British Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends

[London Terrorism:] British "Covenant of Security" with Islamists Ends

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun, July 8, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2742

Terrorism usually comes like a bolt from the blue, but not so the four
explosions yesterday in London, killing at least 37. Some British Islamist
leaders have been warning for months that such violence was imminent.

An Islamist British group called Al-Muhajiroun - "the immigrants" in Arabic
- for some time publicly stated that Britain was immune from Islamist
violence because of its acceptable behavior toward Muslims within the
country's borders. In an April 2004 conversation, the 24-year-old Sayful
Islam, who heads Al-Muhajiroun's Luton branch, announced that he supported
Osama Bin Laden "100%" in the quest to achieve "the worldwide domination of
Islam," but went on to voice an aversion to himself performing terrorist
acts in Britain.

Yet, Mr. Islam endorsed terrorism in Britain in a broader sense "When a
bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own
children. ? But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of
terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a
covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live
here in peace." He further explained. "If we want to engage in terrorism,
we would have to leave the country. It is against Islam to do otherwise."

Covenant of security? What is that? In an August 2004 story in the New
Statesman, "Why terrorists love Britain," Jamie Campbell cited the author
of Inside Al Qaeda, Mohamed Sifaoui, as saying, "it has long been
recognized by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK
intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of
freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [an overtly pro-terrorist Islamist],
the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the
UK but will not occur here."

The New Statesman story drew from this the perversely ironic conclusion
that "the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathizers in
the U.K. actually makes British people safer, while the full brunt of
British-based terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries."

A Syrian immigrant to Britain who headed Al-Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri
Mohammed, confirmed the covenant of security, describing companions of the
Prophet Muhammad who were given protection by the king of Ethiopia. That
experience, he told the magazine, led to the Koranic notion of covenant of
security: Muslims may not attack the inhabitants of a country where they
live in safety. This "makes it unlikely that British-based Muslims will
carry out operations in the U.K. itself," Mr. Mohammed said.

But in January 2005, Mr. Mohammed determined that the covenant of security
had ended for British Muslims because of post-September 11, 2001,
anti-terrorist legislation that meant "the whole of Britain has become Dar
ul-Harb," or territory open for Muslim conquest. Therefore, in a reference
to unbelievers, "the kuffar has no sanctity for their own life or
property."

The country had gone from safe haven to enemy camp. To renew the covenant
of security would require British authorities to undo that legislation and
release those detained without trial. If they fail to do so, British
Muslims must "join the global Islamic camp against the global crusade
camp."

Mr. Mohammed went on overtly to threaten the British people: "The response
from the Muslims will be horrendous if the British government continues in
the way it treats Muslims," explicitly raising the possibility of suicide
bombings under the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Western governments must know
that if they do not change course, Muslims will "give them a 9/11 day after
day after day!"

When Sean O'Neil and Yaakov Lappin of the London Times asked Mr. Mohammed
about his statements on the covenant, he said his definition of Britain as
Dar ul-Harb was "theoretical" and he provided a non-bellicose
re-interpretation:

It means that Muslims can no longer be considered to have sanctity and
security here, therefore they should consider leaving this country and
going back to their homelands. Otherwise they are under siege and
obviously we do not want to see that we are living under siege.

In a less guarded moment, however, Mr. Mohammed acknowledged that for him,
"the life of an unbeliever has no value."

Yesterday's explosions mark the end of the "covenant of security." Let's
hope they also mark the end of an era of innocence, and that British
authorities now begin to preempt terrorism rather than wait to become its
victims.