ji·had·ica

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 13 (Final)

Will McCants December 2, 2008

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

Will McCants December 1, 2008

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

Will McCants December 1, 2008

 

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

Will McCants November 30, 2008

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

Will McCants November 29, 2008

 

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

Will McCants November 28, 2008

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

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 8

Will McCants November 28, 2008

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

Online Information Operation To Capitalize On Mumbai Attacks

Will McCants November 27, 2008

Like the rest of the world, members of the Arabic-speaking Jihadi forums are closely watching the Mumbai attacks.  There’s no insider info yet, but one member of Faloja, Song of Terror, has proposed an information operation to capitalize on the event.  He suggests the following: 

 

  1. Spread news of the event on non-Jihadi Arabic forums
  2. Design images of the attackers
  3. Produce films calling for aid to the Deccan Mujahideen and put them on YouTube
  4. Appeal for aid on the comment sections of Arabic news sites
  5. Refute anyone who criticizes these attacks on the non-Jihadi Arabic forums

 

This fits with what I’ve written before, that the main Jihadi propaganda effort online is directed toward the mainstream forums.  Because its all volunteer, it’s much more nimble.

As for the Mumbai attacks, they mesh with Abu Bakr Naji’s suggestion several years ago that Jihadis should target hotels frequented by tourists, which he believes will cause the local government to pull in its security resources to protect other hotels across the target country and consequently open up security vacuums in peripheral areas.  It will also have the usual effects of provoking a massive security crackdown, polarize the populace, etc.

I’ve often wondered privately to colleagues why there aren’t more coordinated attacks with small arms on tourist areas since they are much easier to carry out than attacks involving homemade bombs.  I supposed that they just weren’t horrifying or dramatic enough–the reasons propagandists by the deed have had a long love affair with the infernal machine.  But the Mumbai attacks have proven that a coordinated small arms attack can kill enough people to attract world attention, which sets a very bad precedent.  I’m sure we’ll also soon learn that cell phones played a major role in coordinating the attack.

Document (Arabic): 11-27-08-faloja-arabic-information-operations-for-mumbai-attacks

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 7

Will McCants November 25, 2008

In today’s installment, Sayyid Imam begins section three of his rebuttal in which he surveys the rhetorical tricks Zawahiri employs to misguide his readers.  Imam continues to portray Zawahiri as the student of Bin Laden, the inverse of the common description of their relationship.  To this end, Imam says that Zawahiri has adopted UBL’s obsession with oil.  The inversion may be pure invention, but it’s worth thinking about.

Continuing….

In the first section, I demonstrated that Zawahiri is a liar, making him unfit to give religious opinions.  In the second section, I showed how he distorts the Sharia to justify mass murder.  He should call his book The Justification rather than The Exoneration.

In this third section, I will expose the deceptions Z uses.  Z asks around one hundred questions in the Exoneration but does not offer any answer.  He does this to confuse the reader, leaving him in a thick fog.  Here are some of Z’s deceptions:

1) Z quotes contradictory statements on legal questions.

He does this to give the reader the impression that there is a difference of opinion on an issue and that the reader one can adopt any of the opinions he likes.  But God has commanded us to resolve contradictory statements by weighing them with scripture.  The statements of religious scholars and the scripture have to be weighed against one another.  Anything that contradicts scripture is false.  Failing to weigh the statements in order to know right from wrong is forbidden.

2) Another of Z’s deceptions is his statement that he wrote the Exoneration to protect Islam.

How can this be the case when he has made so many jurisprudential errors, which have made him turn his back on scripture and on the statements of scholars, seeking refuge instead with Nasir al-Fahd?  He has denied the obligation of fighting the near enemy first.  He has adopted the ideas of Bin Laden and become one of those who want to sell oil at its true price, meaning that it is obligatory for Muslims to engage in a jihad against oil.

3) Another of Z’s deceptions is that he claims to have been accused without proof or evidence.

Everything I have said against him I have backed up with scripture or well-known information about Z.  As for the private things I disclosed, I know much more than I have revealed.

4) Z has stirred up trouble by saying, “no allegiance to a prisoner.” [This is an allusion to Imam’s imprisonment and to a controversy involving the Umar Abd al-Rahman, “The Blind Sheikh,” that roiled the Islamic Group.]

No one has given their allegiance to me.  I haven’t had contact with them [EIJ?] for 15 years.  As I already said, Yemeni intel wanted me to set up an opposition party against Egypt and I refused.

5) Z has also stirred up trouble by saying that if my [Sayyid Imam’s] revisions are true, why didn’t I put them forward before I went to prison.

Z contradicts himself on p. 10 of the Exoneration when he acknowledges that I wrote a book criticizing my colleagues 14 years ago, well before I was imprisoned.

I never called my book a revision.  Moreover, I’ve said the same things before.  When Z published my book, The Compendium, he cut out my criticisms of the Islamic movements.  Now when he can’t control what I write, he resorts to stupidity.

Finally, a revision is not a sin if it moves closer to the truth.

6) Another of Z’s deceptions is his claim that the Document ignores the real criminals, America and its allies.

This is a lie.  Just as I admonished the Islamic movements, I admonished local rulers in part 14 of the Document and the enemies of Islam in part 15.

Z has completely adopted UBL’s positions, including UBL’s obsession with oil.

If America is a criminal and the cause of Muslims’ woes, why did UBL offer the U.S. a truce and Z offer to negotiate?  Did U.S. crimes end?  Or did AQ want the truce for its own safety?

When the U.S. did not respond to the demands of AQ for a truce or negotiations, AQ in Algeria bombed foreign interests that killed dozens of Algerians.  That is a heavy price to pay for the safety of AQ’s leadership.

They kill Algerians but weep when Jews kill Palestinians.  Z censures Hamas for killing some innocent Jewish children with its primitive rockets but says nothing about killing children them on 9/11 or in Afghanistan.

* An important principle: “The crimes of the infidels do not justify a Muslim’s mistakes.”

Z lambastes anyone who criticizes the mujahids for wrongdoing on the grounds that the sins of the U.S. are greater than the sins of the mujahids.  Scripture indicates that the infidels’ crimes do not justify silence on the mistakes of Muslims.

Z uses the crimes of America and Israel as cover for AQ’s wrongdoing.

Document (Arabic): 11-25-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-7

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 6

Will McCants November 24, 2008

Sayyid Imam continues his rebuttal of Nasir al-Fahd; this time it’s for Fahd’s failure to differentiate his enemy.  In this regard, Imam adduces anti-war protests and British priests as examples of diverse political views in Western nations.  The most interesting bit comes toward the end when Imam takes up the subject of cursing the Prophet, which he did not cover in his first book.  

Continuing:

In the Exoneration, Zawahiri quotes Fahd as saying that a visa is a pact of safe passage that must not be violated by attacking the country that granted it.  But, Fahd says, America is like Ka`b b. al-Ashraf [see part 5] who harms God and His messenger Muhammad, so an American visa can be violated.

Fahd has confused the subject of states giving pacts of safe passage to other states and states giving them to individuals.  He also misunderstands the story of Ka`b.  Moreover, he contradicts Islamic scripture because he equates killing Muhammad with killing Muslims, which are not equivalent.  No matter how great America’s enmity toward Muslims is, it does not rise to the level of killing Muhammad.  Even in Muhammad’s time, no matter how much the infidels hated the Prophet, Muslims had to respect the treaties they contracted with them.

Fahd is seeking to justify the killing of Americans en masse in the Twin Towers.  Thus he comes up with the ugly heresy of treating all Americans as a single individual.  Once this is accepted, you can kill “civilians (ie noncombatants),” whether Muslim or not.  This is like killing someone on account of their nationality or for paying taxes.  This is heresy for the following reasons:

  • God does not lump people together (3:113).
  • God has protected the people of the Book to keep them from claiming rights over each other.
  • The Prophet did not lump all the infidel Quraysh together.  He praised some and forbade the killing of others, even though they fought against him.
  • When fighting the Persians and Byzantines, Caliphs only fought those who fought them.  They didn’t lump everyone together.
  • Even though Pharaoh persecuted the tribe of Israel and despite the fact that the Qur’an says that his people obeyed him in this, Moses was still in the wrong for killing one of them.

According to the Companions, Bzyantium (which is Europe and America today) has a number of good qualities:

When Mustawrid al-Qurashi was sitting with ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, he said, “I heard the Prophet say, ‘The Hour will come when the Romans will be in the majority.’ ‘Amr asked him, “What are you saying?” He said, “I am repeating that which I heard from the Prophet.” ‘Amr said, “If you say this, it is true, because they have four good characteristics: they are the most able to cope with tribulation, the quickest to recover after disaster and to return to the fight after disaster, and are the best as far as treating the poor, weak and orphans is concerned. They have a fifth characteristic which is very good; they do not allow themselves to be oppressed by their kings. (Sahih Muslim)

Notice that one of Byzantium’s good qualities is that its people they “do not allow themselves to be oppressed by their kings,” which is true today of America and Europe.  Since the occupation of Iraq in 2003, a number of countries have withdrawn and there are still demonstrations in the U.S. and allied nations against the occupation.  They are not a single entity as Fahd would have it.  In recent days, many priests in the U.K. have adopted a position favoring Muslims.  

Cursing the Prophet does not invalidate a treaty with hostile infidels because cursing him is part of their religion.  Muhammad contracted the treaty of Hudaybiyya even though his interlocutors cursed him.  The only ones who can violate a contract of protection by cursing the Prophet are people of the Book who live under Muslim dominion.

I said previously that Fahd should not be allowed to issue fatwas because his fatwas contradict the fundamentals of jurisprudence.  He has to be held responsible for what is destroyed on account of these fatwas.

* Regarding their belief that a visa for tourism in Muslim countries is not a pact of safe passage and does not protect them from killing and kidnapping

I dealt with this in part 7 of the Document.  It’s sufficient to mention the words of Abu `Umar b. `Abd al-Birr that “everything the harbi considers to be a pact of safe passage taken from someone’s words, outward signs, or permission is a pact of safe passage that all Muslims must uphold.”  According Shafi`i, anyone who enters a Muslim country without a proper pact of security should be referred to the one who gave him the pact.  They should not be harmed.

Z argues the exact opposite even though he travelled in Europe and America and suffered no harm.  

Z also applies the same corrupt reasoning to foreign tourists in Muslim countries.  He believes they can be killed because of the actions of their governments.  But the Prophet never treated his enemies as a single entity.

All of this is a rebuttal of AQ’s justification for mass killing, especially killing civilians.  What remains to be said here is that those who advocate killing civilians tacitly acknowledge that they are unable to confront the enemy’s soldiers just as they are unable to achieve military goals.  It is an acknowledgement through cowardice.

Cowardice and inability lead them to kill those whom the Sharia forbids to be killed: noncombatant civilians, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Z justifies mass killing and the killing of innocent Muslim noncombatants by various rationales.  Sometimes its for their nationality, because they pay taxes, because they are being used as human shields, because AQ is responding in kind, or because they are a single entity.  This gives UBL and Z justification for widening the scope of killing as far as possible.  It is an “open appetite for bloodshed.”

* Regarding the heresy that only Jihadi clerics can speak on these matters

They want to silence their critics.  This position contradicts the Qur’an.  Moreover, there is no need to fight in a jihad to be a mufti.  You would have to exclude some of the Companions and the founders of the Islamic legal schools if this were the case.  

It remains to be said that the authors of this heresy have called me the “mufti of the mujahids in the world” and the “fighting scholar and mujahid mufti.”

These so-called scholars of jihad were the first to flee the battlefield.  Moreover, their amir Mullah Omar was one of the scholars of jihad.  Did they seek fatwas or permission from him to attack America?

Document (Arabic): 11-24-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-6

Latest Jihadica
Subscribe to receive latest posts
Follow us
Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright © 2025 Jihadica