Global translation of:
1. Leadership: Decisions and consultation.
By: Shaykh Abu Musab Al-Suri
Cowardliness in taking decisions is much worse than cowardliness in the battlefield, if you see it fit to make a truce but the whole army wants to fight, like in Al-Hudaybiyah, the Prophet (saws) made a truce, while everyone was against it. If the people around the Prophet could change his decision they would have changed it. Likewise the decision to withdrawal, if everyone wants to march forth and fight, but the leader sees that leaving the fronts is necessary, like Khalid ibn Waleed on the day of Yarmuk, he had almost conquered Syria but when the Romans came with a big army he looked at the battlefield and saw it necessary to withdrawal to south Syria, and leave the open field. So he left more then 300 kilometers for the Romans, which he had conquered, and turned into Dar Al-Islam. It was necessary to leave it militarily and turn to the reare and wage war from there. He went to the people of Homs and gave them their Jizyah back because he could no longer provide protection for them, this caused many Christians to convert to Islam. He went back and choose the place of battle, when he choose the battle he conquered the Roman empire until he reached Constantinople. He Roman army was finished. He took back the areas he left and the areas after that.
Was it necessary for Khalid ibn Walid to explain to every Bedouin and every Muslim and every individual that is was necessary for him to withdrawal? Where are the limits of consulting in making decisions? The people should follow the notables (like Ahl Al-Madinah; the Mujahireen and Ansaar), and the notables follow the leaders, and the leaders follow the Amir. As long as you choose the Amir with a sound believe and experience and a history, and not just picked him from the street to destroy your own home. When they picked an Amir from the streets, Abu Abdurahman Amin, from the GIA in Algeria, his profession was a chicken butcher, so he performed the same profession on the Muslims, in the same matter. This has nothing to do with the limits of consulting in making decisions, this has to do with corrupt leadership you chose. Dr. Abu Khalil Mahfudh he grew up with the Islamic movement, he participated in Jihad, he established guerrilla cells in Algeria, he was removed and replaced by Abu Abdurahman Amin, so you payed the price for the choice. So the problem does not lie in the Sharia rules about the limits of consultations in making decisions.
The leader must be brave in taking decisions, whether people like it or not. But if the leader slipped a couple of times in his decisions, he will fall automatically. This was his destiny, many people try to get married, they fail in the first, second, and third try and after that he does not have any household. This was the destined result of his attempt to establish an household. If you choose a leader with the right characteristics of religion and experience and history, you give him this power and he has to be brave in taking decisions.
You could for example not be the general or main leader, but you could be the commander of a certain front, and the communications between you and the leader broke, does this then mean that you do no take any decisions? If the communication was broke it is necessary that the field commander should take over responsibility; if there was a necessity. Because the could cause harm if he does not take a decisions, and most of the times the general leader is to blame, who punishes every field commander who uses secondary power in taking decisions. There are some leaders who kill everyone in their group who takes decisions, he want to decide everything, the field, the kitchen, the football matches, etc. So no one can decide anything because he knows that the leader watches over him if he does so. These issues are very sensitive and detailed concerning movements. If you leave to much power to the branches they would ruin everything, and if the leader decides everything this is a disaster also. Everything has two extremes and a middle path.
We must understand that there is general strategy, which does not change, and that there are detailed tactics, which could change with ease. Imagine a leader in Paris sent soldiers to Milan to execute a certain operations, he gives them the order to go by train. But the commander and the soldiers came to know that the situation has changed, and a certain high ranking diplomat or official came to Milan, which made traveling by train dangerous security-wise, can he then not decide to go by car because this is safer? The leader gave a general strategy but the tactical details could change as long as the commander uses his sound mind, and the general leader should not oppose this. Because Milan did not change, the operation did not change, the goal did not change.
This is from amongst the important disciplines of the movement, you think that the disciplines of the movement only consists of training in the mountains, etc. These military movement lessons we learned and experienced over the past twenty years are necessary for us to share with each other to create a sound movement. Military training is a very small portion of the movement, we want to create a leader who is able to handle things, because if he is not able to he will destroy his own home, and this does not come forth except by disciplines, lessons and experiences.
We do not need a leader who waits for orders in secondary issues, he is just like the one who repeats the Adhaan so that the people who are far away also hear it. We need a leader who can operate independently not just pass orders from a far. And he must not be a slave to the routine, how many were destroyed because of routine. We had many bad experiences with leaders who looked they were capable leaders but they were not. After many mistakes he leaves everything and thinks to himself, I get my monthly income, I am a Muhajir Murabit, whether he performs Jihad or not, he becomes a slave to the routine, gets bored and leaves everything in the end. Others go to extremes in making decisions, believe me I intervened in trivial issues between a man and his wife, because she had moved a table for example, and he is suppose to be a leader in a movement. She does not get to choose anything. You should rely and take care of your wife and children, how many times did we see women take great responsibilities on their shoulders in times of need, because we were forced to move and leave them behind for example. How sad do I get when I see a man slap his son in front of his guests, to show how great his authority is, while he is suppose to be a leader in a movement, and his son is his future who will follow his footsteps. Other leaders must humiliate their soldiers and create fear among them. And the examples are many.
Translated by: DMIS