanent, the attending Muslim theologians and professors were prompting the Arab-Islamic world to annihilate Israel (politicide) and the Jews (genocide).  This was not a conference of “Islamic fundamentalists,” unless Islamic fundamentalism is authentic Islam!

Second, the present writer has shown that the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979 did not diminish Egyptian hatred of Jews and Israel.  (See my Sadat’s Strategy, 1979.)  Indeed, as the eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis has noted, Egypt’s anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda increased after the signing of that treaty!

Third, consider Professor Y. Harkabi’s Arab Attitudes to Israel (1972).  This 500-page volume documents hundreds of statements made by Arab rulers, scholars, journalists, and writers throughout the Arab-Islamic world vilifying Jews and calling for Israel’s destruction.   Harkabi makes no distinction between Islam and “Islamic fundamentalism” when he describes Islam as a “militant,” “combative,” and “expansionist” creed.

Fourth, recall the Teheran Conference of October 1991 (which, by the way, took place two weeks before the October 30 Madrid “peace” conference sponsored by the U.S. and the USSR and attended by Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and PLO surrogates).   Attended by a score of Arab and Islamic states, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the PLO, the Teheran Conference unanimously signed various resolutions calling for Israel’s destruction.  Egypt, despite its peace treaty with Israel, signed those resolutions!  Again, this was not a conference of “Islamic fundamentalists” or of any single Islamic sect—Sunni, Shi’ite, or Wahhabi.

Now for some basic principles.  In The Political Language of Islam (1988), Professor Lewis notes that Islam divides the world in two:  “the House of Islam (dar al-Islam), where Muslims rule and the law of Islam prevail; and the House of War (dar al-Harb), comprising the rest of the world.  Between the two there is a morally necessary, legally and religiously obligatory state of war, until the inevitable and final triumph of Islam over unbelief.  According to Islamic law books, this state of war could be interrupted, when expedient, by an armistice or truce of limited duration.  It could not be terminated by peace but only by a final victory” (p. 73).

The question arises:  How should Muslims behave in territories previously conquered by Islam—for example Portugal, Spain, and the Balkans—but which were subsequently reconquered by Christians?  According to certain Islamic jurists, it was the duty of Muslims to leave such territories and not remain under non-Muslim rule.  Other jurists held that Muslims might remain under a non-Muslim ruler and were even obliged to obey his orders, provided only that Muslims were allowed to observe their religion.  This ruling, however, was based on practical necessity.  For as Lewis remarks, the territories conquered by Christians would then become part of the House of War, “subject, when circumstances permit, to jihad and reconquest” (p. 106).   (This has obvious implications for Israel and its Muslim citizens.)

Finally, it should be noted that the destruction of the World Trade Center is the manifestation of a war between East and the West.