Anwal al-Awlaki is an American extremist based in Yemen. This is his website. Note the picture of a man with AK47 which, very appropriately, Awlaki uses to represent his website. It also distributes a video of British and American troops suffering in Afghanistan, suffering which is celebrated.
On his website, Awlaki publishes a leaflet called 44 Ways of Supporting Jihad. Awlaki tells his readers that, in the current day and age, it is compulsory for them to get arms training then to go and fight jihad. And, before any apologists pop up to say I’m misrepresenting the concept of jihad in Islam, no, he is not talking about jihad al-nafs. If it entails arms training then what Awlaki is talking about is religiously justified warfare.
This is a point Awlaki makes clear when he tells readers of his website to fight against government armies in the Muslim world.
They stand against those who want to establish Islam through Jihad and they even stand in front of those who seek to reach government through peaceful means as what happened in Algeria in the past.
In other words, there can be no Islam with the presence of these armies. The Islamic rule states that whatever is needed to establish an obligation becomes an obligation. Establishing Islamic sharia is an obligation, and fighting in the cause of Allah is an obligation, and if that cannot be achieved except by fighting against these armies then that becomes an obligation.
[...]
These armies are the number one enemy of the ummah. They are the worst of creation. Blessed are those who fight against them and blessed are those shuhada who are killed by them.
It’s not just Muslim majority countries that Awlaki wants Muslims to fight, it’s also America.
In this recording Awlaki suggests that America is at war with Islam and therefore all Muslims should fight against America. What Awlaki says here is no different to al-Qaeda’s ideology.
Which probably explains why Awlaki is such a fan of the al-Qaeda linked Somali Islamists al-Shabab connected to recent terrorism arrests in Australia. In December 2008, Awlaki sent salutations to al-Shabab of Somalia.
We are following your recent news and it fills our hearts with immense joy. We would like to congratulate you for your victories and achievements.
Al-Shabab not only have succeeded in expanding the areas that fall under their rule but they have succeeded in implementing the sharia and giving us a living example of how we as Muslims should proceed to change our situation. The ballot has failed us but the bullet has not.
al-Shabab who are with limited resources in an impoverished country are a manifestation of what tawakul on Allah means. We see in them the meaning of “And whoever has taqwa, Allah will make a way out for him. And will provide for him from where he does not expect.” [al-Talaaq 2-3]
Heart warming stuff. And it gets sweeter, al-Shabab sent him a response.
Reply to the Greeting and Advice of Sheikh Anwar
O beloved Sheikh Anwar,
We ask Allah to reward you for your encouragement and words of advice. Your words have reached us and, by the will of Allah, we will benefit from your recommendations [...]
Sheikh, we look to you as one of the very few scholars who stand firm upon the truth and defend the honor of the Mujahideen
It seems that Awlaki is so keen on al-Shabab that he has even been acting as their recruitment sergeant. In America, young Somali Americans began disappearing off to Somalia to fight with al-Shabab – it turned out that they had been watching lectures recorded by Awlaki and distributed online.
He even says that Muslims must not side with non-Muslims against perpetrators of terrorist attacks.
The ones who are behind bombings in the West that kill civilians. This is an issue that cannot go beyond the boundaries of fiqh. Whether the author agrees with such operations or doesn’t this issue can never be an issue of aqeedah. So even if he believes that the perpetrators of such acts are wrong and have no basis in sharia, the most he can say about them is that they have followed an invalid ijtihad. But under no circumstances is he allowed to side with the disbelievers against these Muslims. If a Muslim kills each and every civilian disbeliever on the face of the earth he is still a Muslim and we cannot side with the disbelievers against him.
Which makes it all the more disturbing when you discover that Cageprisoners has invited Awlaki to deliver a video message at Kensington Town Hall in West London on 30th August.
At first I thought this was just a horrendous mistake, an oversight which would swiftly be corrected. But then I read this report in Counter Terrorism News.
CTN spoke to the Community Safety Officer at Kensington and Chelsea Council who confirmed that the Home Office’s Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) and the Metropolitan Police had given their approval for this event to go ahead without any changes to the advertised speakers.
How can Kensington and Chelsea Council reconcile providing a platform for a preacher of violent extremism with its own Crime and Community Safety Plan‘s (pdf) commitment of “working to minimise opportunities for radicalisation to flourish”. It is astounding that the local council, Metropolitan police and the Home Office all fail to appreciate that when Kensington Town Hall (a council run venue) hosts a man whose personal ideology differs little from al-Qaeda’s then this provides an appallingly convenient opportunity for radicalisation of the very worst kind.
Will they only realise the danger of such speakers when, like their American peers, groups of young British Somalis – with Awlaki’s pro-Shabab rhetoric ringing in their ears – start signing up to fight in Somalia?
UPDATE:
And this is what Awlaki thinks about killing innocent Jewish women and children.
My opinion which I have stated in past recordings and is still my opinion now is that non-combatant women and children cannot be targeted. However if the type of war forced on us to fight is one in which non-combatants would end up being killed in order to reach to the fighting force then it is allowed in this case. Examples of this are the striking of al Taif by the catapult during the time of Rasulullah(saaws). Parallels of this today are the two methods that our brothers in Palestine have adopted: martyrdom operations and the firing of rockets into the occupied territories. Both of these methods inevitably do kill women and children. The current case of Gaza adds another dimension and that is that the Jews are targeting the entire community in Gaza by siege and indiscriminate bombing and this is why I am inclined to the view of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen in this particular situation.
In the current situation of Palestine I must say that I agree with the methods adopted by the mujahideen and I agree with them when they state that they would not stop targeting civilians until the Israeli’s do the same.
For those who asked that I reconsider my view on this, I promise I will review it again and would be happy if you could send me textual references pertinent to the discussion.
9 Comments
Has this event been organised by Moazzam ‘i went to Afghanistan for a holiday and some shopping’ Begg? No doubt Yvonne ‘i love the taliban they gave me nice food’ Ridley will be chipping in with her usual Islamist rant. Don’t forget Binyan ‘i went to Karachi for some charity’ Mohammad, I’m sure he will have all the lefties in tears with his heart breaking tale.
If only the west wasn’t so evil. Of course we won’t torture anyone when we come into power, we’ll just behead anyone who disagrees.
Since it’s in my neck of the woods I might go to this…
I read about Sami El-Haj and the severe injustice done unto him.
Don’t know much about the others, but I might as well hear what they’ve got to say myself.
To correct the suggestion in this posting that the Government has approved Al-Awlaki’s involvement in this event, the Government (OSCT, the Home Office or any other department) has not given approval for Al-Awalki, or anyone, to speak at Kensington Town Hall. This type of decision is always a matter for the local authority, and we have contacted the authority to explain our concerns.
Freedom of thought and speech are rights which are fundamental to our society; however the Government challenges views which fall short of supporting violence and are within the law, but which reject and undermine our shared values and jeopardise community cohesion.
Home Office spokesperson
Home Office Spokesperson.
Thank you for coming on the Spittoon to clarify. Could you clarify what concerns the Home Office has about Awlaki, how you have expressed them to Kensington and Chelsea Council and whether you think that Awlaki’s views “fall short of supporting violence”? I would be glad to update this post but, at present, it is rather unclear what you actually have done about Awlaki.
The problem with Awlaki is that he actually does incite violence so is outside the law. The question is does the Home Office even know what they are doing?
Home Office Spokesman,
Thanks for letting us know. However I’m not quite clear what your response means.
I therefore have several further questions:
- Is Awlaki going to speak at Kensington Town Hall or isn’t he?
- Does the Home Office intend to take any action to prevent him speaking? – Is the Home Office aware that Awlaki’s understanding of jihad is virtually indistinguishable from al-Qaeda’s?
- Is the Home Office aware that Awlaki’s recorded speeches have previously inspired a number of young Muslims around the world to commit acts of terrorism – as in the case of the US Somalis from Minnesota.
Thanks for your time.
Al-Masri.
home office spokesperson,
“This type of decision is always a matter for the local authority, and we have contacted the authority to explain our concerns.”
This, for many of us, is precisely the problem. Such a decision should not be in the hands of local councillors and I think that this Awlaki business is a perfect example of how such decisions should be more centralised. If some concerned people had not flagged up the fact that an al Qaeda supporter and glorifier was to make an appearance at a government building, the Home Office and Westminster would never have even known that they were effectively hosting the man.
MPs would be better placed to deal with such issues as they are closer to those within the government that actually know a thing or two about hate preachers and their supporters. The Home Office MUST look at how they are still failing to prevent the poisoning of impressionable minds. Awlaki is a man who has DIRECT links with inspiring young Muslim men to fight violent jihad and this fact alone should change the issue from being a local authority matter to being a national security matter. things need to change, and fast!
with all due respect, what you have just said about Awlaki and his use of Islam and his free speech is PRECISELY what was said about Abu Hamza about a decade ago. Abu Hamza is now identified as one of the UK’s prime radicalisers who encouraged and inspired many to jihad.
whether or not what Awlaki says is backed up by his religion (there are many interpretations, his is the most extreme) is completely irrelevant, his conclusions (ie, kill non-Muslims) are unacceptable and the government must not be ashamed to say that. would the government take such a soft stance with a christian man who found justifications for killing homosexuals and jews in the bible? I highly doubt it. would the government not mind if its premises played host to neo nazis?
Awlaki is no different to a neo-Nazi who may use religion to justify his violence and bigotry. Islamist jihadists are no different either, and the government must realise this
but they also wish to tread lightly especially when talks of quashing freedoms is at stake or the management of freedoms to better protect the state. These freedoms include free speech and all the other democratic luxuries that we have come to enjoy.
I agree, completely.
When it comes to banning hate speech that falls short of a conspiracy or incitement, the government should refrain from banning groups or censoring. I am not a supporter of the proposal to ban Hizb because I don’t think that they’re close enough to actual acts of terrorism. Al Muhaj I think is correctly banned (although that ban is not, in fact, policed – much like the ban on the funding of Hamas!)
Banning scum from entering the UK is a different matter. Entering this country is a right if you’re a citizen, and a privilege otherwise. Nobody who is not a citizen can complain if they’re banned.
However, there is an awful lot that politicians and indeed the rest of us can do when we find the likes of Awlaki speaking in public. Close all public venues to them. Inform private venues of precisely who they are hosting. Let Awlaki be as familiar a name as Griffin.
The point here is that Awlaki can back up his incitement to terrorism with scripture? Well any interpretation of any scripture that is used in that way should be countered with condemnation and rejection. Let the religious counter it with exegisis, and the rest of us by any way that we can.