ji·had·ica

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 5

Will McCants November 24, 2008

In part 5, Sayyid Imam takes up one of the more clever arguments of his earlier book: visas are the equivalent of an Islamic pact of safe passage (aman), which means that Muslims on visas in foreign nations cannot attack the citizens of those nations.  Of course, Imam throws in a little spice as well, disclosing that Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Hafs, and a mysterious third person were the only people who knew the specifics of the 9/11 plot.

To continue:

Only three people know of the 9/11 operation before it happened: Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and a third person–not Zawahiri–who found out about it only 24 hours before it happened.  Everyone else knew there would be an operation against the U.S. but didn’t know the specifics.  The Sharia Council objected on Sharia grounds because Bin Laden had not sought the permission of Mullah Omar.  It also objected to harming human shields.  However, it did not discuss the permissibility of attacking inside the U.S. while on a visa because it didn’t know that’s where the attack would take place.

When the attack happened, some said it violated the pact of safe passage that a visa represents.  Others like Z say that a visa is not a pact of safe passage.  In the Exoneration, Z bases his argument on definitions from foreign dictionaries, contravening the practice of Muslim jurists.  It’s just one more example of the “jurisprudence of justification.”

When confronted with a new phenomenon, like visas, democracy, or socialism, we have to discern the Sharia reality behind it.  With regards to visas, the Sharia reality is, “permission to enter a country is contingent on respecting the lives and property (of its inhabitants).”  Even if the visa itself doesn’t explicitly state that this is so, it is assumed; thus a visa is a pact of safe passage.  Ibn Qudama argued along the same lines in his Mughni, as did Shafi`i.  However, instead of applying this sophisticated reasoning, Z relies on Encarta and Britannica to make his argument that a visa is not a pact of safe passage.

Classical jurists say that if you enter their country through a ruse, you still cannot betray the pact of safe passage once you are given permission to enter.

Z said visas were a matter of ijtihad [ie one should make up his own mind on the issue], which is untrue.  None of the classical jurists disagreed on the point that permission to enter a country implies a pact of safe passage.

* The heresy of “even if the visa is a pact of safe passage, it is permissible to violate it”

This is one of the pillars of mass killing, which is one of al-Qaeda’s heresies.

No one disagrees about America’s crimes.  But these crimes are not a justification for perverting religion.

Z relies on Nasir al-Fahd to justify violating visas even if they are pacts of safe passage.  Fahd admits that visas are pacts of safe passage, but says they can be violated for two reasons.

First, Fahd argues that the Companions of the Prophet gave their enemy, Ka`b b. al-Ashraf, a pact of safe passage, then killed him.  I believe this argument is wrong in three respects:

  1. It is true that they killed him, but it’s not true that they gave him a pact of safe passage.
  2. According to the consensus of the scholars, one can use trickery in warfare but not when agreeing to a pact of safe passage or a treaty.
  3. You can’t analogize the case of Ka`b to violate visas in infidel countries because Ka`b was an unbeliever in the Abode of Islam, but the 9/11 attackers were in the Abode of Unbelief.

Second, Fahd argues that America has broken treaties with Muslims so Muslims can do the same to America.  Moreover, he says that Muslim governments that make treaties are illegitimate so their treaties are illegitimate.  Fahd also says that even if their treaties are valid, there are hundreds of other reasons to violate them because of the aggression of the Crusaders.  Nasir acknowledges that those who object to this cite the hadith that says treaty breakers will never catch a whiff of Paradise.  Critics of his position also argue that you have to weigh the benefit and harm to Muslims that may come as a consequence of killing Americans.

Document (Arabic): 11-23-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-5

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 4

Will McCants November 23, 2008

Part 4 of the Denudation is a little more techy, but there is a nice rebuttal of al-Qaeda’s principle of reciprocity, which, as Sayyid Imam says, really does underpin a lot of its members’ moral reasoning about violence.  In this vein, Sayyid Imam slaps Nasir al-Fahd hard in the face for his famous WMD fatwa.

Paraphrastic translation follows:

Under the illegitimate principle of attacking the far enemy first, Al-Qaeda provoked the U.S. into attacking Afghanistan, which then made jihad an obligation for every individual, without conditions.  Yet Zawahiri and Bin Laden didn’t stay and fight; rather, they fled in women’s garments.  When this is pointed out to them, they say, “Our role is only to incite others to fight.”  But the Prophet both incited and fought and so should they.  Zawahiri is only good at fleeing, inciting, collecting donations, and talking to the media.

*  The heresy of excommunication and killing someone on account of their nationality

I said in the Document that nationality is just a characteristic.  But Zawahiri says in the Exoneration that carrying the nationality of the infidel nations is proof of allegiance and acquiescence to infidel laws.  A Muslim carrying such a nationality is not an infidel, Zawahiri argues, but very close to it.  He goes on to say that anyone who acquires the nationality of these countries is an apostate.  In making this ruling, Zawahiri incorrectly assumed that citizens in infidel nations must serve in their armies, which is often not the case.

If Zawahiri were correct, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would have to be excommunicated in countries like India, China, Russia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and so forth.  These infidel nations apply their laws to Muslims.  However, it is not possible to know for certain that all of the Muslims acquiescence to these laws, especially since it may not be possible to travel to the Abode of Islam in this age.  One can not infer someone’s status when there are several possibilities [ie the status is indeterminate].  Yet Zawahiri does just that, advocating excommunication by possibilities.  As I argued in the Document, you can’t excommunicate someone on the basis of possibilities; you must be certain of his status.

Even if we accept that all these people are infidels, there are still categories of people that cannot be killed in war, like women and children.

*  The heresy of permitting the killing of those who pay taxes to infidels because they are fighting with their money

In order to get around the above prohibition on killing noncombatants, Zawahiri argued on p. 152 of the Exoneration that Muslims who pay taxes to infidel nations are fighting against Muslims when their money is used to this end.  Thus, killing them is permissible.

This doctrine is obviously corrupt and extreme, for implementing it would mean killing millions of Muslims in India and Russia because their governments fight Muslims.  The Caliph `Umar did not allow the killing of farmers in Persia or Byzantium who did take up arms against the invading Muslims, even though they paid taxes.  This is proof enough of the invalidity of this doctrine.

* The issue of killing a Muslim human shield, using it as a justification for killing Muslims who mix with infidels anywhere

In order to remove the Sharia restraints on violence, al-Qaeda has sanctioned killing Muslim and infidel human shields.  I dealt with this issue in article 8 of the Document.

* The heresy of the unrestricted application of the principle of responding in kind

This is one of the pillars of al-Qaeda for killing, especially for killing Americans.  The others are:

  • Making the fight with America the most important matter for the Islamic umma because America is the cause of its suffering.
  • UBL obtained fatwas and letters from clerics in Pakistan and Afghanistan to that end.
  • They circumvented the conditions and barriers to jihad by saying this is a defensive war, even if it is across the ocean.
  • They circumvented the permission of their amir, Mullah Omar, by the heresy of “localization of leadership.”
  • They decided that the far enemy has priority, which is not sanctioned in Islamic scripture.
  • They decided to kill any American on the grounds that he acquiesced to the actions of his government (excommunication and killing someone for their nationality).
  • Even if they don’t permit killing someone for their nationality, they permit it for paying taxes, which is the same as fighting.
  • Even if all of the above doesn’t allow you to kill him, the principle of responding in kind does.
  • There are more principles and I will rebut them later.

To justify their principle of responding in kind, they rely on some verses of the Qur’an and a fatwa by Nasir al-Fahd.  He argued that because Americans have killed at least 10 million people, we can kill at least tell million of them.  No further proof is necessary.

These people misunderstand the principle of responding in kind.  The principle is, “Responding in kind with only what is permissible in the Sharia.”  That they don’t know this is evidence of their ignorance of the fundamentals of weighing different kinds of Sharia proof texts.  They base their rulings on general statements in the texts and ignore more limiting statements on the same subject.  So even though the Qur’an says you can transgress against you enemies as they transgress against you (2:194), it is limited by a specific statement of the Prophet that prohibits the killing of women and children and other categories of people.  As Ibn Taymiyya says, the specific statement has precedence over the general unless the date is known [in which case on of the statements would be abrogated].  Thus, the full verse of 2:194, which UBL and Z don’t cite in full, is, “He who transgresses against you, transgress against him in like manner.  Fear God and know that God is with those who are god-fearing.”  In this verse, retaliation is tempered by god-fearing. 

In this way do UBL, Zawahiri, and Nasir al-Fahd make the Sharia suit their fancy, not the other way around as it should be.  

From the above, know that the words of Nasir al-Fahd are false and must be repudiated.  It is not permitted for Muslims to say or act according to them in contradiction to Islamic scripture.  Moreover, Nasir al-Fahd and his ilk must be prevented from promulgating this fatwa [or fatwas in general?] on account of his ignorance of Islamic fundamentals.  He must also be held accountable for everything that is destroyed on account of his fatwa.

Document (Arabic): 11-22-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-4

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 3

Will McCants November 21, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Localization of Leadership

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

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

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

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

More Forums Down

Will McCants November 20, 2008

The mighty Hesbah has finally fallen.  The premier Jihadi forum has been down for about a week now and no one has yet posted links that work.  Of course, Hesbah has a good track record of recovery, but that was before the current wave of forum closures that began in early September.  The Shumukh forum is also down with the message, “This Account Has Been Suspended.”  That leaves only Faloja.  If it goes, all of the top- and second-tier forums will have been removed.

Update: Firdaws is back up. (h/t NG)

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 2

Will McCants November 19, 2008

Here’s a paraphrastic translation of the second installment published today.  I promise, it’s worth reading to the climactic end:

As I said yesterday, the testimony and hadith transmissions of a liar are not acceptable in Islamic law or in the religious sciences.  So Zawahiri’s religious pronouncement’s in the Exoneration should be rejected. [Sayyid Imam goes on to quote medieval scholars in support of his position.]

Before I get into Zawahiri’s jurisprudential mistakes, I want to say that this is not merely about the errors of one man on some jurisprudential issues.  It is the attempt to establish a corrupt, wayward school (madhhab) to justify excess in shedding blood.  I will detail how this school was established, examine its fundamentals, and refute them.  This corrupt school has been called by some, “the al-Qaeda concept.”

1.  How was the school of al-Qaeda established for excess in shedding blood?

The school emerged in the early ’90s and grew in the late ’90s when Bin Laden and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad put in motion their desire to kill the largest number of Americans possible.  This led to 9/11, which killed without distinguishing between civilians and military personnel. 

UBL left it to his prominent followers to justify the attacks Islamically, the fruit of which Z put in the Exoneration.

2. The principles of the school of al-Qaeda for excess in shedding blood.

To justify this kind of slaughter of Americans outside and inside their country, they had to ignore some Sharia principles.  This is the “jurisprudence of justification” [ie making Sharia fit your objective, not the other way around], the most important principles of which are:

A) Transforming the fight against America from a personal matter to a matter for the entire Islamic umma.  To do this, UBL depended on two things:  

  • Media propaganda to promote the corrupt idea that America is the cause of all the ills afflicting Muslims.  He added the Jews because the Palestinian issue is the most visible among the masses, even though he did nothing for the Palestinians for reasons I will cover in part 3.
  • Sharia support.  UBL worked to obtain fatwas and letters of support from many shaykhs in Pakistan and Afghanistan to justify the idea of fighting the U.S.  Z alludes to that in his Exoneration.  UBL obtained these things before 9/11.  When he decided to carry out the bombings of 9/11, he didn’t get a fatwa from anyone, acting as if his actions were supported by the previous fatwas.  He didn’t get the permission of his amir, Mullah Omar, or of his Sharia committee.  He did what he did behind their backs.

B) Mobilize the largest number of supporters for the strike on the U.S.  That is why Z in the Exoneration rejected my argument that Muslims have options other than fighting when they are weak and that there are conditions that prevent jihad.  He and his shaykh UBL want everyone to fight everywhere but they were the first to flee.

C) Legal artifice for avoiding the obligation of seeking the permission of one’s amir and host.  They gave Mullah Omar allegiance as the commander (amir) of the faithful in Afghanistan, where they lived.  Thus, the Sharia requires that they get his permission for jihad.  UBL knows that Omar refused conflict with the U.S. and explicitly prohibited them from doing that.  UBL thus created a legal artifice to get around this–the unlawful innovation called “localization of leadership,” meaning that Omar has jurisdiction over what they do in Afghanistan but not outside of it.  There was a violent argument between UBL and his Sharia council over this before 9/11 and after.  He told them in June 2001 that there was a big operation against the U.S. without giving specifics or locations.  His Sharia committee opposed him, saying he had to get Omar’s approval.  UBL refused and concocted the unlawful innovation of “localization of leadership.”  I’ll refute it later.

D) Eliminate all the Sharia obstacles that prevent the killing of Americans.  Instead, AQ formulated the following criminal principles:

  • Fighting the far enemy before the near enemy
  • Excommunicating and killing someone on account of their nationality because nationality is proof of loyalty and of adhering to the laws of infidel countries
  • Can kill anyone who pays taxes to infidels because he (the taxpayer) is waging war with his money
  • Can kill an infidel human shield and thus can kill civilians in infidel countries
  • Can kill Muslim human shields and thus kill Muslims who mix with infidels 
  • Appealing to the principle of reciprocity in order to widen the scope of indiscriminate killing
  • Fighting the U.S. is a defensive jihad; thus, one can travel to the U.S. to kill Americans without the permission of one’s father and other authority figures.
  • Visas for Muslims in infidel countries are not guarantees of safe passage, so it is permissible to kill citizens in the country that granted you the visa.  Even if it is a guarantee of safe passage, it can be violated for reasons that I’ll respond to later.  
  • A tourist visa for people coming to Muslim countries is not a guarantee of safe passage for them.

E) AQ stopped its critics by adopting defenses against those who criticize its criminal school of thought, including:

  •  No one may speak on these matters save Jihadi scholars cloistered in caves and mountains.  This is an unlawful innovation.
  • Those who criticize them are discouraging jihad, attacking the mujahids, and harming the umma.
  • Those who criticize them are serving the interests of the Zio-American Crusade.  Z said this about my Document even though he acknowledges that I had made the same criticisms in my 1993 book, The Compendium; nay, even before that.

3. Criticism of the principles of the school of al-Qaeda

They say the U.S. and the Jews are the reason for the ills of Muslims.  Most of the Exoneration is designed to convince Muslims of this in order to mobilize them against the U.S.  But the cause of Muslims’ problems is Muslims themselves.  When Muslims lost at Uhud, God blamed the Muslims, not their enemies.

There is a hadith qudsi that says Muslims won’t be ruled by others until they become internally corrupt.  God has put infidels over Muslims to punish Muslims for their sins.

“Who lost Palestine?  Arabs who fought the Ottomans and expelled them from Palestine in WWI and then handed it over to Britain in 1916, who gave it to the Jews with the Balfour promise of 1917.  

Who kills Palestinians today, especially their leaders?  Palestinians who collaborate with Israel.  Their betrayal makes it possible for Israel to kill whomever it wants.  

Who today is building Jewish settlements in the West Bank to consolidate its occupation by Israel?  Palestinian laborers.

Who introduced America to Afghanistan in 2001?  Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

What was the reason the U.S. opened the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba for imprisoning Muslims?  Bin Laden’s stupidity.

Who let America enter Baghdad long ago in 1258?  The Vizier Ibn al-`Alqami.

Who let America enter Baghdad today in 2003?  The traitorous senior Iraqi Army officers.

Who killed the Lebanese for 15 years, from 1975-1990?  The Lebanese.

Who occupied Kuwait and killed its people in 1990?  The people of Iraq, not America or Israel.

Who is killing tens of thousands of Sudanese in Darfur today?  The Sudanese themselves are killing one another, just as the Yemenis are doing.

Regardless of the legitimacy of their presence, the American forces did not kill a single Muslim in Saudi Arabia during their presence there after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  The number of Muslims whose death and displacement was caused by al-Qaeda over a few years in Kenya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere greatly surpasses the number of Muslims killed by or displaced by Israel in Palestine for the last sixty years.  The declaration that al-Qaeda defends Muslims is a myth.  It kills Muslims and displaces them. 

Putting blame on others while not accepting it yourself, which is what UBL and Z do, is the school of Satan.

If Muslims are the core of the problem, then reforming Muslims from within is the solution.  Zawahiri knows I have tried to do this with the Islamic groups and that I criticized them in the Compendium.  I tried to reform them without success.  They continued to cling to erroneous positions with no Sharia proof, only fiery rhetoric.

The Sharia excesses of Z and UBL reached such a point that one of the mujahid brothers excommunicated them in a meeting in 1992.  He was Dr. Ahmad al-Jaza’iri, one of the students of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. 

Document (Arabic): 11-19-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-2

Zawahiri’s Black Day

Will McCants November 19, 2008

All the usual suspects have said smart things about the Zawahiri statement (pick through them here), so I won’t summarize his message.  But I do disagree with two things I read.  First is ZS Justus’s statement that too much is being made of Zawahiri’s “house negro” epithet against Obama at the expense of his more significant statements about Afghanistan.  Second is Abu Muqawama’s claim that Zawahiri’s racial epithet won’t be effective.  

Here’s my take: Zawahiri strongly believes that African-American Muslims are disaffected and thus receptive to al-Qaeda propaganda in ways that other American Muslims are not.  (One suspects that Adam Gadahn convinced him of this.)  That is why he spent the better part of an hour-long interview last year talking about Malcolm X and the oppression of blacks in the U.S.  And that is why he is bringing it up again now and using such charged language.  According to a Pew poll last year, this was not a bad communication strategy in 2007.  But given Obama’s election and his overwhelming support among African-Americans, Zawahiri has grossly overreached this time.  Thus, contra Justus, this is the most important part of Zawahiri’s message because, contra AM, it will have a very negative effect on the sole group he had any hope of influencing in the U.S.  It is also bad PR at a time when Zawahiri’s reputation is taking a beating at the hands of his former ally, Sayyid Imam.

One final point: Not all Arab Jihadis like the racially-charged responses to Obama’s election.

The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 1

Will McCants November 18, 2008

Al-Masry al-Youm has begun its serial publication of Sayyid Imam’s new book, The Denudation of the Exoneration.  Since Media Shack won’t be covering it in depth, I’ll be posting summaries of it here as it comes out.  I’ll also .pdf the webpage so readers of Arabic won’t have to go scratching around for it later.

The first installment begins with “The Lies of Zawahiri,” so you know it’s going to be good.  Highlights are the revelation that Zawahiri was a Sudanese agent in the early ’90s and Sayyid Imam’s call to a mubahala.  As you’ll see, it’s hard not to believe that Sayyid Imam relishes the chance he’s been given to put his finger in Zawahiri’s eye.  Here is a summary:

  • Zawahiri repeatedly says I wrote the Document [the Tarshid] under the supervision of the U.S. and the Jews.  He is a liar and I call him to a mubahala.  I swear to God that I wrote the Document to help Islam and if Zawahiri has lied about this, may God curse him.
  • What Zawahiri says about the Document he also said about Bin Laden.  Zawahiri accused UBL of being an agent of Saudi intelligence working among the Islamic movements when UBL didn’t support them with money in 1995.  Zawahiri thinks everyone is a traitor like him.
  • Zawahiri accused me of being an agent of Sudanese intelligence.  I swear that I heard Zawahiri say to me in Sudan at the end of 1993 that he had to carry out 10 operations for the Sudanese in Egypt and that he received $100,000 from them to that end.  If he denies it, I call him to a second mubahala: I swear Zawahiri said this and if he denies it, may God send his curse down upon him.
  • He began working for the Sudanese a year after I cut off my ties with Islamic Jihad.  He paid the Islamic Jihad group in Egypt to carry out operations there.  I sat with them and warned them that it was futile and not required by Islamic law, but Zawahiri persisted.  He and his brother swore they would go fight in Egypt until they died, but they did not; they let others die there instead.
  • Zawahiri told me in 1991 that my relationship with him gave the Islamic Jihad group more stature in the eyes of the Islamic Group because I am a scholar on par with `Umar `Abd al-Rahman [the Blind Shaykh].  In 1994, when I was making final revisions to The Compendium [al-Jami`, Sayyid Imam’s famous reference book on all things jihad], Zawahiri said the book is “a victory from God.”  When they announced the publication of the book in their journal, al-Mujahidun, they said that I am “the mufti of the mujihads in the world” and that I am “the fighting scholar and the mujahid mufti.”
  • Zawahiri contradicts himself in his Exoneration.  He says I wrote the Document under U.S. direction, but elsewhere he says I had opposed Islamic Jihad’s struggle in Egypt for 14 years.  He also knows that in The Comendium I criticized attacking a country when it gives you a visa–this was in a book he called a “victory from God.” [Zawahiri hammered Imam on the visa issue in the Exoneration.]
  • I did not write The Compendium in 1993 under duress.  When Pakistan exiled me in 1993, I could have gone into political asylum in Europe, but I didn’t.  I chose to remain among Muslims despite the risk.
  • Zawahiri also lied when he said I gave the full name of one of the operatives in the two assassination attempts in Egypt and says I could have only know this from an intelligence service.  Therefore, he says, I was working with the intel services when writing my book.  But intel services aren’t always accurate because brothers lie in interrogation, with Zawahiri first among them.  I found that when I was arrested by Egypt in 2004, Zawahiri had attributed many false things to me in his interrogation of 1981 to secure his release.
  • Zawahiri says I was being supported by the Yemeni authorities who arrested me and gave me to Egypt at America’s instructions for the purpose of writing the Document.  That is a lie.  I had no connection with the Yemenis.  They arrested me after 9/11 for their own interest and to settle scores with Egypt.  I wasn’t the only one they arrested for these reasons.  The head of Yemeni intel told me that they had given my name to the U.S. and that the U.S. wasn’t interested in me.
  • Later, the same intel director said at the beginning of 2002 that I should gather my Egyptian brothers and form an external opposition party against Egypt.  I refused.  They held us for 2 1/2 years until the Yemeni speaker of parliament disparaged us in 2003, so the Yemeni authorities transferred us to Egypt in 2004.  We were transferred as a group, so others in the group can testify to the truth of what I say.
  • Zawahiri lies when he says that the Document serves the interests of the U.S.  It is he and UBL that serve its interests.
  • Zawahiri lies when he says that he and al-Qaeda are the symbol of popular resistance against the Zio-American campaign against Muslims.  They were the first to flee the U.S. in Afghanistan.  They offered a truce to America; how can this be when they reject everything except fighting?  Moreover, Zawahiri worked as an agent for Sudanese intel to settle its political scores with Egypt in 1993.  The first time Zawahiri met with `Ali `Uthman Muhammad Taha, he told him that he had 10,000 trained fighters in Egypt when he had a few dozen.  There are people in prison with us now who still believe this lie.
  • When the first assassination attempt against Sidqi failed in 1993, the Egyptian state infiltrated the Islamic Jihad and operations halted.  As the six men involved in the operation were led to the execution chamber, Zawahiri was busy telling jokes to the Sudanese, who grew frustrated with his lack of seriousness.
  • Zawahiri says they decided to carry out operations in Egypt so that the idea and flame of jihad remained alive.  That’s a lie; he did it for fame.  He did it at the bidding of the Sudanese.
  • In 1992, when they asked my advice about the operations in Egypt [which had yet to transpire], I refused them.  Zawahiri said, people are condemning us because the Islamic Group is doing something and we are doing nothing.
  • At the end of 1993, when I repudiated what they had done in Egypt, he said, “The youth pressured me (to do it).”  I said, “That’s no excuse.”  That’s when he told me about the Sudanese paying for the operations.
  • Some people pay money to increase their fame.  Zawahiri pays with the blood of others.
  • In Islam, the hadiths transmitted by a liar or the testimony of a liar in court is invalid.  Why would anyone listen to the religious pronouncements of this known liar?
  • Is someone who makes decisions for the sake of “the idea and the flame” capable, militarily or in terms of Sharia law, to talk about jihad?

Document (Arabic): 11-18-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-1

Shumukh’s Prebuttal Of Sayyid Imam

Will McCants November 17, 2008

The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm, announced last week that Sayyid Imam will publish a rebuttal of Zawahiri’s Tabri’a (Exoneration), which itself was a rebuttal of Sayyid Imam’s Tarshid–a text that caused a great stir last year because the author criticized his former colleague, Zawahiri, for being an unrealistic revolutionary.  Since Rob at Media Shack is probably going to cover the book’s serial publication (the release begins this Tuesday), I’ll focus on Jihadi reaction to the text as it is released.  (Incidentally, Imam’s new book is entitled, Denudation of the Exoneration.)  

Today we have a prebuttal of the work posted to the Shumukh forum, followed by comments.  The author of the prebuttal, Ayman, employs several lines of attack:

 

  • Sayyid Imam’s earlier books were too extreme in their formulation of laws for jihad.
  • He is a flip-flopper.  Why should we trust what a flip-flopper says?
  • If he really understands Islam, why does he need to write “revisions?”

 

Another Shumukh member, Abu `Abd al-`Aziz al-Yamani, does not like Ayman’s reasoning because it means that Sayyid Imam is sincere in his revisions and is not being coerced, the latter being the standard line of attack on Imam’s book.  Others agree, prompting Ayman to shoot back: “Dr. Hani al-Siba`i communicated with the son of Sayyid Imam, who said, ‘We visited my father in prison and everything that he wrote regarding these revisions he did of his own free will.”

Trying for a little nuance, Muslim lil-Abad quotes Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi’s thoughts on Imam’s Tarshid.  Part of it, Maqdisi says, is commensurate with things he had said in his earlier works; part of it was obviously inserted by the Egyptian government because no student of Islam would ever say such things; and part of it represents his true hostility toward al-Qaeda. 

Document (Arabic): 11-17-08-shamikh-debate-over-status-of-sayyid-imam-revisions

When Will Somalia’s Shabaab Movement Declare An Islamic State?

Will McCants November 16, 2008

That’s the question asked by a member of the Faloja forum.  Here are some of the answers:

 

  • Al-Yamami: The Shabaab will soon declare its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI); that’s why ISI’s head, `Umar al-Baghdadi, mentioned the movement recently.
  • Muhibb al-Muqrin: It will be become an emirate and remain so until the ISI returns to full strength after the occupiers leave Iraq at the end of the coming month.  It will then give its allegiance to the ISI.
  •  Buya`tu Allah: It is not in the Shabaab’s best interest to declare a state or to join al-Qaeda right now because it doesn’t want to face more enemies.
  • Al-Mu`tazz bi-Din Allah: It should declare a state after the Ethiopians withdraw from Somalia.
  • Qannas al-Dawla al-Islamiyya: It should declare an emirate soon.
  • Khayr Jubnd Allah: The Shabaab will declare a state after the occupiers have been driven from all of the important cities.
  • Abu Bakr al-Muhajir: I think that this business of declaring separate states and emirates will end and a single emirate or caliphate will be declared for the whole world.

 

As can be seen from above, the declaration of the “Islamic State of Iraq” has caused some confusion.  Does the “State” (dawla) part of the name mean that it is the nucleus of a future superstate, like previous Islamic superstates or empires (e.g. Dawla `Abbasiyya)?  If so, then other Jihadis groups should forgo setting up their own states and declare their allegiance to Baghdadi and the ISI.  Or does the the “Iraq” part of the name mean that the ISI is only a national entity, which is a little bothersome for Islamists since they reject nationalism? 

Document (Arabic): 11-15-08-faloja-when-will-somalia-declare-islamic-state

Shia Attacking Faloja Forum

Will McCants November 16, 2008

One of Faloja’s adminsitrators is claiming that the forum is under attack by the Shia.  As evidence, he cites suspicious messages that have been sent to individual members and some information gleaned from the inner workings of the forum.  He does not say why he thinks it’s Shia in particular who are involved.

Document (Arabic): 11-16-08-faloja-forum-under-attack-from-shia

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

Copyright © 2025 Jihadica