Ix-nay on the Ihad-Jay
MEMRI reports on a top jihad thinker’s second thoughts:
Over the last few weeks, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, one of the least public yet most important figures in the global jihad movement, has published a long-awaited new work, Wathiqat Tarshid Al-’Aml Al-Jihadi fi Misr w’Al-’Alam (”Document of Right Guidance for Jihad Activity in Egypt and the World”), in which he calls for a stop to jihad activities in the West and also to those against the ruling regimes in Muslim countries. The new book, which Imam wrote while serving a life sentence in Egypt, was published in serial form in two Arab dailies, the Kuwaiti Al-Jarida and the Egyptian Al-Masri Al-Yawm, and has been the subject of extensive discussion and polemic among Islamists and observers of Islamist movements.
Maybe he got religion in prison. That’s what his old pal al-Zawahiri says.
The book has generated such interest due to its author’s standing and importance among radical Islamists. In addition to his given name, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, he is also known as “Dr. Fadl” and “‘Abd Al-Qader Bin ‘Abd Al-’Aziz.” His 1988 book on the laws of jihad, Al-’Umda fi I’dad Al-’Udda (”The Essentials of Making Ready [for Jihad]“),was used as a jihad manual in Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. [2] In addition, Sayyed Imam is one of Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s oldest associates.
…
Some of the most enthusiastic supporters of Sayyed Imam’s new document have been leaders of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya, another Egyptian jihad group which, in 1997, began its own process of ideological revisions. These revisions eventually led to a wide-ranging reassessment of their beliefs, and they published a number of polemical tracts against Al-Qaeda. (See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 309, “The Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya Cessation of Violence: An Ideological Reversal,” December 22, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA30906 .) In recent interviews and statements, members of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya and other like-minded individuals have given an upbeat assessment of the new book’s impact, expressing the hope that Sayyed Imam’s revisions would lead to something similar in Al-Qaeda itself, or perhaps to an internal split or a weakening of support for Al-Qaeda. [3]
Al-Zawahiri addressed the issue of Sayyed Imam’s new book even before it was published, in the course of a feature-length video produced by Al-Sahab called Quwwat Al-Haqq (”The Power of Truth”). He argued that the revisions, which he calls the “retractions,” were simply the product of torture in the Egyptian prisons; he said that he didn’t blame their author for having broken down, but rather those outside the prisons who were enthusiastically promoting his new book.
…
A third category of responses is that of independent jihadists. The most important of these to date has been Abu Basir Al-Tartusi, a prominent radical sheikh. Unlike Al-Qaeda, he does not believe that Sayyed Imam was forced to write his new book, and he offers his reasons for believing that it was written out of conviction. Also unlike Al-Qaeda, he undertakes a refutation of the central arguments in the book, and pillories Sayyed Imam for employing what are, in his opinion, weak proofs to try to stop the jihad.
Fascinating, how much the academic/political debate on whether to slay infidels looks like the debates any number of other issues. Stem-cell research. Global warming. Evolution. It’s got no little amount of “Bin Laden Lied Poeple Died” in it, as well. Well, we don’t know exactly what the good imam’s motives are, but here’s some of what he has to say:
Q: “What is your evaluation of the events of September [11], 2001?”
A: “The events of September [11], 2001, were betrayal of a friend and perfidy toward the enemy on the part of Al-Qaeda, and they were a catastrophe for the Muslims. All of these are traits of hypocrisy, and cardinal sins whose perpetrators are considered iniquitous - and whoever approves of their action shares their sin.
“This was betrayal of a friend, because bin Laden took the oath of allegiance to Mullah Muhammad Omar, leader of the Taliban, [and recognized him] as Commander of the Faithful in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. [Bin Laden] lived under his protection, and [Mullah] Muhammad Omar refused to hand over bin Laden to anyone.
“More than once [Mullah] Muhammad Omar ordered [bin Laden] not to clash with America, saying that he didn’t have the capabilities for this, especially since Afghanistan and its people were the ones who paid the price for bin Laden’s bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.”
Interesting argument for a jihadi to take. One problem here. The one-eyed Mullah Omar’s still out there, causing grief for the people of Afghanistan. But this is even more interesting. Never mind the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents. There was visa fraud:
“This was perfidy towards the enemy, because they entered America with a visa, which is a contract of protection. There is no dispute about this among the scholars - even… [if someone] forges the signature of the residents of [the Abode of] War, and they believe it to be authentic, and then he enters their land, he is forbidden to betray them in anything - their lives, their honor, their property, without any distinction between combatants (military) and non-combatants (civilians) among the residents of [the Abode of] War, as long as he remains in their country…
Whatever. Call me an ignorant infidel, I still say among the crimes al-Qaeda committed on 9/11, the paperwork issues don’t loom that large. But we are talking about a singularly cyncial and deranged group of people, and if this is what it takes to convince them they are on the wrong path, so be it.
“The followers of bin Laden entered America with his knowledge and by his order, and they acted perfidiously towards its people, and killed and destroyed… Then they called their treachery and their perfidy a ‘raid’ in order to compare their actions to the Prophet’s raids. To tie their perfidy and treachery to the Prophet is to diminish him and to mock him, and the punishment for diminishing the worth of the Prophet is well-known to Muslims; Qadi ‘Iyyad mentioned it in Al-Shifa, and Ibn Taymiyya in Al-Sarim Al-Maslul.”
Subject them to Sharia law! There’s a fun idea:
A: “It was a catastrophe for the Muslims. [Al-Qaeda] ignited strife that found its way into every home, and they were the cause of the imprisonment of thousands of Muslims in the prisons of various countries. They caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims - Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was destroyed, and Al-Qaeda was destroyed. They were the direct cause of the American occupation of Afghanistan and other heavy losses which there is not enough time to mention here. They bear the responsibility for all of this.”
Q: “What is your opinion on the way in which bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri have managed the war against the Americans?”
A: “Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and others fled at the beginning of the American bombing [in Afghanistan], to the point of abandoning their wives and families to be killed along with other innocent people.
“I think that a shari’a court should be established, composed of reliable scholars, to hold these people accountable for their crimes - even if in absentia - so that those who are ignorant in their religion do not repeat this futility.
“The Taliban used to punish a woman who left her house with her face uncovered - so how could the leaders of Al-Qaeda not be held accountable - they who caused the destruction of their country, the spilling of their blood, the destruction of their houses, whose children were orphaned and wives widowed - all of this in disobedience to their Emir?…”
Stoning or beheading? Beheading or stoning? Cutting off of hands, perhaps?
Q: “But some Islamists still praise what happened, despite the consequences.”
A: “Many ignorant people admired Al-Qaeda’s actions due to their lack of knowledge in the shari’a and their lack of knowledge concerning the conditions [required] for actions [to be permitted] and their true shari’a definitions.
“The peoples are ruled by emotions and think with their ears and not with their minds - that is, they admire what they hear without considering its true nature in their minds.
“What induces people to do this is their hatred for America. They don’t see any good from it. Al-Qaeda plays on this chord just like Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, and others do. America always supports Israel. Even [America's foreign] aid, the common people don’t notice it, since it is either old weapons that America gets rid of to provide work for its factories, or old stocks of wheat it wants to get rid of, or birth control pills. This is American [foreign] aid - that is, America aids itself.
“People hate America, and the Islamist movements feel the hatred and the impotence, and they applaud anyone who locks horns with America, whether it’s bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Saddam. Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of your people?… That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”
It’s great that this eminent Jihad scholar has come to Jesus, so to speak. Curious how, while they have been eager to counsel martyrdom for the masses, the deepest convictions of global jihad’s leaders are swayed.
Further scholarship and guidance on jihad:
Rule No. 19: Ix-nay on the Oys-bay
Jihad-free Islamic righteousness:
And some helpful parables:
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:31 am on Saturday, December 15, 2007
12 Responses to “Ix-nay on the Ihad-Jay”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Thank you for this.
Quick comments
More than once [Mullah] Muhammad Omar ordered [bin Laden] not to clash with America
It would be hard to believe that Mullah Omar had any power at all over bin Laden, since “the Taliban” essentially became clients of AQ and bin laden’s money in the several years before 811.
Serving a life sentence in Egypt, “Imam’s” positions…
“It should be noted that Sayyed Imam’s revisions are less far-reaching than those of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya. He does not clearly state that he no longer considers the current rulers of Muslim countries to be apostates; the reason he forbids fighting them is primarily that this jihad has little or no chance of success, and thus does more harm than good.”
Quick translation, “…gee, maybe slaughtering people, blowing up schoolchildren, beheading people…bombing living complexes, restaurants, subways, trains, buildings…isn’t popular with normal human beings.. Whoda thunk it ?”
So maybe his positions are simply pragmatic as opposed to some kind of reversal on the merits of jihad.
It’s also possible (as suggested) his Egyptian prison handlers (those guys have a reputation) influenced his ideas.
Intense theoretical discussions and debates in the “Muslim world” on these kinds of topics seem to be common. Which is, in and of itself, somewhat absurd.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
811
sorry
December 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“The events of September [11], 2001. . . were a catastrophe for the Muslims.
This was my second thought about 9/11, as soon as Mohammed Atta and his band of murderers were identified. Whatever else that rotten bastard did, he set his brand of Islam on the road to destruction (with the other rotten bastard bin Laden’s blessing). It may take fifty years, like the experts say, or maybe longer, but it will happen. Muslims are being forced to take responsibility for their religion and their failures.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
For anyone out there who misinterprets, notice I didn’t say Islam itself was on the road to destruction. But you can bet that Salafism or Wahhabism, or whatever you want to call it, will eventually vanish into history’s dung heap. Deservedly so, IMO.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
It’s taqyyia. Pure and simple. Hudna, drop out of the fight until you are stronger and then attack again. The problem is that their philosophy was shown too soon (eg. taqyyia, hudna, terror) and it was used to draw other muslims into the fight to their detriment. Now no one will trust them.
Islam has taken the hit not just the salafists.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
MikeH: It’s taqyyia.
That is the dumbest possible reponse to this article. Get a clue, dude. You don’t even know what taqqiya is.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:51 am
You’re right, I always thought that it meant deception dude. I also thought that hudna meant truce until the forces were built up for a future attack dude. But hey, I bow to your superior knowledge. The imam was a jihadi for a long number of years please let me in on his inner most thoughts.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
From Wikipedia:
Within Shi’ite Islamic tradition,[1] the concept of Taqiyya (التقية - ‘fear, guard against’)[2] refers to a controversial dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.[3]
The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “Dissimulation.” [4]
According to many Shia, Taqiyyah can only be legally used by a Muslim verbally when he or she is being wrongly persecuted. The situation may be when revealing the truth is more important than saving one’s life. In such a case, one must not conceal the faith and must uphold the truth. When one is guilty and is trying to conceal his or her guilt he is not said to be using taqiyyah, he or she is considered a liar and Taqiyyah isn’t valid in this case. In effect, the practice of al-taqiyyah is a resolution to a given aporia or paradox. Namely, the devotee is forced to choose between on the one hand, the threat or harm of a sacred body (their own, or another’s); and on the other a temporary disavowal of faith, or the sacred word. In either case, a devotee is harmed. Therefore, it is thought that the lesser of two evils is to conceal, while not abandoning one’s faith (the word).[citation needed]
Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only
December 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Try the current definition as promugated by the jihadis themselves. Taqyyia as originally proffered in Shia policy was not practiced by the Sunni adherents. It is now! The concept has grown to a practice followed by Salafists, Wahhabists, Shia, and Sunni. I’m not aware of whether the Sufi follow it but we’re not at war with the Sufi (I don’t think). The nice thing to remember is that they told us they wanted to conquer us and would do whatever it took. You do remember Istanbul, right? Through up enough noise and you’ll confuse the enemy to the point where they have no plan of defense or offense. Their noise and our confusion.
“The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48″
dissimulation dis*sim`u*la”tion, n. L. dissimulatio: cf. F.
dissimulation.
The act of dissembling; a hiding under a false appearance;
concealment by feigning; false pretension; hypocrisy.
1913 Webster
December 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Through=throw
PIMF when I have it.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
BTW, what happened to the ad hominem? You started off strong.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Jules,
“Call me an ignorant infidel, I still say among the crimes al-Qaeda committed on 9/11, the paperwork issues don’t loom that large.”
The concept of “Guest” among desert people predates Islam…the desert is the common enemy, the only possible way to get ones goods to market ways to take shelter in other tribes encampments along the way. So they developed very strict rules about the treatment and status of guests. I.E. A guest will receive all the protections of the tribe they are staying with, and under no circumstance will the guest interfere in any way with tribes affairs.
Anbar went so terribly for the US because AlQueda had Guest Status..I.E. the tribes were culturaly obligated to give them shelter. AlQueda then violated the guest rule by declaring various tribal areas Islamic States. This is why AlAnbar flipped so dramatically. The Guest Rule….it is THE RULE…it has been THE RULE since Ismail and Isaac.