Is Fighting the U.S. Osama Bin Laden’s Front for a Different Objective?

“…He wants the U.S. to strike back disproportionately, because he believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state.”

- Michael Doran, Princeton University

Like the Khawarij of former times, groups such as Jamaa’atul-Jihaad (The Jihad Party) of Egypt, some of whose members would later become associated with al-Qaeda, originally focused all their efforts on overturning the present day governments throughout the Muslim lands. However, the groups following the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, the Qutbists, failed miserably in achieving any of their goals, with most of them being jailed or forced to flee to remote lands.

It is from these lands that they restructured and changed their tactics in bringing about their ultimate goal of establishing a new government overnight. The New York Times’ Robert Worth refers to the Qutbists’ change in tactics:

“Mr. Bin Laden does seem to have deviated from the radical tradition in one sense, by focusing his attacks on the United States rather than Arab regimes. In his 1996 declaration, he went so far as to say that Muslims should put aside their own differences so as to focus on the struggle against the Western enemy – a serious departure from the doctrine of Qutb and even Sadat’s killers, who argued that the internal struggle was the one that mattered.”

“But that may be merely a shift in tactics not in overall strategy,” says Worth. Regarding this change in tactics, Worth quotes Michael Doran, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University: “Bin Laden is using the U.S. as an instrument in his struggle with other Muslims,” Mr. Doran said. “He wants the U.S. to strike back disproportionately, because he believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state…”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Robert Worth, The Deep Intellectual Roots of Islamic Terror, The New York Times, 13th October 2001.

 

 

What Kind of Effect has Bin Laden’s sect (Qutbism) Had on the World?

“Bin Laden’s kind of extremism has much more in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao than it does with Islamic tradition. Like those state terrorists, Bin Laden is at war with his own people. And finally, I have boldly asserted that Bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.”

- David F. Forte, The National Review

Commenting on the effects of Sayyid Qutb’s writings in the Muslim world, the New York Times’ Judith Shulevitz writes,

“…Anyone who doubts that literary critics can play a part on the bloody stage of history should consider the example of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb, born in Egypt in 1906 and university educated, was a Western-style literary critic until he devoted himself to Islam after spending two years in the United States, exposed to what he viewed as our decadence. He died in 1966, when he was hanged along with other Muslim radicals by the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Qutb’s books of hard-line political theology have had a direct influence on the Saudi Arabian Muslim opposition; the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria; the Palestinian group Hamas; the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon; Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian cleric jailed for several thwarted terrorist plots and linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and the Iranian writer Ali Shariati, who helped foster the Islamic revolution in Iran.”

In a National Review article entitled “Religion is Not the Enemy,” David F. Forte accurately describes the link between contemporary radical movements within the Muslim world and the writings of Sayyid Qutb:

“In other writings, I have asserted that this form of extremism has been inspired by the writings of influential modernist radicals, such as Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, who believe that virtually all Islam is in a state of unbelief and needs to be reconquered. Thus, in its modern form, Bin Laden’s kind of extremism has much more in common with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao than it does with Islamic tradition. Like those state terrorists, Bin Laden is at war with his own people. And finally, I have boldly asserted that Bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.”

Although Forte’s understanding of “Wahhabism” is rather limited, unlike many other writers, he was able to distinguish between the methodology of Osama Bin Laden and the methodology of the “Wahhabis” when he said, “Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam is different even from Wahhabism.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Shulevitz has accurately identified the ideological source of those who live within Saudi Arabia and are opposed to its scholars and creed as being the ideology of Qutbism, and not the native creed of “Wahhabism”.

Judith Shulevitz, Some ideas demand rebuttal, The New York Times, 21st October 2001.

David F. Forte, Religion is not the enemy, The National Review, 19th October 2001.

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Like Osama Bin Laden?

“So my advice to al-Masari, al-Faqih, Bin Laden, and all those who traverse their way is to leave alone this disastrous path, and to fear Allah and to beware of His vengeance and His anger, and to return to guidance and to repent to Allah for what has preceded from them…”

- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

Long before today’s journalists had even heard of the word Qutbist or Khawarij, the orthodox, senior Salafi scholars throughout the Muslim lands had warned the people about the threat of ideological terrorism and what would necessarily emanate from it.

Warning about the evils of Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Qutbism in general, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, a professor at the Islamic University of Madina said:

“Those who set off the explosions in the Kingdom admitted with their own mouths, that they were affected by the Jamaa’atut-Takfir (one of the Egyptian Qutbist groups) and that they were from the group of Osama Bin Laden and al-Masari, and they were spreading their literature. Osama Bin Laden – who taught this man? Who educated him about the Shariah (Islamic laws)? He is a businessman, this is his field of specialization… they admitted, as we said, with their own mouths, we saw it and read it in the newspapers, and I have it here with me recorded with their own voices, that they were affected by some of the people of takfir (from the Qutbist groups) of Afghanistan.

The majority of our youth that returned from the jihad in Afghanistan to our country were affected, either by the ideology of the Ikhwan (the group al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) in general, or by the revolutionary, takfiri ideology. So they left us believing that we were Muslims, and they returned to us believing that we were disbelievers. So with that, they saw us as being disbelievers, the rulers, and the scholars, not to mention the common folk. They labeled the (Saudi) state apostate, and they rendered the major scholars apostate. They admitted this with their own mouths. They declared the scholars to be disbelievers, and mentioned specifically the two Shaykhs, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz and Shaykh Muhammad Bin al-Uthaymin, may Allah preserve them. They mentioned their connection with al-Masari and Osama Bin Laden. Did they get this from the scholars of Salafism? No! Rather they got it from the people of takfir.”

As such, it becomes clear for all to see that this revolutionary ideology of Qutbism was something new and imported to the lands of the “Wahhabis”, and it is a call which is in direct confrontation with the call of the Salafis/“Wahhabis”. The “Wahhabis” have been the first to be expelled from the fold of Islam by the Qutbists.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

The British based Muhammad al-Masari (Mohammed al-Massari) was the founder of the Saudi Arabian wing of Hizb At-Tahrir (The Party of Liberation) in Saudi Arabia, one of the most light-headed of activist groups which has arisen in this century. Al-Masari set up the CDLR (The Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights), which was refuted by Shaykh al-Uthaymin, one of the great Salafi scholars of this century. Al-Masari reviled Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (and thus, “Wahhabism”), calling him a “simpleton, and not a scholar” only because he centered his call around tawhid (true monotheism) and following the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him security), as opposed to calling people to insurgency. Ironically, al-Masari, Bin Laden and others who follow this revolutionary ideology are somehow still being linked to “Wahhabism”!

Amongst the ideological figureheads of the Khawaarij, al-Masari and his likes operate at a doctrinal level, inciting the common people against the rulers, by publicizing their faults, shortcomings and sins, in order to effect a revolution.

Al-Masari’s statement that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab (i.e. “Wahhabism”) “was a simpleton, and not a scholar” can be found in his declaration which he issued from London entitled, “A Clarification from the Chief Spokesman for CDLR” (23/3/1995). Refer to al-Qutbiyyah (p. 204).

Abul-Hasan Maalik, In Defense of Islam, T.R.O.I.D. Publications 2002, p. 97.

“The Qutbists of Arabia echoed the beliefs and misconceptions of Qutb and were preaching his extremist doctrines to the youth – with the claim that Saudi Arabia does not judge by the Islamic legislation. Takfir of the rulers was ripe amongst the movement’s youth – and was justified by the same doctrinal misconceptions that Qutb first propagated decades ago. Saudi Arabia is the only country that has Islamic legislation, even though it is not perfect, and is actually built upon the foundation of tawhid (true monotheism). (This is) a reality that is being denied by Qutb’s modern day disciples within the Saudi Kingdom. The Qutbists of Arabia were in fact declared “the Neo-Kharijites” (Khaarijiyyah ‘Asriyyah) by Shaykh al-Albani in 1997, and their extremist doctrines refuted by the likes of Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh al-Fawzan and others, all of whom affirmed that the country does in fact rule by the Shariah – even though there may be shortcomings therein – and that it is obligatory to preserve and maintain the peace and sanctuary therein.”

From Salafi Publications’ commentary on the Guardian’s November 1, 2001 article, entitled “Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden?” www.salafipublications.com, Article ID : GRV070025

Does Osama Bin Laden Like the ‘Wahhabis’?

In an interview which appeared in the takfiri/jihadi magazine Nida’ul Islam, Bin Laden performs unrestricted takfir (declares them to have left the fold of Islam) upon the present day Muslim governments:

“At the same time that some of the leaders are engaging in the major acts of disbelief, which takes them out of the fold of Islam in broad daylight and in front of all the people, you would find a fatwa (verdict) from their religious organisation. In particular, the role of the religious organisation (i.e. the Salafi scholars) in the country of the two sacred mosques (i.e. Saudi Arabia) is of the most ominous of roles, this is overlooking whether it fulfilled this role intentionally or unintentionally, the harm which eventuated from their efforts is no different from the role of the most ardent enemies of the nation.”

Continuing in his reference to the presence of the organization of Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden terms the Standing Committee for Issuing Religious Verdicts “an idol to be worshipped aside from God.”

When considering this, one wonders how it can possibly be understood that Bin Laden and his followers are “Wahhabis” as is being repeatedly mentioned in the media!

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Nida’ul Islam, November, 1996, 15th issue.

What Sect Does Osama Bin Laden Really Belong to?

“…But if one man deserves the title of intellectual grandfather to Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, it is probably the Egyptian writer and activist Sayyid Qutb.“

- Robert Worth, The New York Times

As a result of the wealth which the Bin Laden Corporation generated, Osama Bin Laden used his family’s money to live a carefree and luxurious lifestyle. Because of this, he never managed to exert himself to sit with any of the Muslim scholars, really seek knowledge, or ground himself in the fundamentals of Islamic beliefs. This state of ignorance continued even after he became religious and went to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. The fact that he failed to take advantage of studying under the guardianship of the elder scholars of Saudi Arabia led him to mix instead with the Qutbists, a newly arisen sect.

Eventually, he completely dismissed the methodology of the “Wahhabis” and expelled many of its people from the fold of Islam. Therefore, how could it be considered correct to say that Osama Bin Laden is a “Wahhabi”? In actuality, Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda movement are not “Wahhabis”, but rather, Qutbists.

Confirming this important link, the New York Times’ Robert Worth said, “…But if one man deserves the title of intellectual grandfather to Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, it is probably the Egyptian writer and activist Sayyid Qutb.”

The Existence of Qutbism as an Ideology

In an article titled “Terror, Islam and Democracy,” Ladan and Roya Boroumand correctly state that “Most young Islamist cadres today are the direct intellectual and spiritual heirs of the Qutbist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

They state that: “When the authoritarian regime of President Gamel Abdel Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brothers in 1954 (it would eventually get around to hanging Qutb in 1966), many went into exile in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Morocco. From there, they spread their revolutionary Islamist ideas – including the organizational and ideological tools borrowed from European totalitarianism.”

Expanding upon the link between European revolutionary ideologies and the dogma of Qutbism, The Independent’s John Gray argues in an article entitled “How Marx turned Muslim” that Qutbism is not rooted in the Islamic tradition, but rather, is very much a Western based ideology.

He explains that Sayyid Qutb “incorporated many elements derived from European ideology into his thinking,” and as such, Qutbism should be seen as an “exotic hybrid, bred from the encounter of sections of the Islamic intelligentsia with radical western ideologies.”

Gray explains that Qutbism is a modern revolutionary movement and unrepresentative of the orthodoxy of true Islam:

“The inspiration for Qutb’s thought is not so much the Quran, but the current of western philosophy embodied in thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Qutb’s thought — the blueprint for all subsequent radical Islamist political theology — is as much a response to 20th-century Europe’s experience of ‘the death of God’ as to anything in the Islamic tradition. Qutbism is in no way traditional. Like all fundamentalist ideology, it is unmistakably modern.”

Speaking about the incontestable link that exists between Bin Laden and Qutbism, the Arab News’ Amir Taheri said: “In time, Maudoodo-Qutbism provided the ideological topos in which Bin Ladenism could grow.”

Shaykh Rabee’ ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, the renowned Salafi scholar who has written several books refuting the mistakes of Sayyid Qutb, concludes the following about Qutbism: “The Qutbists are the followers of Sayyid Qutb… everything you see of the tribulations, the shedding of blood and the problems in the Islamic world today arise from the methodology (of this man).”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

The Qutbists are those who adhere to the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, a modern proponent of revolutionary thought. This particular ideology has been termed al-Qutbiyyah (Qutbism).

Robert Worth, The deep intellectual roots of Islamic terror, The New York Times, 13th October 2001.

Ladan and Roya Boroumand, Terror, Islam and Democracy, The Journal of Democracy, April 2002. Note: Since the Boroumands have correctly linked Qutbism with European totalitarianism, we can say that it is not correct for these people to be referred to as Islamists. Rather, it would be more accurate to refer to them as Muslim activists. Although they are Muslims, their revolutionary ideology cannot be attributed to Islam.

Robert Worth of the New York Times mentioned the following regarding the European influence of the Qutbists, “As Fathi Yakan, one of Qutb’s disciples, wrote in the 1960’s: ‘The groundwork for the French Revolution was laid by Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu; the Communist Revolution realized plans set by Marx, Engels and Lenin… The same holds true for us as well.’” (Robert Worth, The Deep Intellectual Roots of Islamic Terror, The New York Times, 13th October 2001.)

Revolutionary thinkers such as Abu Alaa Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Hasan Turabi of Sudan and the Iranian philosopher Ali Shariati became ideologically influenced by the West after having resided there. Although they rejected Western lifestyle and refuted it, they also became very influenced by it, formulating radical ideologies of reform. They were ignorant of Islam and its creed, and thus made their political thought and analysis the basis of their doctrine, and then sought to Islamicize it.

The concept of attributing death to the Creator, whether it be expressed literally or symbolically, is absurd in the extreme. Allah said in the Quran:

“And put your trust in the Ever-Living Who dies not, and glorify His Praises” (Quran 25:58)

It would have been more accurate for Gray to have said, “Like all extremist ideology, it is unmistakably modern,” instead of using the ambiguous term “fundamentalist.”

John Gray, How Marx turned Muslim, The Independent, 27 July, 2002.

Taheri is referring to the link between Abu Alaa Maududi, the South-Asian Muslim “thinker,” and Sayyid Qutb, who was heavily influenced by Maududi’s writings. Confirming this, the Telegraph stated the following regarding Qutb: “Egyptian writer and thinker. Took up the idea of Abu al-Alaa al-Maududi (1903-79) that much of the Muslim world had returned to ungodly ignorance (jahiliyah).” (A-Z of Islam, The Telegraph, November 15, 2001.)

Amir Taheri, Bin Laden no longer exists: Here is why. The Arab News, August 29, 2002.

Shaykh Rabee’ ibn Haadee on Imaam al-Albaanee and Irjaa’ (Source: 11th January, 2002 Tele-link from the UK, www.salafipublications.com – Article ID: MSC060014).

Is Osama Bin Laden Really a ‘Wahhabi’?

The term “Wahhabi” is often misused for less than honest purposes…

On September 30, 2001, Roger Hardy, the BBC’s Middle East analyst wrote an article entitled “Inside Wahhabi Islam.” Hardy himself notes that the term “Wahhabi” is often misused for less than honest purposes, “The term ‘Wahhabi’ is often used very freely. The Russian media, for example, use it as a term of abuse for Muslim activists in Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia itself – rather as the Western media use the vague and derogatory term ‘Islamic fundamentalism’.”

Regrettably, Hardy falls into the same trap of misappropriating this term when he states that Osama Bin Laden is a “Wahhabi”: “Osama Bin Laden, named by US officials as the main suspect in the 11 September attacks against America, is Saudi-born and a Wahhabi.”

The mistake that Hardy has fallen into here is that he has assumed that since Bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, that this in turn necessitates him being a “Wahhabi”. In fact, this is a superficial conclusion which has been repeatedly mentioned in the media and is worthy of refutation.

Osama bin Laden comes from a Yemeni family which is based in Hadramout, a coastal section of Yemen that is well known for being a base of a particular sect of Islam called Sufism. Sufism could be briefly summarized as being the antithesis of “Wahhabism”. Bin Laden himself is not concerned with differentiating between matters of creed, and some of his statements indicate that he still acknowledges certain Sufi practices. He also embraced the Taliban as his close friends and protectors, and it is well known that the great majority of this group belong to Deobandism, a Sufi movement.

However, a differentiation is made between demonstrating that Bin Laadin acknowledges certain Sufi practices, and claiming that he is an outright Sufi. Rather, Bin Laadin has shown that he is not concerned with the same matters of belief and worship that a Salafi would concern himself with, because the sect he belongs to (Qutbism) does not distinguish between matters of belief, so long as people adhere to their “movement.”

Another misnomer which has been oft repeated in the mainstream media is the notion that the Taliban were “Wahhabis.” On December 10, 2001, The Washington Post’s Ron Kampeas wrote that “Wahhabism” is “a puritanical faith that rejects change. A brand of Islam that drives the Taliban…”

This in fact is another great inaccuracy which indicates that those who have repeated these claims have approached these intricate matters in a simplistic fashion.

Although Roger Hardy’s BBC article made the error of stating that Osama bin Laden was a “Wahhabi,” he, unlike Kampeas, stayed clear of repeating this error when addressing the Sufi Taliban movement:

“But the Taleban are not Wahhabis. They belong to what is known as the Deobandi movement, named after the small town of Deoband in the Indian Himalayas. It was here that the movement was founded, in the 1860s,
during the period of British rule in India.”

On November 9, 2001, Hamid Mir of the Pakistani daily, The Dawn, interviewed Osama Bin Laden just prior to the fall of Kabul:

Hamid Mir: “After (the) American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct 7, you told Al-Jazeera TV that the September 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims?”

Osama bin Laden: “The Americans themselves released a list of the suspects of the September 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers. Fateha was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers.”

Bin Laden’s statement “Fateha was held for them in their homes” is referring to the reading of the opening chapter of the Quran (al-Fatihah) for the souls of the deceased, a common practice of the Sufis. This act of worship has no basis in Islam, either from the Quran, the Sunnah, or the practice of the earliest generations. More precisely, this is an innovated practice which later generations of Sufi Muslims fabricated. This statement indicates that Osama bin Laden is neither knowlegeable in Islam, nor is he attached to the principles and practices of Salafism.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Sufism was not known in the time of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), his Companions, nor was it accepted by the early Muslims. It first appeared in Basrah in Iraq, where some people went to extremes in worship and in avoiding the worldly life, something which is admonished in the Quran:

“The Monasticism which they invented for themselves;
We did not prescribe it for them.” [Quran 57:27]

Sufis belong to the Illumist school of philosophy which holds that knowledge and awareness is brought about in the soul by spiritual exercises. Orthodox Islam holds that one can achieve true knowledge and awareness through the acts of worship that exist in the Quran and Sunnah. Sufis believe that their teachers are also a source for legislation in worship, as they will order them to carry out acts of worship that have no basis in Islam. The extremists from amongst them often claim that Allah dwells within His creation (i.e. in people’s hearts, internal organs etc.). Consequently, they ascribe to their Sufi teachers attributes and powers which only belong to Allah, such as knowledge of the unseen. They often claim that the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah have an outer, apparent meaning, and as well, an inner, hidden meaning. They hold that the outer, apparent meaning is known to those who practice orthodox Islam, while the inner and hidden meanings of the Quran and Sunnah are known only to their teacher and order. These teachers will often claim that since they have advanced to the inner and hidden meaning of Islam, they no longer need to pray or fast, duties that even the Prophets were not excused from.