A few days ago
on Belgravia Dispatch, Dan Darling wrote about the letter
from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zawahari complains about
some of Zarqawi's violent tactics particularly the videotaped beheadings
of hostages. ' "We don't need this," the letter says. "Use a bullet instead."
'. As Dan says, it is as well to see the actual text of the letter.
The full text has now been released (
via Norm). Here is the relevant passage:
'things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you
will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages.
...we are in a battle, and ... more than half of this battle is taking
place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle
in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our
capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities
of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives
by bullet.'
Here are some more edited highlights:
The Shia
'the Shia [the Iranians] cooperated with the Americans in the invasion of
Afghanistan and they cooperated with them in the overthrow of Saddam and
the occupation of Iraq in exchange for the Shia's assumption of power ...
'... the Twelve'er school of Shiism .. is a religious school based on excess
and falsehood ... Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of
Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.
'The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the
Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later. these are the fruits to
be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnis.
'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 [,especially] when the
attacks are on one of their mosques...
'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?
'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?
Stages towards 'the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet
'The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish
an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it
achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread
its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas...
'The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel,
because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the
Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting
zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway
over us.
the enemies of Islam ... did not establish Israel in this triangle surrounded
by Egypt and Syria and overlooking the Hijaz except for their own interests.
The Muslim masses ... do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy,
especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
Preparing for the aftermath of the exit of the Americans: things may
develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American
power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy.
Theological purity
Also, the active mujahedeen ulema - even if there may be some heresy or fault
in them that is not blasphemous - we must find a means to include them and
to benefit from their energy. ... all Muslims are speaking of jihad, whether
they are Salafi or non-Salafi, then you would understand that it is a duty
of the mujahed movement to include the energies of the Umma. ... I
do not want us to repeat the mistake of Jamil al-Rahman~, who was killed
and whose organization was shattered, because he neglected the realities
on the ground.'
Strangely, Afghanistan seems almost like a lost cause: 'We don't want to
repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance
to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have any representation
for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so the result was that the
Afghan people disengaged themselves from them. Even devout ones took the
stance of the spectator and, when the invasion came, the amirate collapsed
in days, because the people were either passive or hostile.'
Update: A couple of points from Bernard Haykel's
New York Times article (referenced by Norm):
'Abu Baseer al-Tartusi, has issued a fatwa arguing that all suicide
bombing that targets Muslims, or innocent non-Muslims, is unlawful.' With
the 7 July bombings, I've a suspicion that the Jihadis do not regard British
citizens as innocent, since they re-elected Tony Blair, even after he supported the intervention in Iraq.
Al-Tartusi 'no doubt fears that in Britain's changing legal climate, he might
be extradited to [Syria], where he would face certain imprisonment and torture.'
While the British government is having negotiations on this with some
North African countries, it seems unlikely they would negotiate anything
with Syria.
Update 2:According to the FT (15 Oct), the letter may have been to Abu
Musab al-Suri, rather than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Suri was an
intermediary for al-Qaeda in Europe during the 1990s. This would explain the
reference to al-Zarqawi in the third person, which certainly puzzled me when I
read it: "if by chance you are going to Fallujah..."
