LOL, Amos!

After digesting the letter (in my sleep, where I do my best thinking), I am more convinved that the letter is a) NOT written by bin Laden or those close to him, b) is written by an Arabic speaking Islamic fundamentalist and c) the translation is not very good and has been westernized.

The most compelling reason for a) is that bin Laden is quite good about passing messages to the press. He would not have just posted a letter on a web site that was intended for western ears, it would have been delivered anonymously to al Jeezera per his normal mode of operations. Secondly, bin Laden is very western-savvy. The refutation of the Jewish claims on Israel in the letter is entirely based on religion. In the West, however, a strong legal precedent exists for the concept of ownership by possession. But the fact that the Palestinians had been living there for thousands of years, many of those when the Jewish hadn't, isn't even mentioned. Bin Laden would not have missed such an easy argument.

This point also speaks to point b). A western writer would not have missed that point; it would have been given equal billing with the religious one.

The translation seems poor because of the use of words like "revenge." Islam does NOT allow revenge -- it does, however, allow (and require) self-defence. The use of a word like revenge is a loaded one in English, but does not really convey the original concept defined just prior to it's use. Self-defense would have been a better word, but it doesn't speak very agressively in English. Then, he writer makes a compelling argument against the idea that people in a democracy can ever be considered civilians, but follows up with the idea that killing civilians is permitted in Islam. Other than the fact that killing civilians is specifically prohibitted in the qaran, it makes no sense to make such a statement following an argument that Americans are NOT civilians because they control the actions of their government.

The westernization of the translation seems most apparent in the topic of women. There appears to be a gap in the text. On other subjects, the writer is very verbose. On this one, there is only a short paragraph. Why? The paragraph which refers to the exploitation of women for commercial means being a limitation rather than a freedom is very much mainstream Islam. Although most feminists would not be happy with the proscribed role for women in the Qaran, it is MUCH more pro-female than the Old or New Testament. Yet, we know that fundamentalist Muslims do not share this generally pro-female view with the rest of Islam. Are there paragraphs missing, removed to appeal to the western audience that the translation is for? I suspect the paragraph on women was followed up by more fundamentalist views. Elsewhere, the author didn't pull any punches about anti-Jewish or anti-western statements; it makes no sense that the writer would have done so about women.

Anyway, that's my general concept on the authorship. I am inclined to this the author is a Saudi who believes in the fundamentalist movements and may be involved in it, but is not in a leadership position.

As a HUGE fan of pluralistic societies, I can't say that the world view expoused in this letter is something I'd like to come anywhere near. But there are legitimate grievances about Western actions that we can and should address. By doing so, the West can help avoid the spread of this kind of sentiment and the violence -- and death -- that follows in it's wake.