In Afghanistan earlier this year there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, "What lies behind Aghanistan's insider attacks?", blames a "rogue soldier". Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no "rogue".
Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified "many analysts" and tip a barrow load of red herrings like this:
But â€“ perhaps worryingly for Nato â€“ the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.
This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations CAN be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, 'The House of Islam', is Dar al Harb, 'The House of War' (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are "the worst of creatures" (Koran 98:6), "the vilest of beasts" (8:22, 8:55). "Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also. NATO, treated as an 'occupier', is doubly an enemy.
When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel 'occupier' he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 62% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them (Center for the Study of Political Islam). Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for "Mastership of the World", as Muslim Brotherhood leader, Muhammad Badi, proclaimed in 2011 (Raymond Ibrahim).
"The mosques are our barracks", cited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, "the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers". It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: "Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran".
Don't the BBC listen? Can't they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers' lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the "many analysts"? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.
The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as "true from eternity to eternity" (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:
Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
And that Allah may ... exterminate the infidel. 3:141
Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: "You killed them not, but Allah killed them" (8:17). There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with 'dirt'), who are "unclean" (9:28), "the most despicable" (98:6):
Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29
Osama bin Laden wrote: "Battle, animosity and hatredÂ â€“ directed from the Muslim to the infidelÂ â€“ is the foundation of our religion." (The Al Qaeda Reader)
The doctrine of "Permissible Lying" (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih ('reliable') Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed's companion Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them". Mohammed himself said, "War is deceit" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath" (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427).Â Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no â€œrogueâ€: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.
Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain (9:111).
This is the justification for the 'martyrdom' (suicide) bombing: those who "slay and are slain" are guaranteed entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. As former terrorist Walid Shoebat has explained, the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven (What the West Needs to Know). The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.
These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet (www.TheReligionofPeace.com). These are what the BBC's anonymous author refers to as, "the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies".
Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.
To see more articles by this author, search for Michael Copeland using the search box at top-right of the page.