Synopsis and Analysis of the essay "Loyalty and Enmity: an Inherited Doctrine and a Lost Reality" by Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Part 1 - Introduction

This document is intended to be a summary and analysis of the essay "Loyalty and Enmity: an Inherited Doctrine and a Lost Reality" by Ayman Al-Zawahiri as translated by Raymond Ibrahim in The Al-Qaeda Reader. The first portion of the essay is an introduction.

The introduction begins by explaining that all of Islamic history can be viewed as a conflict between those who believe in Islam and those seeking the destruction of Islam. The American "War on Terror" is simply the latest version of the attacks on Islam. The remainder of the introduction explains why it is important to maintain, reinforce and understand the understanding of the doctrine of "Loyalty and Enmity". In short the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity is the belief that a true Muslim will maintain friendship with all other Muslims while at the same time maintaining hatred to all nonbelievers.

Al-Zawahiri states that the strategy of the United States is to:

"...patch up the tattered fabric that represents the reigning regimes in our lands- in all their corruption and power to corrupt, and their submission to the international, tyrannical powers of the Crusaders and the Jews. The campaign means to wipe out the dividing line between truth and falsehood, till even friend and foe are intermingled."

This statement is not so much an attack against the United States as it is against pluralism religions and ideological pluralism. Pluralism was first written into the European historical framework at the end of the Thirty Years War in the Peace of Westphalia. The war fought over who had the capacity to determine what religion a state and its people would follow and who could declare who and apostate. There were also other political considerations that caused the war.

The Peace of Westphalia extends the previous Treaty of Augsburg and states that the ruler of a state has the capacity to establish what the religion of his state would be so long as they allow for believers of other creeds to worship as they wish. At the time they were referring only to the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist faiths but the idea has been expanded greatly in the growth of liberalism and finds most powerful expression in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Once again the right to determine apostasy is in question. Al-Zawahiri comes out clearly for the belief that the legalistic nature of the Koran and the Sharia allow for the clerical establishment to determine correct belief and practice of the Muslim faith, which is the only acceptable faith.

The author continues by listing several examples to demonstrate how the injection of pluralism is occurring in the present. Examples given in this writing include:

• The Saudi subservience to America while still claiming to be the guardians of the faith through their control of Mecca and Medina.
• The creation of secular rules and constitutions in Islamic lands.
• Normalization of relations with Israel
• Competitions to memorize the Koran in schools that forbid females to wear the veil. I believe that this is a reference Turkey
• The Northern Alliance fighting against the mujahidin in Afghanistan then "sanctify themselves with the clothes of the martyred mujahidin and the soil about their graves!!"
• "And we have seen the most sever scourgers and tormentors of Muslims performing the greater and lesser pilgrimages." It is unclear to me who this is referring too.

In addition to these contemporary references there are also four historical references that are used in order to demonstrate that attacks of this manner are not new events in the history of Islam. Two of the references refer to the time in the early growth and height of the Muslim empire after the death of Muhammad. The last two references come directly from the Koran.

The first historical reference the author makes is to draw comparison between the current regimes in the Islamic world and the Murji'ites of old. The Murji'ites were a sect of Islam in the early days of Islam. The translator leaves a note briefly explaining their history.

The Murji'ites, or "Postponers," were an early Muslim sect, subsequently deemed heretical, who believed that all judgment should be postponed and that believers were answerable only to Allah and thus need not hold to the principles or be subjected to the penalties of the sharia. Moreover, faith alone was enough to safeguard against the fires of hell even if believers lead sinful lives.

The second historical reference that the Author makes is to the Tatars. The author quotes Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya who wrote:

"The people have even seen them [Tatars] praise an area and then seize all possessions therein. They have then seen them heap praise upon a man and seek his blessings - only to snatch the clothes off his back, violate his women, and then subject him to a form of torments the likes of which are only exercised by the most unjust and depraved of peoples. The interpreter of religion punishes only those whom he considers disobedient to the faith. And yet they [Tatars] glory in the religion of the one they punish, saying that he is more obedient [to Allah] then they: so what justification is left to them?"

More information on Taymiyya is available here. The quote is made in reference to the Northern Alliance displacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan and as far as I can tell the quote is meant to lend credence to the opinion that if one Muslim attacks another then the attacker must not be a Muslim at all. It is important to note that Taymiyya held a particular dislike for the Tatars because his family had been driven from their homeland by the Tatars. This makes the situation of Taymiyya very similar to al-Zawahiri's experience with the Northern Alliance.

Al-Zawahiri then concludes with two stories from the Koran itself. He sites 9:46-47 and 33:12-13. I am not by any means a Koranic scholar but this is what I can gather from reading the passages and what surrounds them. Please correct me if I have erred I truly seek enlightenment on this.

Sura 9 is titled "The Immunity" and consists of 3 discourses. The cited verses come from the second discourse in which "...the Believers were urged to take active part in Jihad, and the shirkers were severely rebuked for holding back their wealth and for hesitation to sacrifice their lives in the way of Allah because of their hypocrisy, weak faith or negligence." (Cite)

Here is the extended quotation from the Sura that appears to be relevant:

"9.38": O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little.

"9.39": If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.

"9.40": If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"9.41": Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know.

"9.42": Had it been a near advantage and a short journey, they would certainly have followed you, but the tedious journey was too long for them; and they swear by Allah: If we had been able, we would certainly have gone forth with you; they cause their own souls to perish, and Allah knows that they are most surely

"9.43": Allah pardons you! Why did you give them leave until those who spoke the truth had become manifest to you and you had known the liars?

"9.44": They do not ask leave of you who believe in Allah and the latter day (to stay away) from striving hard with their property and their persons, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil).

"9.45": They only ask leave of you who do not believe in Allah and the latter day and their hearts are in doubt, so in their doubt do they waver.

"9.46": And if they had intended to go forth, they would certainly have provided equipment for it, but Allah did not like their going forth, so He withheld them, and it was said (to them): Hold back with those who hold back.

"9.47": Had they gone forth with you, they would not have added to you aught save corruption, and they would certainly have hurried about among you seeking (to sow) dissension among you, and among you there are those who hearken for their sake; and Allah knows the unjust.

"9.48": Certainly they sought (to sow) dissension before, and they meditated plots against you until the truth came, and Allah's commandment prevailed although they were averse (from it).

"9.49": And among them there is he who says: Allow me and do not try me. Surely into trial have they already tumbled down, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers.

"9.50": If good befalls you, it grieves them, and if hardship afflicts you, they say: Indeed we had taken care of our affair before; and they turn back and are glad.

"9.51": Say: Nothing will afflict us save what Allah has ordained for us; He is our Patron; and on Allah let the believers rely.

The narrow quote by the author leaves out what seem to be important sections on the fact that Allah will pass judgment on them when they die. Later in the sura it is directed no longer to accept the alms from these people, placing them outside of society. However there does not appear to be a directive to kill them. However if you apply the logic of "Loyalty and Enmity" circularly then anyone outside of the Islamic community would be the infidels (unless they become dihimi and pay the poor tax, which is not to be accepted). Being unable to be Muslim or dihimi then the only state that remains is infidel. And infidels are killed, stolen from and harassed at every available opportunity.

The second sura quoted is number 33 "The Clans" verses 12 and 13.

[33.12] And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease began to say: Allah and His Apostle did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive.
[33.13] And when a party of them said: O people of Yasrib! there IS no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying. Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed; they only desired to fly away.

This citation is intended to make it clear that the behavior "hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease" will make excuses and will be weak in the face of the sacrifices that are needed to secure victory.

The section of sura 33 that this quote is drawn from is referring to the Battle of the Trench in 627 C.E. Reza Aslan in his book "No god but God" states that the Jewish Qurayza clan was the only remaining clan inside the protective trench around Medina. During the siege they sided and supported the attacking army. After the battle was over Muhammad had Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was the leader of a mostly neutral group pass judgment on what should be done with the Qurayza. His decision was "'I pass judgment on them,' Sa'd declared, 'that their fighters shall be killed and their children [and wives] made captives and that their property shall be divided.'" (p. 92) This is not stated in Al-Zawhiri's text but would likely be a well known historical fact to educated Muslims.

After this the introduction closes by stating that there will be rest of the paper will be in three sections.
"Part One: The basis of Loyalty and Enmity in Islam
Part Two: Various deviations from the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity
Conclusion: Main points we wish to emphasize."

These sections will be summarized individually in posts to follow.

Another Bifurcated Terrorist

The account of Mohammed Mansour Jabarah's recruitment and time as a al-Qaeda member (CBC) very cleanly re-demonstrates a point made very well by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism. The point is that the most dangerous men in al-Qaeda are well educated, intelligent people who are pulled into terrorist organizations while attempting to reconcile a split personality.

They are split between their Western and Islamic identities. The al-Qaeda ideology gives them a pure ideal to belong to. They can convert their discomfort and disconnection in a hectic and harrowing modern world into hate for the people who make them uncomfortable.

Men like this are the most dangerous men in the entire al-Qaeda operation because they are smart enough to be good tools and planners, yet young and confused enough to be manipulated. While it is true that many attacks are perpetrated by the hopeless men and women from dire economic circumstances people like that are a dime a dozen.

Planning is another affair entirely. You need to recruit and brainwash the victim, have someone make the bomb, find them the materials, pick the target, conduct surveillance of it, then make the pieces move at the right time. It's not easy. And those are the small events, the amount of planning that goes into attacks like 9-11, the Madrid train bombings and the U.S. Embassy bombings is probably staggering. These are not stupid people. The true masterminds probably border on levels of brilliance.

The come from diverse backgrounds that allow them to be very familiar with the world in which we live in. Here is just a short list of the big fish who have made the news:

• Osama bin Laden was born into an extremely wealthy family with extensive ties to the west in Saudi Arabia, he studied engineering at an elite secular university.
• Kahlid Sheikh Mohamed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attack, earned a degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro. (Global Security)
• Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of Al-Qaeda, is a physician.
• Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of Islamist thought went to western schools in Egypt then studied at Colorado State University. He spent time as a high level member of the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior.
  
• Richard Reid the shoe bomber comes from a London suburb which the BBC describes as "...hardly a natural breeding ground for dissidents - the borough's schools are among the UK's best, and street crime is half that in smarter areas such as Kensington and Chelsea." (BBC)
• Mohamed Atta, the lead 9-11 hijacker, attended a variety universities in Germany where he began his path to radicalization.

Dealing with men like this will not be easily accomplished unless we are willing to get into a serious discussion with the Islamic world about the meaning of plurality in modern society and in Christianity and Islam.

I will close with an quotation from an article titled The World of Epictetus by Admiral James Stockdale originally written for The Atlantic Magazine. In this section of the article he is discussing three types of psychological profiles of prisoners in captivity.

"One of the things North talked about was brainwashing. A psychologist who studied the Korean prisoner situation, which somewhat paralleled ours, concluded that three categories of prisoners were involved there. The first was the redneck Marine sergeant from Tennessee who had an eighth grade education. He would get in that interrogation room and they would say that the Spanish-American War was started by the bomb within the Maine, which might be true, and he would answer, “B.S.” They would show him something about racial unrest in Detroit. “B.S.” There was no way they could get to him; his mind was made up. He was a straight guy, red, white,
and blue, and everything else was B.S.! He didn’t give it a second thought. Not much of a historian, perhaps, but a good security risk.

In the next category were the sophisticates. They were the fellows who could be told these same things about the horrors of American history and our social problems, but had heard it all before, knew both sides of every story, and thought we were on the right track. They weren’t ashamed that we had robber barons at a certain time in our history; they were aware of the skeletons in most civilizations’ closets. They could not be emotionally involved and so they were good security risks.

The ones who were in trouble were the high school graduates who had enough sense to pick up the innuendo, and yet not enough education to accommodate it properly. Not many of them fell, but most of the men that got entangled started from that background. The psychologist’s point is possibly oversimplistic, but I think his message has some validity. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

The people we need to worry about most are in the third group. They can come down on either side of the argument, and are powerful because they have capacity for great works of both good and evil.

I haven't had time to watch the entire Republican Debate, but I've read several things about and watched the above video.

I haven't made up my mind on Ron Paul but I think he has the tip of a great observation. That is that American policy over the past 50 years has caused people to in the Middle East to hate us. I don't think he had time to fully articulate it in 60 seconds.

It is certainly true that the core of the Al Quiada operation hates us completely. It is very much an irrational hate, and something that no amount of policy changes will resolve. You can find philosophical underpinnings of this movement in Qutb's book Milestones. The people who subscribe to this point of view are the people willing to commit suicide in the hopes to do us harm. These are the people that we must hunt down and remove from circulation.

The most of the people in the Muslim world are most likely not willing to engage in actual conflict with the United States. However many Muslims do dislike us for a variety of reasons. If the United States made an honest effort to understand these reasons and apply them to our foreign policy the world would be a safer place. It is also easy for a real terrorist to hide among people who just dislike the United States. If the United States followed a foreign policy was realistic in addressing the dislikes of the worlds Muslim population, terrorists would loose supporters, recruits and a population to hide among. It is possible that if we had done this sooner 9/11 may not have occurred. Ultimately there is no way to tell. Hopefully we can try it now and see it help prevent the next attack.