The Etiquette of Jihad

In the Middle East, with all their oil riches and long civilization, they had a chance to be modern, but many have reverted to medieval barbarity.

When we in the West were medieval, they were arguably more civilized.

NY Times, Week in Review cover story. Instructions of the new Inquisition.

The "etiquette" of jihad:

We were in a small house in Zarqa, Jordan, trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants about their distribution of recruitment videos when one of us asked one too many questions.

“He’s American?” one of the militants growled. “Let’s kidnap and kill him.”

The room fell silent. But before anyone could act on this impulse, the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. You can’t just slaughter a visitor, militants are taught by sympathetic Islamic scholars. You need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger who helped us to meet this pair declined to sign off.

“He’s my guest,” Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher, told the bearded men.

With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.

This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals. But the rules have some general themes that underlie actions ranging from the recent rash of suicide bombings in Algeria and Somalia, to the surge in beheadings and bombings by separatist Muslims in Thailand.

Ah yes, it's so complex, and this piece explores the complexity so well. Let's examine these themes...

Why it's ok to kill bystanders (if there is just cause)

Islamic law says not to kill children, women, the old and infirm, but they can get around that too, no problemo:

But militant Islamists including extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda’s ideology teach recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits as martyrs receive.

So really, they are doing them a favor. Sounds like a union contract, even. (But what about the girls? Where's the paradise for them? Maybe they get to abandon the burqa---freedom from dress code!) And here the Times trots out the obligatory liberal professor equating us with the terrorists, from Georgetown, a nominally Catholic university. But professor, we are not deliberately targeting civilians, that's why it's called collateral damage. You are justifying what in this country we would call a HATE CRIME, murdering someone specifically for their religion. We are after terrorists who engage in terrorist acts. (I suppose we should be grateful he's not a professor of ethics.)

Rule 3 kind of blows things wide open, and also zeroes in--open season on bankers:

Others like Atilla Ahmet, a 42-year-old Briton of Cypriot descent who is awaiting trial in England on terrorism charges, take a broader view. “It would be legitimate to attack banks because they charge interest, and this is in violation of Islamic law,” Mr. Ahmet said last year.

(Charming name---strike any chords?) Then there's Rule No. 4:"You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. " Now this is reassuring to a nicety. We can give strangers a pass, it's our fellow citizens who were born here we should be worried about. While liberals usually take this tack, they only subject conservatives to such suspicion. Maybe we do need the Patriot Act after all. An equal opportunity approach. But wait---there is nuance, a kind of terrorist back-scratching---if you attack my country, I'll attack yours, and we can square it with Allah:

Militants who go to Iraq get a pass as expeditionary warriors. And the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not violate this rule since the hijackers came from outside the United States, Mr. Bakri said.

And hey, Rule No. 5 says it's OK to fool around as long as it is in the service of the greater good "playboy-turned militant", but this one is viewed as a bit dubious, perhaps a CYA for less than stellar jihadist behavior, post-suicide bombing PR.

Finally, descending to horrific farce, you must have your parents' permission:

In Zarqa, Jordan, the 24-year-old Abu Ibrahim says he is waiting for another chance to be a jihadi after Syrian officials caught him in the fall heading to Iraq. He is taking the parental rule one step further, he said. His family is arranging for him to marry, and he feels obligated to disclose his jihad plans to any potential bride.

“I will inform my future wife of course about my plans, and I hope that, God willing, she might join me,” he said.

The reporter's recitation is coldly detached, clinical, he just reports it, doesn't condemn it. (Though what do you do with the last two?)

He wants to preserve his option to meet with them again?

What if his "host" changes his mind?

Kind of reminds me of some of the writing under the old Soviet Union. A new twist on giving them the rope to hang themselves, hey NY Times? Only this time it's the fellow travelers, not the capitalists who hang meekly.

The liberal flagship media. Not fighting for you. Not even fighting for themselves. So civilized they can't take sides in the face of pure evil.