jihadica

chronicling the global jihad

New Zawahiri Statement: Obama Is Killing Muslims In Gaza

by 1 Comment

An audio statement by Zawahiri was just posted to the forums.  Here’s a summary:

  • Bin Laden swore he would keep fighting until Palestine and Muslim lands are free of foreign occupiers.
  • The Israeli attacks are Obama’s “gift” to the Palestinians before he takes office.  President Mubarak of Egypt is an accomplice in this slaughter since he has closed Egypt’s border with Gaza.
  • To the Muslims and mujahids in Gaza and Palestine: Al-Qaeda is with you.  We are attacking the American-Zionist Crusade wherever we can and we are quickly moving toward you.  The American withdrawal from Iraq heralds our approach toward you.
  • To the Muslims in Egypt: Strike and protest to force Mubarak to end the blockade.
  • To the Bedouins in Sinai: Help break the blockade.
  • To the Muslims of the world: American propaganda portrayed Obama as your savior but here he is “killing” Muslims in Gaza.  Demonstrating against these atrocities is not enough; you must engage in jihad.  Strike the American-Zionist Crusade everywhere.

Document (Arabic): 1-6-09-shamikh-zawahiri-on-gaza

More On Sayyid Imam’s Effectiveness

by Leave a Comment

Monika Maslikowski has a smart take on Sayyid Imam’s communication strategy vs. that of Zawahiri (it’s part of a larger assessment of the latter’s stumbles as a communicator this year).  She seconds my argument that Imam’s personal attacks on Zawahiri are effective because “Zawahiri’s success as a leader is dependent on whether or not he can gain trust and support.”

On the same subject, the Shack has an essay by an Egyptian lamenting Imam’s personal attacks.  For a different perspective by another Egyptian, I’d point you to Caliph’s remarks in the comments section of a previous post.  Without revealing too much, Caliph has closely followed Egyptian media and Islamism for years.  I’d rate his comments pretty high on their own merit, but one’s background seems to matter in these sorts of debates.

Response To Rob At The Shack

by 3 Comments

We’re probably now at the point of diminishing returns, but the issue of Jihadi revisions is important enough to work through the particulars until it’s clear what’s fact, what’s unproven, and what’s merely a matter of taste.  It’s important not just for assessing the impact of Sayyid Imam’s work but for understanding how ideological challenges to Jihadism fail or succeed.  My response to Rob is below the fold: [Read more…]

Assessing The Impact Of Jihadi Revisionists

by 3 Comments

Rob at Media Shack has posted a summary of a discussion on al-`Arabiyya’s “Death Industry.”  Of interest to him (and me) is Montasir Zayat’s assessment of Sayyid Imam’s latest book (Zayat only read the first one and a half chapters).  Here’s Rob’s take:

In Zayat’s view, what’s being printed now in Al-Masri Al-Youm is a disgrace and jeopardizes the reputation of the entire Revisions process.   No Jihadists or even Muslims anywhere will treat them seriously.

Rob agrees with this sentiment (as does Nathan Field).  But that’s not exactly what Zayat says.  Zayat does say the book is a disgrace, but he’s also pessimistic that anything can move Jihadis, no matter how refined.  Here he is in the same interview responding to the host’s question of which man, Imam or Zawahiri, has more popularity:

Dr. Sayyid Imam has an abundance of Sharia knowledge and he certainly had these beliefs before he was imprisoned.  He used to say the same things before he was imprisoned and I believe him.  However, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri has charisma and popularity, and he is readily accepted among the youth also.  Many of the youths’ hearts and heads are attached to him.  It is difficult for the words of Sayyid Imam to affect them.

Exactly.  There is nothing Sayyid Imam can say to sway hardcore fans of Zawahiri.  It doesn’t matter how mean or nice he is.  Thus, as I argued yesterday, we shouldn’t be assessing the impact of Imam’s book on Jihadis but rather on neutral pious, educated Arabs, particularly high school and college-age youth, whom Imam considers his primary audience.

But how do we measure this impact?  Rob says that it is by looking at the discussion of Sayyid Imam’s new book in the mainstream press.  By this measure, he says, it’s a failure because “there has been almost no coverage in the Arabic media.”  I don’t concede the latter assertion–the book was printed in full in Islam Online, al-Masry al-Youm, and al-Sharq al-Awsat and commented on in at least thirteen print news venues.  It is also all over the forums and the Arabic blogosphere.  Still, I agree that it is getting less coverage than Imam’s last book.  Rob says that’s because the tone of the book is bitter and personal.  A simpler explanation is that the subject–Imam turning on Zawahiri–is old news.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say the story wasn’t covered by anyone in the mainstream media.  So what?  As I observed regarding a different matter (Jihadi forums), the fact that the Arab press ignores a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon has little impact on Arabs.  The Arab press wrote nothing about Abu Bakr Naji until the Saudi arrests.  The Arab press has also missed the recent Maqdisi story.  Aside from this blog and an excellent article in Jamestown, only al-Hayat has caught it.

So how are we to assess the impact of Sayyid Imam’s new book on its target audience?  Here are a few places to look:

  • Mainstream Muslim discussion forums
  • News discussion forums (al-Jazeera, etc)
  • Personal blogs

Much of the circulation, of course, will be person-to-person, which we can’t possibly track.  Still, I’m willing to partially concede that it’s a dud if the mainstream forums and blogs are largely negative.  But let’s wait a little bit before rendering judgment.  As Sayyid Imam said in his last installment, it’s simply unfair to judge a book before it’s even been released.

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 Impact Of The Denudation

by 5 Comments

When Sayyid Imam’s first book was released serially last year, CT pundits were split.  Some, like Lawrence Wright and Peter Bergen, said it was evidence of a serious fissure in the Jihadi Movement and would further divide it.  Others, like Michael Scheuer, said it was neither evidence of a fissure nor would it divide the movement because Sayyid Imam was being coerced, which instantly discredits his book.  

From the beginning, I took issue with both sides.  I didn’t like the war-within position because I don’t believe that most Jihadis will change their minds upon reading Sayyid Imam; they’d require a lot more than that (family intervention, etc).  But I also didn’t like the nothing-to-see-here position because it too easily adopted a Jihadi talking point and because it, like the war-within position, did not see that the most important audience for Sayyid Imam’s book was the pious, educated Arab public, particularly high-school and college-age youth.  To the extent that the book persuaded fence sitters that Zawahiri and al-Qaeda were making religious errors, it succeeded.  If they also came to believe there was a war within, even better.

With Imam’s second book, we have a similar dynamic.  But this time, the nothing-to-see-here position is based not on the fact that Sayyid Imam is in prison but on the meanness of his words and his personal attacks on Zawahiri.  Jihadis are saying it and so are astute bloggers and journalists (Rob, Nathan, and Marisa).  The argument is that Sayyid Imam is so mean that Jihadis will be turned off because his rhetoric indicates that he is unfair.  I don’t agree with this position for several reasons:

 

  1. Jihadis are going to dislike Sayyid Imam’s book no matter what.
  2. The most important audience is pious, educated Arabs, especially the youth in high school and college.  It is not Jihadis.
  3. Sayyid Imam was pretty vicious in his first book and it didn’t seem to dampen its effect.  For example, he repeatedly accused Zawahiri of abandoning his family and getting them killed.
  4. Sayyid Imam has a different goal in this book.  He’s already tried to discredit the religious underpinnings of Zawahiri’s ideology.  Now he’s trying to impugn his character.  Zawahiri has said that for the Jihadi Movement to succeed it needs leaders that people can trust.  Sayyid Imam is trying to destroy that trust.  Think of political attack ads; Imam’s gone from attacking Zawahiri on the issues, now he’s attacking his character.

I’ll leave off on my assessment of the new things to be learned from the Denudation.  I just wanted to share my thoughts on its impact and audience before the emerging narrative hardens.

 

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 12

by 1 Comment

 

Sayyid Imam has some surprising things to say about Sayyid Qutb and some interesting speculation on Zawahiri’s tenuous position in al-Qaeda.  He also observes that Libyan and Mauritanian students serve as Zawahiri’s primary research assistants.  I don’t know about their nationalities, but there’s no doubt Zawahiri has research assistants (as do many productive academics).  Moreover, Zawahiri talks about Mauritanian seminarians coming to visit him and Bin Laden in his Exoneration, so it makes sense that some stayed on to help him write.

Continuing…

Zawahiri says in Knights that he joined al-Qaeda to unite the efforts of the Muslims.  That’s not true.  Zawahiri knew Bin Laden for 14 years, from 1987 to 2001, and never joined with him.  Rather, he criticized Bin Ladin harshly as a Saudi intelligence agent for merely reducing donations to his (Zawahiri’s) group in 1995.  To this end, Zawahiri wrote an article critical of Bin Laden called “The Youth Are Generous with Their Lives and The Rich Are Stingy with Their Money” (جاد الشباب بأرواحهم وضنّ الأغنياء بأموالهم), in the Kalimat Haqq journal.

Egyptian Islamic Jihad did not join Al Qaeda; only Zawahiri and eight others joined.  It wasn’t to unite jihad; it was because Zawahiri saw his fame and fortune linked to Bin Laden.  Bin Laden knew Zawahiri had nothing to offer him except his name.  He kept Zawahiri out of the dark regarding 9/11 and didn’t allow him or anyone else to make media appearances.

Zawahiri used to visit the al-Qaeda media committee under Khalid Shaykh Muhammad in Kandahar to learn about its activities [ie he was out of the loop].  

9/11 was a big break for Zawahiri because it gave him the opportunity to play a role in the media because the leaders of al-Qaeda were either hiding, killed, or captured.

Here are some of the things Zawahiri did to capitalize on 9/11:

 

  • He glorified the 9/11 attacks and berated those who criticized them as American agents.
  • He justified the 9/11 attacks.
  • He didn’t take responsibility for the negative effects of 9/11, the immediate aftermath of which ruined al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Afghanistan.

 

Even though they tried to obscure their crimes, current and future generations will never forget that Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and their followers bear sole responsibility for losing an Islamic state, which had been established by the Taliban.

Zawahiri has canonized Bin Laden to such an extent that he denies his errors, as if Bin Laden is infallible.  It’s odd that Zawahiri has criticized the Muslim Brotherhood his entire life yet became a follower of one of them (Bin Laden).  Zawahiri justifies all of Bin Laden’s crimes like Goebbels did for Hitler.

Here are the reasons why Zawahiri has canonized bin Laden after criticizing him and accusing him of collaboration:

 

  • Reason one: Bin Laden provided the greatest opportunity for Zawahiri to get the fame he’s craved for 30 years, an opportunity realized after 9/11.
  • Reason two: Zawahiri knows that al-Qaeda is Bin Laden and no one else.  99% of its membership is Saudi and Yemeni and is tied to Bin Laden personally.  Zawahiri has canonized him in order to get the allegiance of his followers if Bin Laden dies.  It’s doubtful that Bin Laden’s followers will follow Zawahiri, but he tries nonetheless.
  • Reason three: 99% of al-Qaeda’s financing comes from Saudi Arabia to Bin Laden personally.  Zawahiri has to canonize him to continue to get their support if bin Laden dies.  “Zawahiri is preparing for the moment of the announcement of Bin Laden’s death so that he can inherit his organizational legacy.”
  • Finally: Zawahiri has to talk about all the issues of the umma to be perceived as its leader, especially the Palestinian issue.

 

Zawahiri does not care about the destruction he has justified.  In his life, only three things matter to him: preserving his personal well-being, media attention in any form, and gathering money.  “In short: fleeing, microphones, and donation boxes.”

Bin Laden and Zawahiri care nothing for the people of Afghanistan.  During the four years Bin Laden was in Sudan, he spent millions of dollars on the Sudanese and paved hundreds of kilometers of road.  He was in Afghanistan for five years before 9/11 and gave an oath of allegiance to Mullah Omar, yet he did not pave a single road, build a single school, or construct a single hospital.  Hundreds of Afghan kids were dying at that time yet he did nothing and things only got worse after 9/11.

Al-Qaeda entered Iraq after its occupation in 2003 by standing on the shoulders of Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish group.  Then al-Qaeda renounced Ansar al-Islam and operated in Iraq independently.  (The amir of this group, Mullah Krekar, told me in 1990 that he had translated my book, al-`Umda, into Kurdish.)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq was accused of being made up of foreigners.  To establish that it was an Iraqi resistance, al-Qaeda sent one of their senior leaders, `Abd al-Hadi al-`Iraqi, from Waziristan to Iraq, but the U.S. captured him along the way.

I want to remind readers that Zawahiri was influenced by the words of Sayyid Qutb.  Although both men have severe jurisprudential shortcomings, there’s a big difference in their level of sincerity.  If Qutb had lived, I think he would have realized his jurisprudential mistakes.  But whereas Qutb had studied his whole life, Zawahiri stopped his intellectual development after reading Qutb.  I tried for years to push him to study the Sharia but to no avail.  He doesn’t have the patience for it.

When I was part of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Zawahiri put his name on some of my works to cover up his Sharia shortcomings.  When I broke my ties with them, they continued to steal from my book.  Later, Zawahiri came to rely on the seminary students around him from Libya and Mauritania, especially for writing the Exoneration.  They merely hunted for statements that justified their actions without distinction between sound and weak statements.

I’ve written these words, as I did in the Document, to warn Muslims, especially the younger youth, about these reckless, opportunistic people and their like.  Do not be fooled by slogans or by the justice of a specific cause until you know the reality of the person’s life who raises these slogans.  Is he honest or is he hunting for ignorant quarry and trading upon them?

Document (Arabic): 12-1-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-12

 

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 11

by Leave a Comment

In today’s installment, Sayyid Imam issues another mubahala, this time concerning the publication of his Compendium.  You’ll have to look at Zawahiri’s Exoneration to really understand what Sayyid Imam is reacting to, but in short he believes that Zawahiri plagarized his book.  There’s also some pointed barbs about Zawahiri’s hunger for media attention.  Imam connects the two lines of attack by saying that Zawahiri is largely talentless and instead relies on the hard work of others to attract the limelight.  Doubtless some of Jihadica’s readers know the type.

Continuing…

I am writing this book to warn people, especially the youth, who are being led by deviant ideas and fiery sermons to their doom.  These ideas and sermons have no avail and achieve nothing on the groud.  They are just media noise.

Bin Laden has used Zawahiri to do his dirty work, which is distorting religion to justify Bin Laden’s ideas.

Part 4

Zawahiri’s goal is leadership of the umma and his method is propaganda.

Zawahiri has explained how he will achieve his goal: The  Islamic mujahid movement must claim to be fighting to free the three Islamic holy places–the Kaaba, the Mosque of the Prophet, and the Aqsa Mosque.

Zawahiri has also said in Knights that in order to mobilize the masses, they must have leaders they can trust and a clear enemy.

 Zawahiri presents himself and his companions as the mujahid vanguard of the umma and as symbols of popular resistance to the Zionist Crusader campaign (Exoneration, page 74 and 199).  These people don’t protect Islam and Muslims; they are willing to sacrifice everything to achieve their goals.

Early on, in the court trials of 1981 [following the Sadat assassination], Zawahiri recognized the power of the media to produce fame and stardom.  Despite his marginal role in the events that led to those trials, he repeatedly spoke to the media in court, which led to an increase of his fame and shifted attention away from his testimony against his brothers.

Zawahiri has always stood on the shoulders of others to increase his own fame.  For example, he stole my book and his group presented it as their own.  I had left them the manuscript of my book, The Compendium, so they could study it.  Even though I said in the introduction that none of it should be cut, they cut a lot of it anyway.  He destroyed the book but blamed others for doing it as usual.  He even told a brother in London that it was my original book.

Here is my third mubahala:  I swear I alone wrote the book in 1993 after I had broken my connection with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.  Zawahiri says the name `Abd al-Qadir b. `Abd al-`Aziz [Sayyid Imam’s pen name] stands for the name of the group.  That is a lie; I wrote this name.  Finally, I was not requested to write the work nor did I receive payment for it.  May God curse me if I am lying and curse Zawahiri if he is lying.

Zawahiri criticizes me for criticizing mujahids while they are fighting.  Such considerations never hindered the Prophet from criticizing the mujahids for erroneous actions or beliefs.

Further examples of Zawahiri’s hunger for fame:

When the media didn’t mention his name after the Sidqi assassination attempt, Zawahiri let them know by fax.  But he put the responsibility for the decision on the EIJ’s Shura Council.

Zawahiri is not manly because he continues to run and never fights; rather, he encourages others to fight in his stead.

Even though Zawahiri had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad stop their fighting in Egypt in 1995, he severely criticized the Islamic Group when it renounced violence in 1997 because it stopped the violence that he trades upon.

After he left Sudan, Zawahiri wrote articles for the Mujahidun and al-Ansar journals encouraging the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria to fight.  He did this to get a piece of the media attention so he would have a role to play if the group came to power.  When they fell into disrepute, he backed away from them to save his own reputation.

To get more fame, Zawahiri joined al-Qaeda in June of 2001.  Only eight people from Egyptian Islamic Jihad went with him.  The Egyptian Islamic Jihad did not approve of working with Bin Laden, as is evident in their statements (see al-Hayat 1-24-2000, p.5).

Document (Arabic): 11-30-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-11

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 10

by Leave a Comment

 

Amidst the personal attacks on Zawahiri in part 10, Sayyid Imam mentions a few more interesting historical tidbits.  First, he notes the opposition of two prominent Jihadis, Abu Mus`ab al-Suri and `Abd al-Rahman al-Kindi (died in 2003), to the attacks on the U.S.  He also discloses that Zawahiri’s imprisoned brother, Muhammad, has been trying to cut a deal with the Egyptian authorities.  Finally, Sayyid Imam claims that Bin Laden told him that the Sudanese had encouraged him to turn against Saudi Arabia in 1994.  Whatever the truth of this last bit, it reminds us that states have frequently used al-Qaeda to their own ends.

By the way, Nathan Field has a review of Sayyid Imam’s book.  His take: it’s lame.  I’ll withhold my final judgment until the whole book has been published but I like what I’ve seen so far.  It may be less theoretical than the first book and engage in more ad hominem, but Sayyid Imam is trying to build a case that Zawahiri can’t be trusted.  Reminds me of good ol’ rijal literature.  Those hoping for a true reformulation of jihad doctrine should look elsewhere.  Sayyid Imam would completely lose his core audience, which takes the medieval tradition as seriously as he does.  Remember, whatever else the Document and its sequel are good for, they have to be palatable enough for Egyptian Islamic Jihad members to support.  Finally, Sayyid Imam’s vigorous rejection of the victimization that permiates Jihadi thought is breathtaking.  I can’t recall another Islamist (or most Arab secularists for that matter) saying anything of the sort.

Continuing…

Zawahiri has worked for 30 years to establish an Islamic state.  However, when the Taliban succeeded in establishing one, he and bin Laden squandered it by attacking the United States.

Zawahiri has a dark history of failure.  He says to Muslims:

 

  • You establish groups and I will destroy them.
  • You establish a state and I will tear it down.
  • You fight jihad and I will flee, leaving my family behind and collecting donations in your name.
  • You give contributions to me and I will spend them on my personal security.
  • You go to prison and I will hold a microphone and encourage you to do it.
  • You abide patiently in prison while I pay for my release with thousands of dollars.
  • You fight America in Egypt so you can make it easier for me to negotiate with them.

 

Zawahiri is like a bad doctor you repeatedly send your family members too.  If he keeps failing and they keep dying and you keep sending them there is something wrong with your mind, even your faith.

God has prescribed jihad, but he prescribes it in the first place for defending Muslims from harm and in the second for making Islam dominant.  If the latter brings harm and dissension to Muslims, it should be stopped.  Yet Zawahiri keeps urging actions that harm his brothers and Muslims for the sake of his own personal fame.

A number of the brothers in Afghanistan tried to dissuade bin Laden from attacking the United States between 1998 and 2001.  Among them was Abu Mus`ab al-Suri and Abu `Abd al-Rahman al-Kindi.  Yet Bin Laden continued and neither respected the etiquette of being a guest nor his oath of allegiance to Mullah Omar.

What Bin Laden and Zawahiri did is like the story of the Bedouin who found a small, orphaned hyena.  He took it to his tent and let it nurse on one of the sheep.  When the hyena grew up, it killed the sheep that had nursed it.

Zawahiri quotes some famous shaykhs in an attempt to justify his actions.  One is `Abd Allah `Azzam, whom Zawahiri opposed during the Afghan jihad.  Zawahiri spoke out against him at a large meeting, saying he had changed his stripes.  Al Qaeda would never have been established without splitting with `Azzam.

As for `Umar `Abd al-Rahman [“The Blind Sheikh”), Zawahiri was his greatest opponent in the early 80s when the various Islamic groups tried to unite under `Abd al-Rahman’s leadership.

Zawahiri and others have accused me of using disrespectful words to describe those who violate sharia laws.  I only use sharia terminology found in scripture and in the writings of the Salaf.

* One of the mischievous things that Zawahiri is doing is repeating the question “what do you believe regarding Arab rulers?”

He should ask his brother Muhammad al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden.

Muhammad told Egyptian security he believes the ruler is a Muslim.  Then he told a gathering of youth that these rulers are hypocrites who should be killed if they don’t leave.  This is not in accordance with the sharia because the consensus of the Islamic scholars says that the hypocrite is a Muslim and cannot be killed.  In June 2007, his brother indicated his willingness to reconcile with the authorities, but he did so in secret.

Bin Laden wanted to fight Saddam in Kuwait in 1990 under the banner of the Saudi government.  Then he rebelled against them and excommunicated them in 1994 when they revoked his citizenship and took his passport.  The Khawarij excommunicated people for major sins but Bin Laden does it for citizenship and a passport.

I was in Sudan when this happened and asked bin Laden if he was afraid of the Sudanese response.  He said, “They encouraged me to do it.”  When Sudan expelled Bin Laden in 1996, he wrote a letter of apology to the Saudi government so they would take them back.  A major Sudanese representative carried his message to them, but they rejected it and he went to Afghanistan.

When Bin Laden settled in Sudan in 1992 I was in Pakistan.  I advised him at the time to remain in Saudi Arabia to help the Islamic affairs there as he had done in the Afghan jihad.  He didn’t accept my advice.

Document (Arabic): 11-29-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-10

 

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 9

by 1 Comment

Today, Sayyid Imam treats the issue of Palestine, arguing that a peace treaty with Israel is Islamically legitimate.  Although Imam also indicates that he wants it to be under Muslim control again, he argues that it won’t happen until the caliphate is reestablished.  

In addition to the Palestinian issue, Sayyid Imam also explains more about the immediate context that produced the Document and now the Denudation: Islamist prison politics in Egypt.  His speculation on the use of terrorist attacks to increase the bargaining power of prisoners is interesting in light of the statement released by the Deccan Mujahideen which says that their principle demand is the release of Islamist militants in India.

Continuing… 

Palestine was not occupied until after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate and it won’t return unless the caliphate returns.  Jihad in Palestine is obligatory on those who are able to do it, but it will not establish an Islamic state or a non-Islamic state; it will only vex the enemy and delay worse things to come.  If the Jews establish themselves in some place, they are not going to permit others to compete with them there.

The Palestinian issue is not the pivotal issue for Arabs and Muslims.  It takes away the Muslim’s reasoning, making him easy prey for evil people.  The first priority of Muslims is the establishment of the state of the Islamic caliphate which will reunify them and return their glory.  In part 15 of the Document I explain how it could be established according to the practice of the Prophet.

* Clarification regarding the recognition of Israel and having peace (sulh) with it

Even though Gamal Abdel Nasser said after the 1967 defeat that there would be no negotiations with Israel, he began to do just that shortly before he died in 1970.

Zawahiri and bin Laden use the same slogan and condemn those who would recognize Israel and have peace with it.  In bin Laden’s open letter to Bin Baz in 1994, he said that Israel is not one of the established infidel states with which a peace treaty can be signed; rather, it is an occupier.  In this regard, I want to clarify some things for Muslims:

1) Recognizing other states is an American invention, beginning with U.S. President Monroe.  It was designed to punish those that America didn’t like [by denying them recognition].  Bin Laden and Zawahiri follow this American heresy but it is un-Islamic.

Jurists have differed over the issue of whether infidels are sovereign over what they take from the Muslims.

2) Peace is possible with any infidel or apostate if it suits the Muslims’ interests.  There is no distinction in Shari’a between making peace with infidels in their own country or in a Muslim country they occupy.  Did Bin Laden not ask for a truce with America while it occupied Afghanistan and Iraq?  Didn’t Zawahiri want negotiations?  Why do they permit it for themselves while denying it to others?

The Crusaders occupied Palestine and the coast of Syria for nearly 200 years.  Saladin sometimes fought them and sometimes made peace with them.  He did not take Jerusalem from them until he made peace with them, after they had occupied it for 92 years.  That was in 583 after his victory over them at Hattin.  He also contracted a peace with them and 571, 576, and 572.

Palestine is not in the “mother of Islamic issues” as bin Laden claims.

 

* Among the mischief making of Zawahiri is his crying over his imprisoned brothers in Egypt.

Zawahiri says that the majority of his brothers in prison reject the Document.  Here are some facts:

 

  • Were these opponents in prison before or after the document?
  • Who caused these people to be imprisoned?  It was Z, who has been sending them into Egypt to fight since 1992 to compete with the Islamic Group.

 

Z was a mercenary for Sudanese intelligence.  He was telling jokes to his companions in Sudanese security while his companions in Egyptian Islamic Jihad were being executed.  Why would Z care about his brothers in Egyptian Islamic Jihad today when he joined Al Qaeda in 1998?

Z encourages them to remain in prison, unlike the Prophet who encouraged people to seek the release of prisoners.  Z never accepted his own advice.  In 1996, he was arrested in Daghestan in southern Russia.  He asked the brothers to send him thousands of dollars for his release, which they did and he secured his release.  This money could have supported dozens of families of prisoners in Egypt, but he spent it on himself.

Likewise in Pakistan during the Afghan jihad against the socialists, he spent great sums of money meant for jihad on his own personal security.  Moreover, many mujahids had fake passports because they were afraid to renew their real passports at the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan.  Z refused to do this, and he traveled to the US in 1990 to obtain a passport at the Egyptian embassy there.

Recently, Z sent a letter to raise money in Saudi Arabia to support the brothers in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but not to support the brothers in Egypt. (Sharq Awsat 3-4-08)

Z continues to call for jihad in Egypt for propaganda purposes, for raising money, and perhaps to have a card to play in negotiations with Egypt in the future.

Just as many brothers have been sent to prison by Z as have been released by the Document.  Among those who oppose the document are those who have already left prison, those who previously had the approval of their companions to do that, those Z sent warning messages about to the brothers responsible for them in Egypt upon their return from military training in Pakistan, and those who are ready to agree in secret.  The opponents are not the majority and they’ve not been treated badly.  If someone has told Z something else, they are lying.

Those brothers that Z weeps over were his accomplices in betraying the trust and working with Sudanese intel.  They said nothing when he sold them to Sudanese intel.  This was at a time when they killed a child they accused of working with Egyptian intelligence.  They provided him no Sharia guarantees of justice, one of which is an impartial judge and a legitimate representative to defend him because he was a minor.  If such is their behavior when they are oppressed imagine what they will do if they run a state. [See Lawrence Wright’s Looming Tower for this sorry episode.]

Those who oppose me (but agree in secret) have tried since 2003 to do what I did in 2007.  In 2003, their leader gathered agreements to stop fighting with the government.  He wanted to present the government with these agreements as part of a mutual security pact.  He is still hesitating because, as he told one of the prisoners, he wants Z to carry out two or three more attacks to improve his [the leader’s] negotiating position with the government.  This happened in 2004 before my arrival in Egypt.

When I got to Egypt, I wrote the Document of my own accord because Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda were using my two previous books for recruitment, even though I had opposed them since 1993.  I wrote it without any conditions or agreements with the authorities.  Those in prison who have objected to it do so for two reasons: 1) the person whose books they depend on in their recruiting [Sayyid Imam] is now criticizing their actions; or 2) the appearance of the Document meant that they lost the political card they wanted to use in negotiations with the government.

Z plays the same way.  He offers negotiations to the U.S. while at the same time calling for attacks against it to improve his negotiating position.  He wants his brothers in Egyptian prisons to do the same to ensure his personal safety.

 

* Among the mischief making of Z is his words about preparation for jihad 

What does he know about jihad?  He destroyed Egyptian Islamic Jihad three times.  First, in 1981 he betrayed his brothers by implicating them and testifying against them.  In 1993, he paid his brothers to attack Egypt at the behest of Sudanese intel over my objections.  The third time was in 1998 when he joined with Bin Laden.  According to Hani Siba`i, his representative in Europe, this alliance destroyed Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

Can those who specialize in destroying groups talk about preparation for Jihad?

Document (Arabic): 11-28-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-9