Fishman’s got a useful guest post over at Jihdica this morning. In a nutshell, he describes the fact that Anwar al-Awlaki has not always been uniformly loved by English-language jihadists. He reminds us that at one time, the other major English-language preacher that I’ve been mentioning alongside Al-Awlaki’s name, Shaikh Abdullah al-Faisal, has declared takfir (excommunication) on al-Awlaki.
Although this debate is now resolved, and the broader followers of both have recognized that al-Faisal was temporarily off his rocker, it’s nonetheless curious and worth having on the table.
For a reminder, here’s Anwar al-Awlaki:
And here’s Abdullah al-Faisal (aka “Trevor Forest”)
Here’s what Abdullah al-Faisal actually said about al-Awlaki (I quote from the forums on this):
“There is absolutely no doubt that this person [referring to Anwar al-Awlaki] is an implant from the system. He’s a part of the New World Order and this person [Anwar al-Awlaki] is an enemy of Allah Ta’lah, His Rasool, he’s an enemy of al-Islam and he’s an enemy of the Muslims.”
“You can use logic to refute him -Anwar al-Awlaki] and to show how ridiculous and stupid he [Anwar Awlaki] is.”
“You [Anwar al-Awlaki] have become worse than a kafir. You have become the lowest of the low. You have no scruples. You have no integrity, no dignity. You don’t enjoy the right and forbid the wrong. You have given up your role to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.”
“Indeed he [Anwar al-Awlaki] has adopted the aqeedah of the khwaarij and the khawarij are the dogs of jahanam.”
I’ll use the rest of the post to give you a cross-section of actual (unedited) posts from the Islamic Awakening Forum (IA), which is English-language, hardline Salafi, with some jihadi leaning participants (plus Yousef al-Khattab) but I would not necessarily define it as a pro- al-Qaida site.
According to a random forum poster on Islamic Awakening, who quotes our boy Yousef al-Khattab as an authority on this matter,
Yousef Al Khattab says that he recanted his takfeer in the “first q and a session.” Seems to me like Imam Faisal is pretty confused. Throwing out takfeer all over the place and recanting it. It’s the same process over and over.
Just as a reminder for who Yousef al-Khattab is:
In another post on IA, a sister comments:
Brother, Have you listened to the tape CIA Islam? Imam Anwar al Awlaki(according to the tape), didn’t always hold the views he has now. You can clearly hear him on the tape preaching ‘watered down islam.’ Faysal simply refuted him but that was years ago. Clearly Imam Anwar al Awlaki has changed his views as is evident in his lectures now and we all love Imam Anwar al Awlaki. But it doesn’t change the fact that he used to preach RAND Islam a long time ago. So why blame Faysal for simply refuting him back then?
And more commentary from another poster:
Hmmm, that’s interesting. I was wondering why the Salafi-Jihadists were quoting him (Imam Anwar) so much recently… I used to listen to Imam Anwar before he went to jail, and he was very mainstream and proper. Sad…if it’s true. Haven’t really listened to any of his newer stuff. Well, I guess jail guides some (like Shaykh Salman) and may misguide others. (Not saying Imam Anwar..unless what you say is true.)
The sister, “ummafnaan” further clarifies her feelings on al-Faisal:
Assalamu alaikum Akhi, I understand peoples sentiments about faysal especially with his excessive takfir back then of Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen, etc. However he has made taubah for those mistakes of the past. If you listen to Faysal with an open mind, you will find he is very knowledgeable and I personally have learnt a lot form Faysal. We should be just and merciful to one another brother. Imam Anwar used to hold some very funny views too, but that was a very long time ago and he has come a long way since then walhamdulillah. How is it Imam Faysal’s fault?
As far as I know he didn’t apologise for refuting Imam Anwar al Awlaki. Only for his excessive takfir. But Allahu musta’an. Maybe Bro Yusuf can enlighten us further.
Yousef al-Khattab (who now uses Nidal Hasan as his avatar on IA), notes:
100% I prefer a Deobandi to a Saudi Salafi as well. Sheikh Fasel does NOT consider Imam Anwar to be a spy as of today and if you want the 3 pt. interview that Imam Anwar gave in like 2001 that Sheikh Faisal made that comment based on, I can give them to you insha’Allah. In 2001 I myself was a Madkhali and I would considered myself the same thing. (potentially looking back today) Most people would understand this, but to explain it to a literalist extremist that is angry with the world and hasn’t got the right tools or ideas to change it I would be an optimist to expect a fair assessment or non extremest comment. I have said it many times before EVERYONE is a brave blogger hiding behind a kunya and computer screen. May Allah bless you with the ability to say a good word or remain silent. May Allah bless you to try relax, think, and respond in away that benefits the Ummah w/o making fitnah.
Another poster, “Abd al-Kareem” tries to systematically clean up the mess of the thread:
1. Anwar al-Awlaki recorded the two CD sets about jihad before he went to jail.
2. He changed his views long before he went to prison. Hence why he was sent to prison.
3. The ‘salafi-jihadists’ have been quoting him (Imam Anwar) for a long time now…
4. Even if the ‘salafi-jihadists’ have increased in their quoting of him, then they’re quoting his old stuff because he’s only come out with two lectures since he’s been released from prison.
That gets us to page 5 of this thread. There are 17 more pages of this kind of back and forth among the IA jihobbyists. It’s so painful to read that I have to stop here, just for my own sanity, but the fact is, as Fishman’s post reminds us, there is ongoing contestation within the forums over even their most beloved (milk)shaikhs, like al-Awlaki and al-Faisal.
Nothing is ever easy or straightforward when it comes to jihobbyists, which is as strategically useful to remember as it is exasperating.
JB, very very interesting and thank you to both you and Brian Fishman for going so far beyond what modern day “journalism” provides us.
I do want to comment on an issue that I believe sometimes clouds how we look at Jihadists (of the hobby and professional type!). As someone more astute than myself mentioned, all groups have differences and as a comparative example we can look at the US military. The US military is composed of different branches of service which while sharing a common purpose may have very different perspectives on everything ranging from strategy (airpower vs. boots on the ground; Army vs. USMC) to weapons, tactics, etc. Hell, if we look at the defense budget process sometimes its not just about perspectives, but very strong disagreements!
The point I want to make with the Jihadists is that just because they may belong to different groups, operate from different groups, and sometimes issue/make statements that may range from conflicting perspectives to all out “fitnah” doesn’t mean that they don’t (at least ideologically) belong to Jihadism/Al Qaeda. So this Awlaki issue seems to me to be the latest of many examples where the bottom line may be missed.
Even when Awlaki was supposedly moderate (like when he was interviewed by the press shortly after 9/11) I would argue that he really wasn’t moderate or that at the very least he possessed all the elements for likely radicalization. I think it’s been proven a sufficient number of times by now that just because certain individuals or groups may make statements even going as far as unconditionally condeming violence (in theory and/or practice) it doesn’t mean they aren’t Jihadist/Al Qaeda sympathizers or adherants. It also doesn’t necessarily mean they can be “negotiated” with or dependably allied with. It’s critical to take a hard look at their past actions (and lack of action), statements (and a lack of them), and ultimately the purpose behind their existence or the ends of what they promote (despite the benigness of their means). The IPT (http://www.investigativeproject.org/) exposure of groups like CAIR is just one exampe…
Like I’ve said before, I don’t think the leap from certain ideas to radicalization and/or violence is that far or wide. It is also well documented how certain individuals or groups will speak to a particular audience as moderates only to turn around and speak in their true radicalized form to another audience – Yassir Arafat was perhaps the greatest at this.
I just ran across one of Awlaki’s speeches translated into Russian over at the Minbar of Tawheed and Jihad site. Has he been breaking out into other languages as well? My impression was that he was pretty much exclusively an English-language phenomenon, but perhaps I was wrong in that.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you should try not to post things that have been recanted. ‘Abdullah Al-Faisal took this statement back after things were clarified to him? They are on friendly terms and they have met in person.