Osama Bin Ladin

[Catya Sher]

Helpful discussion, thanks everyone.

The fact that the sources cited seem to agree very closely about Hazrat Isa's return
gives a lot of weight to the belief in the Mahdi [AS] predictions.

Still I appreciate the warning of Idiot :
"The thing you have to study about hadiths that their almost written as a riddle, and east of Damascus, can literally mean anything"

In this case, it says THE East of Damascus, and I think the minaret may be on the east side of the great Umayyad Mosque. It's on the right as you face the entrace, whether that's East or not, I can't say because I'm bad with directions.

But the fact that a white minaret is clearly stated lends credence to the belief
that it would be a minaret of this supreme, central Mosque of the city since the time of the Arab conquest.

As I recall without looking at my photos, the minaret was a little different than all the rest.

Certainly today people of the region are vividly remembering this prophecy, so they believe for sure.
No doubt they are keeping their eyes out all the time for Hazrat Isa to appear there.

[کیش]

Am thinking those Syrians build the masjid their, because of that Hadith. When the Prophet said, or if he said east of Damascus, their was no masjid in Damascus, yet along east of it. i wonder what he meant.

[Catya Sher]

No.
The same edifice had been there for thousands of years perhaps.
First Aramaic temple, then
temple of Jupiter
then Christian basilica housing the reliquary of the head of St John the Baptist [Prophet Yahya] -
So when the Omayyads came, they very politely negotiated with the Christian authorities and for a time both used this area for worship.
Then the Omayyads asked for the whole space and to have it beautifully adorned and the minarets built. This was in the later 600s.
By 715, it was one of the great Wonders of the World, so large a mosque, viewed as such a holy place, even the 4th most holy in the Islamic world.

I checked and the Minaret of Isa IS on the southeast side.
Here's a pic to show you. I remembered that flat square surface - it's unique among the other 2 minarets there.

So there's no way this Mosque was built tailor made for the Hadith.
it's always good to have a questioning mind though.
I appreciate the percentages of accuracy of the various sources.

[unknownprince]

just a few corrections here. You all may have already done it. Prophet Isa(pbuh) will descend on Damascus, he is the one who will kill the the Dajjal. The Mahdi will be born in Saudi Arabia.

[کیش]

just a few corrections here. You all may have already done it. Prophet Isa(pbuh) will descend on Damascus, he is the one who will kill the the Dajjal. The Mahdi will be born in Saudi Arabia.

These are one of the only authentic hadiths regarding a Mahdi

Abu Nadra reported: We were with the company of Jabir Ibn Abdillah... Jabir Ibn Abdillah kept quite for a while and then reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: "There would be a Caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it." I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-Ala: Do you mean Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz? They said: NO, (he would be Imam Mahdi).
Sunni references:

Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, p1508, Tradition #6961
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Fitan, v4, p2234, Tradition #67


Abu Sa'id and Jabir Ibn Abdullah reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: "There would be in the last (phase) of the time a Caliph who would distribute wealth but would not count."
Sunni references:

Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, p1508, Tradition #6964
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Fitan, v4, p2235, Tradition #69

A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day of judgment when Jesus, the son of Marry, will descend, and the leader of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying: “No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has bestowed his bounty upon them. (Sahih Muslim)

What will be your reaction when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends and your Imam is from among yourselves? (Sahih Muslim, bab nuzul ‘isa, Vol. 2; Sahih Bukhari, kitab bad’ al-khalq wa nuzul ‘isa, Vol. 4) Abu Hurayra


It's not 100% that the Mahdi will be from Saudia Arabia, or Arab for that matter. Of the 140,000 prophets, the all mighty sent, only about 3 were Arab (Mohammad, Saleh, HUD (PBUThem))

[Catya Sher]

Im sorry that I don't know, but who is the Prophet Saleh ?

[کیش]

Im sorry that I don't know, but who is the Prophet Saleh ?

No need. I would recite his story but, it would be better if you check his story out from Quran and Hadiths.

Prophet Saleh, was from Arabia, and from the town of Thamud. His story is heart wrenching, search for it on Yahoo, Wikipedia, Quran.

Because of the people of Thamuds actions, god destroys the town for an example for future generations.

[Badlun]

The topic was book of Michael Scheuer but we made it discussion on Mehdi.
May be Abdali can create a new thread and there we can discuss Michael Scheuer and his books.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The topic was book of Michael Scheuer but we made it discussion on Mehdi.
May be Abdali can create a new thread and there we can discuss Michael Scheuer and his books.

It is interesting, I am currently in the 5th chapter and finished the 4th chapter. Chapter 4 is called Organizer and Chapter 5 is called Surviver and Planner.

I advocate evidence first, second, and third and will not waiver from this measure, even if it works against my ethical operating paradigm.

There are some historical underpinnings to the Afghancentric viewpoint that Toramana, Baygham, Osho, perhaps Eusaphazai Wrorryaan advocate. It maybe that their opinions are the culmination of reactions to recent historical facts on the ground. Perhaps they would have done us a better service had they taken the time to extricate the complex role of others in the Pashtun belt. This would have allowed for a greater bridge to understanding their vantage point. Its rather dismaying that it took an Angreez to tease out the complexities of the ground level situation in 80s/90s Afghanistan.

However, their response may very well represent that of an informed intellegentsia (ANP, Mellat, etc) with an agenda as opposed to the Afghan centric viewpoints of folks like the late Mullah Naqibullah of Arghandab or Yunis Khalis, etc. The latter individuals may hold an Afghancentric viewpoint but temper it with the conservative Pashto nonsecular values. For instance, it is well known that Mullah Naqib did what primarily benefited his Alokozai tribe in switching sides, but attempted to sustain traditional Pashtun values in his neck of the woods of Arghandab.

I now understand what drives them a bit more after reading up on the history of Arab-Afghan presence.

Others are welcomed to correct the narrative and add to Michael's well of information.

So to summarize it appears that there were three strains of Arab influence within the confines of the Afghan war against Russia:

1) Abdul Azzam: The forefather and spiritual leader of all that were to follow. He appeared to be at odds with the Saudi- Prince Turki Al Faisal and Prince Nayef faction + Pakistan Military establishment that wanted to install their own influenced faction (Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and Hekmetyaar). In fact, he believed Ahmad Shah Massoud ought to be the Emir of Afghanistan... fascinating factoid that I had not previously known.

2) Turki Al Faisal: Former head of Saudi intelligence (DIG)... he and Prince Nayef were eager to install a regime in Kabul that would counter the possible unifier role that Massoud would offer to the Central Asian Republics and Iran (i.e. countering shiah influence). See above. They were dismayed at Abdul Azzam and DIG was equally dismayed with Osama Bin Ladin unified the 7 mujahideen factions.

3) Mr. Bin Ladin: Appears that Abdul Azzam was a major influence on him. He loved him the way a teacher is loved by the student. There does not appear to be any evidence at all to buttress the claim that he in any way influenced the death of Abdul Azzam. However, he did disagree with Abdul Azzam on the choice of Mossoud to lead Afghanistan and vehemently pushed a Pashtun leadership role per his strong relationship with the Pashtun fighting units.

Now the complexity in simply endorsing Wrorryaan's view (Toramana, Baygham Khan, and Osho) lies in the ground level realities if we merely stopped here. They are certainly correct that the above parties played a series of interventional roles in the Afghan struggle. However, the issue is complicated by the what the chapters describe as a sustained Western effort (including on the part of the US) to influence the outcome in Kabul. The latter groups sent dignitaries and even arms to ensure that secular, technocrats, and folks that had sat out on the sidelines during the Afghan-Russian War (in Michael's words basically everyone who had done nothing during the war) would take over after the hard work had been done. At one point Zalmay Khalilzaad himself advocated an acceptance of Najib's central government. This then renders Wrorryaan's points moot because for every intervention, there is an equal and opposite set of interventions (1 through 3 above).

------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Interventionalism 2:

So now the chapters go on to describe the post Sudan era of Mr. Bin Ladin's activities. The move to Afghanistan appears to have been calculated.

A facet of AQ's operations involved utilization of a new tool that the young Mr. Bin Ladin saw as indispensable to an insurgency being successfull against a superpower: the media.

This in turn caused some consternation between guests (the Arab Afghans) and the hosts (Mullah Omar). However, it was not Omar Hotak that invited Mr. Bin Ladin back to Afghanistan. That invite went out from Yunis Khalis who was the first to welcome the latter back to Afghanistan.

The meeting between Omar Hotak and Mr. Bin Ladin took place in Jalalabad when it was taken by the Taliban. The former extended hospitality to the latter. However, conditions were imposed... the former did not approve or appreciate the media operations undertaken by the latter. This exchange was confirmed to me when I came here to Connecticut per former spokesman Rahmathullah Hashemi who was a student here at Yale. The latter also dismissed this idea that is prevalant on the lips of Mr. Karzai and others that the Arab-Afghans were hated in Qandahar proper. He noted that Kandahar's stalled economy was pumped up by their presence.

The two leaders' goals aligned though when it came to eliminating Massoud. For Mr Bin Ladin, the utility of this would be that the Northern Alliance would be broken as a proxy force for the western powers to utilize in the setting of an invasion... for Omar Hotak the utility came in consolidating Afghanistan.

Now, the issue that Toramana and others may have, and that Scheuer documents with much detail is the planning undertaken to utilize Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt in general as a theater of war without the permission of Pashtuns:

Admittedly, it is written that Mr. Bin Ladin had detailed intricate planning for a war of attrition to take on "the far enemy" that propped up "the near enemy." The text that is referred to is the book of Omar Bin Ladin and his mother Najwa as well as other interviews. Multiple interviews are cited that indicate the planning was underway to lure the US into a military venture in the wiley terrain of Afghanistan. Scheuer surmises that Mr. Bin Ladin saw Sudan as unsuitable territory in which to stage this war of attrition per the multiple hostile countries surrounding Sudan that could have been utilized as proxies as well as the easy to battle on terrain.

Afghanistan on the other hand offered a difficult fighting terrain coupled to a hostile border with a country that had no incentive to back a western oriented regime in Kabul (Pakistan) and a country generally with bad relations with NATO on the other border (Iran).

In the interim, he renewed ties with the fighters in the frontier corps of Pakistan who had participated alongside him against the Russians. He also took every opportunity to laud Pakistan's anti India activities and support for a Kashmir insurgency. This furthered his support in the FATA belt.

Finally, Mr. Bin Ladin continued his media activites to the consternation of Mullah Omar. The proof given for this by Scheuer is that there were multiple interviews, for instance with famed reporter Mr. Yusufzai, where Mr. Bin Ladin publicly offered to leave Afghanistan if he was becoming a liability for the Taliban and appeared to indirectly challenge their mission statement of a supportive emirate for Muslims (I can provide this reference if need be). Dr. Scheuer ties this to the idea that this was a way for Mr. Bin Ladin to repeatedly reference the Pashtun codes of taking shelter and force Omar to stand by his word. The evidence given for this is that Omar Hotak was then forced to make subsequent statements reemphasizing that he had not asked Mr. Bin Ladin to leave Afghanistan. When the USS Cole operations were undertaken the AQ were sure that this would have forced the US to intervene militarily and were utterly surprised that the bait was not taken. The 2001 activities however did serve as effective bait.

I believe that the ethical question of utilizing Pashtun lands as the grounds for a war of attrition is a real one, especially if the leadership and the people were in the dark about the strategy. The planning was, however, effective, per the factors stated above (the terrain, surrounding countries, sustainable insurgency, etc) and is achieving its stated goals if the stats Dr. Scheuer cites are correct regarding the military and its failure to achieve any of its objectives. Moreover, the direct interventionalism by the western powers in the Arab lands, especially Saudi still cannot be ignored as the first in a chain of events that led to that outcome.

The problem for the Pashtun on the ground though, of maintaining a resprentative government, is still not solved by the ANP/Mellat/Secularist Interventionists that are on the other side of the intervention coin. The complex picture that emerges on the ground is that there are two groups of people beckoning outsiders to intervene into Pashtun politics: Mr. Bin Ladin et al. to instigate a war of attrition with the US and the ilk and descendents of Mr. Abdul Samad Achekzai et al (such as Mr. Karzai)/Zahir Shah et al who invited the Russians and sustain US intervention to further their own ends.

The picture becomes even more complex and far from the simple Saudi dominated narrative pushed by ANP when we see that there were at least 2 attempts by Takfiris to kill Mr. Bin Ladin in Afghanistan that was funded by Saudi and halted by the Taliban, making it difficult to allege that the latter were pure DIG/ISI proxies.

What does all this mean for the American Pashtun?: It means our adopted country is being damned if they do and damned if they do. Yep, I said that last part correctly... because its a positive feedback cycle. Mr. Bin Ladin set up the bait... and Mr. Karzai is unwittingly sustaining the war of attrition and economic hemorrhage.