http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/05/islams_war_doctrines_ignored/#comment-591

Raymond Ibrahim rightly notes the value of LTC Joseph Myers’ presentation at the first annual conference of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA).

Myers discussed an obscure-to the West, at least-text on Islamic war doctrine: Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War. The book is rarely found in Western military libraries. It has been published in English, but by an Indian publication house (Himalayan Books in New Delhi) in 1986, which may explain its obscurity to the West.

Myers argued that to understand the enemy, we must understand his doctrine and believes Malik’s work may be the one to study. Having read the book (after an almost fruitless search on the internet for it), I would agree in part. It certainly has the ring of authenticity to it, despite-or because of-its similarity to reading classical Soviet literature on war, heavy with ideological and hagiographical references.

But I wonder if we can consider Malik’s work “canonical.” Malik’s Quranic Concept of War is a noble and pure doctrine, limiting what a Muslim warrior can do in war. Sounds good, but which terrorist group abides any of the limitations? A thorough study of this and other works would determine whether Malik’s views are determined more by a desire to ennoble Islam’s war doctrines than by a desire to explicate Islam’s prescriptions for combat. Further, I would like to see whether any non-Pakistani Muslim army has adopted Malik’s work, or even cited it doctrinally. However, the mere mention of Malik’s work is a good starting point and Myers has served us by introducing the text. More study is needed.

But Ibrahim discusses the failure of the United States to give serious attention to Islam’s war doctrines. He also points out a new State Department and Department of Homeland Security mandate publicized on the last day of the conference delimiting the choices of words U.S. officials may use in discussing radical Islam. According to officials, using the words “jihad,” “jihadist,” or “caliphate” somehow legitimizes the radicals; just as, apparently, our having called Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles “strategic” somehow legitimized Soviet weapons.

Ibrahim acknowledges at the end that the United States is having difficulty even acknowledging its enemy. I would add that we may have just crippled ourselves intellectually as well.

Mark T. Clark is a member of MESH. He is president of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa.