Granskningar av Argument och Fakta

i samband med ideologier och religioner

Anwar al-Awlaki om kalifatet, demokrati och
Muslimska brödraskapet

Shejk Anwar al-Awlaki var en amerikansk och jemenitisk imam som dog i en drönarattack år 2011. Hans bloggar och anföranden finns fortfarande kvar på nätet och bidrar till att sprida hans uppfattningar, där han bland annat hävdar att islam och demokrati är oförenliga, och att sharia ska genomdrivas med våld och inte med demokratiska metoder. Den här notisen innehåller några citat i den frågan från hans bloggsidor.

Ett av hans inlägg har titeln Voting for American president och innehåller bland annat följande text.

Democracy is a system of governance that is different than the Islamic system of government and is opposed to it and is being spread by the West in the Muslim world by force as an alternative to the Islamic Sharia law.

It is a duty upon us Muslims to strive through Jihad to establish the Islamic Khilafah (kalifatet) again. This is not a far fetched idealistic objective but is a tangible realistic one if we but put the effort into achieving it. Therefore the Muslims in the West should see their stay there as temporary and not permanent because it is not feasible to establish such an Islamic state in the West and the Muslims should strive to make hijra to Islamic lands even though they are not ruled by Sharia in order to use their abilities and resources to bring back Islamic rule in Muslim land.

Ett annat inlägg har titeln A Question about the method of establishing Khilafa (kalifatet) och det är både skrämmande och intressant. Inlägget diskuterar olika sätt att åstadkomma ett islamistiskt styrelseskick, och följande är vad han skriver beträffande alternativet att arbeta inom ramen för det demokratiska systemet.

The promoters of change by participation in democratic elections started out by stating that democracy is kufr and we do not believe in it but we are using it as a vehicle to reach to power and after we reach to power we will implement Islam. This is what I heard from every single leading member of Ikhwaan in the late eighties and early nineties. I clearly remember the public discussions that were held on this issue because the Salafi’s back then were very much against Ikhwaan on this point. I also remember clearly the private discussion I had with some of the shuyukh of ikhwaan who would reiterate the same point again and again: Democracy is un-Islamic and we are participating in elections but our intentions are to change the system from within.

There are three problems with this method:

First: It is a deception and a lie to use democracy and claim to be adherents to the democratic system but not believe in it. Now deception is acceptable against the enemy if the Muslims are in a state of war with the them. The problem is that the particular groups that are involved in the democratic process do not believe that they are in a state of war with the disbelievers but believe that there is a covenant between the Muslims and the disbelievers. So if we are in a covenant with the disbelievers then it is not allowed to use deception against them and it is not allowed to lie to them. That’s the first problem.

The next problem is that when you repeat a lie long enough you end up believing it. For those who knew these groups from the eighties it is strange for them to see how much they have changed over time. Now they are saying and I have heard this more than once from their prominent members that now we genuinely do believe in the democratic system. We believe in the ballot not bullet. And if the ballot decides that a secular or disbelieving party wins we will accept that.

As Muslims we should not subject Islam to the whims of the people, if they chose it we implement it, if they don’t we accept the choice of the masses. Our position is that we will implement the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the sword whether the masses like it or not. We will not subject sharia rule to popularity contests. Rasulullah says: I was sent with the sword until Allah alone is worshiped. That path, the path of Rasulullah, is the path we should follow.

The final problem is that the Muslims’ method is not a method of infiltration. Muslims do not try to infiltrate the system and work from within. It is just not our way. It is the way of the Jews and the munafiqeen but not the way of the Muslims. We are honest and straightforward with friend and foe. We make our intentions open and we declare our dawah publicly, "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." We do not want to infiltrate the system whether in America or in a Muslim country. The Jews are the ones who have infiltrated every government they lived under whether it was al-Andalus and the Ottoman khilafah or the Western governments of today. They have a hidden agenda, we don't. The Jews and their brethren, the hypocrites, tried to infiltrate the government of Rasulullah and were exposed by Quran:

"And a faction of the People of the Scripture say [to each other] , "Believe in that which was revealed to the believers at the beginning of the day and reject it at its end that perhaps they will return [i.e., abandon their religion] "

So they would become believers and come in to the community only to leave it at the end of the day. Allah also talks about the hypocrites who would sit among the believers and convey what they hear to the Jews.

Therefore for those who say that we should be involved with the system and change it from within are not following the path of the Muslims and if their character is that of a Muslim they would fail because infiltration just doesn’t work with Muslim behavior. But if they do succeed in infiltrating the system then that is proof that their character has become that of the Jews or the hypocrites and not that of the Muslims.

Med Ikhwaan avses Jamiat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, dvs. Muslimska brödraskapet. Inlägget är intressant både genom att det ger uttryck för Anwar al-Awlakis egna uppfattningar, och genom den inblick det ger i Muslimska brödraskapets sätt att tänka och agera. Självklart måste man dock vara källkritisk vid läsningen av detta. Är det sant att Muslimska brödraskapat hade den beskrivna inställningen under åren omkring 1990, eller ger al-Awlaki en inkorrekt bild? Likaledes, är det sant att Muslimska brödraskapets företrädare hade ett sant demokratiskt sinnelag omkring 2007, när ovanstående skrevs, eller var de då inte uppriktiga om sin inställning, eller har al-Awlaki beskrivit dem felaktigt? Man vill ju inte vara paranoid, men givet att al-Awlaki skriver det han skriver så måste man ändå vara litet skeptisk till alla de inblandade.

Samtidigt kan man också ställa detta citat i relation till den utveckling vi nyligen sett i Egypten, där Mursi valdes som president på demokratiskt sätt och av allt att döma förfor på precis det sätt som al-Awlaki beskriver Muslimska brödraskapet.

Det är också intressant att den judiska minoritetens deltagande i styrelsen av de länder de bott i betraktar al-Awlaki som en "infiltration". För vårt synsätt är det ju helt normalt att även minoritetsgrupper ska kunna delta i ett lands demokratiska styrelse, och varför inte också i ett auktoritärt styrelseskick under tidigare generationer. Men för al-Awlaki är det allt eller intet: man ska vara tydlig, man ska ta över, och därefter ska man genomdriva sin egen doktrin by the tip of the sword whether the masses like it or not. Tankemönstret är kusligt välbekant.

Denna artikel har varit publicerad sedan ovan angivet datum på den tidigare webbplatsen för Argument och Fakta, vilken finns arkiverad . Den lades också in på den nuvarande strukturen (www.argumentochfakta.se/divlib/) den 2017-08-27.