The Driving Ideology Behind Al Qaeda

Islam has been hijacked by ignorant fools. The media is playing a dirty game by presenting stooges like Bin Laden as spokemen for Islam. The true face of Islam is one of unversal peace that was shown by people like the late Bawa Muhaiyadeen who said:

``It is important in this present day that the children of Adam clearly understand the true meaning of Islam. We must know the value of its purity, of its peacefulness, its unity, its sincerity, its honesty, and the value of its conscience and justice and truth. We must know the greatness of God who rules over all this, and we must find tranquility in our lives, so that we will be able to guide others toward peacefulness.``

http://www.bmf.org/iswp/preface.html

In modern wars seizing minds (and if possible, winning hearts) is as if not more imortant than seizing lands and killing your enemies. CNN -- along with other prominent media outlets like Fox, New York Times, etc. -- is a major propaganda outlet of the US/Israeli war machine. Just as we would not have been wise in forming our opinion of Mahatama Gandhi (or for that matter, Adolf Hitler) by reading British or French military handouts, so we should be careful about forming an opinion of those America has chosen to identify as its enemies, and of their motives, from CNN reports.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 the US military-industrial complex faced the seemingly impossible task of justifying the enormous US ``defense`` budget in the absence of any credible enemy. It is a remarkable feat of propaganda that Americans today believe that one man and his friends and sympathisers -- holed up in caves in Afghanistan -- pose a bigger threat to the security of the United States (and perhaps Western civilization) than the rockets, inter-continental ballistic missiles, and other military hardware of the superpower that was the Soviet Union. Based on selling this ``threat`` to the American people US military expenditures that had stagnated for much of the 1990s rose from $230 billion in 2000 to $345 billion in 2004 (and may well be close to $460 billion today). It is this US defense establishment that is the source of almost everything we know about OBL and Al-Qaeda, whom no one had heard of 15 years ago.

As for ``taking the lifes of thousands of innocent civilians,`` the jury is still out on who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Certainly, OBL has consistently denied it:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

Two points are noteworthy in this quote: (1) OBL denies his involvement in 9/11; and (2) he gives the reasons why he is upset at America and Israel; and these reasons have nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with the suffering of ``common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam`` (i.e. non-Muslim and Muslim victims of tyranny).

To return to the killing of civilians, in terms of body count, 2,996 persons are thought to have died on 9/11 (including 48 unconfirmed reports of the dead or missing). The ``driving force`` behind this murder was not Islam, as the US/UK/Israel have been at pains to argue, but a reaction to 50 years and more of atrocities against Palestinians (Muslims and Christians), Iraq (Muslims, paying for US/Israeli reprisals against the secular-socialist government of Saddam Hussain), and the ``indifference`` of Europe and the US to the rape, mass murder, and ``ethnic cleansing`` of Bosnian Muslims by Serb Christians, and Chechnyan Muslims by the Russians, as OBL has argued. The Americans, naturally, have effectively suppressed any mention of the obvious fact that when justice is denied to victims of tyranny, they resort to violence against perpretrators of violence; instead, they have insisted that Muslims kill because they are Muslim, not because they are victims -- thus, there is no point in talking to them or trying to alleviate their grievances, the only solution is to convert them (to Christianity, or ``moderation``) or to kill them.

By constrast to the 2,996 victims of 9/11, a study by New Hampshire professor Marc Herold says 3,767 civilians died just in the first 9 weeks of bombing of Afghanistan (Oct-Dec 2001); and based on reports from US, NATO and Afghan officials, 2,800 people have died so far this year (2006). In Iraq civilians reported killed by the US military intervention is estimated at 100,000 (mostly women and children) by the prestigious scientific journal, the Lancet. This excludes the half million children who died as a result of US-backed UN sanctions imposed in the wake of the first Iraqi war (this is more than the number of children who died in Hiroshima). The ``driving force`` behind these murders is a combination of racism, imperial ambition, and Christian evangelism.

As for OBL`s denial of involvement in 9/11, it is consistent with the fact that even the FBI`s Most Wanted poster for Osama bin Laden does not directly connect him with the events of 9/11. When asked why this was so, Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI is reported to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden`s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” As for the official version of the events of 9/11 a quick google search will yield any number of references that document numerous holes in the official story (google: ``9/11 theories``).

In these circumstances we may never know the truth about 9/11 and bin Laden. In terms of personality, however, the Wikipedia entry on him describes him as ``a soft-spoken, mild mannered man; and despite his rhetoric, he is said to be charming, polite, and respectful.`` This, and the overall Wikipedia entry, conveys quite a different picture from Osama Shahid`s entry on Osama bin Laden. As for an exploration of the roots of modern violence we should look not only at Islamic extremism, but at all other kinds of extremism -- including most especially racism, nationalism, and imperialism.

Re: # 18
And what has happend of Bahais in Iran? or the so called thinkers ``who dared to think out of the box``? social reform is not that easy an aspect. You might be aware of the reformist movement undertaken by Sawitri bai Phule in Maharashtra( she and her husband Mahatma Jyotiba Phule are the pioneears in the field of women education in Maharashtra India) The couple faced a lot of hardships while carrying the cherished mission But at the end the battle was won by the Phules. This was not as easy as I am writing. The point is some one has to dare and more important than this is the society at large should be ready to accept the coming social changes

Re: # 16
Thank you.Very well said. In fact the so called reformist movement in Islam commonly known as the Alighar school was also not a reformist movement as to the fact and in fact strengthened old conservative line of thinking. In fact Mahatma Gandhi was at fault encouraging this line of thinking during the Khilafat movement way back in 1919 However I do not agree with you when you say that no Nehru/ Ambedkar will be born in Muslims. The miracle can happen if the people seriously think in that way.

Re: # 17, urstruly:
The situation is serious but not that desperate unless you want to make it so!

The only thing that is needed is to spread secular education without the interference from Masjid as is done routinely in India. Of course, one has to define secular as it is defined in the Constitution, the Indian Constitution. Gradually, people will realize their bigotry and narrowmindedness and try to improve themselves!!

dhananjay #14 {``However unfortunately Islam has no tradition of social reformers or thinkers.``}

Dhananjay,
You are mostly correct in making that statement. There have been quite a few thinkers, even some half-hearted reformers - consider Ibn Rushd, Ghazali, Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, and many others. Unfortunately, the rigid and backward dogma of the Sharia and the associated punishment for thinking outside the box cause most logical people to reconsider. Those who are bold enough to think are thrown outside the box - Bahaullah, Mirza Ahmed, etc...

So Osama Bin Laden is destroying Islam because he is a ``disgruntled, egotistic narcisst``, whereas Bush Bin Bush is destroying Islam because he considers it a ``fascist ideology``, so I guess Muslims are stuck between rock and a hard place or between devil and deep blue sea, or some shiit like that, right??

Re: # 14, dhananjay:
I agree with you.

It is the misfortune of Islam and its followers that they have such a large amount of a strategic commodity - oil - and they have not/were not allowed to develop a truly national leadership. The development of a national leadership requires, among other things, effective national boundaries and some ethnic cohesion.

In case of Islam, the trans-ethnic message of Quran - as enunciated not by Mohammad but the political leaders after his death (By the way, this is the source of internecine and unbridgeable schism of the Shias and Sunnis as encapsulated in the Battle of Karbala.), a point often purposely hidden by Islamic rulers and Mullahs and forgotten by the Muslim population due to adoptation of the superstitions and coercion foisted by the ruling and religious cliques - itself is a hindrance. All this, however, has not completely prevented the social and religious reformist thinkers. The supreme tragedy is that the rigidity of Islamic interpretations, purposely designed by the religious and ruling cliques and buttressed insidiously by the Western Powers (so that they can continue to exploit the oil reserves till depletion) has led to to a blanket rejection and condemnation of all reformists (their acceptance will lead to national cohesion leading to control on the oil pipelines).

Non-religious education is not only not widespread, it is actively discouraged to keep the people superstitious and the one and most important resource that everywhere in the world has led to weakening of the stranglehold of bigoted religions, women, are hopelessly misled and brutally shackled by oppressive laws in Muslim Countries, Hudood of Pakistan is an example.

It seems that either there will have to be an armageddon (actuated by oil needs/demands) or total collapse of Islam before the SHACKLES of Foisted Islam in West Asia and North Africa can be broken and true Islam can emerge. There seems to be less-than-a-miracle`s chance for a pair of Nehru/Ambedkar can arise anywhere in Islamic world.

I agree with the premise of your article, however I do find your viewpoint on OBL subjective and uninformed to say the least. But your argument that Islam has been used as a smoke screen to push for revolutionary change certainly makes sense. I wouldn`t call it a smoke screen but more of an ideological basis for a social movement. If we glance at the political landscape of muslim countries, the absence of a out and out social party is notable in a majority of cases and therefore it is no surprise that religious parties are thriving by `selling` the socialist aspects of Islam to the masses.

Re: # 6
The problem with muslims is that they are caught between deep sea and the devil. If you really believe that it is time to change then you have to seek for the problem. Outdated concepts of any religion have to be criticaly evaluated and discarded if found necessary.However unfortunately Islam has no tradition of social reformers or thinkers

Inquirer #6 {``Unless the military/civilian leaders of the moderate Muslims assert themselves forcefully against the rabids, there will be a Halaku (brother of Changez Khan) who would cause a major catastrophe in West Asia.``}

Inquirer Bhai,
Very good point. Halaku was actually, I think, a grandson of the Genghis Khan, but that`s not the issue. The so-called leaders of moderate Muslims (I shudder to think that Mushy, Mubarak, and the two Abadabaoolas are leaders or even moderates) have neither the conscience nor the fortitude to assert anything let alone themselves.

It is up to the overwhelmingly moderate Muslim Ummah to reach a consensus and eradicate this cancer of right-wing fundo whacko Sunni Wahabbi terrorist fanaticism among us.

Re: # 11

thanku Salim sahib....muslim civilization is sitting on the edge of total destruction and our leaders are playing their selfish games aided and abetted by obscurantist clerics stuck in their past and wet dreams of glory.....as a muslim, a moderate muslim I feel like that famous urdu saying...dhobi ka kutha na ghar ka na ghat ka.....

rf786 {``well said, but u r being too kind to these arrogant fascists.....Dubya, Blair and Cheney are terrorizing muslims just as the Salafis/wahabis...one a external threat and the other internal...of the two its`the internal threat which is`eating islam like a parasite.....``}

Dear Brother Radio Frequency Bismallah Janaab Sahib, :)

Totally agree with you. I should be the last one to be guilty of ``being too kind to these arrogant fascists`` - unless, of course, you had Dubya, Blair, and Cheney in mind. :)

Of course the right-wing fundo whacko Sunni Wahabbi terrorist fanatics are the more serious threat to Islam - by being both internal and cancerous. :)

My point about Dubya and Cheney was directed more at the hypocrisy and mockery issue concerning democracy. Those who ask others to kill and die for ``democracy`` were themselves brought into office by a bypass of this sacred slogan - Florida 2000.

Re: # 9

Salim sahib,

{What the Jihadists should keep in mind is that when non-Muslims start hating Islam for the violent excesses of a very small minority of its followers, they are causing the downfall of this otherwise wonderful, peaceful, and uniting faith. UBL and his cohorts are to Islam what Dubya, Blair, and Cheney are to democracy - a total mockery}

well said, but u r being too kind to these arrogant fascists.....Dubya, Blair and Cheney are terrorizing muslims just as the Salafis/wahabis...one a external threat and the other internal...of the two its`the internal threat which is`eating islam like a parasite.....

Shahid Sahib,
These insidious fanatics have to use Islam as their excuse for committing violence, murder, and terror. Their selfish leaders have decided upon a pernicious road out of their own worldly and personal ambitions and then proceeded to find vague references in the Holy Koran or Hadith to justify their nefarious methods. The various passages in the Holy Koran and specific examples in the Sunnah, upon which they base their irrational violence, were all meant for specific circumstances for a particular time and place.

When the Muslims in Mecca were being tormented for their beliefs and driven from their homes, they were passive to the point of ``cowardice.`` The Holy Prophet (PBUH) shunned violence and as a result he and his followers were cruelly persecuted without any fear of retaliation on the part of the Meccans. Therefore, God ordered His Prophet (PBUH) to resist the oppression and fight back - which he did quite hesitatingly. The wars forced by the Meccans on his community in Medina were mostly for self-defense. To extrapolate these examples into an open-ended license for aggression, terror, and murder is to negate the very essence of Islamic beliefs.

The struggles of Nuruddin Zengi, Salahuddin Ayubi, and Sultan Baibars against the onslaught and colonization of Muslims by the Crusaders and Mongols were justified by the principle of self-defense. The conquests of Muhammad Bin Qasim, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Mohammed Ghori, Zahiruddin Babar, Jalaluddin Akbar, and Nadir Shah were all for personal gain, establishment of dynasties, and the ``well-accepted`` traditions of loot, pillage, and plunder. Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Almoravides, Almohades, Ottomans, and Mughals were all trying to enhance their empires just as the Persians, Greeks, and Romans had done before.

Invoking the name of God, or gods and goddesses, freedom, liberty, ``democracy,`` and honor have always been effective means of motivating the troops. Apparently, these still work - witness the lamentations of UBL, Dubya, and Blair.

What the Jihadists should keep in mind is that when non-Muslims start hating Islam for the violent excesses of a very small minority of its followers, they are causing the downfall of this otherwise wonderful, peaceful, and uniting faith. UBL and his cohorts are to Islam what Dubya, Blair, and Cheney are to democracy - a total mockery.

Evaluation of the article:
I agree with the general thinking of the author. But what is critically needed is: development by moderate Muslims of a forceful line of action to neutralize the the rabids.

``Islam is simply being used as a smoke screen to push for revolutionary change not only in the middle east or the muslim world, but in the pathos of the religion itself.``
****Agreed. But htis needs to be demonstrated.****

``jihad is not about killing and murdering in the name of God. It does not involve the massacre of innocent civilians who happen to be non muslims.``
****This ideology has to be asserted at all costs by the rationalists in Islam, if they want to survive.****

``However, the true essence of jihad is conveniently excluded from the religious fatwas and teachings of hard line, fundamentalist clerics.``
****Why is this view not forcefully promulgated by the rationalist Mullahs?****

``during the Prophet Muhammeds lifetime, the muslim nation was found to be in a defensive position, due not to the lack of oppurtunities but as a reflection of the peaceful nature of Islam. A few years after his death, yes the muslim armies began to conquer territory and distant lands. But this wasn`t concieved by Islam or it`s prophet, these military campaigns were initiated by oppurtunists. It is the same breed of oppurtunists whom we see today in the form of Al Qaeda`s leadership.``
****The widespread conquests of Islamic armies was due to the distribution of loot among the soldiers. Thus the Muslim armies were the first mercenaries. All of the these thoughts need to be widely publicized and the necessary actions performed to make this view as the dominant view of the Muslims.****

``It is integral that the educated, enlightened moderates of Islam stand unified against this plauge. These are times of change and it is paramount that we muslims live up to perform our obligations dutifully. The future of our religion and the world hinges on how we react agaisnt the ideological and intellectual likes of Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen.``
****Totally agree. However, absence of action would only lend credence to the complicity - between the radicals and moderates - theory. In a clash of civilization, Muslims should think of the odds against them before they precipitate a crisis.****