While I appreciate all the time and effort the brother put into writing this post, he could have saved himself both time and effort by simply saying “Shahid’s strategy won’t work, because I don’t think so.” That is the basic substance here, if the word substance can be applied to what is essentially rhetoric. (see the link below for the post I am referring to).
It is a familiar speech, and yes, a very enjoyable khutbah. But, as is always the case, it totally lacks any grasp of power dynamics in the real world; narrows the broad meaning of Jihad to a single method; distorts our history, and ignores the catastrophic reality being achieved by the proponents of this approach; while also, of course, offering no strategy, no plan, and no definition of what Islamic government means. We refer to manipulatively sentimental speeches as “tear-jerkers” because they are designed to bring tears to your eyes, even against your rational judgment; well, this speech is a “takbir-jerker” designed to make us all stand up and shout and raise our fingers in the “Allah is One” salute, before wrapping those fingers around the triggers of rocket launchers.
I will not dissect this speech point by point, but a few things do stand out.
“Jihad is not equal to violence! Jihad was never about civil wars. Before I tackle the ideas I want to remind you that the Prophet (SAWS) did jihad and he fought (his very own people) until Allah brought him victory and he was able to establish his state.”
In fact, the Islamic state of Madinah was established by the popular will of the people of Yathrib, who invited Rasulullah ﷺ to rule them…so..no..Jihad, in terms of armed conflict, did not ‘establish the state’; it did not begin until after the state was established.
He takes exception to using the term “civil war” to describe an armed conflict between citizens of the same country; though that is the definition of civil war. Of course, he takes exception to using this term, because most people immediately understand the self-destructiveness of civil war, and it is hard to mobilize people to willingly destroy their own society. Therefore, “civil war” should not be the term used when talking about Egypt tearing itself apart; rather we must call Muslims fighting Muslims “Jihad”, because, we all believe in Jihad; never mind that this is not the term used in the Shari’ah when Muslims fight each other.
He says that “Islam is the foundation of all Muslims and that this never changes except with very clear characterizations that concern each individual on his own”, indicating that he refrains from making collective takfir on people. However, this puts him in a quandary; because in order for civil war to not be civil war, in order for it to be Jihad, your enemies have to be Kuffar. He therefore makes takfir on any and every Muslim who works for, supports, or accepts a government that is subordinate to the West. This subordination, apparently, invalidates one’s religion, even if you are a civil servant, or a policeman issuing parking tickets
He says that fighting to make the Shari’ah the law of the land is an obligation upon every Muslim, but he has not delineated which aspects of the Shari’ah are absent in Egypt – the Shari’ah, not fiqh judgments—and he does not define what sort of government would be sufficiently “Islamic” in his view (and it is worth noting that the writer is not part of Da’esh, so we have no indication what he means by an “Islamic state” since he has not chosen to join the only “state” that exists). That means that (1.) he is in fact calling for fighting so that a particular interpretation of the Shari’ah is the law of the land; and (2.) he does not provide which interpretation that should be. This is a recipe for endless fighting, not for establishing Shari’ah.
He says that Jihad is a pillar of Islam, equal to Salah, Zakah, Hajj and so on. OK; that is an opinion, not an explicit ruling from the Qur’an and Sunnah. But let’s agree to this opinion anyway. Even the obligatory pillars are subject to conditions and circumstances. If you cannot pray standing, you pray sitting; if you are traveling, you join and shorten prayers. If you have no money, you don’t pay Zakah. If you are sick or traveling, you don’t fast. If you are unable, you are excused from the Hajj, etc etc. He is trying to intimate that it is somehow obligatory for you to fight with a kalshnikov and RPGs against the police and army. As if his favorite method of Jihad is the only form there is, and it is obligatory. And, of course, that is nonsense.
Any form of fighting which is effective and can realistically be expected to achieve the desired result is Jihad. Fighting that is ineffective and cannot realistically achieve the desired results is not Jihad, it is fasad.
He talks about destroying a tank that is being used to kill Muslims, that this action does not weaken the power of the Muslims. OK, a few point here. Are only tanks destroyed in war? Are only fighter jets destroyed? Not homes, not hospitals, not schools, not vital infrastructure? Not innocent lives? You promise?
And, please be aware that the primary purpose of a tank, of a fighter jet, of weapons of war generally, is to be destroyed. Using them is only a secondary purpose. The weapons industry creates disposable goods and war is their marketplace. Essentially, war zones are just giant garbage disposals for what weapons companies manufacture, ensuring continued production. When you blow up a tank or shoot down a jet, as you shout takbir, the manufacturers are applauding right behind you.
You may claim that by destroying all the instruments of state power you have not weakened the power of the Muslims, because state power is subservient to the Kuffar; but you have not weakened the power of the Kuffar either; in fact you have dramatically increased it. You have contributed to their profits, and increased your own vulnerability and undermined the feasibility of independence.
As I have asked many times before (with no answer ever being offered by the proponents of large scale destruction), who will rebuild your country? From where will you obtain the funding for reconstruction?
The critics of the strategy I advocate like to say that it is futile to target corporate power because we are in an ideological conflict, therefore, the forces of Kufr will be willing to pour billions of dollars into their crusade to conquer us. Even if business fails, they will continue to finance our domination anyway.
There are several problems with this view.
First of all, if they really believe that, then surely the strategy of armed Jihad (what rational people would call “civil war”) in Egypt will be met with the same response. The forces of Kufr will unite and mobilize to confront the Mujahideen; air strikes, bombing from land, air, and sea, invasion of foreign troops, etc, etc. Particularly since this is a highly profitable scenario for them.
So, the argument they use against system disruption of corporate power applies to their own strategy as well.
But this argument fails to understand the most fundamental dynamic of conflict: the balance of power.
One side in a war seldom, if ever, totally decimates the other side. Wars end, not when one side is annihilated; but when one side is damaged more than it can tolerate or absorb, and therefore, it surrenders.
The potential to inflict this kind of damage is what prevents wars.
Civil war, or if you insist, “Jihad” in Egypt, against Egyptian security forces, destroying Egyptian infrastructure, killing Egyptian people, does not inflict damage upon the forces of Kufr beyond what they can tolerate or absorb. Indeed, they have an endless capacity to tolerate your self-destruction.
At the end of your “Jihad”, US power will remain as it is, corporate power will remain as it is, while your power will be non-existent.
If you imagine that the US was defeated in Iaq, or defeated in Afghanistan, or defeated decades ago in Vietnam…you have completely misunderstood US motives. In the Vietnam war, was America destroyed or Vietnam? In the Iraq war, was America destroyed or Iraq? In the war in Afghanistan, was America destroyed or Afghanistan? Are any of those countries independent? How do you judge? If a man beats another man until he is unconscious, do you declare the beaten man to be the winner of the fight simply because his attacker decides to stop beating him?
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, in American military history, are comparatively small interventions; US military capacity is not over-stretched in the least. The force they mobilized for those campaigns was a fraction of their capacity; they did not mobilize more simply because more was not necessary to achieve their goals.
And if you think that turning your country into a war zone is itself a method for disrupting the agenda of Western conquest and inflicting loss on corporate profitability; at most, it is merely a delay, and during that delay, you will be massively contributing to the profitability of America’s war industry, which is the primary engine of the US economy.
No, Brothers, we have to understand the real existing power dynamics better than this. There are coalitions of competing business interests within the Kuffar, they calculate profit and loss, benefit and damage, risk and security, like anyone else. Under certain circumstances, they will attack without restraint, and under other circumstances, they will not, because the real or potential losses are too high. Military conflict does not represent loss for them…not at all…When it is your land that is destroyed and your people who are dying.
Do not be manipulated. Our dilemma is too serious to rush into the conflict blindly. Understand the physics of conflict, and fight not only bravely, but wisely.