Part One,  which has a brief Introduction; Part Two; Part Three;  Part Four; Part Five; Part Six.

Soliman al—Buthe (or al—Buthi) wrote an Open Letter to Congress in 2005. Then he initiated a dialogue with me, so we decided on this sequence.

1. In 2005, I commented and asked questions about the Open Letter (in blue).

2. Months later in that same year, Mr. al—Buthe answered my questions and challenged me on various issues (in green). He sought the advice of Saudi scholars, as well.

3. Finally, in 2006, I reply to his challenges and questions (in black). Sometimes I embed this part in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.

Open Letter to Congress (continued):

Misconceptions on Jihad

The scholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been among the most vocal opponents of religious extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world. Long before September 11, 2001, our scholars had warned against the dangers of extremism and spoken decisively against the spreading of civil strife and violence in the name of 'jihad.' All Muslim terrorism is both created by and reflects an ignorance of the tenets of Islam and a false belief in the meaning and rules of jihad. This can only be corrected by the scholars of Islam, and it is counter—productive for the United States to claim that it is fighting terrorism while targeting those most able to correct the ignorance in which such terrorism is born.

Jihad does not equate with terrorism or the spreading of civil strife; rather, jihad is a concept with which most of your citizens would agree if correctly understood. In Islamic belief, the greatest jihad is the struggle that each soul must wage against itself to live a pure and good life. At the same time, Islam empowers its adherents to defend their lives, property, and honor from attack. When injustice is present, Islam not only tolerates fighting, it is required. When, however, a Muslim is required to fight, his behavior is constrained by a detailed code of conduct that prohibits attacks on innocent civilians, the harming of the environment, the destruction of places of worship, and the harassment of priests and non—combatants. That said, Muslims do not seek war with our enemies. However we recognize, as does the West, that sometimes war is unavoidable. The rules of engagement in Islam are well defined and Islam views the peaceful resolution of disagreement and conflict as being preferable to war.

JA (2005): It is true that some scholars hold these views on jihad, such as the seeming moderates at this Saudi website. But it is also true that other Saudi scholars see jihad as offensive, not defensive. The views of peaceful Saudis do not potentially harm the non—Islamic world, but the views of the radicals lash out and harm people.

SaB (2005): First, we know of no scholar who has interpreted 'jihad' to be preemptive in the sense of waging war against innocent people simply just because they are not Muslims. Such an interpretation would be a clear violation of God's equally clear command:

Qur'an 002:190—193 'Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not, aggressors. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the

Those who said that jihad is not only defensive meant that one need not wait until a promised attack occurs, and then only to fight back.  Thus Muslims are allowed only seek out and attack those whom they discover to be preparing to attack them. This is why they termed this kind of jihad, jihad at—talab (i.e., 'seeking out or going after').

Second, Isn't it the fact that the West (and especially the United States) that is lashing out and harming people all over the world, both Muslims and non—Muslims, by employing President Bush's concept of 'preemptive war'?

JA (2006): We have invited a colleague and friend, formerly of Saudi Arabia—region>, to comment on our dialogue. He adds:

Please see what Osama bin Laden had said in an interview regarding fighting and his fatwa against Americans, Christians & Jews — and see the kind of verses he is using to support that, here.

Furthermore, this statement of yours disagrees with the historical facts: 'we know of no scholar who has interpreted 'jihad' to be preemptive in the sense of waging war against innocent people simply just because they are not Muslims.' The truth? Within a hundred years after Muhammad's death in AD 632, the Muslim armies conquered a huge part of the world from India—region> to Spain—region>. Did all those countries attack Arabia and Islam so that Muslims were forced to simply defend themselves? Or was it not the initiative of the Caliph to start those wars and conquer further countries? Muslims all over the world are proud of this historical period and the great advance of Islam. They call it 'opening these countries for Islam.' I allegedly brings justice, so that conquered peoples may get to know and accept the message of Islam. Again, The crucial term is 'innocent' (your word). Muhammad (supposedly) sent letters to the various emperors. They did not accept Islam; therefore they were no longer innocent. They had to be warned, but then Muslims were free to attack.

Next, you state that Muslims are not allowed to wage war 'against innocent people simply just because they are not Muslims.' If I understand these words, they imply that President Bush wages war just because a nation is made up of Muslims. The reply to this follows, after I quote some other of your words in this section. You state that 'Muslims are allowed only [to] seek out and attack those whom they discover to be preparing to attack them' . . . .

In reply, this somewhat describes the US—region> position before the invasion of Iraq—region> and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, if we factor in our allies. (1) Hussein violated numerous United Nations Resolutions after the Gulf War. (2) Hussein violated the 'no—fly' zone repeatedly. (3) His military fired on our jets during patrols many times, in violation of the terms of surrender signed in the Gulf War. (4) We had obligations to protect countries in the Gulf region, and his actions were aggressive. (5) Evidence  is now surfacing from countless pages of documents (most are untranslated so far) and actual discoveries  that Hussein in fact had weapons  of mass destruction and sought to improve the use of this weaponry (he used them against his own citizens). (6) Evidence  is now surfacing that Saddam had contacts with al—Qaeda and the Taliban. (7) Bush said in speeches leading up to the invasion that he would not wait until the threat becomes imminent, but would take action as a dangerous regime threatens its neighbors and our allies. (8) It is true that Hussein's capabilities could not reach us directly, but they could wreak damage on our allies or aid and abet non—conventional militants to attack us. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan—region>, located around the other side of the globe from the US—region>, proves this. It provided the environment for militants to launch their attacks. Thus, Bush did not invade Afghanistan—region> or Iraq—region> just because the majority of their citizens are Muslims.

As for harming and lashing out, Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign of terror. Now people can live in peace, except when Sunnis and other factions, some of whom are called to jihad in Saudi Arabia—region>, detonate car bombs.

Finally, the world is now threatened by Iran—region>. Does Iran—region> threaten Saudi Arabia—region>? It remains to be seen whether President Bush and his Administration will make a 'preemptive' strike on its nuclear facilities. However, for now, negotiations continue apace, but for how long?

SaB (2005): Third, Westerners and particularly many Americans seem to be utterly unrealistic in their thinking that they can do what they want with people around the world in defense of what their politicians deem to be America—region>'s national interest and then expect universal love and trust from the people of the world.

JA (2006): Here is my view on worldwide love and trust. I don't seek these things. I first care about doing the right thing. If this wins me love and trust, then great. If not, then so be it.

What about the American contribution to the world (or doing what it wants with people around the world, to paraphrase your words)? The timeframe is after the First World War (1914—1918), when America—region> finally grows in its international influence, until the present day. This beginning point is crucial, because we were not well established on the international stage before then. Here is a list of names that I come up with at the moment:

Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin (Khrushchev, Brezhnev and other dictators up to Gorbachev), Benito Mussolini, General Hideki Tojo, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, his son Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and an assortment of Eastern European dictators.

These persons have at least three characteristics in common: (1) Hyper—control (authoritarianism or totalitarianism) over their citizens; (2) the cause of deaths and misery on a wide scale (e.g. by economic mismanagement, starvation, wars, direct murders en masse); Stalin was responsible for 24 million deaths and Mao for 50 to 75 million; (3) opposition by America and its allies, in one way or another or to one degree or another.

To cite a few specific examples, it is true that we had to be allies with Stalin to fight Hitler, and President Roosevelt looked the other way as Stalin took over Eastern Europe, but we eventually fought his puppet regime in Korea—region>. President Truman provided the Berlin airlift which caused the survival of a free Berlin, as an island in unfree communist East Germany—region>. Does anyone of a sound mind doubt that China—region> would conquer Taiwan—region> if the US—region> gave the green light or looked the other way or (God forbid) did not exist? Thus, our opposition to these fascists is mixed, but at least we have been trying since 1918 to the present.

Based on this list of dictators and American (and allied) opposition to them, I believe that America—region> (and its allies) has benefited the world more than harmed it, though my country is far from perfect. South Korea—region>, Germany—region>, and Japan—region> all breathe the fresh air of freedom and democracy, and so do many Eastern European countries today. At least in part, America—region> (and its allies) helped them achieve this God—given right. Incidentally, Korea—region> did not have oil, but we sacrificed our men (around 38,000) to give the bottom half of the Peninsula freedom and prosperity. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld describes  (scroll down towards the end) a nighttime satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. The North is entirely dark except Pyongyang, the showcase city, but the South glows with prosperity.

So how does all of this relate to Islamic nations?

First, Saddam Hussein should be added to the Horrible Hall of Fame, and we and our allies fought and overthrew him. President Bush wants to spread freedom around that part of the globe, as the Iraqis carve out their own version of democracy.

Second, these regimes listed above have some other features in common. They killed dissenters and critics, and they refused to permit their citizens to leave the official ideology, on pain of death or imprisonment.

Third, is there a religious—political ideology that began with an authoritarian leader who passed on his rulership to authoritarian successors? Did these men lash out and harm and wage aggressive wars on peaceful peoples who did not attack them in the slightest? Is there a religious—political ideology that kills critics and apostates, today? Is there a religious—political ideology that exercises absolute control over and imposes harsh and brutal laws on its citizens?

It seems, therefore, that imperfect America—region> and its imperfect allies have helped, imperfectly or successfully, people enjoy freedom, so they can live as they want within justice and modern laws that do not directly come from the seventh century. But we have a long way to go.

Our Saudi friend and colleague adds:

Why do many of the Muslim leaders remain in power for decades? Why are their people longing for freedom? Why do their people leave and immigrate to other countries, especially to Europe, America—region> and Australia—region>, if they are living in a peaceful and democratic condition in their own land? Why do Muslim countries have the worst human rights conditions in the world?

SaB (2005): Fourth, I am one of those who believe that both our and Western interests can be served by, among other things, peaceful dialogue. That is why I wrote to you. The sense I have, however, is that you believe that all the blame is on our side, and that no good can be achieved unless we reject our religion and toe the Western line.

Fifth, there is no such thing as Wahhabism; this is a name which the enemies of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd al—Wahab gave to his teachings to claim that he was advocating something other than Islam. And this is precisely what the Western — and particularly American — propaganda machines are spewing forth.

JA (2006): I am glad you wrote me and we are dialoguing. As for the blame being on the Muslim side unless Muslims reject their religion, they are 'free' to keep their religion, until they leave it. Then they may be tortured, imprisoned, or executed. Moreover, in Part Three I asked:

Since Islam is the continuation of religions, is it the will of Allah that Islam must spread around the world?

And you answered:

a. Islam sees itself, as does contemporary Christianity, as the only means by which mankind can be saved.  As such, all Muslims are inspired by concern for their brothers in humanity to spread this soul—saving message.

You added below that short excerpt (a):

b. The requirement that Muslims spread their faith through argumentation and reason is what God asserts in Qur'an 061:009 . . . .

You and 'all Muslims' want Islam to spread around the world, hopefully converting as many as possible, especially adherents to polytheistic religions. In Part 8, you will say that Christians are polytheists. Islam must win out.

Toe the Western line? Islamic countries are too often breeding grounds for terrorism today, and this lashes out and harms people all over the globe, in small, secret ways. Granted, Wahhabism—or whatever label you choose—may not cause all of the terrorism, but it certainly cannot be exempt from any questions in this regard.

JA (2005) 1. You say that the purpose of jihad is to establish justice where injustice prevails. Do you believe that Arab Muslims (or any Muslims) are establishing justice in the Sudan—region>?

SaB (2005): First, we have never claimed that everything that everything [sic] a Muslim or group of Muslims does reflects Islamic values and teachings.  By the same token, I doubt that Christians would believe it fair for them to be held to such a standard.   

Second, and to the immediate point, the war in Darfur is not a religious war, for all Sudanese Darfurians are Muslims. Moreover, the war has nothing to do with color since all participants are black.  It has nothing to do with racial discrimination since. Sudanese tell us that Darfurians from all tribes are to be found in the government, in the army, in the police force, among business people etc. What, then, is the problem? It is an old problem between settlers and grazers that has unfortunately taken a political twist, only then to be exploited by foreign powers. We hope that it will soon be solved.

JA (2006): It is true that one group of Muslims does not reflect all Islamic values and teachings. But in your second paragraph of your Open Letter, above, you speak of 'Islam' and 'a Muslim' and 'Muslims' generally. Further, I never said anything about Darfur, a region in western Sudan—region>. I asked about Sudan—region> generally. I have already linked to a report  by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Since its summary is brief, I repeat it here.

Jihadist government [in Sudan—region>] is waging [genocide] against non—Muslim blacks.