In another thoughtful essay, Mshari Al-Zaydi discusses the way in which religious extremists seek to minimize—often through assassination—those who argue religious fundamentals. He covers the recent uses of violence to silence critics, going back to Yemen in the late 1940s and the killing of Imam Yahya, then ruler, ostensibly at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Al-Zaydi could have gone back further, of course. He might have mentioned the Old Man of the Mountain, Rashid ad-Din Sinan, who terrorized the Levant during the 12th C. CE Crusades. He was not only a scourge of the Crusaders, but also of Saladin (Salah-id-deen), leader of the Muslim cause.
Don’t Disturb Our Thoughts
Mshari Al-ZaydiIn the audio recording by Sheikh Ibrahim al Rubaish, a wanted Saudi member of Al Qaeda thought to be in Yemen, in which he commented on the failed assassination attempt on Prince Mohammed Bin Naif, al Rubaish spoke highly of the operation, and explained the motives behind it and attacked the Assistant Minister of Interior for Security Affairs and the head of the war on terrorism, Prince Mohammed Bin Naif.
What was most significant and new about his speech was his reference to those who condemned the attack such as Saudi preachers and religious figures and journalists, accusing them of lying and corrupting “jihad”. He concluded his speech by saying that those who managed to reach Prince Mohammed, the head of the war on terrorism, are capable of reaching whoever criticizes “Al Qaeda” so they should take heed. The speech was an explicit threat to frighten whoever dares criticize the organisation.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
October:12:2009 - 02:16
I think it is wrong to consider the Nizaris (also known as the Hashshashin or Assassins) as involved in a religious dispute. Murder was all business for them. They had a unique business plan which consisted of a mafia-like protection racket and rent-a-killer agency. Hasan-i Sabbah would recruit young men, drug them with hashish and then put them into a garden (still drugged) filled with all kind of earthly delights, most of them female (so they say!). After a short time there were removed from the garden and told if they wanted back they had to complete a special mission for the Old Man of the Mountain. To maximize the terror effect the Fedayeen would kill important figures in public places at the most unexpected times, including when the victim was at prayer or in a mosque. The Assassins were fearless and almost unstoppable (they really wanted to get back to that garden and those women). The hashishiyya murdered Crusaders, Caliphs and Sultans. Even Saladin was attacked twice. The Mongols destroyed the Nizari stronghold in 1256.
As far as religious dispute, the Umma was in a state of turmoil from the beginning. Note that even Mohammud attacked mosques (because of their unbelief). After his death it got worse. To give you an idea of the extent of this violence, in three campaigns, the Battle of Bassorah (Battle of the Camel), the Battle of Siffin, and the Battle of Nahrawan, Muslim records say that 85,000 Muslim warriors were killed by other Muslims. This period is known as the First Fitna, or Muslim civil war.
The issue was always either power or “I am pure you are not”. From the beginning there were conflicts between Ali, Fatima and the other Caliphs plus Aisha. It was messy, to say the least. As if that wasn’t bad enough there were the Kharijites (“withdrawers”) who considered both groups unpure and unmuslim. Just when it can’t get worse, there were even extreme Kharijites called the Azraqi or Azariqah who considered the regular extremists to be Takfir sissies.
What I am saying is that these journalists, Imams and religious authorities referred to in the Aawsat article don’t have a clue. I read the article twice and I don’t have a clue either. Even when it touches on the problem (“We are yet to see a real critical approach towards the “structure” of terrorist discourse rather than towards its external appearance”) you can be sure that all parties will ignore the obvious. Then they wonder why the extremist discourse grows day by day….
Anyway note that within 50 years of Mohammud’s death Islam had conquered half of the known world. It gained unimaginable riches for its rulers and destroyed ancient civilizations. It had made the Arabs a great people. The sword of Islam had also turned upon itself and devoured its own. Three out of the four so-called Righteous Caliphs were murdered by Muslims (well, two and Omar’s murder is more complex). Note also that at the end of those 50 years the headless bodies of Mohammad’s family lay discarded in the desert at Karbala and their heads were carried in bags as trophies by a victorious Muslim army to the caliph. This, of course, set the stage for 1300 years of further conflict. It not just moderate vs radical but now also shia vs sunni.
It is fascinating history and interesting speculation. Personally I think if Iran gets the bomb it will not be used on the Jews but to settle accounts for the Ashura. One thing is certain: it will be worse, both between Muslims and for Muslims vs non-Muslims. Boy am I cheery tonight!
Kactuz
October:12:2009 - 08:59
Yes, indeed, that’s cheery commentary!
Just to note, though, that the Old Man of the Mountain to whom I referred was the Syrian incarnation, about a century after the Iranian/Persian one. ‘Thugs for hire’ was still the business model though, and Muslims were as likely to be targeted as non-Muslims. But then, there were Christian ‘monarchs’ in the Levant who would also shift alliances if it seemed expedient.
October:12:2009 - 23:34
Hummmm… I will have to look him up. Must have missed Old man II. What kind of student of history am I, I ask?
Very true. The relationship between Christans and even Crusaders with Muslims was complex. It wasn’t always the “kill on sight” thing we think about today. Muslims and Christian rulers were often willing to work with their respective infidels to advance their cause even over that of their neighbors of the same faith. I am shocked! The religion of “save thy neck” usually had priority over all others, including Islam and Christianity.
Got to go. But first may I ask if you are aware that this is the 30th anniversary of a big event there in Arabia. I doubt that it will be celebrated, even if it was a definning moment in modern history.
Kactuz
October:13:2009 - 22:58
So I throw out two somewhat contentious tidbits (the bomb and the 30 years) and you, wisely I might add, ignore them.
The Burgess family isn’t just another cabbage garden, for sure.
Kactuz
October:14:2009 - 01:09
Okay, it’s late (early), so I’ll go for your bait…
The bomb: Iran would certainly use it to threaten its Sunni neighbors. Whether it would use it is another matter. There’s another Sunni state just to the east of Iran that has atomic weapons, after all. Israel would be (if you were deranged) a ‘safer’ target in that fewer people would complain. But ten minutes later, there’d be a lot of Iranian complaints as its major cities vaporized.
The 30 years: Well, to tell you the truth, it’s also my 30th wedding anniversary. That sort of overrode whatever else might have been happening. We do have the Iranian revolution, next month is the 30th anniversary of the seizing of the Grand Mosque, then the Invasion of Afghanistan, and the seizing of the US Embassy in Tehran. All in all, 30 years ago had some serious downsides. And a nice upside!
Maybe a cactus garden?
October:15:2009 - 10:19
You are right, but maybe a better word would be “pressure” instead of “threaten.” It is sure that the Saudis would be very unhappy and it would complicate even more a very complicated world. I don’t think that Pakistan having the bomb would be much consolation to SA. They are too messed up with other issues to dedicate themselves to Golf politics. It is strange that Pakistan, as the largest Muslim (in the region) nation and one with atomic weapons, has had so little influence on its neighbors to the West. I guess it is the fixation on India.
About the 30 years. I remember 1979 well. Jimmmy, tehran, his friends and interest rates. A mess. I was aware of the seige in Mecca but had heard the French paratrooper (or foreign legion) theory (water and flooding, platoon strength assault, 1 million francs each, etc…). Trofimov’s book was interesting, both for what it said and didn’t say. Juhayman was an unlikley person for that cause. Strange. I did see a certain resemblance (physical) of J to Chalie Manson or John Brown, as Trofimov mentions in the book, but Qahtani comes accross as a Arabic Muslim version of Jethro Bodine (not all there…).
Congrats on your 30th, to you and the Misses. I am 10 years ahead of you on that and yes I have a bunch of cacti and coyotes even.
J.
October:15:2009 - 10:47
PS:
My crystal ball says…
1. Yes, Iran will explode a nuclear device in 2010, 2011 latest. The West will not, cannot stop them.
2. 90% chance they will not use it on Israel.
3. Israel will annouce that “Yes we have it too” (duhhhh) and will let it be known that if attacked every Arab / Islamic nation around them will die with them (Masada option). This will include Cairo, Amman, Jeddah, Damascus, Tehan, Tripoli, Bagdad, etc… and of course Mecca (The old MAD theory, revised to include Jewish collective suicide option).
4. Now Iran is everybody’s problem. Suddenly Muslims will become very interested in the well-being of the state of Israel.
My crystal ball has been know to fail… The scenario is not impossible and there is a certain bit of humor in it (if you can see beyond the tragic reality of a hundred million dead).
Kactuz
October:15:2009 - 12:50
Your crystal ball is as good as anyone else’s. They all get foggy just when you want them clear!