jihadica

chronicling the global jihad

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 13 (Final)

by 1 Comment

Sayyid Imam wraps up his new book today.  Much of his final criticism is aimed at Bin Laden, whom he describes as incurious and incapable of holding himself accountable for his errors.  Regarding the latter, Imam compares Bin Laden negatively to Hassan Nasrallah, who apologized and offered compensation to the Lebanese civilians whose homes had been destroyed by Israeli bombing in the 2006 war (paging Andrew Exum).  

Sayyid Imam ends by explaining why his attacks on Zawahiri and Bin Laden have become more personal: he felt obliged to do it after Zawahiri accused him of being an Egyptian tool before Imam’s first book had even been released.  Zawahiri’s more pointed personal attacks in the Exoneration prompted an even more personal response.

Concluding…

The Denudation is divided into four sections:

 

  • Exposing the lies of Zawahiri
  • Exposing his jurisprudential errors
  • Exposing the ways he misleads the reader
  • Exposing his search for fame

In this, the conclusion, I wish to say: If there are Muslims who have been led astray by bin Laden, Zawahiri, and their like, how are they going to remain firm during the fitna of the Anti-Christ, which the prophet says will be the greatest fitna?

In like manner, people have been led astray by Ataturk for 90 years.  They praised him for expelling the allies from Turkey in World War I and called him “al-Ghazi” (pious frontier warrior), but that didn’t stop him from abolishing the caliphate and attacking Islam.

People should not fall under the spell of those who talk about religion and jihad before they know what these people stand for and what they know of the Sharia.

The Prophet has said that, “God helps this religion with a debauched man.”  The man he is talking about fought alongside the prophet at Khaybar, mightily vexed the infidels, and did not harm a single Muslim.  He only harmed himself by committing suicide on account of his wounds.  Compare him with those who bring great harm to Muslims.  What has been the benefit of destroying two buildings in America, destruction which led to the downfall the Taliban state, the only Islamic state in the world?  Bin Laden left Afghanistan to pay the price for his stupidity.  He cries for the children of Palestine but forgets the children of Afghanistan.  And behind him stands Zawahiri, justifying all of it.

Now Bin Laden is using his organization for his own personal security, leaving many of its members to be killed or captured.  Bin Laden even abandoned his most sincere supporter, Abu Hafs al-Masri, who had built al-Qaeda for him.  He, along with others, were killed in the American bombings in 2001 because they didn’t have the protection that Bin Laden had.  The captain is usually the last one to abandon the ship, but not Bin Laden or Zawahiri; they are the first.

Bin Laden talks of jihad, yet he withdrew from every battle he and his companions fought without the support of the Afghans against the communists.  Bin Laden was even captured during one of the battles.  The Arabs had no effective military role in the Afghan jihad against Russia.  To say otherwise is a lie. [On this, see Wright’s Looming Tower.]

What of Bin Laden’s religious knowledge?  In 1994 in Sudan, there was a subject that he was interested in.  I suggested he read a certain book about it.  He said to me, “I am unable to read a whole book.”  As for his speeches, his followers write them for him.

Is one who destroyed two buildings, and thus destroyed the Taliban state, knowledgeable in Sharia or military matters? Does someone who sends hundreds of his brothers to their graves or to jail for the sake of “the idea” and “the flame” of jihad (Exoneration p. 193) have Sharia or military skills?

These people are mischief makers.  And why not, as long as there is someone to pay for their mischief.  They can flee and accumulate popularity and money (Exoneration, p. 79, 199).

What are the consequences of their knowledge?  The operation succeeded (9/11), the patient died (Taliban state), and the doctor fled (Bin Laden and Zawahiri).

When Gamal Abdel Nasser lost the 1967 war, he presented his resignation from the presidency three days later.  Hassan Nasrallah apologized to the Lebanese people only one month after the July 2006 war with Israel and promised to pay compensation to those who had been harmed.  This was despite the fact that Lebanon was not occupied. It was partially destroyed, which Nasrallah could have prevented if he’d had good anti-aircraft weapons.  Compare this to Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and their followers.  They make no apologies to anyone.

Every follower of Bin Laden and those that approve their actions will be gathered together under the same banner on the Day of Judgment if they do not repent [ie they’re hell bound].

I had not intended to write a single word about Bin Laden, Zawahiri, or anyone else.  It did not occur to me to do so when I wrote the Document in December 2006 and when I revised it in March 2007.  I have witnesses who can attest to this.  But then I showed the Document to the brothers in prison in April 2007.  Afterwards, there was a lot of talk in the press about the Document, so I released a statement to stop speculation, which was published in May 6, 2007 in al-Hayat and al-Sharq al-Awsat.  I said it was a call to the Islamic groups to put Jihadi operations on the right path.  I said it deals with jurisprudential matters and not with a specific group.  Nevertheless, Zawahiri issued a statement in June 2007 criticizing the Document before it had been published and before he had a chance to read it.

Why did Zawahiri launch this preemptive strike?  He knew my opinion about the mistakes of the Islamic groups, such as prohibiting visa holders from operations in the Abode of War and other things that he cut from my book, The Compendium, in 1994.  Zawahiri and his colleagues in Europe continued to badmouth me, so I added material which was not in the Document I had initially shared with the brothers in April 2007 so I could respond to Zawahiri’s and his colleagues’ stupidity and reveal to the people what they stand for, but I wasn’t too specific.  I spoke more specifically about them in my interview with al-Hayat.

An important lesson: the matter of the masses relying on religious scholars

The religious scholars are the sources of religious guidance.  Al-Juwayni has said that when there is no caliphate, the religious scholars are the heads of the Muslims.

I’ve seen a lot of ignorant people like Bin Laden and Zawahiri presenting themselves as religious scholars for Muslims.  They are not, as I have shown in part two of this note.  I want to caution you against them here.  Warning against such people was the main reason I wrote The Compendium in 1993.

Document (Arabic): 12-2-08-al-masri-al-youm-denudation-part-13

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 8

by Leave a Comment

In part 8, Sayyid Imam continues to hammer al-Qaeda for bringing disaster to the Middle East and for the hypocrisy of its leaders.  He

  • puts forward the odd claim that AQ lied to the U.S. about WMD in Iraq and about AQ ties with Iraq to push the U.S. to invade
  • observes that Iran and Syria have been the primary beneficiaries of AQ’s antics in Iraq
  • notes what any observer of the region already knows but rarely says: bashing the U.S. and Israel and talking about the Palestinian issue is great PR
  • offers an excellent explanation as to why AQ will not get a foothold in the Palestinian territories
  • claims that Bin Laden gave Saudi donations for jihad to Nawaz Sharif in support of his candidacy against Benazir Bhutto

Continuing…

Z claims that only the mujahids have thrawted the plans of the U.S.  That’s like Gamal Abdel Nasser’s slogan after the ’67 defeat that “no voice rises above the voice of battle” in order to silence his critics.

AQ brought the U.S. into the region and caused it to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.  It gave the U.S. false information about WMD in Iraq and tying Iraq to al-Qaeda to give the U.S. the excuse to invade Iraq.  They did this to lure the U.S. into a battlefield where it could be destroyed.  But AQ killed far more Iraqis than it killed Americans.  It brought the U.S. in and excommunicated the people of Iraq solely to fulfill its desire to fight America.

Z claims that AQ thwarted the plans of the U.S. but the truth is the opposite.  Wherever AQ goes, it brings destruction to Muslims.

Those who have benefitted from the killing in Iraq are first Iran, then Syria.  Is Syria facilitating those who seek to fight in Iraq out its love for jihad, for the Iraqis, or for its own self interest?  Aren’t some of the leaders of AQ who are encouraging others to fight in Iraq located in Iran, particularly the son of UBL?  Is fighting for the interests of Syria and Iran a jihad?  Hasn’t Z previously paid his brothers to fight in Egypt in service of Sudanese intel?  Isn’t killing the Iraqis and demolishing their homes exactly what Jews are doing to Palestinians?  Is this jihad or even thwarting the plans of America?  Wasn’t Iraq part of the Abode of Islam under Saddam before the American occupation?  Didn’t al-Qaeda, at the hands of Zarqawi, trigger a sectarian civil war in Iraq by killing the Shia en masse?  Haven’t the Sunnis paid the ultimate price for this?  Killing the Iraqi Shia only strengthened their ties to Iran and facilitated Iranian involvement in Iraq, whereas it did nothing but weaken the Sunni position in Iraq.

Does the mentality that lost an actual Islamic state in Afghanistan really believe that an Islamic state will be established in Iraq and not just on the Internet?  Are the Islamic peoples to be test animals for Bin Laden’s and Zawahiri’s experiment?

No one is more pleased with al-Qaeda today than Iran and Syria.  All they have to do is turn a blind eye to the fighters who travel through their countries to blow themselves up, which serves Iranian and Syrian interests.

8) One of Z’s ignorant beliefs is that he proves the truth of what he says by pointing to the number of his followers.

Z says I heaped abuse on Bin Laden, but then he asks which of us has better understood reality and affected more of Muslim youth and masses? (Exoneration, p. 10)

The truth is known by its agreement with the Sharia, not by the number of its followers.

I have not called on anyone to follow me.  I am only relaying what I think is right according to the Sharia. 

Aren’t those who extol Bin Laden the same people that previously extolled Saddam Hussein?

Z’s words [ie the truth of what you say is proven by the number of your followers] indicate a fundamental aspect of his character: he has always been looking for fame and he is willing to get it by killing the innocent.

* One of the deceptions of Z is his trading on the Palestinian question

It is well-known that the fastest way to gain popularity among the Arab and Muslim masses is to bash the United States and Israel and talk a great deal about the Palestinian issue.  Nasser did it, Saddam did it, Ahmadinejad does it, as do others.  However, these people have actually done something for Palestinians, particularly Nasser, whereas Bin Laden and Z just talk.  Z even says in his Exoneration that “the slogan which the masses of the Muslim umma have understood and responded to well for 50 years is the slogan of calling for jihad against Israel.  Moreover, in this decade the umma is mobilized by the American presence in the heart of the Islamic world.” [I think this quote is from Knights but haven’t checked it yet]

Z and Bin Laden talk about Palestinian children being hurt but not about the death they bring to the children of Afghanistan.

* Why doesn’t al-Qaeda undertake operations in Palestine?

If Al-Qaeda is so interested in the Palestinian question, why hasn’t it undertaken operations against the Jews there?  There are two reasons.  First, killing Jews is not one of Bin Laden’s priorities.  Second, al-Qaeda is an organization without a state; wherever it is, it is a stranger.  One can’t carry out operations in a country without the help of some of the people in that country. 

Al-Qaeda has failed to ally with any of the Palestinian organizations for four reasons:

1) Palestinian organizations don’t trust Bin Laden.  There’s no room to explain here, but it is an old matter from the days of the Afghan jihad.

2) Al-Qaeda has nothing to offer Palestinian groups militarily since the latter are far more advanced.  Indeed, Al-Qaeda relied on the cadres of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad trained by the Palestinian groups in Lebanon from 1990 to 1992.

3) Different tactics with respect to the use of force.  Bin Laden uses blind force to kill as many people as possible, even if it leads to the destruction of his organization–“organizational suicide.”  Palestinian organizations, on the other hand, use limited force to make gains against the enemy while ensuring the survival of their organization.  They follow the traditional principles of guerrilla war, the “war of the flea and the dog.”  Bin Laden’s new way is the war of the elephant, which makes mass killing the goal.

4) Palestinian organizations don’t need Bin Laden’s money since they have their own resources, just as they are more politically sophisticated than Bin Laden.

This is why Al-Qaeda has failed to ally with Palestinian groups and failed to gain a foothold in Palestine.  That’s why Z in his recent statement called for the Bedouin of Sinai to engage in jihad in Palestine.  It’s just propaganda.

When the Palestinian organizations rebuffed al-Qaeda, Z started criticizing them. Z accused Hamas of killing Jewish children with their missiles.  Is this a rational person?  What about the innocents al-Qaeda has killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, and elsewhere?  Is what is permitted for Al-Qaeda forbidden for Hamas?  Z is sad for Jewish children but kills Muslim children.

Z accuses Hamas of participating in elections on the basis of a secular constitution.  Why does Z criticize Hamas only?  Why not also criticize his shaykh Bin Laden?  Bin Laden paid a lot of money in support of Nawaz Sharif in parliamentary elections in Pakistan against Benazir Bhutto.  This was money for jihad that Saudis had give Bin Laden.  When I found out about this in 1992, I said to Abu Hafs al-Masri, who was the one who gave the money to Nawaz Sharif, “Abu Hafs! By God, Bin Laden is leading you to Hell!”

Document (Arabic): 11-27-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-8

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 3

by Leave a Comment

As with Wednesday’s installment, Sayyid Imam saves the good stuff for last.  He obliquely chides Mullah Omar for not turning over Bin Laden to the U.S.  Imam also discloses that Bin Laden was plotting with Pakistani intelligence before 9/11 without the permission of Mullah Omar and alleges that he worked with ISI head Gen. Mahmud Ahmed.  Finally, Imam reveals that Zawahiri did not know of the 9/11 attacks until after they happened.  In all, the picture he paints of Zawahiri is of a man very peripheral to al-Qaeda operations until after 9/11.  

At the beginning of today’s installment, Sayyid Imam rebuts several of the principles underpinning the “school of al-Qaeda” and reprises the argument of his last book that even though jihad is a duty, there are conditions that must be met before it can be undertaken.  My paraphrastic translation follows:

Muslims are the cause of their own problems, not Americans as Zawahiri and Bin Laden say.  The reform of Muslims has to begin with themselves.

UBL and Z. abandoned the umma, leaving it to pay the price by losing two nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, and by coping with the death of hundreds of thousands of people and widespread destruction.  

* Zawahiri rejects my argument that jihad is not the only option Muslims can use to confront their enemies.  He also rejects the idea that there are conditions and barriers to jihad.

  • But there is a difference between the necessity of an Islamic duty and the ability of a Muslim to carry it out [eg you don’t have to pray if you are unable to].
  • Z. says, “This corrupt reality…will only change through force” (Exoneration, p. 193).  Any other option, he says, is “the poisons of weakness and paralysis” (p. 74).  These words are kufr [unbelief] because God clearly mentioned other options in the Qur’an, and the Prophet and his Companions did not always use violence.  Z. is like an ignorant doctor who only knows how to treat a patient one way and believes every other way is wrong.
  • UBL and Z. exploit the Islamic sentiments of the youth along with their ignorance of the Sharia sciences.  Z. hates to speak about conditions and barriers for Islamic duties, even though they are the pillars of Sharia wisdom.  He doesn’t want the youth to know this way of reasoning so they will be more receptive to fiery rhetoric.  Weighing conditions and barriers is the difference between a scholar and an ignorant person, a jurist and a reckless person.  
  • My experience with Z. is that he is the most reckless of those who don’t think about consequences.  But he is an unusual reckless person.  A normal reckless person risks something he owns.  But Z. risks what he doesn’t own.  In Egypt, he risked the lives of hundreds of his brethren and then he fled and did not die with them in Egypt as he had promised.  He then risked the Taliban state, the Afghan people, and then the Iraqi people.  He always risks what he doesn’t own, flees, and then leaves others to pay the price.  All of this has led to no real achievement on the ground but rather wholesale losses.  Thus, he doesn’t want Muslim youth to know there are conditions and barriers for jihad that lead to minimal loses, in contrast to the outcome of recklessness–heavy losses without benefit.  Think about why the Islamic movements have failed to establish Islamic states or suffered severe losses; it is because these conditions have been ignored.

* Localization of Leadership

  • UBL violated the command of his amir, Mullah Omar, to not attack the U.S.  He developed the heretical notion that he only had to obey him in matters internal to Afghanistan.
  • Islamic scripture does not limit obedience to one’s amir to a location.  You have to obey your amir no matter where you are.  Moreover, medieval scholars say there can be no raid beyond the borders your amir controls without his permission.
  • UBL betrayed Mullah Omar but this doesn’t excuse Omar’s responsibility for the loss of Afghanistan.  He could have prevented it if he had acted wisely at the first sign of trouble without violating Islamic law.  But he failed to act.
  • During its reign, the Taliban punished women for leaving their homes without covering their faces.  Today they kill Afghan soldiers who collaborate with the American occupation.  But the Taliban still will not bring UBL and Z. to an accounting, even though they were directly responsible for the loss of the Taliban state.
  • UBL never respected the Taliban government.  He wanted to use it as a means to attack the U.S.  He also cut deals with outsiders as if he were a state within a state.  For example, he struck agreements with his old ally, Pakistani intelligence, in particular with Gen. Mahmud Ahmed.  UBL also did interviews with the foreign press even though Mullah Omar forbade it.
  • Z. also had contempt for the Taliban state, even though he said in his book Knights that the mujahid states of Afghanistan and Chechnya had to have Jihadis’ total support and that the battle had to be transferred to the heart of the Islamic world.  He further said that because these states are weak, the Jihadis had to solve the problem [overthrowing Islamic regimes elsewhere] themselves without exposing these states to retaliation.  But his subsequent actions contradicted his earlier words.

* The heresy of fighting the far enemy before the near enemy

  •  Z. invented this principle to support UBL’s plan to attack the U.S.  By this, they wanted to focus the disparate actions of the Islamic groups on a single far enemy.  This is completely contrary to Islamic scripture and to the classical understanding of scholars [gives quotes].
  • For 30 years, Z. preached fighting against the near enemy, the Egyptian government, until he decided in 1998 that it was more important to fight the far enemy.  That was after the failure of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in Egypt and its financial bankruptcy.  So he joined UBL’s Global Islamic Front for Jihad in 1998, even though the U.S. had done nothing to EIJ before that.  That’s when he concocted this principle and put it in UBL’s mind.
  • Z.’s agent in Europe, Hani Siba`i, said in a book that Z.’s decision brought great harm to EIJ, even though the change in strategy was not the collective decision of the group.
  • Even though Z.’s group incurred heavy losses for the sake of UBL, UBL did not used to trust Z. for reasons I won’t go into here.  Thus, he did not inform him of the 9/11 plot before it happened, even though Z. had joined AQ and given allegiance to UBL in June of 2001.  UBL then had him justify the attack after the fact.

Document (Arabic): 11-21-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-3

Bin Laden Writing Apologia

by 4 Comments

According to a Pakistani newspaper, Bin Laden is writing a book-length defense of al-Qaeda in response to “negative propaganda and insufficient information” about the organization, an indication that recent IO and strategic communication efforts are getting under his skin.

In the book, Bin Laden will detail the development of al-Qaeda and explain its reasons for attacking the U.S.  He will also catalogue the atrocities perpetrated by the West in the Muslim world and argue that the West’s rise to power began with the Crusades and culminated in U.S. control of oil in Muslim states.  Finally, Bin Laden will blame the U.S. for the current global economic crisis.

Bin Laden’s research assistant, “a young man with a Middle Eastern background,” will translate the Arabic book into English. (Hat tip: MS)

Zawahiri the XO

by 2 Comments

The US military has given CNN letters that Zawahiri wrote in March 2008 to senior al-Qaeda commanders in Iraq (hat tip SK). Much of the content has been filtered through an MNFI spokesman so it’s hard to use CNN’s summary to assess al-Qaeda’s fortunes in Iraq. Nevertheless, since the summary fits with the bleak picture that has been emerging these past few months, it’s worth noting. I’ve rearranged the information for ease of reference:

Zawahiri letter to al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri, March 2008. Letter was captured in April during U.S. op that killed AQI Information Minister Abu Nizar. Abu Nizar was an intermediary between Masri and AQ Central. The letter was found on Abu Nizar’s person.

  • Leadership: Masri too isolated to keep watch of his operatives. Zawahiri questions Masri’s ability to lead AQI.
  • Poor Communication with AQ Central: Zawahiri concerned that he is not getting regular updates on Iraq. He is also not receiving regular communication from Masri.
  • Poor Recruits: Dissatisfied with poor quality of recruits for ops in Iraq
  • ISI’s Legitimacy: Questions manner in which the Islamic State of Iraq was established
  • ISI’s Blatant Propaganda: Unhappy that ISI is repackaging old footage of operations and claiming the ops are new. Also unhappy that ISI takes credit for ops carried out by other terror groups, like Islamic Jihad. Zawahiri writes: “The media policy for the Islamic State is using exaggeration, to the extent of lying.”

Zawahiri letter to Abu `Umar al-Baghdadi, March 2008

  • Relations b/n Zawahiri & Bin Laden: Zawahiri passing along advice from Bin Laden.
  • Offer of Assistance: Zawahiri asks what ISI needs to be victorious.

We know from an earlier set of captured documents reviewed by a Washington Post reporter that Masri went to Afghanistan this summer to speak with AQ leadership. From the tone of Zawahiri’s letter, it might have been a trip to the woodshed.

This is at least the second time that captured AQI documents have been given to CNN. But in both cases, the original documents have not been released for general scrutiny. If the people releasing them hope their contents will demoralize al-Qaeda supporters around the world, it would help to release the documents to the general public soon after the news stories based on them are published. Despite all the attention paid to Jihadi visual media, Jihadis themselves love texts.

Update: Bill Roggio at Long Wars Journal was given the documents by MNFI and has a more extensive summary of their content. He also says that the documents will be made available shortly on the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy’s website. The documents are now up and I’ll post a more detailed summary once I’ve read them.

Weekend Detritus

by 1 Comment

I’ve found a very interesting nugget for tomorrow night, but in the meantime here are two bits of debris:

First is a July 31st announcement on the Firdaws forum that one of its members, Khattab al-Thaqafi, traveled to fight in Afghanistan.  Thaqafi, we are told, contributed a great deal on the Internet and to Jihadi media.

7-31-08-firdaws-firdaws-member-khattab-al-thaqafi-joins-jihad-in-afghanistan

The second item is graffiti of Bin Laden spray painted on the wall of one of the largest markets in Kuwait.  The person who posted the picture to Ekhlaas writes:

Pictures, as you know, are forbidden, but we should keep in mind that the person was expressing his feelings and was not being mindful of pedestrians.  Perhaps he was ignorant of the rule.  The only thing this demonstrates is the love of all sorts of people for Shaykh Usama.

7-30-08-bin-laden-graffiti-in-large-marketplace-in-kuwait

Bin Laden Message Prompts Speculation on AQ Strategy in Palestine (Part 1)

by Leave a Comment

Bin Laden’s statement on May 18th has prompted several Jihadi pundits to speculate on AQ’s future strategy in the Palestinian territories. Over the next few days, I’ll post the most interesting speculation. For part one, we’ll look at a short post by Ekhlaas member Khalid al-`Asqalani.

According to `Asqalani, Bin Laden has presented a complete program of action for the coming stage of the Jihadi movement, which is the liberation of Palestine.

1) Bin Laden explained that oppressive international order is in an alliance with Israel and its resources are at its disposal.

2) The apostate Arab regimes are the guardians of Israel’s security, so overthrowing these regimes will make liberating Palestine much easier.

3) The pressure of the repressive regimes causes the Islamic groups to abandon jihad on the justification that it harms the da`wa (spread of Islam).

4) Hezbollah is misleading the youth because it has duped them into thinking it is the only resistance to Israel and that any other resistance in southern Lebanon must give obeisance; it plays political games at the expense of the Muslim community; and it gives its allegiance to the Guardianship of the Jurist (i.e. the Iranian government).

5) Fighting and jihad are a “strategic choice” for the Muslim community to replace the strategic choice of the defeatist Arabs who submit to peace and recognize Israel.

6) A group of people must penetrate the borders of Palestine in order to resist the Israeli blockade.

This is not quite the program of action that we were promised, but `Asqalani does pick up on Bin Laden’s call for jihad against the countries surronding Israel as a prelude to action in the Palestinian territories.

More interesting than `Asqalani’s summary of Bin Laden’s message is his take on why the time is ripe for the Jihadis to liberate Palestine:

1) They have a mature mujahid leadership that is well aware of the situation on the ground and can make military plans accordingly.

2) A global community of Jihadis can be mobilized to fight in Palestine regardless of their nationality.

3) The Jihadis have established a central base with the Islamic State of Iraq that can supply every mujahid with weapons, money, and training and function as a gathering point.

4) The Jihadis know what they want, they understand their enemy, and they have pushed the religious scholars to mobilize the Muslim community to fight.

5) Palestinians now know that their conflict is not a national conflict but a religious conflict.

`Asqalani is not alone in feeling that al-Qaeda is getting ready for operations against Israel in the Paletinian territories, even though Zawahiri tried to downplay expectations in his recent Q&A. In the following days, we will be looking at other Jihadi pundits who are responding in a similar manner. Bin Laden may only be throwing a bone to the Jihadis online and to those living in countries surrounding around Israel, but this sort of talk (increasingly frequent) also creates expectations, which in turn creates pressure for the al-Qaeda High Command to do more than talk.

Document (Arabic): 5-19-08-ekhlaas-khalid-asqalani-response-to-bin-laden-statement-on-palestine

New Bin Laden Message

by 1 Comment

If you read Ekhlaas’ sign-in page that I posted yesterday, you already know that Bin Laden has released a new message. Like his message last week, the new one is inspired by the 60th anniversary of Israel, but this time it is directed to the Muslim community, not the West. Here’s a summary:

Muslims, Bin Laden argues, will only reclaim Palestine from the Jews by fighting, not compromising, since the only law that matters today is “the law of the predator.” To fight a wolf, you have to be a wolf.

Before the twentieth century, the Ottoman empire protected Palestine from the rapacious Crusaders, but then Arab leaders like Sharif Husayn and Abd al-Aziz Al al-Saud worked with the British to destroy the empire, which removed Palestine’s protection. Since then, Western proxies in the region have prevented Muslims from reclaiming Palestine.

To reverse this situation, Muslims need to follow the example of Saladin. He obeyed the Qur’anic command to fight against disbelievers; he consulted with religious scholars on the subject of jihad; he fought against local Muslim rulers who worked with the Crusaders; and finally, he did not get permission from his opponent to fight him.

In contrast, Arab leaders are removing the Qur’anic verses on fighting from academic curricula; they have co-opted the ulama and only allow them access to the media to denounce jihad against the U.S. and its allies; they collaborate with the Crusaders and call those who fight them “excommunicating Kharijites;” and finally, the religious scholars in Saudi, led by a former revivalist leader, have made jihad conditional on the permission of the Saudi government.

To those who object to Bin Laden’s thesis by asserting that Hezbollah is fighting the good fight, Bin Laden hints that Hezbollah’s leader, Nasrallah, is beholden to the Iranians; otherwise, why didn’t Hezbollah liberate Palestine in its war with Israel two years ago? It was merely a war of self-defense. The fact that Nasrallah allows Crusader forces (UN peacekeepers) to protect the Jews indicates that he is not serious.

Others might object that there have been several wars fought against Israel to liberate Palestine. Bin Laden counters that none of the past wars were serious, except for the ’73 war; even then, Sadat only wanted to recapture the Sinai from the Israelis, not liberate Palestine.

Today, Israel is weak and only survives by the support of the West and its surrogates in the region. If Israel had to face what the Soviets faced in Afghanistan against the mujahids, it would completely crumble. But since it is surrounded by surrogates of the West, there is no way to get to Palestine without fighting against them, whether they be governments or parties. This will involve killing people who profess to be Muslims, just as Saladin did in order to liberate Jerusalem.

Several interesting things to note: First, Bin Laden is very bothered by the recent counter-ideology campaign of Arab governments in the Middle East, which consists of curricula reform, criticism by prominent religious scholars, condemnatory religious labels, and former Jihadi clerics in Saudi giving the right to declare jihad to the Saudi government. This last is an allusion to Salman al-Awda, who blasted Bin Laden in an open letter last Ramadan for bringing harm to the Muslim world.

Second, Bin Laden’s complaints about the media giving a platform to his clerical critics are part of a larger beef that Jihadis are having with the Arab media. Bin Laden echoes a popular sentiment in Jihadi circles when he says that the media is deliberately “trying to disfigure (the image of) the mujahids and weaken them.”

Third, the declaration that the Jihadis must fight their way through the surrounding countries to get to the occupied territories tallies with what Zawahiri said in a private letter to Zarqawi: expel the U.S. from Iraq, set up an emirate there, move to the neighboring countries, and then finally attack Israel. This puts Lebanon and Syria high on the list of new Jihadi theaters after the U.S. leaves Iraq.

Fourth, Bin Laden’s dismissal of Nasrallh and Hezbollah plays well to his Jihadi base, which hates the Shia, but it is poor politics given how popular Hezbollah and Nasrallah are in the region.

Document (Arabic): 5-18-08-ekhlaas-bin-laden-message

Bin Laden Message on 60th Anniversary of Israel

by 1 Comment

Today, al-Sahab (the organization that distributes Bin Laden and Zawahiri’s messages) sent around a statement by Bin Laden on the 60th anniversary of Israel. In his address, Bin Laden stated the “Palestine question” is the chief cause of conflict between Western nations and the Muslim community. It is the ultimate reason why AQ attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

On the question of a Palestinian state, Bin Laden rejects the idea of a two-state solution. Either the Palestinians rule the entire area, or the jihad will continue until it is liberated.

In an interesting turn, Bin Laden identifies the struggle of the Palestinians with the struggle of the Israelites for liberation under the pharaoh, who is the ultimate symbol of tyranny in Islam.

Bin Laden’s statement on Palestine comes after months of Jihadis online urging AQ to do something in the occupied territories. Zawahiri first addressed the Jihadi lobbying in his Q&A, saying that AQ was going to focus on Iraq until the U.S. withdraws, then it will shift its attention to Palestine. But he also said that attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets abroad were a high priority. Bin Laden’s statement confirms it. In the next few months I expect to see attacks like those we saw in North Africa in 2002 (hotel and airplane attacks in Kenya, synagogue attack in Tunisia).

Document (Arabic): 5-16-08-bin-laden-statement-reasons-for-the-conflict (أسباب الصراع في الذكرى الستين لقيام دولة الإحتلال الإسرائيلي)

Document (English): 5-16-08-bin-laden-statement-reasons-for-the-conflict-english