A Refutation Of The Recent West Point Study Claiming Al-Qa'ida Kills Mostly Muslims

“We haven’t killed the innocents; not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere
else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen’s operations, then it was
either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al‐Tatarrus (human shields).”
‐Ayman al‐Zawahiri
The Power of Truth, 2007

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point recently released a study that attempts to
contribute to the ideological war against the mujahideen. The report has been touted by many
press agencies and will certainly be floated as data utilized in the coming months and years. The
entire article is devoted to "disproving" the above statement by the Mujahideen, namely that they
do not kill civilians, and focuses on attacks carried out by any arm affiliated with al-Qa'ida. This
statement will insha'aAllah serve as an utter annihilation of this biased, unintelligent and
uninformed piece of propaganda put out by West Point. This is not an exhaustive refutation but
is meant to reveal the absurdity and malevolent intention of the report.
The study, entitled Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al-Qa'ida's Violence Against Muslims was
conducted by Dr. Scott Helfstein, Nassir Abdullah, and Muhammad al-Obaid. You will notice
that Dr. Helfstein was aided by two apostates from the religion and that he will inevitably be the
one roaming around and publicizing the report, but it serves in the U.S. military’s interests to
attach two Arab names onto the report thus furthering the ultimate objective of the operation, to
relegate Al-Qa’ida and their narrative to the fringe of the Islamic world thus preventing them
from gaining ideological and sentimental backing and thereby subsequent physical aid. We have
selected some of the main points of the article and will proceed to demonstrate how such
statements try to characterize legitimate, even if sometimes unfortunate, acts of war as terrorist
attacks targeting Muslims.
The report is initiated with some nonsensical claims with regard to its methodology. On the first
page we read,

"This report used Arabic media sources to study the victim’s of al‐Qa’ida’s violence
through a non‐Western prism. This allows researchers to avoid accusations of bias
associated with Western news outlets or U.S.‐based datasets. Almost all of the major
terrorism incident databases utilize Western and English language reporting as primary
source material."
and then,

"Regarding the system for analysis: This work built upon already existent datasets such as
ITERATE, which tracks transnational attacks, and the RAND incident set which was not
publicly available."

This is more or less irrelevant, as the Arab rulers and the media arms that operate under them are
more firmly against the actions of the Muslims and the Mujahedeen than anyone else on the face
of the Earth. It also has nothing to do with actual science. Utilizing journalism and the estimation
that is usually associated amidst the competition of reporting attacks before other agencies do
certainly serves to manipulate the data set as hypothetical rather than actual. Furthermore the
report utilizes data provided by organizations that are explicitly against Islam. For example,
RAND Corp. has said the following regarding the ideological struggle against Islam:

A mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most effective:

• Support the modernists first:

— Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost. — Introduce their views into the
curriculum of Islamic education. — Make their opinions and judgments on fundamental
questions of religious interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with those of the
fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have Web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes,
and many other vehicles for disseminating their views. — Position secularism and modernism as
a “counterculture” option for disaffected Islamic youth. — Facilitate and encourage an
awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic history and culture, in the media and the curricula of
relevant countries.

• Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:

— Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism; encourage

disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.— Discourage alliances between
traditionalists and fundamentalists. — Encourage cooperation between modernists and the
traditionalists who are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum. — Where appropriate,
educate the traditionalists to equip them better for debates against fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically
inarticulate “folk Islam.” In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated and
trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground. — Increase the presence and profile of
modernists in traditionalist institutions.— Discriminate between different sectors of
traditionalism. Encourage those with a greater affinity to modernism, such as the Hanafi law
school, versus others. Encourage them to issue religious opinions and popularize these to weaken
the authority of backward Wahhabi inspired religious rulings. This relates to funding: Wahhabi
money goes to the support of the conservative Hanbali school. It also relates to knowledge:
More-backward parts of the Muslim world are not aware of advances in the application and
interpretation of Islamic law. — Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.

• Confront and oppose the fundamentalists:

— Challenge their interpretation of Islam and expose inaccuracies. — Publicize the

consequences of their violent acts.

• Selectively support secularists:

— Encourage recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy, discourage secularist alliance

with anti-U.S. forces on such grounds as nationalism and leftist ideology. — Support the idea
that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too and that this does not endanger the faith
but, in fact, may strengthen it.

(Civil Democratic Islam - Cheryl Bernard)

Regarding Somalia and East Africa RAND Says:

Reduce the influence of foreign Islamist organizations by identifying mainstream and Sufi
Muslim sectors and helping them propagate moderate interpretations of Islam and delegitimize
terrorism. Given that Islamist organizations use the provision of social services to advance their
agenda, ways should be explored to help moderate Muslim nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) provide social services and therefore reduce the influence of Islamist NGOs. Of course,
this assistance should be extended in ways that do not compromise the credibility of the
moderate groups. (Radical Islam In East Africa - Angel Rabasa)

So we see from these quotations that the article, while attempting to look like it is using unbiased
sources, it is actually using some of the most biased sources available. By pointing to the
scientific references and the utilization of Arab press releases, the study adopts some perceived
legitimacy at first glance. However, the very methodology employed is selective in that it does
not consider the events in context and seeks to attain a particular outcome from the onset. Thus it
is more an example of what has become typical Western “academia’s” black propaganda
campaign against Islam. It is not science but is an effort to place a scientific face on a means of
ideological war that follows many of the recommendations included in the agenda outlined by
the quotes from Rand Corp. Therefore, where the article puts a huge degree of attention on the
fact that it uses "unbiased" sources, we see that it is completely untrue

Utilizing this biased and purely unscientific methodology, the study is able to draw its intended
conclusions which allege that “evidence” suggests that,

"The fact is that the vast majority of al‐Qa’ida’s victims are Muslims: the analysis here shows
that only 15% of the fatalities resulting from al‐Qa’ida attacks between 2004 and 2008 were
Westerners."

"The results show that non‐Westerners are much more likely to be killed in an al‐Qa’ida attack.
From 2004 to 2008, only 15% percent of the 3,010 victims were Western."

"During the most recent period studied the numbers skew even further. From 2006 to 2008, only
2% (12 of 661 victims) are from the West, and the remaining 98% are inhabitants of countries
with Muslim majorities."

"The coding scheme used for this project focused on nationality, relying on designation of
victims as “Western” and “non‐Western.” This scheme was used because media sources
(irrespective of language) usually include victims’ nationalities as identifying religious affiliation
is difficult. It is interesting to note that if major media outlets cannot distinguish victims’
religions, it is difficult to believe that others (such published jihadi materials) could obtain an
accurate assessment."

It would be considered promptly absurd were the Muslim community to issue an assessment of
the percentage of Al Qa’ida operatives and insurgents killed by the U.S. in comparison to the
civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Firstly, for many reasons the statistics would be
relatively identical. It is a known fact that over a million Iraqi’s have been killed since the U.S.
invasion there, most of them collateral damage at the other end of U.S. bombardment and
indiscriminate violence. In fact, were the scientists at West Point to have conducted a similar
analysis of death caused by the U.S. military, the statistics may be very much lower than fifteen
percent militants killed. Likewise, in Afghanistan overwhelming numbers of civilians are killed
as troops caught in the crossfire of a guerilla force they cannot see simply call in for aerial
support on whatever location is closest. Countless times this has led to the bombing of villages
and even weddings where no militants were killed whatsoever. Fortunately for the colonialist
occupiers they simply blame insurgents for blending in with a civilian population, but this is
exactly what the U.S. and its western allies do and how thereby the data is skewed by the way
they define “non-westerners”. They want the reader to believe that the majority killed are non-
Western sources but do not inform the analyst of the report that the Mujahideen’s war is not
merely against the West but also the puppet oppressors the West supports, arms, and aids in its
oppression against the minority Muslim populations. This is true for any insurgency and the fact
that it is missing from the study other than in quotes that suggest the “takfiri mujahideen” simply
brandish as apostates whomsoever their attacks impact, documents the unscientific and
propagandist nature of the document.

A closer look at the “data” reveals that in fact 254 out of 329 events analyzed came from Iraq;
this represents 77 percent of the cases, and so a civil war initiated by Shiites against a minority
Sunni population utilizing the weaponry given to the Shiite regime from the U.S. is now being
used as evidence against Al-Qa’ida, because they chose to retaliate in like manner rather than
face inevitable genocide and slaughter.

In order to help us better understand these 254 attacks we can refer to statements made in 2004
when Abu Muhammad Maqdisi was released from prison in Jordan and exclaimed disapproval
for a series of indiscriminate attacks that then leader of the jihad in Iraq Abu Musaab Zaraqawi
had ordered against Shiites in retaliation. In his response Zaraqawi said,

“He who knows their situation in Iraq would surely realize that they are no longer laypeople in
the sense you put, for they have become soldiers for the unbeliever occupiers, and the eyes that
watch the true mujahedeen, and would Ja’afari, Hakim, and other reprobates have come into
power had it not been for the votes of these laypeople?! And it is unjust to cite a fatwa from Ibn
Taymiyyeh’s era and have it apply to the reprobates today without judging the differences
between the two eras, and then there are scholars who have spoken of lay Shias as unbelievers
like Sheikh Hamoud Al-‘Aqla’ may he rest in peace, and Sheikh Suleiman Al-‘Alwan, and
Sheikh Ali Al-Khudhair(may God set them free), and Sheikh Abi Abdullah Al-Muhajir, and
Sheikh Al-Rashoud may he rest in peace, and others.”
Thus the majority of data, in this case people killed, contained in the report are a result of the
U.S.’s allegiance with the enemies against the people of Quran and Sunnah. This reality accounts
for most of the skewed data, but also affects the statistics for the rest of the report as well.
Likewise in Afghanistan, the U.S. supported, armed, protected and then traveled around forces
that stood to benefit the most from U.S. occupation. In Afghanistan, the Karzai regime was
imposed on the people and was a collection of ex-warlords that were responsible for the
corruption, rape, banditry and assault of the Afghan people before the Taliban was formed to
protect the populace. Likewise in Iraq, the U.S. imposed a majority Shiite population on Sunni
minority and then, as many think-tanks like Rand Corp, recommended exploited the Sunni-
Shiite divide in creating a civil war that led to a Shiite majority, armed to the teeth and in
possession of political power vested in them by the occupier to commit heinous crimes against
Sunni’s. The mujahideen in Iraq were engaged in retaliatory violence in order to prevent what
became ethnic cleansing operations at the hands of Shiite militia, and when the militia were not
engaged, the state with help from western troops would come through and commit wanton
violence as well. The period of the jihad in Iraq was full of indiscriminate violence on both sides,
but today the U.S. wants to use the data from the period to suggest that Al-Qa’ida kills civilians
more than “Westerners?”

In reality similar statistics would surely be produced in the event that an analysis of deaths
occurring at the hands of Western bombardment was conducted. We know that over a million
Iraqis have been killed so far in the war there and that most of them were civilians. We also
know of huge civilian casualties caused by U.S. air raids in Afghanistan. It is hard to imagine
that 15 percent of those bombed and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of Al Qa’ida
and the resistance. By the West’s own numbers the insurgencies of Afghanistan and Iraq consist
of no more than 20,000 men. With 1.3 million dead in Iraq and hundreds of thousands dead in
Afghanistan, there is no way that 15 percent of U.S. casualties represent combatants. In similar
manner, a recent report from Dawn Press out of Pakistan revealed that 700 civilians were killed
in 2009 in Pakistan from drone attacks, while only 5 Al Qa’ida operatives were killed. Thus,
“For each Al Qa’ida and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had
to die,” the newspaper reported. “Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes
were civilians, claim authorities.[1]” Proportionately, we could say the same of the U.S. led war
on terror, that it claims to kills terrorists but that only 10 percent of those killed are actually
fighters.

In order to refute these claims we must understand the reality facing the mujahedeen. Abu
Musaab Zaraqawi also reported that,

“The servants of Allah who perform jihad to elevate the word (laws) of Allah are permitted to
use all means necessary to strike the active unbeliever combatants for the purpose of killing
them, snatching their souls from their body, cleansing the earth from their abomination, and
lifting their trial and persecution of the servants of Allah. The goal must be pursued even if the
means to accomplish it affect both the intended active fighters and unintended passive ones such
as women, children, and any other passive category specified by our jurisprudence… This
permissibility extends to situations in which Muslims may get killed if they happen to be with or
near the intended enemy, and if it is not possible to avoid hitting them or separate them from the
intended disbelievers. Although spilling sacred Muslim blood is a grave offense, it is not only
permissible, but it is mandated in order to prevent more serious adversity from happening,
stalling or abandoning jihad… [or] handing over the land and people to the unbelievers…
Muslims will be forced to live by Kaffir rules [and]… Islam will be altered, modified, and
replaced with another form that will be totally different from that which was revealed to the one
who was sent with the sword.”

It is important that these justifications are declared alongside such nonsensical portrayals. It is
true that many civilians have been killed by both sides in the so-called War on Terror, but as
Zaraqawi suggests, under times when the religion itself is assaulted and generations of Muslims
are endangered, protecting the deen is of primary import.

The fundamentals of this study are so flawed that one has to wonder if these people ever took a
High School rhetoric class. You cannot conduct a study analyzing one thing and the report
results on another thing. This study even intentionally excludes the deaths of the Madrid
bombings and the ones in London at certain points in order to skew the results. If one was to
apply similar tactics to the United States, then one could say, "Excluding attacks in foreign
countries, the United States actually kills Americans more than foreigners." Such statements are
factually misleading and they have no place in an "unbiased" study. Arbitrarily excluding certain
things in order to lower the number of non-Muslims whom al-Qa'ida has killed is unethical by
any standard of research.
The report continues and suggests that,

"Even one of al‐Qa’ida’s important senior leaders, Abu Yahya al‐Libi, alluded to operational
mistakes that might alienate the broader population, and blamed the Ullema (Muslim clerics) for
poor guidance and support."

"Al‐Qa’ida has acknowledged that assailants should be patient and wait for the right time to
carry out attacks (in martyr videos and announcements), but this report shows there is scant
evidence of prudence or effort to limit violence. Irrespective of al‐Qa’ida’s justifications, if
history provides a glimpse into the future, the group and its associates will pose the greatest
threat to fellow Muslims."

Here the authors try to skew statements of the Mujahedeen in order to say that all of their attacks
were immoral and carried out against Muslims. Abu Yahya al-Libi was stating that the
Mujahedeen do not intentionally kill Muslims, but that sometimes mistakes in planning and
execution sometimes lead to the deaths of innocents. An example of such an event which was
used as propaganda by the west was when a member of the Pakistani Taliban was on the way to
carry out an operation against some leaders of a pro-government militia, but the bomb detonated
early and killed many people at a volley ball game. The United States is the occupying force in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, so the moral responsibility for any deaths due to mistakes of the
Mujahedeen lies with them predominately; the innocent people who died in these operations
would not have been killed if the United States had not invaded these lands of the Muslims. The
only situation where the moral responsibility should shift is if the Mujahedeen did something
deliberately and intentionally targeted civilians. Otherwise the imperialist force bears the burden
and shoulders responsibility. Perhaps the problem is that studies like these begin with the
assumption that the west as a liberating and not illegitimate occupier, unbiased analysis of
international law suggests this is not the case.

The intention behind the report is obvious for those that know how the intelligence apparatus in
the U.S. is planning the next phase of their battle for hearts and minds against what they tend to
call “radical Islam.” Dr. Jarret Brachman, lecturer at West Point, recently advised that the U.S.
adopts tactics that were revealed, he says out of arrogance, by Abu Yahyah al Libi. He stated
that Abu Yahya implied in a video interview that, “if the Americans were going to defeat Al-
Qa’ida ideologically…. There are easy steps they could use… the Americans are already using
these in ad hoc fashion but they haven’t put them all together yet. He labels them,

1. Amplifying backtrackers – “barking dogs metric” – people that have left the movement
Fabrication and Exaggeration – anytime the West can make up things about Al-Qa’ida or
exaggerate with regard to…
2. Supporting anybody who issues fatawa against Al Qa’ida – the Qaradawi movement
3. Eliminate distinctions or other interpretations of Islam – so promote moderates
4. Humility or symbolic degradation of jihadists
5. Promoting distinctions and promoting the Salafist views of Madhkali and Albani[2]”

This report is merely a reproduction and implementation of that tactic and an effort to float as
science a study that could be picked up by the press, especially the Arab press, and then used to
detract Al-Qa’ida sympathizers. Science like this is not science at all but is dangerous
propaganda in that it justifies the use of terrorism and violence and seeks support for the real
civilian atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan committed by Americans under the guise of
justification that they are only killing terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth and this
study is right out of the communist, Cold War era: a good guy, bad guy, black and white
perception of the world that leads to justify the terrorism of those with excessive force against
entire populations. This is the very root of the retaliatory violence engaged in by the mujahideen.

More quotes from the article include,

"There were two criteria used to generate the list of attacks: 1) the attack had to be carried out by
al‐Qa’ida or a group publicly associated with al‐Qa’ida, and 2) the perpetrators needed to claim
responsibility for the attack."

"Al‐Qa’ida’s ability to exploit other actors or manipulate situations behind the scenes, as the
group has done in Afghanistan and Pakistan, make it more difficult to identify all of the attacks
that tie back to that organization, but al‐Qa’ida should still be incentivized to avoid claiming
responsibility when outcomes are poor."

"By limiting this dataset to attacks with claims of responsibility, the report should capture the
attacks that al‐Qa’ida and its associates are most proud of, presumably meaning attacks against
Western targets, and under report the total number of attacks in places such as Pakistan."

The entire article operates under an assumption that the Mujahideen are filthy pigs who lie about
what they have done. This is understandable, because the people who wrote the article are from a
country that routinely lies about anything it has done which is inherently evil (the murder of
three detainees in Guantanamo which was labeled "simultaneous suicide," the execution of 14
school children who were handcuffed was labeled "a gunfight with militants," etc.).

It assumes that the Mujahideen would distance themselves from unpopular operations, but this is
the farthest from the truth. The Mujahideen are the least afraid of what their opponents would
say about them of any force in the world. Allah says in the Qur'an:

َ‫عَلى ٱلُۡمؤِۡمِنين‬ َ ‫حُّبوَنُه ۤۥ َأِذَّلٍة‬

ِ ‫بہُمۡ َوُي‬ ِ ‫هلل ِبَقوٍۡم۬ ُي‬
ُّ ‫ح‬ َُّ ‫ف َيأِۡتى ٱ‬ َ ۡ‫سو‬ َ ‫عن ِديِنِهۦ َف‬
َ ۡ‫ن َءاَمُنوْا َمن َيرَۡتَّد ِمنُكم‬ َ ‫يہَا ٱَّلِذي‬ُّ ‫َيـٰ?َأ‬
ِ ‫هلل َوٲ‬
‫سٌع‬ َُّ ‫شا?ُء‌ۚ َوٱ‬
َ ‫هلل ُيؤِۡتيِه َمن َي‬ َِّ ‫ل ٱ‬ ُ ۡ‫ك َفض‬َ ‫ال??ِ?ٍم۬‌ۚ َذٲِل‬ َ ‫ن َلوَۡمَة‬
َ ‫خاُفو‬
َ ‫ال َي‬
َ ‫هلل َو‬
َِّ ‫ل ٱ‬
ِ ‫سِبي‬
َ ‫ن ِفى‬َ ‫جـِٰهُدو‬ َ ‫عَلى ٱلَۡكـِٰفِري‬
َ ‫ن ُي‬ َ ‫عَّزٍة‬ ِ ‫َأ‬
‫عِليٌم‬
َ

"O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islâm), Allâh will
bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern
towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allâh, and never fear of the blame of the
blamers. That is the Grace of Allâh which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allâh is All-
Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower." (5:54)

Ahlus-Sunnah know that the Mujahideen make mistakes, and they do not make baseless
assumptions based upon these mistakes.
A brief skim of the data provided at the bottom shows that Non-Western government officials
responsible for propping up the kafir regimes are regarded as Muslims. Here are some examples
(even soldiers are regarded as Muslims):

"Dubai, Al‐Zarqawi?s Group Filmed the Execution of an Iraqi Colonel, Asharq Al‐Awsat, 03/28/
2005,"

"Baghdad: Asharq Al‐Awsat, Deaths and Injuries in Two Suicide VBIED Attacks that Targeted
the Interior Ministry, and Two American Soldiers Were Killed in an Explosion of a Bomb in
Baghdad, Asharq Al‐Awsat, 03/04/2005"

"Baqouba, Baqouba Police Denies the Killing of 4 of its Members in an Attack, Asharq al
Awsat, 03/22/2005"

The article's biggest flaw is that it used a database that does not differentiate between civilians
and non-civilians. This means that any Arab who is serving the American regimes is counted as a
Muslim civilian. This article is about as baseless as an article which would try to claim that the
majority of the victims of the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Min were Vietnamese... Really? The kafir
who wrote this is either intentionally lying and misleading his readers, or he should have his
dissertation revoked, because he does not even have the analytical ability of a donkey with
Alzheimer's.

The article does not consider the fact that any Muslim who joins the forces of the disbelievers is
either a kafir, or, if there is an impediment to takfir, he is still to be fought, because sparing them
would be too great of a difficulty of the mujahideen. A mujahid cannot go into an enemy base
and sit down with each and every soldier and give them the Hujjah (proof). Furthermore, when
Abu Bakr, radiya Allahu 'anhu, fought the apostates the Companions fought against the entire
group and only sorted things out after achieving victory. The apostates who did not pay zakaat
still said they were Muslim, and they were from Muslim majority regions, so they would have
been included in this study. West Point would have come to the conclusion that Abu Bakr and
the Companions were killing only Muslims.

Al-Qa'ida has killed thousands of supporters of the Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani governments
which do not rule by the Shari'ah. The general ruling of anyone who does not rule by Shari'ah is
that he is a kafir. This is because of the statement of Allah in the Qur'an:
‫ن َوٱلَۡأحَۡباُر ِبَما‬ َ ‫ن َهاُدوْا َوٱلَّرَّبـِٰنُّيو‬
َ ‫ن َأسَۡلُموْا ِلَّلِذي‬ َ ‫ن ٱَّلِذي‬
َ ‫بہَا ٱلَّنِبُّيو‬ِ ‫ِإَّنا? َأنَزلَۡنا ٱلَّتوَۡر?َٰة ِفيہَا ُهًد۬ى َوُنوٌر۬‌ۚ َيحُۡكُم‬
ً ‫ال َتشَۡتُروْا ِبـَ?اَيـِٰتى َثَم‬
‫ن۬ا‬ ِ ۡ‫شو‬
َ ‫ن َو‬ َ ۡ‫س َوٱخ‬ َ ‫شُوْا ٱلَّنا‬ َ ۡ‫ال َتخ‬َ ‫شہََدا?َء‌ۚ َف‬
ُ ‫عَليِۡه‬ َ ‫هلل َوڪَاُنوْا‬ َِّ ‫ب ٱ‬ِ ٰ‫ظوْا ِمن ِكَتـ‬
ُ ‫ٱسُۡتحِۡف‬
َ ‫ك ُهُم ٱلَۡكـِٰفُرو‬
‫ن‬ َ ?ِ??ٰ‫هلل َفُأْوَلـ‬ َ ‫ال۬‌ۚ َوَمن َّلمۡ َيحُۡكم ِبَما? َأنَز‬
َُّ ‫ل ٱ‬ ً ‫َقِلي‬

"...And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn." (5:44)

There are a whole lot more proofs on the issue, but there are two major points which should
dispel all doubts about this being kufr al-akbar (the kufr that removes one from Islam) instead of
kufr duna kufr (kufr less than kufr).

Ibn Taymiyyah says:

"And it is known from the religion (of Islam) by necessity and by the consensus of all Muslims
that whoever legalizes to follow other than the religion of Islam or a Sharia other than the Sharia
of Muhammad (SAW), he is a Kafir. And his kufr is similar to that of the one who believes in
some part of the book (Quran) and reject some of it", as He Ta'alaa said: "Verily, those who
disbelieve in Allah and his Messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and his
Messengers (by believing in Allah and disbelieving in his Messengers) saying, "we believe in
some but reject others", and wish to adopt a way in between, they are in truth disbelievers. And
we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment". An-Nisa, Verse 150-151.

[Majmua' Al-Fataawa, Vol 28, p. 524].

"And whenever a person legalized the haram - that is agreed upon - or forbids the halal - that is
agreed upon - , he is a Kafir by the consensus of the Fuqaha".

[Majmua' Al Fataawa, Vol 3, p.267.]

"it is known that whoever abolishes the enjoining and forbidding with which Allah sent his
messengers, he is a Kafir by the consensus of the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians".

[Majmua' Al-Fataawa,Vol 1, p.106.]

And Ibn Kathir says:

"So whosoever abandons the wise Sharia which was reveled upon Muhammad bin Abdullah, the
seal of the prophets, and goes to other abrogated Sharia for judgment, he becomes a Kafir. So
how about the one who goes to Al-Yasa for judgment and gives it precedence (over the Sharia of
Muhammad (salaa Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) )? Whosoever does this has become a Kafir by the
Ijma' of the Muslims. He Ta'alaa said : "Do they then seek the judgment of (the Days of )
Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm faith". Al-
Maidah, Verse 50.
He Ta'alaa also said : "But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you
(OMuhammad (salaa Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam)) judge in all disputes between them and find in
themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission". An-
Nisa, Verse 65. Allah the greatest is all true".

["Al- Bidayah wan-Nihayah".Vol 13, p.119]

So there is ijma' on the issue that the one who rules by any other Shari'ah is a kafir, even if some
of their Shari'ah has elements of Islam. While this overrides the statement of Ibn 'Abbas, radiya
Allahu 'anhumaa, in interpretation, because ijma' is more authoritative than even Abu Bakr,
radiya Allahu 'anhu. Ibn 'Abbaas said that this verse is referring to kufr doona kufr. However,
this is not even the interpretation of what Ibn 'Abbas has said.

Former Grand Mufti Of Saudi Arabia Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, the teacher of Ibn B'az ‫رحمه اهلل‬:

“ As far as the saying, kufr duna kufr (a kufr of a lesser degree), it is when the judge makes
judgment to other than Allah with firm conviction that it is disobedience. He believes that the
judgment of Allah is the truth, but he left from it in one matter. As far as whoever made laws in
succession and makes others submit to it, then it is kufr, even if they said, ‘We sinned and the
judgment of the Revealed Law is more just.’ This is still kufr that removes from the religion.”

Fataawa Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim, V. 21, page 580

So we see that this study is completely flawed from an Islamic perspective and from a scientific
one. Thus it is obligatory to believe what the Muslims say over what the kuffar say and we
should not doubt them and their intentions.
The report is full of the typical twists and misinterpretations of the “think tank communities”
obsession with working on the ideological component of the War on Islam and seeking to
delegitimize the mujahedeen religiously, thus placing them on the fringe and gaining the
widespread support for the disbelievers’ version of Islam that loves Western, American
hegemony over the land, laws and resources but accepts a the cultural role of Islam as the
identifying religion of the Muslim world it dominates. The report attributes Abu Muhammad Al-
Maqdisi as abandoning his support of takfir and criticizing Al-Qa’ida for its violence against
civilians (p.4). In reality, Maqdisi, was referring to the general takfir of lay- shia, not the general
practice of takfir and in the end recanted his statements to Zaraqawi as he did not have an
awareness of the atrocities committed by Shiite allies of the Americans on the ground.

By using Arabic sources they hope to attract attention for the study in the Arab world, where a
sensation of radicalization looms on the horizon as America has been broiled down in war for
nearly a decade now and an entire generation of jihadi inclined youth views the Western press as
generally bias. However, Muslim youth are under no impression that the lies and deception of
Western media are any different than the lies and deception of the Arab press controlled by the
dictators Washington funds, trains, arms and utilizes to prevent a general return to Islamic
identity. What the pseudo-scientists at West Point do know is that releasing the study will garner
attention in the headlines and that few will look at the absurd methodology and techniques
employed to question why similar statistics are not kept with regard to American attacks in their
so-called “War on Terror.”

“Al‐ Qa’ida considers any Muslim that impedes their struggle by working with the West or an
unfriendly regime as an apostate, and therefore a legitimate target. This includes Muslims
serving in the armed forces, serving as police officers, and even those occupying civilian jobs.
Al‐Qa’ida makes convenient use of this designation to justify its indiscriminate use of violence.
(p.14)”

This is not convenience but is absolutely true from an Islamic perspective as well. In Surah
Buruj, ayah 4, Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’alaa) says, “the Companions of the Ditch they are
destroyed.” Allah used the plural for companions here because he is referring to a ditch or mass
grave dug for the believers of the story of Surah Buruj, and Allah condemned not only the
leading, tyrannical king over the people but even those that helped and obeyed the orders and
dug the ditch. So, it is clear that all that assist in oppression get a portion of the wrath of Allah
(subhaanahu wa ta’alaa).

Thus Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’alaa) says,

َ ‫هلل َمَع ٱلُۡمَّتِقي‬
‫ن‬ َّ ‫ن َكا?َّفًة۬ ڪََما ُيَقـِٰتُلوَنُكمۡ ڪَا?َّفًة۬‌ۚ َوٱعَۡلُمو?ْا َأ‬
ََّ ‫ن ٱ‬ َ ‫َوَقـِٰتُلوْا ٱلُۡمشِۡرڪِي‬

And fight the mushrikeen all together as they fight you altogether (9:36)

And,
َّ ‫ن‌ۖ ِإ‬
‫ن‬ ِ ٰ‫طـ‬
َ ۡ‫شي‬
َّ ‫ت َفَقـِٰتُلو?ْا َأوِۡلَيا?َء ٱل‬ ُ ٰ‫طـ‬
ِ ‫غو‬ َّ ‫ل ٱل‬
ِ ‫سِبي‬ َ ‫ن َكَفُروْا ُيَقـِٰتُلو‬
َ ‫ن ِفى‬ َ ‫ل ٱلَّلِه‌ۖ َوٱَّلِذي‬
ِ ‫سِبي‬ َ ‫ن َءاَمُنوْا ُيَقـِٰتُلو‬
َ ‫ن ِفى‬ َ ‫ٱَّلِذي‬
‫ضِعيًفا‬
َ ‫ن‬ ِ ٰ‫طـ‬
َ ‫ن َكا‬ َ ۡ‫شي‬ َّ ‫َكيَۡد ٱل‬

Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the
cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.(4:76)
So anyone that sides with the enemies of Islam are not Muslim and the soldiers that fight on
behalf of them are included.
Allah says, “Verily Pharoah, Hamam, and their armies they were all wrong-doers (28:28)”
‫الْوَتاِد‬
ٌّ ‫ن ِذى ا‬ َ ‫عْو‬َ ‫َوِفْر‬
“(And Fir`awn with Al-Awtad) Al-`Awfi reported from Ibn `Abbas that he said, ‘Al-Awtad are
the armies who enforced his commands for him…’
ٍ ‫عَذا‬
‫ب‬ َ ‫ط‬
َ ‫سْو‬
َ ‫ك‬ َ ‫عَلْيِهْم َرُّب‬
َ ‫ب‬ َّ ‫ص‬َ ‫َف‬
So, your Lord poured on them different kinds of severe torment meaning, He sent down a
torment upon them from the sky and caused them to be overcome by a punishment that could not
be repelled from the people who were criminals.[Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

And so the consensus of the people of the sunnah is that not only the tyrant but the administrators
and the armies are collectively enemies against the truth. It is well known that when you take a
positions working for the American controlled lackey governments, whether you claim to be
Muslim or not then you fall under this category. Again, one must look at the doctrine of
collateral damage in western military discourse and see that it is absolutely impossible to prevent
civilian deaths in a war zone, all the more so for an insurgency that faces not only a monopoly of
force in that the U.S. troops have allied with traitors on Muslim soil, but in that they are waging
war where technological superiority lies in the hands of the enemy. This is all the more reason to
hold the occupiers all the more accountable for civilian deaths. While some civilians have been
killed in Al-Qa’ida attacks, it is more appropriate to identify that there is no difference between a
kaffir from the West or a kaffir apostate from the abode of Islam, the Prophet (salaa Allahu
‘alayhi wa salam) has said the kufr is one millat (system). They are all the same. Were the
mujahdieen waging war against the world’s only superpower, held to the same standards of the
superpower, this report would be nonsensical and would actually serve as testimony to their
courage and nobility. The only solution for the Muslims living under occupation is to stay clear
of supporting the American invaders and know that if you aid them you are from them and that if
you are around them then you may be killed. They should be shunned, rejected, and dispelled
from Muslim lands. May Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’alaa) reject them soon and destroy their
nation as a result of their transgression against the ummah of Muhammad (salaa Allahu ‘alayhi
wa salam).

[1]http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/
18-over-700-killed-in-44-drone-strikes-in-2009-am-
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYZ9bEpMIaE