Cameron on “A Translation of Abu Walid al-Masri’s Reply”
Charles Cameron, my regular guest blogger, is the former Senior Analyst with The Arlington Institute and Principal Researcher with the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. He specializes in forensic theology, with a deep interest in millennial, eschatological and apocalyptic religious sects of all stripes.
Zen here – some background prior to Cameron’s guest post. As I mentioned previously, Charles, a while back, posted a deeply reflective essay here at ZP and at Leah Farrall’s All Things Counterterrorism, in response to the unusual dialogue that Farrall, a former Australian counterterrorism official, was having with Abu Walid al-Masri, an Egyptian strategist of jihad, a sometime critic of al Qaida and an adviser to the Taliban. In other words, al-Masri is an influential voice on “the other side” of what COIN theorists like Mackinlay and Kilcullen call the “globalized insurgency” and a theorist of insurgency himself. After some delay, al-Masri responded to Charles, as Farrall described:
Abu Walid al Masri responds to Charles Cameron
Abu Walid has responded a letter from Charles Cameron. Abu Walid’s response to Charles can be found here. You’ll notice when following the link, that he has a new website.It’s well worth a look. There is also an interesting comment from a reader below Abu Walid’s response to Charles; it’s from “one of the victims of Guantanamo”.
As you’ll see from his website Abu Walid is also engaging in a number of other interesting dialogues at the moment, which I am interested to read as they progress.Charles wrote his letter in response to the dialogue Abu Walid and I had a little while back. For those of you new to the site, you can find this dialogue to the right in the page links section. The letter from Charles can be found on my blog here.
….These letters may not change anything, but they are important because in mass media sometimes only the most controversial and polarising views tend to make it into the news.I think person to person contact, especially via mediums like this, can go some way to providing opportunities for all of us to discover or be reminded that there is more than one viewpoint and along with differences there are also similarities. Contact like this humanizes people, and in my book that’s never a bad thing.
With that context in mind, we will now let Charles take it away:
A TRANSLATION of ABU WALID al-MASRI’S REPLY
by Charles Cameron
I asked a native-speaking grad student associate of mine to give me a literal translation of Abu Walid’s response to my post, and then tweaked it to give it a reasonable combination of accuracy and fluency, and my associate has kindly given the result his thumbs up — so what follows is probably fairly close to the sense of Abu Walid’s original.
*
Is this a return to the Age of Chivalry? — Comments on the Response of Charles Cameron
May 31, 2010
Author: Mustafa Hamed, Abu al-Walid al-Masri
MAFA: The Literature of the Outlaws
Charles Cameron’s words, in his comment on the dialog between myself and Ms. Leah Farrall, were wonderful, both for their humanitarian depth and in their high literary style, which makes it difficult for any writer to follow him. He puts me in something of a dilemma, fearing any comparison that might be made between us in terms of beauty of style or depth and originality of ideas — but in my capacity as one of those adventurous “outlaws”, I will try to contemplate, rather than compete with, his response, since this is what logic and reason call for.
Charles Cameron was deeply in touch with the roots of the problem that the world has (justly or unjustly) called the war on terror: it is a cause that relates to the sanctity of the human individual, and his rights and respect, regardless of any other considerations around which the struggle may revolve.
No one can argue about the importance of peace, or the need all humans have for it, nor can anyone argue that war is not hideous, and universally hated. And yet wars are still happening, and their scope is even increasing.
And now the West claims: it is terrorism — as if war on the face of the earth were the invention of Bin Laden and al-Qaida — and all this, while many others are arguing ever more forcefully that the opposite is true, that al-Qaida and Bin Laden are the invention of war merchants, and that no one can definitely declare as yet — in an unbiased and transparent way — who caused the events of September 11 and the deaths of three thousand persons.
It is not only the one who pulls the trigger who is the killer, as we know — the one who set the stage for a crime to be committed, who arranges the theatre, and opens the doors, and lures or hires the one who pulls the trigger is even more responsible. He’s the one, after all, who carries away the spoils of the crime, then chases down the trigger-man and finishes him off — not for the sake of justice, nor for love of humanity, but to hide the evidence of the crime, to erase his own fingerprints, and assassinate the witnesses who could implicate him.
For example: was the execution of Saddam Hussein really about bringing justice? Of course not. They executed him after a travesty of a trial for the most trivial of his crimes. Nobody, however, asked him about his most significant crimes — they killed him before he could admit to them, or name the major partners who brought him to the apex of his power, and provided him with a full range of lethal weaponry including weapons of mass destruction, so he could perform mass murder with confidence in his own impunity.
I personally (and here I speak only for myself, so Ms. Farrall need not get irritated) would have preferred to have Charles Cameron as President of the US and a united Europe and the leader of NATO — then there would have been no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the problem of terrorism would have ended in minutes, along with the problems in the Middle East, and nuclear militarization, and even those of poverty and pollution. Why? Because not a single one of these problems can be solved except through the logic of humanitarianism, of justice, and love for people and peace, and hatred of oppression and discrimination between people in any form — we are all the creatures of God, and to Him we shall all return.
I am reminded of Richard the Lionheart, who came to lead a big crusade to capture Jerusalem from Muslim hands. The bloody wars he led brought fatigue to everyone and benefited neither the religious or nor the day-to-day interests of either party. Leading the Muslim campaign was Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), King Richard’s peer in courage, chivalry and wisdom.
Both parties finally agreed that Jerusalem should remain in Muslim hands — hands which would guarantee its security and that of its people, and of both the Islamic and Christian sanctuaries, preserving their interests and protecting the sanctuaries of all, in peace.
Thereafter, King Richard retreated from Muslim lands, carrying with him a most favorable impression of the Muslims and of Saladin as he returned to his own country, while leaving a continuing memory of respect and appreciation for himself and his chivalry with Saladin and the Muslims — which is preserved in our history books down to the present day.
It was Mr. Cameron’s spirit of fairness, chivalry and true spirituality that reminded me of King Richard’s character — but sadly, it is very difficult to find a ruler in the west like King Richard, and I find it even more regrettable that Muslims should have even greater difficulty finding among themselves a ruler like Saladin.
This is because things are on the wrong track, and people are not in their rightful positions. The wrong people are in power and leading us, while the best among us are weak and under siege.
No human likes or wants this state of affairs — but are the people who are in control of this planet real human beings? Can we consider those who own 50% of the earth’s wealth human, even though they comprise no more than 2% of the human population?
In my opinion, the situation is much worse than these international statistics suggest. I believe the number of those who rule the world is far fewer, and that they own much more. They are the ones who invest in all kinds of wars wherever, and under whatever name or banner, they may be found. The mention of war translates to these people as an immediate waterfall of gold tumbling into their usurious bank vaults, which hold the world — both leaders and led — by the neck.
I speak here of all wars without exception, whether they be the First and Second World Wars, or the wars in Korea and Vietnam, or the First and Second Gulf Wars, or the Third and Fourth, yet to come — whether it be a war in Afghanistan (to hunt for the “Bin Laden and al-Qaida” mirage) or in Iraq (looking for illusory “weapons of mass destruction”) or in Bosnia, Somalia or Africa — that continent of eternal wars for the sake of gold or oil fields — Africa, that colonized continent of disease, covertly modernized in the labs of the secret services and giant pharmaceutical companies.
I wish we could return to the age of chivalry– of courageous and rightly religious knights — for then wisdom would prevail and peace would spread, and we could leave this age of the brokers and merchants of war behind us.
Muslims always call on God to bless them with a leader such as Saladin , and I think they should also pray for God to bless the West with a ruler such as Richard the Lionheart — because without a Saladin here and a Richard there, the fires of war will continue to blaze. That’s the reason the brokers of wars will not allow the appearance of a Saladdin here, nor a Richard there.
By means of the laws to fight terrorism, the emergency laws, NATO, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, the various counter-terrorism forces around the world, the CIA and FBI, and the Army and National Guard, the Patriot Act in the US, the jails at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Bagram — and the secret “black sites” and “floating prison ships”– by all these means and many others, they kill and jail and start wars, so that humans (and terrorists) are not threatened by the likes of the two great kings, Saladin and Richard.
Therefore in the situation we find ourselves in now — despite our noble dreams of an age of knighthood and chivalry as an alternative to this age of broker kings — the destiny of all humanity, and even planet earth itself, remains in question. Of course there will be an end to all this someday… but how??… and when?? I do not think any one of us has the answer.
Finally I would like to thank Charles Cameron for his care in writing and commenting, and to express again my thanks to Ms. Leah Farrall, who deserves all the credit for initiating these dialogues.
Signed: Mustafa Hamed, Abu al-Walid al-Masri
June 17th, 2010 at 5:33 am
"I personally (and here I speak only for myself, so Ms. Farrall need not get irritated) would have preferred to have Charles Cameron as President of the US and a united Europe and the leader of NATO"
I agree. I for one welcome our new forensic theologian overlords.
A marked improvement over government by lawyers.
June 17th, 2010 at 6:21 am
Charles would make a very distracted overlord. Give him a sufficiently large library and we would be free of any significant governance for some time. 🙂
June 17th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
I notice that in his reply Abu Walid al-Masri refers to the theory that AIDS was deliberately created and spread in Africa:Africa, that colonized continent of disease, covertly modernized in the labs of the secret services and giant pharmaceutical companies.apparently accepting it as fact. While I recognize that belief is a commonplace in Africa and elsewhere in the world (it is held, for example, by a recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient), it is baseless. I point this out as an epitome of the difficulty of maintaining a dialogue when at least one of the parties relies primarily on rhetorical flourishes rather than on logic, evidence, or fact for his argument. It is interesting as a document but otherwise so riddled with fallacy and fiction as to be useless. The appeal to unnamed authority: <i>
.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Mark, Good post. While his remarks about Charles are admirable, al Masri and his colleagues represent the "19th century" he so eloquently longs for—the repression/subjugation of women. He and his colleagues’ deeds do not match his rhetoric; savage beheadings (video-taped no less) using children and the mentally ill as canon fodder/homicide bombers, and general intolerance. Like Mr. Schuler above, I notice the ubiquitous use of "they"—try as he might, he and his colleagues are on the wrong side of history.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Zen certainly understands me pretty well: that "sufficient library" would make for some very effective (and much appreciated) distraction.
.I’m fond of the story Chuang Tzu tells, in which he’s out fishing when two officials arrive bearing a message from the King of Ch’u: "I would like to trouble you with the administration of my realm." (Burton Watson’s translation). Chuang Tzu goes right on fishing while telling them, "I have heard that there is a sacred tortoise in Ch’u that has been dead for three thousand years. The king keeps it wrapped in cloth and boxed, and stores it in the ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its bones left behind and honored? Or would it rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud?" When the officials admit the turtle would prefer being alive and dragging its tail in the mud, Chuang Tzu tells them: "Go away! I’ll drag my tail in the mud!".
But I’ll settle for the library, and let the fishes go their own way…
.
*
.
I very much appreciate abu Walid’s response and kind words, and agree that they should be carefully parsed for nuance — but what most interests me is his choice to turn our dialogue to chivalry. Choosing to speak of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, and calling the latter "Richard’s peer in courage, chivalry and wisdom", and more generally noting Richard’s positive reputation among Muslims, strikes me as opening a possible shift away from the dehumanization implicit in most jihadist references to "Crusaders". I hope to respond to him in depth shortly.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
BTW — I should also note that abu Walid has a reputation for having "always been the voice of restraint within al-Qa’ida, and renowned for his moderate pragmatism" in Leah Farrall’s words.
June 17th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
al-Masri in terms of functionality, is a lot like Georgi Arbatov was during the Cold War. Part of a small group of Soviet officials who could engage in a dialog with Westerners without sounding like they were reading from the same index cards issued by the Central Committee. He’s interested in getting his memes across for his home audience as well as to neutral and uninformed observers ( recall that this exchange was first posted on al-Masri’s website or blog and not as any kind of private correspondence) and only after that, in engaging with Charles and Leah.
June 17th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
[…] be translated into English. Thanks to Cameron for giving me a heads up to the translation being published on ZenPundit’s website where Cameron regularly guest-blogs. Before the translation, Cameron […]
June 20th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
[…] as Charles Cameron – a regular guest blogger at zenpundit – started his own line of dialogue with said jihadi […]
June 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
[…] with an erstwhile al-Qaeda leader that has been going on in the blogosphere. Al-Masri’s reply to Charles was very interesting. Here is what I said to […]
June 29th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I was particularly delighted to read Fred Turner’s comments on Abu Walid’s post today. Fred is an old friend of mine from student days in Oxford, a distinguished poet and literary critic, Founders Professor of Arts and Humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas — and more than once a nominee for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Discussing Abu Walid’s response to me, he writes:
I think Fred is right in reading Abu Walid’s text as centered on Richard and Saladin, and that in itself — the choice to present two persons of chivalrous repute, one from each side in the crusades — I see as a chivalrous gesture on the part of Abu Walid.
.
I hope to respond to Abu Walid (after some more reading and reflection) with a similarly chivalrous account of the meeting between St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan Malik al-Kamil at Damietta in Egypt.
June 29th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I should add that Fred’s post, titled The Power of Conversation, is linked at comment #10 above.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
charles, congratulations on eliciting an interesting response, esp the allusion to richard the lion-hearted and saladin. i gather that both have long been regarded as exemplars of chivalry who admired each other.
.
but i wonder where the comparison could and should lead:
.
richard and saladin were religious conquerors. both were warriors intent on defending their faiths (saladin more so than richard). and both arose from situations where the ascent to leadership was fraught with dynastic and/or tribal intrigues and alliances, and where the exercise of command often led to brutal, predatory violence and plunder. chivalry was more episodic than constant.
.
i’d hypothesize that the christian crusades amounted to a kind of externalized tribalism, loaded with religious rhetoric about serving god (and king), yet prone to vengeful demonizations and depredations of the worst tribal kind. as for today, hasn’t al qaeda moved islam in similar directions, by tribalizing it?
.
sunday’s nytimes mentions a new book by fred donner that “explains Islam not as a static doctrine, but as one that evolved from an ecumenical, syncretic, pietist and millenarian cult into a more dogmatic and exclusivist faith.” i take this to mean that islam was not intended to be so tribal in its original manifestations.
.
in other words, the chivalry of richard and saladin may provide an appealing personal angle to discuss. but it’s dealing with the broader, terrible tribalization of religion that really begs to be opened up for discussion.
.
citations:
.
http://www.shadowedrealm.com/articles/exclusive/richard_saladin_warriors_third_crusade
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/books/review/Rodenbeck-t.html?ref=books
July 6th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
[…] At Leah’s invitation, I wrote up a short account of my own views in response to Abu Walid’s questions for Leah, and posted it on her blog, All Things Counterterrorism. Abu Walid seems to have liked my comments, and posted his own response to me, which I have worked with a native speaker to translate, and which is now posted on Zenpundit. […]
July 8th, 2010 at 8:28 am
[…] At Leah’s invitation, I wrote up a short account of my own views in response to Abu Walid’s questions for Leah, and posted it on her blog, All Things Counterterrorism. Abu Walid seems to have liked my comments, and posted his own response to me, which I have worked with a native speaker to translate, and which is now posted on Zenpundit. […]
October 28th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
It was Mr. Cameron’s spirit of fairness, chivalry and true spirituality that reminded me of King Richard’s character
This is what is needed by the young of all militia , and those too old to change as well, a real purpose to wage war, or, failing that transcend it by making peace.
October 31st, 2010 at 5:04 pm
David — I’d read your comment #13 when you first posted it, and intended to respond after suitable thought but got sidetracked… My apologies. It’s a very interesting point you are making, and one that perhaps ties in with another curious and fascinating issue, how spiritual authority is transmitted. There are various cases where there’s a contest between transmission to a disciple and descent within the family — think Abu Bakr or Ali, Brigham Young and RLDS for instance, and maybe James (and the Church in Jerusalem) and Peter (and Rome) in Christianity… basically a question of genetics or memetics? And then the tribal aspect of Judaism, surely has some "follow through" in Christianity and Islam… Thinking out loud here, grateful for your input…
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
charles — that’s a very interesting addendum about choices affecting the transmission of spiritual authority. i knew about the first case you mention, but not the others.
.
what’s especially interesting to me, as i try to figure out TIMN theory, is that the choice is partly about whether to remain in the tribal (T) frame by sticking with kin, or to start moving toward building a hierarchical institution (I) by turning to standards other than kinship.
.
i gather that islam has remained divided by the choice, which partly explains why it remains so tribal. in contrast, christianity went in the hierachical institutional direction, by way of catholicism and the papacy. then the latter got challenged by protestantism, which reflected the rise of the market (M) form. a question i’ve wondered about for a while is what religion may best fuel the spread of the network (N) form. but i drift off topic. . . . — onward, david