PREDICTING AL QAEDA'S COLLAPSE

There is a growing belief in western security circles that Al Qaeda is being so badly damaged by theological attacks from some of its former allies and mentors that it may self destruct. The real question is how much of that belief is based on wishful thinking rather than hard facts?
It is true there has been a heated theological debate about Al Qaeda on jihadist websites and on major media outlets across the Arab world, including Al Jazeera. Much of it stems from the fact that Al Qaeda has not only brought the US and its allies into wars on Muslim lands in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has engaged in sectarian warfare against Muslims. In Iraq, it has murdered thousands of Shiite Muslims, as well as Sunni Arabs, who have sided with the US. It has also sought weapons of mass destruction to kill tens of thousands innocent people in the United States and Europe.
There is now an open debate in which former Al Qaeda allies and religious mentors have charged that Osama Bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman al –Zawahiri, have strayed from the basic doctrines of Islam by killing Muslims whom they disagree with theologically, particularly Shiites, and also innocent Christians in western countries. The critics have warned Osama Bin Laden that Al Qaeda will bring untold destruction on Muslim lands should it explode a nuclear or biological weapon in an American or European city.
A reformed jihadist leader, who warned Bin Laden before 9/11 that “intimidating” America would lead to the destruction of the Taliban, has asked Al Qaeda to pursue what he has referred to as a different path of Jihad. He is Norman Benotman, now based in London, who was a leader of the “Libyan Islamic fighting Group” until he became disillusioned with the use of terror following the attacks on the World Trade Center. He has successfully encouraged some of his former Libyan terrorist colleagues to break with Al Qaeda.
Benotman has standing in the world of Islamic jihad because he can claim to have attended one of the most important international terrorist conferences before 9/11. It was held in the summer of 2000 in Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was presided over by Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Last November, Benotman was openly critical of the Al Qaeda leaders in a letter published in the Arab media but virtually ignored by the US media. He reminded them of the Kandahar meeting and how he warned them at that time of the potential consequences of their actions. He told them any “non-conventional” attack on America would lead to the occupation of the whole area and not just Afghanistan.
In his letter of last November, he pointed out that when it became apparent to him in 2000 that Al Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, he told Bin Laden that using such weapons would bring “more destruction, havoc and humiliation upon the Muslin and Arab worlds.”
He tried to persuade Bin Laden at the time not to attack America but Bin Laden told him there was a pending operation he could not abandon. That operation turned out to be the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
In his letter, Benotman informed Al Qaeda that the only distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs was their piety. He was referring to the way Bin Laden, as a Sunni Arab was branding Shiite Muslims with whom he disagreed theologically as apostates who could be killed in accordance with his views of jihad and other tenets of the Koran.
Benotman’s credibility as a critic of Al Qaeda is rooted in the fact that in his letter he did not argue against jihad. In fact, he warned Al Qaeda that its tactics were “fragmenting and internally draining Arab lands” and the outcome would be that Israel would have “control over the future of the region for a hundred years.” Benotman was able to make statements like that in Europe but it is unlikely he would have been able to do so if he had been based in the United States. For example, his letter suggested that Al Qaeda should “dismantle its “Islamic State of Iraq” organisation and fight alongside Sunni insurgents. He pleaded with Bin Laden not to sow dissent among Palestinians and to support the mujahideen in Afghanistan, meaning The Taliban. Despite the fact he offered such inflammatory advice, security experts in the West saw his attacks on Al Qaeda as something they could exploit to damage the Al Qaeda brand name among young people in the Islamic world.
Benotman accused Bin Laden and his deputy of reducing jihad to “mere terrorist and violent attacks, reflecting a state of anger, frustration, impotence and self expression.
Benotman’s views alone would not be considered important if they were not linked to similar denunciations of Al Qaeda by two powerful theological figures who were mentors to Bin Laden’s closest adviser, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. One is Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, a surgeon who was once imprisoned with al-Zawahiri in Cairo, and still languishes in an Egyptian jail cell. He is believed to have provided Al Qaeda’s with an interpretation of the Koran that it used to justify its actions and recruit followers. In 2007 he challenged Al Qaeda’s basic ethos and condemned the 9/11 attacks. Like Benotman, he made it clear he believed 9/11 was counterproductive. The cumulative effective of the positions adopted by Benotman and Dr. Fadl has been a heightened awareness in the Islamic world of the death and destruction brought to Arab and Muslin lands by Al Qaeda’s obsession with killing innocent people in the west and murdering Shiite Muslims.
It could be argued that this debate would not have taken place in the wake of 9/11, or after the invasion of Iraq, had it not been for Al Qaeda’s killing of innocents in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Aside from Benotman and Dr. Fadl, the powerful Saudi cleric and theologian, Salman al-Oadah, who was once Bin Laden’s spiritual mentor entered the fray in late 2007. He too condemned Bin Laden for killing innocent men, women and children. He stated that the US occupation of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan and the expanded western military presence in Arab and Muslim lands, was the fault of Al Qaeda.
The prediction by security experts that these verbal assaults will weaken Al Qaeda, leading to it losing support and imploding, may be wishful thinking. The problem with such a prediction is that it is predicated on what may be prove to be a misconception, namely that Arab youth is sufficiently educated to understand the nuances of the ongoing debate, or that Arabs generally will stop funding extreme versions of Islam that contribute directly to the growth of Al Qaeda. Secondly, if Al Qaeda imploded, it could morph into several smaller bodies that might be difficult to find and eliminate. There is also the issue of Pakistan and the fact that there is little to suggest the Pakistani government and military have the will to move into the tribal lands bordering Afghanistan to wipe out Al Qaeda’s leadership and its bases.
Nevertheless, the debate taking place within the Arab and Muslim world is important because it is forcing people within Islam to look closely at what is in their midst. Over time, it could have a drip, drip impact on Al Qaeda, ultimately limiting its flow of recruits.