The recent statements and arrest of Zarqawi's mentor, Isam Mohammad Taher al-Barqawi (a.k.a Sheik Abu-Mohammed al-Maqdisi) exposes dissention in the ranks of al Qaeda's leadership. Just prior to Barqawi's internment, he conducted an interview for al Jazeera, ostensibly to criticize his protégé Zarqawi, but in actuality to communicate the need to reorganize and rethink the methods being used to fight the infidel.
Walid Phares explains the context of Barqawi's interview, as well as some very real problems with al Qaeda's strategic operations.
Al Maqdisi [Barqawi] wasn't primarily convincing al Zarqawi to limit, reduce or stop suicide operations. He was - through al Jazeera - trying to inform others around the Arabic speaking world about the ultimate goal of suicide attacks.
In Salafi strategic thinking, you are allowed to criticize the 10% of the action to legitimize its 90%. Al Maqdisi [Barqawi] indeed stated that his “brother” Abu Mus’aab is going “too far” in waging “amaliyat istishadiya” (suicide operations) without a central plan. When you follow the interview thoroughly (and it can be done by going back to the tape), you understand that the main message sent by al Maqdisi is to regroup, re-center and articulate better road maps. The bottom line of his media burst is to address all Salafis worldwide and retrace the path. If you follow the bigger picture of the inner world of the Jihadists, through hours of tedious listening to the chat rooms and following the debates on the web, you’d understand that the masters of the movement worldwide, are perturbed. Since the democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, waves of questions are fusing the Wahabi universe. “How come millions of Muslims are casting their votes, even after we show them the right path,” shouts Jihadi in the chat rooms. In response, Zarqawi sinks further in boundless Terror. But the mentors of the movement are concerned: There is a problem in the mind of the Jihadists. One of the “mentors” steps in.
In short, al Qaeda's strategy is not working very well. Particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the majorities reject al Qaeda's violence and ideology, and demonstrate this at the ballot box. Ideologues like Barqawi recognize that without clearly defined goals that have a chance of succeeding, the abject violence such as that conducted by Zarqawi is a drain on resources and support from the Muslim world.
Barqawi offers Zarqawi sound strategic advice – husband your forces and strike at a time and place where the proper impact can be achieved. But Zarqawi views his words as an effort to divide al Qaeda:
"do not follow the path of Satan that leads to your destruction. Beware, our noble sheik, of the trick of God's enemies to lure you to drive a wedge in the ranks of the mujahedeen… why would you make for the enemy a path against you brothers?"
This statment can be interpreted as a warning to Barqawi not to interfere in the direction of his campaign to bleed Iraq dry. Barqawi should take care as Zarqawi is a ruthless operator. Killing a fellow jihadi perceived as creating divisions within jihad is certainly not out of character for Zarqawi. He sanctions the murder of Muslim children on a regular basis in Iraq. Murders like this one yesterday:
"Twenty-four Iraqi children were killed by a suicide car bomber targeting US soldiers as they handed out chocolates in a Baghdad neighbourhood they had entered to warn of a possible attack. Some 20 more children were wounded in the blast, while a US soldier died and three were injured, hospital and US sources said."
In some better news:
al Qaeda in Iraq admits to the capture of Abu Abd Al-Aziz, the ‘emir of Baghdad'. al Qaeda claims he died during capture, and refutes claims he is a senior commander, but states he is a mere brigade commander (usually a single cell or several cells). Evan Kohlmann has the full translation of the al Qaeda press release.
Good report, and analysis.
As al-Barqawi directs: 'In previous messages to al-Zarqawi, including some he wrote from his prison cell and posted on the Internet last October, al-Barqawi called for minimizing terror attacks to "spare the blood of fighters and Muslim money" until a more appropriate time to wage all-out war.'
I'm tempted to see this as putting a militant face on a real regard for human life, but that likely betrays my western culture bias. Do we believe that man is created in God's image, and therefore basically decent, or not?
Zarqawi has been playing to the leftist press choir. Up until now he has been successful in leading the choir in the "Quagmire Chorus." But with the slaughter of the innocents, Zarqawi risks losing the few conscientious members of the choir that give the entire chorus its moral authority. Is Zarqawi so tone deaf as to not recognize this obvious discordant note? We know that most of the leftist choir members lack musical finesse. They do not matter. The few who still have moral authority are at risk.
Since when do Wahabi's think that the shia are muslim. The number of sunni voters in Iraq was not particulary high
Good links as always. Thanks for all your toil.
I think it's like the story of the scorpion and the fox. The only way for the scorpion to get across the flooded river (to successful jihad) is for the scorpion (the terrorist) to let the fox (the moderate Muslim) help him (which he is willing to do), and to refrain from stinging him till they get to the other side. But whether it's wise, unwise or suicidal, the scorpion will sting. It's his nature.
"You cannot remove the venom from the crocodile, from the serpent and from the evil man."
- Ankhsheshonq, priest of Re at Heliopolis.
I have no idea why crocodiles were supposed to have venom, anyway the implications if you were hoping that an evil man can be coaxed or wished into goodness are clear. Ankhsheshonq would have written this one of his "Instructions" with bitter experience in mind. He tried to talk his friend the physician Harsises out of a plot that he and other courtiers had to assassinate Pharaoh. Ankhsheshonq failed, the conversation was overheard, Harsises and the others were tried and executed, and Ankhsheshonq was imprisoned for failing to report the plot. The smart play would have been to decide - these are all prospective regicides, they are bad people, and nobody is going to repent of anything. Just shop them. But it's always easier to be wise in hindsight. Preferably someone else's hindsight.
Hollywood loves unexpected good sides and prodigal son stories, but what we see in real life is a lot of cold-blooded irredeemable bastardry. People who fail to be realistic about this do themselves no favours. It was thus when the pyramids were in mint condition, and it will be thus to the very end.
Then again, maybe it's equally the nature of good people to keep holding out hope for bad people, and there's no help for it. (zen link)
"Do we believe that man is created in God's image, and therefore basically decent, or not?"
Even if the answer to the question has to be no, that's a lovely thought, Ruth. It does you credit.
PS: look on the bright side. They say kindness to the wolf - and presumably the fox - is cruelty to the sheep. I cannot readily imagine someone less capable of being kind to the fox - or anyone else - than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Thank you for visiting Zen Zoo (not to be confused with Sun Tzu). Normal service will now resume.
"Do we believe that man is created in God's image, and therefore basically decent, or not?"
If you believe the story that man was created in God's image and was therefore basically decent, then you must also believe the story that man fell from this lofty state and is no longer basically decent but basically corrupt.
If you do not believe the story that man is created in God's image, then you will not find another way to justify such a thought because one thing is abundantly clear to anyone with experience in the real world - mankind is not basically decent.
"Then again, maybe it's equally the nature of good people to keep holding out hope for bad people, and there's no help for it."
Let's hope that we find no such cure. Afterall, it would appear to be in the nature of the God to keep holding out hope for bad people, and thus perhaps holding out hope for bad people might be one of those things that is a lingering part of our original sinless nature.
Does anyone have a full translated transcript of the al-Barqawi interview? I would be interested in reading it for myself.
DB & celebrim: I suggest if you really didn't believe in the basic decency of your fellow man, it would be hard to form friendships (no trust), not feasible to have children (who'd want to reproduce, and who'd want to bring their own children into a world full of beings not very decent), cynical to marry (would you trust/love some one not basically decent), and you might not like yourself very much either.
So sorry, I don't believe you.
"So sorry, I don't believe you..."
Err... I'm at a loss as to how I could convince you then. It seems to me that if you are going to deny my own assertions about what I actually believe, then anything I could say to you is pretty pointless.
I could go into a lenghty discussion, but all of your assertions can be refuted with a single word.
Forgiveness.
Don't you think that it's necessary to parse this a bit more carefully: "Twenty-four Iraqi children were killed by a suicide car bomber targeting US soldiers as they handed out chocolates"...?
I don't accept the assumption--because in the nature of this case, there can't be any proof--that the terrorist was targeting the soldiers.
It is perfectly possible that he was targeting the children, to teach a lesson to the iraqis making nice to our guys.
Typical newspeak suppressed premise, no? After all, the terrorists' primary targets are muslim civilians, aren't they?
michael,
I had similar thoughts. al Qaeda targets children and civilians daily. There is no reason to believe this was not intentional. Of course stating the US troops gives out candy implies itis their fault. Disgusting.
celebrim: forgiveness is a good thing, yes, and maybe just saying 'sorry I don't believe you mean what you say' isn't adequate. But your statement 'one thing is abundantly clear to anyone with experience in the real world - mankind is not basically decent' doesn't seem to present any reason for positive action, or for any kind of life in the world. The fact that you're appearing on a contributor basis on WoC is kind of proof to the contrary, don't you think? To my understanding, such a negative view of humanity would incline some one to a negative course of action, don't you agree?
Ruth: "To my understanding, such a negative view of humanity would incline some one to a negative course of action, don't you agree?"
In and of itself, it really wouldn't matter, since by my argument whether you had a negative view of humanity or a positive one, you'd still end up taking a negative course of action more often than not. If you have a positive view of humanity, then it will just lead to self-righteousness and arrogance, or perhaps moral equivication, apathy, and cowardice depending on the particular path you follow.
Take what ever view of humanity that you like, you'll still be basically wretched.
In point of fact, most people have both views of humanity. They have this notion that there is 'my kind of humanity' which is the basically good and decent kind, and that there is 'the other sort of humanity' which is the basically evil kind. All of that is in my opinion hogwash, as there are none of us that are actually good. We are all a wretched lot.
The very most dangerous sorts are the ones that are convinced that what they do is absolutely good, and the rest are absolutely evil. The very best are the ones that stumbling and failing, still try to do what they can for thier fellow man because of the fact that they are stumbling and failing. To onlookers like ourselves, they seem heroic, but in thier own hearts they know that they are wretched and unworthy. Yet this knowledge is part of what makes them great.
"But your statement 'one thing is abundantly clear to anyone with experience in the real world - mankind is not basically decent' doesn't seem to present any reason for positive action, or for any kind of life in the world."
It calls for a life in the world of forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, humility and activism. If we are all basically wretched, then if you find that you yourself are lovable or pitable or forgivable nonetheless, then you must also in all fairness find everyone else lovable and pitiable. Every loss is a tragedy you must share, because there but for the grace of God go you. If world were filled with basically decent people, then there would be no pressing need to do anything. You could sit back and enjoy yourself and be able to trust that the world would work just fine without any help. But if the world is filled with basically corrupt people, then the only thing to be done is to spend the time you have trying to heal that breach and do as much good in this wretched world as you can with the small ammount of time you have here.
If I were to think in the above way, but imagine that the above reasoning was justified by the basic goodness of humanity rather than its basic evil, then the tendency for me would to become niave and gullible - easily taken in and used by the people who I most should avoid being taken in by. Rather than a foe of the evil in the world, I would become a tool or a victim - or both. No, it is always always important to know evil for what it is and not deny that it exists and further that it lurks in the hearts of everyone so that, even in the best of us we find ourselves doing that which we do not want to do.
This is the nature of the 'wierdness factor', that mankind knows what it should do and desires to do it, but instead finds itself doing what it knows it should not do and doing what it does not desire to do. This is strange nature of man, that there are things that we want to want because we know that we ought to want them, but we do not want to want them as much as want the things which are bad for us. And so if you look around with clear eyes you'll see mankind when given a choice between doing something good and doing something which is harmful, almost invariably doing that which is harmful.
This is how you know that we are all basically corrupt and broken, because we do not perform according to our higher natures.
celebrim:
Interesting juxtaposition of positive/negative factors here. You mention 'weirdness factor', and are you referring to J. Forberg's Quantum Conmsciousness: "Elsware in the book I speculate that the quantum particles are all wormholes to other dimensions. This is for want of a better description, but they do connect for sure to the quantum dimension. If this is so, our essence or true being is of another place. I call this other place our spiritual home, and also the quantum dimension of information. "
Which is a realm in which I think you will see the lines you draw a little differently.
See: http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/id10.html
http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/id10.html
Hmmm... no offense, but "No", and indeed, "Good grief, NO!". I'm not going that way at all, nor am I coming from there.
What you are talking about with quantum mechanics is what I would call the 'physicality of our free will', but it is not related to the 'weirdness factor'. God is playing dice with the universe, I think, because that is the only way for on omnipotent being to allow other agents a degree of choice. Without God limiting the authority of his voilition, no one else could have one. Quantum mechanics knocks down the Deist notion of God the Clockmaker and with it the notions of absolute fate that dominated the spiritual/physical thought of the West in the 17th and 18th centuries. It's a rather infantile analogy I admit, but I would argue that quantum mechanics sets up the analogy of God not as the clockmaker, but as the role playing game referee.
But that is not what I'm talking about when I mention the 'wierdness factor'. The 'wierdness factor' is a term I coined when I was 12 to try to explain the behavior of people - namely, that people didn't behave as rational actors. Something 'wierd' was motivating them to do things which made no sense. The 'wierdness factor' is not about human free will, but rather the failings of human will. It's possible for instance to want desparately to quit smoking, but be completely unable to do so. While this sort of thing can be excused via vague terms like 'chemical dependency', we see this general pattern of behavior all throughout peoples lives. People do what they don't want to do, then they regret doing it and promise never to do it again, and then they do it again just the same.
This is 'wierd', and it's only because we are so used to it that we don't notice just how wierd it is. But, since cursed and blessed to be really wierd and 'nerdy', to the point that I had to have it explained to me why people smile and so forth, it was glaringly obvious to me just how wierd 'normalcy' actually is. We are all living in a big open air insane assylum, and the really scary ones are the ones that think that they are the doctors.
In fact, we are all patients and the best we can do in the absense of anyone actually sane is to have a group session and hope that the doctors actually show up.
As I got older, I began to realize that I hadn't actually invented the notion of the 'wierdness factor', and that in fact people had been talking about it pretty much throughout human history. This is to be expected. It's a pretty darn glaring truth. So I found kindred spirit in writings from all sorts of places. One of the best is St. Paul:
"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" - Romans 7: 15-25
Although it is written in terms of a Greek audience (you can ignore the carnal spiritual metaphors if that's not your cup of tea), that is exactly the wierdness factor that I'm talking about. "...the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do."
Another of my favorites is Erasmus, and though its too flippant to quote a single passage with good effect, I do urge you to read 'In Praise of Folly', for it works on several levels and might answer some of those questions you've already raised in a wittier fashion than I could.
Another way to restate the wierdness factor, is that what the world counts as sanity is actually insane, and what the world counts as insanity is often sane. We ourselves, being insane, are not ourselves authorities on what is sane. As Socrates is recounted as having said in the Meno:
"To sum up our enquiry--the result seems to be, if we are at all right in our view, that virtue is neither natural nor acquired, but an instinct given by God to the virtuous. Nor is the instinct accompanied by reason, unless there may be supposed to be among statesmen some one who is capable of educating statesmen. And if there be such an one, he may be said to be among the living what Homer says that Tiresias was among the dead, 'he alone has understanding; but the rest are flitting shades'; and he and his virtue in like manner will be a reality among shadows."
Read the rest while you are at it.
Thanks, as I intimated, the 'weirdness factor', which I am pretty sure is an Einstein invention - so on to quantum stuff - seemed an indication in that direction.
Thanks for the leads, not familiar with Erasmus, will look into it. And do see a relationship between St. Paul who was avidly pursuing after the followers of The Way (now called Christians) when physically interrupted in his course. Not a bad conclusion, that we do what we would not. Of course, to be simplistic, Socrates thinks everything we know is contained in us originally, and by questioning our innate knowledge we draw it out. However, Socrates sees value systems as being also innate - which seems to contradict St. Paul, doesn't it?
Very good apprehensions about 'normalcy'. Personally, I tend to sympathize with the tendency to shut out the unknown, and stick with the absolutes of familiar things. Once you start exploring, as with philosophies, there's a lot of scary knowledge.
Ruth: I'm not at all sure that I'm following you, and feeble understanding that I have I'm afraid you'll have to go slower and explain more.
"Thanks, as I intimated, the 'weirdness factor', which I am pretty sure is an Einstein invention - so on to quantum stuff - seemed an indication in that direction."
I have read some Einstein, but I don't recall his discussion of the wierdness factor. You'll have to point me to some quotes. Einstein is closely associated with relativity, but it was my understanding that Einstein was rather opposed to quantum mechanics, and in fact found quantum mechanics to be inelegant and troublesome - indicating to me that it did not integrate well with his philosophy. From my reading, Einstein did not see his role as being the overthrow of the Newtonian mechanistic order, but rather as someone who fixed a problem of causality inherent within it. Hense, Einstein could say, "God does not play dice with the universe.", whereas I am comfortable with a God of probablistic determinism rather than fixed fates.
"And do see a relationship between St. Paul who was avidly pursuing after the followers of The Way (now called Christians) when physically interrupted in his course. Not a bad conclusion, that we do what we would not."
I think Paul was refering not to his past misdeeds, for which he called himself the chief of sinners, but rather to his ongoing weakness - or 'thorn' as he sometimes refered to it. Paul is speaking not in the past tense, but in the present of his ongoing daily battles to do what he knows to be right. His former transgressions were made in the self-righteous zeal of believing that he was right, and so there was before he was shaken awake little or no cognitive dissonance between his intentions and his actions. In fact, I would use this as proof that we are inherently corrupt, for everyone knows that it is harder for us to do what is right than to do what is wrong.
"Of course, to be simplistic, Socrates thinks everything we know is contained in us originally, and by questioning our innate knowledge we draw it out. However, Socrates sees value systems as being also innate - which seems to contradict St. Paul, doesn't it?"
No, not really. In both cases, Socrates and Paul are suggesting that moral requirements and values arise from an external sourse, as Jefferson put it "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", and in both cases Socrates and Paul suggest that these value systems after haven been gifted to us become an indelible part of our nature that we cannot deny nor scrub away completely however hard we try. Paul writes just a little bit before the passage I quoted:
"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..."
In other words, even if you don't have a conscious knowledge of 'the law', you have some degree of knowledge of good and evil safely scribed 'in your heart'. The notion of the Jewish law would have been unfamiliar to Paul's Greek audience, but they very much would have got the notion of intuitive virtue. Paul latter goes on to say that the whole advantage of having heard the law is it allows you to know that you are evil and justly condemnable, which echos Socrates statements that his whole advantage in wisdom over anyone else is that he is wise enough to know that he is not wise, so that would have been familiar as well.
celebrim & Ruth,
I think it is safe to say you have gone way off topic at this point. Please continue this conversation elsewhere. If you want to communicate via email and do not wish to display it online, I can act as an intermediary and get you two in touch.
Best,
Bill
Bill: Well then, yanking myself back on topic, perhaps you can help:
"Does anyone have a full translated transcript of the al-Barqawi interview? I would be interested in reading it for myself."
Also, unfortunately, simple questions like whether or not people can be evil, or whether terrorists are basically good people who are just responding rationally to mistreatment, is all to often a very relevant question in the War on Terror, because the answers such seemingly airy topics become the foundations on which real operational methodologies are being based. If you believe that all people are basically good, and that all cultures have inherently and equally valid takes on good and evil, indeed if extol multi-culturalism because you have at some level a belief that all cultures are inherently compatible and that if we were to sit down and talk together that we would find we all were basically the same, then this is going to shape whether you respond to terrorism as a threat or as a complaint.
In a similar level, airy seeming theological questions on the other side are shaping thier operational principles, and if you present a post about a philosophical debate between two of the operational shapers of the thier side, don't be too surprised if it triggers a debate on our side.
Actually, Bill, while I apologize for getting off topic, it is a very good background for perception of basic values, and thanks celebrim for a good discussion. Not a bad time for considering value systems altogether.
Unfortunayl I could not find a copy. I always prefer to read the direct dext, but this isn't always available (SITES does this, but for the tiny fee of $5,000).
I do understand your point, I just feel this conversation has evolved far beyond the point of the post.
Ruth,
No apologies are needed.
Bill, forgive me for taking so long to say this, but your work is exceptional and we're all grateful to you (and to Joe, a real hero in my world) for all you do.