A collection of posts with lots of facts but no organization.
65
75
77
65
The idea that the Pakistan state or Pakistan Army was ever "Islamic", itself is a nationalistic notion. It is shrouded in great misconception. It is most common especially among foreign Muslims who have little idea of Pak's history, or among Pakistani's who are a product of the State education-system which makes no mention of their genocides in Baloch and Bengal.66
To call Pakistan "Islamic", is being blind to the fact how many of its Presidents and General's have been SHIA. And it is blind to the fact how many Sunnis were killed in Baloch, Bengal, and FATA under their hands. Yahya Khan and Musa Khan were shia, Bhutto we all know married shia and his kids are shia, and Iran jointly carried out the Baloch war.
The founding father of Pakistan, and one of the brainchild of the apartheid or "partition" system, Md Ali Jinnah himself was from an Ismaili Shia family, then converted to Twelver Shia. However, there are some who say he later converted to Sunnah (some in this forum attest to that), however shias claim him as their own. But one things certain, he was a staunch secularist. Pakistan's 1st President Iskander Mirza was also shia.
The modern 'Pakistan' state shares more with Zionism than with Islam:
* Both were created around a religious-identity, while disregarding the religious teachings itself.
* Millions were displaced when Hindu/Sikhs were kicked out of Pakistan, and Muslims were kicked out of Hindustan (and forced into the opposite land).
* This displacement killed several thousands of innocent people (intra-violence, & forced migration). Yet, today there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan.
* Since then, thousands have been killed from the 2 states in/around Kashmir. And that Kashmir itself is under occupation (apartheid within an apartheid: irony).
* The Pakistani regime has combined killed more Muslims under its rule in Balochistan, Bengal and FATA, then any other single kuffar regime in modern history.
* If India/Pak/Bang had remain united, Muslims could have rule this land. Millions of lives saved, and millions of Dalit Hindus would be Muslim, instead of Christian or Maoist.
68
Actually bhai, if you read my earlier post, it will make sense to you.
In reply to your rhetorical questions, my rhetorical answers:
* The same reason Yahya/Jinnah planned to make "Urdu" (a foreign/minority language) the official language and tried to force it into the others.
* The same reason East Pakistanis (Bangladesh) went to war over that.
MQM represents the Urdu-speaking people, the same people who were enticed or lured into Pakistan from India.
-If Pakistani regime targets MQM, that is a complete undermining of the zionist sorry i mean Pakistani project.
-In Israel, the zionists hate the ultra-orthodox. They dont serve in the army, they dont pay taxes, all they do is study books. But Israel will never attack them, because it undermines their whole faccade of a "jewish state".
Similarly, Pakistan will not go after MQM. Because if MQM are standing for urdu/muhajir interests, and Pakistan was created to be a home for indian muslims. Then attacking them would undermine their faccade of "islamic republic of pakistan".
either, may Allah give them fatah soon and protect Muslims. ameen.73
I understand your concerns. And what you said, i fully support. That is the difference between Righteous Mujahideen, and extremist "salafi-takfiri" mujahideen: the extremists only kill other muslims.
In Iraq, the so-called "dawlat al-iraq al-islamiyya" (islamic state of iraq) clashed with all their rival groups, causing fitnah. This caused many to abandon j!had, and many to join Sahwa (pro-US militias). This totally ruined the war. Today "dawlat" is still carrying out attacks against shia, but whats the point of this? When sunnis were collectively united and fighting against the enemies, they stepped in and ruined it. And any prospects for liberation has been underminded. Now they (dawlat al-iraq) have the monopoly that they wanted, but it cost the war against the Americans, and today the shia are still running the country. They can do as many attacks and release as many films and act like "we're the only mujahideen", but they're the one who disintegrated the mujahideen.
Same story with Al-Shabaab, they just like their extremist brothers in iraq, refused to negotiate with Sheikh Ahmed Sharif (ICU emir) after the Ethiopians left. However, this was Sharif's fault as well, because it seemed apparent by many that he's ready to compromise and accept democracy. So Sheikh Hasan Dahir Aweys (ICU shura leader), also rejected him. But then, Al-Shabaab started breaking tombs and mosques (and even digging up the bodies!!), and this brought the anger of the sufis (even if theyre mushrik-sufis) and made them join Sharif. And since half the country was backing the new govt, the Ethiopians returned this time and brought Ugandans, Burundians, Kenyans WITH them. So that victory brought upon by ICU, was undermined by the wrath brought upon by Al-Shabaab.
Sheikh Aweys however started Hizbul-Islam, and were the true mujahideen and never transgressed (they fought the invaders and the govt, thats it). But then Shabaab started clashing with HIM now, and they fought over several territories especially Kismayo, and also Hiran, Bay, etc. The leader of the 'Ras Kamboni Brigades' Hassan Al-Turki defected to Shabaab, he was. But another leader Ahmed Madoobe refused to do so, and now his "Ras Kamboni Brigades" faction has also joined the govt side (this perfectly shows how Salafist extremism CAUSES people to join the enemies). Ultimately, in late 2010, Hizbul and Shabaab fought over Burhakaba, and Hizbul lost. Al-Shabaab threatened to behead the prisoners, and thus forced Dahir Aweys to surrender his group.
Today, Al-Shabaab has banned journalists, radio stations, and even aid agencies. What separates true-mujahideen from extremists is this. The extremists do not have support of the people. What the salafists DO have going for them is their sheer wealth and reach. The things that both Dawlat and Shabaab (and other copycat-"AQ" branches) have is MEDIA power. In somalia, none of the other factions had a Media-Arm besides Shabaab. Being the only salafist group, they received money from salafis/gulf-arabs abroad. But since they had the media monopoly, they tapped into foreign-fighters and donations that others could never dream of. Today Shabaab is stilling releasing videos showing how rosey picture it is with their aid and rule under them. No wonder they banned journalists and aid-workers both (to feed lies to us abroad).
Real mujahideen or any guerilla-force rely on "indiginous insurgency". If the people dont support you, it doesnt matter how much wealth and support you could from abroad, you will NEVER win. That is why these people can kill all they want, and their enemies will kill all they want, theyre not winning. Most people supported ICU, but very few people supports Shabaab. Today somalia is basically reduced back to its warlord days, with different clans allied to different factions, and people are supporting them accordingly. In afghanistan, the Taliban refrained from any transgression, and thats why VAST MAJORITY of people support them. And they refrain from clahsing the rivals groups (be it Hezb-e-Islam, IMU, or AQ), and thats why the Afghan mujahideen are winning (as theyre united). Even afghan soldiers are routinely defecting to Taliban and turning against the Crusaders.
With regards to TTP, it has very much followed Taliban strategy for the most part. They are not clashing with their rivals, they have given safe-haven to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, AQ, and other groups that exist here. However, there are some factions that are allied with TTP that have engaged in transgression. For example- Mullah Nazir, is a leader of a tribe/group, he clashed with IMU and killed several of their members. You can see the video "Sazish" (pashto) and "Utho" (urdu) by Ummat Studio to know about this. Once again, media plays a strong role, and those who dont have it can never tell their story. Thats also why the salafi forums even Banned IMU (but lifted it recently), because IMU media-arm is not controlled by salafis (Al-Fajr Media and GIMF are the outlets controlled by wahhabis, who filter the content). However, following the OBL raid, it seems Nazir has also joined the anti-govt side.
But there still exists factions and groups who are not explicitly TTP, but who target rival groups or even mazaars. Because most attacks on shrines are actually denied by TTP and some condemned. Only a few cases exist where they claimed credit, and this had to do with political reasons not ideological. They only target those who threaten to target TTP first. So if attacks on markets or mazars is the concern, there is no confirmation who did it. More like it was done by these unknown factions/elements who are trying to incite sectarian-conflict between deobandis/barelwis, or who are trying to give TTP a bad name. If TTP hated "sufis" (as salafi-takfiri forums try to propagate, who still pretend Taliban are "salafi"), then they would not have supported Mumtaz Qadri, a barelwi. 'AQ Khorasan' is very different from 'AQ abroad' (run by ppl who have never met OBL in their life); just see the As-Sahab video "You are Responsible except for Yourself" where they praised the barelwi Mumtaz Qadri; while salafis hate barelwis, and break tombs left and right. That is why, till this day they have not translated that film into English.
However, theres one topic that i DON'T know about. And that is the conflict between 2 factions: Lashkar-e-Islam and Ansar-ul-Islam. Perhaps brother Taliban1 has some clue? All i know is that one of them is apparently "mamati deobandi". Are they affiliated with TTP, and which one, and what about the other? And is it possible that one or more of them are involved in the attacks that kill innocent people. And if neither, than can it be possible that there are those other unknown factions/cells who are committing these attacks? One thing i can tell you is that during the Iraq j!had (before the schism; which started after his martyrdom), Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (ra) was reportedly approached by Syrian Intelligence who came to him and offered to supply him. The reason for this is because they wanted more car-bombings and market-bombings in Iraq (which in Iraq is halal, because the shia's kicked sunnis out and thus needed to be attacked); and their logic was that Syria wants Iraq to be in chaos so that US can be contained. Zarqawi said, he refused and declined their offer. And today we see that Syrian Intelligence was right all along, because as Iraq ended Syria started.
My point is, there are many people with numerous agenda who want market-bombings. And unlike iraq, pakistani towns are filled with mostly innocent muslims; they aren't running death-squads killing sunnis or driving them out. It is absolutely HARAM to attack civilians in Muslim countries. Many say that "Blackwater"-like mercenaries are doing this to cause chaos. But my hunch is that certain wahhabist-influenced elements are trying to apply their "divide and polarize" tactics. And its also possible that ISI is conducting some "false-flag" attacks in areas that are supportive of TTP to turn against them. If they support TTP (or just anti-state for whatever reason) , then in their mind's they are already scum and killing them is pretty easy to swallow. I'm not relying on blind-faith on TTP, if that were to be, then i would have never renounced by support for dawlat/shabaab/etc. That is why i admit there are certain elements who are jeopardizing the rest.
I have nothing against salafis, i consider any salafi and barelwi my brother. Every salafi in 'AQ khorasan' is a good mujahideen, i can attest to that. I have already explained the SCHISM of when salafis became radical (this happened in 2007), and when they became extremist (this happened in 2008), in my past posts in this very forum.
And this has a lot to do with the MEDIA of j!had. To sum it up: in the beginning, we had "j!hadi forums" (non-sectarian; non-factional). However, starting from 2007, they started becoming "salafi j!hadi forums" and very factional. This started when the forums BANNED the rival groups. For example- in the early days (pre-2007), we had "al-ekhlass", "al-hesbah", and "al-boraq" forums, etc.
Here all the various Iraqi groups posted their releases. It was mainly just iraqi because its the Iraq War that started the whole "media j!had" of groups filming their operations/statements and posting them online. Among english forums we had "anti-imperialist" (AIF), infovlad, TM, LEE Media. These merely re-posted the stuff from the Arabic forums onto their own. However, these forums near the end more or less died down. They were taken down, closed, hacked, etc. It is around THIS time (mid-2007), that the forums or newer forums, basically banned ALL the iraqi groups EXCEPT the ones published by Al-Fajr Media Center ("dawlat al-iraq al-islamiya" and Ansar al-Islam).
In mid-2006, Sheikh Zarqawi (ra) was martyred, and he was the symbolic leader of the Iraq j!had. He was a leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council, which was a merger of several groups including AQI. This AQI, was the first ever "branch" of AQ. It was the first time any group had assumed/granted the name of "AQ", outside the direct role of OBL and Dr.AAZ. He fought against Crusaders and Safavids, but not the minorities of Iraq, and he was an ally of the other Iraqi factions. Some whom worked with his group, some who didnt. AFTER his death, some of the elements within 'Mujahideen Shura Council' declared themselves to be the official "islamic state of iraq" (dawlat al-iraq al-islamiya, or ISI).
Abu Umar al-Baghdadi was named the emir, and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir was named the "Minister of War". This is when the schism started ON THE GROUND.... ISI basically demanded that all the OTHER factions have to give Bayah to them; and merge into them (same thing that Shabaab emulated in Somalia today). The other groups: Jaish al-Mujahideen, Jaish al-Islami fil-Iraq, 1920 Revolution Brigades, Jaish al-Rashideen, Sheild of Islam, Jaish Abu Bakr al-Siddiq al-Salafi, and the other minor factions all disagreed. The reason was: 1) why should these people force us to join, 2) why have they declared "statehood" before the war has ended, 3) nobody knew/seen who this "Baghdadi" was, how can we give Bayah to him?
This schism led to clashes ON THE GROUND in iraq. Thats basically why i said that their extremism caused fitnah. And caused the mujahideen to disintegrate. Because once "ISI" was declared, the other factions refused to acknowledge them. Instead, they were called "AQ". And as such, ordinary iraqi sunnis started hating "AQ". Because of the clashes that erupted on the gorund, many formed/joined SAHWAS.
Meaning, they took up arms against ISI (same way how Sufis/Moderates/former-ICU have done against Shabaab today). After "ISI" went underground, and clashes between rival factions ceased. These Sahwas, now under US payroll, targeted all mujahideen factions in general. So even the non-ISI (so-called "AQ", even though AQI ended when they formed MSC with some other groups), factions came under threat. This caused many to be killed, arrested, or stop fighting. THIS is what basically led to the stalement of the j!had.
I will not get into much detail on this, but make brief mention: To counter ISI, the remaining factions decided to form their own umbrella/allaince. They couldnt form a single alliance, but instead resulted in 2 different umbrellas. 1920RB, JaR, and several other groups (mainly Hanbali/Hanafi in orientation) formed the "J!had & Change Front". Whereas the moderate-salafi groups of JaM, IAI, Jaf, and a break off faction from Ansar al-Sunnah formed the J!had & Reform Front. However, within the next year or so, internal disputes caused friction among them as well, and led to JaM and JaF to both leave. They along with JAB and Shield, were now independant from any alliances.
Basically, what this shows is a DOMINO EFFECT. First, ISI causes disunity between factions. This lead to many to become Sahwa, which weakened the mujahideen. Then they formed multiple separate alliances, which kept mujahideen disunited. And then some of those alliances broke as well, and this led to accusations and bad-blood all around. All in all, they kept getting weaker and weaker. All from that ONE spark; this is why i have so much respect for IEA, as they refrained from any of that (even though they are an actual state, and not a madeup one). All these alliances and break-ups happened around 2008 to mid-2008. After that, it was all downhill for the Iraq campaign.
Getting back to the FORUMS. When the ISI schism happened, these NEW generation of forums: the likes of "shamikh", "faloja", etc. They banned all the non-ISI groups except Ansar al-Islam, Shield, and JAB. And they started spreading propaganda that JRF and JCF were either nationalists or were sahwa. They wouldnt even be consistent which is which and how; they just randomly slandered them. And they said only ISI and those 3 were the real mujahideen, the "salafi mujahideen". Thats when the sectarianism and factionalism started.
The English forums were mostly still around, although AIF went up and down. But then Infovlad (which was based in Japan), got hacked and all the posts were lost. LEE Media, which some say was run by a Pakistani, was shutdown as well. And none of these sites came back again.... months went by (this was around late-2008 to 2009). That is when this english forum named AMEF was started. Actually, at first they had a different name; they changed their name to AMEF later in the year. What happened is a virtual MONOPOLY of the english-speaking audience.
Here, the AMEF admins repeated the same lies and slander of their Arabic peers, and told stories completely from their POV. Atleast in the arabic realm, there were a few forums that were still non-takfiri ("hanein", and new "alboraq"). But the non-arabic audience was completely captivized and thus indoctrinated. In the Arabic takfiri forums, since people considered ISI to be the apparent successor to "AQI", they all accepted the ban of the other groups, and became part of this takfirism, which is what LED to the extremist ideology we see today. "J!hadism" replaced by 'salafi-takfiri j!hadism'.
In late-2009, i think is when it took another level. Now they banned Shield and JAB, saying they had "merged" with ISI (even though these faction posted denials on the indy forums). But with the one-sided coverage, takfiris bought into that as well. And declared the "remaining" elemants of JAB and Shield to be nationalists/sahwas, once again.Actually, what really happened is that: this was the newer stage in "j!hadi media monopoly". They banned these 2 groups but not Ansar al-Islam, because these 2 were NOT published by "Al-Fajr" or "GIMF". Whereas ISI, Shabaab, AQIM, AQAP, Ansar al-Islam, are all published by Al-Fajr/GIMF.
Now you may wonder, other than the schism on the ground in iraq, how does these forums effect the rest of the world? The thing is, there is a great difference in j!had in the West/Middle-East compared to Khorasan/Caucasus. In khorasan, the mujahideen are from tribes, villages, towns, where their friends or family are also part of the j!had. This world of theirs is totally out-of-touch with whats going on in iraq, or internet forums, or anywhere else. They dont even know whats going on where and why (they barely even have technology). These people are from madrassas or villages, which provide for an unlimited supply of mujahideen.
Whereas in the middle-east, FORUMS/media play a huge role. They are heavily influenced by them (because arab mujahideen are mostly kids from "regular families", not madrassa/village), and internet is the determining factor those who decide to "emigrate". Because of the ISI-only policy, it caused the new generation to only support them and their POV. What resulted was that, emigrants stopped joining the other factions; hence, martyrdom operations severly dropped, and factions were further weakened. Because of the forums, many youth form other countries adopted salafism, many without even knowing the difference between salafi vs madhab. They merely think that salafism means "pure islam".
The biggest proof for the forums influence would have to be the FLAG of the "dawlat al-iraq al-islamiyya": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq .... i doubt there is a single person who has not seen this flag at the hand of some protestor or j!hadi in the middle-east and north africa?? THAT is the influence of the forums/media. This flag was created by ISI, i swear by Allah (swt) you will not find this flag in any records pre-2007. It is the power of Al-Fajr/GIMF, who handed this flag to Al-Shabaab (and im sure some tips on j!had as well), and basically all their groups were given this flag. They made it into a "pop-culture icon", and today salafis all around use that flag.
The moral of the story: people have been influenced and indoctrinated by what i just described above. one after the other, this all had a domino effect, which accumulated into what we have TODAY. and only Allah knows what will have tomorrow, because this snowball is still rolling and getting bigger and bigger. I'm one of few people who have been following j!hadi media since its inception, and that is why i can piece the puzzle that leaves many other puzzled. I will post another link to what i said here:#post780749 And as i mentioned in that post there, ive been Admin myself in multiple forums, and hence ive seen it all. My beef is not with salafis, because the salafi groups were also victims of ISI in iraq. My problem is the extremist/takfiri salafism, that is represented by that flag of ISI, and the influence that flag has had ever since 2007.
Man, ive released videos. *facepalm*Originally Posted by Taliban1
Seems like you and warrior1 watch alot of videos
Who does the bank robberies in karachi?
Im not a "keyboard warrior" if thats the impression you have.
Its not about "mujahideen", the balochis are separatists, just as the Bengal war ended in liberation. What is the issue is the oppression of the STATE they were all under. Let me give you an anology. The ottoman empire was fought by three entities: the Saudis, the Arabs (syria/iraq/jordan), and the Turks. They all faced the same enemy, they all had similar complaints. Be it negligence, corruption, backwardness. One adopted radical Islamism (saudis), the other adoption nationalism (Arabs), and the other adopted secualrism (Turks). WHY is that? ..
Its because when faced with a problem, people want a solution. In that case, anything that is available as a TOOL, they will accept. If communists came to the oppressed, then the oppressed with become communists. If wahhabism comes, or secularism, or nationalism comes to them, then they will become exactly that. IDEOLOGY is merely a MEANS to an END. The struggle of baloch, bengal, pashtun has been the same: but its the REACTION that to which they adopted different ideologies. Why do you think Irani Balochis are sunni islamists fighting shia iran, whereas pak balochis are secularists?? Its because iran is shia and theyre sunni, so the reaction was natural. Whereas in pakistan, the state claims to be "islamic", so the balochis resorted to nationalism/separatism.
75
I want to know some of the sources that Saleem Shazad used, because some of his claims are whack. Like saying Shaykh Muhammad Tohir of the IMU shaped TTP under the influence of Al Qaeda whereas in reality, the IMU for many years with the aim of establishing sharia in Uzbek but made hijrah to Afghan/Pakistan to work under the Taliban, hence the bayah to Mullah Umar
I also don't understand how Warrior1 can claim the AQ of Khurasaan is different to the AQ of abroad. Look at the video's of Bin Laden and compare them to what Shaykh Al Awlakhi said for example. Compare them to what the Shabaab say (and since Shabaab have directly given bayah to Shaykh Ayman, how can they be any different to AQ of Khurasaan since they are both under the leadership of Shaykh Ayman?).
I obviously have my differences with AQ in some of their ijtihaad and I disagree strongly with them in some matters but to claim they are made up of MANY factions of all competing ideologies makes no sense. Mullah Dadullah said that mujahideen would sometimes go to Iraq, then Khurasaan, then back to Iraq, etc... this shows the high level of co-operation between the mujahideen in both places. It is not, as Warrior1 has claimed, that mujahideen in Iraq have never seen the AQ leadership of Khurasaan- they are appointed directly by them!
The difference is not in their WORDs, but in their practice. And if you read my posts then it is all clear. I'm not sure why i have to repeat it.... IEA believe in unity: AQ, IMU, Hezb are all operating side by side. TTP believes in co-operation, and they also operate with others side by side. The methodology of AQ-abroad differs from Khorasan, in that they do not believe in co-operation. They believe in clashing with other groups. They want everyone to give them Bayah. And this caused the loss in Iraq, and is causing bloodshed in Somalia. Imagine if IEA did the same with AQ, would that be fair? Imagine if TTP started clashing with IMU, would that be fair??
The AQ abroad are merely separate groups that gave bayah to Sheikh Zawahiri, and assumed the NAME of "AQ". But their practice is very different. For example: AQIM was formerly GSPC, and Shabaab is just Shabaab (a mere faction within a larger movement of ICU). Before GSPC gave their bayah nobody knew who they were, and then all of a sudden they were posting fims/media online under name of "AQIM", where did they get the cameras/equipment??... As far as Awalaki goes, i have nothing bad to say about him.
However, one thing that separates AQAP from the others is that, here they dont have rivals and so dont clash with any. But what i CAN say is that, AQAP has refrained from doing any attacks in Saudi/Qatar/UAE, all of which are salafist-influenced countries, and all of which have US bases, and all of which are part of GCC. This is unlike the old "AQ" who did USS Cole attack, and also carried out attacks in Saudi as well. TTP is fighting the Pak regime because it supplies NATO, whereas nothing is done about GCC. Interestingly, yemen is the ONLY country that isnt part of the GCC, and the only one that doenst have US bases. Yet we have j!had there, but not in the neighbouring countries.
AQ abroad may be officially part of the same network, and its leaders may give Bayah to OBL and Dr.AAZ. But that doenst refute the fact that there is a huge ideologocal and methodological disrepancy. For example if you saw/read the film "Message of Hope and Glad Tiding to our Muslims in Egypt (Part-1)". In it he condemns the Coptic Church bombing, and warned that these are not activities of the mujahideen, and mujahideen dont target innocent christians/civilians. Yet, anyone who was in the salafi-takfiri forums prior to that, would know how people were calling left and right for targeting/killing of Copts and Christians in Egypt.
Another perfect example is how just months prior to that video release by Dr.AAZ. The lovely "Islamic state of iraq" did a massacre of catholic christians in Baghdad (and in their statement released on forums, they claimed it was in revenge for the copts in egypt, for preventing 2 women from converting). That is ridiculous, why should Catholics suffer for Copts??.... This shows that Dr.AAZ is not or was not aware of his own "AQ"-branded groups doing exactly what he is speaking against. This made the video seem extremely contradictory, when we see the actions compared to the Words. I dont blame the Noble Sheikhs for that, what i do believe is that they are unware of the "war crimes" of their own groups who are fighting under their name, but not paying heed to his own advices.
The shia give their allegiance to ALI/Hussein, does that mean they are really with them? Issue is, it doesnt matter what NAME you call yourselves: the action has to be correct. Because everyone loves the original "AQ", people are accepting the injustices of the other groups who use their name elsewhere. All it has done is that, it has turned most people in iraq, somalia, and elsewhere to turn-against that name. What millions loved, today millions hate. That is the biggest problem today, where good, bad & ugly are all under the same name.
If you think im making stuff up. Why dont you start a thread at JHUF, see what any of the admins/mods have to say? I can guarantee you atleast one or two, will support me. Why not even post a link to this very thread? As i said, im not an outsider, im an "insider".... If you want to know whats going on in iraq or somalia, ask someone inside the country. They might not agree with everything i said 100%, but i can assure atleast 50% to 70% confirmation. Theres a few iraqis in jhuf, ask him? And if you want to know about Shabaab, then theres plenty somali forums to chat.
77
29
So the difference between AQ in Khurasaan and AQ abroad is:
1. AQ Khurasaan work with other groups whilst AQ abroad fights them
2. AQ Khurasaan doesn't want to target innocent Copts or whoever whilst AQ abroad do so
In which case, is it not possible that the reason AQ Khurasaan work with other groups is because they feel they are worthy of working with whereas AQ abroad fights other groups for a reason? And if Dr Ayman has accepted the bayah of these AQ groups abroad yet somehow disagrees with them, why does he not warn them against fighting other mujahideen groups?
Secondly, perhaps the reason why AQ abroad target copts etc is because this is the policy of the leadership of AQ Khurasaan themselves! Don't tell me you haven't seen the As Sahab video's where 'voters' are considered legitimate targets, such as the interview of Al Awlahki or the interview Bin Laden gave to Al Jazeera (which NO ONE claims is fake) where he called 9/11 the 'blessed attacks' and said that if they kill our children, we can kill theirs, etc etc (NOTE- I DO NOT SUPPORT SUCH AN OPINION AS PREVIOUSLY STATED) so if AQ abroad do church bombings or whatever, HOW is that not supported by AQ Khurasaan? Again, I note that I do not support their policies, just that your claims that the two groups are different makes no sense
The attacks are not supported because Dr.AAZ directly condemned these attacks. These attacks werent done in the land kuffar, they were done in Muslims lands, to people who have no relation to Crusaders and Zionists. Did you even read the link i posted. Maybe you're using mobile, but in all my posts im highlighting key lines with links/references. My argument is that AQ-Khorasan as simply not aware of the attacks abroad. Take for example Sheikh OBL, he lived in a small bungalow, and he didnt have any internet. All his messages were brought to him by hand by a messenger. Do you think he know's of what happening in Iraq or Somalia?? If he did, then he would have responded to Jaish al-Islam fil-Iraq's person plea/message to him (i cant find the original transcript, but ive posted a news link).
And funny that you mention the Aljazeera video. In recent years, multiple videos and tapes have been released from OBL directly sent to stations (like in the old days). But the forums dismiss them and shun anyone from viewing them, saying anything not released by "Al-Fajr Media Center" is fake or worthless. This is exactly how they filter content according to their desires. After the release of "Good News From Pakistan (1)" last year, these same forums banned IMU for several months using the excuse they have wroing aqeeda/manhaj (until they couldnt do anything about the numerous JundAllah Studios releases that kept coming out showing IMU with TTP).
There was once a tape released in 2007 (not from Al-Fajr), and it actually directly addressed the Iraqi fitnah: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...51391920071022 ..This too was dismissed and deleted from the forums, since it wasn't published by their media monopoly. But ISI still didnt pay heed and clashed again, and finally Jaish al-Islami came out with this statement annoucing more martyrs at the hands of ISI: http://www.alboraq.info/archive/index.php/t-35262.html ("What hurts us that we weren’t expecting that after the speech of Sheikh Osama bin Laden who announced Al-Qaida's incorrect acts and the need to overcome these acts and invited them to make this year the “gathering year"). This shows perfectly how 1) they dont follow the central leadership of AQ in Khorasan, 2) they damage the reputation of AQ, and 3) the link between the leadership and branches is via Al-Fajr and other intermediaries, there is NO "direct appointment" as you claim!
And the trend of dismissing and deleting is the same thing happens when you posted anything about Al-Shabaab clashes with Hizbul Islam, or the fact that Shabaab's own leader/mascot Omar Hammami has defected, and released a video saying his life is in danger from Al-Shabaab: http://archive.org/details/UrgentMes...ansurAl-amriki ...Even Hassan Dahir says Shabaab has crossed into extremism: http://www.jhuf.net/showthread.php?14616&p=64399 ...jhuf, alqital, fivewes, hanein, are some of the only 'independant' forums, the rest are run by Al-Fajr/GIMF cronies. You can ask on JHUF, what is the role of Al-Fajr, and what groups have been banned on their forums or not.
The salafi mujahideen in afghanistan/khorasan are not the same as the salafis in Iraq & elsewhere. In afghanistan, we (hanafis) lead and the salafis follow. When they or anyone else commits a crime, we punish them. Look up the case of the turkish mujahid ABU ZARR, a veteran of chechnya. His crime was killing two rivals over financial disputes after they left his jamaat and was part of another jamaat. He murdered them, so the sharia court of the Waziristan Taliban executed them.
If it were iraq, then the salafis would have sent an entire carbomb to kill their rivals, and there would be no justice afterwards. The salafis were always our allies and noble, but this started changing from around 2007, after the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war. He was the one who established the "media j!had" (online/forums/movies). In his absence, the vacuum was filled by more extreme salafis: Abu Umar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.
These two, instead of allying with the other jamaats in Iraq, started fighting with them (demanding others give bayah to them). So from here a split occured, since then the US had started to win, because the Sunnis became divided, and many deserted to the "Sahwa" pro-US militias. Compare this to Afghanistan, where numerous jamaat co-exist in harmony: Hezb-e-islam, Taliban, IMU, and even Salafis/AQ. But the biggest impact wasnt what happened inside Iraq, but what happened now that these more-extreme salafis had the "j!hadi media and forums" in their hands. They banned the material/correspondents of all the rival iraqi groups, and since then TAKFIRI ideology was re-born.
This took another twist in 2008, after the Ethiopians pulled out. Instead of Al-Shabaab merging with their former allies, be it Hizbul-Islam of Sheikh Aweys of Sheikh Sharif Ahmed (who went on to join the govt). Shabaab started fighting with their allies; it was no more about "Islam" but now Salafiyya-Islam. The takfiri/sectarian ideology was now started in somalia. and in 2009 after much clashes against Hizbul Islam, they were forced to surrended and give bayah to Al-Shabaab. After that, Shabaab has now resorted to fighting the fake-sufi group "Ahlus Sunna wal jamaa", and this erupted because Shabaab has been going around breaking tombs and mosques. The difference between the wahhabis and the hanafis is that, we show UNITY by doing alliance and co-operation. Whereas the salafi version of UNITY means subduing their rivals or beating a person into giving Bayah.
In 2010, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza were killed in 2010, and a new era in extremism began in Iraq. While the previous two fought with their rivals with the excuse of forming an "islamic state of iraq" (ISI), they showed tolerance towards the christians and minorties. There is a famous case where the soldiers of ISI saved several christian hostages from a criminal gang, and when they wanted to reward them they paid "jizya" as thanks. In 2010, after these two were killed, their replacement were now even more extreme. One of their first major missions was to bomb and raid the Baghdad Church, massacring several innocent people and children.
The logic for this attack was that, it was in response to the crime of the Coptic Church in egypt, who were holding two women who had allegedly converted to Islam. The idiocy of this is that, they bombed a CATHOLIC church in revenge for the crimes of COPTS??... this is the idiocy of these wahhabis. When the Catholic Crusaders invaded Arabia, did Salahuddin kill off our own (orthodox/copts), they were our allies!? This is what deferentiates sufis (ottomans, abbassids) from the salafis. There is ONE synongogue in afghanistan, and the Taliban never touched it!!
What is show is: when extreme deviancy is tolerated, it become more deviant. when extremism is tolerated, it become more extreme. Sheikh Zarqawi an afghan veteran, preached that we should fight the Crusaders & Rawafid, and we should ally with the sunnis and protect the Ahlul-Kitab. After he died, his followers protected the Ahlul-Kitab but they fought the rival sunnis for power/domination. But then when those two died, their followers now respected neither. Total disregard for innocent lives within a church. This is when i formally stopped supporting them.
The same thing is happening in Somalia. Islamic Courts Union was a unity of all muslims or all persuasions. After war started, the salafis saw opportunity and decided become an independant force. After the ethiopians left, Shabaab decided to fight the rivals instead of uniting with them. This just caused the muslims to be divided between multiple factions. And this extremism merely brought back the Ethiopians this time along with AU troops from several other countries. Now shabaab, after having beaten up their only rival (Hizbul Islam), started fighting the fake-sufis. Who themselves have now allied with the AU invaders in response.
Salafis when left on their own, always resort back to extremism/fitnah. ONLY those salafis are reliable whom are veterans of muqallid mujahideen, i mean afghan/pak. Everyone else cannot be trusted. And certainly the AQ factions in middle-east and north-africa are extremist (with blood of innocents on their hands). Which is why their actions bear little to no fruit, they only succeed in brining more enemies not friends. And they persecute sufis left and right, DRIVING them to join the opposite side (kaffirs/invaders). That is why salafis in khorasan are different from elsewhere, because they are innocent of these crimes/fitnah.