Al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, As Sahab, has released the third installment in its long-delayed “Islamic Spring” series featuring Ayman al Zawahiri. The jihadist group’s emir uses the video to launch an ideological attack on the Islamic State’s so-called “caliphate,” arguing that it is not based on the “prophetic method” and is therefore illegitimate. Zawahiri builds upon the arguments he made in the first two editions of the series, which al Qaeda began to release in August.
Zawahiri says that one of the most important features of the “prophetic method” is arbitration according to sharia law. Al Qaeda has consistently criticized Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s Islamic State for failing to arbitrate its differences with other jihadist groups in sharia courts. Anyone who fails to abide by sharia arbitration, Zawahiri argues, “is not following the prophetic approach” and is therefore “not even fit to be pledged to.”
In other words, Baghdadi is not “fit” to receive the oaths of allegiance that have been sworn to him as the self-declared caliph.
Zawahiri cites a variety of Islamic texts, including hadiths, to emphasize his point that Muslims must be consulted before a caliph accepts their pledges of fealty. Neither the person who gives his allegiance “without consulting the other Muslims,” nor the man “to whom the pledge of allegiance was given” should be “supported, lest they both should be killed,” Zawahiri says, citing one text.
After working his way through additional Islamic tracts, Zawahiri argues that the community of worldwide Muslims, represented by those in power, has the right to select a caliph from among those fit for the leadership role. Baghdadi was not elected in such a manner, but instead by the people immediately “around him.” The al Qaeda leader blasts the process by which Baghdadi was deemed the caliph, arguing that such a important role cannot be filled by a man who receives a “pledge of allegiance” from “a small number of anonymous people” who do not represent the ummah (worldwide community of Muslims).
Zawahiri wonders why the Islamic State rushed “to claim titles and designations” for itself that were not warranted. The al Qaeda leader says the jihadists must “strengthen” the “units” that already exist and are “headed” by “the Emir of the Faithful,” Mullah Muhammad Omar.
This segment shows how dated Zawahiri’s talk is, as the Taliban announced Omar’s death in late July. (A transcript released along with the audio message indicates it was likely recorded in March or April of this year.) The Taliban also subsequently admitted that it covered up Omar’s death in order to keep the jihadists united under one banner. Al Qaeda reaffirmed its allegiance to Omar in mid-2014, at a time when the Taliban’s first emir had already either died or was otherwise incapacitated.
Incredibly, al Qaeda shows no embarrassment from any of this, deciding not to edit Zawahiri’s references to Omar out of his speech. Zawahiri even calls on jihadists to avoid “rebelling against” or breaking their existing oaths of loyalty to Omar.
One reason why al Qaeda may be unconcerned about Zawahiri’s references to Omar is that few jihadist groups have broken from the Taliban-al Qaeda axis in the nearly two months since the Taliban admitted that Omar was an absentee leader. In addition, al Qaeda’s relationship with the Taliban is secure, as the two remain closely allied more than 14 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Baghdadi’s Islamic State grew out of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), a political front established by al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Zawahiri briefly discusses the ISI’s loyalty to al Qaeda. The ISI was established by Abu Ayyub al Masri (also known as Abu Hamzah al Masri), who swore allegiance to another jihadist known as “Abu Omar al Baghdadi.” US military and intelligence officials concluded that, at first, Abu Omar al Baghdadi was an empty figurehead invented to put an Iraqi face on AQI’s efforts. Later, according to US officials, al Qaeda backfilled the role.
Outwardly, however, al Masri was loyal to “Abu Omar al Baghdadi.” Zawahiri says that al Masri “mandated” that al Baghdadi be “subservient” to Osama bin Laden and also swear his allegiance to Mullah Omar. According to Zawahiri, Abu Omar al Baghdadi agreed to this arrangement.
Zawahiri’s explanation of the ISI’s place in al Qaeda’s network is a not-so-subtle attempt to further undermine Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s credibility. It was only after Abu Ayyub al Masri and Abu Omar al Baghdadi were killed in April 2010 that Abu Bakr al Baghdadi became the ISI’s top leader. Al Qaeda has made it clear that he, too, swore allegiance to bin Laden and Zawahiri before going rogue.
Al Qaeda’s emir lists a number of other criteria that a caliphate must satisfy in order to be considered legitimate, arguing that the Islamic State falls short in each case. And Zawahiri closes with a warning for Baghdadi’s followers. He tells them not to fight any man unless they are certain that he is “an enemy of Islam and deserves to be fought.” It doesn’t matter if their emir (leader) commanded them to do so, Zawahiri says, as this excuse will not save them from Allah’s judgment should they spill Muslim blood without good reasons.
11 Comments
Do we, should we, must we really care about who swears what allegiance to whom? The operational matters seem very separate (localized) no matter what bayat has passed from one deluded murderer to another. The only good Islamic fundie fighter is a dead Islamic fundie fighter. It does not matter which group they belong to or identify with or want to impress or whatever. What matters is that they die quickly before they can do more harm or infect more innocent people.
Of course Z is important and his fight w Who’s Your Baghdadi could be exploited. But this is better achieved with the sword than the pen, or at least the unpoisoned pen.
I say disregard the public statements and don’t do the enemy the favor of respecting what he says, especially about matters relating a pedophile bandit and his sick and twisted followers (puss be upon them).
The Saudis are having trouble beheading and crucifying a paraplegic today. Poor darlings. I think they need a religious scholar from the Ulema to issue a Fatwa hahahahaha. Nice “religion”. So let’s honor them some more with our weapons and our money… not.
Excellent – I love it when Muslims show the incoherent nature of their belief system and the plethora of Emirs/Imams/Scholars that are all pulling in different directions. I just hope that some Muslims will begin to see Islam as the problem and not the solution.
Since it’s obvious that the West is willing to watch the growth of ISIS and offering only tepid resistance against it, maybe the Muslim world will kill itself off of the doctrinal nuances of jihad and the caliphate.
None of this actually matters much since Baghdadi claims to be caliph by right of conquest.
Zawahiri needs some thorough education on Islamic History. Caliphates & Caliph’s serving cross purposes have emerged with semi regularity challenging the status quo with some even succeeding in establishing themselves & out living the very Caliphates & Caliph’s they emerged to challenge. While he’s at it he should also seriously study up on Revolutions & Rebellions
From reading this report, I’m wondering, is this guy dead too? The reason I say that is because of how seemingly ‘post-dated’ this message is. When he made it, did he know that Omar was already dead? There has to be an explanation of this. This message may be full of hints and clues that may provide an answer to those questions. I find it to be uncharacteristically Al Qaeda’s style to knowingly lie about the death of Omar.
I’m still awaiting a eulogy on Gadahn’s death too, if not just for the sake of closure for his family. You would think for them not to issue a eulogy would harm their recruitment efforts.
Great point. Putting the serious hurt on that gang of psychos is all that matters. Bombs, boots, whatever. They need to be exterminated.
Losers always whine that the winners cheated and it doesn’t get them anywhere.
Zawahiri is only scratching the surface, there hasn’t been a Caliphate for the past twelve hundred plus years that was not a family institution.
Why would an imbicile like Baghdadi whose only qualification is bragging about thuggery, if not even buggery be such an omnipotent historical figure to reverse 12 hundred years.
Sounds like sour grapes. Should have left Afghanistan in better shape because to target the infidels as they say, they need nuclear and that is next door. And they can also launch attacks on Iran from Afghanistan. So Afghanistan is important to ISIS.
Unlikely. Religious zealots believe they have already seen the light so there is little chance of them seeing Islam as the problem.