Thoughts On The Ideology Of The Global Jihad Movement Embodied By Al-Qaeda 1
25 July 2016By Tore Hamming
This series of blogposts is the result of private conversations with a Dutch
speaking Jabhat an-Nusra member in Syria, known as al-Maqalaat. The following
text is not edited by myself in any way. Furthermore the views expressed in
this commentary are the sole responsibility of the author, al-Maqalaat. I host
this text for academic purposes only.
First Question: The challenging affiliation
June 16, 2016
Pieter Van Ostaeyen:
''Lately we have been reading a lot about the ties between Jabhat Nusra and
Al-Qaedah within the Jihadist community on social media. There are scholars
and factions in Syria who believe that Jabhat Nusra should break its ties with
Al-Qaedah because they see it as harmful for the Syrian revolution and as an
obstacle for unity among the factions. I would like to explore the thoughts
regarding this disposition. What are your thoughts on it?''
Al-Maqalaat:
''Firstly, this discussion will be more theoretical than anything else, as we
do not really see the negative effects of this issue on the actual ground. The
formation of Jaysh Al-Fath and Jaysh Al-Fustaat and the recent victories in
Idlib and southern Aleppo testify to this fact. With that being said, yes some
factions and scholars like Shaykh Abu Baseer Tartoosi argue that Jabhat Nusra
should cut its ties with Al-Qaedah because their ties form a danger for the
Syrian revolution. The opposite is actually true. If we were to look at ISIS
then they do not have any ties with Al-Qaedah, they cut their ties with Al-Qaedah
and broke off from its leadership. So did this benefit the Syrian revolution?
ISIS does not have any ties with Al-Qaedah but they form one of the greatest
dangers for the Syrian revolution. When they were under the leadership of Al-Qaedah
their weapons were aimed at the regime and its allies. But since they broke
off from Al-Qaedah they are aiming their weapons at all the enemies of the
regime, which empowered the regime a great deal. This is clear proof that
their ties with Al-Qaedah were very much in the benefit of the Syrian
revolution, as ISIS followed the sensible guidelines of the Al-Qaedah
leadership. But when they broke these ties, they became an enemy of the Syrian
revolution. So those who are demanding from Jabhat Nusra that they should
break their ties with Al-Qaedah, because it is in benefit of the Syrian
revolution, as they claim, should consider this.
The guidelines of the Al-Qaedah leadership, its Sharia politics and the
methodology of Al-Qaedah will actually safeguard the Syrian revolution. There
have been groups like the Hazm Movement, Syria Revolutionaries Front, Division
30, Army of Revolutionaries, and the New Syrian Forces, who did not have any
ties with Al-Qaedah, but their foreign guidelines, politics and methodology
harmed the Syrian revolution, and the civilians and factions in Syria agreed
on this. If it wasn't for Jabhat Nusra who stopped their corrupt projects then
who knows what the damage would have been to the Syrian revolution. It was
also Al-Qaedah who nullified the legitimacy of the Khawarij deviancy by ISIS.
Unlike the local factions in Syria, Al-Qaedah is the only alternative besides
ISIS for those who want to join a global Jihad movement. If Jabhat Nusra did
not provide this target group with a legitimate alternative in Syria then
perhaps they would have joined ISIS. So image how much turmoil Jabhat Nusra
prevented by providing this alternative.
ISIS claimed that it wanted to foil the conspiracies of the local and global
enemies in Syria, but they only empowered these conspiracies due to their
foolish actions and politics. ISIS labeled everyone as an apostate and a
traitor or a western agent, placing all the groups and factions in the same
trench without differentiating. This made people disbelieve the claim that
there were any actual traitors or agents in Syria. Because they saw ISIS
accuse factions like Jabhat Nusra, Ahraar Shaam and Jaysh Al-Islam of being
apostates, traitors and agents, together with actual traitors like the Hazm
Movement.
There is a small select group of traitors and agents in Syria, and Jabhat
Nusra is the only one who succeeded in exposing and removing them from the
field; they now operate largely under the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic
Forces. Due to the balanced and clearheaded politics of Jabhat Nusra even the
average civilian in Syria was and is able to distinguish between the Mujahid
and the traitor, between the corrupt and the pious. That is why nobody opposed
Jabhat Nusra when they got rid of the Hazm Movement, because they saw how they
were harming and corrupting the Syrian revolution. Whereas they did oppose the
accusations and blood spilling of ISIS, and the crimes of certain factions.
The Syrian people would not have reached this distinguishing awareness if
Jabhat Nusra did not use wisdom, justice and tolerance in dealing with the
civilians, groups and factions.
Right after Jabhat Nusra got rid of these corrupt groups it formed Jaysh Al-Fath
with other factions and liberated Idlib. Since then all the local and global
conspiracies dissolved with ease. Jabhat Nusra first exposes the corruption
before dealing with it, and does not blend this corruption in a mélange of
truth mixed with falsehood like ISIS does. This is of great benefit for the
Syrian people, as it safeguards and purifies their revolution. Jabhat Nusra
has exposed the traitors and corrupt groups without exhausting the Syrian
people with much effort in doing so. This saved the Syrian people much turmoil
and blood spilling. While the fruitless foolish actions and politics of ISIS
did the opposite, without getting rid of the traitors and agents, rather they
even empowered them.
So imagine how much turmoil and blood spilling could have been saved if ISIS
did not break its ties with the Al-Qaedah leadership and followed its
guidelines and politics like Jabhat Nusra does, and imagine how much this
would have benefited the Syrian revolution. Additionally accusing Al-Qaedah of
being responsible for the crimes of ISIS would be unreasonable, as the first
generation of the Khawarij broke off from the army of Sayidna Ali, may Allah
be pleased with him. So do we blame Ali for their deviance? No.
Al-Qaedah has long experiences in guerilla war tactics and fighting super
powers, the factions in Syria must be willing to learn from these experiences
and insights. Al-Qaedah has experience with local enemies as well as the
global enemies. It has experience with different groups, parties and sects.
Even the turmoil of the Khawarij sect is not new, Al-Qaedah already
experienced this in the past in Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
Jabhat Nusra was for example one of the few factions who recognized that a
cease fire with the regime was a conspiracy. More than 1500 rebels defected
from other factions and joined Jabhat Nusra when those factions agreed on a
cease fire with the regime. And it did not take long before those factions
also realized that the cease fire was a conspiracy against the Syrian people.
So they resumed the battle after catching their breath and reorganizing. This
is one example of the insights and experiences we must learn from.
Claiming that the relationship between Jabhat Nusra and Al-Qaedah is forming
an obstacle for unity with the other factions in Syria is not really
convincing, because the remaining factions did not unite amongst each other in
the first place. So what is the obstacle for them to unite amongst each other?
Moreover, if the relationship between Jabhat Nusra and Al-Qaedah is the only
obstacle for unity according to them, then this means that they actually agree
with the methodology and politics of Jabhat Nusra. Because they are not
complaining about the methodology or politics of Jabhat Nusra. Their only
problem with Jabhat Nusra is their relationship with Al-Qaedah. This means
that the remaining methodology and politics of Jabhat Nusra are not forming
any problems or obstacles for unity. Although this is a comforting conclusion,
it makes you wonder if this is really the only condition they will set for
unity. It does not seem reasonable. If this relationship was really the only
obstacle for unity then this would be very good news. Because this means that
all other remaining factions besides Jabhat Nusra who do not have any ties
with Al-Qaedah can finally unite amongst each other.
Even if some factions disagree with the methodology or certain tactics and
Sharia politics of Al-Qaedah, then this should not be an obstacle for unity.
If we were to look at the western countries for example and their alliance
with the US, then we can say without a doubt that there are many disagreements
between these western countries. Not all the western countries support the
wars waged by the US, especially by the Bush Administration. Not all the
western countries agreed on the extraordinary rendition policy. Not all the
western countries agreed on the prison torture policies of the US in
Guantanamo Bay. Not all the western countries agree on the US policy
concerning drone air strikes on high value targets; 140 civilians are bombed
on an average to hit just one high value target under the current Obama
Administration. Not all the western countries agree on such excessive
collateral damage. So there are many differences and disagreements between the
allies of the US on certain politics and military policies.
But do we see these western countries break their alliance with the US because
of these disagreements? No they do not, they stay united to protect their
democratic ideals and values. Because they know that unity is strength. If
these western countries stay united to protect their democratic ideals and
values despite their disagreements, then why can't we stay united to protect
our Islamic ideals and values despite our differences? If some factions
disagree with certain politics or military policies and battles fought by Al-Qaedah
on other fronts in the world, then this should not be an obstacle for unity.
Jabhat Nusra also does not agree with certain politics and policies by other
factions, but it is nevertheless willing to unite for the greater good of the
Muslim Ummah in Syria.
Al-Qaedah has united with the Taliban despite their differences and
disagreements. The Taliban and Al-Qaedah do not share the exact same school of
thought and methodology. The Taliban follows the Hanafi school of thought and
is somewhat influenced by the Deoband movement which leans towards the Ash'ari
and Maturidi theology. While Al-Qaedah leans toward Salafi Jihadism. Al-Qaedah
in theory would have more in common with the Salafi Saudis than the Hanafi
Afghans, but in practice we see something totally different. As the Saudis
betrayed Shaykh Usama bin Laden and the Mujahideen, while the Islamic Emirate
of Afghanistan protected and sheltered them. The Salafi Saudis rejected Jihaad,
while the Hanafi Afghans are waging Jihaad for decades. This shows us that the
differences and similarities should be put in their correct context and
balance.
Salahdinne Al-Ayoubi shared the Ash'ari theology but nonetheless many founding
Salafi scholars –who are critical towards the Ash'ari theology– spoke highly
of him, because his righteousness outweighed his mistakes. So we should not
let form be predominant over content. We do not have to agree on every
understanding to unite against our enemies. As long as we agree on the core
principles; the internal enemy most be deposed from authority over our
countries, the external enemy must retreat from our countries, our countries
must be independent –politically, militarily and economically– and our Islamic
countries and peoples will be ruled by the Islamic law, whether the west likes
it or not.
Al-Qaedah is even closer to the school of thought shared by the factions in
Syria, who do not want to unite with Al-Qaedah, then it is to the school of
thought shared by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This shows us how tolerant and
flexible Al-Qaedah is and how rigid and stubborn these factions are. Because
Al-Qaedah is willing to unite with others even if they differ in politics and
religious understanding, moreover Al-Qaedah is willing to be one of its
soldiers as long as they judge with the Islamic law. While these factions do
not want to unite with those who share similar theoretical doctrines and
religious understandings. Sidelining Jabhat Nusra is merely the first phase of
eliminating all the other factions who share similar doctrines. Ahraar Shaam
and Jaysh Al-Islam and other factions will not be left as a ruling power in
Syria neighboring Israel. The US knows that they can not attack all the
factions at once, so they divide and conquer, and by giving up Jabhat Nusra
the factions are putting themselves on the list same of extermination.
Whether Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani declared his oath of loyalty to Shaykh
Ayman Zawahiri in April 2013 or not is actually a detail. Because Jabhat Nusra
shares the same methodology and Sharia politics as Al-Qaedah, even if they did
not give their oath to Al-Qaedah or even if they broke their oath to Al-Qaedah.
That is why the US placed Jabhat Nusra on the terror list in December 2012,
before Jabhat Nusra announced its oath to Al-Qaedah in the first place. So the
whole issue of breaking ties with Al-Qaedah is insignificant, because the
methodology and the Sharia politics of Jabhat Nusra will stay the same, even
if they broke their ties with Al-Qaedah. That is why it is incomprehensible
that some are obsessed with the ties of Jabhat Nusra. If they would break
their ties with Al-Qaedah this would not really change anything on the ground.
The US will not remove them from the terror list and they will not stop
attacking them. Look at Jund Al-Aqsa, they split from Jabhat Nusra in January
2014, but they were placed on the terror list nonetheless. The US designated
Shaykh Abu Ibrahim Al-Jazaairi as a terrorist, one of the previous leaders of
Jund Al-Aqsa, and bombed his car in rural Latakiyah in May 2015. The same goes
for Shaykh Rifa'ee Ahmad Taha, the previous leader of Al-Jamah Al-Islamiyah in
Egypt, who preceded Shaykh Umar Abdurahmaan, may Allah hasten his release.
Shaykh Rifa'ee was a neutral figure in Syria, he had a great part in uniting
the different factions together. He therefore posed a problem for the devide
strategy of the US, so they killed him with a drone air strike on April 2016
in Northern Idlib. He was not a member of Al-Qaedah but they killed him
regardless.
The relationship with Al-Qaedah is more than a political and military
alliance, it is the bond of Islamic brotherhood which is rooted in the Islamic
doctrine of Al-Walaa wal Baraa (loyalty and disavowal). So it is impossible
for Jabhat Nusra to break this bond. It was exactly this bond and this
doctrine which were put to the test when the Bush Administration ordered
Mullah Muhammad Umar to hand over Shaykh Usama bin Laden. Now we are seeing
that this bond and this doctrine are being put to the test once again in
Syria. The Taliban is a great example for the factions in Syria. More than
fifty countries gathered against the Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan when it
didn't want to hand over Shaykh Usama bin Laden, and after more than 15 years
of war the Taliban still controls up to 80% of Afghanistan. While we see the
humiliated and desperate western countries stumble over each other to reach a
peace agreement with the Taliban. This is the fate of the proud Taliban who
did not want to hand over one single Muslim. The Taliban is truly a great
example of unity between Muslims despite the differences.
But if some factions think that their disassociation from Al-Qaedah will
benefit them in any way then they should take Omar Al-Bashir as an example.
Omar Al-Bashir expelled Shaykh Usama bin Laden at the orders of the Clinton
Administration in 1996. But it did not take long before the International
Criminal Court charged and accused Omar Al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes
in Darfur and issued an arrest warrant against him. The Pakistani court
likewise issued an arrest warrant against Pervez Musharraf. Allying with the
US against Al-Qaedah didn't protect him either. The same goes for Shakil
Afridi who helped the US catch Shaykh Usama bin Laden, he too was eventually
sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment. So what did they gain by
disassociating from Al-Qaedah? Do we really want to pursue the fate of such
miserable people who backstabbed Al-Qaedah to please their masters? Or should
we pursue the fate of an honorable man like Mullah Muhammad Umar who refused
to disassociate from Shaykh Usama bin Laden?
The alliance between the Taliban and Al-Qaedah is actually the secret to a
successful strategy formula from which the factions should learn. Having
external branches to your official and restricted army is considered to be a
very sharp military strategy, many proxy wars today are fought this way. Iran
has multiple militias outside its official army, like Hizbullah in Lebanon,
and Faylaq Badr in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. These militias can operate
outside the borders and territory of the official army. The same goes for Al-Qaedah,
which is an external branch of the official and restricted Taliban army.
Mullah Muhammad Umar gave Shaykh Usama bin Laden the green light to operate
outside Afghanistan while the official army focused its efforts inside
Afghanistan. This gave the Taliban political and military flexibility. While
the US was eager to negotiate with the Taliban in Qatar, the external branch
Al-Qaedah was conducting operations against western embassies in the same
region and western targets all over the world to weaken the coalition against
Afghanistan. If it were official Taliban soldiers who were conducting these
operations, in stead of their external branch Al-Qaedah, then the Taliban
would not have the chance to take part in politics and move freely in the
region.
The Prophet (SalAllahu Alayhi wa Selam) adopted the same strategy when he made
the truce of Al-Hudaybiyyah in Medina with the pagans of Quraiysh in Mekkah,
while the militia of Abu Baseer loyal to the Prophet raided their caravans on
the outskirt of Medina. This went on until the Prophet successfully gained the
upper hand in the political negotiations. The Taliban likewise, in cooperation
with Al-Qaedah, were able to overpower their enemies military and politically.
Look at the weak negotiation position of the pressured Syrian factions in
Geneva, and compare this to the strong negotiation position of the commanding
Taliban in Qatar. It is a comparison between humiliation and honor. Do they
think that their negotiation position will improve if they disassociate
themselves from Al-Qaedah? Rather their political negotiation position will
improve if they would strengthen their relationship with Al-Qaedah; taking the
successful formula of the Prophet with Abu Baseer and the Taliban with Al-Qaedah
as leading examples.
To conclude, the mission of Jabhat Nusra is a pure Sunni project. It is far
removed from extremism or negligence. They use harshness at the right time and
against the appropriate people, while using softness at the right time and
against the appropriate people. They are tolerant but not heedless, they are
flexible and they always outweigh the benefits against the harms. They are
very keen on preserving the religious, political and worldly interests of the
Syrian people. That is why they withdrew from their military positions in
Idlib, so that the regime would not bomb the civilians in Idlib under the
pretext of attacking Jabhat Nusra. And that is why Al-Qaedah chose not to
launch from Syria against western interests, so that the west does not bomb
the Syrians like it is doing now in Raqqah for example. Their very first
priority is repelling the transgression of the regime and toppling it. Their
aspiration is building an independent Islamic government. And they are willing
to cooperate with other Sunni factions in reaching this goal. They possess
much needed capabilities; steadfast men who do not fight for worldly gains,
independent finance, and they enjoy popular support. They are unmistakably an
integral part of the Syrian people and they are one of the essential pillars
of the Syrian revolution. But any faction, including Jabhat Nusra, who thinks
that they alone can decide the future of Syria, is truly hallucinating. That's
why the factions must merge; there is no choice in the matter.''
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments