By Kyle Orton (@KyleWOrton) on 20 July 2017

A couple of months ago, the Islamic State revealed that one of its most senior officials in the crucial media department until his death in January 2017 was an American, Ahmad Abousamra, known by various kunyas, including Abu Sulayman al-Shami and Abu Maysara al-Shami. Looking around afterwards, I came across an article by Abousamra condemning Adam Gadahn, another American, who was part of the core leadership of Al-Qaeda—one of the handful of men around Usama bin Laden and then Ayman al-Zawahiri—until he was killed in January 2015.

Abousamra’s polemic was entitled, “The American Destroys His House with His Own Hands – Adam Yahya Gadahn or Azzam al-Amriki [or Azzam the American]” (الأمريكي يخرب بيته بيديه – آدم يحيى غدن أو عزام الأمريكي). The document, signed using the “Abu Maysara” kunya, is not dated within the text, but the version I found was published on 30 March 2014, and this is plausible from its contents:

• In broad terms, it is clear that Abousamra published the document in the period after the schism between the Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat al-Nusra became public (April 2013) and before the Islamic State’s declaration of the caliphate (June 2014).
• The general thrust of the document places it clearly in the second-half of that time frame, in the stage where the Islamic State was preparing the ground for the caliphate declaration, and the last few lines make this explicit.
• This is confirmed by Abousamra mentioning the killing of Abu Bakr al-Iraqi, better known as Haji Bakr (real name: Samir al-Khlifawi), which took place on 5 January 2014. (As an aside, Abousamra confirms that Al-Khlifawi, a former intelligence officer, was among the earliest Iraqis to join the Zarqawists at a time when the group was small and hard-pressed, underlining how far jihadism had made inroads within Saddam Husayn’s regime long before it was overthrown in 2003.)
• The argument Abousamra presses about the Islamic State having not been subordinate to Al-Qaeda since the Statehood announcement in 2006, and the ideological assault on Ayman al-Zawahiri’s methodology as Al-Qaeda emir, situates the document after the 3 February 2014 decision of Dr. Al-Zawahiri to expel the Islamic State from the Al-Qaeda network.
• The reference to the death of Abu Khalid al-Suri (real name: Muhammad al-Bahaya) narrows things down further, putting the date of composition after 23 February 2014.

It can, therefore, be said with certainty that Abousamra wrote and published the below some time between late February and late March 2014.

*                   *                   *                   *                   *

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

The American Destroys His House with His Own Hands

Praise be to God, the Great, the Most High, and may peace and blessings be upon the smiling warrior, and upon his good and pure household.

To proceed:

Adam Gadahn, the American, claimed in a private letter [in late January 2011] that the Islamic State had obstructed his project of calling Christians to Islam, specifically when the “imaginary state” stormed the Catholic church [in Baghdad], Our Lady of Salvation, in revenge for the two imprisoned Muslim women [in Egypt], Camilia Shehata and Wafa Constantine, and their sisters—may Allah free them. He said:

“I would like to emphasise that I have long been uncomfortable with the declaration of the State [in 2006], and I was also uneasy [earlier on] about some of the actions of [the founder of IS, Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi—may God have mercy on him—that he carried out in the name of Al-Qaeda. All of this is known to the shaykhs, Ayman [al-Zawahiri], Atiyya [or Atiyyatullah al-Libi, real name: Jamal al-Misrati], and Ubayd (Munir). So my position is not something recently formed. But I went along with the official position of the organisation [tanzim, i.e. Al-Qaeda] out of fear of causing division, and because I doubted my own opinion. And it should be noted that even now, when I am mostly sure that my position is correct, I only discuss this matter with shaykhs like you, and sometimes with my brothers at As-Sahab. In any case, these are simply pieces of advice and opinions that I hope you will take into consideration and consult about. May God guide you and me to what is correct. I seek refuge in God from being fanatical about an opinion, or from aligning loyalty and enmity based on it. And if I appear harsh or intense in my manner of presentation, then it is only the style I have become accustomed to in speech and writing—although I am always trying to refine my style, to make it more flexible and less harsh. And God is the one whose help is sought.

[…] I do not see any harm or corruption in Al-Qaeda declaring its disapproval of this or that action by the group called the Islamic State of Iraq carried out without the order or consultation of Al-Qaeda. I believe that sooner or later—preferably sooner—it is necessary for the organisation to announce the severing of its organisational ties with that group, that the relationship between the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the ‘State’ has in practice been cut off for a number of years, that the decision to declare the State was taken without consultation with the leadership of Al-Qaeda, that this ijtihad-based decision caused splits among the mujahideen and their supporters inside and outside Iraq, and that what remains between Al-Qaeda and the ‘State’ is only the bond of iman [faith] and Islam, which obliges us to offer advice, enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and support and assist in good and righteous deeds. This is the only solution before Al-Qaeda, otherwise its reputation will be harmed more and more due to the actions and statements of this group that is either attributed to or claims affiliation with our (blessed, if God wills) organisation.”

(From the fourth document of the Abbottabad files, whose attribution [i.e., authenticity] was confirmed to the brothers in the Islamic State by the organisation’s leadership.)

The American wrote this letter shortly before the martyrdom of Imam Usama bin Laden (may Allah have mercy on him), and in it he confirmed the following points:

• That the State is not a subordinate branch of the [Al-Qaeda] organisation, and he calls for this to be affirmed publicly in the media, so that the State’s policies are not attributed to Al-Qaeda by the media, as the media refers to the Islamic State as “Al-Qaeda in Iraq.” (While the two shaykhs, Abu Umar [al-Baghdadi] and Abu Hamza [al-Muhajir], confirmed in their speeches that “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” was dissolved and completely merged into the State, the media refuses to acknowledge this.)
• The State was declared in Iraq by the two shaykhs, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza, without consulting the leadership of the [Al-Qaeda] organisation. (And it is not permissible to delay the establishment of the Muslim community, as Imam Usama mentioned in his speech [in December 2007], The Way to Foil the Conspiracies; thus, he affirmed the legitimacy of the Islamic State without hesitation.)
• The relationship between the State and the organisation had been almost [or nearly: shibh] severed for years prior to the date of the letter—that is, since the time of the two shaykhs. The letter was written nine months after the martyrdom of the two shaykhs [in April 2010] and the appointment of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as successor [in May 2010], and four months before the martyrdom of Shaykh Usama [in May 2011].
• The [Islamic] State considers itself a legitimate State, not merely a jihadist organisation.
• He mocks this view, referring to: “The Islamic State of Iraq organisation”, “their imaginary state”, “the State group”, “the group of the Islamic State of Iraq”, “the phantom caliphate of Iraq”
• He casts doubt on the methodology[manhaj] of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and consequently the methodology of the two shaykhs, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza (may God have mercy on them). This reveals that the current dispute between the State and the organisation under the new leadership is a dispute between the methodology of Zarqawi and another methodology, which only became apparent after the doctor [Al-Zawahiri] assumed leadership of the organisation and brought the American [Gadahn] closer to him, changing the organisation’s policy in a way that is not hidden from any sensible person.

The American expressed his opinion to some of the shaykhs, but they did not agree with him—especially Shaykh Atiyyatullah al-Libi, may God have mercy on him, as I was informed by someone close to both Shaykh Atiyya and the American, who said the following in substance:

• Shaykh Atiyyatullah instructed the American to remain silent and avoid incitement (and this is why he [Gadahn] tried to defend himself against the accusation in the letter).
• The American relies in his analysis on misguided innovators and deceptive media, thinking well of them while being ignorant of the shari’a and reality.
• The American was accused concerning his creed [aqeeda] due to being influenced by the political writings of [Britain-based Saudi dissident Muhammad] al-Massari (and this was another accusation he was seeking to defend himself from in the letter—see the same letter in the Abbottabad documents).
• Shaykh Atiyyatullah disliked the American’s letter in general and disapproved of him writing it.

This resentful person [Gadahn] blushed with shame before the Christians and incited public disavowal of the Islamic State out of concern for the feelings of the Christians. He sees the State as imaginary and continues to incite against it. He is now the head of public relations and media in Al-Qaeda following the martyrdom of the imams Usama, Atiyyatullah, and Abu Yahya [al-Libya, real name: Mohamed Hassan Qaid]. He is behind the statement that was published in the name of the General Command [of Al-Qaeda], which criticised the Islamic State and its methodology (compare his earlier words with the wording of the statement). It may even be that he was the one who incited [Jabhat al-Nusra leader, Ahmad al-Shara, a.k.a. Abu Muhammad] al-Jolani to split [from the Islamic State], in collaboration with Abu Khalid al-Suri—thus achieving his goal of waging political and media war (and now military war) against the Islamic State, the very State that Imam Usama supported with his soul and blood.

This man [Gadahn], fanatically attached to his own opinion, is the one responsible for writing reports, recording news, corresponding with the groups [i.e., Al-Qaeda “affiliates”], and producing media releases. He presents his personal viewpoint to Dr. Ayman, conceals the virtues, exaggerates the faults, and steers the organisation [Al-Qaeda] politically and in the media. His views aligned with Al-Zawahiri’s methodology, which opposes that of Al-Zarqawi, and so the American made that the foundation of his campaign.

Among his strange statements, which reveal the difference between the two methodologies and the deficiency of his own, is: “The Jamaat Qaedat al-Jihad and the groups allied with it have nothing to do with fighting the Libyan State, nor with any other Libyan faction after the fall of the Qaddafi regime, and have no interest in doing so” (From: The Pride of the Muslims and the Disgrace of the Criminals).

The reviver Imam, Usama bin Laden (may God accept him), responded to such deviant talk by saying:

“Our enmity is with the agent rulers. These we do not reassure; rather, we strive to overthrow them and to before a shari’a court. How could we reassure them, when they have allied themselves with the enemies of the umma and committed the vilest acts against it? How could we reassure them, when they have associated man-made laws with the shari’a of God the Exalted? How could we reassure them, when the path to the broadest front for the liberation of Palestine passes through lands under their control?”

(From: The Way to Foil the Conspiracies)

Has the American forgotten the shar’i interest? Or is the only thing that matters to him now the political and media interest after he has been enchanted by the media of the dajjal and the Jews? And even if his “organisation” has no interest in fighting the new taghut, there is no doubt that the victorious group has a great interest in fighting the tawaghit—Arab and non-Arab—before the [Arab Spring] “revolutions” and after them … and that is to please God, Glorified and Exalted.

Now, I inform you of something: the new leadership [of Al-Qaeda], with its policies that contradict the shari‘a, reason, and reality, was behind the delay of jihad in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya to the benefit of the new tawaghit. But, by the grace of God, the Islamic State was able to make up for their [Al-Qaeda’s] error and repair what they had corrupted, and you shall come to know its news in due time.

What is strange about him [Gadahn] is that he was never comfortable with the founding of the State under the leadership of the two martyred shaykhs, but he flattered it in official [media] releases, saying:

“The defeated American generals are frantically trying to reach a solution that allows them to escape without having to admit defeat before the American public. This was without a doubt the main topic of discussion between Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates and [General David] Petraeus on 5 December [2007]. Meanwhile, American forces and their local agents continue to suffer their heaviest losses at the hands of the Iraqi mujahideen, at the forefront of whom is the Islamic State of Iraq, under the leadership of the mujahid emir Abu Umar al-Baghdadi, who oversees the implementation of Islamic law and the directing of jihad against the disbelievers and apostates in the areas under the control of his Islamic emirate—an emirate that, by the grace and power of God, the Americans and their new allies in what are called the ‘new Sahwa councils’ (which are just another gang of apostates) are all unable to destroy.”

(From: A Call for Reflection and Repentance )

And now he is among the fiercest of people in waging war against the Islamic State. His rulings align with the fatwas of the Jahmite Ibrahim Salqini [the Mufti of Aleppo], the Salulite [i.e., Saudi-sponsored] Adnan al-Arur [the Salafi scholar from Hama], and the foolish layman al-Jolani.

What a strange thing, that the blood of Abu Khalid al-Suri and the Free Syrian Army is [counted as] blood, but the blood of Abu Bakr al-Iraqi [a.k.a. Haji Bakr] and the muhajireen [foreign fighters] is [treated] like water?! Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Iraqi was among the early ones in jihad in Iraq, the most difficult of jihad arenas in contemporary history. He tasted the bitterness of captivity in the prisons of the Crusaders and the Safavids, and remained patient upon tawhid [monotheism] and jihad. Then he migrated to Syria [Al-Sham] to help establish Jabhat al-Nusra before its deviation.

Has the American forgotten that those who killed Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Iraqi were the so-called “Islamic” Front—the front of Abu Khalid al-Suri? Or is it partisanship, al-asabiyya al-jahiliya [pre-Islamic (ignorant) tribalism/solidarity], and following desires at the expense of al-wala wal-bara [loyalty (to Muslims) and disavowal (of disbelievers)] and the purity of tawhid?

Then his media [output] came to align with the policy of the Jolanis in their war against the Islamic State, and delivered them into the hands of the National Coalition, with its military and local councils. Had it not been for their [Al-Nusra’s] soldiers’ doubts in the wisdom of the “Sage of al-Sham”, Al-Jolani would not have uttered a single word against the Coalition. But God will the exposure of their hypocrisy, so they lined up in one rank with the Salulite front and the military councils of the Coalition to fight the Islamic State.

In conclusion, I say: they incited the dropping of the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” [ISIS] … so that it could declare the Qurayshi Islamic Caliphate, and the hearts of the mujahideen would be drawn to it, and their core forces across the entire earth would pledge allegiance [bay’a] to it, for it was established in Iraq and Syria.

Then pronounce takbir four times over Al-Qaeda—may Allah have mercy on it—for the American is destroying his house with his own hands.

Written by Abu Maysara al-Shami, may God forgive him