New Fatwā from Shaykh Abū al-Mundhir al-Shanqīṭī of Minbar at-Tawḥīd wa'l-Jihād: "What is the Ruling of Participating in the Revolution in Egypt Now?"

UPDATE 1/31 8:56 AM: Here is an English translation of the below Fatwā (Disclaimer: the below translation is via the Islam Policy website and was according to the post done in haste):

“What is the ruling on participating in the revolution in Egypt (the revolution of January 25)? I would like you toexpound in the answer to include everything that surrounds the subject of matters related to it? In the name of Allah, the Beneficent Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds May Peace and Prayers be Upon His noble Prophet and on his family and companions To what Proceeds: I mentioned the ruling on this issue in this article: “Revolution against Mubarak,” I said in that: (Certainly what is happening today in the land of Islam from the oppression, injustice and immorality within the circle of injustice is the shariah of Allah for His slaves to address it or face it .. He says in the description of people of faith: {And those who, when wrong is done to them, defend themselves} [Shura: 39]. He said in the description of the oppressed to lift oppression and to raise and repel it: {Yet indeed, as for any who defend themselves after having been wronged – no blame whatever attaches to them} [Shura: 41] He said (peace be upon him): “Fight without the owner until you take possession of ownership, or are killed so you become one of the martyrs in the Hereafter. (Saheeh: narrated by Imam Ahmad and Tabaraani). He said (peace be upon him): “Whoever is killed under oppression is a martyr” Narrated by Ahmad from Ibn Abbas. He said (peace be upon him): “Whoever is killed defending his wealth is a martyr”. Narrated by Muslim. He said (peace be upon him): “By He whose hand rest my soul, you either enjoin good and forbid evil and catch hold of the hand of the oppressor and persuade him to act justly and stick to the truth, or, Allah will involve the hearts of some of you with the hearts of others and will curse you as He had cursed them”(Tabaraani in Muajam Kabirr and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan.) He said (peace be upon him): How to sanctify the nation is not taken from the strong of them for the weak among them? (Narrated by Ibn Haban and Tabaraani). He said peace be upon him: If you have seen my ummah fearing the oppressor and to tell him, “certainly you are unjust” simply tell them goodbye! (Narrated by Ahmad and al-Bayhaqi.) And Al-Bayhaqi said commenting on this hadeeth: (Ahmed said that the meaning of this is, “About them, if they feared for themselves from this statement and then abandoned it they are worse than it and the greatest of speech and the most feared action as they were called to Jihad with the mushrikeen but out of fear for themselves and their closest money and if they became like this therefore they were bid farewell and were deposited, and firmly established their presence and nonexistence (People of faith -Bayhaqi) oh martyrdom.” – It is obligatory that we know that offsetting the ruling regime in Egypt was a command hard to realize for the biggest jihadist organizations, so if these protesters succeeded in dropping the regime then that is a great victory for Islam and Muslims .. and it has emerged over the Western interests the strength in this great system and their fear of its falling .. so the U.S. government is following what is happening with great interest and the relations did not stop and the command came down on the internal affairs!! This shows the severity of their dependence on this system! And this is why they are today polishing ElBaradei, who is expected to be the next client, trying to preserve the empowerment of the lining of Mubarak, who felt that its demise is imminent .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, we would lose an important client of the West, the most important customers who depended on them .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, there would be mixed with a lot of leaves on the U.S. government will have to deal in a new way with the peoples of the region .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, it will change a lot of circumstances and conditions of the Islamic world .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, perhaps several other systems would fall down .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, there may occur in the region a major earthquake similar to the raids of September 11 .. If the Egyptian regime fell, God willing, therefore this means that Israel has lost a sentry from its most important sentries .. The issue is important, substantial and sensitive not only for Egypt alone, but for the whole Islamic world .. we are facing a historic moment and a decisive stage in the history of the Islamic nation .. The issue for the Egyptian brothers today means a grab of dignity, pride and freedom and to get rid of the West’s customers, which means the birth of a new era in which Egypt has freedom and self-determination and dignity… in her religion and the law of her Lord and her ummah. According to the West, this means a serious defeat and the loss of a client regime which is one of its most important customers in the region and exit the country from the grip of their hands .. This is what explains the strong attachment to the survival of Mubarak in power and if not for this support given by them he would not have dared to defy the legions, which insist on his immediate departure and refuse that he stay in power .. The Egyptian brothers today repelling against this system and removing him make a major victory for their country and for Islam and Muslims ..  They stand today in the bond of great repelling… Even if some of the Mujahideen today exists in Egypt it is one of the best jihads to participate in this blessed revolution.. If I asked about the standing of ten or a hundred of the finest Mujahideen for a martyrdom operation in which all of us to perish for Mubarak and his regime you would not see anything wrong with this because it’s in the interests of Islam and Muslims and defeats the enemies of the religion.  How many of us wished to be behind our brothers in Egypt and to have the privilege to contribute to the overthrow of this system, even with half a word.  We ask Allah to accept all the martyrs who fell in the face of this tyrant and to give sustenence to their parents pay, patience and fortitude. Those demonstrators who came out on the street today, chanting the slogan: “People want to overthrow the regime” may in fact have reached the same conclusion reached by the jihadi groups two decades ago that there was the necessity to dispose of this system  considering it an extension of the West ..  And here the youth today go out to the street to face the police themselves which  was undertaken by the militants two decades ago the need to confront the necessity .. and they are burning cars and smashing its headquarters .. This was a period sufficient to recognize the Muslim masses for the right decision taken by the Mujahideen: So it shows you the position of the ignorant *** and alter the news from one who did not provide. Please note that the Mujahid groups in Egypt said that it did not resort to the decision to confront the system until after it was forced to because of stifling and exactly how much the public was forced today to confront the system due to cracking down on them. Here is the system today, even after the breakdown of security is out of his hand, he describes that all the many people going against it are a group of thugs outside the law! Just as this group of terrorists said of the Mujahideen that they are terrorists, outlaws! – I am amazed from those who are shy to come out for these demonstrations! If these systems who were switching the law of Allah and were corruption and tyrannical it obligatory to rebel and fight with the sword, as is the matter with all the groups abstaining from the law of Allah, it is it not obligatory to come out for it with other ways other than protests? If we claim that we are excused and justified in leaving them, we will be disabled it should be known that we are not excused in leaving the protests against it because ease does not fall without hardship. And how it is prescribed for us to come out and fight the ruler who fights Allah’s religion by force and arms. And it is not prescribed for us to ask him to just claim to relinquish power? There was some who associate themselves to the methodology of the salaf today that became unfortunately adoptive of a negative direction about the matters of the ummah similar to the passivity of Tablighi Jamaat, that never made any change during her work even if the Kaaba was hit by nuclear bombs. And the events that happen are greater than what is going on now and this group never moves. The sanctity of Muslims was assaulted and the sanctity of a Muslim is greater than the sanctity of the Kaaba but the Jama’ah did not move a muscle. Thus, some affiliated with the approach of the methodology of the salaf they leave or abandon all the matters of the Muslims ummah and have no interest except in their books and papers, and study circles, ignoring the words of the Prophet peace be upon him, “He who does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not one of us.” Increasingly, I am surprised by the audacity of some young people who are not committed to the ummah by their enthusiasm and their support for these issues, while some young people who claim to be students of knowledge do not even move their head! If they talk and they participate they only warn people of the strife of fitnah as though they don’t know that people are already full of fitnah around them. And some of them rioting to participate in the protest against these regulations says: – If you fall down this regime you only will get the secular regime does not apply the law of Allah! The answer about that is that we are now talking about the matter of toppling the regime and this is a demand that we agree with  the rest of the people.we should contribute to achieve it. And after the demise of the regime we can seek to establish a new constitution that rule with Allah’s law. Participation in overthrowing  this regime does not mean it will be followed by the adoption of systems in violation of Allah ‘s law. The matter is about reducing the evil and to achieve what can be achieved from good. People are already  injustice, oppression and persecution, we must contribute to the lift it .. Prisons are full of muwahidun and  We must help with their release.. And qunoot (night prayer) and du’aa is obligatory upon all Muslims in order to fell the tyrant and so he leaves my dear Egypt. O Allah destroy him and cut off the tail (America)


O Allah Link the hearts of the rebellious Muslim youth on the face of him ..

Allah accepts the martyrs and to pour constancy upon their mothers and sisters, patience and fortitude likewise .. O Allah decree for this nation a wise matter where the people of your worship can have dignity and humiliate the people of sin and judge them in it with your shariah.


 

And Allah knows best Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds Answered, a member of Shariah Committee: Sheikh Abu-Mundhir Shanqeeti”


NOTE: Shaykh Abū al-Mundhir al-Shanqīṭī recently published an article last week titled “Revolution Against Mubarak,” which you can see here.

Shaykh Abū al-Mundhir al-Shanqīṭī — “What is the Ruling of Participating in the Revolution in Egypt Now”
[scribd id=47813415 key=key-1qab0w130qqvktpuym82 mode=list]

New video message from the Supreme Qāḍī of the Caucasus Emirate 'Alī Abū Muḥammad al-Dagestanī: "Clarification About the Distribution of the Spoil of War According to Sharī'ah"

NOTE: ‘Alī Abū Muḥammad al-Dagestanī was appointed the Supreme Qāḍī of the Caucasus Emirate this past October. According to the Kavkaz-Jihād Blog, this is his first video appearance since then. In December he did released a statement regarding the leadership disputes in the Caucasus Emirate, which boiled to head in October and haven’t really heard much about since.


New audio message from Shaykh Abū Basīr al-Ṭarṭūsī: "Speech in Egypt Via One of the Brothers in Egypt"

NOTE: Abū Basīr al-Ṭarṭūsī also recently released a statement in the aftermath of the fall of former Tunisian president Ben ‘Alī, which you can find here in Arabic and French. Below he talks about the Intifāḍah and provides tips for the demonstrators.

al-Ṭarṭūsī is a Syrian Islamist who lives in London. al-Ṭarṭūsī is considered one of the most influential jihādī theorists. For instance, as highlighted by Vahid Brown on Jihadica, al-Ṭarṭūsī has 200 works in the jihādītext collection “A Mujāhid’s Bookbag.” Also, in the past al-Ṭarṭūsī has condemned Dr. Fadl for his revisions and Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī for a variety of what al-Ṭarṭūsī views as problematic rulings.


New audio message from Shaykh Abū Basīr al-Ṭarṭūsī: “Speech in Egypt Via One of the Brothers in Egypt”

New Fatwā from Shaykh Abū Dhar al-Shamhurī al-Yamānī of Minbar at-Tawḥīd wa'l-Jihād: "What is the Ruling for the Mujāhidīn Fighting Against the Yemenī Government and What is the Clear Path of Jihād in Yemen?"

New Fatwā from Shaykh Abū al-Mundhir al-Shanqīṭī of Minbar at-Tawḥīd wa'l-Jihād: "Ruling on Suicide Bombers 'Lighting Oneself on Fire'"

NOTE: This question came about as a result of the recent spate of self-immolations that have occurred throughout the Arab world following the original one from Muḥammad al-Bū’azīzī of Tunisia, which sparked the uprising that overthrew former Presiden Ben ‘Alī.

Fatwā from Shaykh Abū al-Mundhir al-Shanqīṭī of Minbar at-Tawḥīd wa’l-Jihād- “Ruling on Suicide Bombers ‘Lighting Oneself on Fire'”
[scribd id=47314240 key=key-cdtg1tqyy85ox0weca2 mode=list]

GUEST POST: Why Jihadi Ideology Matters

NOTE: As with all guest posts, the opinions expressed below are those of the guest author and they do not necessarily represent the views of this blogs administrator.
Jihadology.net aims to not only provide primary sources for researchers and occasional analysis of them, but also to allow other young and upcoming students as well as established academics or policy wonks to contribute original analysis on issues related to Global Jihadism. If you would like to contribute a piece, please email your idea/post to azelin [at] jihadology [dot] net. Pieces should be no longer than 2,000 words please.


By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
On January 19, Joshua Foust posted a rather interesting article at Jihadology questioning Anwar al-Aulaqi’s importance as a jihadi ideologue, and in so doing, also called into question the assumed linkage between Islamist ideology and behavior. Though Foust’s post raises interesting and valid questions, and introduces bodies of research that are often ignored in debates over terrorist radicalization, I find his conclusion problematic for three reasons. First, Foust seems to be arguing against a strawman on the question of how ideology can have an impact on behavior. Second, the applicability of his general observations about the connection between ideas and behavior is questionable in the context of Islamist ideology. And third, erecting the very high evidentiary standard with which Foust concludes his article is not at all helpful when it comes to a problem set like terrorist radicalization, which it is necessary to address now.
Strawman Opponent?
It is somewhat unclear what Foust is objecting to within the current literature on radicalization—which, in fairness, is reflected in his post’s title, “Some Inchoate Thoughts on Ideology.” But to the extent his article refutes a definable set of ideas, it seems to argue against monocausal explanations of behavior. Specifically, Foust writes:

The assumption behind the ideology discussion appears to be that behavior is a gun, and ideology is a trigger. That is, you have a person, they accept ideology, and then the output is behavior (in this case, violence). But that just isn’t how people work, and using some basic logic and self-knowledge can reveal that. We are not mono-causal creatures, even in relatively simple matters like choosing where to eat lunch.

The last point is undoubtedly correct: we are not monocausal creatures. But which authors, specifically, share this set of assumptions? A careful reading of Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens’s Foreign Policy article that is the hook for Foust’s piece reveals no such monocausal assumption, though Meleagrou-Hitchens clearly does conclude—contrary to Foust—that ideology is important. Nor does Foust point to other authors who write about ideology as though it is the sole cause of terrorist violence.
This framing of the discussion seems designed to bolster the importance of Foust’s refutation. But the contribution an author can make by refuting a clearly exaggerated interpretation of a subject is minimal when that exaggerated interpretation does not represent the conventional wisdom in a field. And in the academic discussion of terrorist ideology, it seems that the dominant opinion among prominent scholars—including Marc Sageman, Jessica Stern, Robert Pape, Jerrold Post, and now apparently Brian Michael Jenkins—is that religious ideology is relatively unimportant. (There are of course plenty of scholars on the other side of this debate, including Mary Habeck, Assaf Moghadam, and myself.)
So let’s define the debate in a more reasonable way. The question is not whether terrorists are automatons who read something on the Internet and then act in service of that idea. They aren’t, full stop. Rather, the question is whether religious/ideological factors seem to provide a robust explanation for both terrorist radicalization and also terrorist actions.
One Man’s Experiences
Before turning to the role of al-Aulaqi specifically, I’d like to address the role that Islamist ideology has on behavior. Foust writes: “The heart of my problem with discussing Islamist ideology is that I don’t understand how it affects behavior.” This is because behavior is complex, encompassing such causal factors as “constraints, signaling from peers, intent, and capability.” On the question of how Islamist ideology can impact behavior, I believe the answer is so obvious as to be virtually indisputable. Note that Foust frames the issue as Islamist and not jihadi ideology. I don’t know whether this framing was purposeful, but I’m glad that he put the question this way, because an examination of Islamist behavior is illuminating.
As I recently discussed on a Bloggingheads appearance with Matt Duss, and as a number of readers will know, before my entry into the counterterrorism field I worked for an Islamist charity, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, that has now been named a specially designed global terrorist entity by the U.S. Treasury Department. I had converted to Islam in college, and worked for Al Haramain in 1998-1999 between college and law school. I entered as a relative Islamic novice, with a very moderate conception of the faith; during my time at Al Haramain, my behavior changed substantially and I ultimately adopted an interpretation that I now consider extreme. Though I wrote a book about this period in my life, until now I have not really introduced my experiences into my own academic work on radicalization due to my awareness that people often universalize their own experiences improperly. However, their applicability should be clear in this response to Foust; and then I will introduce my empirical work on the subject.
At its heart, Islamism holds that human instincts and inclinations do not provide a reliable guide for determining morality. The reason Islamists believe that society should be governed by sharia is because man-made laws are contingent, and subject to shifting views of morality. Only God’s guidance, as best exemplified in the Qur’an and sunna, provides a reliable and unquestionable framework for determining how a society should be run. But if we can only trust God—and, related to that, Muhammad’s example—for the making of laws, isn’t it just as true that only the sunna can provide a guide to how we should live our own lives?
Thus, within Islamism, one’s behavior is clearly and unequivocally controlled by ideology. I encountered an intricately legalistic system within Al Haramain, wherein the restrictions were virtually all-encompassing. Growing a beard was required for men; likewise it was necessary to eat only with the right hand and roll one’s pants legs up above the ankles. Petting a dog, listening to music, and shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex all clearly transgressed the bounds of morality. Quite clearly ideology played a role in these behavioral outcomes. Absent the prevalent ideology (which could be described either as Islamism or Islamic conservatism), there is simply no explanation for why a relatively large number of people would decide to grow their beards out in a similar way, see dogs as unclean, stop making physical contact with members of the opposite sex, et cetera. While Foust writes that behavioral changes occur “in an unpredictable way,” in this case the behavioral changes all comported with the dominant ideology.
Moving beyond my own experiences, one of the remarkable aspects of Islamism—giving lie to Foust’s claim that behavioral changes in this area are unpredictable—is the consistency of behavioral changes across a broad array of cases. To be clear, not all Islamist interpretations of the faith are alike, and there are variegations among known Islamists, but in case after case the behavioral changes mirror those I experienced during my time at Al Haramain. One example is the Duka brothers—Shain, Eljvir, and Dritan—who were arrested with three others in May 2007 for plotting to attack the military base in Fort Dix, New Jersey. As the brothers turned to Islamism, they alienated family members with the announcement that “[t]he playing of music—a centuries-old tradition at Albanian weddings—had been banned” at Eljvir Duka’s wedding. Similarly, they spent an extended conversation captured via covert surveillance exploring the legalistic rules of how their beards should be kept:

Dritan Duka: That’s not really the way it [the beard] should be kept, it should be kept trimmed.
Unidentified male: It’s supposed to be neat, not, right trimmed but not over your lip.
Dritan Duka: Not shaved off completely.

Shain Duka then told a story about how a man in a Popeyes Chicken restaurant, after staring at them for a short time, asked why young men like them had such large beards. Shain recounted that “then we explained to him listen all the prophets wore beards and were Muslim so we wear the beards because all prophets wore beards.” Similarly, Daniel Joseph Maldonado’s behavioral changes included “wearing traditional Arab clothing, including the galabeyah, an ankle-length gown with long sleeves that covered the tattoos on his arms.” Tattoos are considered haram (prohibited by Islamic law) within the dominant conservative interpretations of Islam. Maldonado also tried to grow a beard; when he failed, “he blamed his Puerto Rican heritage and began chastising fellow Muslims who could grow a full beard and chose not to.”
Both Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh stopped listening to music. Gadahn had previously been seriously obsessed with death metal, but gave away virtually his entire music collection. Explaining this to the recipient, Gadahn said: “Well, I turned