Mullah Omar: Taliban Rules and Regulations

[jmm99]

Hope you haven't been flying sleep-deprived.

As to your serious post. True. Sometimes the political effort and the military effort collide, where both have good reasons for what each wants to do.

In this case, I don't know there was a collision because I know not the military rules for house entries and searches in Iraq and Astan. I searched through various CLAMO pubs covering both campaigns and came up empty.

Judging from the silence in this thread to the question, I infer we are dealing with classified rules and OpSec.

Regards to thou (former Yooper; is there ever a former Yooper ? )

Mike

[jmm99]

Joseph C. Myers, “The Quranic Concept of War,” Parameters, Winter 2006-07, pp. 108-21, reviewed The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army (originally published in Pakistan in 1979).

I do not have this book - is there a re-print at a reasonable price ?

In any event, the review is worth the read; and the book was recommended by LTC Myers:

Historiography

In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.”[10] For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”[11]

The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith. The lessons learned are recorded

109/10

and form an important part of Quranic surah and jihadist’s scholarship.[12] Islamic scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim will find much to debate in terms of Malik’s view of jihad doctrine and Quranic warfare. Malik’s work is essentially modern scholarship; although he does acknowledge the classical views of jihad in many respects.[13]

Malik’s arguments are clearly parochial, often more editorial than scholarly, and his tone is decidedly confident and occasionally supremacist. The reach and influence of the author’s work is not clear although one might believe that given the idealism of his treatise, his approaches to warfare, and the role and ends of “terror” his text may resonate with extremist and radicals prone to use terroristic violence to accomplish their ends. For that reason alone, the book is worth studying.

10. Ibid [Brigadier S. K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of War (Lahore, Pakistan: Associated Printers, 1979)]., p. 1.

11. Ibid., pp. I-ii.

12. See for example the discussion by Dr. Mary R. Habeck, “Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism,” The Heritage Foundation, 8 November 2004, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...rity/hl855.cfm.

13. David Cook, Understanding Jihad, (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2005). There is approximately 1,400 years of jihad scholarship beginning with Mohammed and his military campaigns. Classical approaches to jihad as described by Mohammed’s successors, Abu Bakr for example, and the challenges presented by the struggles of succession to Mohammed.

From LTC Myers' Evaluation:

General Malik’s thesis in The Quranic Concept of War can be fundamentally described as “Islam is the answer.” He makes a case for war and the revitalization of Islam. This is a martial exegesis of the Quran. Malik like other modern Islamists are, at root, romantics. They focus on the Quran for jihad a doctrine that harkens back to the time of the Prophet and the classical-jihadist period when Islam enjoyed its most successful military campaigns and rapid growth.

The book’s metaphysical content borders on the supernatural and renders “assured expectations” that cannot be evaluated or tested in the arena of military experience. Incorporating “divine intervention” into military campaigns, while possibly advantageous, cannot be calculated as an overt force multiplier. Critics may also point to the ahistorical aspect of Malik’s thesis; that Islam is in a state of constant struggle with the non-Islamic world. There are examples of Muslim armies serving side by side with Christian armies in combat and campaigns are numerous, with Iraq being but a recent example.[65]

65. Four notable examples are the Crimean War where French, British and Ottoman Forces allied against the Russians; Fuad Pasha of the Ottoman Army served as a coalition partner with French Army during the 1860 Rebellion in Syria; more recently Muslim Arab and Kabyle soldiers served in the Harkis of the French Army in the French-Algerian War; and, of course, today in Iraq. Malik would address some of these events as alliances of convenience serving Islam’s interests in accord with the Quran and Sharia Law, others as takfir or treason.

See post #52 above for non-Muslim troops in Muslim lands.

[Tukhachevskii]

Joseph C. Myers, “The Quranic Concept of War,” Parameters, Winter 2006-07, pp. 108-21, reviewed The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army (originally published in Pakistan in 1979).

I do not have this book - is there a re-print at a reasonable price ?

Better...see here

[jmm99]

HT for the link to Malik, The Quaranic Concept of War.

I recently (last week) ran into another product of the Pakistani Army, Lieutenant-General A.I. Akram, The Sword of Allah - Khalid bin Al-Waleed (1969) (pdf download), probably the greatest of the early Arab generals (victor at Yarmuk, etc. - Wiki for Walid).

Regards

Mike

[Tukhachevskii]

The first time I heard the name Khalid was when I discovered that Pakistan’s MBT (largely made in China) was to be named that (back when I was a wee nipper who thought fun was memorising Jane’s Armour and Artillery). Only later did I bother to find out more. Thanks for the link. You might find these interesting too...


Izetbegovic, A., The Islamic Declaration: A Programme for the Islamisation of Muslims and the Muslims
Peoples (Sarajevo, 1990). Written by the former president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Aliya Izetbegovic.

Al-Maududi, A. A., Jihad in Islam (Beirut: Holy Koran Publishing House, 1939)

Al-Misri, Ahmad, Reliance of the Traveller, Rev. Ed., Ed & trans. N. H. M. Keller (Maryland: Amana
Publicatuons,1988). The classic book of Shafi’i jurisprudence which points out, as do other works on Islamic jurisprudence, that the division of Sunni Islam into four legal schools doesn’t hide the fact that they agree on 70% of the central doctrines (the differences usually revolve around esoteric issues such as whether the quran was “created” or whether it was existent from the beginning of time, whether God has immutable natures, do his qualities mean his essential nature is split vs. Tauhid/unity, the degree to which ‘urf or common law can impinge upon the Shari’a, who constitutes a legitimate political authority empowered to declare Jihad, the degree of ijma necessary for a ruling to be binding, etc.). W. Montgomery Watt, the British Orientalist who converted to Islam, stated that the core doctrines were more than 70% identical but that’s a different matter. Also, one must be careful as Keller omitted to discuss slavery, amongst other topics, which is, however, still extant in the Arabic text to the right! I found the sections on the correct method to go to the loo/bog/toilet/ “bathroom” hilarious (especially regarding women....but then again I also enjoy watching Jackass, on the odd occasion!).

Haywood, J. A. & H. M. Nahmad, A New Arabic Grammar of the Written Language, 2nd Ed. (London: Lund Humphries, 1965). A standard work on Arabic grammar for those wishing to brush up their Arabic or for committed (is that a pun?) beginners.

Wehr, H., A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 3rd Ed. Ed. & trans. J. M. Cowan (New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976). The indispensible classic especially in connexion with the above work.


Hughes, T. P., Dictionary of Islam being a cyclopaedia of the Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies and Customs, together with the Technical and Theological Terms of the Muhammadan Religion (New Delhi: Manushiram Publishers, Ltd., 1995/1885). The classic and still largely unsurpassed work by an Orientalist who ranks with Lewis, Hurgronje, Jeffery, Watt, and Schacht as one of the great SME (and one who wrote before the post-modernist/Said inspired nonsense of the present). A friend of mine left his religion (he was a Sikh) after reading the entry on that in Hughes work, apparently they weren’t taught that (apparently they hate Muslims)!

Siddiqui, K., The Muslim Manifesto (London: The Muslim Institute 1990). Written by the founders of what is now the so called “moderate” British Council of Muslims during the Rushdie affair, illuminating for its statement that the publication of the Satanic Verses was a “declaration of war” on Islam. It also an excellent example of what Muslims consider “oppression” which is always useful when discussing what “defence” means to Muslims and to the doctrine of Jihad.

Ibn Nuhaas, The Book of Jihad, trans Noor Yamani (n.d). Like the reliance of the Traveller it is a translation of a classic work accepted by the Sunni schools of Law. Unfortunately, the translator often forgets to separate his own voice from that of Ibn Nuhaas which can lead the unwary astray. I did have an original Arabic copy which had been scanned but I can’t seem to find the internet link.

[jmm99]

Hopefully, many of them of them will be as useful as Maududi's Jihad has been to my understanding.

Lots of DLing.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

No. I'm on the night shift over here so I go to bed when the sun comes up. I can tell you some falling asleep in the cockpit stories though if you want to hear some. Every pilot, and I mean EVERY pilot has some.

I think that this may be a case where opsec and desire for secrecy will do considerable more harm than good in the long run. From M-A's posts this has a lot of history behind it and it means a lot to those people. The Taliban, in promulgating rule 53 is announcing that they recognize and will address the concern. If we are silent about it, we are saying in effect (pardon the phrase) "screw you guys. we don't care about your traditions. we just care about what is convenient to us."

That can do our side a lot of harm with those prickly Pathans, especially if the Taliban point it out every chance they get. I suspect they do that.

Maybe this is like Dr. Strangelove when Gen. Turgidson says "But he'll see the big board!" Perhaps we'd be better off if they did see the big board.

One of my friends from MQT gave me a Yooper green card. How often do I have to renew those?

[jmm99]

are perpetual - and entitle you, if you fly into Mt. Brockway while asleep, to 101 Keweenaw virgins - if you can find them.

Which is a much easier question to answer than resolving the question of whether to classify information or release it.

If we are publishing our Iraq and Astan entry and search rules, I've not found them. But, if anyone else has open-source, a post here would be appreciated.

Cheers

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Hello everybody

What Carl just said is exactly my opinion. In the battle of legitimacy among the people, Taleb have taken a great strategic advantage.

I also go with JMM on the book on Islamic rulings in warfare (yes, it is the same). I did mention that it did not concern this actual debate but it is good for anyone to have a look at it. It shows that Taleb are not the real good guys they pretend.
But may be unlike JMM, I have some restrictions on Barnard Lewis books (I have a whole collection at home). May be because he is too close to the clash of the civilisations theories for me.

I am actually working on the distribution of security among traditional societies. Afghanistan is one of them. My feeling is that we are looking at the wrong side of the problem. Traditional societies are not based on distribution of security but rationalised distribution of insecurity. But we are far from our subject. (or may be not in fact)

I think that a methodic explanation of the Taleb rules could be very interresting and could help to understand why they are organised that way and not another.
I will come with new stuff but need some rest first.

[jmm99]

In this area (as in many others), I don't blindly accept the editorializing of experts in the field (and Bernard Lewis does qualify in that regard). I don't ask others to accept my editorializing unless it is backed up by reference back to the original sources.

That being said, Lewis does often quote translated original sources, and in fact has some volumes devoted to compiling them. So do others and the translated originals can often be found on the Net. Unfortunately, I am not an Arabist.

As to this:

from M-A
Traditional societies are not based on distribution of security but rationalised distribution of insecurity.

Part of law is based on security (e.g., property boundaries). Another part is based on reciprocity (e.g., contracts). So, your concept of "rationalised distribution of insecurity" would have relevance to what we are now discussing.

I don't know whether a "rationalised distribution of insecurity" would relate in any way to AQ writer Naji's The Management of Savagery - although that in a large way deals with a distribution of "insecurity" as part of the intermediate state between non-Islamic governance (as defined by AQ) and Islamic governance (again as defined by AQ). However, that may well be far from what you are presenting.

I suppose the simplest way to present your theory is to provide:

1. An example of "distribution of security" in a given traditional culture (perhaps imposed on it, if it does not normally operate that way).

2. An example in the same or similar culture of "rationalised distribution of insecurity" (presumably how the culture works if left alone).

This topic has obvious relevance to local governance in Astan; and what will work better.

Cheers

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Ah... Mike. I like your rectitude.
Like I said, I have many of Lewis books and he is an expert. His way to explain how movement like AQ thought they were powerful enough to defeat USA after the defeat of USSR in Afghanistan (with US support) is extraordinary clear. (What went wrong with Islam; I’m right, you’re wrong go to hell…)
He is an expert of Islam but I also reserve to me the right to have an independent opinion. My reserves are purely on the clash of civilisations theory.

Les ressentiments actuels des peuples du Moyen-Orient se comprennent mieux lorsqu’on s’aperçoit qu’ils résultent, non pas d’un conflit entre des Etats ou des nations, mais du choc entre deux civilisations. Commencé avec le déferlement des Arabes musulmans vers l’ouest et leur conquête de la Syrie, de l’Afrique du Nord et de l’Espagne chrétiennes, le “grand débat”, comme l’appelait Gibbon, entre l’islam et la chrétienté s’est poursuivi avec la contre-offensive chrétienne des croisades et son échec, puis avec la poussée des Turcs en Europe, leur farouche combat pour y rester et leur repli. Depuis un siècle et demi, le Moyen-Orient musulman subit la domination de l’Occident – domination politique, économique et culturelle, même dans les pays qui n’ont pas connu un régime colonial (...). Je me suis efforcé de hisser les conflits du Moyen-Orient, souvent tenus pour des querelles entre Etats, au niveau d’un choc des civilisations.
Bernard Lewis, Islam, Quarto, Gallimard, Paris, 2005, p. 55.

(sorry do not have the quote in english)

There was no judgement of you from my part but only a reminder that the author is also controversial, at least among the French intellectual society. Not even talking about the Muslim society.
We have here to accept that I am French and you are American. Two cultures, close but different. That’s what makes the discussion rich.
As you warn the readers on the orientation of the Islamic Ethic on warfare, I also provided my personal reserves on the fact that Lewis arguments are not fully neutral.

But what can I say on your editorial... You came with Gerard Chaliand who is just a great expert I admire. I would recommend his last book (do not know if it is translated in English) le nouvel art de la guerre 2008 Edition L’Archipel, 2008
(the new art of war).

On terror, I would recommend to French readers to have a look at http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_d...er_Terreur.pdf It is about the “good use of terror” in counterinsurgency. Here again, some may disagree.

Well actually what I am working on is more access on showing the economical rational that will lead members of traditional societies to choose insecurity and disaster management rather than unknown or known failure of security management.
Here again, do not mistake me, I am speaking of the USSR experience concerning Afghanistan.
My first postula is that all societies are based on protection. The question is how do they protect? By the distribution of security or the distribution of insecurity? But as I said, this has to be polished.

[jmm99]

is to me an impossibility in a physical, tangible sense. A clash of leaders and their followers, influenced by tangible and intangible factors, is quite tangible and possible (e.g., the Battle of Tours).

There, Charles (not Martel, the Hammer, until a century later) and Al Ghafiqi probably had little knowledge (much less understanding) of the other's civilization - and, if they had been so knowledgeable and understanding, their clash would most likely still have occured.

Those who aspirate "clashes of civilizations" (e.g., the Red Threat, the Yellow Peril) seem to me to be devotees of some form of Zoroastrianism's ultimate conflict between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.[*]

I do not discount the motivation of ideology (particularly among leadership), or the manipulations of causes (slogans) directed to the masses in political efforts. I don't see "clashes of civilizations" as a useful concept.

As to this:

from M-A
We have here to accept that I am French and you are American. Two cultures, close but different.

No doubt. You guys eat snails.

Cheers

Mike

--------------------------
[*] I leave such questions to speculative theology.