Muslim Vs Hindu Atrocities, Faces of Death.

Documenting Reality - 58 Hindus, most of them returning from Ayodhya, were killed and 43 injured when Muslims attacked the Sabarmati Express and set afire four of its coaches at Godhra railway station in Gujarat on February 27th, 2002

The other images are from an attack at a Hindu temple using machetes plus two other random attacks.

"There won't be a next time. Muslims must realize the Hindus of India will not tolerate terrorist attacks on our people. Muslims will not understand peace unless steps of this nature are taken" - Nilkant (last name unknown), Godhra

"Muslims are 90% of today's world trouble. If we sit back and let them kill, they will only do it more" - Shivshankar Trivedi, Ahmedabad

"The world nations must take care of their Muslim problem today before it's too late and realize that the problem should be treated as a top priority. Islamic history has shown how brutal it can be once it has gained control of your nation" - Ravi Chudasama, Ahmedabad

The 3 Stages of Jihad

David Wood explains the three stages of jihad and how Muslims use the concept of the takkiya to lie and deceive Westerners so that they can keep defending the cause of Islam.

Many Mohammedans or Mahoundians as I sometimes call those people, both those living in the Western world and those who live in other parts of the world quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace.

When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion. Liberals and Libertarians alike are quick to defend and protect Islam from criticism out of the fear of being called names. The call to Jihad has three stages.

STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca.

STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad.

STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29....

Read More: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

Message to Obama

Excellent Speech. Brother Rachid addresses President Obama about ISIL and Islam; he explains to him how ISIL is imitating the prophet Muhammad in every detail they do. ISIL represents Islam. Brother Rachid's Youtube Channel

Muslim Group Slaughters 43 Children in Nigerian School

Children burned alive, Jihadists shot and slit the throats of children who tried to escape through the windows.

When are good and decent people going to be free to speak about Muslim supremacist savagery?  Instead, reporting on these stories of unimaginable horror is considered “islamophobia.” That’s where we are in the modern age of the savage.

Should the Christians fight back in Nigeria, the enemedia will begin weeping about “the ethnic cleansing of Muslims,” which is exactly what they are doing in the neighboring Central African Republic.

Send arms to the Christians in Nigeria. Train them. That’s what America should be doing. 
These Islamic atrocities across Africa and the Middle East are daily — daily — and Obama can’t import these killers into our country fast enough.

“Islamist group named ‘Western Education is Forbidden’ slaughters 43 boys in Nigerian school after storming the building with guns, machetes and firebombs,” Daily Mail, February 26, 2014 Suspected militants from Al-Quaeda affiliated group burned children alive Teacher says they set locked hostel on fire then shot and slit the throats of children who tried to escape through the windows Other reports suggest attackers threw explosives, sprayed rooms with gunfire and used machetes to hack pupils to death Attack brings toll from Boko Haram attacks to more than 300 this month Suspected Islamic militants killed 43 students in a pre-dawn attack Tuesday on a northeast Nigerian college, survivors said.

The terrorists, thought to be from Boko Haram, set a locked hostel on fire, before shooting and slitting the throats of those who tried to climb out the windows. Some were burned alive. Adamu Garba said he and other teachers who ran away through the bush estimate 40 students died in the assault that began around 2 a.m. Tuesday at the Federal Government College at Buni Yadi.

Boko Haram have been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks in the north of Nigera as they increasingly target civilians Boko Haram have been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks in the north of Nigera as they increasingly target civilians (file picture) It is a co-ed school about 45 miles south of Damaturu, the capital of Yobe state, and difficult to communicate with because extremists last year destroyed the cell phone tower there. Garba, who teaches at a secondary school attached to the college, said the attackers first set ablaze the college administrative block, then moved to the hostels, where they locked students in and started firebombing the buildings.

At one hostel, he said: ‘Students were trying to climb out of the windows and they were slaughtered like sheep by the terrorists who slit their throats. Others who ran were gunned down.’ He said students who could not escape were burned alive The attackers also reportedly hurled explosives into student residential buildings, sprayed gunfire into rooms and hacked a number students to death. A senior medical source at the Sani Abacha Specialist Hospital in Yobe’s capital Damaturu said the gunmen only targeted male students and that female students were ‘spared’. ‘So far, 43 bodies have been brought (from the college) and are lying at the morgue,’ said the source, who requested anonymity as he was not authorised to discuss death tolls. Damaturu resident Babagoni Musa told AFP that four ambulances carrying dead bodies drove past his shop, which falls on the road from Buni Yadi.

‘They had tree branches on them which is a sign used here to signify a corpse is in a vehicle,’ he said. People whose relatives were studying at the college had surrounded the morgue and were desperately seeking information about those killed, forcing the military to take control of the building to restore calm, the hospital source said. Yobe is one of three northeastern states which was placed under emergency rule in May last year when the military launched a massive operation to crush the Boko Haram uprising.

At least 40 students were killed in September at an agriculture training college in Yobe after Boko Haram gunmen stormed a series of dorms in the middle of the night and sprayed gunfire on sleeping students.

Read more at: PamelaGeller.Com

Inside a Terrorist's Mind

Prior to his assassination, Salah Shehadeh discussed the logistics of terror operations against Israelis.

On July 23, 2002, the IDF dropped a bomb on a Gaza apartment building, killing terrorist leader Salah Shehadeh, commander of the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas.

The following interview with Shehadeh was published by Islam Online on May 29, 2002.

Aish.com presents the interview as a curious look into a terrorist's mind.

Q: How do you choose who will carry out a martyrdom operation?

Shehadeh: The choice is made according to four criteria: First, devout religious observance. Second, we verify that the young man complies with his parents' wishes and is loved by his family, and that his martyrdom will not [adversely] affect family life ? that is, he is not the head of the family and he has siblings, as we will not take an only child. Third, his ability to carry out the task assigned [to] him, and to understand its gravity; and fourth, his martyrdom should encourage others to carry out martyrdom operations and encourage Jihad in the hearts of people. We always prefer unmarried [men]. It is the regional leadership of the military apparatus of the Hamas movement that proposes his candidacy, and then decides whether to accept him.

Q: How do you account for the stream of youths [coming] to join the ranks of perpetrators of martyrdom operations? And does this attest to [mental] health, or to escape from the frustration and disappointment among the Palestinians?

Shehadeh: The stream of youths [who seek to] attain martyrdom shows [mental] health and the awareness of Palestinian society, and is not a mistake or an escape from a situation of despair or frustration. Many people come to Jihad, and they are willing to lay down their souls ? which is the most precious thing a man has. There is a vast difference between someone who sacrifices money or an offering, and someone who sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah to bring happiness to the nation, and to remove its torment and distress.

Nevertheless, we cannot provide everyone with a martyrdom operation because the targets are limited and the enemy positions we want to reach are highly fortified. If some of the youths do not follow the military apparatus's instructions, and [set out on operations on their own] without being linked officially to this apparatus, this proves that the [entire] nation has become a nation of Jihad on the threshold of liberation, and that it rejects humiliation and submission.

Q: How does the military apparatus choose a target?

Shehadeh: We have surveillance groups whose role is to monitor Israeli and settler patrols and the movement of the enemy on the border. We utilize every breach we find in the enemy's security fence. Afterwards we define the target and the nature of the assault on it, whether it is a settlement, a military post, a military vehicle, or anything else. The target is filmed, and then [the video] is shown to a committee appointed by the General Staff of the Military Operations. After the target is approved, the martyrdom operation's perpetrator is trained... Then the operation is ready to go, after a group of experts approves the plan and determines the factors for its success or failure.

Q: What about killing Israeli citizens?

Shehadeh: We do not target children, the elderly, and places of worship, although these places of worship incite to murdering Muslims. Similarly, we have not targeted schools, because we do not give orders to kill children. The same goes for hospitals, although this is easy for us, and attainable. We act according to the principles of Jihad to which we adhere. Our motto is: “We are not fighting the Jews because they are Jews, but because they occupy our land.

We are not fighting them because of their religion but because they have usurped our land.” If we kill a child it is not intentional...

Q: How much does a martyrdom operation cost?

Shehadeh: The cost of an operation varies... Attack operations with automatic weapons cost the price of the weapon, which hold at least 250 rounds, and of the ammunition, and the price of about 10 hand grenades. But some of the operations cost much more and include transporting [the perpetrator]... buying a car, and bribing Jewish collaborators. There are operations that cost a great deal ? between $3,500-$50,000, in accordance with the target.

Q: How did you develop the weapons that the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades have come to excel at manufacturing, such as the Al-Qassam 1 and Al-Qassam 2 and the and the Al-Bana [rockets]?

Shehadeh: ...We have scientists who specialize in weapons development, who are today studying and conducting experiments on the Al-Bana rocket, which is a combination of an RPG and a LAW [light anti-tank weapon], and differs from the Al-Qassam 2 because it is designed for moderately thick armor. Hand grenades are manufactured to meet the needs of the apparatus and its members, and they have proved their efficiency, and [even] the Zionist Defense Ministry attests that they are powerful grenades. All the grenades and rockets are locally manufactured, easily and simply. The explosives in the Al-Qassam 1 and 2 and the Al Bana are made from simple raw materials. [Even] the women can make them at home...

Q: What about the organizational structure of the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades?

Shehadeh: In general, the brigades are a small army subject to political decisions, like any [other] army in the world. It has all the kinds of divisions and structures that an army has. We are soldiers. The political apparatus does not tell us, 'Do such and such' and 'Carry out this or that operation'; the political apparatus is sovereign over the military apparatus, and a decision of the political [echelon] takes precedence over the decision of the military [echelon], without intervening in military operations. The success of an operation is not defined by the number of enemy dead, but by the extent to which our Jihad fighters managed to reach the target, and by the operation's execution. Good planning is vital for the operation's success. The number of dead depends on the will of Allah.

Q: What are the obstacles that the Al-Qassam Brigades face?

Sh'hadeh: The most significant obstacles are the scarcity of good-quality weapons, such as anti-aircraft and long-range missiles. Another significant obstacle is the haze obscuring the political position of the National [Palestinian] Authority. This causes confusion in the military wing [because] it does not set a [clear] position regarding the military operations ― that is, whether it is for them or against them.

Is it an authority for national liberation, or an authority for autonomy?
This matter confuses many Jihad fighters. In addition, weapons prices have been raised by the bloodsucker arms dealers, so the price of an M-16 has reached $5,000, and each of its bullets now costs $1.50, and a Kalashnikov costs $2,000, and each of its bullets costs $4.00. The military apparatus has managed to meet the challenge of weapons scarcities by collecting donations from people who love supporting the path of Jihad for the sake of Allah.

Similarly, the movement has succeeded in manufacturing some of the intermediate weaponry, thus reducing costs. The cost of a rocket [made by the movement] is less than 1 percent of its cost if we had to buy it.

Read More: Aish.com

EXCLUSIVE - With Muslim Brotherhood crushed, Egypt sets sights on Hamas

(Reuters) - After crushing the Muslim Brotherhood at home, Egypt's military rulers plan to undermine the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which runs the neighbouring Gaza Strip, senior Egyptian security officials told Reuters.

The aim, which the officials say could take years to pull off, includes working with Hamas's political rivals Fatah and supporting popular anti-Hamas activities in Gaza, four security and diplomatic officials said.

Since it seized power in Egypt last summer, Egypt's military has squeezed Gaza's economy by destroying most of the 1,200 tunnels used to smuggle food, cars and weapons to the coastal enclave, which is under an Israeli blockade.

Now Cairo is becoming even more ambitious in its drive to eradicate what it says are militant organisations that threaten its national security.

Intelligence operatives, with help from Hamas's political rivals and activists, plan to undermine the credibility of Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007 after a brief civil war against the Fatah movement led by Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

According to the Egyptian officials, Hamas will face growing resistance by activists who will launch protests similar to those in Egypt that have led to the downfall of two presidents since the Arab Spring in 2011. Cairo plans to support such protests in an effort to cripple Hamas.

"Gaza is next," said one senior security official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "We cannot get liberated from the terrorism of the Brotherhood in Egypt without ending it in Gaza, which lies on our borders."

Asked why Egyptian intelligence is not going after Hamas now, another senior security official said: "Their day will come."

Egypt accuses Hamas of backing al Qaeda-linked militant groups which have stepped up attacks against security forces in Egypt's Sinai peninsula over the past few months. The attacks have spread to Cairo and other cities.

Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas deny accusations of terrorism, and the Brotherhood says it is committed to peaceful activism. The group was ousted from power in Egypt after the military threw its weight behind street protests last summer.

Freely-elected president Mohamed Mursi is now on trial on charges of inciting the murder of protesters during his presidency. Egypt's military-backed government has cracked down hard on the Brotherhood, arresting almost its entire leadership and thousands of its backers as well as formally declaring it a terrorist organisation.

But the situation is very different in Gaza, where Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood, is heavily armed, has years of experience fighting Israel, and moves swiftly to squash dissent.

A Hamas official said the comments made to Reuters by Egyptian officials showed Cairo was inciting violence and trying to provoke chaos.

"We reaffirm that Hamas did not and never would intervene in the internal Egyptian affairs," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters. "No one should ever dream to weaken Hamas.

"A LOT OF ANGER"

So far, contacts between Egypt and Fatah have been limited to discussing ways to help Fatah undermine Hamas, said the officials. They declined to name Palestinians involved in those discussions or give details of how many meetings have been held.

Hamas keeps Fatah party officials under very close watch in Gaza. A senior Fatah official in the occupied West Bank, where the party is far more powerful, denied any plot to oust Hamas.

"There is a lot of anger in Gaza. People are suffering, but protest is not easy. We cannot hope that Hamas will vanish tomorrow," he said.

Hamas has an estimated 20,000 fighters, with another 20,000 in its police and security forces. Despite growing economic hardship in Gaza, the group can still draw on significant support from among the territory's 1.8 million people.

But Egyptian officials hope to exploit tensions with rival militant groups, even if there are no signs of major splits yet.

"We know that Hamas is powerful and armed but we also know that there are other armed groups in Gaza that are not on good terms with Hamas and they could be used to face Hamas," another Egyptian security source said.

"All people want is to eat, drink and have a decent living, and if a government, armed or not, fails to provide that, then the people will rise against it in the end," the source said.

"THE FIRST SPARK"

In early January, Cairo publicly hosted the first conference of a new anti-Hamas youth group called Tamarud, or rebel, the same name used by the Egyptian youth movement that led last year's protests against Mursi.

Members of the Palestinian Tamarud stood with the Palestinian flag wrapped around their necks to highlight what they called Hamas's crimes against activists in Gaza.

The event was attended by representatives from Egyptian liberal parties and Fatah.

"We support the movement and any peaceful movement against the cruelty of the Islamist group that is part of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation," said Ayman al-Raqb, a Fatah official in Cairo in his speech at the conference.

The activists showed video clips of masked gunmen chasing and dragging away protesters, and posted banners showing activists who they said had been tortured by Hamas for their opposition.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights last year accused Hamas of orchestrating a fierce crackdown against activists suspected of trying to organise a Tamarud-like protest in November. It said some of those detained were tortured and the mooted rally never materialised.

Hamas has accused Tamarud members of being Israeli agents, but has denied allegations of torture.

Activists in Cairo have called for protests in Gaza on March 21.

Egyptian officials hope that future Hamas crackdowns may turn the tide against the movement's leadership.

"Surely, the world will not stand still and allow Hamas to kill Palestinians. Someone will interfere," said the Egyptian security official. "But so far we are only working on firing the first spark."

But officials also concede that the plan is likely to take years.

"The aid Egypt will mainly provide to the anti-Hamas groups will be logistical not financial. Tamaruds don't cost much," one Egyptian security official said.

TUNNELS

The plan to undermine Hamas reflects renewed confidence among Egypt's security forces after being sidelined following the fall of long-time president Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Senior security officials are now determined to eliminate their Islamist foes for good - inside and outside Egypt.

They were angry when Mursi became the first Egyptian president to meet Hamas leaders in the presidential palace. Mursi also sent his prime minister to Gaza on the second day of an Israeli offensive on the enclave in November 2012.

Many Egyptians believe the Brotherhood intended to give part of the Sinai to Hamas. The Brotherhood has consistently denied the allegation.

Mursi's administration did acknowledge the problem posed by the tunnels under the border between Egypt and Gaza. His national security adviser last year said the government was flooding a number of tunnels he described as illegal.

But the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza was kept open for much of Mursi's rule, allowing vital food and goods to flow into Gaza.

After Mursi's overthrow, the army took over command of the Sinai and started destroying hundreds of tunnels. No Hamas official has been allowed to travel into Egypt since then.

Last month, Egypt's public prosecutor accused Hamas of conspiring with Mursi and Iran to stage terrorist attacks in Egypt.

"We know Hamas is the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood (members) are terrorists and no country could develop with terrorists in or around it," the security official said.

Gaza prime minister and Hamas deputy leader Ismail Haniyeh has said repeatedly since July that his group is focused exclusively on confronting arch-foe Israel and has no armed presence in Egypt.

"We do not intervene in Egyptian internal affairs," he told supporters last month. "Egypt cannot do without us and we cannot do without Egypt. This historical, geographic and security link can never be severed."

However, an Egyptian security official, who declined to be named, dismissed his words. "They (Hamas leaders) can say what they want on their role in Sinai. We don't base our judgment on them, but on intelligence and information."

(Additional reporting by Crispian Balmer and Nidal Al Mughrabi; Editing by Michael Georgy and Simon Robinson)

Poster's Note: Egypt, don't stop, it's about time to destroy HamAss, and to wipe this terrorist organization OFF the global map!

Muhammadanism - Characters of Islam

What is false religion? Are you distressed about the crimes committed in the name of religion? Do the warfare, terrorism, and corruption perpetrated by those who claim to serve God offend your sense of justice? Why does MUHAMMADANISM seem to be at the root of so many problems?

The fault lies, not with all religion, but with FALSE religion.

"Watch out for false prophets. They come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Does this passage not accurately describe Muhammad and the religion he invented?

What fruit does false religion yield?

-bombings
-suicide bombings
-church massacres
-elementary school massacres
-beheadings
-kidnappings
-rape of non-Muhammadans
-honor killings
-honor rapes
-spousal abuse
-child brides
-temporary wives
-cutting off noses and ears of wives
-inbreeding
-floggings
-female genital mutilation
-female oppression and subjugation
-divine deception (Taqiyya)

Muhammadanism is a violent, totalitarian, and retarded religion and political system and Muhammad was its terrorist founder. No other religion resembles Nazism more than Muhammedanism. No other religion enslaves human beings like Mohammedanism. It is a scourge.

I make no apologies for the anti-Islamic warriors. They were a much delayed response to Mohammedan aggression, terror, expansion and imperialism. Now that memory is seared into the minds of all Mohammedans, for all time.

We all should educate ourselves as to what they are about. Know the enemy and know it well. They ARE the enemy of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and to think otherwise is to give the terrorists an edge that will kill us all.

They are willing to kill their own kids to save their own lives.
They are nothing.
They have no value.
They are not be respected.
They are not to be protected.
They are not to be understood.
They are to be eliminated.

They do not bring anything decent to their own country, to their own people, to their own families, to their own population.
They bring destruction.
They bring misery.
They bring poverty.
They bring death!!!!!!!

This is the "Religion of Peace"

Yes, Muslims Kill Muslims

By Daniyal Noorani

How often is it that after a terrorist attack in Pakistan, you hear the following statement on TV or from people around you? Aik Musalman Musalman ko nahi maar sakta (A Muslim won’t kill another Muslim). Every time I hear this statement or a similar one, I want to bang my head against a wall. While having a conversation with my driver, regarding the Eid bombings of a Shia mosque in Quetta he said, “The Taliban couldn’t be responsible for the attack, since a Muslim would never attack people in a mosque.” Even after thousands of people have been killed in suicide bombings by religious extremists, a large number of Pakistanis still have misplaced sympathies for extremists or fail to hold them accountable. This mindset needs to be challenged and the myth that “Muslims don’t kill other Muslims” needs to be debunked once and for all. Otherwise, if this attitude of denying the problem and deflecting the blame on RAW, CIA, BLA, Mossad, etc continues, there is no plausible way that an effective counter extremist movement can be conceived in Pakistan.

It is a sad fact, but Muslims have been killing Muslims from the early days of Islam. Out of the first four caliphs, three had Muslims involved in their murder, two of them were killed in a mosque and one was murdered while offering his prayers. The first Islamic Civil War, also called the first Fitna, started in 656, just 14 years after the Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh) death and lasted for 5 years. A number of battles were fought during this period, in which scores of Muslims were killed by other Muslims. Unfortunately, there is precedent for Muslims killing Muslim in Islamic history.

If one wants to ignore history and just look at the present, there are still numerous examples of Muslims killing other Muslims in Pakistan. Recently, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for an attack in Quetta that killed at least 26 people and injured over 60 in two suicide attacks, targeting the residence of the deputy chief of the paramilitary force. If one goes a little further in the past (like a month), the TTP claimed responsibility for a devastating suicide attack on a mosque in Khyber Agency that killed over 50 people. Most recently, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has reached a new low by attacking a school bus, which killed four children. This attack was considered to be revenge against the residents of Kala Khel for forming a lashkar against the TTP. The large number of occurrences of such events makes it difficult to deny that ‘Muslims’ are carrying them out.

A recent report in the Christian Science Monitor highlighted how the sacrifice of 3,000 plus security personnel killed in operations against al Qaeda and Taliban militants since 9/11 went unrecognised because of fear of antagonising the religious right by the army. The people who they fear antagonising are likely the same people who defend and sympathise with the extremists. The fact that the army does not highlight its sacrifices against the extremists must not only be demoralising for the troops, but showcases how Pakistan has ceded the public space to extremists. Politicians, generals, philanthropists, businessmen, every Pakistani needs to unite and raise his/her voice against extremists and their heinous actions. There should be no room to sympathise or empathise with groups who have no regard for innocent life.

After this article, I am sure people will call me naive for believing the media and falling victim to the various spy agency’s trap, but it is time to call a spade a spade. It cannot be denied that Muslims are killing innocent civilians in the name of Islam and maligning the religion. Pakistanis must unabashedly and equivocally condemn the killing of innocents by anyone, particularly those brazenly claiming responsibility for it. No longer can Pakistan afford to have a deflecting attitude with respect to militancy and a unified voice must be raised against it. No longer should the Kalma be used as proof of innocence.



Tribune.Com

The Victim’s View of Islam

by Bill Warner

Recently the McCormick Foundation financed a seminar about the print media reporting about Islam. The seminar was held under the auspices of the journalism school at MTSU, a state university in Murfreesboro, TN. It is part of the Establishment program of constructing the fine details of Establishment Islam.

The lectures and workshops were lead by Muslims and supporters/apologists/defenders of Islam. The apologists and Muslims contend that the only other view of Islam is that of contemptible bigots, who are driven by the usual demons of hate and prejudice. So all the “good” people, the Muslims and their defenders, gave lectures on the beautiful truth of Islam and how to deal with the “bad” people who oppose Islam. The “good” people have the view that there is there the truth of Islam and the rest of the world is morally corrupt.

This division of the world into good and evil has its benefits, but it is too broad a brush in this case. There is another view of Islam besides the “good” Muslims and their apologists. To see this, go back 1400 years to Medina. In Mecca Mohammed had “proven” his divine status by claiming to be in the same lineage of prophets such as Moses and Noah. There were no Jews in Mecca and the story played well enough. Mecca was the home of “Islam, the religion of peace”.

However, in Medina the town was half Jewish, consisting of three tribes. The Jews of Medina told Mohammed that he was not a prophet and this shattered his foundation as a prophet. Mohammed’s attitude about Jews went from being a spiritual brother to that of an archenemy.

Two years later the last of the Jewish children were kidnapped and adopted as Muslims, the Jewish women were sold into slavery and 800 Jewish males were beheaded. Medina was Judenrein, cleansed of Jews.

What are we to make of this well-documented event and the fact that it is only one of over 70 events of assassination, executions, raids, tortures, enslavements, battles and brutalization of the Kafir (non-Muslim) Arabs around Mohammed? All of this is recorded in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography).

The Muslim’s point-of-view is about this vast suffering is that it was a triumph for Islam, a victory and cause for celebration.

The apologist’s point-of-view of this violence is: that was then, this is now. Christians have done worse. Let’s not be judgmental.

Then there is the third view, that of the Kafir victims of Islam. Mohammed led a nine-year rage of jihad against them. There were pagan Kafirs, Jewish Kafirs and Christian Kafirs, but they were all Kafirs who were annihilated. The cause of all of this suffering was an intellectual idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah and every person must declare this “truth” or be subjected to violence. The Kafirs were the victims of Islam, then and now.

The story of the jihad against the Kafirs is told in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). No one was allowed the luxury of avoiding Islam. If you were in the neighborhood of Mohammed, then you had to be for him or suffer violence. After Mohammed had conquered all of Arabia, he died while in the next phase of jihad, the conquest of the Christians to the north of Arabia.

This brutal story is told with great vehemence and force. Mohammed and Allah rejoice at the suffering of the Kafirs. And who cares? The apologist agrees that the violent triumph of Islam over all neighbors was a wonderful success for humanity. The Kafirs are human garbage to be put into the disposal of jihad. Who cares about dead Kafirs? Who cares about the annihilation of native cultures?

Why is it that the history of the Native Americans, Blacks and other minorities can be told, but not the Kafirs? Why can those victims have a place in history, but the suffering to the Kafirs is denied? Why do they have no history? Why can’t the victims of jihad and their history be given a valid seat in the marketplace of ideas?

This denial of the suffering of Kafirs can be seen in how our history books are written. The rise of Islam is glorious, but the suffering of the Christians in Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East, the suffering of the Hindus in Pakistan, the suffering of the Buddhists in Afghanistan are all denied. The victims do not exist in our history. If you die at the hands of Islam, you are invisible to history.

Notice that those who have no compassion for the Kafirs in the story of Mohammed’s martial triumph of Islam don’t care about Islam’s victims today. Islam and its apologists don’t give a damn about the suffering today of Christians in Africa, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, the Sudan and on and on. Jewish apologists for Islam do not see the 1400 year old annihilation of the Jews in Arabia being connected to the jihad to annihilate Israel today.

There is another thing about the apologists for Islam. They never refer to Islam’s doctrines of jihad, ethical dualism, subjugation of women and the rest of the Sharia. Instead, they constantly refer to the opinions of Muslim “experts”. But, those who support the victims of Islam talk about the foundational experts--Allah and Mohammed. Once you know Allah (the Koran) and Mohammed (the Sira and the Hadith) you do not need opinions of experts. Why? If the expert agrees with Allah and Mohammed, the expert is right, but redundant. If the expert disagrees with Allah and Mohammed, then the expert is wrong. So who needs the experts’ opinions if you know the facts of Allah and Mohammed?

Why is it when the foundations and the journalism schools meet to talk about how to report about Islam, the victims of Islam have no voice? Why is justice served by denying the deaths of 270 million Kafirs in the Tears of Jihad? Why is it that those who recognize the suffering of the victims of Islam today and 1400 years ago are called bigots and contemptible? Why is it that those who asks for the victims’ story be told along side of the apologists and Muslims are said to be Islamophobic and Muslim-bashers? Why is it that those who know the doctrine of Allah and Mohammed are told they are ignorant and despicable?

There are three views of Islam. The victims’ view is as valid as the oppressor’s view or the apologist’s view. The truth of victims of Islam’s suffering must be told and heard. It is too bad that the foundations do not have the will to finance the complete truth about Islam, instead of the soothing lies told by the Muslim “experts” and their sycophant apologists.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-victims-view-of-islam/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

Lessons from 9/11? What Lessons?

by Dennis Prager

In attempting to understand 9/11, the first question asked by the world's elites -- as exemplified by leading media and academics -- was, "What did America do to provoke such hatred?"

Ten years later, the same people are still asking the same question. And it is as morally repulsive now as it was then. It was always on par with "What did the Jews do to antagonize the Germans?" or "What did blacks do to enrage lynch mobs?"

As long as people keep asking what America did to incite such hate, nothing will have been learned from 9/11.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred because of a law of human life that has been true since Cain killed Abel: The worst hate the best (and the second best and the third best and so on). Evil hates good.

The United States of America is a flawed society. As it comprises human beings, it must be flawed. But in terms of the goodness achieved inside its borders and spread elsewhere in the world, it has been the finest country that ever existed. If you were to measure the moral gulf between America and those who despise it, the divide would have to be calculated in light-years.

If the academic and opinion elites of the world had moral courage, they would have asked the most obvious question provoked by 9/11: Were the mass murderers who flew those airplanes into American buildings an aberration or a product of their culture?

As far as those elites are concerned, only the first explanation exists. The 19 monsters of 9/11 were, for all intents and purposes, freaks. They were exceptions, no more representative of the Arab or Islamic worlds than serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was of America. According to the elites, the hijackers happened to be Muslim -- only in name, we have been constantly reassured -- but were not produced by anything within Arab or Islamic society. Even to ask whether anything in those worlds produced the 9/11 terrorists -- or Britain's 7/7 terrorists, or Madrid's March 2004 terrorists, or Palestinian terrorists, or the Taliban, or Hamas -- is to be a bigot, or an "Islamophobe," the ingenious post-9/11 label to describe anyone who merely asks such questions.

It can be said, therefore, that not only has the world learned nothing from 9/11; it has been prohibited from learning anything.

The Muslim regime of Iran violently represses its people and (along with the Muslims of Hamas and of Hezbollah) vows to exterminate the nation of Israel. Muslim mobs murdered innocent people because of cartoons in Denmark. The Muslims of the Taliban throw acid in the faces of girls who attend school. Muslim mobs kill Christians and burn churches in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere. And we are told that the mere mention of these facts is an act of bigotry.

After 9/11, the normal and decent question that normal and decent people -- people who fully and happily recognize the existence of vast numbers of normal and decent Muslims in the world -- would have posed is this: What has happened in the Arab world and parts of the Muslim world?

But as this, the most obvious question that 9/11 prompted, has not been allowed to be asked, what lessons can possibly be learned?

The answer is, of course, none.

But that has not stopped our media and academic elites from drawing lessons.

And what are those lessons? One is that America -- not the Islamic world -- must engage in moral introspection. The other is that we must oppose all expressions of religious extremism -- Jewish and Christian as well as Muslim, since, according to the Left, America's conservative Christians are as much a threat to humanity as are extremist Muslims.

Perhaps the best-known exponent of these non-lessons has been Karen Armstrong, the widely read religious thinker and former nun. She was invited to give a presentation on compassion at the nation's religious memorial service this past Sunday. And what was her message?

"9/11 was a revelation of the dangerous polarization of our world; it revealed the deep suspicion, frustration and rage that existed in some quarters of the Muslim world and also the ignorance and prejudice about Islam and Middle Eastern affairs that existed in some quarters of the West ..."

There you have it: Muslims have rage and deep suspicion; the West has ignorance and prejudice.

If that's what the world learns from 9/11, those who died that day died in vain.



Town Hall

Tears of Jihad

270 million killed by Muslims.

Islam began with killing of unbelievers right from the start.

For the first century of its existence, Islam was absolutely soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression. Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end.

These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.

Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary.

The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march. [Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

Christians
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:

60 million Christians

Hindus
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”

80 million Hindus.

Buddhists
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million.

Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

"Egypt was 14.5 Million people when first opened in Umar's time. When Napoleon walked in 1000 years later, the country was down to 2.5 Million people. 1000 years of bad management causing famines, ethnic cleansings, genocides, revolts. And that happened to one of the world most advanced civilizations.

1000 years and instead of increasing, instead of remaining 14.5 Million, they went down to 2.5 Million.

Islam is aids. Whoever in bed with it will be infected and die eventually. I used to say Islam is cancer, every muslim is a cancer cell in our society. Though some cancer cells may not or never spread, but once it does, it kills you. Now I found cancer is better than islam, at least cancer is not contagious.

Political Correctness is the Incubator of Islamism

by Amil Imani

Time and again we are told by the politically correct “experts” not to worry about Islam posing a threat to our way of life. We are repeatedly lectured that only a very small minority of Muslims are troublemakers who are giving the peaceful masses of Muslims a bad name. We are also informed that the terrorists, who happened to be Muslims, are the disaffected and the young. And not to worry, since as the fire of youth turns to ashes of old age the rebellious will mellow, as they always have.

With heavy assurances like this, coming from so many know-it-all authoritative figures, we can sleep soundly without the aid of sleeping pills. After all, people reason that these pundits are “experts” whose job is to know and tell it like it is. Those who voice contrary views must be a bunch of racist, alarmist hate mongers. Who is right?

Wouldn’t be more prudent to let the facts settle the matter, rather than blindly accepting either position? Of course it would, except for one huge problem. In the face of threats, people tend to go to the mind’s medicine cabinet and take a few denial and rationalization pills, in the same way that it is the aspirin bottle they turn to when a headache strikes. Why not? We are the Easy Species. We love effortless, quick and simple solutions. And that’s not invariably bad. It has given us all kinds of labor and time saving devices.

Yet, the Islam problem is very real and deadly. Neither the pronouncements of the experts, nor the tranquilizing pills of the mind can make it go away. It is here and it shows every sign of imposing itself on us. Let us look at some of the facts.

* Not every Muslim wears an explosive vest ready to detonate in the midst of a crowd of innocent civilians, yet there are more volunteers for the mission than there are explosive vests. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, hasn’t even officially joined this form of jihad. Yet, by its own admission, it has over 10,000 volunteers trained ready to be deployed, and thousands more queuing to join in. This time around, the jihadists heading for Allah’s heaven might come fitted with nice little suitcases of dirty bombs instead of the bulky explosive vests. Recall that it took only 19 of these killers to launch the aerial mass murder of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, shattered our open trusting way of life, and cost us billions of dollars.

* The jihadists are not confined to a minority of disaffected Muslim youth. How young are Bin Laden, his deputy doctor of death Al Zawahiri, mullah Omar of the Taliban, Khamenei and Refsanjani of Iran, just to name a few? How disaffected are they? Muhammad Ata, leader of the 19 airborne thugs and the decapitator of Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl were somewhat younger, yet well-healed and Western educated.

* Just coin some terms such as the “Melting Pot,” or “Multiculturalism” and you have the problem solved? Roll out the red carpet for the immigrant Muslims, treat them as you would your own citizens, give them stipends, medical care, and free education and they will integrate seamlessly into the society? No such thing at all. The idea of Melting Pot may work with people who come from different lands to make the new country their home. The Islamists, on the other hand, come with the belief that they already own the place and want to make it part of the Ummeh. Some forty percent of second and third generation Muslim Britons reject British democracy, express their allegiance to Islam and want to live under Sharia. So much for the Melting Pot comfort pill.

* The new Islamist arrivals take advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode it from within. Muslims, by sheer numbers, will soon be in a position to vote out democracy in many countries. They are already doing that in bits and pieces. They are imposing many of their values, in a number of societies, even while they are in the minority. Politicians, hungry for votes and devoted to the practice of political correctness bend backward to accede to Islamists’ demands.

* As for Multiculturalism, it is even more of a delusion than the Melting Pot myth. It is a second generation Comfort Pill. Since the Melting Pot proved to be worse than a placebo, the politically correct gave us the new pill. A glance at Europe shows how Multiculturalism in fact has served as the incubator of Islamism in no time at all. Europe’s Multiculturalism is rapidly birthing a Uniculturalism, if the Islamists’ medieval way of life can be dignified as a culture.

* Respect for diversity, separation of religion and state, freedom of belief and expression, are pillars of democracy, yet anathema to Islam. In no Islamic land do you find an ecumenical organization. It is only in non-Islamic countries that the shameless duplicitous Muslim, be he an imam, a mullah, or a regular run-of-the- mill faithful of Allah, meekly participates in ecumenical feel-good gatherings.

* To Muslims, no other religion is deemed worthy of recognition, much less accommodation. There is not a single church or synagogue or a Buddhist temple in all of Saudi Arabia. They are barred. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s raft of genocidal pogroms includes the heinous practice of bulldozing even the cemeteries of its Baha’i religious minority. The Islamic tyranny of the mullahs imprisons Christian Iranians for celebrating Christmas. Egypt denies its own citizens identity cards for refusing to lie and fake their religious belief or disbelief. The ID cards are required for education, securing work, receiving medical care and just about every right of citizenship. Without it, a citizen is literally subjected to slow death.

* In Islam only Muslim men, and, to a lesser extent, Muslim women, are entitled to certain rights. All non-Muslims, including the so-called people of the book, namely Christians and Jews, are at best second-class subject, subjects who must pay the back-breaking Jezyyeh, poll tax, for their “sin” of not converting to Islam. So, as Islam makes its inroads in new lands, as its membership swells through explosive birth and conversion, secular democracies will be inevitably replaced by Islamism with its stone-age Sharia laws. The best offer that Islam will make is to spare the non-Muslim’s life if he puts on the heavy yoke of Jezyyeh for the rest of his living days.

* Not to worry about the horrific things that are happening on the other side of the world? If Muslims act heinously toward non-Muslims, it is just the way things are in those countries and it is hardly any of our business? This is the same attitude that set Islamization of Europe on a seemingly irreversible track. One European country after another is rapidly buckling under the weight of Islamism.

* Most importantly, not to worry about Islamization of our country? After all, Muslims are about 6-7 million minority in a population of nearly 300 million, you reason? That even a smaller number of these Muslims are hothead radicals, while the majority is just like everyone else? But small minorities can overwhelm the majority by use of coercion and deadly force. Islamists are notorious for their dedication to the use of force for achieving their aims. The Taliban were a very small minority in Afghanistan, the Islamists were a tiny faction in the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran. Both overwhelmed the masses and imposed their reign of terror. The terrorist Hamas is also a “minority” in number, yet it rules the Palestinian Territory. Hizbollah of Lebanon is a minority, yet it has taken the country to the verge of destruction.

* Islamists are Islam’s locomotive that takes the wrecking-ball Islamic train on its demolition course. Islam and democracy are incompatible. As democracies practice their magnificent accommodating belief, they knowingly or unknowingly lay the track for the advancing wrecking train of Islam. We, in the United States of America must resist Islamism while it is still gathering momentum, unless we wish to end up in the same fix as the Europeans.

* We, in the United States, further need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. By effective action, we even save those peaceful Muslims from their own affliction. I am not hatemongering. I would love to see all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse tolerant democratic society. It is a statement of fact about what Islam is. Islam is a highly communicable pandemic violent disease that demands urgent and serious containment.

Europe is already badly infected with Islamism. It is the coal-miners’ canary. It is telling us that the next stop is America. We must act and act now. We must not sacrifice our cherished way of life and the lives of our children at the altar of political correctness: the incubator of Islamofascism.

Amil Imani is an Iranian born, pro-democracy activist who resides in the United States of America. He is a poet, writer, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. Amil Imani's Home Page: www.amilimani.com



Islam Watch

The Religion of Peace

"They are enemies of Allah's religion. Allah orders us to kill." The Taliban take care of a bit of house-cleaning ahead of proposed peace talks by the West: in this case, lining up and brutally executing sixteen captured policemen in cold blood."

If we should respect the Quran because not doing so causes Muslims to get angry and kill, then here are the other things we should stop doing:

* Educating women.
* Selling alcohol.
* Pre-marital sex.
* Sharing a non-Muslim religious faith.
* Democracy.
* Disaster relief.
* Sporting events.
* Allowing women to dress as they please.
* Being gay.
* Being Hindu.
* Being Christian.
* Being Jewish.
* Being Buddhist.
* Being Sikh.
* Being Ahmadi.
* Being Sufi.
* Going to the wrong mosque...

So, you think the Ku Klux Klan and the Spanish Inquisition are bad? So do we, but...

Put the Numbers in Perspective:

1) More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

2) Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

3) More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

4) 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.

Is anybody say Religion of Peace?

In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.

The Religion of Peace

Palestinian Islamic Jihad

by Alden Oreck

Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami al-Filastini, better known as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), was formed in 1979 by Islamic fundamentalist Fathi Shaqaqi and other radical Palestinian students in Egypt who had split from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip whom they deemed too moderate. The 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran influenced the group's founder, Shaqaqi, who believed the liberation of Palestine would unite the Arab and Muslim world into a single great Islamic state. Today, PIJ is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through a jihad (holy war).

The Egyptian government expelled the PIJ to the Gaza Strip after learning of their close relations with radical Egyptian students who assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Still, PIJ members remained active in Egypt, attacking a tour bus in Egypt in February 1990 that killed 11 people, including nine Israelis. PIJ agents were arrested in Egypt in September 1991 while attempting to enter the country to conduct terrorism.

The PIJ began its terrorist campaign against Israel in the 1980s. In 1987, prior to the intifada, it carried out several terrorist attacks in the Gaza Strip. In August 1988, the faction`s leaders, Shaqaqi and `Abd al-`Aziz `Odah, were expelled to Lebanon, where Shaqaqi reorganized the faction, maintaining close contacts with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards unit stationed in Lebanon and with Hizballah. Although several other factions of Palestinian Islamic Jihad were formed in the 1980s, the main faction remains the group founded by Shaqaqi. After the 1993 Olso Peace Accords between Israeli and the Palestinians, Shaqaqi expanded the political connections of the organization to become a member of the new Syrian influenced Rejection Front.

PIJ and Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement), a separate Palestinian terrorist organization, were regarded as rivals in the Gaza Strip until after the foundation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994 when Hamas adopted the strategy suicide terrorist bombings. Since then, there has been some operational cooperation between the two organizations in carrying out attacks like the one in Beit-Lid, in February 1995, where two suicide bombers killed eight Israelis and wounded 50.

When PIJ leader Shaqaqi was killed in October 1995 in Malta, allegedly by Israeli agents, the PIJ position among Palestinian terrorist organizations dipped because his successor, Ramadan Abdallah Muhammad Shalah, who lived in the United States for several years, lacked Shaqaqi's charisma and intellectual and organizational skills. That did not stop PIJ's terror campaign, however, which included the March 1996 suicide bombing of the Dizengoff Center in downtown Tel Aviv, which killed 20 civilians and wounded more than 75, including two Americans.

The group is currently based in Damascus and its financial backing is believed to come from there and Iran. PIJ also has offices in Beirut, Tehran and Khartoum. It has some influence in the Gaza Strip, mainly in the Islamic University, but not in a way that can endanger the dominant position of Hamas as the leading Islamic Palestinian organization. Unlike Hamas, PIJ has no social or political role in the PA.

Aside from Israel, PIJ also considers the United States an enemy because of its support for Israel. The PIJ also opposes moderate Arab governments that it believes have been tainted by Western secularism and has carried out attacks in Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.

Since September 2000, PIJ has been responsible for scores of terrorist attacks, including 15 suicide and car bombings, which have claimed the lives of more than 25 Israelis and wounded almost 400. On December 22, 2001, despite a declaration by Hamas to halt suicide bombings inside Israel, in response to a crackdown on militants by Yassir Arafat, PIJ vowed to continue its terror campaign. PIJ's representative in Lebanon, Abu Imad Al Rifai, told Reuters, "Our position is to continue. We have no other choice. We are not willing to compromise."

Pictured above is the emblem of Islamic Jihad. In the center, on a background of the Dome of the Rock, the map of greater Palestine is represented flanked by assault rifles. Above it and between the rifles appears the inscription Allah huAkbar [“Allah is Great,” the famous Islamic battle cry and usually the last words of a suicide bomber]. It is an excellent example of the radical Islamic religious message promulgated by the organization, whose goals are the destruction of the State of Israel (which they refer to as “the full liberation of the Palestinian lands”) by means of an armed and uncompromising jihad (holy war) and the establishment of a religious Islamic Palestinian state in its place.



Jewish Virtual Library

The Road Ahead for Al-Qaeda

The Role of Aymaan Al Zawahiri

By Siddharth Ramana

The death of Osama Bin Laden at the hands of American Special Forces in May 2011 has left a major void in the leadership of Al-Qaeda Central, or the base group to which numerous splinter outfits have pledged their allegiance. Bin Laden’s death is significant as it comes as a time when the senior leadership of the organization has been severely dented through extraordinary intelligence efforts resulting in capturing and killing senior functionaries including Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, the chief architect of the Sept 11 attacks, and Mohammed Atef, the military head of Al-Qaeda.

Traditional watchers of Al-Qaeda have already asserted that as per hierarchical ascension Dr. Aymaan Al Zawahiri would have to handle the reins of a group which is a shadow of its former self, and having to deal with a cadre who would be disoriented and demoralized after the death of their charismatic leader.

The problems which Zawahiri will inherit are many; firstly, to elude the fate of his predecessor, second to avenge the death and capture of his colleagues, and thirdly, and equally importantly, shoring confidence among his cadre and sympathizers by successfully attacking mainland USA.

This piece analyses the growth of Dr. Zawahiri among jihadist ranks and tries to forecast the future direction of Al-Qaeda under his aegis. This essay concludes that Zawahiri’s present weakness among jihadists is an initial irritant to the wider plans of Zawahiri, which would include re-focusing efforts towards the Arab world’s unrest before returning to target the West.

Personal life

Zawahiri’s personal upbringing provides a cursory glance into the origins of his radical behaviour. Developing his growing years, we can map avenues which have played an important role in Zawahiri’s psyche and elucidate upon his behavioral patterns in the future.

Zawahiri was born on June 19, 1951, and he grew up in an upper-class neighborhood in Cairo, Egypt, the son of a prominent physician and grandson of renowned scholars. He boasted of an impressive lineage in the Arab world, with his grandfather, Rabi'a al-Zawahiri, being the grand imam of Cairo's al-Azhar university, a centre of Islamic learning in the Arab world, his father Rabi, a professor of pharmacology and his great maternal uncle the first Secretary of the Arab league. His maternal grandfather, Abdul-Wahab Azzam, was a professor of Oriental literature, president of Cairo University and Egyptian Ambassador to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

His interest in Islamist thought and ideology could have been influenced by his family’s background, his grandfather was known for his piety, and encouraged Zawahiri’s active interest in attending Islamic sermons. According to an uncle of Zawahiri, “He was known as a good Muslim, keen to pray at the mosque and to read and to think and to have his own positions”.

Zawahiri pursued his educational interests in medicine, graduating from Cairo University's medical school in 1974, obtaining a masters degree in surgery four years later. During his college days he was heavily influenced by leading Islamic scholars including Syed Qutb, whose ideological writings he incorporated into his own interpretations on Jihad and Sharia in Egypt.

This influence would prove to be the cornerstone of jihadist thought in the man.

Syed Qutb’s influence on Zawahiri

The influence of family in Zawahiri’s earliest tryst with Islamism is both documented and obvious in their professional and ideological leanings. Zawahiri’s uncle, Mahfouz Azzam, a lawyer, was associated with Syed Qutb, and regarded him as a teacher. The role of Qutb in shaping the early vestiges of Islamism in Zawahiri is important to understand since it offers a glimpse into the psychological thinking of Zawahiri, and indeed many other jihadists who have been influenced by the works of Qutb.

According to Lawrence Wright, the author of “The Looming Towers: The Road to 9/11”, Azzam signified the close relationship he held with Qutb, describing how “He (Qutb) taught me Arabic in 1936 and 1937. He came daily to our house. He held seminars and gave us books for discussion. The first book he asked me to write a report on was “What Did the World Lose with the Decline of the Muslims?”

Qutb’s radical thought led the opposition against the Egyptian government led by Gamel Nasser. What had riled Qutb was the assassination of Hasan al Banna, and Egypt’s perceived subservient behavior to the West. When a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, attempted to assassinate Nasser in 1954, the state machinery cracked down on the group, imprisoning and torturing Qutb.

Qutb’s influence on radical Islamist thought was presented in his seminal piece called Ma`alim Fil Tariq (Milestones/ Signposts), written while in prison. The book was published in 1964, and reflected Qutb’s distrust of Western influences in the Arab world.

His views on Jihad were exemplified by his interpretation of Takfir and Jahiliya. The Arab world according to him was divided into Islam and Jahiliyya. Jahiliya, in traditional Islamic discourse, refers to a period of ignorance that existed throughout the world before the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad. Qutb classified the entire world under Jahiliyya.

As Qutb saw it, “Europeans, under Christianity's influence, began to picture God on one side and science on the other - Religion over here, intellectual inquiry over there. On one side, the natural human yearning for God and for a divinely ordered life; on the other side, the natural human desire for knowledge of the physical universe - ”The church against science and the scientists against the church”. Everything that Islam knew to be one, the Christian Church divided into two. And, under these terrible pressures, the European mind finally split asunder. The break became total - Christianity, over here; atheism, over there. It was the fateful divorce between the sacred and the secular”. One of the reasons for Qutb’s growing critical view of the west was also based on his interpretations of how the Western culture had sidelined religion for scientific research. This was a sacrilegious division which resulted in decadency and primitive actions of the west.

According to him “The Muslim community has long ago vanished from existence”. “It is crushed under the weight of those false laws and customs which are not even remotely related to Islamic teachings.” “Humanity cannot be saved unless Muslims recapture the glory of their earliest and purest expression. We need to initiate the movement of Islamic revival in some Muslim country”. Qutb’s reinterpretation of the concept of jahiliya is a “subtle reworking of the traditional Islamic division of the world into two spheres, dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam), and dar al-harb (the abode of conflict, i.e., an imperfect, non-Islamic social order). While a Muslim might ignore conditions in the dar al-harb, it was his duty to combat the threat to Islam posed by the jahiliya”. By painting the whole world in a state of jahiliya, he threw open the floodgates for his followers to embark upon his notion of Jihad against secular, western and communist regimes. “The most subversive aspect of Milestones, from the point of view of secular, multicultural governments and peoples, is its insistence that personal belief in and worship of God is insufficient to avoid Jahiliya. You can be as devout as you like, but if you tolerate and obey jahili institutions, you are defying God”.

Images of an ill Qutb being dragged to prison, and his fiery sermons during court sessions served to galvanize a whole new generation of young Islamists, among them was Zawahiri, who started to idolize Qutb’s position against an anti-Islamic government. In an incident which reflects his following, Zawahiri in the mid-sixties had famously refuted an offer to ride with Hussein al-Shaffei, the Vice-President of Egypt and one of the judges in the 1954 roundup of Islamists. His rebuttal was punctuated with the argument that “We don't want to get this ride from a man who participated in the courts that killed Muslims”.

When Qutb was executed in 1966, it had a profound effect on Zawahiri who earnestly took up the cause of Jihad against the Egyptian government, and became a part of an Islamic underground movement working for a violent takeover the government. In 1967, the six day war with Israel occurred, which strengthened Zawahiri’s belief in Qutb as a prophetic intellectual.

Egypt’s rout in the war destroyed its standing as a major Arab military power, and demoralized Egyptian citizens into looking for a way to cope with the loss of Arab face. Qutb’s writings played a role for Zawahiri in assessing that the reasons for the defeat lay in the immoral ways of the present Egyptian regime. For Zawahiri, the idea was to reinvigorate the country. According to him “Our first task is to change society in deed, to alter the jahiliyah reality from top to bottom. We must get rid of this jahiliyah society; we must abandon its values and ideology”.

Zawahiri viewed events in a case-effect relationship with an Islamist spin to it. He argued that the far enemy (Israel) can only be defeated when the near enemy (The Egyptian republic) is defeated. To do this, a jihad must be declared on them. Thus according to Zawahiri, the road to Jerusalem lay through conquering Cairo.

Prison and international Jihad

In pushing for his goal of overthrowing the Egyptian government, he was facilitated inadvertently by Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat. Sadat sought an electoral alliance with the Islamists and released them en masse from prisons, in hopes to befriend them. What followed thereafter was a sociological coup by the Islamists in universities and trade unions, pushing forward an increasingly non-liberal and non-secular outlook, which provided more cadres to the underground Islamist movement. The subsequent defeat of Egypt in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, served to further rile up the Islamists into believing that the revolution should occur at the earliest, lest their society was further denigrated.

Zawahiri as a result of his imprisonment, state sponsored torture and collective humiliation at having lost to Israel, started following a more radical interpretation of Islam described as Salafist, which shunned any religious practices which were adopted after the death of Prophet Muhammad. During the 1970s-1980s, the two main operating jihadist groups in Egypt were Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) under the leadership of Zawahiri and al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya headed by the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman. Ideological differences between the two leaders had prevented the groups from merging, with Zawahiri focused on Egypt, & his rival advocating pan-Islamism.

According to Zawahiri’s memoirs, “My connection with Afghanistan began in the summer of 1980 by a twist of fate”. Zawahiri visited the country and Pakistan, on the invitation of a senior physician, and was deeply moved by stories of heroism by the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet invaders. On his return, he became a part of the plot to assassinate Anwar Sadat, who had the previous year signed a peace treaty with Israel. He was convicted for possession of arms, and sentenced to three years, escaping the more serious charge of conspiracy to murder.

In prison, Zawahiri with his charisma and fluent English, emerged as an international spokesman for the imprisoned Islamic activists. “We want to speak to the whole world,” he said in 1983. “We are Muslims who believe in our religion. ... We are here, the real Islamic front and the real Islamic opposition”.

Zawahiri succumbed to torture while in prison, and betrayed his accomplices including his friend and hero Al-Qamari. With information from Zawahiri, there was a massive security clampdown on the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and following his release in 1985, Zawahiri fled to Saudi Arabia and from there to Afghanistan, where during his visits to the region he met Osama Bin Laden.

Relationship with Bin Laden

According to some, the first meeting between the two was cordial but meek, but it bloomed under the tutelage of Palestinian mentor Abdullah Azzam. Some skeptics of the relationship call it an alliance of convenience, based on a symbiotic relationship which could have allowed either leader to carry a movement based on their thought process. Others have suggested that the relationship was strong from its initial years, including the possibility that the actual idea of Al-Qaeda was Zawahiri’s as early as 1988.

What made Bin Laden attractive to Zawahiri was his financial status as the heir to a multi-billion dollar construction company in Saudi Arabia, while Bin Laden was impressed by Zawahiri’s organizational skills and superior jihadist credentials. This allowed for an alliance wherein Bin Laden would be operating as the CEO of Al-Qaeda, while Zawahiri would be architect of the organizational build up of the group.

According to Wright, Lawrence, “Zawahiri is cunning and experienced; he knows how to run underground cells, from his clandestine experience in Egypt. But he's not Bin Laden -he's not charismatic, and he's not a natural leader. People don't want to give up their lives for Zawahiri in the same way they want to for bin Laden.”

While Bin Laden and Zawahiri parted ways at the end of the Afghan Jihad, they were soon reunited in Sudan, where both Bin Laden and Zawahiri had taken refuge from state prosecution from their respective countries[22]. Zawahiri’s theological expertise provided a base for Bin Laden to further hone his worldview, but in many ways there was a sense of dependency which came from Zawahiri’s leadership skills and organizational capability- Key elements when forming any revolutionary outfit.

Merger with Al-Qaeda

The merger of Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad faction with Al-Qaeda in 1996 is unique since it highlighted one of the earliest instances of Zawahiri compromising on his principled stand on how to conduct an Islamic revolution. Zawahiri was of the firm belief of prioritizing the downfall of the Western backed regime in Egypt, while Bin Laden, had his focus on Saudi Arabia. What the two groups eventually agreed upon was to prioritize their attacks on the United States. While a strong opposition to the United States was based on the ideological teachings of Qutb, what would have cemented vitriol hatred for the United States was the American role in pressuring European states in extraditing Islamic Jihad members from Europe.

According to Khalil Gebara, a Lebanese researcher, there were three reasons surrounding the Bin Laden-Zawahiri alliance. Firstly, the massive crackdown of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak led to a divided and disoriented self of the group. Zawahiri would have found it difficult to manage affairs being on the run from security forces, and being based outside Egypt. Compounding woes for him was international assistance extended by the United States, in pushing for a crackdown on his interests in Europe. This led to a trove of information leading to further arrests back home, which further weakened him.

Secondly, the move by Egyptian Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, to condemn violence and work within a political framework isolated Zawahiri’s ideological followers. His reaction was to lash out at peers, in a book titled “The Bitter Harvest” (1991), a powerful critique of the Muslim Brotherhood. This move forced him to look elsewhere for a refuge, and he turned towards Bin laden for assistance.

The third reason for Zawahiri to turn to Bin Laden was financial. As with every terrorist outfit, access to financial capital is not forthcoming, and having Bin Laden as a potential bankroller would have considerably eased matters for Zawahiri. According to Lawrence Wright, Zawahiri confided to a close associate that joining Bin Laden was the “Only solution to keeping the Jihad organization alive”.

But while Bin Laden provided financial succor to Zawahiri, the latter’s role in propping up the organizational structure of Al-Qaeda and providing it with significant cadres from Egypt needs to be acknowledged. Important Egyptian members of Al-Qaeda are/were Mustafa Ahmed Hamza, a chief adviser to bin Laden, Mohammed Islambouli, the brother of Sadat assassin Khaled Islambouli; and Rifie Ahmed Taha, another military leader of Gamaat al-Islamiyya. Additionally, Egyptian jihadists like the late Abu Hafs (Head of Security), Saiid Al-Masri (Finance), the captured Mohammad Omar Abdul Rahman (Operations and Training), and Midhat Mursi (Weapons and Research), were all handpicked Egyptian Islamic Jihad members.

The role of Egyptians in Al-Qaeda was documented by risk analysis company STRATFOR, which in an analysis dated 18 October 2001, mentioned “it is the Egyptians that bring a cohesive agenda and operational focus. Many are former military, intelligence and police officials, and their unique experience is clearly reflected in the organization’s far-flung networks and operational capabilities. More important, perhaps, is the influence that they have over Al-Qaeda’s agenda. Much like bin Laden himself, most of the Egyptians are dissidents. Their ultimate goal is not war with the United States or the West but the overthrow of their own governments”.

While the merger seemed to be mutually beneficial, many cadre of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad were averse to the idea of joining Bin Laden, whom they viewed as a publicity hungry leader. In an attempt to scuttle the relationship, Zawahiri as the leader of Islamic Jihad was ousted and replaced with Tharwat Shehata, who wanted to limit the relationship with bin Laden and concentrate the group's fight against Egypt, not America. However, as finances were running low and significant strides were made by security forces against the group, Zawahiri regained control of the faction.

Role in Al-Qaeda

For Bin Laden, Zawahiri was not only a personal doctor, and a friend, but an ideological mentor who filled the gap left behind from the death of Abdullah Azzam. Zawahiri’s strong outlook helped shape many facets of how Bin Laden was to mould his organization. This in turn leads to assessments that Zawahiri was the true force behind Al-Qaeda, and managed to successfully navigate this marriage of convenience. According to El-Zayat, Zawahiri “was able to reshape Bin Laden’s thinking and mentality and turn him from merely a supporter of the Afghan Jihad [against the Soviet Union] to a believer in and export[er] of the Jihad’s ideology”.

Zawahiri in his stint with Al-Qaeda has additionally donned the role of deputy leader, spokesman, military strategist, liaison manager and even financial scout. These roles, which run concurrently, display the utility and importance of Zawahiri in the smooth functioning of the outfit.

Zawahiri’s official designation in Al-Qaeda was being deputy leader to Bin Laden. His most notable role however, was to become the face of Al-Qaeda during the last few years when Bin Laden went into hiding. It can be speculated that this was to provide the religo-ideological justification which Al-Qaeda needed to counter increasing criticisms directed against the group.

Zawahiri understood the importance of the role of the media in promoting Al-Qaeda, and he was instrumental in incorporating media management into Al-Qaeda. One of the earliest influences on Zawahiri was the Iranian revolution of 1979, wherein cassette tapes were smuggled into Iran to foment a revolution. For Zawahiri, his role as spokesman for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad members during their incarceration in Egypt also furthered his interest in using media as a tool against the enemy. His role as spokesman in Al-Qaeda came to the fore with the 1998 terror attacks against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. At the time of the bombings, a reporter in Pakistan, Rahimullah Yusufzai, said he received a call from Zawahiri, who identified himself as a spokesman for Bin Laden and said, “I have nothing to do with the bombing of American embassies in Africa, but I urge the Muslims all over the world to continue their jihad against the Americans and Jews”. Media outreach was further developed with Al-Qaeda’s active use of technology including sophisticated computer graphics and dissemination of (propaganda or information) through the internet. Zawahiri was seen as the face of Al-Qaeda’s ideological tutorship, appearing in over 40 videotaped messages, and even replaced Bin Laden as the face of Al-Qaeda leadership in recent years. His last media appearance was in April 2011.

Zawahiri played a strong role in developing the military capability of Al-Qaeda, and was a proponent for Al-Qaeda to use weapons for mass destruction. In 1998, Zawahiri took time out from his travels to create some computer documents describing his biological and chemical program, which he code-named “Curdled Milk.”. Confiscated computer hard drives have indicated that Mohammad Atef in an email to Zawahiri wrote “a) The enemy started thinking about these weapons before WWI. Despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of them when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concerns that they can be produced simply with easily available materials …b) The destructive power of these weapons is no less than that of nuclear weapons. c) A germ attack is often detected days after it occurs, which raises the number of victims. d) Defense against such weapons is very difficult, particularly if large quantities are used. I would like to emphasize what we previously discussed—that looking for a specialist is the fastest, safest, and cheapest way [to embark on a biological- and chemical-weapons program]. Simultaneously, we should conduct a search on our own…”

Zawahiri’s may also have been Al-Qaeda’s liaison officer with other jihadist groups. He offered reasoned advice to other groups, and also worked with other groups towards securing financial benefits for Al-Qaeda. For example, Zawahiri’s role can be inferred in the correspondence he held with Tawid ul Jihad, turned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, head Abu Musab Zarqawi. In his letter dated 9 July 2005, he tried to moderate Zarqawi’s notorious anti-Shiite attacks arguing that “The majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of these questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, (may God honor him) (sic). My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue”. Another instance of Zawahiri playing intermediary is his reported contacts with Hezbollah leader Imed Mugniyeh, among others, to move fighters loyal to Bin Laden from Afghanistan to Iraq, through Iranian territory in 2006.

Zawahiri’s letter to Zarqawi also brings to fore his efforts to help facilitate additional funding for the group. In the letter he writes to his counterpart for a loan until the Al-Qaeda leadership was able to re-establish links with its financiers, which had been severed with the arrest of Al-Qaeda’s operational commander in Pakistan, Abu Farj al-Libi[36].

Zawahiri’s primary benefit to Al-Qaeda would have to be his resourcefulness in identifying cadre to help facilitate the groups operations. One such example was in the recruitment of Mustafa Abu Al Yazid, or Mustafa Ahmed Mohamed Osman Abu Al Yazid. Yazid was an Egyptian member of the Islamic Jihad, who had served in prison with Zawahiri. He was named by the 9/11 commission as the man responsible for funding the operation via accounts based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Relationship with Iran and Shiites

Are Zawahiri’s ideological diatribes against Iran are a ruse to avoid focus on what has been described as an ‘unnatural alliance’ in some quarters? Indications are that it is. It can be speculated that the anti-Shiite rhetoric of Zawahiri, is associated with attempts to rally support of extreme Salafist outfits, which would be averse to dealing with groups operating with Al-Qaeda. Alternatively, it may just be a change of heart from Zawahiri, who realizing his own group’s floundering capabilities needs to rely on state patronage which can only come from Iran. According to Samuel H. Brown VI and Norman T. Lihou, the relationship with Iran needs to be seen from the twin leadership perspectives of Osama Bin Laden being open to the idea of working with Iran, while Zawahiri is opposed to it.

Zawahiri’s relationship with Iran is evidentiary of his outlook towards the Shiite question. Iran being the most populous and powerful Shiite country, his outlook to the country and the Islamic sect is an important component of understanding his outlook towards West Asia. Belonging to the Salafist School of Islamic thought, in his writings, he has called for militant opposition not only to Christians and Jews, but also to Muslims who break with Salafist practice and are thus “infidels”. This would include Shiites who are viewed as heretics by the Salafist school of thought. Zawahiri on repeated occasions has spoken about the rationality in attacking Shiite centers, and it was elucidated upon in his letter to Zarqawi as well.

However, as the letter to Zarqawi observes a degree of political consideration does go into evolving a militaristic view against the Shiite community. This has led to circumstances wherein, despite pronounced differences, there has been cooperation between Shiite groups and Iran, with Al-Qaeda. For Zawahiri, the earliest form of cooperation was during his early day in working with the Iranian government in attempting to foster an Islamic revolution in Egypt. According to the testimony of EIJ operative Ali Mohammed, Zawahiri had received from Iran $2 million and training of members of al-Jihad in a coup attempt that never actually took place.

This cooperation highlights the complex relationship which Al-Qaeda’s holds with Hezbollah as well. Despite strong statements against Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda is known to have a degree of collaboration, including using Hezbollah units in Saudi Arabia to target expatriates. Cooperation however has not resolved the rifts between the two camps, which do come out in the open.

In April 2006, for example, an Al-Qaeda cell in Lebanon tried to assassinate Hassan Nasrallah, the spiritual head of Hezbollah. Furthermore, in an interview to the Washington Post in July 2006, Nasrallah condemned the September 11 attacks in New York and the Taliban regime which was harboring Bin Laden.

Interestingly, in a videotaped message delivered on 17 December 2007, Zawahiri alluded to previous collaboration saying “In the past, the emphasis had been on jointly fighting the Zionists-Crusader alliance against the Muslim ummah, but that Iran had surprised Al-Qaeda by collaborating with the U.S. in its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had even come to an agreement with the Americans before they entered Iraq, over the division of that country”.

In 2008, Zawahiri came out with a more pronounced criticism of Iran, including calling it a part of the “Iranian-Crusader alliance” against Islam. This pronounced opposition to Iran comes at a time, when Iran’s power has been growing in the region, concerning many Arab regimes, over its influence in significant states and its covert nuclear program. This reflects Zawahiri’s own fears of the Islamic ummah being usurped by the Shiite revolutionary thought. Such a move is seen as sacrilegious by Salafist groups.

Zawahiri’s criticism has not been limited to Iran itself, but has been extended to Hezbollah as well, accusing Hezbollah’s channel Al-Manar of promoting a lie that Israel, and not Al-Qaeda, was behind the 9/11 attacks. According to him “The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history”.

Opposition to Iranian backed groups has not been limited to Shiite groups such as Hezbollah alone, but clashes have also been reported with Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Hamas which subscribes to a Sunni-Salafist ideology has, since its electoral victory in 2005, been supported financially by Iran. Zawahiri has repeatedly criticized Hamas’s political approach with Israel and, while it is not clear if the central leadership provided any inputs to Al-Qaeda affiliates in the territories, the incidents of violent clashes between the two clearly indicate divisions between the two.

Ties between Iran and Al-Qaeda, however, continue to be surrounded in a large degree of uncertainty, especially since Iran, it is reported by American intelligence agencies, is closely working with Al-Qaeda officials in plotting attacks. The Wall Street Journal quotes US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell as saying, ‘The release or escape (by Iran) of bin Laden's son, Saad bin Laden, suggests possible collaboration between Iran and Al-Qaeda and the potential that Saad bin Laden is a go-between for the two’. Saad bin Laden, is alleged to have assisted in communicating between Zawahiri and the Iranian Qods Force after an Al-Qaeda attack on the US embassy in Sana’a in 2008. This was the same year when Zawahiri’s public strictures against Iran had come.

Even more curiously, Zawahiri, in a letter to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in November 2008, thanks Iran for “monetary and infrastructure assistance” to establish new bases in Yemen after al-Qaeda was forced to abandon much of its terrorist infrastructure in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

These continuing contradictions reflect Zawahiri’s standing to use relations with Iran as an unnatural alliance which shares a degree of common goals. The future partnership between the two groups would continue to be dependent on the financial and military resources which Iran can extend to Al-Qaeda, and this is the reason why Iran and Zawahiri would be looking for opportunities in the aftermath of Bin Laden’s death.

Is there a reality disconnect?

The Al-Qaeda leadership has, since October 2001, been under intense surveillance from intelligence agencies worldwide. A consequence of this has been Al-Qaeda’s inability to adequately follow news developments and analyze how it should respond. Zawahiri’s letter to Zarqawi reflects the difficulties when he speaks about “following your news, despite the difficulty and hardship”.

Monitoring political developments in the Arab world is a must for Zawahiri, for his sermons to the Arab world are determinate on a sound understanding of the political ground realities of the audience he is trying to reach out to. His efforts to foster a violent revolution in the Palestinian territories against Israel, for example, have met with mixed results, with both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority choosing to dismiss his rhetoric.

Al-Qaeda attempts to lend a face to every development in the Arab/Islamic world in an attempt to gain supporters among disgruntled cadre in affected regions. This has led to Al-Qaeda widening its target list and pushing forward a violent agenda which is bound to backfire. One only needs to have a look at the downfall of the Algerian Islamist movement in 1994-1995 as indication this. The Islamists failed to take over the government owing to alienation of people and increasing infighting. These signs of alienation were indicated when the Arab media gave short shrift to Zawahiri’s 17 June 2005 message which praised Al-Qaeda’s efforts in Iraq. Zawahiri’s message was met with scorn across the Arab world, with one editorial in the Jordanian paper, al-Arab al-Yawm describing Zawahiri as a “leech for the blood of Iraqis, as well as haughty, stupid and lacking any connection to reality, just like George Bush junior”.

Zawahiri’s declining appeal was also reported in a 2006 study done by West Point. In its study, it was reported that among Al-Qaeda’s ideologists, Zawahiri and Bin Laden come to be seen more as propagandists than strategic thinkers. In a further indication of a reality disconnect, the response to Zawahiri’s videotape on the ‘Jasmine revolution’ in Egypt is telling. In the video, Zawahiri claimed that the country's rule has long “deviated from Islam” and warned that democracy “can only be non-religious”, in an attempt to shift focus from the secular-liberal demands of the protestors.

His opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, the most organized and disciplined underground opposition was particularly stinging. In his message, he sarcastically said, “Today you are winning 80 seats and after five years you will win 100 seats. Hence, at whatever time your behavior improves, we will offer you more. Once you become secular and falsely affiliated with Islam…we will let you assume power provided that you forget about the rule of Sharia, welcome the Crusaders' bases in your countries, and acknowledge the existence of the Jews who are fully armed with nuclear weapons, which you are banned to possess”.

This message was refuted in a statement from Issam al-Aryan, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, who retorted, “The Muslim Brotherhood opposes a religious state that creates fear in the West, because Islam is against such a state. We support a secular state because Islam believes in freedom of religion and does not want anyone to impose his faith on someone else”.

The difficulties which Zawahiri faces are also ideological, and being the religious face of the organization, his credibility is even more at stake when counter-terrorism tactics include de-legitimization. For example, when former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and chief ideologue of al-Qaeda, Dr. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif criticized Al-Qaeda and Zawahiri in particular in his book 'Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the World', it created serious ripples among jihadist cadre. For example, in a discussion between Richard Barrett, Frank J. Cilluffo, Daniel W. Sutherland and Mona Yacoubian, it was mentioned that al-Sharif’s renunciation, was far more significant in undermining support for groups like Al-Qaeda than anything the United States or the United Kingdom can do or have done. Al-Sharif in his book provides a detailed rebuttal to the theological argument of Jihadism. For example, he concludes that the attacks on Sept. 11 were “treacherous acts” and that calling them a “Ghazwa”, is mocking the prophetic tradition of Muhammad.

Additionally, the book suggests “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that”. Adding, “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

In addition to theological arguments against Zawahiri, al-Sharif also engages in a smear campaign, arguing that Zawahiri was an agent for the Sudanese intelligence agencies, and had personally told him of receiving one hundred thousand dollars to create unrest in Egypt. He furthermore condemns Arab fighters in Afghanistan of not observing Sharia law, and being more concerned about matters of military dominance.

As the de-facto military and ideological head of Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri was the in-charge man, for the involvement of Arabs worldwide in Afghanistan. In an email sent in the early years of Al-Qaeda, to jihadists worldwide, he described the country as “the lions den of jihadists”. However, Arab fighters were quite condemning of conditions they experienced, and their differences with the Taliban nearly resulted in their expulsion.

According to Sajjan Gohel, Director for International Security, Asia-Pacific Foundation, “Afghan Taliban resented people like Ayman Zawahiri and his Egyptian brigade. Zawahiri was very overbearing in the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and it created problems in the relationship”.

Persistent rumors of Zawahiri being an Arab supremacist, who discriminates against South Asians and other ethnicities within Al-Qaeda, has cast aspersions on his ability to hold the organization together. In mid 2009, an internet post on the Hanein Forum cited the diminishing readership of Zawahiri's posts. It lamented that Zawahiri’s writings had a significantly diminished readership compared to previous years. Zawahiri, in an attempt to effuse praise of his outfit, also ended up stepping on the toes of affiliates such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which too resulted in differences between him and his cadre.

These differences can be attributed also to an inflated ego perception which Zawahiri holds of his position. On 7 December 2007, Zawahiri invited questions from individuals and media outlets to be submitted to Jihadi websites, for him to answer. The online session was to be an alternative to Al-Jazeera, which was denounced as a “station of infidels”. In the interview session which followed, Zawahiri selectively chose questions, and in his discourse promoted his new book ‘The Exoneration’ on fourteen occasions. While attempting to engage in operational secrecy, he avoided any questions which dealt with the future strategy of Al-Qaeda, but this was perceived to be an indicator of poor outlook. Combined with the constant references to his new book, the entire exercise came across as one of self aggrandizement, and failed to address the motives behind the interaction.

Rebuttal of criticism

Since al-Sharif’s book was released, Zawahiri has been at pains to defend his position. He has repeatedly attempted deflecting criticism of Al-Qaeda, against the then Mubarak regime in Egypt, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza. In March 2008, he published a 188-page Arabic book online titled ‘The Exoneration: A Treatise Exonerating the Community of the Pen and the Sword from the Debilitating Accusation of Fatigue and Weakness’.

To insulate himself from the criticisms, he takes a dig at the apparatus behind al-Sharif’s treatise, suggesting the obvious role of the Egyptian state in allowing for the release of such an acrimonious document. In a videotaped message which followed the release of al-Sharif’s work, he said “Do they now have fax machines in Egyptian jail cells?” Adding in similar sarcasm, “I wonder if they’re connected to the same line as the electric-shock machines”.

In his book Zawahiri acknowledges that he was forced to respond to al-Sharif, and share in public, “an exercise in mutual recriminations in full sight of the world against brothers”, with whom he otherwise exchanges sincere amity and friendship. He argues against al-Sharif, in favor of the killings of innocent people by saying, “Those who claim that killing innocent persons is absolutely forbidden are in a position of accusing the prophet, may God's peace and prayers be upon him, his companions, and the generation following them that they were killers of innocent persons, as they see it”.

He further argues “If a Muslim’s family is threatened by an oppressive regime or foreign power, why would he adopt nonviolence to protect them? “If a Muslim never attacks the enemy for fear of killing fellow believers or innocent people, how can he put pressure on a much more powerful enemy?” Whereas Al-Sharif maintains that fighting on in a hopeless situation, claiming innocent Muslim lives in greater proportion to those of the infidel, with no tangible benefit is unacceptable, till such time as a parity is reached, Zawahiri believes that it is especially in this situation, that Muslims have no choice but to fight on since anything else would imply an acceptance of apostasy and heresy.

Zawahiri argues vehemently that attacking targets in the United States and Israel provides for an increase of Muslim support for Al-Qaeda after the inevitable U.S. reprisals, and argues that the western ploy to use clerics to defame the group are bound to fail, owing to a significant number of supporters he cites in his treatise. Interestingly, as a measure of added support, he includes Taliban leaders including Jalaluddin Haqqani as a show of solidarity with the Taliban. The inclusion of Taliban leaders, and Taliban allied warlords, is an important facet because of their reportedly strained relationship with Al-Qaeda in recent years. According to a brief in Foreign Policy, this can be attributed to the close relationship between the Haqqani group, and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, which Al-Qaeda is opposed to.

Zawahiri’s close equations with Haqqani are also important since it helps in Al-Qaeda’s future operational capabilities, and safe sanctuary which the Haqqani network can offer.

Is Zawahiri’s time up?

The death of Bin Laden places a great load of expectations over Zawahiri. It can be speculated that the initial silence of Al-Qaeda forums on officially naming the successor to Bin Laden may be because of the initial confusion in circumstances surrounding his death, and opposition which Zawahiri has been facing from Jihadist circles. It has also been argued by a Saudi newspaper that Bin Laden may have been betrayed by his friend, in order to expedite the processes of Zawahiri leading Al-Qaeda and this could be a cause of silence among supporters. These reports have sought to expand the anti-Zawahiri ranks in Al-Qaeda. These elements are most likely to be found among the Yemeni-Saudi elements of Al-Qaeda, owing to their belief of superiority in race belonging to the Arab Peninsula.

These features reflect the underlying tensions, which the death of Bin Laden has resulted in, and initiate a review of how Zawahiri’s policies will take Al-Qaeda forward. Alternatively, it may be another ploy by intelligence agencies in capitalizing on Bin Laden’s death in widening the internal rifts in the organization.

For Zawahiri to lead the group, he would need to re-focus his efforts in countering the government agencies which have weakened Al-Qaeda within the safe sanctuaries. However, what is working against his operational capability is his thought process. Zawahiri believes in the theory of revolutionary vanguards. This theory posits that “a small, revolutionary elite uses violence to rouse the people to fight against the government”. However, the converse of this belief is that is that terrorism usually diminishes the support of both the government as well as the terrorist organization. This is because of the repressive reaction of the government, and the civilian casualties caused by terrorists. This has led to declining popularity of Al-Qaeda in important countries across the Islamic world, including Pakistan.

Zawahiri’s beliefs and resultant actions mark him out to be a self thinking leader who refuses to think beyond his own beliefs and chooses not to negotiate a possible solution.

This was particularly documented when he strongly condemned the transitional government formation in Egypt. Such an attitude is an intelligence boon for agencies seeking to further isolate and track down the Al-Qaeda leader.

An added aspect which would help security forces in tracking down Zawahiri would be the traditional hostilities which Zawahiri held with the Taliban. If the Taliban were to choose to continue negotiations in private, the beliefs of Zawahiri would be deemed incompatible, and despite Pashtun traditions, can find a way to disclose his whereabouts to security forces.

The road ahead

It is widely expected that Zawahiri will overcome the internal schisms which surround Bin Laden’s successor, and will herald his leadership with a refocusing of priority away from the United States, despite its arch rival status, and towards the transitional environs of West Asia. Zawahiri, having learnt the bitter lessons of having lost territorial sanctuary on three previous occasions (Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan), would most likely seek to re-establish an Islamic caliphate in the Arab world. This was suggested as much in the letter to Zarqawi, where he spoke of Iraq being only a foothold for establishing a greater Islamic caliphate to include Syria and Egypt.

Zawahiri’s statements in the aftermath of the Jasmine revolution in Egypt indicate that he is still very much interested in carving a role for himself in post-revolution developments. According to Mike Schuster, “Egypt has been central to al-Qaida’s narrative of repression and political change in the Arab world”, and this reflects Zawahiri’s need to re-focus efforts on his home country. To do so, Zawahiri would need to rely on his contacts within Egypt and a rapprochement with the Muslim Brotherhood. An additional challenge which faces him is the belief that the Jasmine revolutions have made the violent coup ideology of Al-Qaeda obsolete.

The most disturbing aspect for Zawahiri would be the irrelevance of his position if the Muslim Brotherhood were to take control of the state through electoral means. It would make Zawahiri’s claims of the need for a violent takeover moribund. On the other hand, Islamist groups can enforce their way into the legislative system in accordance with the existing legal systems. For example, we can look at the situation in Gaza in 2005, when Hamas won the elections, or the case of Lebanon wherein elections have resulted in Hezbollah being king maker in a coalition political setup.

Zawahiri’s faces an even more uphill task since even his former group the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, has done a volte-face on the use of violence, in light of the revolution. According to Abboud al-Zumar, a founding member of Islamic Jihad, who too was sentenced to prison for his role in Sadat’s assassination, “The revolution created a new mechanism: the mechanism of strong, peaceful protests” adding that “the coming period does not at all require armed struggle with the ruler”.

However, the seeds of militant unrest continue to reside in the region, with salafism deeply embedded in majority of the Arab and North African world. In the case of Egypt, this can be seen for example in the increasing attacks on Coptic Christians in the country. It is worthy of noting here that in the days preceding and post-revolution, Egypt has seen an increasing Salafist view from sections of society. It could be possible for Zawahiri to re-develop his roots to his home country by rallying these dissipated forces together. Tying this aspect to an electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood, it can be expected that Al-Qaeda styled Salafist groups will come out in open conflict with the elected leadership of Egypt. This open conflict and view to a violent coup is the only way for Zawahiri to take this view forward.

To develop these links however, Zawahiri needs to build his credentials once more among a new generation of jihadists. To do so, he would need to align himself with Islamic leaders in the region who have gained ideological following and are seen to be more pragmatic. In this light, the successes of Imam Anwar al-Awlaki need to be viewed with greater scrutiny. Awlaki’s response to the Jasmine revolutions, was seen as both calm and composed which contrasts with Zawahiri’s need to lend an Al-Qaeda face to every happening in the Muslim world. This self-confidence may be important in gaining renewed following in the Arab world.

Conclusion

Zawahiri’s main interest will be in upgrading the franchisee status of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to a full-fledged organizational role without endangering his own constituency. This is because, in recent years, AQAP has been much more successful in staging attacks against American interests than Al-Qaeda central has been. It has resulted in Awlaki being declared, by some accounts, as enemy number one for the United States over Zawahiri. A crucial vote of support to Zawahiri was extended by Rashad Mohammad Ismail, a top commander of (AQAP), when he described Zawahiri as the “best candidate and right person” to lead Al-Qaeda. Yemen’s importance to Al-Qaeda has been well documented and even Zawahiri has on repeated occasion’s identified Yemen as one of “our most important fronts” in the global war on terrorism.

In addition to developing credibility among jihadists, Zawahiri’s role would also be dependent on his skills in managing to secure financial resources. Analysts suggest that the group is presently in dire financial condition as well and terrorist recruits were charged for their training. These indications firmly place Zawahiri in a far weaker position than his predecessor and would require his collaboration with wealthier jihadist outfits or adopting the more inexpensive plans of AQAP.

With Zawahiri’s present shaky control over Al-Qaeda, it would be prudent for him to act through the shadows in the interim period till he gains complete allegiance. This could be the reason behind naming Saif Al-Adel as the new interim leader of Al-Qaeda. While Adel and Zawahiri are known to have had differences, it can be argued that these differences will be glossed over in the overall scheme of Al-Qaeda’s operations. For example, Adel is known to have opposed the 9/11 attacks against the United States, an operation which Bin Laden held in high regard, but yet was considered a close associate of the slain terror leader.

The future for Al-Qaeda under Zawahiri therefore indicate a short term return to the West Asian political dynamics, which would be prudent on the electoral success of the Muslim Brotherhood, and any overtures made towards it. Zawahiri’s need to keep an international cadre based support will come in his way during this period, and therefore will continue to plot attacks against the West for larger credibility.



The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism