Breaking News

Quotes About "Palestine"

Remember: Israel is bad! Its existence keeps reminding Muslims what a bunch of losers they are. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There will be no peace until they will love their children more than they hate us."

-Golda Meir-
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more ‎violence. If the Jews put ‎down their weapons ‎today, there would be no ‎more Israel'‎

~Benjamin Netanyahu~
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all out war, a war which will last for generations.

~Yasser Arafat~
"The Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasser Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel."

~ Yasser Arafat ~
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel. For our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of Palestinian people, since Arab national interest demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism".

~ Zahir Muhse'in ~

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

End of Arab Christianity

In new, Islamic Middle East, Christianity quickly becoming a thing of the past

Byט Giulio Meotti

Welcome to a Christians-free Middle East. Arab Christianity is near its extinction everywhere. “Christianity in Iraq could be eradicated in our lifetime, partially as a result of the US troop withdrawal,” declared Leonard Leo, chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Up to 900,000 Christians already fled the country since 2003, according to a recent study by Minority Rights Group International. Benjamin Sleiman, archbishop of Baghdad, also spoke of “the extinction of Christianity in the Middle East.”

In Egypt, 100,000 Christians already left the country after Hosni Mubarak’s fall earlier this year. The Egyptian Union of Human Rights is denouncing this “mass exodus.” This week Egyptian authorities arrested Gamal Massoud, a Coptic Christian student accused of posting a drawing of Islam’s prophet on Facebook that triggered two days of violence in southern Egypt; meanwhile, Muslims were attacking Massoud’s house and chanting “Allahu akbar” or “God is Great.”

In Syria, the major Christian leaders are supporting Bashar Assad’s bloodbath, fearing an Islamic takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Catholic Patriarch of Lebanon, Bechara Rai, blessed Assad as a “reformer” while Greek-Orthodox Bishop Louqa al-Khouri organized ecumenical shows to support the regime.

For the first time in Syrian history, the current Minister of Defense, Dawud Rajha, is a Christian. Yet this is not a sign of power, but rather, of desperation. Adnan al-Aroor, the Syrian sheikh who has become the religious voice of the uprising against Assad, is urging his followers to “tear apart, chop up and feed” the meat of Christian supporters of the regime “to the dogs.”

The Syrian puppets in Lebanon waged a campaign of terror against Lebanon’s Christians starting in 2005. Christian politicians and journalists were assassinated and bombs detonated in Christian areas.

Elsewhere, in Gaza, the 3,000 Christians who remain are subjected to persecution and death. Meanwhile, every year some 1,000 Palestinian Christians are leaving their citadel Bethlehem. In a recent Christmas celebration hosted by the Fatah movement, Mohammad Shtayyeh, a central committee member, appealed to Christians to “remain in the land.”

Tiger devouring the lamb
The process of eradication began immediately after Yasser Arafat assumed control of the Palestinian Authority. Christian sites and cemeteries were desecrated by Muslims. Slogans like “Islam will win” and “First the Saturday people then the Sunday People” have been painted on walls, and PLO flags were draped over Jesus crosses.

Now that the Nasserite mixture of socialism and secularism is outclassed by the Islamist travesty of “Arab Spring,” Christians are vanishing from their cradle.

Christians are paying the anti-Israel appeasing choice: they feed the Islamic crocodile hoping it would eat them last. Many ministers in all the anti-Zionist regimes of the Fertile Crescent were Christian: For example, Tariq Aziz, former Iraq’s deputy prime minister, and Michel Aflaq, the cofounder of the Ba’ath Party who played a pivotal role in the history of both Iraq and Syria.

Moreover, Arab Christians like George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh emerged as the most effective terrorist commanders. There is also the head of the Coptic Church, Pope Shenouda III, is a fierce anti-Semitic figure. Meanwhile, in Lebanon’ the Christian movements of General Michel Aoun and Sleiman Frangieh are allied with Hizbollah. Christians have also been part of municipal councils headed by Hamas.

Nonetheless, the Islamic tiger is now devouring the Christian lamb. Indeed, the Christian era in the Middle East is coming to an end.

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book “A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism”


Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The Land-for-Peace Hoax

The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.

The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.

Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.

Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel - that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace - will be exposed as worthless lies. As we are already seeing today, no one will stand up for Israel's rights. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.

As it has become more apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties will hold an absolute majority in Egypt's democratically elected parliament, Western governments and media outlets have insistently argued that these anti-Western, and anti-Jewish, movements have become moderate and pragmatic. Leading the charge to make the case has been the Obama administration. Its senior officials have eagerly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi is reportedly mediating negotiations between the US and the Taliban.

Qaradawi, an Egyptian who has been based in Qatar since 1961, when he was forced to flee Egypt due to his jihadist politics, made a triumphant return to his native land last February following the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak. Speaking to a crowd of an estimated two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Qaradawi led them in a chant calling for them to invade Jerusalem.

Over the years, Qaradawi has issued numerous religious ruling permitting, indeed requiring, the massacre of Jews. In 2009, he called for the Muslim world to complete Hitler's goal of eradicating the Jewish people.

As for the US, in 2003, Qaradawi issued a religious ruling calling for the killing of US forces in Iraq.

BOTH THE Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are happy to cater to the propaganda needs of Western journalists and politicians and pretend that they are willing to continue to uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But even as they make conditional statements to eager Americans and Europeans, they consistently tell their own people that they seek the destruction of Israel and the abrogation of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Jonathan D. Halevi documented last week in a report on Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist positions on the future of the peace between Egypt and Israel, while speaking to Westerners in general terms about their willingness to respect the treaty, both groups place numerous conditions on their willingness to maintain it. These conditions make clear that there is no way that they will continue to respect the peace treaty. Indeed, they will use any excuse to justify its abrogation and blame it on Israel. And they will do so at the earliest available opportunity.

It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the US will cut off military aid to Egypt in the wake of Cairo's abrogation of the peace treaty. But it is impossible to imagine that the Obama administration will abide by the US's commitment as the guarantor of the deal and demand that Egypt return Sinai to Israel. Indeed, it is only slightly more likely that a Republican administration would fulfill the US's commitment as guarantor of the peace and demand the return of Sinai to Israel after Egypt's democratically elected Islamist regime finds an excuse to abrogate the peace treaty.

It is important to keep this sorry state of affairs in mind when we assess the prospects for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This week, following months of intense pressure from the US and the EU, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met face to face for the first time in 16 months. According to Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, who hosted the meeting, the Palestinians submitted their proposal on security and border issues to Israel. The sides are supposed to meet again next week and Israel is expected to present its proposals on these issues.

There are several reasons that these talks are doomed to failure. The most important reason they will fail is that even if they lead to an agreement, no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is sustainable. Assuming for a moment that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas goes against everything he has said for the past three years and signs a peace deal with Israel in which he promises Israel peace in exchange for Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, this agreement will have little impact on the Palestinians' view of Israel. Abbas today represents no one. His term of office ended three years ago. Hamas won the last Palestinian elections in 2006.

And Hamas's leaders - like their counterparts in the Muslim Brotherhood - make no bones about their intention to destroy Israel. Two weeks ago at a speech in Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh proclaimed, "We say today explicitly so it cannot be explained otherwise, that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."

In his visit with his Muslim Brotherhood counterpart, Mohammad Badie, in Cairo this week Haniyeh said, "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas by definition is a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core, and its goal is liberation."

WITH HAMAS'S Brotherhood colleagues taking power from Cairo to Casablanca, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which supposedly peaceseeking Fatah will win Palestinian elections. It is in recognition of this fact that Abbas has signed a series of unity agreements with Hamas since May.

So the best case scenario for a peace deal with the Palestinians is that Abbas will sign a deal that Israel will implement by withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and expelling up to a half a million Israeli citizens from their homes. Hamas will then take power and abrogate the treaty, just as its brethren in Cairo are planning to do with their country's peace treaty.

This leads us to the question of what the diplomatic forces from the US, the EU, and the UN who have worked so hard to get the present negotiations started are really after. What are they trying to achieve by pressuring Israel to negotiate a deal that they know will not be respected by the Palestinians?

In the case of some of the parties involved it is fairly obvious that they want to weaken Israel. Take the UN for example. In 2005, Israel withdrew all of its military forces and civilians from Gaza. Rather than reward Israel for giving up land with peace, the Palestinians transformed Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks against Israel. And in June 2007, Hamas took over the territory.

Despite the fact that Israel is wholly absent from Gaza, and indeed is being attacked from Gaza, no one has called for the Palestinians to give the territory back to Israel. The UN doesn't even recognize that Israel left.

Last September, the UN published yet another report labeling Israel as the occupier of Gaza. And in accordance with this fiction, the UN - along with the EU and the US - continues to hold Israel responsible for Gaza's welfare.

Ironically, Hamas itself denies that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. In an interview with the Ma'an news agency on Tuesday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar openly admitted that Gaza is not under occupation. Speaking of Fatah's plan to launch massive demonstrations against Israel, Zahar said, "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable."

Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah can all freely tell the truth about Israel and their commitment to its destruction without fear of any repercussions. They know that the Western powers will not listen to them. They know that they will never have to pay a price for their actions. Indeed, they know they will be rewarded for them.

Since the inauguration of the land-for-peace process between Israel and the PLO 19 years ago, the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their bad faith. Israeli land giveaways have consistently been met with increased Palestinian terrorism. Since 1996, US- and European- trained Palestinian security forces have repeatedly used their guns to kill Israelis. Since 1994, the PA has made it standard practice to enlist terrorists in its US- and European-funded and trained security forces.

The US and Europe have continued to train and arm them despite their bad faith. Despite their continued commitment to Israel's destruction and involvement in terrorism, the US and the EU have continued to demand that Israel fork over more territory. At no point have either the US or the EU seriously considered ending their support for the Palestinians or the demonstrably fictitious land-for-peace formula.

As Israel bows now to still more US and EU pressure and conducts land-for-peace talks with Fatah, our leadership may be seduced by the faint praise they receive from the likes of The Washington Post or even from the Obama administration. But this praise should not turn their heads.

To understand its feckless emptiness, all they need to do is direct their attention to what happened this week in Cairo, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists secured their absolute control over Egypt's parliament. Specifically, our leaders should note the absence of any voices demanding that Egypt respect the peace treaty with Israel or return Sinai.

The time has come for Israel to admit the truth. Land-for-peace is a confidence game and we are the mark.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Iran - Beyond Top Secret

5 parts of the TV show "Iran - Beyond Top Secret", exposing the tactics of Iran on the way to achieve nuclear bomb and her intention of using it, likewise, you will see the tactics of the CIA to stop Iran. This film contain excellent and rare footage that photographed in Iran, as well as intelligence experts who shows an updated view on the dangerous of Ahmedinejad and nuclear Iran to the free world. Excellent movie of History Channel.
Enjoy watching..

Language: English
Subtitles: Hebrew

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Islamic Apartheid: Mecca and Medina

According to Saudi Arabian Law it is illegal for any non-Muslim to step foot in the cities of Mecca and Medina. In Medina however, non-Muslims are allowed to enter the Sheraton hotel on the outskirts of town. The Islamists allow a man made exception in their divinely inspired Shariah for the Sheraton Hotel Corporation, yet they make no exception for anyone else.

The equivalent of the Mecca/Medina Apartheid would be the Vatican issuing a decree excluding all non-Catholics/Christians from entering Vatican City, at threat of arrest and imprisonment. The Vatican however, welcomes all people without regard to race, religion, or national origin. Israel also welcomes all faiths, including Muslims, to their most holiest of places, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Conversely, during the period of Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, all Jews were barred entry into the entire Old City and the Wailing Wall was desecrated by the Islamists.

So what it is about non-Muslims that Muslims find so revolting that it is illegal for them to step foot inside the city limits of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina?

In order to understand the Islamist ideology we must understand what the codified Islamic texts teach at the most basic of levels. Once we connect with what the Islamists believes to be true, we can understand the foundation for the actions of the Islamist.

The only thing that matters now is what the codified Islamic texts say and what most Muslims believe. What you as a non-Muslim think and feel is irrelevant. The Islamist believes they are helping the non-Muslim find peace and the straight path through both violent and non-violent Jihad. If an Islamist is forced to use violence on the non-Muslim it is always the non-Muslims fault for not choosing the Islamic path that is “best” for them.

“The Holy Qur’an is the Divine Word of Allah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel to save mankind from darkness unto light.”
(Qur’an 14: 1).

“Allah sent it as the Book in truth and the balance to judge between right and wrong.”
(Qur’an 42: 17).

“Since it is the Book of Allah, He Himself guards it from corruption (Qur’an 15: 9) for man to learn wisdom.”
(Qur’an 12: 2) and, hence, receive the most righteous guidance (Qur’an 17: 9). “Allah enlightens mankind to the truth.” (1)

“Allah the Almighty sent Muhammad (the seal of all the prophets) as His universal Messenger to mankind, giving them glad tidings, and warning them against sin .”
(Qur’an 34: 28).

“Allah sent him to perfect all moral values and to serve as the best example for mankind to follow.”
(Qur’an 33: 21).

Islamists believe Muhammad is the last Prophet on earth and the Qur’an is the final divine revelation for all mankind. The Islamist believes every word of the Qur’an is the exact word of Allah, uncorrupted by man, down to the last letter. As the final divine revelation on earth, the Qur’an, is considered superior to all previously written man made texts like the Old Testament, New Testament, Torah, and U.S. Constitution to name a few. Shariah/Islamic Law is the practical application of Allah’s revelations to Muhammad. The followers of Islam believe the Shariah (Islamic Law) is the perfect divinely inspired legal system and code of life for all mankind.

Islamic scholars teach that the divinely inspired Qur’an and Shariah outline the specific obligations for all mankind to follow, ushering in an era of peace and coexistence among all men. The Islamist believes, in his heart, he is bringing peace to the world by utilizing violence and terrorism, if necessary, to show the non-Believer the way back to the social, religious, and political governmental system known as Shariah Compliant Islam. Da’wa is the Arabic word for the obligatory proselytizing of Islamic doctrine to the non-Muslim. In the eyes of the Islamist, it is up to the non-Islamic individual or country to decide if they accept Political Islam by the word or the sword. The followers of Islam believe that when they use coercion and violence it is because the non-Muslim left him no choice. The Islamist believes in his soul they are the compassionate peacemakers either through violent or non-violent means.

In this video Imam Musri blames the United States for radicalizing the Muslim youth . “This radicalization culminated in 9/11”, Musri says.

Musri implies we left our Islamist adversaries no choice but to attack us.

There is no difference in the “Supremacist Islamic Ideology” of the violent and non violent Jihadist, only a difference of tactics. You can put the Jihadist in an Armani suit but the goals of “peace” through Jihad will always be the same no matter if it is in the USA or Afghanistan. It doesn’t matter if it is the well dressed Americanized stealth Jihadist’s of CAIR, ISNA, and the Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States. The only ideological difference between the violent Jihadist’s and non-violent stealth Jihadist’s is one of tactics. The Muslim advocacy groups in America like ISNA and CAIR will condemn the “act” of terrorism but will “never” condemn the Islamic doctrine that justifies violence to further advance Shariah Compliant Islam in America.

Understanding how the Islamist views the Kufr or non-believer is one of the most important elements of this equation that is misunderstood by Western culture.

“The Qur'aan uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities. The Qur'an uses this word to identify those who denied Allaah's favors by not accepting His Dominion and Authority. Kufr thus is an antonym for Iman or disbelief in Allaah and a Kaafir is a non-believer. This type of Kufr is called AL-KUFR UL AKBAR or major kufr.”2

Make no mistake, when you hear or read a Muslim calling you a Kufr, Kufar, or Kaafir it is considered a derogatory term by the Muslim aimed directly at you as an individual. The word Kufr or Kaafir is meant to be as offensive as calling someone the “N” word, a kyke, cracker, racist, etc... When a Muslim calls someone a Kufr it is pure bigotry, intolerance, and hatred. Take offense because offense is intended by those who use the vile epithet, Kufr or Kaafir, when describing you. Kufr is modern day hate speech.

The Islamist must take disbelief of Political Islam very seriously because Muhammad and Allah, made disbelief a punishable offense. For an Islamist to publicly state his disbelief in Islam, he then becomes an apostate. Umdat al-Salik Wa-‘Uddat al Nisak or “Reliance of the Traveller” is a codified Islamic text, with Ijma (consensus), of Shariah / Islamic Law. Ijma means there can be no debate about the legality of what I’m about to tell you. Page 595, o8.1, of Reliance of the Traveller states,

“When a person who has reached puberty, and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

o8.0 of Reliance states,

“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (Kufr) and the worst.”

Watch this video taken at the 2011 Dearborn Arab International Festival (WARNING – contains bad language and scenes of intimidation).

You will see many different street scenes of how the Dearborn 46% Muslim majority feel and act during their most emotional and unscripted moments. Many say that Dearborn, MI is an “emerging No Go Zone” and this explosive video validates that claim.

Muslim on Muslim violence began immediately after Muhammad died. Scores of Arab Muslim tribes left Islam after Muhammad’s death and those that remained loyal to Muhammad’s successor Caliph Abu Bakr considered this a political rebellion. These Muslim apostates were graciously given the opportunity to submit to Islam or die. These bloody wars became known as the Ridda or Apostasy Wars lasting from 632-633 AD. The practice of death to apostates is considered the worst of offenses to Allah. Muslims here in the United States who leave Islam are persecuted and often killed by their fellow Muslims. Visit the website, Former Muslims United, to hear their heroic stories.

If a Muslim deserves to be killed by his fellow Muslims for leaving Islam, it is factual to conclude the apostate is viewed by the Islamist as subhuman and worthy of death according Islamic Shariah doctrine.

We learned earlier a devout Muslim believes the entire Qur’an is the word of Allah and infallible down to the last letter. For a Muslim to challenge the word of Allah is blasphemy and carries severe punishment in Shariah Islam. Therefore, most all Muslims keep their mouths shut if their voice strays from the Shariah Compliant line.

Islamist superiority over all non-Muslims comes straight from Qur’an verse 3:110,

“Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it would be best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.”

The arrogance and superiority dripping from this Qur’an verse offends me. I am offended the devout Muslim believes in this Allah given Qur’an verse that infers most all non-Muslims are second class citizens, perverted transgressors, and sub human. I am offended for all the Muslims who choose to leave Political Islam and risk death by their fellow Islamists’ hands. I am offended that Muslim Advocacy Groups in America try to attack and silence anyone with vile epithets and frivolous lawsuits who publicly criticize Shariah Compliant Islam. I am offended that Muslims make up only 1% of the U.S. population but are demanding Shariah Compliant accommodations on the other 99% who are non-Muslim. Our founding fathers called this practice the tyranny of the minority. I see the signs that American Muslim Advocacy Groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and The Muslim Student Association (MSA) want to change American culture rather than assimilate. I am offended the Islamists see themselves as culturally superior to our man made laws and refuse to submit to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states, “United States Law shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”

It is this Muhammad inspired Islamist cultural superiority that makes Apartheid possible in Mecca and Medina. I am offended that every Mosque and Islamic Center in America supports these Apartheid practices by promoting trips to Mecca and Medina knowing the other 99% of their fellow American’s would be arrested or not allowed admittance for the crime of being non-Muslim.

I am outraged Eric Holder’s Department of Justice filed a civil rights lawsuit in December of 2010 against a Chicago School on behalf of, Safoorah Khan. Khan requested three weeks off in the middle of the school year to attend the pilgrimage to Mecca. Ms. Khan’s Shariah compliant superiority over manmade rules and contracts is in accordance with Islamic doctrine. When the non-Islamic government school district failed to submit to Ms. Khan’s extraordinary demands and special rights, she viewed herself as the victim. Khan filed a discrimination lawsuit costing our government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Khan is not the victim but a player in the game of Legal Jihad and you should be angered, outraged, and offended by Ms. Khan’s and The Department of Justice’s pro-Shariah Compliant position over our manmade laws.

The next step in the evolution of Shariah Compliance in America will be the obscene demand that Shariah Family Courts become a legal and parallel court system in America, just as they are in Europe. Now why in the world would an American Muslim wish to challenge Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states that, “...United States Law Shall be the Law of the Land...”?

Now you know the answer: The followers of the Qur’an, Muhammad, and the Shariah Compliant Islam believe their divinely inspired texts are superior to our man made laws such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You must understand the devout Islamist believes they are helping us to shed our corrupted man made laws by forcefully introducing Shariah Compliant Islam into our unique Representative Republic form of Government. The devout Islamist believes in their heart they are leading us as a country down the “right path” as transmitted by Allah to his last and final messenger Muhammad. They believe that Shariah Compliant Islam is the right path for all mankind.

The Muslim Advocacy Groups and The Muslim Brotherhood are achieving their strategic military objective of Shariah Family Courts in America one lawsuit at a time mixed in with terrorism to instill fear into the hearts of non-believers.

Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood in America:

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Editor's Note:

God Bless America and God Bless our Troops
As Vito, my Radio Jihad cohost, says, “Mama Mia, No Shariah!”

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is Regional Coordinator for The United West - Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. He can be contacted at:

Family Security Matters

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Racist Exile of Jews from Arab Countries

Alot of people totally ignore how the Jews from Arab countries were murdered, attacked, ridiculed, threatened and forced to leave!

* Where is their compensation?
* Where is their right of return?
* Why are they totally ignored by the Liberals, main stream media, the UN, Human Rights and Leftist groups??

Here's a brief account of what happened, where and how:


The last Jews who wanted to leave Syria departed with the chief rabbi in October 1994. Prior to 1947, there were some 30,000 Jews made up of three distinct communities, each with its own traditions: the Kurdish-speaking Jews of Kamishli, the Jews of Aleppo with roots in Spain, and the original eastern Jews of Damascus, called Must'arab. Today only a tiny remnant of these communities remains.

The Jewish presence in Syria dates back to biblical times and is intertwined with the history of Jews in neighboring Eretz Israel. With the advent of Christianity, restrictions were imposed on the community. The Arab conquest in 636 A.D, however, greatly improved the lot of the Jews. Unrest in neighboring Iraq in the 10th century resulted in Jewish migration to Syria and brought about a boom in commerce, banking, and crafts. During the reign of the Fatimids, the Jew Menashe Ibrahim El-Kazzaz ran the Syrian administration, and he granted Jews positions in the government.

Syrian Jewry supported the aspirations of the Arab nationalists and Zionism, and Syrian Jews believed that the two parties could be reconciled and that the conflict in Palestine could be resolved. However, following Syrian independence from France in 1946, attacks against Jews and their property increased, culminating in the pogroms of 1947, which left all shops and synagogues in Aleppo in ruins. Thousands of Jews fled the country, and their homes and property were taken over by the local Muslims.

For the next decades, Syrian Jews were, in effect, hostages of a hostile regime. They could leave Syria only on the condition that they leave members of their family behind. Thus the community lived under siege, constantly under fearful surveillance of the secret police. This much was allowed due to an international effort to secure the human rights of the Jews


Jews have lived in Egypt since Biblical times, and the conditions of the community have constantly fluctuated with the political situation of the land. Israelite tribes first moved to the Land of Goshen (the northeastern edge of the Nile Delta) during the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV (1375-1358 B.C).

During the reign of Ramses II (1298-1232 B.C), they were enslaved for the Pharaoh's building projects. His successor, Merneptah, continued the same anti-Jewish policies, and around the year 1220 B.C, the Jews revolted and escaped across the Sinai to Canaan. This is the biblical Exodus commemorated in the holiday of Passover. Over the years, many Jews in Eretz Israel who were not deported to Babylon sought shelter in Egypt, among them the prophet Jeremiah. By 1897 there were more than 25,000 Jews in Egypt, concentrated in Cairo and Alexandria. In 1937 the population reached a peak of 63,500.

Friedman wrote in "The Myth of Arab Tolerance", "One Caliph, Al-Hakem of the Fatimids devised particularly insidious humiliations for the Jews in his attempt to perform what he deemed his roll as "Redeemer of mankind", first the Jews were forced to wear miniature golden calf images around their necks, as though they still worshipped the golden calf, but the Jews refused to convert. Next they wore bells, and after that six pound wooden blocks were hung around their necks. In fury at his failure, the Caliph had the Cairo Jewish quarter destroyed, along with it's Jewish residence, in".

In 1945, with the rise of Egyptian nationalism and the cultivation of anti-Western and anti-Jewish sentiment, riots erupted. In the violence, 10 Jews were killed, 350 injured, and a synagogue, a Jewish hospital, and an old-age home were burned down. The establishment of the State of Israel led to still further anti-Jewish feeling: Between June and November 1948, bombs set off in the Jewish Quarter killed more than 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200. 2,000 Jews were arrested and many had their property confiscated. Rioting over the next few months resulted in many more Jewish deaths. Between June and November 1948, bombs set off in the Jewish Quarter killed more than 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200.

Jews In 1956, the Egyptian government used the Sinai Campaign as a pretext for expelling almost 25,000 Egyptian Jews and confiscating their property. Approximately 1,000 more Jews were sent to prisons and detention camps. On November 23, 1956, a proclamation signed by the Minister of Religious Affairs, and read aloud in mosques throughout Egypt, declared that "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state," and promised that they would be soon expelled.

Thousands of Jews were ordered to leave the country. They were allowed to take only one suitcase and a small sum of cash, and forced to sign declarations "donating" their property to the Egyptian government. Foreign observers reported that members of Jewish families were taken hostage, apparently to insure that those forced to leave did not speak out against the Egyptian government. AP, (November 26 and 29th 1956); New York World Telegram).

By 1957 it had fallen to 15,000. In 1967, after the Six-Day War, there was a renewed wave of persecution, and the community dropped to 2,500. By the 1970s, after the remaining Jews were given permission to leave the country, the community dwindled to a few families. Nearly all the Jews in Egypt are elderly, and the community is on the verge of extinction.


The Iraqi Jews took pride in their distinguished Jewish community, with it's history of scholarship and dignity. Jews had prospered in what was then Babylonia for 1200 years before the Muslim conquest in AD 634; it was not until the 9th century that Dhimmi laws such as the yellow patch, heavy head tax, and residence restriction enforced. Capricious and extreme oppression under some Arab caliphs and Momlukes brought taxation amounting to expropriation in AD 1000, and 1333 the persecution culminated in pillage and destruction of the Baghdad Sanctuary. in 1776, there was a slaughter of Jews at Bosra, and in bitterness of anti Jewish measures taken Muslim rulers in the 18th century caused many Jews to flea.

The Iraqi Jewish community is one of the oldest in the world and has a great history of learning and scholarship. Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, was born in Ur of the Chaldees, in southern Mesopotamia, now Iraq, around 2,000 A.D. The community traces its history back to 6th century A.D, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judea and sent most of the population into exile in Babylonia.

The community also maintained strong ties with the Land of Israel and, with the aid of rabbis from Israel, succeeded in establishing many prominent rabbinical academies. By the 3rd century, Babylonia became the center of Jewish scholarship, as is attested to by the community's most influential creation, the Babylonian Talmud.

Under Muslim rule, beginning in the 7th century, the situation of the community fluctuated. Many Jews held high positions in government or prospered in commerce and trade. At the same time, Jews were subjected to special taxes, restrictions on their professional activity, and anti-Jewish incitement among the masses.

Under British rule, which began in 1917, Jews fared well economically, and many were elected to government posts. This traditionally observant community was also allowed to found Zionist organizations and to pursue Hebrew studies. All of this progress ended when Iraq gained independence in 1932.

In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000.

Although emigration was prohibited, many Jews made their way to Israel during this period with the aid of an underground movement. In 1950 the Iraqi parliament finally legalized emigration to Israel, and between May 1950 and August 1951, the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government succeeded in airlifting approximately 110,000 Jews to Israel in Operations Ezra and Nehemiah. This figure includes 18,000 Kurdish Jews, who have many distinct traditions. Thus a community that had reached a peak of 150,000 in 1947 dwindled to a mere 6,000 after 1951.

Additional outbreaks of anti-Jewish rioting occurred between 1946-49. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionism became a capital crime.


In 1950, Iraqi Jews were permitted to leave the country within a year provided they forfeited their citizenship. A year later, however, the property of Jews who emigrated was frozen and economic restrictions were placed on Jews who chose to remain in the country. From 1949 to 1951, 104,000 Jews were evacuated from Iraq in Operations Ezra and Nehemiah; another 20,000 were smuggled out through Iran. In 1952, Iraq's government barred Jews from emigrating and publicly hanged two Jews after falsely charging them with hurling a bomb at the Baghdad office of the U.S. Information Agency.

With the rise of competing Ba'ath factions in 1963, additional restrictions were placed on the remaining Iraqi Jews. The sale of property was forbidden and all Jews were forced to carry yellow identity cards. After the Six-Day War, more repressive measures were imposed: Jewish property was expropriated; Jewish bank accounts were frozen; Jews were dismissed from public posts; businesses were shut; trading permits were cancelled; telephones were disconnected. Jews were placed under house arrest for long periods of time or restricted to the cities.

Persecution was at its worst at the end of 1968. Scores were jailed upon the discovery of a local "spy ring" composed of Jewish businessmen. Fourteen men-eleven of them Jews-were sentenced to death in staged trials and hanged in the public squares of Baghdad; others died of torture. On January 27, 1969, Baghdad Radio called upon Iraqis to "come and enjoy the feast." Some 500,000 men, women and children paraded and danced past the scaffolds where the bodies of the hanged Jews swung; the mob rhythmically chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to all traitors." This display brought a world-wide public outcry that Radio Baghdad dismissed by declaring: "We hanged spies, but the Jews crucified Christ." (Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, p. 34).

Jews remained under constant surveillance by the Iraqi government. Max Sawadayee, in "All Waiting to be Hanged" writes a testimony of an Iraqi Jew (who later escaped): "The dehumanization of the Jewish personality resulting from continuous humiliation and torment...have dragged us down to the lowest level of our physical and mental faculties, and deprived us of the power to recover.".

In response to international pressure, the Baghdad government quietly allowed most of the remaining Jews to emigrate in the early 1970's, even while leaving other restrictions in force. Most of Iraq's remaining Jews are now too old to leave. They have been pressured by the government to turn over title, without compensation, to more than $200 million worth of Jewish community property. (New York Times, February 18, 1973).

Only one synagogue continues to function in Iraq, "a crumbling buff-colored building tucked away in an alleyway" in Baghdad. According to the synagogue's administrator, "there are few children to be bar-mitzvahed, or couples to be married. Jews can practice their religion but are not allowed to hold jobs in state enterprises or join the army." (New York Times Magazine, February 3, 1985).

In 1991, prior to the Gulf War, the State Department said "there is no recent evidence of overt persecution of Jews, but the regime restricts travel, (particularly to Israel) and contacts with Jewish groups abroad.".

Persecutions continued, especially after the Six-Day War in 1967, when many of the remaining 3,000 Jews were arrested and dismissed from their jobs. Finally In Iraq all the Jews were forced to leave between 1948 and 1952 and leave everything behind. Jews were publicly hanged in the center of Baghdad with enthusiastic mob as audience.

The Jews were persecuted throughout the centuries in all the Arabic speaking countries. One time, Baghdad was one-fifth Jewish and other communities had first been established 2,500 years ago. Today, approximately 61 Jews are left in Baghdad and another 200 or so are in Kurdish areas in the north. Only one synagogue remains in Bataween, - once Baghdad's main Jewish neighborhood.- The rabbi died in 1996 and none of the remaining Jews can perform the liturgy and only a couple know Hebrew. (Associated Press, March 28, 1998).


The Jewish community of present-day Morocco dates back more than 2,000 years. There were Jewish people in the country before it became a Roman province. in 1032 AD, 6000 Jews were murdered. Indeed the greatest persecution by the Arabs towards the Jews was in Fez, Morocco, nothing was worse than the slaughter of 120,000 Jews in 1146. In 1391 a wave of Jewish refugees expelled from Spain brought new life to the community, as did new arrivals from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497.

From 1438, the Jews of Fez were forced to live in special quarters called mellahs, a name derived from the Arabic word for salt because the Jews in Morocco were forced to carry out the job of salting the heads of executed prisoners prior to their public display. Chouraqui sums it up when he wrote: "such restriction and humiliation as to exceed anything in Europe". Charles de Foucauld in 1883 who was not generally sympathetic to Jews writes of the Jews: "They are the most unfortunate of men, every Jew belongs body and soul to his seigneur, the sid [Arab master]". Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.


In June 1948, bloody riots in Oujda and Djerada killed 44 Jews and wounded scores more. That same year, an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews. In 1956, Morocco declared its independence, In 1963, more then 100,000 Moroccan Jews were forced out and went to Israel.


In Yemen from the seventh century on the Jewish populations suffered the severest possible interpretation of the Charter of Omar. For about 4 centuries, the Jews suffered under the fierce fanatical edict of the most intolerant Islamic sects. The Yemen Epistle by Rambam in which he commiserated with Yemen's Jewry and besought them to keep the faith, and in 1724 fanatical rulers ordered synagogues destroyed, and Jewish public prayers were forbidden. The Jews were exiled, many died from starvation and the survivors were ordered to settle in Mausa, but later, this order was annulled by a decree in 1781 due to the need of their skilled craftsmen.

Jacob Sappir a Jerusalem writer describes Yemeni Jews in Yemen in 1886: "The Arab natives have always considered the Jew unclean, but his blood for them was not considered unclean. They lay claims to all his belongings, and if he is unwilling, they employ force...The Jews live outside the town in dark dwellings like prison cells or caves out of fear...for the least offense, he is sentenced to outrageous fines, which he is quite unable to pay. In case of non-payment, he is put in chains and cruelly beaten every day. Before the punishment is inflicted, the Cadi[judge] addresses him in gentle tones and urges him to change his faith and obtain a share of all the glory of this world and of the world beyond. His refusal is again regarded as penal obstinacy.

On the other hand, it is not open to the Jew to prosecute a Muslim, as the Muslim by right of law can dispose of the life and the property of the Jew, and it is only to be regarded as an act of magnanimity if the Jews are allowed to live. The Jew is not admissible as a witness, nor has his oath any validity." Danish-German explorer Garsten Neibuhr visited Yemen in 1762 described Jewish life in Yemen: "By day they work in their shops in San'a, but by night they must withdraw to their isolated dwellings, shortly before my arrival, 12 of the 14 synagogues of the Jews were torn down, and all their beautiful houses wrecked". The Jews did not improve until the establishment of the French Protectorate in 1912, when they were given equality and religious autonomy. In 1922, the government of Yemen reintroduced an ancient Islamic law that decreed that Jewish orphans under age 12 were to be forcibly converted to Islam.

In 1947, after the partition vote, Muslim rioters, joined by the local police force, engaged in a bloody pogrom in Aden that killed 82 Jews and destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes. Aden's Jewish community was economically paralyzed, as most of the Jewish stores and businesses were destroyed. Early in 1948, looting occurred after six Jews were falsely accused of the ritual murder of two Arab girls. (Howard Sachar, A History of Israel). 50,000 Jews were kicked out of Yemen in 1948.


The first documented evidence of Jews in this area dates back to 200 A.D and demonstrates the existence of a community in Latin Carthage under Roman rule. Latin Carthage contained a significant Jewish presence, and several sages mentioned in the Talmud lived in this area from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. During the Byzantine period, the condition of the community took a turn for the worse. An edict issued by Justinian in 535 excluded Jews from public office, prohibited Jewish practice, and resulted in the transformation of synagogues into churches. Many fled to the Berber communities in the mountains and in the desert.

After the Arab conquest of Tunisia in the 7th century, Jews lived under satisfactory conditions, despite discriminatory measures such as a poll tax. From 7th century Arab conquest down through the Almahdiyeen atrocities, Tunisia fared little better than its neighbors. The complete expulsion of Jews from Kairouan near Tunis occurred after years of hardship, in the 13 century when Kairouan was anointed as a holy city of Islam. In the 16th century, the "hated and despised" Jews of Tunis were periodically attacked by violence and they were subjected to "vehement anti-Jewish policy" during the various political struggles of the period. In 1869 Muslims butchered many Jews in the defenseless ghetto. Conditions worsened during the Spanish invasions of 1535-1574, resulting in the flight of Jews from the coastal areas. The situation of the community improved once more under Ottoman rule.

During this period, the community also split due to strong cultural differences between the Touransa (native Tunisians) and the Grana (those adhering to Spanish or Italian customs). Jews suffered once more in 1956, when the country achieved independence. The rabbinical tribunal was abolished in 1957, and a year later, Jewish community councils were dissolved. In addition, the Jewish quarter of Tunis was destroyed by the government. Anti-Jewish rioting followed the outbreak of the Six-Day War; Muslims burned down the Great Synagogue of Tunis. These events increased the steady stream of emigration.


The Jewish community of Libya traces its origin back to the 3rd century B.C Under Roman rule, Jews prospered. In 73 A.D, a zealot from Israel, Jonathan the Weaver, incited the poor of the community in Cyrene to revolt. The Romans reacted with swift vengeance, murdering him and his followers and executing other wealthy Jews in the community. This revolt foreshadowed that of 115 A.D, which broke out not only in Cyrene, but in Egypt and Cyprus as well. In 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews.With the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911, the situation remained good and the Jews made great strides in education. At that time, there were about 21,000 Jews in the country, the majority in Tripoli. In the late 1930s, Fascist anti-Jewish laws were gradually enforced, and Jews were subject to terrible repression. Still, by 1941, the Jews accounted for a quarter of the population of Tripoli and maintained 44 synagogues.

In 1942 the Germans occupied the Jewish quarter of Benghazi, plundered shops, and deported more than 2,000 Jews across the desert, where more than one-fifth of them perished. Many Jews from Tripoli were also sent to forced labor camps. Conditions did not greatly improve following the liberation. During the British occupation, there was a series of pogroms, the worst of which, in 1945, resulted in the deaths of more than 100 Jews in Tripoli and other towns and the destruction of five synagogues. The establishment of the State of Israel, led many Jews to leave the country.

A savage pogrom in Tripoli on November 5, 1945 were more than 140 Jews were massacred and almost every synagogue looted. (Howard Sachar, A History of Israel).In June 1948, rioters murdered another 12 Jews and destroyed 280 Jewish homes. Thousands of Jews fled the country after Libya was granted independence and membership in the Arab League in 1951. (Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times). After the Six-Day War, the Jewish population of 7,000 was again subjected to pogroms in which 18 were killed, and many more injured, sparking a near-total exodus that left fewer than 100 Jews in Libya. When Col. Qaddafi came to power in 1969, all Jewish property was confiscated and all debts to Jews cancelled. Today, no Jews are believed to live in Libya. Although emigration was illegal, more than 3,000 Jews succeeded to leave to Israel.

When the British legalized emigration in 1949, more than 30,000 Jews fled Libya. At the time of Colonel Qaddafi's coup in 1969, some 500 Jews remained in Libya. Qaddafi subsequently confiscated all Jewish property and cancelled all debts owed to Jews. By 1974 there were no more than 20 Jews, and it is believed that the Jewish presence has passed out of existence. JEWS IN ALGERIA PRIOR TO 1948

Jewish settlement in present-day Algeria can be traced back to the first centuries of the Common Era. In the 14th century, with the deterioration of conditions in Spain, many Spanish Jews moved to Algeria. Among them were a number of outstanding scholars, including the Ribash and the Rashbatz. After the French occupation of the country in 1830, Jews gradually adopted French culture and were granted French citizenship. On the eve of the civil war that gripped the country in the late 1950s, there were some 130,000 Jews in Algeria, approximately 30,000 of whom lived in the capital.

Nearly all Algerian Jews fled the country shortly after it gained independence from France in 1962. Most of the remaining Jews live in Algiers, but there are individual Jews in Oran and Blida. A single synagogue functions in Algiers, although there is no resident rabbi. All other synagogues have been taken over for use as mosques. In 1934, a Nazi-incited pogrom in Constantine left 25 Jews dead and scores injured. After being granted independence in 1962, the Algerian government harassed the Jewish community and deprived Jews of their principle economic rights. 150,000 Jews were forced out of Algeria when France left Algeria.
Tears of Jihad

270 million dead by Muslims

Whereas Islam began with killing of unbelievers right from the start.

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

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

Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

120 million Africans

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

60 million Christians

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

80 million Hindus

Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]

10 million Buddhists

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

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
"Egypt was 14.5 Million people when first opened in Umar's time. When Napoleon walked in 1000 years later, the country was down to 2.5 Million people. 1000 years of bad management causing famines, ethnic cleansings, genocides, revolts. And that happened to one of the world most advanced civilizations.

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

If we assume the number should have remained 14.5 Million. I we estimate One generation every 25 years. Then we have 250 generations over 1000 years. Over 250 generations, the population lost 12 Million from its total count.

on average each generation would have had to lose 48,000 people over 250 generations over 1000 years so that the minimum number of losses would be 12 Million Egyptians. Of course the number of loss is higher since people usually give more birth when facing poverty and hard times and there was no birth control available.

Political Islam

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Jewish Population in Arab and Muslim Countries

The vast majority of Leftists attitude toward Israel, particularly in the United Kingdom, have decided to trade in their civil liberties for the munificent benediction of those who would not think twice about destroying a secular democracy.

For example:

1) Why is it that many Muslim nations have legislated 'Jew/Christian free' land space (e.g.: Jordan), but Christians and Jews have no such right? Jews are not even allowed to be citizens in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians cannot live in Mecca or even enter it as tourists. It seems that Muslim entitlement to live free from infidels is unquestioned, but any intimation of the reverse is met with ardent accusations of 'racism'

2) Why is it that the 23 Muslim countries in the Middle East, that have 600 times the land of tiny Israel, demand that the Israelis give up parts of their infinitesimally small land space? The holy land was virtually absent in population prior to the 1880s. Arabs who call themselves 'Palestinians' hail from persons who lived in Egypt, 'Trans-Jordan,' Lebanon, and Syria 150 years ago. Such was the irony seen in PLO leader, Yassir Arafat. Muslim Arabs already "OCCUPY" 600 times the amount of land that tiny Israel does, so why deprive the Jews of this 1/600 fraction of land space?

3) Why is it that Jewish Settlers can't live in parts of Israel, but Arabs can live anywhere in Israel, often living on Jewish owned land? The Israeli gov't tosses Jews off of Arab land, but does not do the same to Arabs because of media hypersensitivity to Arabs.

4) Statistics from Arab sources about decimated Jewish populations in the M.E.:

Exodus from Arab Muslim countries:

Country 1948 vs 2011

Algeria (1948) 140,0000 - (2011) 0
Bahrain (1948) 550-600 - (20011) 37
Egypt (1948) 80,000 - (20011) 100 or less
Iraq (1948) 140,000 - (2011) 11
Lebanon (1948) 20,000 - (2011) 0
Libya (1948) 38,000 - (2011) 0
Morocco (1948) 300,000 - (2011) 3,000 or less
Syria (1948) 40,000 - (2011) 100 or less
Tunisia (1948) 105,000 - (2011) 500 or less
Yemen (1948) 80,000 - (2011) 350 or less
Jordan (1948) 10,000 - (2011) 0
Sudan (1948) 350 - (2011) 0

Total (1948) 953,950 (2011) 4,098 or less

Ma'abarot transit camp, 1950

Exodus from non-Arab Muslim countries:

Country 1948 vs 2011

Afghanistan (1948) 5,000 - (2011) 1
Iran (1948) 210, 000 - (2011) 35, 000 0r less
Kurdistan (1948) 120, 000 - (2011) 100 or less
Pakistan (1948) 2,500 - (2011) 100 or less
Turkey (1948) 115, 000 - (2011) 2,500

Total (1948) 452, 500 - (2011) 37, 701

Beit Lid's Maabara 1950

Looking at these statistics, I think that Arab/Muslims definitely need more living space--NOT

After getting rid of the Jews in Arab/Muslim countries, I would like to say a word to my Christian friends: try paying a little bit of attention to how Christians are being massacred in tens of Muslim countries, the latest being Pakistan and Egypt where women and children are terrorized for going to Church!

Not to mention over than 2,000,000 (two millions) Christians already murdered in Indonesia.

The Islamic idea is: convert to Islam OR die!!!

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Palestinian Islamic Jihad

by Alden Oreck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish Virtual Library

Islamic Hypocrisy in Europe

by Khaled Abu Toameh

European countries are certainly not the right place for Muslims who want to live under sharia law.

Muslims who are unhappy with France's recent decision to ban the veil should find a more suitable place to live, such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Iran. There, they would feel free to wear the burqa and the niqab and build as many mosques as they want.

Just as Saudi Arabia bans the construction of a church or synagogue in Mecca and Medina, the Italians and the Spaniards have the right to limit the number of mosques in their countries. Muslims who see the establishment of a church or synagogue in their neighborhood as a provocation have no right to complain when non-Muslims express the same sentiments about mosques.

Would it ever occur to a Christian or Jew to move to Saudi Arabia and demand the right to drink alcohol and eat pork?

Can anybody imagine what would happen to a Christian if he or she were wearing the cross on the streets of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia? Or if a Jew wearing a skullcap were seen walking in the streets of Kabul or Khartoum?

Just as most non-Muslim women do not feel comfortable living in Islamic countries where women must cover their heads and faces and are not allowed to drive a car, Muslims have no right to impose their lifestyle, culture and religion on others.

Non-Muslims who travel to Islamic countries often respect the laws, traditions and religious beliefs of their hosts. Christians who have broken sharia laws in some Islamic countries often find themselves behind bars and end up facing deportation.

But why is it that when Muslims goes to live in a France, Britain and Canada, they do not hesitate to demand that the people living in these countries accept their ways?

A Muslim woman who wants – or is forced – to wear a veil is entitled to do so – but she has no right to protest if a Western government bans her from covering her face.

The ban should not be seen as an act of hostility toward Islam; instead, it should be regarded as a move intended to prevent a phenomenon that even many Muslims see as an act of degradation against women.

Radical Muslims who are trying to impose their will on Western societies are only causing damage to their faith.

The campaign launched by some Muslims against the French ban will only alienate non-Muslims and increase their concerns about Islam.

By challenging the French ban, for example, Muslims are telling the French people that they are more interested in separation from Western culture than integration.

Muslims living in Western countries have the right to practice their religious beliefs and traditions, but they should not expect non-Muslims to accept everything they want.

Hudson NY

The Myth of Islamic Democracy and the Middle East Crisis

By alfadi

Time and time again we hear that Islam is a religion that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths. That it is a faith which is fully compatible with democracy. However, such statements are rich with false dreams and void affirmations.

In my previous two blogs I revealed the teachings of the Quran, Islam’s holiest book, regarding two very important issues; freedom of religion and equality. The two articles addressed the treatment of people of other faith under Islamic law, and the status of women in general. The outcome of these articles was very obvious; Islam despises women and does not offer others any type of religious freedom under which they can worship and have their rights be protected at the same time.

Today I like to continue on with the same theme, with the emphasis more on the overall concept of Islam Sharia Law. However, the angle I will be taking has to do with the myth of the so called Islamic Democracy and the hope for new era in the Middle East.

Not that many people realize that in order for Islam to accept the concept of democracy, a cultural reformation must take place at first. Such reformation will have to cause drastic face lifting of values and beliefs that must be compatible with Islamic teachings and its religious values. In other words, in order for the Middle East to have any hope for any democracy, under Islamic ideology, there need to be a major adaptation of Islam and its Sharia Law. However, the concept of and Islamic democracy is a wishful thinking.

For how can Islam offer any type of democracy when it teaches certain realities as the ones discussed below:

Democracy & Islam

Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted sharia. Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony.

The Quran clearly teaches that “. . . if any fail to judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than unbelievers.” (Q 5:47)

“The sharia cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards. Rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform.” (Muslim Brotherhood ‘spiritual leader’ Yousef al-Qaradawi)

Freedom of Religion and Apostasy

The established ruling of sharia is that apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found. This ruling is derived directly from the Quran “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith—but such as open their heart to Unbelief—on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Q 16:106)

And from other classical Islamic sources such as:

“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…..When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed…There is no indemnity for killing an apostate…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, Reliance of the Traveler, Chapter 08.0-08.4)

Islamic Supremacism

Islam explicitly teaches it is superior to every other culture, faith, government, and society and that it is a religion ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate them. This sense of superiority comes directly from the Quran, with instructions such as these below:

Islam is the only acceptable religion “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Q 3:85); Muslims are superior to all other faith groups “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind.” (Q 3:110); Non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (Q 98:6); Muslims should only extend mercy to other Muslims “merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Q 48:29).

The founder of The Muslim Brotherhood once declared that “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.” (Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood).

The Real Question

With teachings like the ones above, how can we have any hope of an established democracy in the Middle East, when Islamic ideology and Sharia Law are its biggest threat, and will serve as its own obstacle rather than its self-motivation.

The real question to ask is:

If Islam is a religion that promotes democracy and freedom, then how come we do not hear of such freedom under the current Islamic regimes in the area, whether it is Saudi Arabia; a pure Islamic state, or Egypt, a semi-democratic state.

And if someone would argue that the real reason for the current crisis in the region has to do with the lack of an Islamic state, and then we are left with a puzzling question; how can an Islamic state be the real answer to the problem when it promotes teachings as the ones listed above. At the end we are left with a myth called “Islamic Democracy.”

The Quran Dilemma

The Road Ahead for Al-Qaeda

The Role of Aymaan Al Zawahiri

By Siddharth Ramana

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

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

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

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

Personal life

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

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

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

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

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

Syed Qutb’s influence on Zawahiri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prison and international Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship with Bin Laden

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

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

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

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

Merger with Al-Qaeda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role in Al-Qaeda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship with Iran and Shiites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a reality disconnect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebuttal of criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Zawahiri’s time up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The road ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

My Videos Bar

Breaking News