Thoughts On The Ideology Of The Global Jihad Movement Embodied By Al-Qaeda 3
23 August 2016By Tore Hamming
A follow up with Al-Maqalaat – By Tore Hamming
Previous posts:
Part One
Part Two
The consecutive subject: Mutual target prioritization
Tore Hamming:
''I would like to continue to discuss the Fitna between Al-Qaeda and IS.
Overall, I would like to have your insights on why the Fitna broke out when it
did with Al-Qaeda and IS breaking up on 3 February 2014. We know there were
differences all along between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Al-Qaeda
leadership, but despite these differences in Manhaj they managed to unite and
cooperate. Why was this no longer possible in 2013-2014?''
Al-Maqalaat:
''The current turmoil in especially Syria does indeed have a history line
dating back to the problems in Iraq. Unfortunately after the martyrdom of
Shaykh Abu Musab Zarqawi much of the facts in Iraq were unclear and hidden, so
the scholars and leaders gave the Mujahideen in Iraq the benefit of the doubt,
while criticizing their mistakes and advising them. Shaykh Usamah bin Laden
advised the Mujahideen in Iraq multiple times. He advised them for example in
a lengthy message titled ''To our people in Iraq'' dating from October 2007.
He called them to resolve their issues with other Mujahid groups in a Sharia
court, and he warned them for fanaticism, favoritism and blind following. He
warned them against infiltrations, and those who stir up strife among the
Mujahid groups, and he warned against implementing corporal punishments (Hudood)
when in doubt.
Many issues were hidden from the central leadership of Al-Qaedah in
Afghanistan, as the pressure on the Mujahideen in the global war on terror was
building up and the flow of information and communications was limited.
Certain facts were also kept hidden deliberately by the leadership of Al-Qaedah
to avoid turmoil. Shaykh Abu Sulayman Al-Utaybi, the chief judge of ISIS in
2007, tried to reveal some of the facts in Iraq to the central leadership of
Al-Qaedah in his well known letter. We now known for example that the Islamic
State in Iraq was announced without even consulting Al-Qaedah, like Shaykh
Ayman Zawahiri explained in his audio message titled ''A Testimony to preserve
the blood of the Mujahideen in Shaam'' published in May 2014 saying: ''When
the Islamic State in Iraq was announced it did not ask permission from the Al-Qaedah
leadership under Shaykh Usama bin Laden nor was it consulted, they did not
even get a choice in it. The martyred Shaykh Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir sent a
letter to the central leadership of Al-Qaedah justifying the creation of a
State and that its alliance was still to Al-Qaedah.'' In this important audio
message Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri also explained that Al-Qaedah did not know who
Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was when he was appointed. Shaykh Usamah bin Laden
requested his biography, and Al-Qaedah asked ISIS to wait with appointing a
new leader until the leadership of Al-Qaedah knew who they were.
Shaykh Usamah bin Laden even admitted that he did not know their first leader
Shaykh Abu Umar Al-Baghdadi in the message titled ''The way to foil
conspiracies'' published in December 2007. In it he also rejected the reckless
martyrdom operations, and advised them to be cautious saying ''I stress on my
brothers the Mujahedeen to be highly cautious in the operations at the army
garrisons which are located among the Muslims, and to have their operations
against the enemies disciplined by the legitimate rules away from Muslims as
much as possible, without crippling Jihad for the sake of Allah.''
Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri also admitted in the fourth interview titled ''A review
of events'' published in December 2007 that he could not say for sure whether
ISIS was the wrongdoer or not concerning the infighting that occurred with
other groups in Iraq at that time. So matters weren't as clear as they are now
in Syria. We now know that the turmoil and infighting in Iraq was mainly
caused by ISIS like it was caused by them in Syria.
ISIS wanted to repeat the same scenario of Iraq in Syria. After the Mujahideen
of different groups had almost crushed the Crusader invasion in Iraq around
2006, ISIS announced the Islamic State in Iraq and started to attack the other
groups, forcing them to join their State. This kept on until the events in
Shaam exposed this dark history. ISIS has fought against most of the groups in
Iraq when they announced their state, including the Islamic Army in Iraq, the
20th Revolution Brigades, Ansar Sunnah later known as Ansar Al-Islam, Jaysh
Al-Mujahideen, Jaysh Rashideen and the Hamas of Iraq. Most of these groups
formed the Jihad and Reform Front in May 2007, a coalition against the
Crusader-Rawafid occupation of Iraq and against the extremism of the Islamic
State in Iraq.
ISIS killed many Mujahid leaders and scholars in Iraq which caused the
weakening of the Jihaad in Iraq. They killed Harith Daahir the military leader
of the 20th Revolution Brigades. This sparked the Awakenings Movement in Abu
Grayb. They killed Shaykh Abu Qutaybah and Dr. Abu Haarith, leaders of Jaysh
Al-Mujahideen. They killed Abu Bakr Al-Ansari the leader of the Army of Abu
Bakr Salafi who was known for rescuing and protecting the Sunni people in
Southern Baghdad. They killed the scholar Shaykh Dr. Muhannad Al-Ghareeri in
the city of Al-Karmah in Al-Anbar. They killed the scholar Shaykh Khalid Al-Harbi,
the Imam of the Shuhadaa Mosque, after Maghreb prayers in April 2007. This was
one of the major reasons behind the Awakenings Movement. They also killed
Shaykh Haatim Musa Al-Halbusi, the Imam of the central Mosque in Karmah.
They announced an exclusive State, forced others to join it, attacked the
refraining resistance groups and killed their leaders and scholars with the
excuse that they refused the Sharia of Allah, thus weakening the Jihaad in
Iraq and empowering the enemies, by causing infights and pushing the Muslim
population in to the hands of the enemies, while redirecting their weapons
away from the enemies towards their own Mujahid brothers. They wanted to
repeat this scenario in Syria, as they announced an exclusive State, forced
others to join it, waged war against the groups and leaders who refrained,
thus weakening the Jihaad in Syria and empowering the Shia-Nusayri enemies by
causing infights.
Luckily the armed resistance groups and the Muslims in Syria did not repeat
the same mistake as the groups and tribes in Iraq by laying down their weapons
and joining their enemies against ISIS. This is the major difference between
the holy land of Syria and the unblessed land of Iraq; known for its turmoil
throughout history. This is why the Prophet (SalAllahu Alayhi wa Selam)
refused to send his blessings on Iraq unlike Syria. As Iraq gave birth to
sorcery, it gave birth to many sects like the Shia and the Khawarij, and it
will give birth to the Dajjaal. So it is not surprising that Iraq gave birth
to ISIS. Although it does not really matter whether the armed groups keep
their weapons aimed against the enemies of the Ummah or not. As ISIS labels
all groups as Sahawaat apostates either way. There are groups in Iraq who did
not join the Awakenings Movement, furthermore they even fought against them,
but nevertheless they are labeled as Sahawaat by ISIS.
Jaysh Al-Mujahideen has openly rejected the Awakenings Movement, they even
fought fierce battles against the Sahawaat of Rishah in Abu Ghrayb in 2007,
and there are even videos of these battles. But ISIS labeled Jaysh Al-Mujahideen
as Sahawaat apostates despite their stance and despite their battles against
the Sahawaat. Furthermore, there are a lot of soldiers from ISIS who worked
and cooperated with Jaysh Al-Mujahideen, and married with their family members
and even prayed behind them. So why did they not label their own soldiers as
Sahawaat apostates? Jaysh Al-Mujahideen even killed a number of Sahawaat
leaders in Radwaniyah, Fallujah and Ramadi. The Sahawaat laid down their
weapons and stopped performing Jihaad, while they took up arms against the
Mujahideen with the help of the Iraqi government. Jaysh Al-Mujahideen however
never laid down their weapons and did no stop performing Jihaad, they fought
against the government and the Sahawaat, and they never raised their weapons
against the Mujahideen. This while ISIS killed 12 members from Jaysh Al-Mujahideen
including their leaders during 2007 in Arab Jubur Southern Baghdad, but they
did not respond with any aggression. Rather they sheltered Shaykh Abu Musab
Zarqawi. Furthermore, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was one of the students of their
leader Shaykh Abu Saeed Al-Iraqi.
Despite all of this ISIS labeled them as Sahawaat. Because any group that does
not does not join them, become Sahawaat apostates, like we have witnessed on
all the Jihadi fronts throughout the world. Even the Taliban and Al-Qaedah
have become Sahawaat.
The Fitnah in Syria was the straw that broke the camels back. When Shaykh Abu
Muhammad Al-Joulani was sent to Syria in 2011 ISIS wanted to settle old scores
with other Mujahid leaders who traveled to Syria. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi for
example gave the order to Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani to kill the scholar
and Mujahid leader Shaykh Abu Saeed Al-Iraqi in Damascus, leader of Jaysh Al-Mujahideen
in Iraq. Shaykh Abu Saeed was imprisoned by the US in Iraq and spent years in
prison with Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani, so hey knew each other very well,
and Shaykh Al-Joulani saw nothing but goodness from him. So he refused to kill
him and disobeyed the orders of Al-Baghdadi, as killing him was of no benefit
for the Jihaad in Syria –on the contrary. Keep in mind that Shaykh Abu Saeed
Al-Iraqi, who preceded Al-Baghdadi in Jihaad, was the previous teacher of Abu
Bakr Al-Baghdadi. This is how he wanted to repay him!
When the jurist and military leader of Jabhat Nusra Shaykh Abu Mariyah Al-Qahtani
came to Syria in 2010, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi also ordered him to kill Shaykh
Sa'dun Al-Qadi the leader of Ansar Sunnah in Iraq and Shaykh Muhammad Husayn
Al-Jubayri, known as Shaykh Abu Sajad, the deputy of Ansar Sunnah in Iraq. Abu
Muhammad Salih Al-Hamawi one of the founders of Jabhat Nusra and Shaykh Abu
Mariyah Al-Qahtani also explained how Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani refused
the orders of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi to send suicide bombers to the heartland of
Turkey. The spokesperson of ISIS Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani came to Syria in 2012
and wanted to convince Shaykh Abu Mariyah Al-Qahtani to carry out operations
against the hotel in which the Syrian National Coalition was residing in
Turkey, but he rejected saying that this is not allowed Islamically nor
rationally and it goes against the orders of Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri.
When Jabhat Nusra repeatedly refused to carry out these orders, Al-Baghdadi
himself traveled to Syria because he wanted to depose Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani
of his position, and declare a State in Syria while dissolving Jabhat Nusra.
Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani opposed this as ISIS clearly deviated from the
methodology and the orders of Al-Qaedah. This is when Shaykh Al-Joulani gave
his pledge directly to Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri, and requested from Shaykh Ayman
Zawahiri to resolve the dispute. Al-Baghdadi agreed with this proposal and
promised that he would abide by the orders of Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri. But when
the Shaykh responded and ordered that the Islamic State in Syria should be
annulled and that they must return to Iraq, Al-Baghdadi and his henchmen
refused. Soon after the arrival of ISIS in Syria the suicide bombs on the
Syrian opposition and Mujahid bases started, in addition to the kidnappings
and executions of Mujahid leaders. This increasingly reckless behavior forced
Shaykh Ayman to cut the ties between Al-Qaedah and ISIS, he did not want any
part in these crimes.
We learn a valuable lesson from these events which we can not ignore. When
your strategy and methodology is well known and sound, it does not really
matter if your leadership ranks are infiltrated by deviant individuals.
Because they can not go against the general outlined strategy and methodology,
and if they do, then they could easily be sidelined, expelled or disobeyed as
they are clearly contradicting the strategy and methodology of the
organization. This is important to mention because this is the major reason
for the many infiltrations on high levels in ISIS within their media wings,
jurists and military leaders. The Baathits generals of Saddam Hussein were
able to infiltrate into ISIS with ease because it did not have a strong and
clear strategy and methodology. Al-Qaedah however is a message before it is an
organization, which is why it focuses on strategy and methodology, instead of
materialistic gains and organizational expansions.
Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri explained these understandings beautifully when he
answered the question why Al-Qaedah broke its organizational ties with ISIS,
in his seventh interview titled ''The reality between pain and hope''
published in May 2014. He said:
''The considerations of this decision could be divided in two matters. The
first, is the difference between the two methodologies. Our methodology is
focusing on the modern-day idol America and its Crusader-Zionists allies and
their treacherous agents, and gathering the Ummah and inciting it to wage
Jihaad against them and to stay away from offshoot battles. And our
methodology is carefulness with blood and refraining from operations which
could spill blood without legitimate justifications; on markets and Mosques
and public neighborhoods, rather even between the Mujahid groups. And we have
published numerous statements about this from Shaykh Usama bin laden and
Shaykh Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid and Shaykh Atiyatullah Libi and Shaykh Abu Yahya
Libi, may Allah have mercy on them. I likewise talked about this subject
several times. That is why we published the document ''General guidelines for
Jihaad procedure.'' After consulting and sending it to all the brothers. And
one of the reasons for us publishing this document was the fear for what is
happening now. I hope that everyone now realizes, after this fire of turmoil
has intensified, what the dangers are which this document sought to prevent.
And our methodology is also keenness on mobilizing and uniting the Ummah
around the proclamation of monotheism and working towards the return of the
righteous Caliphate which is established on mutual consultation and compliance
from the Muslims.
That is why we published ''The paper for supporting Islam'' to all those who
work for Islam to unite them on one shared word. That is why we are not able
to unite the Ummah if our image is that of an occupying force over them which
takes away their rights or oppresses and subjugates them. As for the second
issue, it is the lack of sticking to the principals of cooperation. Like
announcing states without permission, rather even without choice, as the
guidelines of the general leadership was that we must not declare any open
presence of Al-Qaedah in Shaam and this issue was even agreed upon by the
brothers in Iraq. So we were surprised by the announcement which gave the
Syrian regime and America the opportunity they were longing for. And they made
the general people of Shaam ask ''What is wrong with this Al-Qaedah which is
inviting disasters upon us? Is Bashar not enough for us? Do they want to
invite America on us also?'' And for example their lack of sticking to the
decrees of the leadership concerning the division of interests, or concerning
the halt of infighting. And one of the most important reasons for the known
breakup (with ISIS) in the problem of Shaam, was our fear for the bloody
turmoil which is eating up the souls of thousands of Mujahideen today. And
perhaps everyone realizes that this breakup, if everyone endorsed it then the
blood of thousands would have been preserved and the efforts would have
increased in the fight against the enemies of the Muslims, instead of busying
themselves with fighting against the Muslims.
Another issue which is of the utmost importance is that Al-Qaedah by the Grace
of Allah is a message before it is an organization. Shaykh Usama bin Laden
(may Allah have mercy on him) persisted on this and his brothers in Al-Qaedah
were also very persistent on this. So Al-Qaedah is a message before it is an
organization. If we distort this message we have lost, even if we would expand
organizationally and materialistically. Because we would fail in our most
important goal which is the mobilization of the Ummah towards Jihaad against
its enemies so that they can judge with their Islamic law and regain its
Caliphate. And if we were with ten who present the Ummah with a good example
and a message in which the words are upheld with actions, it is better for us
then being with tens of thousands which make the Ummah run away from them and
from their actions and manners. If the Ummah witnessed us fighting over the
war spoils before being established and race towards taking away the right of
the Ummah and its nobles in mutual consultation and governance; and if they
witnessed us participating in infighting in which the blood of our Mujahid
brothers is spilled and their honors and belongings are violated; and if the
Ummah witnessed us spoiling the fruit of Jihaad before it is ripe by actions
which are not thought through and hasty individual decrees; then how will the
Ummah trust us and how will they answer us? Rather we would present our
enemies the greatest opportunity to distort our image and turn the Ummah away
from us. And the secularist and the Americanized lackeys will say to the
people: Look at what the Mujahideen are doing against each other so image what
they would do with you?''
So the reason why Al-Qaedah broke ties with ISIS was because they did not
share the same enemy, meaning they did not prioritize the same main enemy. One
of the most binding factors between Al-Qaedah and other Mujahid groups,
movements and rebel factions is their shared enemy. That is why Al-Qaedah has
formed tactical alliances with many groups who could have different views and
methodologies, even if they are deviants groups, as the Islamic principals of
a defensive war allow such tactical coalitions. Like we have witnessed in
Afghanistan against the Soviets. They formed tactical alliances with Rabbani,
Sayyaf and Masoud against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan when they shared the
same enemy, but they became opponents when they did not anymore. The same goes
for the Mujahideen and rebel factions in Syria, as long as they share the same
enemy Al-Qaedah is willing to form tactical alliances with them, as it is one
of the most important criteria for cooperation and coordination. That is why
the US focuses on breaking up the factions in Syria by destroying this binding
factor. As they constantly try to reconcile a truce between the regime and the
rebel factions, and they try to redirect the weapons away from the regime
towards ISIS, like they did in Iraq.
The conflict between truth and falsehood exists since the very first divine
revelation. Every Prophet or Messenger and believing nation had to fight
against the falsehood that existed in their time. The Muslim Nation also has
one main enemy which they will fight until the last hour. The Prophet (SalAllahu
Alayhi wa Selam) predicted that we will fight against the Romans until the
final battle of Armageddon in Syria. The Prophet said that the Romans have
many horns, each time a horn is broken a new horn grows. This is exactly what
happened, we have fought against the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western
Roman Empire. We have fought against the Byzantines and the Crusaders, after
that we fought against the imperialist Colonial forces and the Western
capitalist coalitions. So to conclude: the West, led by the US, is our main
enemy. This is not just the strategic view of Al-Qaedah but it is a divine
prediction. When ISIS shared this strategy they were close allies of Al-Qaedah.
This ended when they started to prioritize infighting against other Muslim
groups and movements and sectarian secondary enemies.
There is a secondary point I would like to make because of its importance.
Because some could say that ISIS also fights against western countries, they
have executed multiple operations in the West, and they could also say that
Al-Qaedah, like ISIS, fights against the Shia Rawafid and the Nusayriyah in
Syria and Yemen. But there is still a difference between the motives of war,
as Al-Qaedah sticks to the principals of a defensive war against them, while
ISIS wages a (defensive) war with the principals of an offensive war.
When the Islamic State in Iraq was announced Shaykh Ayman Zawahiri explained
that the Mujahideen in Iraq fought against the Shia Rawafid because they
cooperated with the US invaders. He explained that the Mujahideen will stop
their fight against the Shia Rawafid in Iraq if they stop cooperating with the
US invaders. So Al-Qaedah did not fight against the Shia Rawafid simply
because they were a deviant (apostate) sect, otherwise we would fight a long
exhausting sectarian war of attrition, this is exactly what the US wants.
However it became clear that ISIS does not fight against the Shia Rawafid or
the western countries because these enemies wage a war against the Ummah.
Rather ISIS fights against them simple because they are deviant (apostates) or
disbelievers. That is why ISIS executes suicide bombings on public Shia
gatherings and places of worship inside and outside Iraq, like the several
Shia places of worship in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And that is why they
slaughtered dozens of Ethiopian and Egyptian Christian laborers in Libya. And
that is why they execute very random attacks in the West without
differentiating between their targets. So to conclude, it does not really
matter to them whether the Shia Rawafid and the West or other enemies wage war
against the Ummah or not, they will fight and kill them anyway, this is the
message they send to their enemies.
This is a very important difference between Al-Qaedah and ISIS. Because if we
fight against our enemies simple because they are deviant or disbelievers,
instead of fighting against them to repel their transgression; then the enemy
does not have any incentive nor motivate to stop his transgression. Because
the enemy realizes that you will fight against him anyway, whether he attacks
you or not. This is one of the major differences; Al-Qaedah fights against the
enemies with the Islamic rulings of a defensive war. While ISIS fights against
everyone with the Islamic rulings of an offensive war; in a defensive war.
Again, the motives for an enemy target are of course secondary to the
prioritizing of an enemy. Our main objection is against the prioritizations
and not against the motives. ISIS for example prioritized rebel infighting in
Syria, the motives are secondary. Furthermore, we would not even have a
problem, on the contrary we would encourage it, if the deviant sects or the
apostate governments would prioritize the US as their target for example, no
matter what their motives may be, because they are secondary. Shaykh Ayman
Zawahiri also called upon the Rawafid to pick up arms against the US
occupation in Iraq. We would not fight against them if they aimed their
weapons at the US, rather we would endorse it. ISIS however does not
understand the benefits for the Ummah from such a pragmatic approach, that is
why they attacked the Kurdish militias in Iraq and Syria for example and other
Mujahid groups in Iraq or the opposition rebels in Syria; while they all
share(d) the same enemies. They should have benefited from this mutual
interest like Al-Qaedah tries to benefit from such scenarios. The Prophet (SalAllahu
Alayhi wa Selam) and the Muslims in Medina benefited from the war between the
Romans and the Persians. They rooted for the Romans, and when the Persians
were weakened by the Romans they attacked them. After finishing with the
Persians, they curved towards the Romans.
-I will stop here due to the length and continue further in the next episode.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments