Jihad wants a return to al-Andalus

[Menydh]

Jihad wants a return to al-Andalus

La Razón
July 2, 2006

The "victory" of al-Qaida on March 11, 2004, in Spain forced the withdrawal of Spain from the coalition led by the US in the battlefield of Iraq.^* But the evidence of the detentions within the framework of the Spanish Constitution shows that jihadism is still active. The reports from the Spanich Police, according to information from the newspaper El País, reveal that the Moroccan Islamic Fighters Group (GICM) was still organizing cells and getting ready for future operations. Yussef Belhadi, the jihadist commander who was detained in Belgium, admitted that it was him who had taken the decission to strike in Madrid on the day right after al-Jazzeera had broadcasted a recording in which Ben Laden threatened Spain for her implication [in the invasion of Iraq]. This giving in to al-Qaida, even if it was just through the votes against the Government of Aznar in a democratic elections, drove to new efforts by the Salafists to infiltrate in Spain and try to create bases in Andalusia and other parts of Spain.

To the ideologists and the strategists of the Islamic movement, the new Jihad in Spain consists in a "return to al-Andalus". In the meetings of indoctrination the Salafist and Wahabi commisars ask for khutbas (prayers) for the vanguard of al-Ansar to cross again the Strait of Jabal Tariq (Gibraltar).

"With their istishhaad (martyrdom) in Madrid our mujahideen showed us how to fight the kuffars (the "non-believers"). Now the Jihad will return to a conquered al-Andalus."

Evidently, the Spain of the XXIth century does not believe that this rethoric is for real, but on the other side of the sea a VIIIth century style indoctrination of the mentalities of the youth has inverted the chronology of history. But Spain will wake up with a jihadist "reconquista" on the make which uses as a tools urban terror [...]

The hudna. It is interesting that while he was organizing his planet-wide conspirations, Ben Laden renewed the polemic about a concept much loved to him: the hudna. This translates literally as "truce", and in the doctrine of the Jihad it has a very specific meaning: the hudna consists in establishing --under the judgement of a jihadist chief-- an armistice with the enemy.

When the jihadist authorities want to value the disposition of the enemy in order to resume the hostilities, they have to do it following their own judgement. What is supplanted here is not the laws of international right, but the nasr ("the victory").

After the strike in Madrid, al-Qaida offered a truce to Europe. And it did the same after the London attack. Ben Laden attacked the citizens of the infidel powers and democracies for not having forced their governments to accept the truce. This had the indirect implication that their civilian populations will keep suffering the consequences until they defeat the determination of their governments to combat terrorism.

And this is exactly what terrorism is about.

But the jihadists like Ben Laden and others consider the hudna under a different point of view. To arrive to a hudna implies that the enemy, the democratic states, recognize al-Qaida as a representative of the Muslim world. Thus, the "jihaddist truce" is not a period of a halt in the hostilities but it means the admittance that the radicals govern over million of people and nover dozens of countries. It also means to abandon the weaker ones among the Muslims, the Arabs and other inhabitants from the Middle East, to the will of the Salafists and the Khomeinists.

This style of hudna was practised in Lebanon with Hizbulah between 1990-2000. The Islamic terror network interrumpted their attacks to American and European targets. In exchange for this they directed their campaign of terror against their weaker companion, Lebanon, and made firm its pawns on the Shiites. Recently, some voices in the West --although placed in intelectual bastions of thought prior to 11-S-- seriously considered the signing of a halt to hostilities with al-Qaeda. Their lack of understanding of the Salafist-Khomeinist geopolitics tells everything about their lack of understanding of the jihadist world: it is a world alien to international right and principles.


Title: Future Jihad
Author: Walid Phares
Synopsis: the author, a Lebanese resident in the US since 1990, analyzes the origins and targets of the Islamic terrorism in the West. The battlefield is identified among the the western democracies and jihadism is focused there to try to weaken the support of public opinion against the war on terror.


[source]

Translated by Mynydd

Notes by the translator
[*]The author ignores in this article that prior to the Madrid attacks on March 11, Spanish public opinion had expressed its opposition and rallied against the invasion of Iraq. Even when this opposition was conveniently instrumentalized by the Spanish Left with the sole intention of overthrowing the Liberal Government of José María Aznar.

In the article, once again, the true war against Islam and Islamification is partly confused with the interests of the US, UK and Israel. in as far as it uses the true argument of the overtly hostile and dangerous Islam to justify the invasion of Iraq, under the laicist government of the Baath Party and Sadam Hussein, and which has provoked a rise of jihadism in the region (not only in formerly laicist Iraq, but also in other countries with a laicist regime like Syria) and consequently a strengthening of Islamism in the world.