David Cameron, Libya and Disaster


David Cameron, Libya and Disaster

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The UK Foreign Affairs Committee was a long time coming with this judgment, but when it came, it provided a firm reminder about how far the 2011 intervention against the Gaddafi regime was not merely flawed but calamitous in its consequences. There had been no coherent strategy on the part of the Cameron government; the campaign had not been “informed by accurate intelligence.”

For members of the committee, it was clear that the then UK prime minister, David Cameron, had to carry a rather large can on the issue. “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The consequential nature of this bloody and ultimately catastrophic blunder of international relations triggered continental instability, with a foul global aftertaste. The collapse of Libya into territories battled over with sectarian fury and the death of Muammar Gaddafi unsettled the ground in Mali. It also propelled violence through North African and the Middle East.

It is hard to rank the levels of severity in what went wrong in the aftermath of the Libyan collapse. Could a finger be pointed at the militia hothouse that was created within the state? (Tripoli alone currently hosts somewhere up to 150.) What of the external outrage stemming from it?

Near the top must be the conflict in northern Mali, precipitated by members of the Tuareg ethnic group who had long supplied Gaddafi with soldiers. Armed to the teeth, the MNLA, with the assistance of such Islamist groups as Ansar Dine, commenced a separatist action that in turn encouraged interventions by al-Qaeda sponsored Islamist groups.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb eventually became one of the big and most menacing players, busying itself with operations beyond Mali, including Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco.

Meshed between these skirmishing groups were a French-led intervention in 2013 that petered out, followed by a continuing peace keeping operation which has long since ditched the word “peace” in its equation.

Not even the presence of 12,000 UN soldiers under the mission known as MINUSMA has done much to prevent the fraying of that land, despite the June 2015 peace deal. Since 2013, the mission has taken over a hundred casualties, a deal of it occasioned by the ubiquitous landmine and roadside bomb.

While Mali burned with fury, other African states felt the aftershocks, notably through a huge, easily accessible arms market that was not brought under control after Gaddafi’s fall. Marty Reardon, Senior Vice President of The Soufran Group, a US-based security consultancy, surprised no one in telling The Independent that Libya’s implosion led to the arming of “well-armed and militant groups” in Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.[1]

In this belligerent free for all, jihadi groups jostle and scratch for gains, creating a further pool of radicalised fighters who will, in time, find nowhere else to go. The Libyan collapse, in other words, has created a certain type of roving tourist jihadi, notching up points with each campaign.

Crispin Blunt, who chaired the committee, scoldingly suggested that the 2011 intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the country.” This kindergarten world view did not stop there.

Having made a right royal mess, it was incumbent on France and the UK to right the ship, with a “responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction.” This responsibility was also a muddled one, with British and French institution builders profoundly ignorant about local matters. Having pushed Humpty Dumpty over, they showed scant knowledge on how to put him back together.

The sense of culpability for Cameron is further compounded by the nonsense the intervention made of such international humanitarian doctrines as the responsibility to protect. There was always a sense that the French-UK led mission was struggling for a plausible alibi, but recourse to the nonsensical notion of civilian protection reared its head.

That door was opened by the hoovering effect of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised “all necessary means” to protect that most wonderful contrivance, irrespective of what those in the host state thought.[2] Find the civilians and save the day.

While it remains the most insidious of contrivances at international law, that responsibility to protect could be said to have been discharged rapidly – after the initial round of strikes. In the words of the MPs, “If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in March 2011 in less than 24 hours.”

This was not to be. Instead, the intervention ballooned into a monstrous matter of regime change, with no attempt made to “pause military action” when Benghazi was being secured. “This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change by military means.” Docks in international criminal courts should be warmed by such adventurous men.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-report-britain-uk-gaddafi-civil-war-david-cameron-responsible-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-mali-a7309821.html

[2] http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Welsh%20Civilian%20Protection%20in%20Libya.pdf

The original source of this article is Global Research

Advertisements

Investigative Project on Terrorism “THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”


Investigative Project on Terrorism
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Introduction:

The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun)¹ was founded as an Islamic revivalist
movement in the Egyptian town of Isma’iliyaa in March 1928 by school teacher Hassan
al-Banna (1906-1949)²

The Brotherhood’s goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law
derived from the Quran and the Sunnah)³ Early in its history, the Brotherhood focused
on education and charity. It soon became heavily involved in politics and remains a major
player on the Egyptian political scene, despite the fact that it is an illegal organization.

The movement has grown exponentially, from only 800 members in 1936, to over 2
million in 1948, to its current position as a pervasive international Sunni Islamist
movement, with covert and overt branches in over 70 countries.

“I did not want to enter into competition with the other orders,” al-Banna once said. “And
I did not want it to be confined to one group of Muslims or one aspect of Islamic reform;
rather I sought that it be a general message based on learning, education, and jihad.4
According to al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to
impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.5 That helps
explain the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto: “Allah ghayatuna Al-rasul za’imuna. Al-Qur-
‘an dusturuna. Al-jihad sabiluna. Al-mawt fi sabil Allah asma amanina. Allah akbar,
Allah akbar.” (“God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader,
struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes.
God is great. God is great.”)6 *****(that has nothing to do with the Quran but his twisted psychopathic way of thinking)

The Brotherhood has reached global status, wielding power and influence in almost every
state with a Muslim population. Additionally, the Brotherhood maintains political parties
in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia,
Algeria, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood attempted to overthrow the Syrian government in the 1980s, but the
revolt was crushed. Aside from the Muslim Brotherhood in Israel proper, the terrorist
organization Hamas was founded as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In fact, Article II of the Hamas charter states:

1. They are also known as the Muslim Brothers, The Brothers (al-Ikhwan), or the Society of Muslim
Brothers (Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun).
2. Born in Mahmoudiyya, Egypt, Hassan al-Banna was the son of the prominent Imam Sheikh Ahmad al-
Banna. He studied at Al-Ahzar University and joined a Sufi order there. He then moved to Cairo as a
school teacher in 1932 establishing the Muslim Brotherhood branch there. Al-Banna was assassinated by
the Egyptian government on February 12th, 1949 as part of an Egyptian government crackdown on the
Brotherhood.
3. Sharia’h is the body of Islamic religious law. It is primarily based on the Quran and the Sunnah.
4. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in, Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of Muslim Brothers (New York City:
Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 207.
5. Fereydoun Hoveryda, The Broken Crescent, (Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers, 2002), p. 56.
6. Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of Muslim Brothers (New York City: Oxford University Press, 1969), p.
193-4.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in
Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which
constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by
its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all
Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics,
education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art,
information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.7

Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has openly sought to reassert Islam through
the establishment of Sunni Islamic governments that will rule according to the strict and
specific tenets of Shari’ah. To the Brotherhood, this is the correct primary endeavor of
human civilization, with the ultimate goal being the unification of these regimes under
the banner of the Caliphate – or universal Islamic state.

According to al-Banna, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under
the control of Muslims. He stated:
We want the Islamic flag to be hoisted once again on high, fluttering in the wind,
in all those lands that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam for a certain
period of time and where the muzzein’s call sounded in the takbirs and the tahlis.
Then fate decreed that the light of Islam be extinguished in these lands that
returned to unbelief. Thus Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, the Italian coast, as well
as the islands of the Mediterranean, are all of them Muslim Mediterranean
colonies and they must return to the Islamic fold. The Mediterranean Sea and the
Red Sea must once again become Muslim seas, as they once were.8 ****(doesn’t this remind you of the Zionists who want Palestine back?)
Once that is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe,
erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam. This concept was elucidated by the
Brotherhood luminary, Sayyid Qutb, who wrote in his seminal work, Milestones (1964),
that Muslims are not merely obliged to wage jihad in defense of Islamic lands, but must
wage offensive jihad in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law
and governance.9 ****(Sayyid Qutb was even more insane than his predecessor, this is not what the Quran teaches)

Organizational Structure:

The Muslim Brotherhood used activism, mass communication, and sophisticated
governance to build a large support base within the lower class and professional elements
of Egyptian society. By using existing support networks built around mosques, welfare
associations, and neighborhood groups, the Brotherhood was able to educate and
indoctrinate people in an Islamic setting. The organization is headed by a Supreme Guide
or Secretary General and is assisted by a General Executive Bureau (Maktab al-Irshad),
and a constituent assembly known as the Shura Council. There have been six Secretaries
7. “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, August
18, 1988, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm (Accessed June 9, 2008).
8. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in: Caroline Fourest, Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan
(Encounter Books, 2008), p. 19.
9. Sayyid Qutb, Milestones.

General of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,10 which is widely seen as the leading
branch of the worldwide organization.

Ideology:

The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its
authority over the entire world, dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The
Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare – both violent and
political.
The Muslim Brotherhood has provided the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni
Islamic terrorist groups. When discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security
Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush – told a Senate committee in 2003 that “The
common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood – all of these organizations are
descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”11

The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri
and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim
Brotherhood ideology.12  ****(We know for a fact that none of the above where involved in the 9/11destruction but they were the easy target).

In fact, al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man, but he broke with them when his terrorist career began. He later wrote a book called The Bitter Harvest in which he condemned the Brotherhood for neglecting jihad in favor of participating in elections.13
The Brotherhood’s ideology was formulated by its two main luminaries: its founder,
Hassan al-Banna – who was assassinated by agents of the Egyptian government in 1949 –
and Sayyid Qutb, hanged in 1966.

Al-Banna once described the Brotherhood as, “a Salafiyya message, a Sunni way, a Sufi
truth, a political organization, an athletic group, a cultural-educational union, an
economic company, and a social idea.”14 While studying in Cairo, al-Banna had become
immersed in the writings of Rashid Rida (1865-1935), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905)
and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), who formed the backbone of the Salafiyya
Movement.15 Al-Banna agreed with their ideas that Islam provided the solution to the
afflictions plaguing Muslim society. Specifically, in accordance with Salafism, he called
for a return to what he perceived to be true Islam.
10. The six Secretaries General of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are: Hassan al-Banna (1928-1949),
Hassan Ismai’l al-Hudaybi (1951-1973), Omar al-Telmesany (1976-1986), Muhammed Hamid Abu al-Nasr
(1986-1996), Mustafa Mashour (1996-2002), Ma’amun al-Hodeiby (2002-2004), and current leader
Mohammed Mahdi Akef.
11. Statement of Richard A. Clarke before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, October 22, 2003.
12. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, “The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to
al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?” Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
November 1, 2007. *****(This is not MODERATE ISLAM)
13. Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday: New York, 2007), p. 116.
14. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in, Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 14.
15. The term Salafiyyah comes from the phrase as-salaf as-saliheen or “pious predecessors” of early the
Muslim community, referring primarily to Muhammad’s companions (sahaba).

Salafism is an austere form of Islam within the Sunni sect that attempts to return to what
its adherents believe to be unadulterated Islam as practiced by Muhammad and his
companions. In order to achieve this, Salafists strip out what they see as bida, or
innovations, from the practice of Islam as it has developed over the centuries. According
to Salafists, only pure Islam can solve the political, economic, social, domestic, and
external issues of the Muslim nation (ummah). As such, Muslim societies should be
governed according to Shari’ah.
While al-Banna drew almost exclusively on early Islamic doctrine in his works, it is also
important to understand the strong anti-colonialism sentiments driving his ideology. Al-
Banna was writing and working at a time when European powers had colonized the
Middle East.
Jihad, death, and martyrdom have been lauded throughout the history of the Brotherhood,
not only as a means to achieve the above goals, but as an end unto itself. In his seminal
work, The Society of Muslim Brothers, Robert P. Mitchell the late University of Michigan
Professor of Near Eastern History, quotes and paraphrases al-Banna:
The certainty that jihad had this physical connotation is evidenced by the
relationship always implied between it and the possibility, even the necessity, of
death and martyrdom. Death, as an important end of jihad, was extolled by
Banna in a phrase which came to be a famous part of his legacy: “the art of death”
(fann al-mawt). “Death is art” (al-mawt-fann). The Qur’an has commanded
people to love death more than life. Unless “the philosophy of the Qur’an on
death” replaces “the love of life” which has consumed Muslims, then they will
reach naught. Victory can only come with the mastery of “the art of death.” In
another place, Banna reminds his followers of a Prophetic observation: “He who
dies and has not fought [ghaza; literally: raided] and was not resolved to fight, has
died a jahiliyya [ignorance of divine guidance] death.” The movement cannot
succeed, Banna insists, without this dedicated and unqualified kind of jihad.16
Jihad is a central tenet in the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In a booklet entitled,
“Jihad” and in other works, al-Banna clearly defines jihad as violent warfare against non-
Muslims to establish Islam as dominant across the entire world. He wrote:
Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor
evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of
the martyrs and fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted
similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their
performance of jihad can join them in this reward.17  ****(WHAT he writes is absolute BS Allah forbids this kind of warfare and especially when people are unarmed, or if the believe in another religion has to be respected… Banna took this passage out of context as he always wanted to join the CRUSADERS, he was insane and the Westerners helped him along with this insanity)
To support his assertions about jihad, al-Banna quotes extensively from the Quran, the
Hadith, and great Islamic scholars. These quotes either define jihad as fighting and/or
16. Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 207.
17. Hassan al-Banna, “Jihad,” http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/ (Accessed June 9,
2008).
emphasize the obligatory nature of jihad. On the specific subject of “fighting with People
of the Book [Jews and Christians],”18 al-Banna quotes Quran 9:29 – the infamous sword
verse:
Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in his Last Day, nor forbid that
which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who
acknowledge not the Religion of Truth (i.e. Islam), from among the People of the
Book, until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.
Al-Banna quotes a Hanafi scholar:
Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the
Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that
are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating
them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing
their idols.19 *****(exactly what the CRUSADERS DID IN THE HOLY LAND against the Muslim population is it a coincidence that Banna recites the same… I was told by my father who is a scholar on Islamic religion that at the time of the Prophet when he was fighting against the nomads who were against the religion as they believed in totems the Turks approached him and told him we will become Muslims if you allow us to fight beside you and become like the Crusaders, The Prophet refused and told them that Islam and the preaching of the Quran forbids such a thing other religions will have to pay poll tax and cannot force people to change their belief in their God as long as they believe in one God whether its Christian or Jewish they must believe in one God.)
Al-Banna continues:
Islam allows jihad and permits war until the following Qur’anic verse is fulfilled:
“We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves,
until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur’an) is the truth” (Surat
al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53)20
In conclusion, al-Banna writes:
My brothers! The ummah [Islamic community] that knows how to die a noble and
honourable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the
next. Degradation and dishonour are the results of the love of this world and the
fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death.21
To ensure that the Shari’ah would be the “the basis controlling the affairs of state and
society,”22 al-Banna laid out a seven-step hierarchy of goals to be implemented by the
Brotherhood for the Islamization of society. The first step is to educate and “form” the
Muslim person. From there the Muslim person would spread Islam and help “form” a
Muslim family. Muslim families would group together to form a Muslim society that
18. Al-Banna, “Jihad.”
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. “The Principles of the Muslim Brotherhood” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood Website
(Cached),
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2_Lj7AHyW7oJ

would establish a Muslim government. The government would then transform the state
into an Islamic one governed by Shari’ah, as voted by the Muslim society. This Islamic
state would then work to free “occupied” Muslim lands and unify them together under
one banner, from which Islam could be spread all over the world.
As Mitchell explains, quoting original Brotherhood sources, these goals would be carried
out in three stages. Starting with “the first stage through which all movements must pass,
the stage of ‘propaganda, communication, and information.’”23 In this stage, the
Brotherhood would recruit and indoctrinate core activists. The next stage consists of
“formation, selection, and preparation.”24 In this stage, the Brothers would endear
themselves to the population by creating charities, clinics, schools, and other services.
More importantly, they would prepare for the third and final stage: the stage of
“execution.25 Of this stage, al-Banna stated:
At the time that there will be ready, Oh ye Muslim Brothers, three hundred
battalions, each one equipped spiritually with faith and belief, intellectually with
science and learning, and physically with training and athletics, at that time you
can demand of me to plunge with you through the turbulent oceans and to rend
the skies with you and to conquer with you every obstinate tyrant. God willing, I
will do it.26
Qutb and Jahiliyya
In addition to al-Banna’s founding philosophy, the works of Sayyid Qutb (1909-1966)
also had a major impact on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Beyond that,
Qutb’s books sent shockwaves throughout the entire Islamic world. His most influential
works were Fi zilal al-Qur’an (“In the Shade of the Quran”)27 and Ma’alim fi al-Tariq
(“Milestones”). Milestones has come to be Qutb’s most popular work and has influenced
Islamic extremists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri,28 Dr. Abdullah Azzam, 29 and Osama bin
Laden.30
23. Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 13.
24. Risalat Al-Mu’tamar al-khamis (Message of the Fifth Congress), quoted in Mitchell, Society of Muslim
Brothers, p. 14.
25. Ibid, 15.
26. Ibid.
27. This work, written while Qutb was languishing in an Egyptian jail cell (1954-1964), is a 30 volume
commentary (tafsir) on the Quran. A highly popular work, Qutb in his commentary advocates for shari’ah
to be implemented in all Muslim societies. It also contains significant amounts of vitriol directed primarily
at Jews.
28. Zawahiri, also a member of the Brotherhood since the age of fourteen (1965) became familiar with
Qutb’s writings while he was in Saudi Arabia. There he came under the tutelage of Sayyid’s brother
Muhammad Qutb, who fled Egypt in 1972 and began teaching his brother’s philosophy while a professor at King Abdel-Aziz University in Jeddah and the Umm al-Qura University in Mecca. Osama Bin Laden also
reportedly attended Muhammad Qutb’s lectures there too.
17. Jim Landers, “Muslim Extremists Justify Violence on Way to Restoring Divine Law,” Dallas Morning
News, November 3, 2001.
30. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States

Written while Qutb was in prison in Egypt,31 Milestones’ central thesis was that the
world had degraded into a state of ignorance (as existed before the Prophethood of
Mohammad) or jahiliyya.32 He proposed that the overthrow of apostate rulers and the
establishment of Islamic societies worldwide though offensive jihad is the only way to
solve this state of affairs. In addition to Hassan al-Banna’s ideas, Qutb was heavily
influenced by the writings of Indian Islamist Sayyid Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi (1903-
1979)33 and the medieval scholar Taqi ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328).
However, Qutb expanded on their ideas of jahiliyyah and jihad.
As the 9/11 Commission Report found, Qutb came to the U.S. to study in the late 1940s:
Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He
dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western
society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its
existence.” Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed
that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition
he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the
revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can
choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people,
including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to
his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam.

Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All
Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any
Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of
destruction.34
While both Maududi and Ibn Taymiyyah used jahiliyya to describe some contemporaries,
Qutb described the whole of the Muslim community to be in jahiliyya, as “the Muslim
community has long ago vanished from existence.35 Since Arab secular leaders did not
follow the Shari’ah, they were considered to be in apostasy for violating God’s
sovereignty (al-hakimiyya) on earth. In fact, “any place where the Shari’ah is not
31. Qutb spent ten years in prison from 1954 to 1964 after being arrested for being a member of the
Brotherhood (he joined in 1953) when Nasser outlawed the organization in 1954. Milestones was published when Qutb emerged from prison in 1965, even though Qutb was arrested and jailed again for preaching for an Islamic state in Egypt. He was executed on August 29th, 1966 with excerpts from Milestones used against him during his trial. After his execution he became a “Martyr” (Shaheed) to his followers.
32. Jahiliyyah can be loosely translated as a state of “ignorance of divine guidance” referring to the
conditions in pre-Islamic Arabian society before the revelations of the Quran by Allah and the Prophet
Muhammad.
33. Also written as Maududi, Maudoodi, or Mawdudi. He founded the Pakistani Islamic group Jamaat-e-
Islami in 1941 with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in South Asia. He headed the party until 1973
and was well known for his writings on Islam.
34. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final
Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (New York: Norton,
2004), p. 51.
35. Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. (Syria: Damascus, Dar al-Ilm), 9.
enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the Abode of War (Dar-ul-Harb).”36
Jahiliyyah now included all states, whether ruled by Muslims or not.
To achieve his vision, Qutb advocated for the creation of a vanguard (tali’a), whose
members would model themselves after the Prophet Muhammad’s companions. This
vanguard would then fight jahiliyya and its influences through
methods of preaching (daw’a) and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs; and
it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities
of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs
but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords
instead of the Almighty Lord.37
According to his vision, the vanguard would not “compromise with the practices of jahili
society, nor can we be loyal to it,” Qutb wrote. “Jahili society, because of its jahili
characteristics (described as evil and corrupt), is not worthy to be compromised with.38
Qutb’s jihad against Dar al-Harb (Abode of War),39 was not only to protect the Dar al-
Islam (Abode of Islam) but also to enhance it and spread it “throughout the earth to the
whole of mankind.”40 Adherence to Shari’ah would free mankind from the jahiliyyah
influences. This war would not be temporary, “but an eternal state, as truth and falsehood
cannot co-exist on this earth.”41

The Brotherhood Today:

While many Muslim Brotherhood branches around the world claim to have embraced
democracy, the philosophies developed by Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb still carry
great influence within the organization. The Brotherhood continues to be driven by al-
Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate the world. The
Brotherhood’s declared principles remain steadfast even today. According to their
website, the Brotherhood seeks, “the introduction of the Islamic Shari’ah as the basis
controlling the affairs of state and society” and “unification among the Islamic countries
and states…liberating them from foreign imperialism.”42 This includes “spreading
Islamic concepts that reject submission to humiliation, and incite to fighting it” while
36. Ibid., 124.
37. Ibid., 55.
38. Ibid., 21.
39 The Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) traditionally is considered to be countries and places where Islam is
not predominant or areas not ruled by Muslims.
40. Milestones, 72.
41. Ibid., 66.
42 .“The Principles of the Muslim Brotherhood” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood Website
(Cached),
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2_Lj7AHyW7oJ:
(Accessed June 10, 2008).

“reviving the will of liberation and independence in the people, and sowing the spirit of
resistance.”43
Some have contended that there is a “moderate” wing to the Muslim Brotherhood that
can and should serve as a bridge between the Islamic world and the West, 44 but this claim
has been much disputed in academia and the media. Proponents of this theory claim that
beginning with Hassan al-Hudaybi – al-Banna’s immediate successor as Supreme Guide
– the Brotherhood took a moderate turn.
Detractors 45 note the proponents’ lack of background in the subject matter. They also cite
the Brotherhood’s persistent support of violence, under the rubric of resistance against
occupation, and the greater popularity of decidedly immoderate figures like Sayyid Qutb
over al-Hudaybi in the modern Brotherhood (Qutb’s books can be found in a variety of
languages all around the world. The same cannot be said for al-Hudaybi’s). One scholar
has questioned whether al-Hudaybi even penned the moderate volume, Preachers, Not
Judges, that has been credited to him, raising the possibility that the Egyptian intelligence
service played a role in its production.46
In the fall of 2007, the Brotherhood issued its first official platform in decades. The
platform explains, in plain terms, the agenda of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic
world. It calls for: “Spreading and deepening the true concepts of Islam as a complete
methodology that regulates all aspects of life.” Here are some other notable excerpts
from the platform:
– “The intentions of the Islamic Shari’ah which aim for the realization of the
important aspects and needs and good achievements in the realm of religion
and spirit and the self and property and intellect and wealth represent the
ruling policy in the defining of the priorities of the goals and strategic
policies.”
– “Islam has developed an exemplary model for a state.”
– “The Islamic methodology aims to reform the state of limited capabilities to
make it into a strong Islamic state…”
Whatever moderating stance the platform takes, in August 2004, the Brotherhood issued
a public appeal of support for those fighting coalition forces in Iraq,47 and the following
43. “Reading into The Muslim Brotherhood’s Documents,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood
Website, June 13, 2007, http://www.ikhwanweb.org/Article.asp?ID=818&LevelID=2&SectionID=116
(Accessed May 29, 2008).
44. Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” Foreign Affairs, March-
April 2007.
45. Douglas Farah, Youssef Ibrahim, Patrick Poole, and others.
46. Barbara Zollner, “Prison Talk: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Internal Struggle During Gamal Abdel
Nasser’s Persecution, 1954-1971” (International Journal of Muddle East Studies, 39, 2007), pp. 411–433.
47 .“The Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Support of Fighting Americans Forces in Iraq,” MEMRI Special

Dispatch Series, September 3, 2004.

month, spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa deeming it a religious duty for
Muslims to fight America in Iraq.48
The Brotherhood also plays an active role today in promoting terrorism against American
interests. The Brotherhood actively supports Hamas to “face the U.S. and Zionist
strategy” in the Occupied Territories and supports their “legitimate resistance.”49
A November 2007 interview with Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef
shows the group remains committed to violence against those it views as occupiers.
Akef, the Supreme Guide, pledged 10,000 fighters for Palestine but said it was up to a
government to arm and train them. In the same interview, Akef denied the existence of Al
Qaeda:
“All these things are American Zionist tricks,” Akef said. “The Shi’ites
attack one another, the Sunnis attack one another, and the Shi’ites attack
the Sunnis. But the Muslim Brotherhood has a principle, which I declared
from day one: The Shi’ites and Sunnis are brothers.”
[…]
“I’d like to go back to the issue of Al-Qaeda. There is no such thing as Al-
Qaeda. This is an American invention, so that they will have something to
fight for…”
Interviewer: “What about Osama bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and the Islamic
State of Iraq?”
Akef: “When one man, or two or three, fight this tyrannical global
superpower – is it worth anything?”50
Interviewer: “Thousands have carried out attacks in the Iraq in the name of
Al-Qaeda…”
Akef: “That is a lie. Who says so?”
Interviewer: “They do.”
That argument fits with a theory offered by Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi,
senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. He argues that Al Qaeda and the Brotherhood share the same final goal – the
establishment of a global Caliphate – but the Brotherhood fears “that an Al-Qaeda attack
48. “Cleric Says It’s Right to Fight U.S. Civilians in Iraq,” Reuters, September 2, 2004.
49. ”Reading into The Muslim Brotherhood’s Documents,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood
Website, June 13, 2007, http://www.ikhwanweb.org/Article.asp?ID=818&LevelID=2&SectionID=116
(Accessed May 29, 2008).
50. Special Dispatch – Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, MEMRI TV Project, December 18, 2007.

against the West at this time might hamper the Islamic movement’s buildup and focus the
West on the threat implicit in Muslim communities.”51
Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood and spiritual guide al-Qaradawi condemned al Qaeda’s
actions in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
However, in an interview on May 23, 2008 with the online Arabic news service Elaph,52
Akef seemed to change his approach. He was asked: “Regarding resistance and jihad, do
you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?” In response, Akef
said, “In all certainty, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the
occupation, close to Allah on high.”53 He was then asked about his previous denial about
the existence of al Qaeda, and said, “The name is an American invention, but al Qaeda as
a concept and organization comes from tyranny and corruption.”
The interviewer followed with this question: “So, do you support the activities of al
Qaeda, and to what extent?” Akef said, “Yes, I support its activities against the occupiers,
and not against the people.”
Two days later, in another interview the Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat,
Akef tried to clarify some of his comments about al Qaeda after receiving criticism from
religious and political leaders about his remarks in the May 23 interview. He said:
We (the Brotherhood) have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden… we
are against violence except when fighting the occupier…When he [bin Laden]
fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, and when he attacks civilians, then this is
rejected. The word al Qaeda is an American illusion…Bin Laden has a thought
…his thought is based on violence, and we do not approve of violence under any
circumstances except one and that is fighting an occupier. We have nothing to do
with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden…we condemn any thought that leads to
violence. When bin Laden fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, when he
attacks the innocent and citizens then this is rejected.54
In June 2008, Mohammad Habib, the first deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood,
sat down with an interviewer from Al Ahrar, an Egyptian daily. In the long interview,
Habib spoke to the international Muslim Brotherhood:
Al-Ahrar: But what about the view that the Muslim Brotherhood will perish in
the coming twenty years?
51. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, “The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to
al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?” Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
November 1, 2007.
52. Interview with Mohammad Akef, Elaph, May 23, 2008,
http://65.17.227.80/ElaphWeb/AkhbarKhasa/2008/5/332823.htm (Accessed May 28, 2008).
53. Ibid.
54. Abd-al-Sattar Ibrahim, “Akif tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat: The Brotherhood is Against Al-Qa’idah
Organization Targeting Civilians; Bin Ladin’s Thought is Based on Violence” Al-Sharq al-Awsat, May 25,
2008, FROM: BBC Monitoring International Reports.

Dr. Habib: On the contrary, I see that the future is ours, and we will reach our
aspirations. The group is gaining every day more territories and a depth in the
consciousness of the Egyptian people. Add to this, the group is not confined to
Egypt, it has offshoots in various countries all over the world, it continuously
grows, achieves more successes at all levels.
Al-Ahrar: What about the international Muslim Brotherhood?
Dr. Habib: There are entities that exist in many countries all over the world.
These entities have the same ideology, principle and objectives but they work in
different circumstances and different contexts. So, it is reasonable to have
decentralization in action so that every entity works according to its
circumstances and according to the problems it is facing and in their framework.
This actually achieves two objectives: First: It adds flexibility to movement.
Second: It focuses on action. Every entity in its own country can issue its own
decision because it is more aware of the problems, circumstances and context in
which they are working. However, there is some centralization in some issues.
These entities can have dialogue when there is a common cause that faces Arabs
or Muslims over their central issues like the Palestinian cause. At that time, all of
them must cooperate for it. I want to confirm that while some see that Palestine
caused rifts among the Arabs, we see that this cause is the one for which all Arabs
unite.55

The Brotherhood in the West

In the United States, the Brotherhood has had an active presence since the 1960s. They
have been represented by various organizations such as the Muslim Students’ Association
(MSA) founded in 1963, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) 1971, the Islamic
Society of North America (ISNA) 1981, the International Institute of Islamic Thought
(IIIT) 1981, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) 1981, the United Association for
Studies and Research (UASR) 1989, the American Muslim Council (AMC) 1990, the
Muslim American Society (MAS) 1992, the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA),
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 1994, and others. In fact, nearly all
prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are rooted in the Muslim
Brotherhood.
An internal Brotherhood memorandum, released during the terror-support trial of the
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in July 2007 shows that
the Brotherhood’s jihad can take more subtle and long range approaches. Dated to May
22, 1991, the memo states:
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad
in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
55 “Interview with MB Deputy Chairman in Al Ahrar Daily,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim
Brotherhood Website, June 16, 2008,
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=17267&LevelID=1&SectionID=0 (Accessed June 17, 2008).

‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so
that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other
religions.56
That theme was picked up four years later by a Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim
Brotherhood spiritual leader attending a conference in Toledo, Ohio. Al-Qaradawi has
been offered the post of General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood twice, but has turned
it down in favor of building and managing several Islamist organizations in the West and
the Middle East associated with the Brotherhood.57 At the Ohio conference hosted by the
Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), he said, “Our brothers in Hamas, in Palestine,
the Islamic resistance, the Islamic Jihad, after all the rest have given up and despaired, the
movement of the Jihad brings us back to our faith.”58
He later added:
What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. The second part of the omen. “The city
of Hiraq [once emperor of Constantinople] will be conquered first,” so what
remains is to conquer Rome. This means that Islam will come back to Europe for
the third time, after it was expelled from it twice… Conquest through Da’wa
[proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will
conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.

But the balance of power will change, and this is what is told in the Hadith of Ibn-
Omar and the Hadith of Abu-Hurairah: “You shall continue to fight the Jews and
they will fight you, until the Muslims will kill them. And the Jew will hide behind
the stone and the tree, and the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh servant of Allah,
Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!’ The resurrection will
not come before this happens.” This is a text from the good omens in which we
believe.59
Prominent Brotherhood organizations in Europe include the Forum of European Muslim
Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European
Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and
the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).
56. U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, 04-CR-240 Government exhibit 3-85.
57. Mona El-Ghobashy, “The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers,” International Journal of
Middle East Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2005) p. 385.
58. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, MAYA Conference, 1995, Toledo, Ohio.
59. Ibid.

Libyan Daash consists of three thousand fighters from 31 countries


Libyan Daash consists of three thousand fighters from 31 countries

تقارير: داعش الليبي يتكون من ثلاثة آلاف مقاتل من 31 دولة

(Reuters) – A report by the Algerian daily sunrise Wednesday, that Daash in Libya, based on the current success, to adopt the Iraqi scenario in its smallest details, taking advantage of the retreat of the state, in an attempt to repeat the experience in Libya and its environs after Iraq and Syria.

The newspaper said, citing identical reports, that the organization in Libya includes about three thousand gunmen descended from 31 different countries.

Occupies Tunisians and Egyptians in the ranks of the forefront of the multinational organization about equally thousand fighters, in front of Sudan and Morocco with 300 each, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, with 200 by 100 and between 80 and 100 French gunmen.

According to newspaper reports monitored the presence of Arab and Gulf nationalities, Jordan and Yemen and Africa from Niger and Mali as well as  from Italy, Greece, Germany European nationalities, and Asia through the Chinese presence.

The newspaper said the organization, based in the city of Derna major stronghold in the east is, under the authority orders of a former Iraqi officer, was sent by al-Baghdadi to Libya to organize the military side****(Reuters is wrong its a Yemeni and not Iraqi… just to show you that you can not trust Reuters)

Eshrouk Algerian a Libyan expert quoted, as saying that the rapid expansion of the organization in Libya, mainly due to exhaustion suffered by militias dawn of Libya on the one hand, and the fatigue that gripped the legitimate Libyan army after years of wars and fighting since the fall of the state, and in the light of the ban on the weaponization, rather than because of enrollment Libyan military leaders earlier Daash.

So my question to UN, F.UK.US. and EU how did they miss them???? Or they didn’t???? I think it’s the second they did not miss them actually they INSTALLED them and they are still giving them a free passage… as they want to DISMANTLE the whole of Africa, starting from the richest country Libya and moving along to all neighboring countries. Already there are rumors about an unrest in Algeria which is next to be brought down as the French will not forgive them for taking their own country back…. When will you civilians in the West wake up???? Are you so comfortable and so involved in your own little world that you do not care what’s going on with your neighbor????? Have you lost every inch of HUMANITY? 

Private sponsors of international terrorism


Private sponsors of international terrorism

The Arab press is abuzz over a list of the major private donors to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. It was reportedly gleaned from an internal U.S. Department of State document.

1. Awad Ibrahim Bin Hamad, former university professor and businessman/Saudi Arabia
2. Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Abdul Rahman Ibrahim, head of the charity society Balouikilih/Saudi Arabia
3. Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Mohammad Al-Jarallah, university professor and businessman/Saudi Arabia
4. Dr. Ibrahim Bin Nasser Nasser, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
5. Dr. Ibrahim, director of studies at the university of Dakar/Senegal
6. Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, president of the Association of islamic studies/Gaza-Palestine
7. Dr. Ahmed Raissouni, head of the unification and reform movement/Morocco
8. Sheikh Ahmed, islamist preacher/Mauritania
9. Dr. Ahmed bin Rashid bin Saeed, professor/Saudi Arabia
10. Dr. Ahmed Hussein Daddash, islamic preacher/Iraq
11. Mr. Ahmed Rateb, director of publishing house/Lebanon
12. Sheikh Adam, Noah, Adam, islamic preacher/Ghana
13. Sheikh Ejaz Afzal Khan, emir of the islamic community in Kashmir/Pakistan
14. Sheikh Amin khudair al-Janabi, islamic preacher/Iraq
15. Dr. Djillali Bozoinh, university professor/Algeria
16. Dr. Habib Adami, professor/Algeria
17. Sheikh Sadeq Abdallah Abdel Majid, islamic preacher/Sudan
18. Sheik Qazi Hussain Ahmed, emir of Jamaat-e-Islami/Pakistan
19. Prof. Boudjemaa Ayad, businessman/Algeria
20. Mr. Tawfiq, businessman/Lebanon
21. Dr. Jassem bin Mohammed bin Muslim Al-Yassin/Kuwait
22. Dr. Gamal Sultan, editor-in-Chief of Al-Manar news/Egypt
23. Mr. Jameel Mohammed Ali, businessman/Saudi Arabia
24. Dr. Harith Al-Dhari, islamic preacher, Solomon/Iraq
25. Sheikh Hafiz Abdul Rahman Makki, islamic preacher/Pakistan
26. Shaykh Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, emir of Jama’at-ud-Da’wah/Pakistan
27. Mr. Nader, Secretary General of the Salafi movement/Kuwait
28. Sheikh Hamed Al-Ali, university professor/Kuwait
29. Sheik Hijazi Al Wadia, islamic activist/Palestine
30. Sheikh Hassan Moussa, head of the Swedish Council of imams/Sweden
31. Mr. Hussein Rawashdeh, writer and journalist/Jordan
32. Dr. Hussein Bin Mohammad Machhour Al-Hazmi, university professor/Saudi Arabia
33. Sheikh Hussein Omar Mahfouz bin Shuaib, editor-in-Chief of Forum/Yemen
34. Sheikh Hussein Mousa Hussein, islamic preacher/Eritrea
35. Sheikh Hamdi Arslan, teacher at Fatih Mosque/Turkey
36. Sheikh Hamoud bin Abdul Aziz Al-tuwaijri, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
37. Dr. Khalid Bin Ibrahim Al-Daweesh, professor/Saudi Arabia
38. Sheikh Khader Habib, islamic preacher, Palestine
39. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Mohammad, islamic preacher/Qatar
40. Mr. Abdel Wahab, member of Derbal Renaissance movement/Algeria
41. Mr. Rabah, businessman/Algeria
42. Mr. Rashid Misfer Al Zahrani, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
43. Sheikh Rashid Haj, emir JI/Sri Lanka
44. Shaykh Reda Ahmed Hamdy, islamic preacher/Thailand
45. Sheik Ramadan Mohammed Nur, islamic preacher/Eritrea
46. Sheikh Zakaria Cisse, preacher and lecturer/Senegal
47. Mr. Zaki Saleh Al Nahdi, islamic preacher/Indonesia
48. Sheikh Sajid Ali, leader of the Islamic movement/Pakistan
49. Dr. Salem Al-Sagaf jiffri, head of the Indonesian Commission for the defence of the Afghan people – Director of the Advisory Board of Sharia/Indonesia
50. Sheikh Salim Abdel Rahim al-Barhian, islamic preacher/Kenya
51. Dr. Sami Rashid al-Janabi, islamic preacher/Iraq
52. Dr. Saud bin Hassan Mukhtar, university professor/Saudi Arabia
53. Mr. Saeed Morsi/Algeria
54. Dr. Saeed, president of the College of Imam Shafi’i/Comoros
55. Dr. bin Abdul Rahman Al-Hawali, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
56. Shaikh Salman Bin Fahd, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
57. Dr. Sulaiman bin Saleh Al-Rashudi, businessman/Saudi Arabia
58. Mr. Sulaiman bin Abdullah Al-Issa, businessman/Saudi Arabia
59. Sheikh Aurally, leader of Jui (Special)/Pakistan
60. Mr. Boutros-Ghali, islamic preacher/Senegal
61. Shaykh Shah Ahmed Noorani, leader of the Jamiat Ulema Pakistan, Senator/Pakistan
62. Mr. Shaher bin Abdul Raof Batterjee, businessman/Saudi Arabia
63. Sheikh Sharif Hussein, imam and preacher of the mosque of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab/Australia
64. Sheikh Imran bin Abdul Rahman Manai, islamic preacher/Bahrain
65. Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Limo, chairman of the Coordinating Council of Muslim organizations/Nigeria
66. Prof. Sheikh, islamic activist, PMP/Senegal
67. Sheikh Saleh bin Othman Al-Ghamdi, businessman/Saudi Arabia
68. Mr. Saleh Ali Saleh, islamic preacher/Eritrea
69. Dr. Tarek Saleh Jamal, professor/Saudi Arabia
70. Dr. Tarek Abdel Halim, director of Dar Al-Arqam/Canada
71. Dr. Taher Ahmed Loulou, islamic preacher, Palestine
72. Sheikh Taher Mahmoud Guelleh, director of radio Koran/Somalia
73. Sheikh Adel Al-Sheikh, islamic preacher/Bahrain
74. Dr. Adel Junaidi, islamic preacher, Hebron, Palestine
75. Dr. Ayesh Al-Kubaisi, islamic preacher/Iraq
76. Sheikh Abd El bare Zamzami, islamic preacher/Morocco
77. Sheikh Abdel Hay Amor, islamic preacher/Morocco
78. Mr. Azzedine, businessmen/Algeria
79. Dr. Ali, professor/Yemen
80. Sheikh, Chairman of the Council of Ulama Indonesia/Indonesia
81. Mr. Solomon Abu Mustafa, islamic preacher, Palestine
82. Dr. Awad al-Qarni, former university professor and attorney/Saudi Arabia
83. Shaikh Salahuddin Akendili, islamic preacher/Nigeria
84. Mr. Issa, islamic preacher/Senegal
85. Dr. Ghulam Azam, emir of Jamaat-e-Islami/Bangladesh
86. Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Dani, president of the islamic organization/Nepal
87. Sheikh Fatih, islamic preacher/pinyin
88. Dr. Fatima Barash, professor/Algeria
89. Dr. Fatma Al-Kunaifis, professor/Saudi Arabia
90. Mr. Fayez Saleh Jamal, writer and businessman/Saudi Arabia
91. Sheikh Freih bin Ali bin Turki, islamic activist and editor, attorney/Saudi Arabia
92. Sheikh Farid Al-Habib, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
93. Shaykh Fazlur Rahman, leader of the Jamiat Ulema Islam/Pakistan
94. Sheikh Fahad Ahmed Mubarak Al-Thani, islamic preacher/Qatar
95. Mr. Muhammad Muslim/Indonesia
96. Dr. Mohamed Habib Altgkani, university professor/Morocco
97. Mr. Mohammad Rasheed Al Rasheed, businessman/Saudi Arabia
98. Sheikh Mohammed, professor/Morocco
99. Judge Mohamed Sadiq Maglis, university professor and judge/Yemen
100. Sheikh Mohammed Al-Awadi, islamic preacher/Kuwait
101. Dr. Mohammad bin Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah/Indonesia
102. Sheikh Mohammed, president of the Association for islamic unity/Indonesia
103. Dr. Mohammed Sajid Mir Abdul Gayoom Mir, leader of Assembly of Ahl al-hadeeth/Pakistan
104. Sheikh Mohammed Saeed Abdullah, islamic preacher, Pavel/Saudi Arabia
105. Mohammad Suleiman, thinker, writer/United Kingdom
106. Sheikh Mohammed Abdou Ibrahim Ali, Al-Azhar scholars/Egypt
107. Dr. Mohammed Ayash Al-Kubaisi, islamic preacher/Iraq
108. Mr. Mohammad Kazem Al-Sawalha, president of the Muslim Association/United Kingdom
109. Dr. Mohammed Kurd, president of the League of Europe/Netherlands
110. Mr. Mohammed Mbeki Alejandro/Senegal
111. Sheikh Mohammed, islamist writer/Morocco
112. Sheikh Mahmud Idris, islamic preacher/Eritrea
113. Sheikh Murad Yasha, islamic preacher/Turkey
114. Dr. Musa bin Mohammed Al-Qarni, university professor and attorney/Saudi Arabia
115. Dr. Nasser Al-sane, islamist preacher/Kuwait
116. Dr. Nasser Bin Suleiman, islamic preacher/Saudi Arabia
117. Shaykh Nizamuddin/Pakistan
118. Sheikh Noor bin Yildiz, islamic preacher/Turkey
119. Dr. Hashem Ali al-Ahdal, university professor/Saudi Arabia

Islamic State is the Cancer of Modern Capitalism


Islamic State is the Cancer of Modern Capitalism

By Nafeez Ahmed
Islamic State is the Cancer of Modern Capitalism

The brutal ‘Islamic State’ is a symptom of a deepening crisis of civilisation premised on fossil fuel addiction, which is undermining Western hegemony and unravelling state power across the Muslim world

Debate about the origins of the Islamic State (IS) has largely oscillated between two extreme perspectives. One blames the West. IS is nothing more than a predictable reaction to the occupation of Iraq, yet another result of Western foreign policy blowback. The other attributes IS’s emergence purely to the historic or cultural barbarism of the Muslim world, whose backward medieval beliefs and values are a natural incubator for such violent extremism.

The biggest elephant in the room as this banal debate drones on is material infrastructure. Anyone can have bad, horrific, disgusting ideas. But they can only be fantasies unless we find a way to manifest them materially in the world around us.

So to understand how the ideology that animates IS has managed to garner the material resources to conquer an area bigger than the United Kingdom, we need to inspect its material context more closely.

Follow the money

The foundations for al-Qaeda’s ideology were born in the 1970s. Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden‘s Palestinian mentor, formulated a new theory justifying continuous, low-intensity war by dispersed mujahideen cells for a pan-Islamist state. Azzam’s violent Islamist doctrines were popularised in the context of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

As is well-known, the Afghan mujahideen networks were trained and financed under the supervision of the CIA, MI6 and the Pentagon. The Gulf states provided huge sums of money, while Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) liaised on the ground with the militant networks being coordinated by Azzam, bin Laden, and others.

The Reagan administration, for instance, provided $2 billion to the Afghan mujahideen, which was matched by another $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.

In Afghanistan, USAID invested millions of dollars to supply schoolchildren with “textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings”, according to the Washington Post. Theology justifying violent jihad was interspersed with “drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines”. The textbooks even extolled the heavenly rewards if children were to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”.

The conventional wisdom is that this disastrous configuration of Western-Muslim world collaboration in financing Islamist extremists ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I said in Congressional testimony a year after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, the conventional wisdom is false.

Protection racket

A classified US intelligence report revealed by journalist Gerald Posner confirmed that the US was fully aware of a secret deal struck in April 1991 between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden, then under house arrest. Under the deal, bin Laden could leave the kingdom with his funding and supporters, and continue to receive financial support from the Saudi royal family, on one condition: that he refrain from targeting and destabilising the Saudi kingdom itself.

Far from being a distant observer of this covert agreement, the US and Britain were active participants.

Saudi Arabia’s massive oil supply underpins the health and growth of the global economy. We could not afford it to be destabilised. It was pro quid pro: to protect the kingdom, allow it to fund bin Laden outside the kingdom.

As British historian Mark Curtis documents meticulously in his sensational book, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, the US and UK government continued to covertly support al-Qaeda-affiliated networks in Central Asia and the Balkans after the Cold War, for much the same reasons as before – countering Russian, and now Chinese, influence to extend US hegemony over the global capitalist economy. Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil hub, remained the conduit for this short-sighted Anglo-American strategy.

Bosnia

A year after the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing, Curtis reports, Osama bin Laden opened an office in Wembley, London, under the name of the Advice and Reformation Committee, from which he coordinated worldwide extremist activity.

Around the same time, the Pentagon was airlifting thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen from Central Asia into Bosnia, in violation of the UN’s arms embargo, according to Dutch intelligence files. They were accompanied by US special forces. The “Blind Sheikh”, convicted of the WTC bombing, had been deeply involved in recruiting and dispatching al-Qaeda fighters into Bosnia.

Afghanistan

From around 1994, all the way until 9/11, US military intelligence along with Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supplied arms and funds to the al-Qaeda-harbouring Taliban.

In 1997, Amnesty International complained about “close political links” between the incumbent Taliban militia, who had recently conquered Kabul, and the US. The human rights group referred to credible “accounts of the madrasas (religious schools) which the Taleban attended in Pakistan,” indicating that “these links may have been established at the very inception of the Taleban movement.”

One such account, reported Amnesty, came from the late Benazir Bhutto – then Pakistan’s Prime Minister – who “affirmed that the madrasas had been set up by Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during the Jihad, the Islamic resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan”. Under US tutelage, Saudi Arabia was still funding those madrasas.

US government-drafted textbooks designed to indoctrinate Afghan children into violent jihad during the Cold War, now approved by the Taliban, became part of the Afghan school system’s core curriculum, and were used extensively in militant madrasas in Pakistan being funded by Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI with US support.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations were hoping to use the Taliban to establish a proxy client regime in the country similar to its Saudi benefactor. The vain hope, clearly ill-conceived, was that a Taliban government would provide the stability necessary to install a Trans-Afghan pipeline (TAPI) supplying Central Asian gas to South Asia, while side-lining Russia, China and Iran.

Those hopes were dashed three months before 9/11 when the Taliban rejected US proposals. The TAPI project was subsequently stalled due to the Taliban’s intransigent control of Kandahar and Quetta, but has been shepherded along by the Obama administration and is now being finalised.

Kosovo

NATO continued to sponsor al-Qaeda-affiliated networks in Kosovo by the late 1990s, reports Mark Curtis, when US and British special forces supplied arms and training to Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) rebels who included mujahideen recruits. Among them was a rebel cell headed by Muhammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman, who now leads al-Qaeda.

In the same period, Osama and Ayman coordinated the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania from bin Laden’s office in London.

There was some good news, though: NATO’s interventions in the Balkans, accompanied by the disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia, paved the way to integrate the region into Western Europe, privatise local markets, and establish new regimes supportive of the Trans-Balkan pipeline to transport oil and gas from Central Asia to the West.

The Middle East redirection

Even after 9/11 and 7/7, US and British addiction to cheap fossil fuels to sustain global capitalist expansion led us to deepen our alliance with extremists.

Around the middle of the last decade, Anglo-American military intelligence began supervising Gulf state financing, once again led by Saudi Arabia, to Islamist extremist networks across the Middle East and Central Asia, to counter Iranian Shiite influence in the region. Beneficiaries of this enterprise included al-Qaeda-affiliated militant and extremist groups from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon – a veritable arc of Islamist terror.

Once again, Islamist militants would be unwittingly fostered as an agent of US hegemony in the face of rising geopolitical rivals.

As Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker in 2007, this “redirection” of policy was about weakening not just Iran, but also Syria – where US and Saudi largess went to support the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, among other opposition groups. Both Iran and Syria, of course, were closely aligned with Russia and China.

Libya

In 2011, NATO’s military intervention to topple the Gaddafi regime followed hot on the heels of extensive support to Libyan mercenaries who were, in fact, members of al-Qaeda’s official branch in Libya. France had been reportedly offered 35 percent control of Libya’s oil in exchange for French support to insurgents.

After the intervention, European, British and American oil giants were “perfectly poised to take advantage” of “commercial opportunities”, according to Professor David Anderson of Oxford University. Lucrative deals with NATO members could “release Western Europe from the stranglehold of high-pricing Russia producers who currently dominate their gas supply”.

Secret intelligence reports showed that NATO-backed rebels had strong ties to al-Qaeda. The CIA also used Libya’s Islamists militants to funnel heavy weapons to rebels in Syria.

A Canadian intelligence report from 2009 described the rebel stronghold of eastern Libya as an “epicentre of Islamist extremism”, from which “extremist cells” operated in the region – the same region, according to David Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen, that was being “defended by a Canadian-led NATO coalition”. Pugliese reported that the intelligence report confirmed “several Islamist insurgent groups” were based in eastern Libya, many of whom were also “urging followers to fight in Iraq”. Canadian pilots even joked privately that they were part of al-Qaeda’s air force, “since their bombing runs helped to pave the way for rebels aligned with the terrorist group”.

According to Pugliese, Canadian intelligence specialists sent a prescient briefing report dated 15 March 2011 to NATO senior officers just days before the intervention began. “There is the increasing possibility that the situation in Libya will transform into a long-term tribal/civil war,” they wrote. “This is particularly probable if opposition forces receive military assistance from foreign militaries.”

As we know, the intervention went ahead regardless.

Syria

For nearly the last half-decade at least, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan and Turkey have all provided extensive financial and military support primarily to al-Qaeda-linked Islamist militant networks that spawned today’s “Islamic State”. This support has been provided in the context of an accelerating anti-Assad strategy led by the United States.

Competition to dominate potential regional pipeline routes involving Syria, as well as untapped fossil fuel resources in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean – at the expense of Russia and China – have played a central role in motivating this strategy.

Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas revealed that in 2009, British Foreign Office officials told him that UK forces were already active in Syria attempting to foment rebellion.

The ongoing operation has been closely supervised under an on-going covert programme coordinated jointly by American, British, French and Israeli military intelligence. Evidence in the public record confirms that US support alone to anti-Assad fighters totalled about $2 billion as of the end of 2014.

While the conventional wisdom insists that this support to Islamist extremists was mistaken, the facts speak for themselves. Classified CIA assessments showed that US intelligence knew how US-led support to anti-Assad rebels through its Middle East allies consistently ended up in the hands of the most virulent extremists. But it continued.

Pentagon officials were also aware in the year before IS launched its campaign of conquest inside Iraq, that the vast majority of “moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels were, in fact, Islamist militants. It was, officials admitted, increasingly impossible to draw fixed lines between “moderate” rebels and extremists linked to al-Qaeda or IS, due to the fluid interactions between them.

Increasingly, frustrated FSA fighters have joined the ranks of Islamist militants in Syria, not for ideological reasons, but simply due to their superior military capabilities. So far, almost all “moderate” rebel groups recently trained and armed by the US are disbanding and continuously defecting to al-Qaeda and IS to fight Assad.

Turkey

The US is now coordinating the continued supply of military aid to “moderate” rebels to fight IS, through a new arrangement with Turkey. Yet it is an open secret that Turkey, throughout this entire period, has been directly sponsoring al-Qaeda and IS as part of a geopolitical gambit to crush Kurdish opposition groups and bring down Assad.

Much has been made of Turkey’s “lax” efforts to curb foreign fighters crossing its territory to join IS in Syria. Turkey has recently responded by announcing that it has stopped thousands.

Both claims are mythical: Turkey has deliberately harboured and funnelled support to IS and al-Qaeda in Syria.

Last summer, Turkish journalist Denis Kahraman interviewed an IS fighter receiving medical treatment in Turkey, who told him: “Turkey paved the way for us. Had Turkey not shown such understanding for us, the Islamic State would not be in its current place. It [Turkey] showed us affection. Large number of our mujahedeen [jihadis] received medical treatment in Turkey.”

Earlier this year, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military (the Gendarmerie General Command) were leaked online, showing that Turkey’s intelligence services (MIT) had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck “to the al-Qaeda terror organisation” in Syria.

“Moderate” FSA rebels are involved in the MIT-sponsored Turkish-Islamist support network. One told the Telegraph that he “now runs safe houses in Turkey for foreign fighters looking to join Jabhat al-Nusra and Isil [Islamic State].”

Some officials have spoken up about this, but to no avail. Last year, Claudia Roth, deputy speaker of the German parliament, expressed shock that NATO is allowing Turkey to harbour an IS camp in Istanbul, facilitate weapons transfers to Islamist militants through its borders, and tacitly support IS oil sales. Nothing happened.

The US-led anti-IS coalition is funding IS 

The US and Britain have not only remained strangely silent about the complicity of their coalition partner in sponsoring the enemy. They have tightened up the partnership with Turkey, and are working avidly with the same state-sponsor of IS to train “moderate” rebels to fight IS.

It is not just Turkey. Last year, US Vice President Joe Biden told a White House press conference that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Turkey among others, were pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons, of weapons” into “al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis” as part of a “proxy Sunni-Shia war”. He added that, for all intents and purposes, it is not possible to identify “moderate” rebels in Syria.

There is no indication that this funding has dried up. As late as September 2014, even as the US began coordinating airstrikes against IS, Pentagon officials revealed that they knew their own coalition allies were still funding IS.

That month, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether he knew of “any major Arab ally that embraces Isil [IS]?” He said: “I know major Arab allies who fund them.”

Despite this knowledge, the US government has not merely refused to sanction these allies, but rewarded them by including them in the coalition that is supposed to fight the very extremist entity they are funding. Worse, the same allies continue to be granted ample leeway to select fighters to receive training.

Key members of our anti-IS coalition are bombing IS from the air while sponsoring them behind the scenes – with the knowledge of the Pentagon.

The arc of Muslim state-failure

In Iraq and Syria, where IS was born, the devastation of society due to prolonged conflict cannot be underestimated. Western military invasion and occupation of Iraq, replete with torture and indiscriminate violence, played an undeniable role in paving the way for the emergence of extreme reactionary politics. Before Western intervention, al-Qaeda was nowhere to be seen in the country.

The continual input of vast quantities of money to Islamist extremist networks, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of material resources that no one has yet been able to quantify in its totality – coordinated by the same nexus of Western and Muslim governments – has over the last half century had a deeply destabilising impact. IS is the surreal, post-modern culmination of this sordid history.

The West’s anti-IS coalition in the Muslim world consists of repressive regimes whose domestic policies have widened inequalities, crushed legitimate dissent, tortured peaceful political activists, and stoked deep-seated resentments. They are the same allies that have, and are continuing to fund IS, with the knowledge of Western intelligence agencies.

Yet they are doing so in regional circumstances that can only be described as undergoing, in the last decade, escalating converging crises. As Princeton’s Professor Bernard Haykel said: “I see ISIS as a symptom of a much deeper structural set of problems in the Sunni Arab world… [It has] to do with politics. With education, and the lack thereof. With authoritarianism. With foreign intervention. With the curse of oil … I think that even if ISIS were to disappear, the underlying causes that produce ISIS would not disappear. And those would have to be addressed with decades of policy and reforms and changes – not just by the West, but also by Arab societies as well.”

Yet as we saw with the Arab Spring, these structural problems have been exacerbated by a perfect storm of interlinked political, economic, energy and environmental crises, all of which are being incubated by a deepening crisis of global capitalism.

With the region suffering from prolonged droughts, failing agriculture, decline in oil revenues due to domestic peak oil, economic corruption and mismanagement compounded by neoliberal austerity, and so on, local states have begun to collapse. From Iraq to Syria, from Egypt to Yemen, the same nexus of climate, energy and economic crises are unravelling incumbent governments.

Alienation in the West

Although the West is far more resilient to these interconnected global crises, entrenched inequalities in the US, Britain and Western Europe – which have a disproportionate effect on ethnic minorities, women and children – are worsening.

In Britain, nearly 70 percent of ethnically South Asian Muslims, and two-thirds of their children, live in poverty. Just under 30 percent of British Muslim young people aged from 16-24 years are unemployed. According to Minority Rights Group International, conditions for British Muslims in terms of “access to education, employment and housing” have deteriorated in recent years, rather than improving. This has been accompanied by a “worrying rise in open hostility” from non-Muslim communities, and a growing propensity for police and security services to target Muslims disproportionately under anti-terror powers. Consistently negative reporting on Muslims by the media, coupled with grievances over justifiable perceptions of an aggressive and deceptive foreign policy in the Muslim world, compound the latter to create a prevailing sense of social exclusion associated with British Muslim identity.

It is the toxic contribution of these factors to general identity formation that is the issue – not each of the factors by themselves. Poverty alone, or discrimination alone, or anti-Muslim reporting alone, and so on, do not necessarily make a person vulnerable to radicalisation. But together these can forge an attachment to an identity that sees itself as alienated, frustrated and locked in a cycle of failure.

The prolongation and interaction of these problems can contribute to the way Muslims in Britain from various walks of life begin to view themselves as a whole. In some cases, it can generate an entrenched sense of separation and alienation from, and disillusionment with wider society. This exclusionary identity, and where it takes a person, will depend on that person’s specific environment, experiences and choices.
Prolonged social crises can lay the groundwork for the rise of toxic, xenophobic ideologies on all sides. Such crises undermine conventional mores of certainty and stability rooted in established notions of identity and belonging.

While vulnerable Muslims might turn to gang culture, or worse, Islamist extremism, vulnerable non-Muslims might adopt their own exclusionary identities linked with extremist groups like the English Defence League, or other far-right extremist networks.

For more powerful elite groups, their sense of crisis may inflame militaristic neoconservative ideologies that sanitise incumbent power structures, justify the status quo, whitewash the broken system that sustains their power, and demonise progressive and minority movements.

In this maelstrom, the supply of countless billions of dollars to Islamist extremist networks in the Middle East with a penchant for violence, empowers groups that previously lacked any local constituency.

As multiple crises converge and intensify, undermining state stability and inflaming grievances, this massive input of resources to Islamist ideologues can pull angry, alienated, vulnerable individuals into their vortex of xenophobic extremism. The end-point of that process is the creation of monsters.

Dehumanisation

While these factors escalated regional vulnerability to crisis levels, the US and Britain’s lead role after 9/11 in coordinating covert Gulf state financing of extremist Islamist militants across the region has poured gasoline on the flames.

The links these Islamist networks have in the West meant that domestic intelligence agencies have periodically turned blind eyes to their followers and infiltrators at home, allowing them to fester, recruit and send would-be fighters abroad.

This is why the Western component of IS, though much smaller than the number of fighters joining from neighbouring countries, remains largely impervious to meaningful theological debate. They are not driven by theology, but by the insecurity of a fractured identity and psychology.

It is here, in the meticulously calibrated recruitment methods used by IS and its supporting networks in the West, that we can see the role of psychological indoctrination processes fine-tuned through years of training under Western intelligence agencies. These agencies have always been intimately involved in the crafting of violent Islamist indoctrination tools.

In most cases, recruitment into IS is achieved by being exposed to carefully crafted propaganda videos, developed using advanced production methods, the most effective of which are replete with real images of bloodshed inflicted on Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian civilians by Western firepower, or on Syrian civilians by Assad.

The constant exposure to such horrifying scenes of Western and Syrian atrocities can often have an effect similar to what might happen if these scenes had been experienced directly: that is, a form of psychological trauma that can even result in post-traumatic stress.

Such cult-like propaganda techniques help to invoke overwhelming emotions of shock and anger, which in turn serve to shut down reason and dehumanise the “Other”. The dehumanisation process is brought to fruition using twisted Islamist theology. What matters with this theology is not its authenticity, but its simplicity. This can work wonders on a psyche traumatised by visions of mass death, whose capacity for reason is immobilised with rage.

This is why the reliance on extreme literalism and complete decontextualisation is such a common feature of Islamist extremist teachings: because it seems, to someone credulous and unfamiliar with Islamic scholarship, to be literally true at first glance.

Building on decades of selective misinterpretation of Islamic texts by militant ideologues, sources are carefully mined and cherry-picked to justify the political agenda of the movement: tyrannical rule, arbitrary mass murder, subjugation and enslavement of women, and so on, all of which become integral to the very survival and expansion of the “state”.

As the main function of introducing extreme Islamist theological reasoning is to legitimise violence and sanction war, it is combined with propaganda videos that promise what the vulnerable recruit appears to be missing: glory, brotherhood, honour, and the promise of eternal salvation – no matter what crimes or misdemeanours one may have committed in the past.

Couple this with the promise of power – power over one’s enemies, power over Western institutions that have purportedly suppressed one’s Muslim brothers and sisters, power over women – and the appeal of IS, if its religious garb and claims of Godliness can be made convincing enough, can be irresistible.

What this means is that IS’s ideology, while important to understand and refute, is not the driving factor in its origins, existence and expansion. It is merely the opium of the people that it feeds to itself, and its prospective followers.

Ultimately, IS is a cancer of modern industrial capitalism in meltdown, a fatal by-product of our unwavering addiction to black gold, a parasitical symptom of escalating civilisational crises across both the Muslim and Western worlds. Until the roots of these crises are addressed, IS and its ilk are here to stay.