Meet the 'Khorasan Shura': The Islamic State's Leaders for South Asia

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

The Islamic State unveils a council of leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan comprised of former TTP members.

In an audio taped speech released earlier this week, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, a spokesperson for the Islamic State, announced the creation of a shura (or council of leaders) for “Khorasan” — roughly the territory occupied by the modern states of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Tajikistan. In that same speech (available in translation here with the original audio available as well), al-Adnani notes that former Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander Hafez Saeed Khan will serve as the “governor of this new geographic province of the Islamic State.” Staff over at The Long War Journal have a useful visual breakdown of the remaining members of the Islamic State’s Khorasan Shura. The announcement adds to a growing pool of evidence that the Islamic State is serious about expanding its presence with the South Asian region with a particular focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The announced that Khan will lead the Islamic State’s presence in the region comes just three months after reports that senior elements of the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Arif Rafiq wrote then for The Diplomat, the defection of senior TTP officials especially indicated “further divisions within Pakistan’s jihadist community, which has rapidly splintered since the killing of the TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud last fall in a U.S. drone strike.” Though the organizational aspirations of the Islamic State will concern regional governments, the defections could also indicate a broader state of splintered confusion among jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Terrorism analysts argued that this confusion and desperation for relevancy manifested in the horrifically brutal attack on a school in Peshawar in late 2014 that killed some 140 Pakistani civilians, most of them children.

The move also brings the spotlight back to an ongoing struggle for relevancy among South Asia’s jihadists between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. In late 2014, al-Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri declared the creation of a South Asian branch of the global terror network. That announcement coincided with preliminary reports of younger jihadist militants in the region pledging their allegiance to the Islamic State’s then-newly declared caliphate. With the declaration of the Khorasan Shura, the Islamic State will offer a degree of organizational clarity to the many different Taliban-affiliated jihadist groups in Pakistan. Part of the reason the Taliban initially aligned with al-Qaeda was largely out of convenience. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are famously bitter enemies, even though the two are self-styled as Salafist jihadi groups.

Al-Adnani’s message, apart from its announcement regarding the creation of the shura, focused primarily on urging rank-and-file jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan to pledge their loyalty to the leaders of the Khorasan Shura: “We call upon all the soldiers of the Islamic State who are in Khorasan to listen and to obey the Wali, Hafez Saeed Khan, and his deputy (may Allah preserve them both), and to prepare for the great tribulations they will face. The factions will assemble against you and the rifles and bayonets will multiply against you. But you are up to it, with Allah’s permission,” he noted in his message.

Al-Adnani’s message, if it is to be successful in generating hype among jihadis in the region, will likely do so in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. Firstly, the core leadership of the Khorasan Shura is Pakistani. These names are well-recognized as former members of the TTP. Secondly, the Afghan Taliban and their related splinter groups remain mostly loyal to Mullah Omar. Since al-Baghdadi has declared himself the Caliph of the global Islamic State, swearing loyalty to him would effectively repudiate Mullah Omar’s status as Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful). This said, cross-border interaction between the former TTP members comprising the new Islamic State Shura and Afghan Taliban members could eventually lead to a change in this current state of affairs.

Meet the ‘Khorasan Shura’: The Islamic State’s Leaders for South Asia | The Diplomat

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

member of kirji shura get ready to be fried

 

[Jf Thunder]

the ISI wants this Shura dissolved

 

[Umair Nawaz]

The west is hoping hard that this shura is to have pakistani members more then afghan so that they can further engage pakistan into internal war in order to keep us a weak state.

Now to effectively counter that we need to have a broader co-operation b/w the concern states like with China, Russia, even Tajikistan and ALSO IRAN! We must engage with iran more to broaden our co-operation and its effectiveness.

What i really want from our intelligence and security forces is to launch an assassination operation of Al Baghdadi himself as experience shows that after the unexpected death of their leader the organization disintegrates into fractions which even can fight each other.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

This is a war being waged by Salafi jihadists supported by their Saudi benefactors against the rest of the muslim(sunni and shia) world, and the western world.

The goal is to overthrow existing states and set up takfiri/salafi-led states around the world and expand geo-political, economic and ideological dominance under the umbrella of a Salafi caliphate by using foot soldiers such as the TTP, Lashkar e Jhangvi and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Al Nusra in Syria, AQAP in Yemen, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Al Shabab in Somalia, Abu Sayyaf in Philipines, Boko Haram in Nigeria...the list goes on and on.

While TTP and other foot soldiers fight on the ground, the Salafi jihadist establishment in Saudi provides the ideology, operational guidance, and funding to all such organizations through proxies such as charities.

As many media sources have confirmed, ISIS was a Saudi project. The Saudis created and funded the monster to destroy Asad's regime in Syria and wreak havoc in Shiite run Iraq. However, they are now learning a valuable lesson in blowback as ISIS has turned its guns on Saudi rulers, declaring them unworthy.

As the Atlantic reported, - "ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, had denied allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS. But there are also signs that the kingdom only recently shifted its assistance—whether direct or indirect—away from extremist factions in Syria and toward more moderate opposition groups."

Clearly, Saudi's new found fear of ISIS stems from their desire for self preservation, rather than any genuine regard for the communities being ravaged by these militants in Iraq and Syria. The fact that ISIS's ideology largely mirrors the Saudi Wahhabi doctrine cannot be denied. And herein lies the problem.

As Reuters explained in a recent article - "Supporters of the Al Saud argue they have to tread carefully when dealing with conservative clerics. They say the ruling family is more liberal than most Saudi citizens, and is wary of provoking public anger.But liberal Saudis and some foreign analysts say that is not the case, and argue that if the government really wanted to reduce intolerant religious discourse, it could readily do so."When the government wants things to be done, they will be done," said Mohammed al-Zulfa, a former member of the Shoura Council."

Will the ruling Saud family renounce its 200 year old alliance with the Wahhabi clergy? Will it dismantle and stop exporting the intolerant ideology that has served as a wellspring for salafi/wahhabi jihadists around the world? Will it stop funding murderous groups like ISIS, TTP, and Lashkar e Jhangvi in its quest for geo-political dominance?

It is clear that unless the Saudis course correct or are forced to change course, salafi jihadists will continue to wreak havoc.

Hopefully the Pakistani, US and European establishments are smart enough to realize that this war cannot be won by simply targeting non-state actors like TTP or ISIS. Whatever the means, until international powers confront and dismantle the ideological and financial hub of the salafi jihadists in Saudi, the threat will remain and the global salafi jihadist campaign of murder and mayhem will continue.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

DAWN
Irfan Husain

THIS last week witnessed the gathering of the great and the good in Riyadh to pay their respects to the recently departed King Abdullah, and to suck up to King Salman, the newly crowned monarch.
Next month, many of these same worthies will meet in Washington to discuss measures to counter terrorism.
How many lives have to be lost before Western leaders finally connect the dots between the Wahabi/Salafi ideology being pumped out by the desert kingdom and the killing fields of Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It was no coincidence that many of the 9/11 suicide bombers and planners, as well as Osama bin Laden, happened to be Saudi citizens. Over the years, a large body of evidence has been built up by diplomats, journalists and intelligence agencies pointing to the nexus between jihadi terror and extremist elements in Saudi Arabia. And yet King Abdullah’s death is being considered a huge loss.
In his tribute, President Obama went so far as saying of Abdullah’s deeds: “They will outlive him as an enduring contribution to the search for peace in the region.” Really? Since when has the architect of a project that has destabilised much of the Muslim world deserved such accolades?
Saudi support has blocked change in the Middle East.
In 1924-25, Ibn Saud, the founder of the current Saudi dynasty, defeated the Hashemites and seized control of Saudi Arabia with the help of the British. According to contemporary accounts, over the next seven years or so, tens of thousands were killed, many more had a limb amputated and up to a million fled Saudi Arabia.
So when we deplore the actions of the Islamic State, we need to remember who provided them with a model for conquest. And when we are repulsed by their public beheading of prisoners, we need to keep in mind the fact that on Fridays, those given the death penalty by Saudi Arabia’s opaque and draconian legal system are decapitated in public squares.
In a Faustian pact, the Saudi monarchy is left unchallenged by the country’s ultra-conservative clergy, provided it does not try and bring the country out of the 7th century. Meanwhile, millions of dollars are sent from private and public sources to madressahs in mostly poor Muslim countries.
Saudi Arabia, among some other Arab states, also funds mosques in Western cities where many clerics, whose salaries are reportedly paid by Riyadh, preach hate against the West and non-Wahabi sects. While the official Wahabi clergy stick to a literalist, joyless interpretation of Islam, they overlook the injunctions against rule by despots. They have thus provided the Saudi royal family with a spurious legitimacy in exchange for the tight control they wield over internal social policy. The royal family and the clergy are in a symbiotic embrace that has made them a barrier to change.
With an army of some 7,000 princes to keep in style, the House of Saud has a strong incentive to maintain a lucrative status quo. This creates their leverage with Washington, London and Paris: with the world’s biggest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia has been ensuring a steady supply of oil to the global markets.
The other factor that keeps leaders like Obama and Cameron onside is the rich market for arms the kingdom has become over the years. These purchases, often accompanied with allegations of vast bribes, generate jobs as well as obscene profits.
Finally, the ‘stability’ repeatedly evoked in the recent eulogies to Abdullah refers to his role in leading the fight to roll back the Arab Spring. From Egypt to Bahrain, it has been Saudi money and political support that has blocked change. Simultaneously, however, Saudi Arabia has also reportedly financed extremist rebel groups in Syria.
But there are signs that the Saudis are losing some of their leverage in Washington. When Obama decided against launching an attack on Syria, it was a big setback for Riyadh. For King Abdullah, it was a humiliating reminder that his country is no longer the highest American priority.
Another reality check came when Obama refused to be led into an Israeli-inspired attack on Iran to destroy its nuclear programme and ambitions. A senior Saudi had been quoted in a leaked US diplomatic cable urging the Americans to “cut off the serpent’s head”.
But Saudi support for General Sisi has been directly helpful to Israel as Egypt has acted vigorously against Hamas, shutting down virtually all the tunnels that had been a lifeline for the beleaguered Palestinians virtually imprisoned in the tiny enclave of Gaza.
Thus far, the Saudi government has bought off its people by giving them huge subsidies and many free services. But with falling oil prices, it may not be able to forever bribe the young to stay quiet. Its Shia population in eastern Saudi Arabia is growing increasingly restless under unending discrimination and repression. And no system, even one as backward as Saudi Arabia’s, stays static forever.