Home » Individuals » Adam Gadahan » Thoughts and Analysis on Gadahn’s new video

Thoughts and Analysis on Gadahn’s new video

“The young often realize the truth before the old and that laymen often recognize the truth ahead of the scholars.” – Adam Gadahn

For the second time in three weeks, Adam Gadahn has released a video message, this one titled “The Arabs And Muslims: between the Conferences of Desertion .. and the individual Duty of Jihād.” In it he uses the Mardin Conference, which was held this past March as a springboard to discuss the importance of jihād as being an individual duty (farḍ al-‘ayn) upon Muslims. I would like to highlight a few points:

From the Ashes of Iraq

Gadahn first directs his attention toward Arabs. Gadahn is trying to refocus Arabs and show them what is at stake: “Return once again to the call … and finish what you started.” Further, he argues that the possibility of mistakes and transgressions by the mujāhidīn is not an excuse to abandon the individual obligation of jihād: “A mistake isn’t treated by an even bigger mistake.” He affirms that these mistakes are not even close to the level of the transgression of the Crusaders and its proxies. This further reiterates the idea that following Abū Muṣ’ab al-Zarqāwī’s bloodlust in Iraq most Arabs were completely revulsed by AQ and they are still digging their way out of that mess.

‘Awlakī and “Lone-Wolfism”

Footage of Anwar al-‘Awlakī from a previous AQAP video release appears interspersed with Gadahn’s message. This could suggest that AQSL believes ‘Awlakī has become an asset to their cause. If this is the case, then one has to only look at ourselves, specifically the mainstream media and non-expert pundits who have hyped him up to the point where he could be seen by AQSL as an important tactical tool in their arsenal. It is a sad state of affairs that a guy who was mid-level AQAP at best has in only eleven months become so much more than his actual worth or standing in the wider AQ movement. One should look to J.M. Berger’s take on ‘Awlakī’s appearance in the video, which is a valid counterpoint to my above statement.

Gadahn also endorses the “lone-wolf” model that ‘Awlakī and his American pal Samīr Khān, the creator of Inspire Magazine, have called for recently, which was originally postulated by Abū Muṣ’ab al-Sūrī. Gadahn stated: “Don’t wait for some else, to do what you can do yourself.” To embolden potential recruits further, Gadahn continued:  “Here you are in the battlefield.” Gadahn also provided examples of who “lone-wolf’s” should take as an example: Muḥammad Aṭā (9/11), Ṣidīque Khān (7/7), Muḥammad Būyīrī (Theo Van Gogh), Niḍāl Ḥassān (Fort Hood), ‘Umar Fārūq ‘Abd al-Muṭallib (Christmas Day), and Faiṣal Shahzād (Times Square).

Veiled Snipe at Recanters

Toward the end of Gadahn’s statement he directs a message to those who have recanted. He does not directly say anyone or a particular group, but one could infer he was speaking to Sayyid ‘Imām ash-Sharīf (Dr. Fadl), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), or others. He argues that the movement still is in need of their expertise and efforts. He tries to remind them of the good old days by articulating that those involved now are the sons of the second and new generation, which are indebted to their previous efforts. Gadahn concludes: “Finish what you started, and aid your religion and ummah.”

Mardin and Ibn Taymīyyah

Fundamentally, the thing that should be taken away from this video is that the Mardin conference is a thorn in the side of AQ since it delegitimizes the foundation of much their theoretical work and raison d’être. This is the epitomy of the so-called “war of ideas.” Since AQSL is taking this message on they most likely feel threatened by its message and clarification of Taqī ad-Dīn Ibn Taymīyyah’s fatwā (legal opinion/decree) at Mardin (see first conclusions 1-7 here).

As is highlighted by the quote at the top of this analysis, Gadahn and AQ are in an uphill battle since they do not have classically trained religious and scholarly credentials. Gadahn also undermines his argument when he discusses the importance of Ibn Taymīyyah to the AQ movement. He states that those who are carrying out the obligation of jihād are not relying or following Ibn Taymīyyah in the first place in issues of jihād or other things. Instead, they have their own fiqh (jurisprudence), ‘ulamā’ (religious scholars), and books, which they abide by far away from the Ḥanbalī legal school (there are four Sunnī legal schools). For example, Gadahn says the commanders and scholars of the Ṭālibān in AfPak are from the Ḥanafī legal school and would therefore not take their ideas from Ibn Taymīyyah. That is a slight of hand, though. To those who have no background in the madhhab’s (legal schools) then one might take Gadahn’s statement at face value. As the well respected Islamic scholar Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hakīm Murād explained:

It was at that time [circa 11th century], too, that the attitude of toleration and good opinion between the Schools became universally accepted. This was formulated by Imām al-Ghazālī, himself the author of four textbooks of Shāfi‘ī fiqh, and also of Al-Mustasfa, widely acclaimed as the most advanced and careful of all works on uṣūl,uṣūl al-fiqh fīl madhhab. With his well-known concern for sincerity, and his dislike of ostentatious scholarly rivalry, he strongly condemned what he falled ‘fanatical attachment to a madhhab’. While it was necessary for the Muslim to follow a recognised madhhab in order to avert the lethal danger of misinterpreting the sources, he must never fall into the trap of considering his own school categorically superior to the others. With a few insignificant exceptions in the late Ottoman period, the great scholars of Sunnī Islam have followed the ethos outlined by Imām al-Ghazālī, and have been conspicuously respectful of each others madhhab. Anyone who has studied under traditional ‘ulamā’ will be well-aware of this fact.

As such, Gadahn is either way out of his league or he does not recognize this precedent since he articulated that AQ has in effect their own legal school above. From this, one can see that the Mardin Conference caused Gadahn to enumerate apologética for his and AQ’s understanding of Islām. The question is who is winning this battle of ideas, the classically trained ‘ulamā’ or the global jihadist ‘ulamā’? I will have more to say about this at a later date.


7 Comments

  1. [...] JIHADOLOGY A clearinghouse for jihādī primary source material Skip to content HomeAboutAbout Aaron Y. ZelinArticlesIn the NewsCurrently ReadingLegal NoticeArchivesal-Qā’idah Centralal-Qā’idah Central – Usāmah Bin Lādenal-Qā’idah Central – Ayman al-Zawahirial-Qā’idah Central – Abū Yaḥyā al-Lībīal-Qā’idah Central – Othersal-Qā’idah in Iraq / Islamic State of Iraqal-Qā’idah in the Arabian Peninsulaal-Qā’idah in the Arabian Peninsula – Nasir al-Wahayshial-Qā’idah in the Arabian Peninsula – Sa’īd al-Shehrīal-Qā’idah in the Arabian Peninsula – Anwar al-’Awlakīal-Qā’idah in the Arabian Peninsula – Othersal-Qā’idah in the Islamic MaghrebḤarakat al-Shabāb al-Mujāhidīn (al-Shabāb)The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Ṭālibān)The Caucasus EmirateOther Jihādī GroupsGlobal Jihadist Ideologues‘Abdullah AzzamAbū Basīr al-ṬarṭūsīAbū Muḥammad al-MaqdisīAbū Muṣ’ab al-SūrīAbū Qatādah al-FilisṭīnīSeriesBiographies of the Prominent Martyrs SeriesCreating Terrorism Program – Abū ‘Ubaydah ‘AbdullahMiscellaneous Post-9/11Miscellaneous Pre-9/11Articles of the WeekSubmissions ← Articles of the Week – 10/16-10/22 Thoughts and Analysis on Gadahn’s new video → [...]

  2. [...] is a piece by Aaron, on his thoughts an analysis on Adam’s newest video, which you can find here, and is a great read [...]

  3. Theo B says:

    In many respects I enjoy your analysis, but your transliteration of Arabic terms and names can be distracting, since it’s inconsistent and frequently incorrect. Why go to the trouble of adding diacriticals, accent marks et al. if you’re going to conflate the ‘ayn and the hamza, misspell “muṭallib”, and so on?

  4. azelin says:

    Theo, thank you for your comments.

    I would disagree that they are frequently incorrect. Indeed, they might be occasionally wrong, but I am not doing it on purpose (especially regarding the ‘ayn and hamza — that has more to do with the fact that this isn’t an academic journal so I’m not parsing through everything in minutiae detail prior to posting it).

    Obviously, I am not perfect and the only reason I use the transliterations is to try and keep them in my head since I am no longer in school, but will hopefully return for a PhD in the near future. That said, I would be willing to stop using the transliterations if it takes away from the substantive aspects of my posts.

  5. azelin says:

    Hey Theo, I also just looked back at the post in the draft form and the notation for an ‘ayn or hamza does not look curved on either side, but rather looks straight down so the formatting in WordPress probably does not help with that either. Interestingly, though, when it is published it makes the distinction. I will take responsibility for muffing the double “t’s” for (in regular type) Atta and Muttalib.

  6. Ibn Siqilli says:

    I would just add that scholars from the schools not infrequently cite opinions by prominent jurists from other schools. Gadahn seems to have a very static view of the rigidity of the schools.

  7. azelin says:

    Hey Christopher, thanks for your comments.

    Yes, I agree. That is what I was trying to highlight, but maybe it did not come across as explicit as the way you stated it.

    This is the largest problem with guys like Gadahn and other global jihadist so-called experts, they have no conception of historical precedent or what the classically trained religious scholars are actually utilizing in their content and methodology.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,259 other followers

%d bloggers like this: