The Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, has released a 43-minute documentary titled, “The Heirs of Glory.” The video tells the history of Islam from Al Nusrah’s perspective, culminating in video footage of the 9/11 attacks and audio clips from Osama bin Laden’s speeches.
Al Nusrah highlights the footage of 9/11 after replaying a threat made by bin Laden in 1998. Bin Laden claimed at the time that “the joint Crusader-Jewish forces” have been responsible for all of the recent “aggression” against Muslims lands. The al Qaeda founder portrayed the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and thereafter as part of a successful plot “to capture the two holy sanctuaries (Mecca and Medina).” (Of course, US forces did not capture Islam’s holy sites, but instead defended the region against Saddam Hussein’s aggression.)
“So we seek to incite the Islamic Nation so it may rise to liberate its lands and perform Jihad in the path of Allah, and to establish the law of Allah, so the Word of Allah may be supreme,” Bin Laden continued in the clip from 1998.
An Al Nusrah Front narrator then elaborates: “The letters of Sheikh Osama continued to the West instructing them to cease supporting the Jews in Palestine. He called them several times to cease looting the wealth of the Muslims and to leave the Arabian Peninsula.”
Video clips of the attacks on the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers are played as the narrator then says the following: “However, the Americans insisted and were arrogant. Thus, the choice to respond in the same manner was found to be the most effective solution, so the West may know that the Muslims will never remain silent to the crimes committed against them, and that they will resist oppression and tyranny.”
Al Nusrah’s documentary serves as a rebuttal, of sorts, to the dubious, thinly-sourced claims that the group was going to break with al Qaeda. Because of its prominent role in the insurgency against Bashar al Assad’s regime, some have tried to whitewash Al Nusrah.
Since the beginning of the year, anonymous sources have claimed that Al Nusrah was going to leave al Qaeda’s fold. One account even held that al Qaeda was going to disband entirely. Such reports ignored overwhelming primary source evidence indicating this was not true, including the fact that several high-ranking Al Nusrah officials denied that any breakup was pending. Multiple jihadist groups around the globe remain openly loyal to al Qaeda.
Two of the Al Nusrah officials featured in “The Heirs of Glory” are Abu Sulayman al Muhajir and Abu Firas al Suri, both of whom have been previously profiled by The Long War Journal.
Abu Sulayman relocated from Australia to take part in the failed mediation efforts between the Islamic State and its jihadist rivals. In May, he was asked about the breakup rumors on his Twitter feed, which was quickly suspended. Abu Sulayman denied outright that Al Nusrah was going to leave al Qaeda, saying that the group has a binding bayah (oath of allegiance) to Ayman al Zawahiri and this oath can only be broken with permission. A screen shot of one of Abu Sulayman’s tweets can be seen on the right.
Abu Firas al Suri is an al Qaeda veteran who was redeployed from Yemen to Syria in the wake of the Syrian uprising. He has served as Al Nusrah’s spokesman. Al Qaeda loyalists such as Abu Firas and Abu Sulayman are seeded throughout Al Nusrah’s ranks.
A jihadist “resurgence”
While much of the jihadists’ propaganda these days focuses on tactical gains or, in the Islamic State’s case, various atrocities, Al Nusrah took a different approach in “The Heirs of Glory.” The production is meant to tie the jihadists’ current efforts in Syria to a longstanding effort to reclaim a past ruled by various Islamic empires.
The video opens with a quote from British historian Arnold Toynbee, who wrote that “Islam is in a deep slumber.” Toynbee found that the “global situation may awake it to assume dominance once again.” The quote from Toynbee concludes: “Hopefully, this will not happen.”
But Al Qaeda hopes that it does happen, and it is working to resurrect its own caliphate — even if success is a far way off.
“We strived through this video to show that if the era of our decline has lasted for almost two centuries that once we used to lead this world for longer than twelve centuries,” Al Nusrah’s propagandists say early in the video. The West has been “eager to spread the psychological defeat between the young Muslims,” Al Nusrah argues, but it “is known that our nation today, particularly after the revolutions, has started to redefine the milestones of the civilization resurgence.”
The use of the word “resurgence” is no accident. Al Qaeda’s newest English-language publication is named “Resurgence,” which is intended to convey a sense that al Qaeda is leading a global Islamic revolution. (Of course, al Qaeda does not represent Muslims around the world.) The video’s producers long for the day when the Caliphate’s power spanned across vast territory. This can be seen in the screen shot on the right.
In that vein, Al Nusrah portrays al Qaeda’s leaders and members as the ideological descendants of various other jihadists who sought to expel foreign influence from the Islamic world and restore the caliphate to power.
One of these jihadists is Abdullah Azzam, who was one of Osama bin Laden’s early mentors. Al Nusrah includes archival footage of Azzam from the 1980s. (See the screen shot on the right.) “Three centuries ago, they were planning and enacting until they were able [to] topple the Muslim Caliphate,” Azzam said of the West’s supposed designs.
In 1924, Azzam told his audience, they “were finally relieved of the ghoul that used to haunt them day and night and chase them when sleeping and when awake, which left their eyes sleepless and terrified them every time they remembered the Caliphate. The whole world agreed that the Caliphate can never be allowed to rise again.”
Azzam was killed in 1989. His assassins have never been definitively identified. But his words still carry weight today, as can be seen by his inclusion in Al Nusrah’s video.
Other, lesser known figures included in the mini-documentary include Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Kareem al-Khattabi (who fought European forces in the Maghreb in the early 1920s), ‘Umar al-Mukhtar (“who fought jihad in the cause of Allah against the Italian occupation [in Libya] and caused them much calamities across a span of 20 years until he was captured after being wounded”), Imam Shamil and his grandsons (who resisted against the “Tsarist Russian occupation” and “then the Communist occupation” in the Islamic Caucasus), and ‘Izz ad-Deen al-Qassam (who fought the French occupation of Syria and France’s “Alawite clients,” as well as the “British occupation and the bands of Jews in Palestine until he was martyred in 1935.”)
The situation changed, however, as Western powers turned over power to local rulers. This merely meant, according to Al Nusrah, that the West now ruled indirectly. “Uprisings against the occupation arose in many Muslim lands which forced the occupation to change its manner from direct military occupation to indirect, political and economic occupation after the way had been paved for the post-military phase,” the video’s narrator says. This “post-military phase” in the mid-20th Century saw the introduction of constitutions based on Western principles, as opposed to sharia law.
But a new generation of jihadists opposed these Western-backed powers, including Sayyid Qutb, a major ideologue within Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Clips of Qutb’s prosecution in Egypt are played in the video. (See the screenshot on the right.)
“Amongst the leaders of that blessed renaissance arose Sayyid Qutb, who waged war against the manmade constitutions, and through his writings called for the legislation of sharia and set the greatest example through his sacrifices and steadfastness on the religion until he [was] sentenced to death by hanging in 1966,” Al Nusrah says. “This was after he refused to strike a deal with the Egyptian regime in exchange for lightening his sentence. He responded to their offer by saying: ‘The index finger that testifies to the oneness of Allah during prayer will never write a single word in recognition of the rule of a tyrant.’”
Al Nusrah’s praise for Qutb is not surprising. During the second part of his interview with Al Jazeera, which was aired earlier this month, Al Nusrah Front emir Abu Muhammad al Julani said that his organization teaches one of Qutb’s books in its schools in Syria.
According to Al Nusrah, another figure like Qutb was Sheikh Marwan Hadid, who “was convinced that a calamity such as the Syrian Baath party could not be confronted except through jihad.” Hadid founded “The Fighting Vanguard” and “began his efforts in Jihad,” but was “suppressed by the tanks of the Baath party in 1965.” He tried again “in 1970 only to be captured and hung in 1975.”
An “erupting jihadi center”
By the early 1980s, Al Nusrah says, “jihadi movements [had] appeared to change these regimes by force of arm,” but “were unable to achieve their goals due to clashes with the brute unjust regimes backed by the global forces of disbelief.”
These “attempts primarily ended in arrests and imprisonment until the Afghan jihad against the Russian(s), when the Muslims, from various walks of life, answered the call of Jihad. And the land of Afghanistan offered an opportunity to gather the mujahideen of the world.” Iconic footage of Ayman al Zawahiri in an Egyptian cell is shown to emphasize the failure of these pre-Afghanistan efforts. (See the screen shot on the right.)
A central jihadist myth holds that the mujahideen, through the power of their faith alone, drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 1980s, leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire. The Al Nusrah video repeats this myth, which ignores, among other things, the vast amount of financial assistance and weaponry supplied by the US and its anti-Soviet allies.
Abu Firas al Suri (seen on the right), the al Qaeda veteran who became Al Nusrah’s spokesman, explains to viewers the importance of the Soviets’ defeat, from the jihadists’ perspective. “Actually the victory of the mujahideen against the Russians had many effects. Russia was considered at the time the second most powerful country in the world, with some considering it as the most powerful,” Abu Firas says. “The Russians would proudly say that they possessed nuclear weapons with the potential, in theory, to destroy America 280 times, while we wish to destroy her just once.”
“Brothers, pure mujahideen, destroyed this giant beast,” Abu Firas claims. “This cast hope and life into the souls of the Muslims throughout the world. The Muslim is capable, if he wages jihad and clings to his creed, to achieve great things.”
While key to the jihadists’ efforts, Afghanistan is only one part of the picture. Abu Firas explains that what al Qaeda seeks to do is spark revolutions throughout the Muslim-majority world. This is very different from the story often told by Western analysts, who frequently portray al Qaeda as being myopically focused on attacking the US and its allies.
For decades after the fall of the caliphate, the “concept of jihad in the Levant was absent from people’s minds,” Abu Firas says. “Nobody even heard of the word jihad. In reality, the Levant is regarded [as] one of the most important centers in the Islamic world due to its close proximity to Palestine, to the Hijaz [Saudi Arabia] and being in the center of the Islamic world.”
Abu Firas then introduces viewers to the concept of an “erupting jihadi center,” not just in the Levant, but elsewhere. And he draws on Marxist thinking to explain what he means.
“The existence of a continually erupting jihadi center in the Levant is critical so people continue to hear about jihad,” Abu Firas says. “Even western theorists, such as Frenchman Regis Debray, author of ‘Revolution in the Revolution,’ confirm the necessity of a continually erupting center for revolutions.”
Debray’s book dealt with guerrilla warfare, especially in Latin America, and the revolutionary approaches being employed by leftwing radicals in the mid-20th century. Abu Firas says that “obviously” Debray “is not our role model or example, nor Castro, nor Guevara, but rather this is a fact.” By this he means that no leftwing Western intellectual can serve as the jihadists’ “role model.” But his explanation of revolutionary theory is telling, as it is known from various sources that al Qaeda has studied Che Guevara, Mao and other political revolutionaries in order to better understand their successes and failures.
The “fact” of Debray’s thesis “testifies to what the Messenger of Allah (PBUH),” the Prophet Mohammed, “informed us in a hadith,” Abu Firas says. The saying attributed to Mohammed is quoted as: “There will always be a group of my Ummah [worldwide community of Muslims] that will fight upon the Command of Allah, they will not be harmed by those who oppose them.”
Abu Firas says this means that “there will remain a fighting jihadi group in the Islamic World, an erupting center for jihad,” such that “the people continue to hear that there is jihad in Egypt and Algeria! There is jihad in Kashmir and India! There is jihad in Afghanistan!”
The “idea of jihad is practically applied and remains erupting and implemented,” Abu Firas says. “It is not just something we read about in history books…that once upon a time our grandfathers used to wage Jihad…No!!”
Abu Musab al Suri
Abu Musab al Suri has been imprisoned in Syria for much of the time since his capture in Pakistan in 2005. (There were reports that Abu Musab had been freed, but al Qaeda has confirmed that he remains jailed.) Abu Musab is one of the most influential jihadist thinkers of the past twenty-five years and is still highly revered in al Qaeda circles.
The Al Nusrah Front includes a lengthy excerpt from Abu Musab’s seminal jihadist tract, “The Global Islamic Resistance Call,” in the video. Referring to the same saying referenced by Abu Firas, Abu Musab wrote: “Because Allah decreed to protect His religion and His book and keep [the] truth, [there is a] perpetual group within the Islamic Nation, fighting for the religion, un-harmed by those who let them down or by those [who] oppose them.”
Therefore, according to Abu Musab, “the seed of the Islamic Awakening and blessed renaissance was sown from the first days after the fall of the Caliphate, across various schools of thought.” All of these “schools strived toward the same goal, which was the return of the Islamic Nation to its religion, its sharia and the law of its Lord.”
Later in the video, Al Nusrah plays a clip of Abu Musab expounding upon this theme in one of his lectures. “Now the Islamic Awakening is trying to find a solution to our crisis,” Abu Musab explained. While some Islamists sought change through other means, Abu Musab and al Qaeda concluded that only jihad would do. Abu Musab said he did not doubt the “good assumptions” of others seeking to end the “crisis” in the Muslim-majority world, adding that he “consider[ed] their intentions sincere.”
Nonetheless, he disagreed. Only the jihadists’ could succeed in resurrecting an Islamic empire.
“As everyone else has a proposed solution to the crisis, our solution is through weapons,” Abu Musab told his audience in the dated footage. (A screen shot can be seen on the right.)
Abu Musab continued: “It will not be solved without weapons. This type of crisis cannot be solved without weapons, because it is about the void of governance, a conflict with the apostates, the existence of the crusaders, meaning the existence of the NATO, meaning armies, the existence of fleets. The Jews means the Israel Defence Forces, meaning the Mossad, meaning calamities. These issues are not solved through spiritual reform or education!”
Al Nusrah Front is part of al Qaeda
Al Nusrah uses Abu Musab’s lecture to introduce al Qaeda as one of the jihadist organizations that was created to solve the “crisis.” Al Nusrah does not hide from al Qaeda’s legacy. Abu Muhammad al Julani’s group fully embraces al Qaeda as its mother organization.
“As for those who chose to raise arms, the solution for every one of them was to remain firm on their battlefront, defending the honor of this nation against the [enemies], whom [had] come together and agreed to prevent the nation of Islam to rise again,” Al Nusrah’s narrator says. “Amongst these fighting groups was al Qaeda, who regarded the solution to be to focus on the head of the global disbelief, America, and create an immediate, repelling force to face their insolence, so it may stop regarding the Muslims to be an easy catch, attacking them whenever and wherever they please, without the least regard of the consequences.”
It is at this point that Al Nusrah introduces archival footage of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, a clip of bin Laden from 1998 (the same year he declared the establishment of a front for confronting the “Jews and Crusaders”), scenes from the 9/11 attack and, finally, another quote from bin Laden.
The last passage from bin Laden appears to be a commentary on the Arab uprisings that swept through the Middle East and North Africa just prior to his death in May 2011.
“So to all free revolutionaries over the world, hold firm onto your affairs and beware of ‘dialogue.’ There is no middle path between truth and falsehood, absolutely not!,” bin Laden warned. “Remember that Allah has bestowed his mercy upon you with these days, after which will come much good. You are the knights and leaders of today. In your hands are the reins; the Ummah has kept you for this amazing day; continue the journey and do not fear the hardships…The journey has started to the destination. The free have marched forth in [determination]. And when the free start their march, they will not get tired nor wll they stop!”
Al Nusrah believes that the Arab revolutions have “given life once again” to the “Muslim nation.” And the group is proud to represent al Qaeda in this new era.
Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.
A cancerous growth is excised and the wound is cauterized. Nuclear weapons are the answer for this Islamic cancer that is spreading.
Thanks for the detailed summary of what seems a particularly notable video from Jabhat.
Firstly, why THIS kind of video, and why now? Why is al-Jowlani seemingly more willing to build his personal profile right now through an Al-Jazeera appearance? Why is Jabhat producing a piece of media that unlike most previous releases tries to place their activities in a more strategic and historical context? These maybe important indicators – but of what?
I noted the following remarks in your post:
“Al Nusrah’s documentary serves as a rebuttal, of sorts, to the dubious, thinly-sourced claims that the group was going to break with al Qaeda. Because of its prominent role in the insurgency against Bashar al Assad’s regime, some have tried to whitewash Al Nusrah.
“Since the beginning of the year, anonymous sources have claimed that Al Nusrah was going to leave al Qaeda’s fold. One account even held that al Qaeda was going to disband entirely.”
You state that some of these reports contain comments from anonymous sources; fair enough. But what’s your hunch about who’s propagating ideas like these, and what’s their agenda?
Here’s the reason I ask; I’ve always understood that thorough, impartial (as far as is ever possible!) analysis of a persistent intelligence problem occasionally requires you to stand the facts on their head and ask ‘what if we’re wrong’? As I’m sure you’re well aware, that’s why intelligence communities use Red Teaming, Challenge Analysis, and similar methods and techniques to try and explore the available information from fresh angles, identify potential alternative analyses, challenge assumptions, and thus ultimately limit the opportunity for strategic surprise when things don’t unfold as ‘generally expected’.
So, whilst I have to agree the available open source information stacks up heavily against Jabhat breaking with Al-Qaeda (lets leave aside the dissolution of AQ for a moment) – what if we’re wrong, and that’s what is ultimately going to happen?
So, my question for Long War Journal is:
Under what circumstances MIGHT Jabhat al-Nusra reduce or curtail their support for and significant connections to AQ Central? What would have to happen in, say, a 2-5- year outlook for this to become more likely? What conditions would need to be present on the ground in Iraq/Syria or elsewhere that would favour a ‘split’? And I wonder whether such a split would assist or complicate our foreign policy interests in the region?
Thanks again for the analysis!
how quaint Permanent Revolution as championed by Marx Engels & Trotsky & even some Neo-Cons is a cornerstone Jihadi/Islamist Ideology. Why am I not surprised
Great article guys, as per usual…
If I knew for certain that an enemy, any enemy, wanted me dead and gone, for whatever false reason or purpose, and that they were in fact working and scheming towards that end, do I not have an obligation, duty and responsibility to my family and country to find and destroy them first? Should I hunker down and wait for them? Or should I take the fight to them, keep them off balance and destroy them at every single opportunity?
Unless we adopt an approach that closely resembles the latter, we are in BIG trouble.
Unless we kill our way out of this, there will never be any peace, and as weird as that may sound, how do you negotiate with psychopaths? When nothing less than complete subjugation will do?
….you don’t…..you simply don’t talk to them. Our responses should be measured in body counts, because until we utterly destroy this ideology, utterly destroy thier will to fight, we will never have peace.
Until their are no more extremists left….until every Muslim imam adopts and preaches an ideology of peace and realizes that there won’t be anymore Muslims left on earth, if they keep on going the way they are.
“Firstly, why THIS kind of video, and why now? Why is al-Jowlani seemingly more willing to build his personal profile right now through an Al-Jazeera appearance? Why is Jabhat producing a piece of media that unlike most previous releases tries to place their activities in a more strategic and historical context? These maybe important indicators – but of what?” Good questions all, along with the other questions. I was wondering much of the same. I’m guessing that, as I’m sure many others are including yourself, that these latest ‘Propaganda Pieces’ have as much to do with countering the expanding success & momentum of competing Terrorist Armies & Organizations.
“But what’s your hunch about who’s propagating ideas like these, and what’s their agenda?” I believe State Actors & Intelligence Agencies have as much to do with, if not more, ‘pushing’ competing Propaganda as do the Terrorist Organizations & Armies themselves.
“…‘what if we’re wrong’?” I always assume I’m always wrong when it comes to Limited Warfare scenarios.
I have Zero Confidence in the “intelligence communities.” In fact the only item one can bank on when factoring in the Fumblelina’s from the “intelligence communities” is their propensity to consistently & routinely ‘screw things up.’ The one advantage that has surfaced with the present dilemma(s) is that there are more Intelligence Agencies involved than there has ever been before.
“Under what circumstances MIGHT Jabhat al-Nusra reduce or curtail their support for and significant connections to AQ Central? What would have to happen in, say, a 2-5- year outlook for this to become more likely? What conditions would need to be present on the ground in Iraq/Syria or elsewhere that would favour a ‘split’? And I wonder whether such a split would assist or complicate our foreign policy interests in the region?”
1st answer is simple. If any or all of the following should happen: Julani, Baghdadi, Zawahiri should die or be incapacitated. If either entity, or should another entity arise, experiences significant gains on the ground or a State Actor of consequence should openly lend their support.
“…assist or complicate…,” IMO both & probably simultaneously. Present US Foreign Policy in respect to the Middle East is such goulash & so convoluted than even something that initially appears not in its best interests will quickly be overtaken by ‘The Omelet Chefs.’
I find it ironic that Takfiri groups such as Al Nusra and Al Qaeda are so quick to glorify the past of the “Islamic Empire” (acquired by war and forced submission btw) while accusing the dismal European crusades into Palestine when they seemingly gloss over other historical horrors for which the “Caliphate” was responsible.
I think of the invasion of Spain by the Abbassides and the invasion of the Balkans by the Ottomans, the the raping and pillaging of Europe at the hands of Islamic armies (right up to the gates of Vienna), the kidnapping of children to become the personal Janissaries of the Caliphe….. and the list goes on …
The “Islamic Empire” was an empire of conquest, imbued by a misleading sense of religious righteousness and cultural superiority. There was nothing peaceful about it then, there is nothing peaceful about the idea today. This “Islamic Empire” would have invaded all of Europe regardless of the crusades into Palestine.
Al Nusra’s historical memory is short and clearly selective …. in the meantime they continue to kill and force non-Muslims to pay extra tribute as Omar did when he conquered Jerusalem all those centuries ago …
I love how you phrased your questions, quite to the extreme. As to your knowledge of a situation-“If I knew for certain…” and to the enemy’s motive for making war. “for whatever false reason or purpose” I mean, what kind of situation could be better for the just and righteous? Your question is set up like a steamroller at a bowling alley. How can you not get the strike?
I will answer the question. Yes!, if you knew for certain and if their cause was ‘false’. Sure. What could be easier or what other answer could there be.
The extremity of your comment would be somewhat palliated if you limited your comments to just ‘extremists’ (however you would define them) and fully justified if you limited them to the use of crushing force against those nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided any terrorist group involved in attacks against the United States .
I tend to agree with you in how the application of war should be applied-with crushing severity, though we probably would disagree over where and when to use it.
You seem to find the problem much deeper than extremists and imams, the problem seems to run through the entire religion when you say “there won’t be anymore Muslims left on earth,”
Why do their lives seem to be dependant on what Imams say? Islam has no centralized leadership outside abu Bakr’s circus of hate and as we can see, very few muslims are heeding his call to come to the land of “belief” as they call it. It seems they prefer the land of ‘unbelief’ as it were. So, what then puts all 1.6 billion muslims under threat of removal from earth?
Do you blame all muslims on earth, even American muslims for these conflicts America and the west finds itself in? How about limiting the violence to just those parties that are involved in this “perfect storm” of circumstance and assurity you have created for your “If I knew for certain” scenario?
It seems ironic that in your hunt for extremists you yourself become the extremist sweeping up all muslims and Americans too by the hundreds of thousands for earth banishment in your quest for victory over what I can contextually infer to be Islam, thus putting the same questions you propose to your would be victims. Would you abide by their answer? Would reasonable people in the muslim world reach the same conclusions you already have as to the threat you pose to them?
I often find that those who take the position of holding all of islam responsible for what either extremists do or Imams say, come from a religious background themselves, one that puts their god before country, recognizes no man made law and demonizes all other gods. This seems to be the elephant in the room. I admit that these people are very well positioned to understand the threat that militant islam actually is but I hold their motivations and proposed remedies suspect and often counterproductive.