Jennifer Bryson
Saturday, Dec. 1, 2001

During the interview, which lasted nearly an hour, Hafs discussed why the Sept. 11 attacks were justified, his support for the Taliban, and al-Qaeda's willingness to use any sort of weapons against America, at least defensively.

Al-Jazeera correspondent Yusuf ash-Shuli conducted the interview more than a week ago in Kandahar – after the fall of Mazar-i-Sharif, but before the fall of Kabul and the other swift advances of the Northern Alliance. Al-Jazeera did not explain why it chose to delay release of the interview.

In spite of the almost complete collapse of the Taliban since this interview was conducted, Hafs' tremendous support for the Taliban form of governance remains relevant because it provides insight into the political agenda of al-Qaeda.

Hafs' actual name is Mahfouz Ould al-Walid, and he is also known as Khalid Al-Shanqiti. He is on the list of terrorists whose bank accounts the U.S. Treasury Department has sought to freeze in the U.S. and abroad since Sept. 11.

(His son-in-law Mouhamedou Ould Slahi is also known by the name "Abu Hafs the Mauritanian,” and the FBI suspects that he too has been involved with terrorist activities. Slahi been held and questioned twice in Mauritania, first in January 2000 in connection with the millennium plot, then again this fall. Slahi studied engineering in Germany in the 1990s; German television reported that at least twice Slahi visited bin Laden-sponsored camps in Afghanistan.)

In contrast to the eerie calm of Osama bin Laden and the no-nonsense, business-like manner of Ayman azh-Zhawahiri in their television appearances on Al-Jazeera, the demeanor of Hafs (Mahfouz Ould al-Walid) was by contrast animated and expressive. In discussing the Sept. 11 attacks he could hardly contain his joy; his praise for the Taliban and Mullah Omar was pure adoration; he described the perceived failures of the American military attack in Afghanistan with happy smugness.

Repeatedly he denied that al-Qaeda had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks but said, "There remains another foreign front which carried out these attacks." He added, "There are issues which, if we focused on them, it would be possible for us to arrive at the actual persona ... who's to be held accountable for these attacks."

In identifying these "issues," Hafs said, "First of all there is a group of analysts inside the United States and outside [who say] that the motives of these attacks are the injustice, tyranny, oppression and hostility which America carries out against Muslim and Arab peoples as well as other peoples abroad. The first statement of the American president after the attacks acknowledged this reality. He said that those who carried out the attacks want to turn the United States away from its foreign policy."

And he said, "This was a clear acknowledgment that it was American foreign policy which gave birth to the extent of enemies, revenge, retaliation and vengeance against Americans."

Ash-Shuli questioned how Hafs could deny any connection between al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks when "the spokesman for the al-Qaeda organization threatened other tempests of airplanes."

Hafs demurred: "He did not threaten. He said that Americans by their former policy produced the Sept. 11 events, and their continuation of the former policy with the addition of new hostility against Afghanistan will increase events like these, but he is not necessarily the perpetrator."

Next, Hafs spoke at length about failures of the American intelligence, military and security agencies in spite of their multimillion-dollar budgets. He placed the responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks in their hands. Moreover, he argued that Sept. 11 has resulted in Americans losing confidence in the U.S. government.

It seemed to please him that, as he viewed it, "The question which every American is asking is what is the point of these millions which are distributed to the security and intelligence agencies, what is the point of these agencies which appear feeble and blameworthy, unable to protect themselves and protect others."

He emphasized further, "The question which all Americans are facing is that it is necessary to bring the American administration to account for inciting these [perpetrators] who did this [with] oppressive policy." He said, however, of American officials, "But instead of their acknowledgment of their responsibility, they place the responsibility on other people and seek a scapegoat which they have found in Afghanistan."

Hafs concluded his discussion of the Sept. 11 attacks by saying, "We did not carry out the attack, but we here in Afghanistan like hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world could not suppress our rejoicing and feelings of joy as we saw America put to the test one day more then Muslim people have been put to the test every day over time."

'Battle With the Americans Has Not Even Started'

Ash-Shuli asked if they had new threats against America. Hafs responded: "We are not threatening anything. We do not need to threaten. We are in open war." But then shortly after that he said for "us now, our battle with the Americans has not even started."

Hafs went on at length about what he termed the ineffectiveness and failure of the American "Crusade-war against Afghanistan" in spite of its massive scale. He claimed that 80 percent of the targets hit were civilian, including destruction of mosques. With scorn he said, "The images on Al-Jazeera [of civilian targets being hit] exemplify the values of American civilization and morals."

Ash-Shuli noted that Hafs spoke about his support for the Taliban even more so than for al-Qaeda and questioned why.

He responded, "I support the Taliban for several reasons, first of all because support of them is support of truth, and we Muslims proclaim truth."

Becoming even more energetic, he added, "This movement, I do not exaggerate when I say that today nowhere on the face of the earth is there a governing structure which governs by means of Islam from the Book [Qur'an], the Sunna [traditions of Mohammed and Islam], and [where] the clerics of the [Muslim] community are sincere and pure, other than the Islamic emirate which rules over Afghanistan."

Here Ash-Shuli interjected that some lodge serious criticisms against the Taliban. Hafs dismissed this. "Those who know the reality know that these are just accusations ... and the accusations which the Taliban face are false accusations." He praised the Taliban, and in particular extolling its treatment of women, at which point Ash-Shuli, appearing increasingly exasperated, simply changed the topic.

Ash-Shuli asked, "Frankly, who governs Afghanistan – al-Qaeda, the Afghan-Arabs, or the Afghan-Afghans?" Hafs responded, smiling, "Mullah Omar rules them all."

Regarding the future of Afghanistan, Ash-Shuli questioned why the Taliban would not consider a broad-based government. According to Hafs, "Broad-based government is American law and not Islamic law." He said that other forms of government had been tried in Afghanistan but that the form of Islamic government established by Taliban was "the one beneficial path for the people."

When asked about the future of al-Qaeda, Hafs switched the focus and asserted, "America has entered a stage of the beginning of the end ... America lost before entering the battle."

Hafs identified what he considers the three priorities in American policy toward Muslim countries: namely support for Israel, access to oil, and "stopping the establishment of any Islamic country which governs by true Islam" such as Afghanistan. He said that even in Afghanistan, "al-Qaeda was only the justification for American strikes ... the objective was the Islamic government in Afghanistan," because it served as a "model for other countries," and Muslims elsewhere were seeking to replicate the Taliban model, for example in Pakistan.

When asked about Palestine, on the one hand Hafs claimed, "Palestine, no doubt is the primary issue in the hearts of Muslims." And yet when asked why then they were operating in Afghanistan and not in Palestine he said, "Until now we have not had the opportunity to enter there."

'Greatest Offering Is the Killing of Americans'

Ash-Shuli turned to the rewards being offered by the FBI for information leading to the arrest of some al-Qaeda members. Hafs claimed that the reason behind this was that "the greatest offering [one can give in] this era is the killing of Americans and inciting killing and jihad... the most important obligation in this era is jihad against Americans and killing them."

About the FBI rewards, he added, "We consider that the United States makes us well known," and said they are a "badge of honor."

Ash-Shuli pointed out that al-Qaeda members are in fact considered terrorists and asked bluntly, "How do you defend those who kill innocents?" and "Are you terrorists?"

The response to this question by Hafs was striking. Until now in the interview and again in this response he flatly denied that al-Qaeda was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet at the same time he began justifying the Sept. 11 attacks; he denied killing innocents, but did not exactly deny killing.

Double Talk on Role in Sept. 11 Attacks

First of all he said, "if terrorism is killing innocents ... then we are not terrorists." He explained that jihad justifies killing and that they did not kill innocents on Sept. 11.

According to Abu Hafs, "Some say those targets were civilian and not military targets, that there were civilians in them and so on." He said the Pentagon was a military target, and as for the World Trade Center, "this center is the greatest center of usury in the world ... a center of money laundering in the world. How can you describe these targets – which are very clearly military, economic, political – as innocent targets?"

Next Ash-Shuli asked if al-Qaeda had nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Abu Hafs said, "We are in open war with the most arrogant power in the world, and this enemy has a previous criminal history of using weapons of mass destruction against many peoples."

He added: "We, when we entered into this war with the U.S.A., we clearly took an example from this. So the U.S.A., when it enters into war with the al-Qaeda organization or mujahideen anywhere, it should expect that the mujahideen will not spare ... any ability or capacity in using any weapons which are in their hands, but if al-Qaeda has weapons of this sort, they would be weapons to respond and not start an attack."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Al-Qaeda

War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
"Living Terrors: Surviving the Coming Bioterrorist Catastrophe"