Book Review: The Al Qaeda Reader


The Al Qaeda Reader: Martyrdom or Mortardom?
by: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

Recently, Raymond Ibrahim edited and translated a series of press releases by Al Qaeda’s leadership from 1998 to 2006 into English. (previous post) Published by Broadway Books, with partial proceeds donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader is not only a timely fountainhead for the United States citizenry’s understanding of our Jihadi Enemies, it is also a necessary release for all Muslims of Secular Governments to grapple with in the coming years. The text focuses on the prepared statements of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leading authority figures of the Al Qaeda forces, which coordinated and carried out the devastating attacks of 9/11/2001. Since Muhammad’s definition of war is “deceit”, and Al Qaeda has declared War against America, we can only assume that these Al Qaeda releases hold a two-fold purpose: to provide sound, doctrinal justification for terrorism; and to gather popular support for their cause. Raymond Ibrahim tackles these angles admirably well by splitting the releases into the broader sections: Theology and Propaganda.

Part 1, Theology, begins with a thesis entitled, “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West”. What is obvious from this essay is that Osama bin Laden feels betrayed by the Muslim Intellectuals (particularly of Saudi Arabia) who would seek to stamp out extremism by helping President Bush in his “Crusade” against Islam. Bush’s actual statement was made on September 16th, 2001: “This Crusade, this war on terror, is going to take a while.” Regardless of Bush’s intent, the slip was made, and Osama bin Laden berates these “Moderate Muslims” for not including into their dialogue, with the Western Crusaders, three central elements of the Islamic Faith: the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity; the necessity of jihad; and the bounds of Sharia.

Osama bin Laden chides the Moderates for seeking the UN’s concept of equality, freedom, and justice, which differ from the Islamic Notions, of the same, in the sunna tradition. This train of thought rolls like a juggernaut into its culmination on page 43 when Osama places down the cornerstone of Al Qaeda, the Koranic ayat (sign/verse) 60:4, in which Allah via his Messenger, Muhammad, summarizes the Muslim-Infidel relation as plainly exampled by Abraham, when he states “We disown you and that which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us–till you believe in Allah alone.” Bin Laden lays the brick with ease, stating, “Battle, animosity, and hatred – directed from the Muslim to the infidel – is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.” Osama is vexed by the pesky Moderates, since they don’t uphold Islam while dealing with the West. Afterall, he notes that, “Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia…” It is as if bin Laden is saying, if only these Moderates had simply invited the West to Submit to Islam; but, instead, by cooperating with the West, they have become apostates, denying the ultimate truth of Islam its rightful place above the Infidel, who has only three options when confronted with the Islamic faith: conversion to Islam, paying the Jizya tax, or death. [Note: it is a historical fact that apostates have tended to die by the sword of Islam, since the Hegira.]

Part 1 continues with a Treatise by Ayman al-Zawahiri entitled, “Loyalty and Enmity” in which he expounds upon Osama bin Laden’s efforts. The controversial topic of Taqiyya is broached in which it is permissible for Muslims to associate with infidels to dissemble rather than befriend. Taqiyya basically states, if forced to deal with infidels, lie and smile, remain secure in faith, knowing you are not helping the enemy. Afterall, loyalty comes first, for all Muslims must heed ibn Taymiyya when he states, “he is obligated to befriend a believer – even if he is oppressive and violent toward you, while he must be hostile to the infidel – even if he is liberal and kind to you.” Al-Zawahiri confirms that all Muslims are ordered to wage jihad against infidels, apostates, and hypocrites by the consensus of the ulema (jurists of accepted hadith).

It is in this vein that ibn Taymiyyah’s power is demonstrated in the line of Islamic jurists, for repulsing an invading force is second only to faith in Allah as a duty to Islam. Ibn Kathir then shows his value by verifying that unquestioning obedience to the will of the ulema is the right path of submission to Allah, while doubt and refusal to adhere is caused by fear. But by far the most striking feature of this lengthy treatise comes when he notes those leaders that Al Qaeda has targeted, “that clique of rulers who, while domineering over the lands of Islam, oppose sharia.” Al-Zawahiri proceeds to enumerate the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan as the secular clique of governments that aid the Crusader armies against the Mujahidin. He goes on to state that anyone who joins the UN is not a true Muslim, calling them Henchmen of the Crusaders. He takes aim at the cowards who oppose sharia out of fear that the Crusaders will hurt them. And al-Zawahiri then pounds on the Northern Alliance “Muslims” who are aiding the American cause in Afghanistan. Truly, this juristic wrangling is the establishment of a purge to come. One can only wonder what type of purge is in store for these apostates should Al Qaeda win or become desperate. And if you doubt the purge to come, consider that the Tawhid (Oneness) of God, demands Submission to Allah and Fear of Allah, alone; yet, in this treatise’s conclusion, al-Zawahiri states, “We warn our umma against falling to defeatism and ignoring the dangers that oppressively lie atop our chests. Behold! the Crusader-Jewish military machine… It gears its aggression against us through a network of submissive rulers.” What happens to apostates again?

Part 1 culminates with two shorter treatises by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the first of which is entitled “Sharia and Democracy” and is simply an extract from his 1991 release, Bitter Harvest: The Muslim Brotherhood in Sixty Years. The importance of this section is in the simplicity with which Democracy is labeled as the defining difference between Muslims and Infidels, namely, Muslims submit to God, while infidels submit to men. Al-Zawahiri takes the consensus view of seven different jurists of the ulema, the source of Sharia Law, to explain why Democratic government, created by the whims of men and nations is “a motley set of contrived rules”. Not only that, Democracy is a primitive form of religion in comparison to faithful submission to Allah’s Sharia. As proof for this rationale, Zawahiri examines Seven Islamic Jurist opinions, including those of the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, and the father of Radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, all of which consider the rules of men to be a jahiliyya initiative, which is an attempt to bring mankind back to the time of man’s law, before the Divine Koran was delivered, before the time of Muhammad, when true Sovereignty was ordained to Allah, by Allah himself.

Indeed, this section is a revealing legalist perspective on why Democracy is Idolatry, the earmark of infidelity, and punishable by death. But, the most startling outburst in this treatise comes as a response to the “equality” to be had under Democratic institutions, raging that there isn’t anything more blasphemous than a society that does not limit Apostasy (with death), abolishes Jihad against infidelity, abolishes the protection tax and second-class (dhimmi/nigger) status of infidels, and to top it off abolishes man’s dominion over women. But in order to understand the impact of these ruminations on the Islamic community, one must trace back to Sayyid Qutb, who provides the just definition of Democracy as a Religion. Without this linchpin, the argument just sounds like raving lunacy and an attack on reason.

The Second of the minor treatises, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents” is actually al-Zawahiri’s master stroke of blending ulema doctrines in order to justify his chief weapon of deception in his war on America: The Suicide Bomber. For thirty odd pages, he examines suicide and “proves” that the intent of the suicide determines whether it is a sin or an act of martyrdom. But by far the most striking element in this treatise is the examination of accidental killing of innocents or fellow muslims, which culminates in Ibn Tamiyya’s statement, “Based on the consensus of the ulema, those Muslims who are accidentally killed are martyrs; and the obligatory jihad should never be abandoned because it creates martyrs.” This is the logic that America needs to understand. America must come to grips with the fact that the Jihad is obligatory to the Islamic Faithful. Thus, with a sweep of historic cites, Ayman al-Zawahiri, utilizes the Sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom all muslims adhere or respect, to define defensive jihad as second only to faith in Islam, and at the same time justifies suicide bombing in the measure of antiquity…via ijma, or parallels to Muhammad’s battle of Ta’if.

Part 2, Propaganda, is a hodgepodge of shorter releases, aimed at specific groups, and documented in order to seek popular support for methods and aims as well as provide the Righteous Sword of Reciprocity for all to see. Strangely, in “Why are We Fighting You”, Osama bin Laden begins listing reasons for Al Qaeda’s war with the West, and ironically claims that the clique of secular Islamic governments give true Muslims “…a taste of humiliation, placing us in a large prison of fear and submission.” As bin Laden enumerates the reciprocal reasons that Al Qaeda bombs innocents, were it not for the surrounding manuscript, the list could easily have been the soundbites for a Left Wing Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, or Michael Moore interview.

In “Your Fate is in Your Hands Alone,” Osama bin Laden tells the touching story of tragedy in the 1982 occupation of Lebanon by Israel with American support, which filled his heart with nebulous ideas concerning occupation and repelling the oppressor regimes of Islam, and lo a freedom fighter was born. But it is not until Bin Laden offers a Truce to America that we see plain the intentions of Al Qaeda for the long run, when he states, “You have occupied our lands, transgressed against our manhood and dignity, spilled our blood, plundered our wealth, destroyed our homes, dislocated us, and played with our security — and we will give you the same treatment.” Words like these seem to give weight to President Bush’s notion that if we tuck tail and run in Iraq (a process called redeployment in some circles), the Terrorists will follow us home…especially when you take in a previous promise of bin Laden in regards to his lack of follow up attacks in America stating that, “…this has not been because of a failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your own homes once they are readied.”

While the remainder of the hodge and podge are all revealing, bin Laden hints at possible future targets in his “To the Muslims of Iraq” when he defines the countries most in need of liberation: Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. But as far as recent news is concerned, the Five releases under the Theme heading, “The Youth of Islam” basically state that men over 25 are busy building families, and those under 15 are still dependent on parents, while those muslims between 15 and 25 are strongly urged to join ranks with Al Qaeda. This fact demands that “Profiling” be implemented in all transit areas on men between 15 and 25…especially since the 2007 July Pew Report of Islam in America notes that “26 percent of Muslims [in America] age 18 to 29 believe that suicide bombing can be justified” (Newsweek Special Report, July 30, p. 31). To attempt to view the issue in any other way is suicide by denial.

The purpose of revolutionary propaganda is to gather popular support, to justify the righteousness of the cause, to generate outrage and ferver in its proponents, and to demonstrate why victory is inevitable for the righteous few. Part 2, of Ibrahim’s text, Propaganda, demonstrates these purposes well; however, it is the Soviet Paradigm of victory which is the least convincing. The key element in this battle according to both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri is Patience. The element is woven through every treatise and release…it is the belief, that like Soviet Russia while fighting with Afghanistan, America will, through its “War on Terror” grow politically fractured, will eventually go bankrupt and will split apart, by the grace of Allah. It would be Hubris to say that America can’t go the way of the Dodo; especially considering the fact that trade almost halted after 9/11. Yet, while the polarity of opinions in this country are divided almost 50-50 on every issue…it is this freedom – to have a polarity of opinion – that differentiates America from both the Communism of Stalin and Khruschev as well as the rigid, puritanical Islam of Al Qaeda. And, in the end, the resilience of Capitalism’s inequalities compared with the desperate equality of Communism promises only the inevitability of exhaustion for Al Qaeda, hence its call for the Muslim youth to dedicate their lives to Jihad.

In full, Raymond Ibrahim’s text The Al Qaeda Reader provides the World of English many lessons that we may choose to learn or dismiss. Chief among these lessons is that in Islam there is no separation between Mosque and State. For years, since the fall of the Trade Towers, moderate Muslims have claimed their religion had been hijacked by fundamentalists, literalists, radicals, and extremists; and, now the West has been apprised of the twisted views of two of these hijackers. Is this message of hate the literalist perspective of Islam laid bare for the world to see? And if it is, what does it teach the World of English about the literal Koran’s content, intent, and merit? The fact is, all Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal, uncorrupted word of Allah, written in the celestial language of Arabic.

Moving past the arrogance necessary to declare to the world that any language is that of God, what does this text teach us about the original words of the Islamic God? Has the God of Islam, Allah, demanded His followers to wage jihad on all infidels in a quest to force the entire planet to convert, pay alms, or die? And if the Koran is the literal, uncorrupted, Word and Warning of Allah; then, why would we, infidels, ever consider “Peaceful” a religion which promises our demise as sovereign states in one form or another, following obligatory genocidal purges, inquisitions, enslavements, indoctrination, trials of apostasy, and the death of the very idea of American Freedom, and the death of every value held as Heroic in the West? For the West’s concepts of equality, justice and freedom do not hold parallel with the Koran’s or Sharia’s views of the same. And if that is the case, what is a “Moderate” version of that form of forced Totalitarian Slavery? And, in general, how much can be found that is peaceful in the Islamic Pillars, if their strength lies in their “base,” in their “Qaeda?” Where does the abode of Islam end? Where does the abode of War begin? Is the protection that a jizya tax purchases similar to a Mafia Racket? In a problem of this magnitude, the initial lessons are the correct questions to ask. Which of these questions can be casually dismissed? Judging by the press releases, it must be faced that these two leaders of Al Qaeda believe that the best defense is a good offense, due to their faith in the literal formulations of the Koranic and Ulema’s right guidance of Allah. So, the entire English speaking world must ask all Moderate Muslims … Is the suicide bombing of any one, of any faith, for any reason ever to be viewed as Martyrdom? Or is every act of suicide bombing an act of Mortar-dom?

Comments (2 comments)

shady character / August 27th, 2007, 8:10 am / #1

Hey Gary,

Really enjoyed the article. It's too bad that the media has, with the aid of "moderate" Muslims, instilled so much ambiguity around the real purpose of Jihad and Islam's quest for the establishment of the Global Caliphate. Also, Western liberal intelligentsia are so used to the idea of pluralism that they insist the conceptualization of Islam as a violent religion is bigoted and reactionary, and that what we need to do is integrate Muslims into our societies and show them the benefits of our way of life…unfortunately what we consider beneficial is completely antithetical to their dogma.

And then of course, Anne Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," perceptually vindicating the liberal standpoint by characterizing any mistrust of "moderate" Islam as Anne Coulter-ish bigotry.

seri / June 18th, 2009, 2:45 am / #2

Being brought up in a country like Pakistan, I know the real face of Islam and appreciate this review. It so true that so called "liberal" muslims have been trying to modify the impression of islam in the western society and covering its dark inhumane areas.
Till this day, I fear that some "Muslim" will come to know that I am no more a muslim and will kill me. And his act will be totally justified according to islamic teachings, as Islam says killing any Murtid(person who changes his belief from being a muslim) is a right deed to do. Still I thank god I am in America.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.