The Global Islamic Media Front, in cooperation with the Faloja Forums, has announced, “The Media Incursion of the Imam and Martyr Abu al-Nur al-Maqdisi.” It has five goals:
- Expose the truth about Hamas’s “crime” and “lies,” i.e. the recent attack on Jund Ansar Allah (JAA).
- Expose the truth about Hamas today and how it has “strayed” from its foundational roots.
- Let Muslims know that the money they give Hamas equates to “bullets in Muslims’ chests.”
- “Support the monotheistic mujahidin, who fight for the word of God and for the rule of God’s absent law.”
- “Distribute the legacy of the Imam Shaykh Abu al-Nur al-Maqdisi.”
Thus far, the effort consists of a new forum dedicated to Abu al-Nur al-Maqdisi on Faloja. There are not many posts yet, but several appear to be interesting, such as a photo list of JAA members killed in the battle with Hamas. Other posts include: “Two Imams of Truth: The Red Mosque and the Ibn Taymiyyah Mosque. What is the difference?”; “Was Abu al-Nur al-Maqdisi one of the Khawarij or a Tyrant?”; “Dangerous Speech: Hasan al-Banna – Hamas is not Islamic and it Claimed That”; “A Resounding Scandal: A Voice Recording Confirming the Execution of Wounded Mujahedin by Hamas During their Ride to the Hospital”; and “Hamas’s Crime in Rafah.”
This makes the split between Hamas and the salafi-jihadi movement plainly obvious. As the attack against JAA and last year’s attack on the Army of Islam indicate, Hamas is currently powerful enough to deal with these fringe elements. However, if conditions in Gaza continue to worsen or Hamas’s position becomes more perilous, these groups may gain more momentum and power, complicating any reconciliation with Fatah or Palestinian agreements with Israel.
4 Responses
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing your expertise and analysis.
“This makes the split between Hamas and the salafi-jihadi movement plainly obvious.”
I have argued the same thing.
Perhaps the main reason the West would consider Hamas more stable (if Fatah becomes emasculated), is because the experience of the West with fundamentalist Islam (and I strictly mean Islam that is true to it’s original, fundamental teachings) is one of uncertainty.
I am quite sure that if the groups advocating a return to orthodox Islamic governance were seen in a more positive light by non-Muslim countries, then perhaps an orthodox, peaceful Islamic state would be tolerated by non-Islamically governed countries.
The reason I’m mentioning this, as absurd as it may sound, is due to the one view in the US at the moment, that advocates a the possibility of perhaps incorporating the Taliban into the political process. This idea does however require that the Taliban not use violence and that the US would be absent from the area.
There are some in Washington that believe that the Taliban can be separated from the violent methodology of al-Qaida. And if the Taliban website statement in recent days is anything to go by (as I hope it is), perhaps all the non-Muslim countries of the world will have nothing to fear from a Taliban or orthodox Islamic government in Afghanistan, or Palestine for that matter.
I know these ideas are absolutely ridiculous to some but I feel that one must try to be positive in these times.
An American Islamophobe bashing it out with a Salafi extremist, to the irritation of everyone else on the thread — hey, you’ve just created a microcosm of the modern Middle East. 🙂