There are many head-scratchers and ultimate paradoxes within Islamism. We’ve documented several in this blog throughout the years, but the one that just keeps coming back up is whether or not it is permitted to kill civilians in Islamism (not Islam).

Take for instance the leader of Al Qaida in Spain, Syrian born Imad Eddin Barakat. Barakat told a Madrid court he was appalled at the 3/11 train bombings and stated, “Islam does not allow such things.” But we know the attack was an Al Qaida plot and its attackers were carrying out what they at least believed was not just allowed under the rules of Allah, but acts in which they are later rewarded for.

But he said they took place in the context of the war in Iraq in which Spanish troops were at that time taking part. “In our countries, our cultures, war generates hatred. Abuse generates hatred,” Barakat, also known as Abu Dahdah, told the court in halting Spanish . . .

If the Madrid attackers were Muslims they must be followers of the fundamentalist Salafist doctrine espoused by Moroccan jihadists, Barakat claimed. “I only know the doctrine, not any of the individuals,” he stated, quoted by El Periodico daily’s website.

Barakat was convicted of conspiracy to murder following 9/11, a plan he seemingly had a hand in. What is the difference between the two attacks?

If we take Barakat at his word and he does indeed condemn the 3/11 attacks, even though that’s what he’s on trial for so it certainly should be taken with a grain of salt, while Spain was involved in a war, an attack on Spain is not permitted. At the time of 9/11, the United States was not in a war, though war was declared up her several times over, yet he had a hand in those attacks so he must conclude the killing of 3,000 is allowable. Barakat just lays out the way to keep Islamists from being justified in attacking other nations; declare an open war and continue to attack.

But if Barakat is or was indeed the leader of Al Qaida in Spain, he would know all too well the rules of Salafism seeing as how Al Qaida is a Salafist group. He would also know individuals within that larger construct in order to be elevated to leader status.

Change of scenery to Indonesia, where Bret Stephens writes of Habib Mohammad Rizieq Shihab who is the leader of the group Front for the Defense of Islam (FDI).

“Non-Muslims from Dar el-Harb [countries at war with Muslims], if they are in Indonesia, then it is the duty of Muslims to oppose them to the last drop of blood,” he says. “George Bush can be killed, too.” As for the legitimacy of attacks on American diplomats and civilians, “this is a dilemma,” though after a moment’s reflection he concludes that they “cannot be disturbed” since they are here with the consent of a Muslim government.

Shihab fancies himself as a moderate, but why would there be a dilema if diplomats or civilians could be killed? Further, using the guidelines set forth as to why diplomats and civilians “cannot be disturbed,” present with the consent of a Muslim government, Shihab must believe Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan must also not be disturbed because they, too, are present with the consent of a Muslim government.

However the conflict is within the first part of that excerpt. Shihab concludes Muslims have a duty to oppose dar el-harb to the last drop of blood, however the idea that dar el Harb literally means ‘countries at war with Islam’ is incorrect. There are two areas within the old Islamic teachings; dar el Islam (House of Islam), also known as dar el Salam (House of Peace), and dar el Harb (House of War). The dar el Harb translates into any area non-Islamic because it is believed only dar al Islam can be at peace since it is under Islamic rule.

Dr. Walid Phares explains better than I in his book, ‘Future Jihad.’

On the other side of the equation, there was dar el Harb, which translates simply as “house of War,” or technically, War Zone. It did not mean specifically that war was the dominant social-political reality in those areas. It meant that outside the dar el Islam, there is no real peace.

The early followers of Islam following Muhammad’s death coined these phrases and used them to legitimize Islamic conquests into Africa, Asia and Europe. They are nothing more than Islamic propaganda that have lasted centuries, still being spouted off as justification for expansion of Islam and in the case of Shihab, justification for murder with the caveat that if the dar el Harb is invited by a Muslim government they “cannot be disturbed.” Except for the case of, well, any other time in which Islamists seek to bend the rules yet again under the rather flimsy construct of post-Muhammad Islamism.

And yet it is remarkable there are still followers to this ideology where reason has no home, with the outspoken opponents to it quickly branded heretics.