Was Al Qaeda’s Obituary Written in Tahrir Square?


In the Name of God, the Kind, the Beautiful.

This was published March 7 on altmuslim.

 

I had to read the report by the Reuters news agency several times to ensure I did not misunderstand: Osama bin Laden declared his opposition to attacks against civilians. In an Internet posting on Feb 24, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s No. 2, wrote: “There are certain operations attributed, rightly or falsely, to the mujahideen, in which Muslims are attacked in their mosques, market places or gatherings … I and my brothers in al Qaeda distance ourselves … from such operations and condemn them.” He also said that militants should refrain from indiscriminate attacks on “Muslims and non-Muslim.” I still ask myself if this posting was some sort of joke, an early “April Fool’s” stunt, if you will.

Yet, it may be a sign of Al Qaeda’s desperation. As the wave of revolution continues to roll all across the Arab Middle East, the neo-Kharijite militants of Al Qaeda have been relatively silent as of late. Indeed, according to the website Magharebia, Zawahiri was posting statements about the Egyptian revolution, but it seemed to have very little effect or influence. In fact, the events of Jan 25-Feb 11 in Egypt, coming on the heels of the “Jasmine Revolution” of Tunisia, is Al Qaeda’s worst nightmare: political change coming about using peaceful, non-violent protest.

Throughout its existence, Al Qaeda has maintained that political change can only be achieved through violent struggle, which they falsely claim to be “jihad.” And it has matched its rhetoric with vile actions throughout the world, killing scores of people. Yet, the overwhelming majority of those people have been innocent civilians, most of them Muslims. Zawahiri has condemned Islamist groups that seek to participate in secular political processes, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Magharebia, Zawahiri “challenged those who do not share his opinion to provide ‘one example’ of a peaceful revolution that succeeded in changing a regime.”

Well, the youth of Egypt and Tunisia have met his challenge and proven that real political change can be achieved without the use of a suicide bomb vest; regimes can be toppled without having to resort to bombing innocent people eating pizza, or buying groceries, or praying in a house of God. And, it seems, it has gotten Al Qaeda scared to death in their caves.

Indeed, the extraordinary events the world has witnessed in Tunisia and Egypt has completely decimated Al Qaeda’s main premise and raison d’etre. In fact, it was Al Qaeda-like violence that brought about the brutal repression that led to the revolution in Egypt. In response to the assassination of Anwar Sadat by “Islamist” militants, Hosni Mubarak put into a place a perpetual state of emergency, allowing his security services to arrest and torture at will. After three decades of state-sponsored brutality, the Egyptian people stood up and would not take “No” for an answer.

Yet, they did so peacefully, despite a brutal and ugly crackdown by regime supporters. The weight of their dignified nonviolence was finally too much, and the regime crumbled. This must have terrified Al Qaeda to the point that their “Sheikh” Osama Bin Laden directed Zawahiri to “reiterate this matter” about attacks on civilians and urge “the mujahideen to consider the rulings of sharia (Islamic law) and the interests of Muslims before undertaking any jihad operation.”

Yet, what Al Qaeda doesn’t seem to realize is that this popular, nonviolent uprising is wholly in keeping with the Sharia, and their brutal violence is the complete antithesis of the Sharia. In another article on Magharebia, the calls to violence and “jihad” by Zawahiri last October were widely rejected:

“This is not the first time that Zawahri calls Muslim rulers infidels and calls for people to get out of their rule. And calls by Al-Qaeda generally do not find any echo in the community. It has become sure enough that people who respond to such calls, are people who suffer from psychological and social problems. Al-Zawahiri is known as a doctor, but instead of choosing to treat people, he chose to kill them, and this choice in itself is an indication that the mental abilities of this man aren’t sane,” said Driss Moussaoui, President of the Moroccan Association for Social Psychiatry.

Even the Salafists in Algeria issued a fatwa banning violence against the government: “Any opposition must occur in a peaceful context and must be marked by the need not to fall into violence in any form: riots, demonstrations, sit-ins, and even insults,” said Salafist theologian Sheikh Mohamed Ali Ferkous.

And judging by the actions of Muslims all across the Middle East, this view of rejecting violence is clearly majoritarian . It has been government actions – such as the gunning down of unarmed protesters chaning “Salmeya, Selmeya (Peaceful, Peaceful)” in Bahrain – that has been “Al Qaeda-esque.” It has been the autocratic Arab governments who have been the terrorists. It has been Arab governments who have seemingly taken the advice of Al Qaeda by reacting to peaceful protest with brutal violence. And the most beautiful thing is, this reaction has only further strengthened the resolve to answer violence with peace – and completely destroy everything for which Al Qaeda stands.

Indeed, the death of Al Qaeda was bound to happen. This band of thugs was nothing more than murderous criminals who wrap their bloodthirstiness in the garbs of religiosity, much like the Kharijites were before them. And just as the Kharijite phenomenon fizzled, the Al Qaeda phenomenon will fizzle as well. That is because the core of Islam – the message and movement of another Prince of Peace, Prophet Muhammad – will always endure and survive any aberration that seeks to overtake it.

It is as God says: “They aim to extinguish God’s light with their utterances: but God has willed to spread His light in all its fullness, however hateful this may be to all who deny the truth.” (61:8) Al Qaeda, with its brutal violence and bloody actions, sought to extinguish God’s light by claiming any view other than its own as “infidel” worthy of death. But, “God has willed to spread His light in all its fullness,” and that meant that aberrations such as Al Qaeda were inevitably going to fail.

What is even more extraordinary is that I had always thought the main thrust against the thugs of Al Qaeda would come from the Muslims of the West. It turns out, however, that the death blow will probably come from the Muslims of the East. The barbrians of Al Qaeda are surrounded on all sides by the true warriors of Muhammad. And they cannot be wiped out soon enough.

The revolutions spreading all across the Middle East were long in coming and long overdue. It is my hope and prayer that the light of freedom and human dignity shines forth in every Muslim country all across the world, nay, every country on the face of the earth. The Arabs are no less deserving of living in freedom, no less deserving to be able to shape their own destiny. As they raise the flag of freedom and dignity, in all its nonviolent splendor, they will forever prove to all the nay-sayers that Islam does not encourage violence. On the contrary, so many of the protestors cite Islam as their motivation to say “Selmeya, Selmeya.” It has been said that, on 9/11/01, Al Qaeda rose to its prominence, and on 2/11/11, Al Qaeda breathed its last. To the giant that is Islam, Al Qaeda’s phenomenon was nothing more than a gnat, a fleeting blip. And its obituary was written on the streets of Tunisia and in Tahrir Square.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Was Al Qaeda’s Obituary Written in Tahrir Square?

  1. Pingback: Al Qaeda’s Obituary? « Talk Islam

  2. Peace be with you, shams.

    I don’t comment very often on brother Hesham’s blog, but in this case I just can’t remain silent. I don’t know what “Shariah” you are referring to, but the Law of God is quite clear on how to respond to arguments and attacks of proselytizers. In God’s Law (the Qur’an) the proper response to such attacks is: ” (16:125)Call thou [all mankind] unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, AND ARGUE WITH THEM IN THE MOST KINDLY MANNER; for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided. (126) Hence,if you have to respond to an attack [in argument], RESPOND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE ATTACK LEVELLED AGAINST YOU; BUT TO BEAR YOURSELVES WITH PATIENCE IS INDEED FAR BETTER FOR [YOU, SINCE GOD IS WITH] THOSE WHO ARE PATIENT IN ADVERSITY. (127) ENDURE THEN WITH PATIENCE [ALL THAT THEY WHO DENY THE TRUTH MAY SAY] – always remembering that it is none but God who gives thee the strength to endure adversity -and do not grieve over them, AND NEITHER BE DISTRESSED BY THE FALSE ARGUMENTS WHICH THEY DEVISE; (128) for, verily, God is with those who are conscious of Him and are doers of good withal! (Muhammad Asad version)

    If the “Shariah” you believe in were true, there could be no such thing as argument with those who attack the truth of Islam. All such argument would be forbidden, and those who violated that prohibition would immediately be arrested and punished – which by your standard would be terroristic killing. But God not only tells us to expect such attacks, He explicitly tells us NOT to respond with violence and terrorism. Your “Shariah” conflicts with the Law of God in the Qur’an, so such a “Shariah” must be repudiated.

    Another clear expression of God’s will concerning our response to unbelievers and their proselytizing is found in Qur’an 7: “(199) Make due allowance for man’s nature, and enjoin the doing of what is right; and LEAVE ALONE all those who choose to remain ignorant. (199) And if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs thee up [to blind anger], seek refuge with God: behold, He is all hearing, all knowing. (200) Verily, they who are conscious of God bethink themselves [of Him] whenever any dark suggestion from Satan touches them – whereupon, lo! they begin to see [things] clearly, (201) even though their [godless] brethren would [like to] draw them into error: and then they cannot fail [to do what is right].”

    Do not let Satan prompt you with a “dark suggestion” to react violently to the ignorant who wish to argue against Islam, attack it, and proselytize Muslims away from their pure faith. When such a prompting from Satan comes upon you or anyone you know, have refuge in God and His words and you will find yourself able to do what is right and kind – in keeping with the character of the Most Gracious and Most Merciful One whom we seek to emulate.

    Of course, when when unbelievers resort to violence in attacking Islam and Muslims, the Qur’an does indeed allow the believes to defend themselves with equal violence. That is included in the quotation from Sura 16, where believers are told to respond to the extent of the attack levelled against them (but ONLY to that extent). That MAY PERHAPS leave open some room for argument that Arid Yuka’s attack against soldiers was just. But terrorist attacks against nonviolent civilians – even though they may be proselytizing – is absolutely forbidden.

    I’ll wind this up with another quotation from God’s Qur’an: “(5:2)…And never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and God-consciousness, and DO NOT HELP ONE ANOTHER IN FURTHERING EVIL AND ENMITY; and remain conscious of God: for, behold, God is severe in retribution…(8) O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; AND NEVER LET HATRED OF ANYONE LEAD YOU INTO THE SIN OF DEVIATING FROM JUSTICE. BE JUST: this is closest to God-consciousness. And remain conscious of God; verily, God is aware of all that you do.”

    • “But terrorist attacks against nonviolent civilians – even though they may be proselytizing – is absolutely forbidden.”

      this is true.
      But human nature being what it is, defense against proselytization is a REFLEX. Just as most christians cannot off the proselytizing, most muslims cannot turn off the defense against proselytization response.

  3. wassalaam aleykum brother mystic444
    we are talking about two entirely different things.
    I am talking about evolutionary theory of religion and evolutionary games theory, science and history and current events.
    Brother Hesham unjustly deleted my comments.
    What he says is manifestly untrue, that Egypt and Tunsia mark the end of al-Qaeda. Do those evens mark the end of Hamas, Hizb’ and the Taliban also?
    meh.
    Egypt is going to have an islamic government, an islamic DEMOCRACY.
    al Qaeda, like all jihadism, is response to western interventionism and meddling. It will never stop until America stops proselytizing, ie trying to impose western style democracy on majority muslim states.
    Manifestly, shariah is incompatible with freedom of speech. Shariah outlaws proselytization, freedom of speech legalizes proselytization.

    Read the Cairo declaration of human rights.
    The Declaration starts by forbidding (in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities) ” discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations”. It continues on to proclaim the sanctity of life, and declares the “preservation of human life” as “a duty prescribed by the Shariah”. In addition the CDHRI guarantees “non-belligerents such as old men, women and children”, “wounded and the sick” and “prisoners of war”, the right to be fed, sheltered and access to safety and medical treatment in times of war.
    The CDHRI gives men and women the “right to marriage” regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion. In addition women are given “equal human dignity”, “own rights to enjoy”, “duties to perform”, “own civil entity”, “financial independence”, and the “right to retain her name and lineage”, though not equal rights in general. The Declaration makes the husband responsible for the social and financial protection of the family. The Declaration gives both parents the rights over their children, and makes it incumbent upon both of them to protect the child, before and after birth. The Declaration also entitles every family the “right to privacy”. It also forbids the demolition, confiscation and eviction of any family from their residence. Furthermore, should the family get separated in times of war, it is the responsibility of the State to “arrange visits or reunions of families”.
    Article 10 of the Declaration states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”

  4. I don’t know what “Shariah” you are referring to, but the Law of God is quite clear on how to respond to arguments and attacks of proselytizers.

    this is the discussion i WANT to have. please.
    But defense against proselytization is ENCODED in shariah law. blasphemy law, harsh punishments for apostasy, no out-marriage for muslimahs, no missionaries and no illegal church building.
    This is the discussion we NEED to have.
    Just as christians believe their faith commands them to proselytize, muslims believe their faith commands them to resist proselytization through obedience to shariah.
    These things are articles of faith, of belief.
    Article 10 of the Declaration states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”

  5. salaamu aleykum my brothers.
    Defense against proselytization is still in mutawatir, still sending, and that is why it cannot be turned off, even with Brother Mystics beautiful quranic exegesis of how to treat the proselytizers.
    Read meh.

  6. God’s grace and peace to you Shams.

    I, for one, definitely want to thank you for your follow up comments. Your original comment had sounded to me (and obviously to brother Hesham) as if you were defending and promoting the violence of extremists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. From your later comments, we were apparently mistaken in that belief. It now appears that you object to them as much as we do; but you believe (unfortunately like the ‘Islamophobes’) that such things are ‘encoded’ in Shariah itself, and therefore Shariah needs to be ‘reformed’ or discarded.

    Now, I haven’t been involved in studying Islam anywhere near long enough to be making dogmatic statements about “Shariah”. (I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity, ‘apostatized’ from it in my late 30s, and over the next approximately 20 years was gradually led by God to the point where when I started ‘investigating’ Islam about a year ago I was prepared to embrace it. For the most part, I found that the Qur’an said the same things God had already shown me. There remain a few things in which I am not your ‘traditional’ Muslim – either more ‘Christian’, or ‘Buddhist/Hindu/Sikh’.) I can only go by the impressions I have received from reading what modern Muslims have written (such as on this blog, The American Muslim, and Loonwatch).

    From what I can understand, ‘Shariah’ is not codified into any document. I can’t download a ‘copy’ of Shariah law, or purchase a copy at a book store or at amazon.com. There is no unanimity in Islam as to the details of ‘Shariah’. Some things that one Muslim, or ‘school’ of Islamic thought, consider to be ‘encoded’ in ‘Shariah’, another Muslim or ‘school’ may deny vociferously.

    The primary source from which ‘Shariah’ is derived is the Qur’an – the ‘Constitution’ of Islam – and I suppose most Muslims would add as secondary sources the sayings (hadith) and practice (sunnah) of the Prophet which are determined to be ‘authentic’ and not in conflict with the primary source of the Qur’an. That being the case, it seems to me that it is impossible that the objectionable things you mention as being ‘encoded’ in ‘Shariah’ are in fact a part of God’s genuine Shariah.

    If by ‘proselytization’ you mean the use of compulsion to ‘convert’ people to ‘Western’ lifestyle or religion, you are certainly correct that it is contrary to God’s law and may be rightly opposed. But if you refer to what appears to me to be the usual definition of ‘proselytization’ – conversion by means of verbal argument and persuasion – then it is definitely NOT contrary to God’s law. This is not only not forbidden, it is encouraged. Certainly the Qur’an encourages and commands Muslim believers to verbally promote submission and devotion to God only, and to invite others to ‘Islam’. But the demand that believers argue in a kind way with the unbelievers or ‘people of the Book’ shows clearly that the same right and freedom is permitted to those others. There is also that famous ‘Golden Rule’ which states that we should do to others what we would have them do to us. This may not be stated in so many words in the Qur’an, but is certainly implied in the exhortation (for which I do not have the reference at this time) to refrain from mocking the unbelievers’ gods, lest they in turn should mock God (Allah). That is an obvious application of the “Golden Rule”. I’m not very familiar with ‘hadith’, but I have read that the Prophet is supposed to have said something like: no one is truly a believer until he loves for others what he loves for himself. That plainly means, by way of application, that once cannot rightly refuse others the right to promote their beliefs if one wishes to have that right himself.

    Therefore, I have to say that ‘freedom of speech and religion’ is clearly ‘encoded’ in GOD’S ‘Shariah’. [Specific pronouncements concerning this, for instance, would be the famous statement in Sura 2:256 that there is no compulsion in religion; and the statement in 10:99 and 100 that since men can only believe by God’s will, we should not imagine that we can compel people to believe against their will.] Such freedom from compulsion would not exist if they were not allowed to proclaim and promote their beliefs. Instead, people are to be allowed to freely argue for their beliefs – even though those beliefs involve misconceptions – and our response is to either argue kindly with them, or leave them alone. Whoever does not have such freedom as part of his ‘Shariah’ plainly has another ‘Shariah’ than that proclaimed by God in the Qur’an (and the Prophet’s hadith – if they are legitimately acceptable as an ‘authority’).

    The references you gave to Islamic statutes did not seem to me to be in conflict with this idea. They directly promoted freedom of religion, and only forbade the use of COMPULSION in seeking converts (or taking advantage of ignorance or weakness). They did not forbid reasoned argumentation. If a person is forbidden to express his objections to Islam as a means of seeking to convert me to something else, I myself have no way of correcting his misapprehensions by kindly arguing with him (since I would not be aware of them).

    As to other supposed ‘Shariah’ legislation providing severe earthly punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, I can only state here that I do not find such things in GOD’S ‘Shariah’. (I don’t want to be hijacking brother Hesham’s blog, and it appears that I’m either doing that or on the verge of doing so). However men may distort ‘Shariah’ in order to arrive at such notions, it IS distortion and is illegitimate.

  7. My gratitude for responding, Brother Mystic. Everything you say is true, in your beautiful quranic exegesis of how to treat the proselytizers. But alas, I do not speak of utopia and how things would be in a perfect world.
    We are imperfect and must strive for fana. As one of my shayyks says, al-Islam is a process.
    Science and history support my interpretation of shariah and islamic democracy. Christians and Jews could be citizens of the Caliphate, but preaching and building churches and synagogues illegally was punishable by death.
    Your arguments are about how to treat with the proselytizers. I do not argue with any of them, and indeed I think those should be employed to stop the violent respose that slurs the name of Peace. But a part of shariah is encoded defense against proselytization.
    Just as christians believe their faith commands them to proselytize, muslims believe their faith commands them to resist proselytization.
    These are automatic reflexive responses. Like the Taliban killing the toothbrush doctors because they saw them as missionaries.
    This has to do with the origins of Islam and evolutionary theory of culture, and evolutionary games theory. I will have to make a post at TI to explain that fully and not abuse Brother Heshams blog.
    And just as christians cannot turn off their proselytizing, most muslims cannot turn off their response.
    And the reason muslims cannot turn off their response….i think….is defense against proselytization is still in mutawatir, still sending. Because the people need to be protected.
    To me, it is ALL GOD’S SHARIAH. The Quran is outside time and space. It is just that some things are not “sending” anymore, like the injunction to cover.
    Now you can argue that the parts of shariah i call out as defense against proselytization are no longer in continuous transmission.
    I thirst for that argument, for better scholars than you and I have to have that discussion.
    But there is only one shariah.
    Like there is only one Al-lah.
    Ya-haqq!

  8. asalamu aleykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh my brothers
    I am sorry for representing my thoughts so poorly that Brother Hesham felt he must delete my comments. But the truth of Al-lah is this: al Qaeda is not ended. Islamic terrorism will never end as long as the proselytizers seek to impose western culture and judeochristian style democracy on the muslim peoples of MENA. Every amerimuslim that been radicalized cites American interventionism in the ME as the cause of their actions.
    Violence is wrong, and he who kills an innocent kills the whole world.
    But defense against proselytization is an automatic reflexive response, and very difficult to switch off. Brother Mystic and Brother Hesham can turn off their reflex with reason and study. But most cannot, and must cling to the Law.
    And besides what OEF and OIF and COIN seek to accomplish is impossible.
    Seeking to impose/stand-up/implant judeochristian democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion simply cannot be done.
    Because when muslims are DEMOCRATICALLY EMPOWERED to vote, they vote for more Islam, not less, and NEVER for judeochristian style democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    bi la kayfah

  9. Peace to you, shams.

    I somewhat agree with you that terrorist actions are automatic ‘reflexive’ reactions. But I believe that is the problem with them. Instead of acting in “reflective” God consciousness, people react “reflexively” as a result of the promptings of Satan. And I, of course, make a very real distinction between terrorist actions – indiscriminate violence against civilians – and legitimate armed resistance to violent aggression by others (in this case, “Western” militarism). God’s Law repudiates terrorism, but authorizes armed resistance to armed aggression. True military ‘Jihad’ has nothing in common with terrorist attacks.

    What continues to trouble me about your comments, though, is that you believe that Islam does not allow for freedom of speech and religion. By contrast, one of the things that has proven so attractive to me about Islam (as I read the Qur’an and modern Muslim writers) is the fact that freedom of speech and religion are intrinsic to it. It is “encoded” within Islam, both in the Qur’an and Islamic history as I understand it.

    That does not mean that I believe Islam counts all religions as “equally righteous”; Muslims are enjoined to invite others to “Submission to God” (Islam) precisely because it is the “best of religions”. “It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to show that it is above all [other] religions, even though the idolaters hate it” (Sura 61:9, Abdel Haleem version). But this superiority of Islam is shown by proclamation and kind argument – not oppression and compulsion – and God guides, by this proclamation and argument, whom He will. As I showed in my last comment, the Qur’an specifically and unequivocally denounces compulsion in religion, thus proving that Islam demands “freedom of religion”. And the very fact that God insists that one either “leave alone” those who deny the truth, or argue with them in a kind way, shows that the deniers of the truth have the right to express themselves freely – therefore proving that “freedom of speech” is intrinsic to Islam.

    I applaud the idea that democratic elections in Muslim countries will result in “more Islam” rather than less. What bothers me is your belief that “more Islam” means less freedom of religion and speech. I have read the statements of many Muslim believers, both in the USA and other countries, who maintain that the USA with its Constitution is more Islamic than “Muslim” countries precisely because of its insistence on freedom of religion and speech. Or, to turn that around, many so-called “Muslim” countries are in fact un-Islamic precisely because of their oppressive and repressive legislation against political and religious dissent, and against non-Muslim religions.

    When and where Islam truly triumphs, and other religions cease to exist (or almost cease to exist), it will not be because an oppressive “Islamic” government denies freedom of religion and persecutes non-Muslims; it will be because the people, by the will of God, have FREELY embraced “submission to God” (Islam) and have entered into His peace. The freedom to reject Islam will still exist, but the people (by God’s grace) will not choose to do so. Where Islam is freely embraced, there is no need for compulsion. Where compulsion exists, Islam cannot be FREELY embraced.

    Basically, God calls us to be “reflective” rather than “reflexive”. 🙂

  10. Forgive me Brother Hesham, for threadjacking, but this seems like a good place to begin. 😉
    Bismallah, Brother Mystic.
    Are there shariah laws which forbid blasphemy and impose harsh punishments for apostasy? Simply, do those instances of islamic jurisprudence exist?

    • let me clarify this.
      “you believe that Islam does not allow for freedom of speech and religion.”

      No. I SAID that current quranic exegesis and islamic jurisprudence do not allow for PROSELYTIZATION. Freedom of speech legalizes proselytization.
      Therefore freedom of speech is INCOMPATIBLE with the contemporary forms of shariah law.
      I too believe that Islam allows for both freedom of speech and freedom of religion…..when those things are JUST.

  11. And again, killing hundreds of thousands of muslim civilians in an aggressive act of proselytizing judeochristian democracy, again, which is IMPOSSIBLE, inspires a reflexive response.
    In response to Brother Heshams original postulate, that Egypt and Tunisia mean the end of al-Qaeda, I stated that was false.
    In response to Peter Kings senate hearings, I simply have to say…….if you want to stop islamic terrorism and radicalization of amerimuslims, STOP PROSELYTIZING in majority muslim states.
    Every radicalized amerimuslim cites American interventionism as the cause of their radicalization.
    It doesnt matter if Americans think their form of jc democracy is superior–perhaps it is superior or more “liberal”….it simply cannot be done.

    • I have been reading this quite long thread. The bottom line is this: the killing of any innocent person is wrong and strictly prohibited by Islam. There are ways, sanctioned by our faith, that Muslims can help the oppressed around the world, be they Muslim or not. And none of those ways include the barbarism of Al Qaeda and other neo-Kharijites. Killing is wrong, period.

      • I wholly agree Brother Hesham.
        I condemn the killing of innocents.
        He who kills an innocent kills the whole world.
        But I am a pragmatist, and a scientist as well as a muslimah.
        Islamic terrorism is a REACTION to American interventionism.
        It will never stop until the proselytization stops.
        And that is why Tahir did not spell the end of al-Qaeda. Or the end of Jamaat al Ishmail, or the end of Hamas, or the end of Hizbullah, or the end of violent REACTION to western interventionism.
        Because it will never end.
        It would be wonderful if islamic culture magically adopted freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
        How is this going to happen? Will you rewrite the Law? Thousands and thousands of muslims ARE DEAD because America tried to something WHICH CANNOT BE DONE.
        4.5 million Iraqi children are ORPHANED because America tried to impose judeochristian democracy on islamic cultures. Muslims are dying every day in A-stan.
        Where is their justice?

        Like the Prophet famously said, a nation can survive without god, but a nation cannot exist without justice.
        American has become an unjust nation.
        What good is it to pretend otherwise?

        If Peter King wants to stop radicalization of american muslims, then stop proselytizing judeochristian democracy in Iraq and A-stan.
        Because that is what COIN, the Bush Doctrine, and OEF and OIF always were.
        Imposing western culture on muslims.
        What is the mission Dr. Hassaballa?
        What is the mission?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s