Zawaya

Al-Qaeda has enough excuses to legitimize violence even against free nations

By: Said Elakhal

The Arab region is undergoing major changes in the wake of the peaceful popular uprisings conducted against the authoritarian regimes, and aiming to establish democracies based on the values and culture of human rights. These changes can unveil the real objectives of terrorist organizations, starting with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Extremist organizations have been using authoritarianism as an excuse to carry out violent attacks against the ruling regimes that are loyal to the Crusader West and serve its interests. The charter of the Monotheism and Jihad Group in morocco, of which 28 members were arrested by the Moroccan security authorities in February 2007, stipulates the following: “The man-made regimes prevailing in Muslim countries are blasphemous and based on Jewish and Christian laws. People who establish those regimes are partners with Allah in governance, and people who apply, accept, and refer to those regimes are polytheists. We believe in the blasphemy of the rulers who replace the laws of Allah with infidel laws, and of those who rival Allah in terms of legislation, issuing laws that are comparable to His”.

Al-Qaeda’s speech stems some credibility from the nature of the laws applied by the ruling regimes, which do not respect human rights nor preserve citizens’ dignity, but rather confiscate fundamental freedoms by imposing laws like the emergency one. In this context, al-Qaeda seems to meet the peoples’ aspirations for liberation from the grip of tyranny.

After the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, and the collapse of tyranny and oppression, are violence and the very existence of terrorist groups, still justified?

After their peaceful revolutions to exercise their true sovereignty and actual authority with no tutelage, and after their liberation from the oppression of despotism and tyranny, will the peoples still be targeted by extremist organizations?

The answer is certainly yes, and the justifications are clearly detailed in the doctrines of these organizations, which have plenty of excuses to legitimize their terrorist attacks.

These extremist groups embrace doctrines that justify committing murder and destruction against the peoples liberated from tyranny, based on the following justifications:

1- Democracy is a system of Kufr: All extremist groups believe that democracy is blasphemous, and thus fight the peoples who adopt it.

For them democracy is “a blasphemous call deifying creatures and allowing them to legislate and govern instead of Allah the Almighty. Therefore, democracy is a blatant blasphemy that contradicts the teachings of Islam. Whoever adopts, calls for, advocates or resorts to democracy is an infidel apostate, regardless of their claims to belong to Islam and their Muslim names”. This is a clear legitimization of violence against democracies. Actually, these liberated peoples will give extremist groups a stronger motive to target their security and lives, since they freely adopted the democratic system that entitles people to legislate.

2- Governorship belongs to Allah alone, and extremist groups consider that democracy acknowledges the governorship of human beings instead of Allah, so “whoever involves another God with Allah in terms of issuing legislation is a polytheist. Monotheism requires the rejection of all old and contemporary tyrants”.

3- The Islamic caliphate is the only system that’s legal because it only allows alternation in power for those who adopt this regime. This means that the non-followers of these organizations are not entitled to take over power even if they are freely chosen by the people. The caliphate system is based on governance, not democracy. Whoever believes is governance should reject democracy, even for the so-called moderate Islamic parties.

Sheikh Abdel Akher Hammad confirmed that in his book “Terms and Concepts” about the Salvation Front: "What’s even more dangerous is saying: The Islamists who came to power should leave it if the people choose others. This means that the Muslim ruler whom Allah enabled to govern a country according to His laws, should leave his position to someone who governs based on Satan’s laws.

This is an issue of approaches, not individuals. If the nation considers that its governor failed in the duties enjoined upon him by Allah, and that he is no longer fit for his position, then they can dismiss him and appoint someone else who follows the same divine approach. People should not have the freedom to adopt whatever approach they wish".

As long as extremist groups embrace these doctrines, they won’t abandon violence, but will rather consider it the only solution to establish an Islamic rule, as mentioned in the statement of a radical group stipulating that “war is the only way to establish the Islamic rule”.