As the war between Israel and Palestinians rages on, an old “Letter to Americans” from terrorist extraordinaire Osama bin Laden recently went viral on Tiktok, where it apparently “opened” many eyes (as discussed here).
What great revelations did the al-Qaeda chief make in this letter from 2002? While justifying the strikes of September 11, 2001, he accused America of any number of crimes—chief among them support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians.
The problem with Osama’s litany list against America (and, in other letters, the West in its entirety) was that none of his accusations were the ultimate reason that al-Qaeda hated the U.S. and Europe. Indeed, merely recalling the little known circumstances that gave rise to Osama’s so-called “Letter to Americans” is enough to prove the great hypocrisy behind it.
Background: sometime in February 2002, sixty American thinkers drafted a letter titled “What We’re Fighting For,” wherein they declared America’s resolve to combat Islamic terrorism following the 9/11 strikes.
In response, 153 prominent Saudi scholars drafted their own letter, “How We Can Coexist,” published in May, 2002, in Riyadh. This response, signed by many important figures of the Saudi establishment, incurred the wrath of al-Qaeda, prompting the Saudi bin Laden to write “Al-Qaeda’s Declaration in Response to the Saudi Ulema: It’s Best You Prostrate Yourselves in Secret.”
The whole point of bin Laden’s lengthy essay (translated and annotated in my The Al Qaeda Reader, pp.17-62) was to chastise the Saudis for what he deemed was a theologically invalid and cowardly response, one typified by “prostrations” to the West. To correct the Saudis, he repeatedly emphasized Islam’s “true” position concerning non-Muslims.
As such, and because this essay was written to the Saudis (that is, for Islamic eyes only), it is refreshingly honest and straightforward, not unlike the writings of ISIS.
For example, the Saudis had written to the Americans that “The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity.” Outraged by such a claim, bin Laden reprimanded the Saudis in his declaration:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone” [Koran 60:4].” So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [of waging jihad]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty’s Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: “O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate! [9:73].” Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But whose understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?
Not content with chastising the Saudis, bin Laden then took it upon himself—and here is where it gets interesting—to personally respond to the American letter (“What We’re Fighting For”) by penning a missive titled, “Why We Are Fighting You.” It is this letter that the Guardian published in late 2002, under the title, “Letter to Americans,” and it is this letter that recently went viral. (Though it was recently removed, the letter appears on pp. 196-208.)
Oddly, bin Laden said nothing about those many Islamic doctrines that require Muslims to hate and war against non-Muslims, which he had condemned the Saudis for failing to acknowledge in their “coexist” letter.
For instance, when speaking to the Saudis, bin Laden had written:
There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, thereby physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. Thus it behooves the [Saudi] signatories to clarify this matter to the West— otherwise they will be like those who believe in part of the Book [Koran] while rejecting the rest.
Yet in his letter to Americans, bin Laden portrayed Islam as a “religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted.” Curiously, he neglects to mention the aforementioned three options that he chided the Saudis for failing to “clarify” to the infidels. Instead, he merely invited Americans to embrace Islam.
In fact, just like the Saudi response to the Americans, al-Qaeda’s letter to the Americans ultimately relies on political, humanitarian, and even emotional arguments as to why al-Qaeda had declared war on the United States (e.g., self-defense, U.S. support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians, U.S. support for oppressive, dictatorial regimes, unjust war in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.).
Even the letter’s opening Koranic verse puts everything in a defensive context: “Permission to fight is given to those who are attacked, for they have been wronged and surely Allah is able to give them victory” [22:39]. Yet when clarifying to the Saudis what Islam really has in store for infidels, he quoted many of the most militant verses, including Koran 9:29:
Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.
Islam’s classic threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or slaughter— is the ultimate source of problems, including for other terrorist groups, such as Hamas. As the Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan puts it,
[The] spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.
In this context, an important though rarely asked question arises: Even if all grievances against Israel and America’s support for it were true, why come to us — your natural-born “infidel” enemies, according to your own worldview — looking for any concessions? Being hated and deemed the enemy for political grievances must be viewed as peripheral to being hated for fundamental differences of an existential nature.
When the latter, much more important issue is redressed, then — and only then — should the veracity of the former be open to debate or even consideration. In the meantime, all “political” complaints must be seen as absolutely moot. It’s a simple matter of priorities.
Ever the doctrine of grievance.