It is a simple question, but underscores the gross hypocrisy of the United States. Whether you accept or reject the 9-11 narrative that the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda (and, for the record, I do), that attack served as the raison d’etre for the ensuing Global War on Terror aka GWOT. “They hate us because of our freedom,” or so we were told.
While many in the West lump Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas into the same category, the groups spawned by Al Qaeda represent (or represented) something distinct (and more dangerous in my opinion) than Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas are not pursuing a “global caliphate.” They simply want the land taken from them by the West and the Zionists. Hamas, in its revised Charter, makes it clear that its war is with the Zionists, not Jews or Judaism:
16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.
You will never read a declaration like that from Al Qaeda or its more extreme, lethal descendants — such as, ISIS and Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham. ISIS was born as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq is 2003. Its first leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, set the tone for ISIS by attacking and killing Shi’a Muslims in Iraq. Here is a portion of a letter allegedly written by Zarqawi that shows you what he thought of the Shi’a:
3 [sic]. The Shi`a
[They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity. [Another is] a difficult, fierce battle with a crafty enemy who wears the garb of a friend, manifests agreement, and calls for comradeship, but harbors ill will and twists up peaks and crests (?). Theirs is the legacy of the Batini bands that traversed the history of Islam and left scars on its face that time cannot erase. The unhurried observer and inquiring onlooker will realize that Shi`ism is the looming danger and the true challenge. “They are the enemy. Beware of them. Fight them. By God, they lie.” History’s message is validated by the testimony of the current situation, which informs most clearly that Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam except in the way that Jews have something in common with Christians under the banner of the People of the Book. From patent polytheism, worshipping at graves, and circumambulating shrines, to calling the Companions [of the Prophet] infidels and insulting the mothers of the believers and the elite of this [Islamic] nation, [they] arrive at distorting the Qur’an as a product of logic to defame those who know it well, in addition to speaking of the infallibility of the [Islamic] nation, the centrality of believing in them, affirming that revelation came down to them, and other forms of infidelity and manifestations of atheism with which their authorized books and original sources — which they continue to print, distribute, and publish — overflow. The dreamers who think that a Shi`i can forget [his] historical legacy and [his] old black hatred of the Nawasib [those who hate the Prophet’s lineage], as they fancifully call them, are like someone who calls on the Christians to renounce the idea of the crucifixion of the Messiah. Would a sensible person do this? These are a people who added to their infidelity and augmented their atheism with political cunning and a feverish effort to seize upon the crisis of governance and the balance of power in the state, whose features they are trying to draw and whose new lines they are trying to establish through their political banners and organizations in cooperation with their hidden allies the Americans.
This screed produced a response from Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that is lengthy, but worth a read to appreciate the mindset of the Al Qaeda militants. While Zawahiri is generally supportive of Zarqawi’s view of the Shi’a as apostates from Islam, he, with the full support of Bin Laden, chides Zarqawi for his attacks on Shi’a worshipers and their mosques:
A) I repeat that I see the picture from afar, and I repeat that you see what we do not see. No doubt you have the right to defend yourself, the mujahedeen, and Muslims in general and in particular against any aggression or threat of aggression.
(B) I assert here that any rational person understands with ease that the Shia cooperated with the Americans in the invasion of Afghanistan, Rafsanjani himself confessed to it, and they cooperated with them in the overthrow of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq in exchange for the Shia’s assumption of power and their turning a blind eye to the American military presence in Iraq. This is clear to everybody who has two eyes. . . .
(D) The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later. This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnis. These are clear, well-known matters to anyone with a knowledge of history, the ideologies, and the politics of states.
(E) We must repeat what we mentioned previously, 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 this 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. 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.
Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that is unavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger? And if some of the operations were necessary for self-defense, were all of the operations necessary? Or, were there some operations that weren’t called for? And is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision? Or, does this conflict with the Shia lift the burden from the Americans by diverting the mujahedeen to the Shia, while the Americans continue to control matters from afar? And if the attacks on Shia leaders were necessary to put a stop to their plans, then why were there attacks on ordinary Shia?
Won’t this lead to reinforcing false ideas in their minds, even as it is incumbent on us to preach the call of Islam to them and explain and communicate to guide them to the truth? And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners – many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries – in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?
My point in sharing these communications between the leaders of Al Qaeda and the leader of ISIS is to give you some appreciation of the depth of their theological conviction that they possessed a unique truth and were empowered by Allah to impose what they believed to be “correct” practices and to punish, by death, those who refused to obey.
Keep reading
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.