Convenient Terrorist

To understand Abu Zubaydah’s life as a Jihadist, it is important to understand what Jihad meant to Abu Zubaydah.

The practice of Jihad has been part of Muslim culture for over 500 years. The Arabic word “Jihad” essentially means “struggle.” Accordingly, there are three specific areas of struggle in a Muslim’s life and society where they may encounter Jihad. These are:

• Internal Jihad–An individual Muslim’s internal struggle to live the Muslim faith and follow the Koran.

• Holy War or Military Jihad—The struggle to defend Islam against any real or perceived enemy of the Muslim faith.

A person involved in military Jihad is called a Mujahid. A group of Muslims involved in military Jihad is called Mujahedeen. Military Jihad can be broken down further into two subsets—offensive Jihad and defensive Jihad. These two strains are distinct, and differ greatly in their underlying philosophies.

A report published in 2006 by the Hudson Group, titled “Jihad Ideology in Light of Contemporary Fatwas,” defines offensive Jihad as “a collective duty of the community of Muslims to pursue the infidels into their own lands, to call upon them to accept Islam and to fight them if they do not accept Islam.” In this sense, offensive Jihad is not found in the Koran and for that reason, most Muslim scholars do not believe it is a legitimate form of military Jihad. However, many terrorists and terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and ISIS, believe deeply in the philosophy of offensive military Jihad.

The same report by the Hudson Group defines defensive Jihad as “an individual duty for all Muslims to defend Muslim lands when the infidels prepare to attack them or when they attack and occupy them.” This language has a basis in the Koran and is accepted by most Muslim scholars as the legitimate form of military Jihad.

There was not a better example of defensive Jihad in modern history than that of the Afghanistan War. In the late 1970s through the 1980s, as the Soviets invaded, the native people organized and rose up an army of Jihadist, Mujahedeen fighters to defend their homeland, and they received strong support from US, which sent hundreds of millions of dollars—along with weapons—to help them fight the Soviet invaders. Eventually, after ten years of war, the Soviet invaders were forced out.

In the instance of the Afghanistan War, the US government had wholeheartedly and explicitly supported a Jihadi cause. Yet the tenor of the world changed on September 11, 2001. Since that date, the word “Jihad” has been considered as exclusively meaning “offensive Jihad.” In many cases, its true meaning has simply become “terrorism.”

Since Abu Zubaydah’s capture, he has adamantly denied being the number two person under Osama bin Laden—which he was originally accused of being. He has also denied being a member of Al Qaeda and/or practicing their offensive Jihadi philosophy. He has tried to make the case that, instead, the Jihad that he practiced was “defensive Jihad.”

He is on record as arguing this in a Combatant Tribunal Review Tribunal Hearing (CTR) at Guantanamo Bay:

“Our doctrine was not the same as what USAMA BIN LADEN and al Qaida were promoting, which was and is a doctrine of offensive Jihad.”

In the same review, it became clear that either the Air Force Colonel in charge of the hearing did not believe or did not understand the significance of what Abu Zubaydah was saying.

“What role, offensive or defensive, the individual had in the force is not relevant. Only the fact that the person was a part of the enemy force is relevant…the Tribunal does not take into account the individual’s personal beliefs.”

Ironically, while in this instance the US government refused to take Abu Zubaydah’s statement into consideration, to this day it has not offered any proof that Abu Zubaydah was ever a member of Al Qaeda. Few would dispute that nations and religious sects have the right to defend themselves when attacked. The Middle East has been invaded, occupied, and often exploited by outside forces for many years, and the line between terrorism and legitimate popular resistance is often less than clear—but this is a fact that a senior military officer should know.

The fact that the nuances involved in Abu Zubaydah’s claim were so readily ignored is troubling.

Was it merely an atypical lapse in judgment on the part of the government? Or was it, perhaps, the sign of something infinitely more intentional and sinister?