Modern Islamist Movements: History, Religion, and Politics (16 page)

governments are in a state of fitnah, which is a word of long-standing use among Muslims historically, and means chaos and disorder. For Zawahiri, in the contemporary majority-Muslim world this state of fitnah is represented by several characteristics, including: (a) secular leaders’ attempts to give themselves and the states which they lead a virtually invincible status (which in Zawahiri’s view represents an attempt on the part of some secularists to place the state and its leaders on a level equal to God); (b) the proliferation of Western websites, movies, newspapers, magazines, and other modes of expression in the majority-Muslim world; (c) the honoring of greed, and sexual promiscuity; (d) the presence of Western educational methods; and

For Sirriya and later for Zawahiri, one mistake of certain Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, was their gradualist approach to obtaining power, which involved first preparing the individual, then mobilizing the society, then ultimately establishing the Islamic state. Under the influence of Sirriya and other Islamists whose point of view was similar to his, Zawahiri believed that one possible course of action that Islamist groups, including al-Qaida, should follow would involve seizing control of current states through the overthrow of current governments which were not led by “true Muslims.” The Islamists could then proceed directly to the task of creating a society shaped according to their goals and beliefs.172

At the same time, for Zawahiri, there are two kinds of enemies against which al-Qaida and its allies must wage physical jihad, the near enemies and the far enemies. If one understands the countries of the Middle East or other majority-Muslim countries as Zawahiri’s physical starting point, the “near enemies” refer to the states in the majority-Muslim world whose lead- ers and governments, in Zawahiri’s view, are not truly Islamic. Concomitantly, the “far enemies” are comprised, in part, of the Western nations who, in Zawahiri’s opinion, have waged almost continual warfare against Muslims, through actual wars and colonialism, for example. These enemies are identified as “far” because of their relative physical distance from majority- Muslim countries.173

According to Zawahiri, the near enemies and the far enemies are com- plicit with each other in a variety of ways. For example, Zawahiri maintains that Western countries, particularly the United States, have provided consistent financial, military, and strategic support to their own allies in the majority-Muslim world (such as Egypt and Pakistan to name just two) so

that the regimes in those countries can maintain their oppressive authoritarian rule which promotes non-Islamic ideas and practices and which perpetrates brutal acts of persecution against the Islamists who oppose them.174

Zawahiri maintains that both the near and far enemies are jahili in that they have created mutually beneficial relationships where the Islamists are their common enemy. This is one of the reasons Zawahiri believes in the internationalization of physical jihad. He contends that all Islamists, no mat- ter with which Islamist groups they affiliate, should make efforts to violently attack the near and far enemies. In this regard, for Zawahiri, there should be at least two foci to al-Qaida’s efforts against the far enemy: these efforts should focus on violent attacks against Western interests both inside and outside of the majority-Muslim world because Western countries are the primary source of support for secular leaders throughout the majority- Muslim world. In Zawahiri’s view, if these far enemies can be severely weakened or incapacitated, this could lead to the rapid deterioration of non- Islamic regimes in the majority-Muslim world which could embolden Islamist groups in those countries to overthrow those weakened regimes and establish “truly Islamic governments.” This relates to al-Qaida’s goal which involves its intent to coordinate and provide moral support to Islamist groups in various majority-Muslim countries who direct their efforts against existing governments in those countries.

Thus, for Zawahiri, the attacks of al-Qaida and those of other Islamist groups which are focused on assaulting the far enemy should take place simultaneously with the various Islamist groups which are struggling against non-Islamic regimes in the majority-Muslim world. According to Zawahiri, as al-Qaida and its allies strive to weaken and destroy existing Western governments, local Islamist groups should work to topple the non-Islamic regimes in the majority-Muslim world.

Contemporaneous with these strategies, Zawahiri maintains the impor- tance of the establishment of an “Islamic base” somewhere in the majority- Muslim world. Among other things, this base would serve to coordinate the efforts of Islamist organizations throughout the world and function as a center of operations for the Islamists’ military operations against their non- Islamic enemies, both near and far. Zawahiri writes, “Just as the victory of the armies is effective only when the infantry occupies the terrain, in the same way the victory of the Islamic jihad movement against the universal coalition, which is its enemy, can only be realized through the possession of an Islamic base within the Muslim world.”175 According to Zawahiri, since both the far and near enemies have identified majority-Muslim countries as the field of their military operations against the Islamists with their own military bases in those countries, Islamists must begin by creating at least one military base which could facilitate their own operations.

Zawahiri continues this argument by comparing the contemporary circumstances with those that Muslims faced during the Crusades in the Middle Ages:

Nur al-Din Muhammad [d. 1185] and Saladin [1138–93] (may God protect them) carried out numerous battles so that Nur al-Din could rid Damascus of the Crusaders and their allies in order to unify Syria under his command. Then, Nur al-Din sent Saladin to Egypt. While there, Saladin led a battle in order to conquer and unify Egypt. Then, the Sultan and Saladin seized Hattin [in northern Israel/Palestine], then liberated Jerusalem. At that point, the wheel of history began to turn against the Crusaders.176

Like many twentieth- and twenty-first-century Islamists, Zawahiri draws a parallel between the Crusades (the bulk of which lasted between 1095 and 1291 and involved military attacks on Muslim lands by Western Christians where one of the Christians’ main goals was to conquer Israel/Palestine) and the contemporary situation. In general, Zawahiri is expressing his belief that both the medieval Crusaders and modern Westerners had similar interests in conquering territories with majority-Muslim populations. In this passage, like many Islamists and Muslims in general, Zawahiri heroizes two figures who played significant roles in the eventual ousting of the Crusaders from Muslim lands during the Middle Ages: Nur al-Din Muhammad, the fifth ruler of the medieval Turkmen Artukid dynasty, who commanded the battle against the Christian rulers of Jerusalem in the twelfth century; and Saladin, the Kurdish vassal of Nur al-Din Muhammad, who carried out successful military campaigns in Egypt in 1171, in Syria in 1174, and significant portions of Israel/Palestine in 1187.177

Nur al-Din Muhammad’s and Saladin’s successful leadership of Muslims against Crusaders and the Muslims’ general success in forcing their retreat are models which Zawahiri presents for the contemporary struggles which Muslims face in their battles against Westerners in the twentieth and twenty- first centuries. Specifically for Zawahiri, much like establishing strong military and political bases in the Middle East enabled medieval Muslims to succeed in their wars against the Crusaders, so too the establishment of one or more military bases by Islamists in today’s Middle East can help them succeed in their struggle against Western countries and their totalitarian Middle Eastern allies. Zawahiri believes that much as God blessed the Muslims who battled against the Crusaders, so too he has blessed and will bless the Muslims who battle against Western interests in the majority- Muslim world today. Zawahiri maintains that the Muslims engaged in this struggle must remain faithful and obedient to God, working fastidiously toward the goal of liberating Muslim lands.178

Zawahiri also states that Muslims should not let temporary setbacks disappoint them. For example, he maintains that the destruction of al-Qaida’s

bases in Afghanistan, which began with the United States’ invasion of that country in October 2001, should not deter Islamists from their military actions against Western forces, partly because Afghanistan is not in the center of Islamic lands (as, he maintains, significant portions of the Middle East are). Zawahiri also believes that Islamists will eventually be able to create a powerful base somewhere in the center of Islamic lands, which, because of its geographic location and other factors, will be even more effective than the one in Afghanistan.179

In addition, he believes that Muslims should not be disappointed by the length of time it has taken for Muslims to expel Westerners from Muslim lands. He suggests that while the victory of Saladin’s army at Hattin in 1187 was a very positive strategic turning point for the Muslims in their warfare against the Crusaders, it was not until 1291 that the Muslim leader al-Malik al-Ashraf gained possession of the city of (Akka in Israel/Palestine, destroyed that city, and put an end to Christian domination in that region. That victory is considered to be a successful culminating battle for the Muslim armies. By using these examples, Zawahiri is expressing the idea that final victory does not immediately follow the first strategic victory, and that much as Muslims had to wait 100 years after their first strategic victory during the Crusades for a final victory, so too today, Muslims must be patient in their battles against the West.180

According to Zawahiri, one of several battles in which Muslims must engage against the West involves their fight against democratic institutions. For him, the only government that is justified by the Quran, Hadith, and Sunna is a caliphate, where a single Muslim religious and political leader rules every aspect of life in the majority-Muslim world. This single caliph would govern the religious, political, legal, economic, and social aspects of life in a single Islamic state. For Zawahiri, this is the only correct model for Muslims because God’s revelation in the Quran and the example which Muhammad set are all-embracing and do not make any distinctions between various spheres of individual or societal life. Thus, a true Islamic govern- ment must make no distinctions between these aspects of life and a single caliph must rule in full accordance with the teachings of the Quran, Hadith, and Sunna. Such a government should not be influenced by the individual desires or predilections of the caliph or the citizens. Rather, the caliph would make all his decisions and administer the Islamic state based on the teach- ings of Islam’s sacred texts.181

In criticizing democracy, Zawahiri calls democracy “a new religion,” because he believes that in Islam (which is the only true religion) legislation rightly flows directly from God’s commands, while in a democracy the capacity to legislate is incumbent upon the people.182 By conferring the right to legislate upon the people, and not upon God, democracies deify people and make the people in democratic societies partners with God, which, for

Zawahiri, is in absolute contradiction to Islam. While Egypt cannot be considered a democracy, Zawahiri cites the Egyptian constitution as an example of the ways in which one country has, in a misguided way, introduced democratic principles into its constitution.183 According to him, the Egyptian constitution states, “sovereignty belongs only to the people which is the source of all capacities” and “the council of the people – Parliament – holds the legislative power.”184 He believes that stipulations such as these attempt to make the people equal and similar to God.

Zawahiri states that according to the Quran’s definition of religion (he quotes Surahs 42:21 and 109:6), the true religion, namely Islam, is a system that enables human beings to distinguish between right and wrong.185 Democracy has made the impiety of irreligious people (the Christians, the Communists, and the secularists, for example) a religion; the citizens who vote and those whom they elect are adored instead of God. For Zawahiri, this adoration constitutes a horrific and heretical form of corruption in the sense that Islam teaches that God’s law should be the most important entity which guides heavenly and earthly matters. Democracy undercuts this very important Islamic principle because, through its adoration of humans (as manifested by voters, elected officials, and the laws which they promulgate), this system of government places human beings, with all their selfishness and vain desires, in the role of leading states.186

Zawahiri maintains that democracy violates the primary characteristic of God for Muslims, which involves God being the sole recipient of human adoration, and which also entails God having the exclusive power to establish rules, regulations, laws, and doctrines. In sharp contradiction to this principle, which Islamic law should reflect, democracies enable groups of human beings to create laws which embody their own desires, values, concepts, ideas, and compromises. The establishment of such principles by human beings has allowed democracy to become a religion created by humans’ states.187

Zawahiri’s rejection of democracy is absolute and uncompromising. In addition to opposing existing democratic systems of government, Zawahiri vehemently criticizes Islamist organizations which have participated in democratic processes or which have adopted ostensibly democratic ideas as part of their goals. (The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas among the Palestinians are examples of such organizations.) Thus, Zawahiri’s rejection of democracy puts him at odds with certain Islamist organizations, while also constituting one important element of his opposition to Western political systems.188

One of the most salient differences between Zawahiri’s and al-Qaida’s religio-political worldview, on the one hand, and that of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, on the other, is that al-Qaida emphasizes violent attacks as virtually the only means of overthrowing “non-Islamic”