ji·had·ica

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

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 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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 Jihadica