The problem with both these leaders is that neither are religious scholars or authorities. Sayyed Imam’s Islamic jurisprudence is superior to Zawahiri’s, but he has had no formal training either. Neither possess the power to issue fatwas. Dr. Fadl is not even an Islamic lawyer… he’s a surgeon.

Both enjoy immense popularity and following. But still, they are both near the bottom of the religious authority food chain.

And actually, yes… I agree with Wordsmith that it is an important post. Western media needs to get up to speed on what is old news to Muslims. Because this can affect how the west views progress in the war against the global Islamic jihad movements. So please don’t misunderstand me. Just think that this info benefits those not already aware. But I don’t expect many additional waves in the Muslim/terrorist world.

I didn’t get to listen to the interview, as it happened after I went in to work.

LW: You know, he makes some good points, but he’s really not a theologian himself, and so it’s very difficult for him to respond to the jurisprudential argument that Dr. Fadl makes. He’s not adept that way. He steers it mainly into politics. And his line is mistakes have been made, but mistakes were made during the Prophet’s time, but jihad did not stop. And you can see that he’s grasping at straws in some respects. For instance, he says well, you know, why blame us? Look at Hamas, for instance. They kill civilians indiscriminately with their missiles into Israel. Why don’t you attack them, which is of course, he knows that that’s a very touchy issue for a lot of Muslims who see the resistance movements in Palestine as having a kind of different moral standing.

HH: Two aspects of your summary of his letter struck me. One, his attempt to rationalize 9/11 as a response to the 1998 bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. That just, that can’t be persuasive, even to a radical jihadist.

LW: Well, you know, he says that the only difference between the bombing of, the American bombing of that pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum is that it was Muslims who died there. Of course, only one Muslim died there. Only one person died there. It was a night watchman. And in New York, it was infidels. And of course, many Muslims died in that attack. And what Dr. Fadl is pointing out is that it’s against Islam to kill people indiscriminately, and it’s against Islam to kill civilians. Zawahiri can’t respond to those arguments, because there’s no ground for him to do that.

Thus, any effects Sayyed Imam’s publication has had in the Muslim jihad and religious worlds (altho neither Sayyed or Zawahiri are religious scholars, but jihad leaders) is already visible, and in progress. And you cannot talk about one without talking about the other rebuttal publication – also old news in the Muslim world.

When Dr. Fadl’s (aka Sayyed or Sayd Imam) book was released, Zawahiri fired back with his “The Exoneration” book (which I’ve never found a translation of the 188 pg document). He refers to it often in his “Open Meeting” he conducted earlier this year as a way to answer the many tough questions posed to him. This makes both Dr. Fadl and Zawahiri’s publications many months old and already in wide circulation. Our western press will not make much additional impact.

As Jamestown.org said April 30th, when discussing these documents and the theological battles between the two jihad leaders:

Al-Zawahiri highlights many inconsistencies between Dr. Fadl’s previous literature and the latest document. On the ideological/jurisprudence level, al-Zawahiri contests Dr. Fadl’s work in a detailed 19-page section of religious quotes and Quranic verses by many prominent Salafi-jihadist scholars from both the medieval and contemporary Islamic world.

There is no doubt al-Zawahiri’s reaction to Dr. Fadl’s ideological retractions is comprehensive, using religious arguments and logic to refute and highlight weaknesses in the document. On the other hand, the lengthy response demonstrates that al-Qaeda is seriously alarmed by the possible negative consequences the document might inflict on their ideology and the jihadi movement.

These dualing publications will (if not already has) come down to those jihad fighters who can be swayed by Sayyed, and those that cannot. Rather like the DNC members – who cling to “Bush lied” and no Saddam/terrorist links – there is no amount of documentation or logic that will ever alter a hard-headed terrorists’ convictions.

What it may do, however, is provide incentive for moderate Islam religious authorities to speak out, affecting the ability of jihad recruitment.