One of the least-noted defining moments of the early twenty-first century came in the wake of the 9/11 jihad attacks, when President George W. Bush insisted that the Islamic world held the same values that the West held, and so if a few political adjustments were made, the problem of Islamic jihad terrorism would disappear, and the world would enter a new period of harmony and peace. The only problem with this vision was that the basic premise was false: the prevailing values in much of the Islamic world are quite different from those of Westerners, as a prominent Muslim cleric once again recently demonstrated.

Bush made one of many optimistic, irenic and completely fictional assertions about Islam on June 24, 2002 in the Rose Garden, when he envisioned a Palestinian Authority that was a beacon of freedom in the Middle East: “If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza,” he asserted, “it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government.”

After that dubious claim, Bush went on to express his fantasies about Islam in general: “I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes.”

Bush is unlikely ever to have heard of Tareq al-Suwaidan, an Islamic scholar and Muslim Brotherhood leader from Kuwait, but he would have done well to ponder what Brotherhood and other Muslim leaders were actually saying about their values. And they’re still saying it: MEMRI recently reported that al-Suwaidan, who spent several years in Tulsa, Oklahoma, offered a vision of Islamic “morality” and “tolerance” that differed sharply from Bush’s bland and naïve assumptions.

“By Allah,” al-Suwaidan said, “what happened during the Al-Aqsa Flood should be taught in the most prestigious colleges. The planning was unbelievable. People who are experts in planning know that what happened could only succeed with divine intervention, and profound and extraordinary planning.”

The Al-Aqsa Flood is the name that Hamas gave to its bloody and brutal massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023. Rather than expressing revulsion at this horrific demonstration of immorality and intolerance, al-Suwaidan was saying that it should be taught as an example of skillful strategic planning, as well as actual divine intervention. The idea that he or other Muslims “share the aspirations of men and women in every culture,” as Bush claimed, doesn’t seem to have occurred to al-Suwaidan.

Al-Suwaidan continued: “Can you see how many young men and women in our Arab world – forget the Arab world, in the West – consider [Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades spokesman] Abu Obeida a role model?…The Al-Aqsa Flood is the best leadership training course in the world.”

In the West? Why, of course. Al-Suwaidan, like everyone else, could see thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized college and university students all over the U.S. praise Hamas and celebrate the Oct. 7 attacks. Nevertheless, he was troubled that Allah had not yet granted the Muslims total victory: “Blood is flowing in Gaza like rivers. Where is the victory that we were promised? Why is there no divine intervention to stop the bloodshed of children, women, the elderly, and to stop the hunger in Gaza?” In referring to the “victory that we were promised,” al-Suwaidan is likely referring to the fact that the Qur’an promises success to the believers in this world as well as the next: “Allah gave them the reward of this world and the good reward of the hereafter. Allah loves those who do good deeds.” (3:148).

That victory has so far eluded the Muslims in Gaza, and for al-Suwaidan, that only meant that they should dedicate themselves all the more wholeheartedly to jihad for the sake of Allah, even if it would mean that they would die in the process: “Man, I do not cry for them. I am crying for myself for not being among them. This is how a believer should aspire for martyrdom.”

Al-Suwaidan then offered a succinct and telling enunciation of Islamic values: “Preserving life is not the only objective of the shari’a – these include the preserving of religion, life, lineage, intellect, and property. These are the main objectives of the shari’a. Which one of these objectives has higher priority? It is preserving religion, not preserving life. This is why there is a thing called ‘Jihad.’ If preserving life had the priority, there would be no Jihad – we would abolish it. Preserving religion takes priority over preserving life.”

“Preserving religion takes priority over preserving life.” Thus peace is not the ultimate goal; Islamization is. Will anyone in the State Department, as they continue to press Israel for ceasefires that would let Hizballah and Hamas survive to murder more Israelis, take note of this statement and ponder its implications?

Of course not.