← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
In the name of Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. Firstly, it must be clarified that there is no justice in any law not based on the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds. We are talking about a conflicting law, or more precisely, a law conflicting with the Sharia of Allah, the Most High. The amendments made are amendments to a law that has been in practice since 2006, and it is not something new.
These amendments have restored to the State Security Court the jurisdictions that were taken away from it as a result of the constitutional amendments that came in line with the Arab Spring, or what is known as the Arab Spring. This means it is a reversal of these amendments, which we do not glorify, but the jurisdictions taken away from the State Security Court have been restored with these amendments.
The observation on these amendments is that they have expanded the description of terrorism to include every Muslim concerned with the affairs of his nation and religion in the comprehensive and complete sense. The law previously only included physical acts, but now it includes denial by speech and expressing opinions on many issues. These amendments are indeed a form of terrorism to muzzle mouths and besiege the effects of the Syrian revolution, and besiege the effects of what is known as the Arab Spring, even from those who do not commit physical acts.
How has the new definition of terrorism become? I said that it has now become more vague and broad. In fact, it is necessary to provide examples of this vagueness. This law has expanded the scope of criminalization, correct? If you explain this story and quote the texts.
Now I will read some texts from the new law, from the amendments. But before we read these texts, an important point is that it has been reported in the media that these amendments have been made in line with international systems and laws. Of course, they will not mention that international laws have not yet made Bashar al-Assad, who killed hundreds of thousands and tortured him and his soldiers, raped, burned, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Muslims, a terrorist. America's Abu Ghraib, America's Guantanamo is not terrorism. The Zionist entity is not terrorism. While the fighting groups that defend their religion, land, and honor are terrorist. Therefore, when we now read the word terrorism, we must keep this image in mind: what do they mean by terrorism?
For example, from the texts: "Carrying out acts that may expose the Kingdom to the danger of hostile acts or disrupt its relations with a foreign state." You notice the very broad vagueness in the matter of disrupting relations. If you criticize China on an issue, this actually applies to disrupting relations. Carrying out any means directly... if you criticize Bashar, to remove an embassy yes, a sister and friendly state.
"Carrying out any means directly or indirectly to provide funds or arrange them with the intention of using them to commit a terrorist act or fund terrorists, whether the act took place or not, inside the Kingdom or outside it." This of course includes jihadist acts as is evident.
Also talking about ammunition and weapons to carry out terrorist acts or for improper purposes. To become more vague, it is not only terrorist acts by their definition, but "for improper purposes." Of course, it is not improper in the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds, in the Sharia of the earth. Therefore, resisting the Zionist occupation is now considered improper as a result of the Treaty of Wadi Araba, that it has become a state whose rights are protected as stated in the article I referred to: it is not permissible to commit anything against it yes, it disrupts the relationship with it.
"Using" and this is a dangerous and new phrase: "Using the information system or the information network or any means of publication or dissemination or publishing a website to facilitate the commission of terrorist acts or support for groups or organizations or associations or the promotion of their ideas." Beautiful, or the promotion of their ideas. Now I am on Facebook talking about jihad, this can be considered promoting the ideas of terrorist groups, even though Facebook is the closest thing to private social councils. Expressing an opinion in these private councils on Facebook, an article, articles, a thought, a comment on an article, a comment on a news item, publishing a video clip, has now become covered by the law after the amendments.
Of course, criticizing the criminal practices of a friendly state by the government's definition is also criminal. The court may decide that what you did is not a terrorist act or is not promoting terrorist ideas, but when will this decision come out? After a year and a half. I was one of the victims of the laws of the war on terrorism, and I was acquitted of what I do not mind being convicted of after 470 days. Yes, it's as if you were sentenced, what's the difference? It's as if you were sentenced.
Also from the texts: "Any act intended to incite armed rebellion against the authorities established by the constitution or prevent them from exercising their functions derived from the constitution or changing the constitution of the state by unlawful means." Therefore, refusal in this law is an act. This may include soldiers, may include judges if they refuse to enforce the constitution in an unlawful manner according to those who drafted this law. In the previous texts, it was only the act and not the omission, now the omission has become an act for them. Yes, the omission itself has become an act.
"Punishing the accomplice" is also one of the dangerous texts: "Punishing the accomplice in any form of participation in any of those crimes or intervention in the crime or incitement to it or assistance in its commission with the penalty of the original perpetrator, whether the crime was committed inside the Kingdom or outside it." This incitement is also a very broad concept. Incitement to jihad has become incitement to terrorism.
Now I really wonder: the Muslims in Syria, Syria is taken by the criminal army, it rapes it, throws it naked, then if one of the Muslims tries to pull it or cover it and return it, they shoot him, kill five and ten in this way. This, God willing, we will come to it in practice that there is a legal cover so that the state can reach out to whomever it wants, any human being who expresses, tries to be an active denouncer of evil. You have said well, and the vague texts mean that whoever speaks can be convicted of this. Yes, and this is what is required.
According to the new laws, a terrorist act has become "any act, abstention from work, or threat thereof." A threat, for example, someone says, "By Allah, I will burn the pub." "Or the threat thereof, regardless of its motives," of course, even if they are Islamic, or rather, specifically if they are Islamic. "And its purposes or means fall under the implementation of an individual or collective criminal project that endangers the safety and security of society or causes sedition." Or causing sedition if it is likely to disrupt public order.
I wonder now, for example, the file of new Muslim women who convert and are killed, like what happened to our sister Butul Haddad, may Allah have mercy on her and accept her. If I raise this topic on Facebook and demand that there must be protection for new Muslim women, and there is a wave of responses from some bigoted Christians. Now, sedition has been stirred. Am I condemned by this law? A question that needs to be answered honestly. And according to the law, you are charged according to the texts. Now, this text covers it. It allows the judge to act on this text.
Yes, "or spreading fear among people or terrifying them or endangering their lives or causing harm to the environment." Yes, look, now of course if someone... what about the environment? If someone goes on a trip and leaves something behind, they really cause harm to the environment. "Or public facilities or private property or diplomatic missions or occupying any of them." Now, occupying any of them reminds us of what happened in Tunisia, for example, when a group of people who were zealous for the Messenger, peace be upon him, protested in front of the American embassy. They did not kill anyone from the embassy, and what they did was that they crossed the fence. Now, occupying the embassy has become, if this act is repeated here, a group of people who are zealous for the Messenger of Allah when a defamatory film is published or this country commits crimes against our brothers in various parts of the world, if we occupy part of this embassy without killing anyone, this is also considered a criminal act.
"Or coercing a legitimate authority or an international or regional organization to perform an act or abstain from it or obstructing the application of the constitution or laws or systems." I wonder, now obstructing the application of the constitution and systems, are protests, for example, considered a means to obstruct systems? Or in a protest, I demand that Jordan withdraw from the Sidaw agreement, which is immoral and actually opens the door to pornography. Is this considered obstructing the application of the constitution, laws, and systems? This is a question that needs to be answered. And another question arises, what about obstructing the law of the Lord of the Worlds? This law describes those who challenge the positive law as terrorists. This is a terrorist act that is criminalized.
In the last question, what about those who insult Allah, the Almighty? What about those who defame the religion? What about those who insult the Prophet, peace be upon him? There are laws that punish in the penal code, of course, not in the anti-terrorism law. It is known that the penalties are usually light and not enforced. But why do we not see any mention of the sanctities of Muslims, the Sharia of Muslims, and the religion of Muslims, the religion that the people of the country adhere to, in the anti-terrorism law? This may be an open question.
I understood through the expansion or what you explained, Doctor, in the case that they expanded this criminalization that they want more and more margins, it seems, until they tighten the noose on the jihadists. This seems to be, regardless of the application, always the transfer to the court or judiciary is political. It is ultimately a political decision that may commit some of these acts and go beyond them, may be defined. But it is also said that the law targeted the penalties themselves, the harshness of the penalties. What about them and what can be understood from them or what can the jihadists or what can the Islamists understand from them and the general public? How do you also describe the harshness of the penalties?
Allow me to start by saying that I do not recognize the term jihadists or Islamists much. I mean, I am a Muslim scholar, just to clarify the term. These laws are intended to besiege every human being who is truly zealous for his religion, every active person. With the precise term, forgive me for that. The sea is not a personal issue, but it means something we do not want a state of isolation. We are the Islamists, we are the jihadists, the preachers, the influential people in society who reject the state of humiliation and disgrace, the influential jihadists. Yes, that's what I meant. No quarrel over the terminology here.
In response to your kind question, what about the harshness of the penalties, I reiterate that our problem is with the criminalization of acts commanded by Allah, the Almighty. It is not my problem that the penalty is light or heavy. My problem is that this is considered a criminal act in itself.
For example, one of the forms of harshness in these amendments is punishing every terrorist act with hard labor for a period of five years. This is the minimum penalty of five years for everything we mentioned. For example, permanent hard labor if the terrorist act results in causing harm, even partially, precise here, my brother. Yes, in a public or private building or industrial institution or ship or airplane or any means of transport or any other facility. And what we talked about was the taking of lives or causing injuries to people, about means of transport and private buildings, or the act led to disrupting communication channels and computer systems, or hacking their networks.
Now, of course, a private building includes pubs. Yes. It is not a matter of subjectivity or error to target pubs in our country, this is not the subject now. But the subject is a question, if a Christian burns a pub belonging to a fellow Christian in the street out of trickery, or because they are opening two competing stores, will the anti-terrorism law cover him? Of course, it will not cover him. Therefore, the matter has become targeting a specific group. It should have been added to the law: any terrorist act with Islamic motives. Any act with Islamic motives. It is true that it is or with political motives. Or political motives. If someone burns an empty car belonging to an American officer present here who is training Iraqi-American forces to kill those who should not be killed, this is burning a car and a terrorist act punishable by permanent hard labor. The harshness of the penalties is truly beyond imagination in these laws.
Yes, we spoke to lawyers. The lawyers say that one of the most important characteristics of the law, as Professor Musa Broos indicated, is the political motivations more than the penal aspects, as if politics determine the penal side. Do you see that? Therefore, the use of the law sometimes becomes more political.
In fact, there are clear indications that confirm to you, for example, the timing of these amendments coincides with the statement of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, which placed many groups on the terrorism list and increased their penalties. The Egyptian military authorities also placed groups on the terrorism list and increased their penalties. These amendments also come amid the emergence of a phenomenon of popular sympathy in the Islamic nation with terms that were usually distorted by the media: jihad, caliphate, the implementation of Sharia. People now have the courage to demand the end of foreign presence in the Islamic region, liberation from an international system, and they are now demanding their rights. The timing of these amendments seems to be aimed at containing these intellectual and psychological phenomena.
We must also remember that the transition of this spirit to neighboring countries, what surrounds Syria for example, what surrounds the countries that carried out the revolutions, means the birth of a new nation, which is not desired by the systems in the Islamic world. These amendments came to contain intellectual change first and foremost, whether it leads to material action or not.
I do not really believe that it is about containing intellectual change? Even the intellectual and psychological change, as Professor Musa indicated. Now, I do not think that the biggest and most important goal of these changes is to prevent the transfer of the combat situation from Syria to Jordan. This is not what frightens the systems in the Islamic world the most now. If a material action is carried out that leads to the killing of souls that do not deserve to be killed in the religion of God Almighty, these actions are condemned even by Muslims whose religion is Islam. These uncalculated, unacceptable material actions are easy to contain. Their owners usually do not have a base, they do not have a support, and therefore it is easy to contain and eliminate them and they do not pose a serious threat to societies as the media sometimes portrays.
But what leads to real change is intellectual change, psychological change, the psychological readiness of the Islamic peoples towards liberation and taking off and demanding the Sharia of God Almighty. It seems that the biggest goal of these changes is to contain this psychological change, to create a state of fear so that people lose all the gains they have gained from the recent Arab Spring.
Now, there is also an important point here, not only about amendments to the anti-terrorism law, so-called terrorism, but there is also, in parallel, a fatwa law that stipulates the prevention of unqualified persons from issuing fatwas and punishment for those who violate this. Of course, someone might say yes, we need to regulate the process of issuing fatwas. I say in this case, is this really our problem? Have nightclubs, bars, and Iraqi army training centers in Jordan been banned? Do all of these need fatwas from specialized authorities? And if the specialized authorities issue fatwas, will they really implement their recommendations and fatwas? Yes, it is clear that there is a process of muzzling people, as if it is intended that citizens or Muslims in our countries stand in queues at hospitals and have their mouths sewn shut. It has become a siege from all sides.
Beautiful, it's as if I understood from you that there is a policy, that there is a region that seems to agree. Yes, the lawyers also spoke about this, that there is a deviation of legislative treatments from addressing the most dangerous criminal phenomena in the kingdom, combating crimes. I mean, like Israeli espionage, especially in Jordan. I mean, in your opinion, there is something that is not balanced.
Of course, we return and say that any law that does not rely on the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds cannot be described as balanced or just at all. And the most dangerous thing for societies is to deviate from the Sharia of God Almighty and to judge people with the whims of a group that wants to achieve its interests. God Almighty said: "But if they turn away, then know that they only want to cause fitnah. And if they turn away, then know that they only want to cause fitnah. And the Messenger, peace be upon him, said: "If their leaders do not judge by the Book of God and seek what God has revealed, then God will make enmity among them." If we are talking about social peace and security in the country, this security only happens by applying the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds, establishing the Sharia of God Almighty. These laws and amendments make some of what God has commanded criminal acts, and therefore they will not be balanced in any way.
But I say, for example, there is a growing phenomenon of atheism in universities, there is sexual deviance, there are files of rampant corruption in the country, which results in poverty, which is followed by crimes. Correct, the nightlife, espionage by the Zionist enemy. These files are much more dangerous to social peace even by the definition of politicians and lawmakers. Much more dangerous to Jordanian society. The Soviets that Professor Musa Abdullah mentioned. I mean, when you present it this way, that special forces surround bearded and veiled people who kidnap their heads, is this phenomenon really present in our country? I mean, are tourists kidnapped in the morning and evening? Is this our problem in Jordan? And therefore, there is an erasure of the Islamic identity in this country. In fact, there is the CEDAW agreement, unfortunately, most people in Jordan do not know its very dangerous moral and religious dimensions. These are much more dangerous than the issue of material actions that shake the country as the politicians seem to say.
Peace be upon you. Some people say that the harshness of the law may ignite the popular reality when it is applied. It is clear that pressure leads to an explosion. In your opinion, does this law make the preachers or those who carry the burden retreat, or can it also ignite the popular reality? What do you think?
In reality, if pressure and security grip worked with regimes towards peoples, it would have worked in Egypt, it would have worked in Iraq, in Libya, in Tunisia, where torture, and disappearance in prisons without trials, but it did not work in these countries. Excessive harshness leads to pressure, and pressure actually leads to an explosion.
We are indeed, when we talk about these amendments, a very important point, we do not talk about it so that people are afraid, and so that they retreat from supporting their brothers in every corner of the earth, may the wrath of Allah be upon them. We do not want to move from the wrath of the law to the wrath of Allah, the Most High. If we seal our mouths and do not deny the evil, neither with our hands nor with our tongues, and are content with our hearts, then Allah is about to bring upon us the wrath of Allah, the Most High. Allah, the Most High, said: "But if you desist, it is better for you; and if you return (to sin), then verily, Allah is Free of need, Praiseworthy." We have not desisted, we have not waged jihad with ourselves, less than jihad with words, less than defending the mujahideen brothers. Allah, the Most High, said: "And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they would not be like you." The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "No one who abandons a Muslim in a place where his honor is violated and his sanctity is diminished, except that Allah will abandon him in a place where he loves his support."
What is happening to us in the Islamic world is unique in each country, they come to them with chaos, wars, and disturbances from where they did not expect. It is a fact that we make our brothers in every Islamic country. But we must remember that what is happening to them is part of the reason is that they have abandoned their brothers before. Therefore, we do not want to leave our children after us an inheritance full of humiliation, degradation, submission, and surrender. We know in the end that this law targets the influential. Now if the influential are besieged and abandoned by Jordanian society, in the end, the one who wants to preserve his honor in his home and prevent his daughter from going with her companion to Aqaba, this will be criminalized according to the CEDAW convention, prevents her from a right that the Jordanian state has committed to. Therefore, we must remember that this law in the end, in fact, these amendments in the end affect the identity of the Islamic country.
Riyad, some legislators say that this law may also limit the development of political work and political participation and know the modern atmosphere of reform. In your opinion, did it have an impact on the story of political participation? Did they turn it into a state towards it?
Of course, the law restricts political work under the umbrella of the constitutional system so that this work is not effective at all. Notice that it focused on protecting the constitution and even abolished the effects of constitutional amendments. Therefore, it tells people who want to participate, please participate but within our conditions, and leads to a clear game field, not in the field of change at all within these controls. Yes, and I believe that this law contributes, as Professor Musa pointed out, to the story that even non-Islamic, even non-preachers, even those who try to raise an idea, this law may also affect those who want to say the international system and its followers, no, those who want liberation in the establishment of an independent entity from the international system, of course. Yes, this law serves it.
The law criminalizes resistance and has sparked a lot of controversy, linking it to terrorist work on the grounds that it considers the state of the entity and the state of occupation a protected foreign state, correct? How do you see it?
It did not stipulate that, but of course its applications include without a doubt the Zionist entity, the aggressor, the usurper, the occupier, considered a friendly state after the Wadi Araba Treaty according to some definitions. Therefore, criticism of it or incitement against it or considering what is done against it as jihadist acts, this is considered spoiling that it describes a relationship with a friendly and protected state. It did not exempt that there was a controversy about exempting the story of resisting the occupation, it was not exempted as far as I know. Of course, the occupation in Afghanistan is also an occupation, the occupation of any Muslim country in Mali is also an occupation. Yes.
Jamil, now we want to move from the story of the anti-terrorism law and with the belief that we have understood from you, Dr. Iyad, many details of this law, its political and social dimensions. Now we go to Sham, and if you want to correct me, you are free as one of the experts on what is happening in Sham. What is happening in Sham? Some people, I am one of those who no longer understand what is happening, who is fighting there, who is fighting? I will give you your time so that we understand.
Yes, it is an important basic introduction that in fact the basis of the battle in Sham began between the Syrian regime supported by the international system on the one hand, and by the Muslim people on the other hand. Among the international conspiracy on Sham is the attempt to create cracks and divisions in the Islamic ranks. The Muslim people in Sham are indeed fighting on behalf of the Islamic nation. The Islamic nation does not understand this speech, the enemies of the Islamic nation understand this speech. Now, the Alawite Ba'athist Assad regime has gathered around it even those who disbelieve them in their false religions, all sects have gathered around it to ally against the Muslim people of Sham. Unfortunately, the Islamic nation is now, to a large extent, has abandoned the Muslim people of Sham. Therefore, it is expected that the abandonment of the nation to this Muslim people will increase and magnify the effects of international cunning and conspiracy against it. Therefore, we say it is not surprising that this stumbling, these disturbances, and these problems occur, but the wonder is that the Sham jihad remains steadfast until today after three years of its beginning. It is an orphan revolution that has no one but Allah in the true sense of the word, and Allah, the Most High, is sufficient as a trustee.
Within the conspiracy plan, our enemies always study the points of weakness in the Islamic nation. They found that one of the most important points of weakness is the state of intellectual and methodological division, which was accompanied by a lack of discipline in the etiquette of disagreement, the presence of whims, chances of the self, and a lack of religious knowledge. They fed some cases that became a burden on the revolution of Sham and became part of the problem instead of being a solution to the problem. For example, the tendency towards extremism, hostility towards workers in the arena, defaming the Islamic project. On the other hand, the submissiveness to external parties and working to achieve their agendas. These two cases exist in factions to varying degrees. The conditions of oppression, injustice, and police grip and security tightening in Muslim countries feed the state of extremism as well as the state of subordination.
Of course, we do not say that the entire arena has emerged in these two poles. There are, praise be to Allah, many factions that have escaped this polarization, from standing in these two cases. But these moderate, good parties, owners of the Islamic project and the good Islamic vision, if Allah wills, suffer from these factions and these cases.
Therefore, we can say there are three main projects in Sham. This point is important, the division of the main projects in Sham. There are many projects, but perhaps the most important and active now are:
There are other projects as mentioned, but these projects are more like magnets that attract factions and individuals who get closer to this project or move away. There is a dynamic state of change that we cannot easily say that this faction or that adopts the first project completely. You may find that this faction has many of its members and leaders adopting this project, but there is a state of scrutiny.
And there is a very important point that we should not forget: Jihad in Sham was imposed on the people by force. And this point is very sensitive. What do you mean by force? Meaning, it was not that there were stable matters, then the jihadi groups entered the arena of Sham after long planning, after educational incubators, and agreement on vision, message, and goals. That was not what happened. What happened was a revolution that started in a spontaneous way. The regime was very repressive and criminal in dealing with it. People found themselves forced to take up arms. Now, there is a great intellectual diversity in the arena. The Syrian people are a people who have been alienated from their religion in general for decades under this criminal regime. Therefore, now people are being educated, people are being scrutinized. That is, we must take care of this state of division and conflict present, part of whose causes is that the nation was not ready, the people of Sham were not ready for this jihadi state. And it is not as the media portrays that the problem is summarized in Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham and small groups that are fighting among themselves. That is not the case at all. Now, the general fighting is directed against those who kill Muslims and violate their sanctities. So, the truth of what is happening now is a continuous scrutiny and in the end, the truth of these projects will be proven.
Beautiful, as for the outside, there are hands that meddle, it is said that the Syrian arena has become a playground for all the intelligence agencies present in the correct. But there are central hands that have delved into the Syrian file, who are they in your opinion? That is, the role is their opinion in reality the question should be who are the countries or the hands that do not have a central role in Sham? They do not. Indeed, as you have mentioned, all countries and regional and global intelligence agencies are present in the Syrian arena. There is a difference between these countries regarding the stay of Assad or the non-stay of Assad, the re-enactment of the sectarian system and its non-re-enactment. But in the end, certainly all of them agree on one thing: the necessity of not establishing an Islamic state, an independent Islamic entity that is not subject to the international system because this threatens their interests and this means the unraveling of the international system in its entirety.
So, you do not want to mention, as you wish. Can you draw us a map of the combat work in the Salafi camp in Sham? Who are the fighting factions there?
I avoid mentioning factions for a reason, which is that we may thereby infringe on the right of some of the active factions on the ground that have great achievements on the ground but are not active media-wise. The revolution of Sham is ultimately a popular revolution in its beginning, and this is what distinguishes it, that it is a Muslim people who have revolted and mixed with it the jihadi state, and not a jihad of elites as some think. Yes, therefore, it is very, very difficult to enumerate the active factions. But we say that even the naming with Salafism may feel a state of separation that there are Salafis and people, while the reality is that many of the groups framed with Salafi origins have succeeded in forming alliances, forming alliances with other groups, to come out, for example, with common formulas with covenants that declare their will to establish the law of Allah Almighty and liberation from the international system. Of course, the groups that declare this and differ in application are very much Jabhat al-Nusra, the group of the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham, Sham al-Islam, the Islamic Union for the Soldiers of Sham, and others and others.
The notable thing is that at one time, democracy was the popular commodity, and therefore, whoever wanted to gain the support of the people would say democracy, democracy, freedom, these resonant phrases for the people at that time. Now, the good phenomenon is that in Sham, Sharia has become a resonant slogan that brings people together, right or wrong, but I mean the general Syrian people now have awareness that there is no liberation for us except by the establishment of an Islamic entity. Yes.
Where is Al-Qaeda in the ongoing fighting in Sham? Al-Qaeda, talking about Al-Qaeda has become every work that is attributed to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda and Sham, we understood the equation and understood it as a state of description of people without knowing the truth. Yes, yes.
The faction that declares its affiliation to Al-Qaeda and cannot do so now is Jabhat al-Nusra. Jabhat al-Nusra coordinates and participates with other factions in its war against the regime and the militias cooperating with it. This breaks the state of stagnation that many jihadi groups lived in, whereby Jabhat al-Nusra tries to engage others in its project without abandoning its declared goal, the old and new goal of Al-Qaeda, which is the establishment of the law of Allah Almighty, liberation from the international system. Therefore, the question is truly not what was the impact of Al-Qaeda on Sham, but to avoid provoking non-combatants, to avoid mistakes that tarnish the image of jihad and Sharia, and that without yielding to its demand and its highest goal, which is the establishment of the religion of Allah Almighty and the liberation of the nation. Yes.
That is, Al-Qaeda is support, we understand it this way. Who is ISIS? What is its relation to Al-Qaeda?
The Islamic State in Iraq and Sham now denies that it was assigned by the leadership of Al-Qaeda. But when Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri came with the original texts, they prove that this group was a branch subordinate to the leadership in Afghanistan. Therefore, the origin is that the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham, from which Jabhat al-Nusra emerged, is part of Al-Qaeda. But currently, it disavows the methodology of Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda, in fact, I think is on its way and has not disavowed the methodology of the Islamic State group. Yes.
The last question I ended with was: What is the future outlook for the future, the future of Salafi-Jihadism in the Levant, knowing that the scene indicates an internal dispute within this Salafism and decisive battles to come that we may witness in many areas?
First, the question I raise is: What is the future of Islam in the Levant? I, for myself, say from a thorough follow-up that I am optimistic in the long term that Allah, the Almighty, will decree relief and an exit for the nation, and the Levant will be the first of this relief. The long term means two dates we are in everywhere. The long term but the Levant is different in reality from what happened in Egypt and others. There is a jihadist state that the people are living, so we expect a long and difficult labor, but with the permission of Allah, after that, relief.
The project that will remain is the pure methodology project, difficult to tame, intertwined with the nation, understanding the nature of the battle that it is a battle against the international system and its tentacles. It is not a battle with people classified as these Sahwat or these deviants, etc. The project that seeks to elevate others, not to classify and antagonize them, is the project that will remain, with the permission of Allah. Here I say project and not faction because, in reality, factions and alliances may change. For example, when the difficult tests come, especially since the international system is intervening in financing and arming, when these factions are put to the test now, they are not asked for many concessions. One day, they will be asked for concessions, they will be asked to be a compliant seal in the hands of foreign masters. At that time, we expect cracks, splits, and schisms within these alliances and within these movements. Therefore, he who is on this methodology and this pure project that we love today may be on something else tomorrow.
You did not describe the future according to reality, you looked at the future, Dr. Iyad, according to reality. How do you see the future? You started the distant future in the short and medium term, and you are an expert in the short and medium term.
We indeed expect more and more conflicts and problems even within the Islamic ranks. Of course, the problems of the Levant are not confined to the problems of Salafi groups. Even if we assume that the current conflict between the two groups of Al-Nusra and the State or the State and other factions is resolved or one of these groups has disappeared, there are indeed very big problems, and the international conspiracy will not end. In fact, we are now only talking about an international conspiracy; there are also security breaches. I repeat and say an important issue: sometimes methodological deviation and security breaches lead to the same function. If a person is engaged in actions, believing that he is thereby drawing closer to Allah, the Almighty, but he is not guided and enlightened, the results of his actions may be worse than the results of the security breach.
Here, in an important point that I want to focus on and deliver a message. Yes, and we conclude with it. Yes, and we conclude with it, God willing.
Engagement in a constitution or a governance system that makes sovereignty for anything other than the Sharia of Allah, the Almighty, was my view that it was necessary for them to either not revolt from the beginning or to continue a revolution until it uproots this deep state, fights, struggles, and continues its jihad until the Sharia of Allah, the Almighty, is established. As for me to participate in a system of sovereignty in which there is anything other than the Sharia of Allah, I see this as invalid in Sharia. And I see that democracy is a means of deceiving and misleading the peoples. The democracy that is promoted in the Muslim countries that it is the rule of the people for themselves and that the people choose the laws and systems, this is a form of shirk in legislation with Allah, the Almighty. But many of the people who followed us at that time or now, when we criticize democracy, may imagine that we accept some of the bad models existing in the Syrian arena currently. I would like to emphasize and clarify that I, as Iyad, and many others who criticize democracy and see acceptance of it as shirk with Allah in legislation, do not accept, never, in return, exclusionary models that want to impose themselves on people, see the necessity of others' obedience to them, claim empowerment, and when they reach it. Models that, if anyone opposes them, they immediately drop them, do not respect the great, nor honor the scholar. Models that make controversial matters, which were controversial in the past and should remain controversial, into conclusive matters such as the kufr of the common Shiites, and whoever opposes these matters is a person who has deviated in his methodology, has gone astray. Or like the issue of declaring kufr on dignitaries. I am not walking with democracy; I consider it shirk in legislation, but to say that everyone who participated in it is a kafir, meaning no issue of obstacles and conditions, etc. This is a jurisprudential issue that I make an doctrinal conclusive issue with no room for dispute collectively and mislead those who oppose it. These groups do not represent us, and we do not represent them. This is extremism; this is not something we accept. Extremism, we do not accept it, regardless of who practices it now, who practices it in the future. We say this project does not represent us, and we do not represent it. The project that represents us and we represent is a project that says yes to the sovereignty of the religion of Allah, the Almighty, yes to ruling by what Allah has revealed. This is what the nation should strive for with all means. We, as a nation, participate in that.
The last question I want to focus on: Instead of saying what is the fate of jihad in the Levant, we really want Muslims in all parts of the world to look at what is happening in the Levant as if we are watching a documentary film talking about what happened in ancient times. Yes, we must be active and influential. The important and pressing question: What have we presented to the religion of Allah, the Almighty? What have we presented to our brothers in the Levant? A man asked the Prophet, peace be upon him, as in Bukhari: O Messenger of Allah, when is the Hour? The Prophet, peace be upon him, used to turn unbeneficial questions into beneficial ones, and said: "What have you prepared for it?" What have you prepared for it?
How can we support first? How can we support? These laws of preventing terrorism and non-terrorism do not prevent us from supporting the religion of Allah, the Almighty, in all possible forms of support. We are ultimately faced with two choices: either the Sharia of Allah, the Almighty, and submission to it, or the Sharia of counter-terrorism and submission to it. If we submit to anything other than the religion of Allah, the Almighty, we will move from the wrath of the servants to the wrath of Allah, the Almighty. Therefore, the very important point, a point I would like to conclude with: There is a state more dangerous than negativity. We say the negativity that our countries live can be 99% of the people of Jordan are outside the coverage, they do not know anything about the Levant nor do they care. And this is a state that threatens the wrath of Allah, the Almighty. Abandoning our brothers. More dangerous than that, my brother, much more dangerous than that, that some have transferred the conflict of the Levant to all Islamic arenas. Has our time become here in Jordan? Are you with Al-Nusra or with the State? This is something of the utmost danger. It means, in the end, it will not benefit the Muslims in the Levant in any way but will transfer a state of disintegration without anything. So, it means, I