I’ve been intrigued by this from watching a few docudramas and documentaries on the buildup to the hijackers day of terror. On the focus of, Ziad Jarrah they portay a guy with a seemingly contrasting personality and background from the other pilot hijackers. There was some speculation from Atta that he might be reconsidering the mission entirely.
Envisioning that the scenario occurred where he either informed the ringleader that he was pulling out and perhaps more scarily for them, report the cell to US authorities, what would Al-Qaeda have done?
The propaganda that I’ve gotten from OBL in all these films is that he lavishes his followers and ‘suicide soliders’ with a nurturing love for his men that is under the main purpose of fulfilling the jihadist goals of Islamic extremism. For all the evil they commit, they seem in a stark contrast to gang members who despite have a similar ideal of looking out for their ‘brothers’ are all in a rat race and generally will kill in-group members who disobey orders.
So, I have to wonder would Bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad have ordered the death of Jarrah or anyone who disobeyed or at the least, the disappearance?
Of course. They’d be classed as apostates for whom the penalty is death.
Classic cult behaviour really. Shower with love, bonhomie and comradeship while inside the group. Severe punishment for transgressors. Carrot and stick.
You say this based on what Islamic learning? or even what learning about Al Qaeda?
The practice of Takfir - the declaration of apostasy - is not a typical one of Al Qaeda and was not typically part of their theology, and even now it is one of the divergences they have with DAESH.
The declration of Takfir even in most Salafist tendencies is considered extremely un-Islamic and goes against centuries of tradition that require the active delcaration of the unbelief of a confirmed believer.
The question is not answerable in fact, but I am sure it will get many not very well informed specualtive responses.
One can suspect that al Qaeda would have tried to execute a punishment, even a death penalty, but takfir would not be the basis, the easy use of the idea was opposed personally and directly by Bin Laden and Zawahiri as they had seen how the Egyptian Hijra wa Takfir failed.
I do not know there is any ‘great debate’ in this as only the pure speculations without any great foundation on the insights into the organization of Al Qaeda or their theology will be available.
Well they’d most likely try to justify any punishment religiously. That is what they normally do. And since the punishment would most probably be death for threatening to tell the authorities about the plot then they would need to come up with something (islamically justifiable) that carries the penalty of death.
Can you think of any other “sin” that carries the death penalty in Islam? It would have to be something appropriate for the crime this hypothetical 9/11 traitor intended to commit. For example, homosexuality carries a death penalty but it would a bit of a stretch to accuse the 9/11 turncoat of that.
There’s room for speculation in GD. Otherwise the question would be in GQ, if it were just a matter of fact.
You assert that someone is ignorant of the finer points of Islam. I’m curious though… is it fair to suppose that bin Laden or Al Qaeda would act under the genuine principles or Islam? Or might they have bent (or broken) the rules to fit their desires?
It is not the ***“finer ***points” - these are basic well know principals which they have - Al Qaeda - discussed in open and made the public rebukes against the precedessors of the DAESH and then DAESH itself.
To engage in the speculation when you do not even know the public bases is very silly.
Al Qaeda took since the early days took such position.
And since the execution for the crime of Treason is right there, easily available, there is no reason to ‘speculate’ about ‘sins’ that you all, not at all learned in the theology or even Al Qaeda basic orientations, imagine are to be used.
So again, Al Qaeda has long been against Takfir, its leadinership saw that as a political mistake as well as a theological mistake and there’s not a reason for you to imagine up ‘sins’ when there is a ready one, Treason.
I add that al Qaeda taking the right to pronounce death for treason is bending traditional interpretation to their desires, in case there is any doubt it is an ordinary idea.
I’ll add that “This guy knows we’re going to commit a crime and might tell the authorities. Lets kill him before he does.” is sort of its own justification right there.
I’m sure al-Qaeda considered all traditional interpretations. I’m sure no consideration at all was given to the idea of murdering someone who might give up their plans to murder thousands of people, injure thousands more, cause billions of dollars in damage, and precipitate at least one war.
You are attributing rationality to a group that kills people. There is no reason to expect that they wouldn’t have killed the person the OP posited without a shred of remorse. They’re already killing by the numbers, what’s one more?
I understand where you’re coming from but I don’t agree necessarily.
Groups like these tend to be disempathetic sociopaths. They’ll show genuine care and emotion for people part of their ‘in-group’ (not necessarily family members their ideological family) but people who they consider infidels can be butchered easily with no tears or emotion.
In the film Executive Decision (the highpoint of the film is Steven Seagal dying early on) some of the hijackers do want to give up but are killed by the leader.