Posted: 17-08-2009 by: Thomas Ruttig

2. Nazir said that although he has never met bin Laden, “if he comes here and wants to live according to tribal traditions, then we can provide protection to him because we support oppressed people.”

The Father of the Taliban: An Interview with Maulana Sami ul-Haq

Publication: Spotlight on Terror Volume: 4 Issue: 2

May 23, 2007 01:23 PM Age: 4 yrs

By: Imtiaz Ali

Maulana Sami ul-Haq

Maulana Sami ul-Haq is the director and chancellor of Pakistan's famous madrassa, Darul uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak. He has served in this post since the death of his father, Maulana Abdul ul-Haq, the founder of the madrassa, in 1988. Darul uloom Haqqania is where many of the top Taliban leaders, including its fugitive chief, Mullah Omar, attended. It is widely believed that the madrassa was the launching pad for the Taliban movement in the early 1990s, which is why Sami ul-Haq is also called the "Father of the Taliban." Besides running his madrassa, Maulana Sami has a long political history as a religious politician. He was among the founders of Pakistan's Muttahida Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) coalition of six Islamic religious parties. He recently spoke with Jamestown analyst Imtiaz Ali.

Imtiaz Ali: During the Russian invasion, the students from your madrassa were traveling to Afghanistan to fight, after which most of them were eventually inducted as governors and administrators in the Taliban government. Is the same thing continuing today? Are you still sending people to Afghanistan for jihad?

Maulana Sami ul-Haq: No, there were not only Taliban who took part in jihad. This is an incorrect assumption, which needs correction. After the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, people from all walks of life went to Afghanistan for jihad. Students from colleges and universities went more than madrassa students.

IA: But it is an undeniable fact that students who graduated from your madrassa played a significant role in the establishment of the Taliban regime.

SH: Well, the Taliban were busy in their studies when the factional wars in Afghanistan reached their climax. Naturally, when the leaders could not make it, the students had to come to the rescue of the war-torn country. Thus, the Taliban rushed back to rescue their country from the factional fighting. Similarly, when America attacked Afghanistan in late 2001, the same event happened—it is understandable that when infidels attack a Muslim country, then it is the duty of every Muslim to defend it. Maulana Sufi Muhammad of Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat- e-Mohammadi (TNSM) also took thousands of people for jihad, which was a commendable action. The U.S. attack on Afghanistan was a clear act of aggression and terrorism. But when someone rises up against U.S. aggression, then he is called a terrorist. It is a strange and illogical philosophy.

IA: There were reports that the Taliban leadership had called for fresh reinforcements in connection with its spring offensive in Afghanistan. Is this true?

SH: These are just baseless reports. Had they called upon the madrassa students, they would have called us for the reinforcements or at least we would know. The Taliban are not that organized. They are living in caves. They lack proper communication and logistics systems, and that is why they do not want new recruits. The Afghans themselves have risen up and they are fighting against American and NATO forces.

IA: If they would ask you for help, what would be your reaction?

SH: They would never ask us. We ourselves have not sent students before nor will we send them now. It is not our madrassa policy to do so.

IA: What would you call the situation in Afghanistan? Is that jihad?

SH: When the red forces of the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan, it was a war of independence and we all agreed that it was jihad. Even the United States had said that the Russians must be ousted from Afghanistan. When Russia left, the United States committed the same aggression. So, the situation is the same. One infidel force replaced another. No difference at all. Whether it is Russia or America, it is a jihad.

IA: Some analysts call it a Pashtun uprising. What do you think?

SH: It is neither a Pashtun uprising or a Persian one, or a Sunni uprising or a Shiite. In fact, the Afghan nation has risen up against the invaders—the United States and its allies. It is a war of independence. After the fall of the Taliban regime, the Afghan people remained quiescent for two years to see if any positive change would come into their lives. But they did not see anything that was promised to them at the time of the collapsing Taliban regime and that is why they started this revolt against the occupied forces. It is now a war of independence for all Afghans. They want to get rid of the U.S.-led occupation forces. Terming it only a Pashtun uprising is a completely incorrect assumption.

IA: Do you not consider the Karzai-led government in Afghanistan a Muslim government?

SH: We have nothing to do with the Islam of Karzai. It is not our business to issue a decree about him being Muslim or non-Muslim. We just want an end to the suffering of the Afghan people. We ask the current Afghan rulers to start negotiations with the Taliban and other jihadi forces to pave the way for a durable peace in the war-torn country.

IA: It does not matter to you, then, if there is a Karzai-led government or the Taliban, just as long as it is an Afghan government?

SH: We say that there should be no foreign interference in Afghanistan, and the Afghans themselves should come up with a solution. All the factions—the leaders, the Taliban, the jihadi forces—should come forward and work together for peace. They should decide their fate in the absence of foreign interference. But I firmly believe that there is no chance for peace and stability in Afghanistan until the presence of foreign troops is removed.

IA: What are your thoughts on the flow of fighters between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the Durand Line?

SH: Like I said earlier, it is an Afghan uprising against foreign invaders and it has nothing to do with cross-border terrorism and the flow of fighters from Pakistan.

IA: With the ban on foreign students' admission in the religious seminaries in 2003 by the government, has enrollment of the students changed in your madrassa?

SH: That ban is a total violation of our fundamental rights. People from here go to the United States and the United Kingdom for studies. Similarly, students from other countries come to Pakistan for education. That was a kind of service we were providing to the Muslim students from other countries. But this ban is an unconstitutional, inhumane and unlawful act. The government has taken this step only to appease the United States and its other Western masters. It is a shame for us because India is a secular country, but has been issuing visas to students from all Muslim countries who want to come to India for education.

IA: But there have been accusations that terrorists are being trained here in the madrassas.

SH: This is nothing more than an example of the perpetual propaganda against the madrassa system. This is what we have been hearing, but so far no one has produced any solid evidence.

IA: The mystery has always been shrouded by the lack of an audit of the money being received by madrassas, correct?

SH: We are not bound by the government to audit our funding system because they do not give us any money. First, let them give us funds for running our madrassas and then we will let them have their audit. Why are they taking pains when they are not giving us a penny? Only those who give us financial support have the right to audit our funds. We have our system of donations and we do not accept any donations from the government. I also want to make it clear that we keep a record of all our donations and funding. The funding is being registered and we prepare annual reports and then those reports are printed along with the names of the donors.

IA: Who gives you the donations for running this big madrassa?

SH: Common Muslims. And the majority of the funding comes from the poorer classes of society. They know that madrassas are the forts of Islam and the students in madrassas are the real guardians of Islam. God's religion is flourishing in the madrassas. These people cut their meager domestic budget and give us donations. This is how they express their love of Allah almighty and save the integrity of these madrassas.

IA: Is Musharraf validated in meddling with religious issues considering he is supposed to be the leader of a secular government?

SH: He has been doing all this just to appease the United States and his other Western masters.

IA: To what extent could a nuclear Iran pose a potential threat to the strength of Pakistan?

SH: Iran is not a threat to Pakistan at all. Iran is giving the United States a tough time in the region and seems quite determined to acquire nuclear power status. Muslims all over the world are happy about this move because there should be someone who has the courage to demonstrate the religious strength to look into the eyes of the United States. We support Iran. Besides, we would not allow the Pakistani leadership to toe the U.S. line in dealing with Iran, as they have done in the case of Afghanistan.

IA: There has been speculation that Iran has ambitions for a "Shiite Crescent" in the Middle East. What is your opinion of this?

SH: This is U.S. propaganda aimed at dividing the strength of Muslims. The Shiite-Sunni issue has been created by the United States just to hide its failure in Iraq and to achieve its goals in the Middle East. Besides, the United States is also creating poisonous propaganda against Iran for intervening in Iraq's affairs just to malign its position in the world community. It is baseless. I was in Iran two months ago where I held meetings with the top Iranian leadership. I urged them to counter U.S. propaganda and try to satisfy Kurds, Arabs and Sunnis. I clearly told them that if you [Iran] need the support of the whole Muslim ummah, then you have to garner support against the United States, not only from Shiites but also from Sunnis.

IA: What do you think of Lashkar-e-Jangvi, TNSM and other jihadi outfits in Pakistan?

SH: Lashkar-e-Jangvi and similar organizations are the continuity of the Kashmir problem. These jihadi forces were patronized by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, with full state support for their activities in Kashmir. But when Pakistan came under immense pressure, then this whole drama was wrapped up and that is why a ban was put on these jihadi organizations. It is all a dictated policy from the West.

IA: What do you think about the latest spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan?

SH: This is not a surprise. This new suicide phenomenon in Pakistan is the direct outcome of the government's policies, particularly the unjust military operations in the tribal belt along the Afghan border. Today, Pakistani forces are at the highest level of danger and risk due to the flawed policies of General Musharraf in the name of fighting the so-called war on terror. This is what I had forewarned about in the past, that if the government did not stop these unjust military operations, then attacks on military posts and violence would not be confined to the tribal areas, but will spread to the rest of the country. Today, you see that this is happening.

IA: Do you think that suicide attacks are fair?

SH: The bombers would not ask us to confirm whether it is fair or unfair. It is better you ask this question to the suicide bombers, whose family members have been killed and houses have been bombed. They themselves decided what they had to do. They would not ask any mullah. But they do think that they will go straight to paradise.

IA: Who do you think these bombers are?

SH: They are young and emotional Muslims. When they see that their leaders have surrendered to the United States and its allies, then they do not see any other way out except for the option of suicide bombing. Among them are students of modern universities who see how the Western powers are destroying Muslims around the world. Suicide bombing is an international phenomenon now. These young people do not receive any suicide training or motivation in a madrassa or a mosque. They watch it on their TVs—the dead bodies of Muslim brothers. They see that Muslims are being killed in various part of the world. When they see these atrocities, they go their own way. If the international community wants to put an end to this kind of activity, it is high time for them to ponder solutions to issues like Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir.

IA: Besides your madrassa role, how do you see your role as a politician in the political field?

SH: My role is very clear as a madrassa teacher as it is as a politician. I want a true Islamic system in Pakistan. That is my simple goal. The current Pakistani system of governance was introduced by the British Raj, which means we are still enslaved by that colonial legacy. Our economy, education and judicial system stem from the same exploitative British rule. I want to introduce real Sharia, which was implemented by the four caliphs of Islam.

IA: Will you support Musharraf in the upcoming presidential elections?

SH: We have not yet decided about the upcoming elections. But I think they will be a fraud and a futile exercise in the name of democracy. Elections are part of democracy, but here they have become a fraud. In my 37-year career as a politician, I have seen a particular group of politicians from a particular group of families ruling this country. They have made their own dynasties. Since the creation of Pakistan, they have just been replacing one another, with no big change in policies. I am in favor of a bloodless revolution, which would completely overhaul the existing system. I just wonder, how can a democracy flourish in the shadow of a military uniform? The present one is a shame of a democracy.

IA: Do you think that with his support for the war on terror, Musharraf's popularity has increased or decreased at home?

SH: Absolutely decreased. First, look at the declining popularity of President Bush in his own country. So, how can Musharraf be popular for his role in the so-called war on terror? The reports about his increasing popularity are just rubbish.

IA: Will Musharraf be able to maintain control over Pakistan?

SH: Well, people are not happy with what he is doing here in Pakistan. The overwhelming majority of the masses are opposing his policies, particularly the much talked about "enlightened moderation." After bringing changes to the Hudood laws, now his government might soon amend the blasphemy laws. But he does not understand that the Pakistani people will sacrifice their lives on the issue of blasphemy. All these actions demonstrate his unpopularity among the masses.

IA: Is an Islamic revolution a possibility in Pakistan's future?

SH: Anything is possible. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the motive behind the creation of Pakistan was the establishment of an Islamic state for the Muslims of India. Establishment of Sharia is the logical conclusion of Pakistan's creation.

IA: How do see yourself and your role in the next 10 years, and how can you contribute to the peaceful revolution you mentioned earlier?

SH: I'll see how events unfold in the future. However, I'm optimistic that after 10 years, the whole Muslim ummah will have awakened from its deep slumber; Pakistan is no exception. I think that the vast majority of Pakistanis will not tolerate what is going on here as silent spectators. Here is also a lesson for the United States: to learn from what happened to the former superpower the USSR. It should address the problems of the world in a positive way and address the sense of deprivation being created in the people of this region and especially in the Muslim ummah. Things have drastically changed. With the way they [the United States and its Western allies] inflict cruelties and damages on the Muslim ummah, there will be a strong response. Now, the Muslims have awakened. It is time for the United States to act responsibly. Otherwise, there will be tit-for-tat attacks.

IA: Do you think that the suicide bombing phenomenon is a kind of awakening?

SH: Look, if you kick a sleeping man, he will not only wake but will also resist. So, yes, suicide bombing is an awakening. Tell me, where did the concept of suicide bombing in Pakistan come? We had not heard about any suicide bombings in the more than two decades of the Afghan conflict. But this is a new and unbeatable discovery which some Muslim youth have found as an answer to the cruelties and damages being inflicted on the Muslim ummah.

IA: Can Western governments have a healthy relationship with Pakistan through foreign aid or development work?

SH: The first step is sovereignty and respect, and only then can foreign aid work. Until the United States and the West respect the sovereignty of Muslim countries and stop their aggression and atrocities, nothing will work.

The Taliban Fedayeen: The World's Worst Suicide Bombers?

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 5 Issue: 14

July 19, 2007 03:44 PM Age: 4 yrs

By: Brian Glyn Williams

Suicide bombing statistics from Afghanistan alarmingly demonstrate that, if the current trend continues, 2007 will surpass last year in the number of overall attacks. While there were 47 bombings by mid-June 2006, there have been approximately 57 during the same period this year. Compounding fears of worse carnage to come, Afghanistan's most lethal single suicide bombing attack to date recently took the lives of 35 Afghan police trainers near Kabul. When considering the expanding use of IEDs and the discovery of the first Iraqi-style Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP) in Afghanistan in May (i.e. a more deadly form of IED that has killed high numbers of soldiers in Iraq), it is understandable that critics of the war in Afghanistan discuss it in alarmist tones. Approximately 80% of U.S. casualties in Iraq come from IEDs, and members of the U.S. and Afghan military who were interviewed for this study believed that the absence of mass casualty suicide bombings and EFPs were the two factors that made Afghanistan less dangerous than Iraq. A deeper investigation of the wave of suicide bombings that have swept the country in 2006 and 2007 paints a less bleak picture.

Missing the Target

An analysis of the attacks carried out in the last two years reveals a curious fact. In 43% of the bombings conducted last year and in 26 of the 57 bombings traced in this study up to June 15, the only death caused by the bombing was that of the bomber himself. Astoundingly, approximately 90 suicide bombers in this two year period succeeded in killing only themselves. This number exceeds 100 when you factor in those who succeeded in killing only one person in addition to themselves. There was one period in the spring of 2006 (February 20 to June 21) when a stunning 26 of the 36 suicide bombers in Afghanistan (72%) only killed themselves. This puts the kill average for Afghan suicide bombers far below that of suicide bombers in other theaters of action in the area (Israel, Chechnya, Iraq and the Kurdish areas of Turkey). Such unusual bomber-to-victim death statistics are, of course, heartening for both coalition troops—who have described the Afghan suicide bombers as "amateurs"—and the Afghan people—who are usually the victims of the clumsy bombings.

These statistics also represent a uniquely Afghan phenomenon that warrants investigation. In the first portion of this study, it was demonstrated that a part of the reason for this low kill ratio lies in the Taliban's unique targeting sets (Terrorism Monitor, March 1). As Pashtuns with a strong code (Pashtunwali) that glorifies acts of martial valor and badal (revenge), the Afghan suicide bombers are more prone to hit "hard" military targets than callously obliterate innocent civilians in the Iraqi fashion. On the rare occasions where there have been high casualty bombings of Afghan civilians, they tend to have been carried out by Arab al-Qaeda bombers [1].

The Taliban's selective targeting is a calculated decision on the part of the Taliban shuras (councils) to avoid inciting the sort of anti-Taliban protests that led thousands in the Pashtun town of Spin Boldak to chant "Death to Pakistan, Death to al-Qaeda, Death to the Taliban" following a particularly bloody suicide bombing in that frontier city (BBC News, January 18, 2006). Taliban spokesman Zabiyullah Mujahed recently claimed, "We do our best in our suicide attacks to avoid civilian casualties. These are our Muslim countrymen, and we are sacrificing our blood to gain their freedom. Their lives are important to us, of course. But fighting with explosives is out of the control of human beings." Then he made an interesting admission that speaks to other factors that might explain the Afghan suicide bombers' failure rate. He stated, "We have a problem with making sure they attack the right targets, avoiding killing civilians" (BBC News, June 21).

Clearly, there is more to the Taliban bombers' stunning failure rate than simply "hard" targeting difficulties and an obvious reluctance to slaughter the Afghan constituency that the Taliban is trying to win over. Members of the Afghan police, government and National Directorate of Security (NDS) who were interviewed about this trend during the months of April and May 2007 offered a surprisingly unanimous explanation for the Taliban bombers' poor showing [2]. The cause for the Afghan suicide bombers' underwhelming performance, they claimed, lay in the ineptitude of the people the Taliban were recruiting as fedayeen (suicide) bombers. Afghan officials continually told stories of lower class people who had been seduced, bribed, tricked, manipulated or coerced into blowing themselves up as "weapons of God" or "Mullah Omar's missiles." Afghan NDS officials also spoke of apprehended bombers who were deranged, retarded, mentally unstable or on drugs.

Such claims should, of course, be accepted with caution for two reasons. First, the targets of suicide bombings are prone to speak in disparaging tones regarding the mental state and motives of those who carry out bombing attacks against them. They tend to describe them as mindless, insane, fanatical, drugged or brain-washed. Second, in his ground-breaking work Understanding Terror Networks, Marc Sageman has refuted the long-held notion that suicide bombers are impoverished, voiceless dupes tricked into killing themselves. Rather, he has shown them to be politically and religiously motivated. They are conscious actors who, like the multilingual and educated September 11 attack team, do not need to be brainwashed. Certainly, in the Afghan context there are bombers who fit the Sageman profile. Several Taliban leaders have carried out bombings, and the al-Qaeda team that scrambled on short notice to launch the symbolically important mass-casualty bombing at Bagram Air Base during Vice President Dick Cheney's February 2007 visit was clearly comprised of professionals [3].

Nevertheless, interviews and field work conducted in Afghanistan for this study revealed considerable evidence that the "duped, bribed, brainwashed" paradigm applies to a growing percentage of the bombers being deployed in the Afghan theater [4]. Afghan police told of numerous incidents where citizens in Kabul reported finding abandoned suicide vests in the city. They seemed to signify a last minute change of heart in several would-be-bombers. In one case, they told of a mentally deranged man who threw his vest at an Afghan patrol, assuming it would explode on its own [5]. Several of the bombers apprehended by the NDS were carrying mind altering hallucinogens or sedatives, which they had been told to take in order to calm their fears during their last moments of life. Others, including a Taliban bomber who was arrested while pushing his explosives-laden car toward its target after it ran out of gas, appear to be inept beyond belief [6]. Recent media and think-tank reports have also mentioned the utilization as suicide bombers of an Afghan war invalid who was blind, another who was an amputee and one who was a disabled man whose only motive was to make money for his family (Terrorism Monitor, November 18, 2004; New York Times, October 21, 2005). Coalition troops who have spoken of seeing bombers blow themselves up far from their convoys have characterized it as the act of drugged or mentally unstable bombers.