Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 7:31 PM
Mohammed Essam Derbala, one of the leaders of the Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiya, today called on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to declare a unilateral four month ceasefire [hudna] with the United States to test Barack Obama's pledges to establish a new relationship with the Islamic world and to close Guantanamo. I don't think this is exactly the dialogue the new President has in mind, I'm afraid. But the back story is kind of interesting.

Mohammed Essam Darbala. Image captured from al-Arabiya television.
Mohammed Essam Derbala is on the Shura Council of al-Gamaa al-Islamiya, an extremist Islamist organization at the heart of the brutal insurgency which roiled Egypt from 1992-97. He was arrested in 1981 following the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Back in 2002, while in prison, Derbala authored one of the first comprehensive critiques of al-Qaeda on behalf of the Gama'a leadership. In November 2006, Derbala was finally released after 15 years in prison, part of a larger project by the Egyptian government to rehabilitate and release old Gamaa members. He has since continued to criticize extremist ideology, has called upon al-Qaeda to renounce violence, and has frequently criticized al-Qaeda.
Derbala's 2002 critique argued that al-Qaeda's violence violated Islamic law and, as Fawaz Gerges describes it, "denounced al-Qaeda for preaching that American and Muslim interests would never meet." He criticized American foreign policy severely but rejected armed confrontation and called for "engagement with the West based on mutual respect and peaceful co-existence." (This was in 2002, recall -- evidence that Dr. Fadl's much- heralded "recantations" are not nearly as novel as they have been made out to be in recent American discussions). There's not much new in Derbala's appeal for a dialogue or for an end to al-Qaeda's violence, therefore, except the specific gambit of proposing a hudna in response to Obama's election. (Which is kind of clever, in a headline-grabbing way, I'll admit.)
Does this matter? Probably not all that much (although I'm one of those who didn't think Dr. Fadl mattered very much either - still a matter of much debate amongst smart experts, I know). Most dedicated salafi-jihadists probably see Derbala as a sell-out or as a relic, while the mainstream Muslim public only vaguely knows who he is. Al-Qaeda's leadership is no more likely to listen to Derbala than it was to Dr. Fadl. Nor do I think that Obama will be, or should be, the slightest bit interested in a dialogue or ceasefire with al-Qaeda even were one offered. He should instead push ahead on marginalizing al-Qaeda, while refusing to allow its terrorism to exercise a veto over the possibility of new, constructive relations with the vast majority of the Islamic world (including moderate Islamists, I would add).
Still, Derbala's call is kind of interesting and worth at least acknowledging.
According to Islamic Law, a hudna can only be implemented by an Islamic force if that force is weak and losing. Islamic Law also requires that the hudna be ended as soon as the force becomes powerful enough to wage effective war once again. Also, it cannot last for more than ten years.
Which school of thought are you presenting?
Who's "Islamic Law" are you representing? You do realize that there are other "Islamic Laws" available outside of the "Formal Salafi Interpretation" you are representing. With all due respect, try not to use a propagandized ideology thinking that it represents all of Islam. To be fair there are 5 major schools of thought and they differ in different areas.
The plurality you're talking about here itself violates fundamental aspects of Islam. Isn't that true? Especially when they decentralize the law into fragments which can't all reflect the will of God. The most frightening aspect of that point to me is that violence and power as core "ends" in themselves replace God. That is more than a little scary.
that violence and power as core "ends" in themselves replace God. That is more than a little scary.
Scary to you and me both!
But the "plurality" that was being discussed there is the Jurisprudence (??? - Fiqh), whose decentralization is not a mutation of Islam, but a fact that is found in all Religions. Even more so, it is found in any ideology from IA to science to common law.
What you are talking about here is Doctrine (????? - Aqeedah). You are correct, this does violate some fundamental aspects of Islam, but the will of God has and is open to interpretation. Not something that I condone, but its a reality. Just as there are plurality in Christian and Jewish Doctrine (and Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh), Islam would be no different.
My comment to the gentleman above was a response to someone, analogously, pulling out a decree from the Pope, and assuming it speaks for all of Christianity. It doesn't... it only speaks to those who adhere to the Pope's jurisprudence.
Remember Humans are capable of acting the same no matter what religion they follow. Violence was a CORE tool in the Spanish Inquisition, which was believed to be a religious duty by both jurisprudence and doctrine. Does that reflect the will of God? No it doesn't.
Should every conscious and honorable person be worried or frightened by the fact that people of influence are using religion as the medium to usurp power and unleash violence? Absolutely. That's why ALL Humans have to work together to "wage peace!"
Thank you for this report and analysis. Having watched the Northern Ireland problem, and lived on its edge for decades, I shudder at the complexity of the relationships in Islamic terrorism. Iran is clearly a leading agent of violence and instability. Hamas and Hezbollah have their motivations, but have external support.
Some hold that the Israel-Palestine issue is the central issue. But if the different strands of the problem could be separated, if Al Qaeda were to take a step back, solutions might be crafted more easily.
Truce sounds like a good word. And if it were to last a few years, and spread to Lebanon and Gaza, young people might get to like the sounds of peace. And parents might want their children to grow up in peace.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE