Taliban Claim Arghandab Occupation a Diversion and Demonstration of Strength

Andrew McGregor

June 24, 2008

Last week’s apparent attempt by the Taliban to occupy the Arghandab district of Kandahar province perplexed many observers. Following the successful raid and breakout of prisoners from Kandahar Prison on June 13, the large-scale operation in Arghandab, where there is little support for the Taliban, resulted in the loss of scores of Taliban fighters.

Arghandab3rd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment on Patrol in Arghandab

A June 19 statement from Taliban spokesman Qari Yusuf Ahmadi outlined some aspects of the movement’s strategy: “There were some hidden objectives behind our plan to enter Arghandab… The obvious aim of this was to show that we can easily enter an area and then leave it without suffering any casualties whenever we want to. We also wanted to divert the enemy’s attention to this area so that our prisoners could safely return to their homes” (Voice of Jihad, June 19). According to Qari Yusuf, the Taliban fighters left the district of their own accord rather than being driven out: “They did so in order to prevent loss of life and material among the local people, because the enemy’s cruelty and their bombardment of the area, which would have caused losses to civilians, were intolerable.”

Afghan troops assisted by Canadian forces quickly defeated the insurgents in a counter-offensive that began on June 18. The Taliban claimed a loss of only six men, but a Defense Ministry spokesman cited a loss of 56 fighters, while Kandahar governor Asadollah Khaled claimed over 100 Taliban were killed (Tolo TV, June 19).

The number of Taliban fighters killed in the operation is disputed by Afghan and Coalition security forces, though there seems little doubt that hundreds of fighters were involved in a sweep through at least a dozen villages in Arghandab. There was similar disagreement over the number of foreign militants involved in the operation, with Afghan security officials claiming that the large number of militants wearing the distinctive woolen pakool cap indicated that most of the attackers came from Pakistan, though other sources failed to see the pakool worn by any of the dead fighters (Globe and Mail [Toronto], June 21). The fighters were apparently led by a Taliban commander known as Mullah Shakoor.

The withdrawal does not appear to have been hurried; before leaving Arghandab the Taliban are reported to have destroyed an important bridge and heavily mined and booby-trapped the whole district. It was, according to General Zaher Azimi, “a move similar to the Russian occupiers” (Tolo TV, June 19; Radio Afghanistan, June 17).

There is some speculation within Afghanistan that the Pakistani government organized and financed the operation as covert retaliation for successive U.S. strikes on targets within Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (Hasht-e Sobh, June 18).

Canadian Brigadier General Denis Thompson did not agree with Afghan speculation that the attack was part of an attempt to occupy the provincial capital: “What you have to understand about this district is it’s all one tribe, the Alokozai… They’re mostly pro-government. So this was the Taliban demonstrating to the tribe that they’re vulnerable. It was a psychological operation, not a military operation” (Globe and Mail, June 21).

Until last October the leading Alokozai elder was Mullah Naqib, a famous anti-Soviet mujahideen and a leading backer of the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul. Though he resisted Taliban encroachment into Arghandab, Mullah Naqib was also prominent at times in negotiations with the Islamist militants. Following his death from a heart attack last fall, the Mullah was replaced by his 26-year-old son on the orders of Hamid Karzai. The appointment of this untested youth broke with tradition—tribes generally choose their own leaders—and overlooked a number of capable fighters and leaders in the tribe. There is reason to think that the Taliban operation was intended to intimidate the Alokozai into cooperation or passivity, eventually clearing the way into Kandahar.

This article first appeared in the June 24, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

Afghanistan and Pakistan Agree to Implement Biometric Security on Border

Andrew McGregor

June 18, 2008

The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan have agreed to adopt a high-tech method to address the ongoing problem of suspects wanted for terrorism and other crimes crossing their mutual border. At a June 8 meeting between President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and the advisor to Pakistan’s prime minister on internal affairs and narcotics control, Rehman Malik, an agreement was reached to resume a once-aborted program to install biometric identification equipment at border points (The News International [Karachi], June 9).

The biometrics program was to begin in February 2007, but was halted when Afghanistan ceased cooperating. Biometric scanning equipment will be placed at first at three points along the common border (PakTribune, June 9). Technical teams will be assigned to install the system in the interests of improving security along the border (Bakhtar News Agency, June 9).

Biometric identification covers a wide range of techniques and systems, including fingerprinting, facial recognition scans and retinal scans. The joint announcement did not specify which systems will be put in place along the Afghan/Pakistani border.

The announcement came only days after President George W. Bush issued a presidential directive authorizing the “application of biometric technologies” which will “improve the executive branch’s ability to identify and screen for persons who may pose a national security threat.” The directive is aimed at “known and suspected terrorists” and authorizes federal agencies to “use mutually compatible methods and procedures in the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information of individuals in a lawful and appropriate manner” (NSPD 59/HSPD 24, June 5). One of the main problems in biometric recognition is the widespread use of incompatible systems, even within the U.S. federal government, thus hampering the sharing of data.

The use of biometrics is not new in Afghanistan; U.S. Marines have been using fingerprinting, iris scans and electronic databases to vet recruits to the Afghan National Police, though even here not all military databases are compatible (Wired, May 22). There are other unresolved problems with the technology, including the irreversibility of security breaches. Cambridge security engineering professor Ross Anderson warned of these dangers in a recent report to the UK House of Commons: “There is a fundamental security engineering problem with biometrics as opposed to the cryptographic keys in your chip and pin card. Once your biometrics become compromised, you cannot revoke them. It is not practical to do eye or finger transplants” (Daily Mail, June 7).

This article first appeared in the June 18, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

Afghanistan’s Taliban Contest NATO Commander’s Assessment

Andrew McGregor

June 4, 2008

A statement from the Afghan Taliban leadership has challenged an assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan given by outgoing International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander General Dan McNeill in an interview with the BBC’s Pashto language service (Voice of Jihad, May 28).

McNeill, who is turning over command of NATO’s ISAF contingent to General David McKiernan on June 3, was reported as saying that ISAF has made considerable progress in the military and reconstruction aspects of its mission in the last year, as well as describing the Taliban’s campaign as little more than a series of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and ambushes.

The Taliban responded to these remarks by asking: “What blind, deaf or senseless person will accept remarks by McNeill—this commander of the forces of barbarism and darkness—that the NATO forces in Afghanistan are more powerful than they have been at any other time and are more superior now to the mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate? Do not the United Nations, various research institutions, independent organizations and well known Western and regional media outlets and news agencies acknowledge that 60 percent of Afghanistan’s territory is under the control or influence of the Taliban?”

The Taliban rebuttal cited January’s attack on the Serena Hotel in central Kabul and the April 27 assault on a military parade in Kabul attended by President Hamid Karzai and General McNeill as examples of the Taliban’s broadening reach and improved operational capabilities.

A Kabul newspaper controlled by the opposition National Front—a coalition of ex-Northern Alliance leaders headed by former President Burhannudin Rabbani—was largely in agreement with the Taliban assessment of the current situation: “It has become crystal clear now that the government and its administrative units do not have as good and as effective a presence in the areas of the south, southwest and east of the country as the armed opposition groups… This situation is very similar to the last days of the communist regime in Afghanistan, which only controlled the centers of the cities while the rest was under the control of the mujahideen” (Eqtedar-e Melli, May 31).

 

This article first appeared in the June 4 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

Taliban Commanders Accused of Blowing Up NATO Oil Tankers Released on Bail

Andrew McGregor

April 23, 2008

Four Taliban commanders arrested for organizing the destruction of nearly 40 oil tankers at the entrance to the Khyber Pass on March 23 have been released on bail. The tankers were carrying fuel for NATO forces in Afghanistan when six bombs ripped through the parking lot where they were awaiting clearance to pass through the Torkham border crossing. As part of the terms of their release, the South Waziristan Taliban commanders agreed to return 50,000 gallons of fuel and two oil tankers to Khyber Agency merchants and to release two abducted drivers (Daily Times [Lahore], April 17).

JavedJaved Ibrahim Paracha (Photo – Arshad Mahmood Virk)

The bail conditions were arranged after a jirga, or council, composed of Waziristan Taliban leaders—including Mir Qasim Janikhel and Ishaq Wazir—and Zakhakehl and Qambarkhel elders met to decide the case. The four accused Taliban commanders all hail from the Janikhel Wazir sub-tribe and include Khalid Rehman. The jirga was held at the home of Javed Ibrahim Paracha, who stated he had been asked to host the meeting by Interior Affairs Advisor Rehman Malik and Interior Secretary Kamal Shah (Daily Times, April 17). The Zakhakel and Qambarkhel elders agreed to withdraw their testimony against the suspects after initially charging them with terrorism.

Paracha was an interesting choice to head the jirga. A lawyer by trade, Paracha has aided many Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects and created support networks for the families of convicted terrorists. Paracha has been imprisoned twice by Pakistani President Musharraf for his political activities and claims to have been tortured by the FBI while incarcerated. According to Paracha, they were unable to coerce him by physical means so they offered him half a million dollars to become a “bridge” between the United States and the Taliban and al-Qaeda (New Yorker, January 28). He was a member of the national assembly from 1997 to 2002 on the ticket of the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and has built two madrassas, where the students are taught that “only Islam can provide the justice they seek” (New Statesmen, March 28, 2005). Paracha is also responsible for promoting sectarian attacks on the tiny Shiite community in his hometown of Kohat and neighboring villages (Daily Times, February 11, 2006).

There are other reports that Paracha was approached by the United States in 2005 to use his links with the militants to act as a conduit between Washington and the Taliban. At first, Paracha confirmed meeting to discuss this with State Department Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes and several U.S. military officials at an Islamabad hotel, but later stated that his visitors were “American businessmen who did ask me to help the U.S. ‘reconcile’ with al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. The businessmen sought my help against anti-American feelings and for a safe exit of U.S. troops from Afghanistan under an agreement” (Daily Times, November 17; 2005; Dawn [Karachi], November 17, 2005; UPI, November 22, 2005).

Meanwhile the main highway supplying Coalition forces in Afghanistan from Pakistan continues to suffer interruptions, the latest being a six day closure last week due to fighting between Lashkar-i-Islam militants and Korikhel tribesmen resisting the militants’ attempt to impose “moral reforms” in the region (The News [Islamabad], April 19).

This article first appeared in the April 23, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

Ahmadzai Wazir Tribesmen Negotiate Return of Taliban Commanders

Andrew McGregor

April 9, 2008

The Afghanistan Taliban are mediating ongoing negotiations for the return of Taliban commanders and Uzbek militants to the Wana region of South Waziristan after they were forcibly expelled last year by Ahmadzai Wazir tribesmen under the command of rival Taliban commander Maulvi Nazir.

Maulvi NazirMaulvi Nazir

The negotiations will likely result in the return of the expelled Taliban commanders, but while Maulvi Nazir appears to have softened his stance towards the Uzbeks, their return remains strongly opposed by Ahmadzai tribal elders despite guarantees of their “good behavior” by the Afghan Taliban (Daily Times [Lahore], April 4). The Uzbeks have turned down offers to resettle in Taliban-controlled areas of Helmand and Zabul provinces, where they could be targeted by ISAF forces (Dawn [Karachi], April 5, 2007).

The Taliban commanders seeking to return—Ghulam Jan, Maulvi Abbas, Haji Muhammad Umar, Maulvi Javed Karmazkhel and Noor Islam—were all commanders under Nek Muhammad, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2004. They were well known for harboring the Uzbek militants whose predilection for violent activities—including contract assassinations—created major rifts with the tribesmen who had initially offered them refuge after being driven out of Afghanistan in late 2001. The Utmanzai Wazirs of North Waziristan have joined the Ahmadzai in their attempts to expel the Uzbeks from the region (The News [Islamabad], April 5). The Uzbeks are hardened veteran fighters who cannot easily be eliminated by any one party. They are mostly veteran members of Tahir Yuldash’s Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), though rival leaders have emerged during their long exile from Uzbekistan.

As part of a peace agreement with the Pakistan government in early 2005, Maulvi Abbas, Haji Muhammad Umar and Maulvi Javed Karmazkhel were issued massive cash payments from the secret service fund to repay money they claimed al-Qaeda had advanced to finance attacks on Pakistani security forces (Dawn, February 8, 2005). Noor Islam is a Wana-based Taliban commander closely associated with Uzbek and Arab elements while Ghulam Jan is a strong opponent of Maulvi Nazir (Daily Times, January 9, 2007). Haji Muhammad Umar and Noor Islam belong to the powerful Yargulkhel sub-tribe of the Ahmadzai; Maulvi Nazir is from the much weaker Ghulamkhel sub-tribe but wields considerable influence in the area due to his skills as a fighter.

At a meeting two weeks ago between Maulvi Nazir and his local rival, Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander Baitullah Mehsud, the latter told Nazir that he would not expel the Uzbek militants from the region as he had been asked to harbor them by Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of Jalaluddin Haqqani and the day-to-day commander of the Haqqani network (The News, April 5). Due to tribal animosities, the Ahmadzai and Mehsud have maintained separate Taliban commands.

 

This article first appeared in the April 9 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

German Forces in Afghanistan Warned of Attacks by German Islamists

Andrew McGregor

April 9, 2008

Germany’s Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced on April 3 that “potentially threatened institutions in Afghanistan,” including bases of the German Bundeswehr, had been warned of possible terrorist attacks from two German citizens (DDP, April 4). The Germans are believed to have passed through Egypt, Dubai, Iran and Pakistan on their way to Afghanistan, making it difficult to monitor their progress.

GermansGerman Troops in Afghanistan

Pictures of the two men, 20-year-old Nuenkirchen native and convert to Islam Eric B. (alias Abdul Rafar) and a native of Lebanon with German citizenship identified as Houssain al-M., were sent to Afghanistan, where they were circulated amongst German personnel and placed on public wanted posters. According to German security officials, the two are operating under direct orders from al-Qaeda and the Taliban (Der Spiegel, April 7). The suspects are believed to belong to the Islamist Jihad Union (IJU), a radical Uzbek organization that has taken roots in Germany.

The two are also believed to be associates of the so-called Sauerland cell, which was broken up by German authorities while planning a major attack on a U.S. military base in Germany. The Sauerland cell included two native German converts to Islam, Daniel Schneider and Fritz Gelowicz, as well as an ethnic-Turkish German citizen, Adem Yilmaz. Another ethnic-Turkish German, Cuneyt Ciftci, a.k.a. Saad Ebu Furkan, died in a March 3 suicide bombing on a U.S. military post in Afghanistan’s Khost province that killed two U.S. soldiers and two civilians. Responsibility for the attack was claimed in a video by Jaluluddin Haqqani, the veteran jihadi and leader of the Taliban-allied Haqqani network.

Like the members of the Sauerland cell, the latest suspects are believed to have received training from Taliban elements in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Houssain al-M. was arrested in Waziristan by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) last year and deported to Germany (Der Spiegel, April 4). Another German from the state of Hesse, identified as Sadullah K., was killed in a U.S. airstrike on a training camp along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border last October (Spiegel Online, March 15).

The warnings come as Germany’s parliament is considering the future of Germany’s mission in Afghanistan. Germany’s ISAF contingent of 3,500 troops operates in the relatively quiet northern provinces of Afghanistan—Regional Command North, based in Mazar-i-Sharif—under a caveat that prevents them from participating in combat operations. The Taliban has promised to open a new front to engage these troops as part of its spring offensive; three German soldiers were injured in an attack on their tank on March 27 (Deutsche Welle, March 27). There are also plans to add 500 new counter-terrorism agents to the BKA, including doubling the size of the Mobile Task Force (Der Spiegel, April 7).

 

This article first appeared in the April 9, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor

Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan Urges Professionals to Join Mujahideen

Andrew McGregor

March 18, 2008

In a 47-minute video statement, the commander of al-Qaeda’s forces in Afghanistan issued an appeal for professionals such as physicians and engineers to join the jihad against Coalition forces in that country (Al-Sahab Media Production Organization, March 6). Mustafa Ahmad Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian jihadist leader and close associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, called for much-needed professionals to join the mujahideen. Abu al-Yazid, already under an Egyptian in absentia death sentence for terrorist activities in that country, spent two years in Iraq before being appointed as the leader of al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan last year (Al-Jazeera, May 24, 2007).

Abu al-Yazid 3Abu al-Yazid

The appeal comes on the heels of a similar call for professionals to join the ranks of the mujahideen in Iraq, suggesting al-Qaeda operations are suffering from an inability to recruit professionals to their cause. Abu al-Yazid is himself a skilled financial operator, believed to have arranged financing for multiple terrorist attacks.

Abu al-Yazid repeatedly condemns the introduction of nationalism and “patriotic bias” to the Muslim world, suggesting that such notions are the result of Western design and influence. The al-Qaeda commander also attacks the generation of Arab nationalist leaders that took power in the post-war Middle East: “These rulers were greater transgressors against Islam and the Muslims than their masters, the Christians and the Jews. Their names were Muslim, but their hearts were Christian.” There are extensive quotes from Ibn al-Tamiyya, the 13th century Islamic scholar and advocate of jihad—controversial and oft-imprisoned in his own time—a popular source of legitimization for today’s jihadis.

Four situations are identified in which jihad becomes obligatory for Muslims, including defense of a Muslim nation, being close to the scene of conflict, the liberation of Muslim prisoners and the case of an imam issuing a call for jihad. In what may be a reference to a similar shortage of religious scholars willing to advocate al-Qaeda’s cause, al-Yazid takes the unusual step of advising would-be jihadists: “Do not let yourselves be deceived by the fraudulent claim that no jihad is permitted without the sanction of an imam.”

The appeal addresses the difficulty experienced professionals would endure in abandoning their families and homes to take up jihad: “We direct a special call to specialized people like doctors and electronic engineers, due to their urgent need by the mujahideen… We call on the fathers and mothers not to become a barrier between their children and paradise and to present their children for the sake of God… we say to the Muslim wives do not be a barrier between your husbands and paradise; the righteous woman who loves her husband is the one that desires for him to get into paradise and to be saved from Hell, but she is the one who says to him when she knows that Islam is calling him: ‘Take my gold and money and conduct jihad for the sake of God and we will meet in paradise, God willing.’”

This article first appeared in the March 18, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus

Taliban Suspect U.S. Drawdown a Cover for Permanent Bases

Andrew McGregor

July 1, 2011

Afghanistan’s Taliban movement has reacted to Washington’s announcement that it would begin a phased military withdrawal from Afghanistan, beginning with the withdrawal of 10,000 troops by the end of the year. In an official statement issued in the name of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban described the announcement as an attempt to deceive both the American and Afghan people by its failure to acknowledge an alleged U.S. plan to build permanent military bases with American garrisons in Afghanistan. [1]

american base afghanistan
The statement claims that President Obama “and his war mongers” have no intention of bringing the American occupation of Afghanistan to an end. In the Taliban’s eyes, the suggestion that the Afghan police and army can take over security duties from the Coalition “holds no significance,” as most of the police and army “are drug addicts” and are considered by Afghans as “enemies of their nation and religion”: “They perform their duty only to spread vice and corruption. They can neither fulfill the demands of the Afghans nor help the Pentagon and CIA to achieve their goals.”

The Taliban statement goes on to describe the American “surge” as a strategic failure that has only increased American loss of life and equipment: “They have not gained progress in the battlefield, nor can they bring forth any proofs of this progress… persecution of people and the destruction of people’s homes and farms to protect themselves cannot be called victory or progress by any sound mind.”

The statement concludes by warning American taxpayers that their money is “still being wasted” on the prosecution of the war or by finding its way into “the pockets of officials in the corrupt Kabul regime.”

Despite recent talk of new negotiations between the Taliban and the Karzai regime and its American sponsors, the two sides appear to be far apart. While Washington demands a renunciation of violence, the end of cooperation with al-Qaeda and support for the Afghan constitution, Taliban leaders continue to call for an immediate and complete withdrawal of foreign troops and the replacement of the Karzai “stooge” regime in Kabul.

Some in the U.S. administration still seem to be working on the assumption that Afghanistan’s Taliban movement is little more than a subordinate element of al-Qaeda. According to recent Senate testimony presented by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “With (Osama) Bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda’s remaining leadership under enormous pressure, the choice facing the Taliban is clear: be part of Afghanistan’s future or face unrelenting assault” (AFP, June 23).

Rumors of negotiations regarding permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan have been dismissed by Secretary of State Clinton and a number of other senior officials. A Karzai government spokesman also denied the report: “It has not been officially discussed yet… We have not proposed that the U.S.A. establish permanent bases in Afghanistan” (Tolo TV [Kabul], June 20).

Taliban fears of a permanent American military presence in Afghanistan are based on a June 13 Guardian article which claimed, according to unnamed “American officials,” that quiet but difficult negotiations are underway to provide for a continued American military presence beyond 2014 at one or more of five existing bases in Afghanistan. One of the sticking points allegedly centers on their possible use in operations against neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran. According to the Guardian’s sources, American denials are a matter of interpretation; such bases would not necessarily be “permanent,” and though American “combat troops” would not be deployed, military “advisors” routinely accompany their trainees on combat missions.

Note:

1. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: “Statement of Islamic Emirate regarding Obama’s announcement of the withdrawal of a limited number of U.S. troops from Afghanistan,” Afghan Islamic Press News Agency, June 23, 2011.

This article first appeared in the July 1, 2011 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

“Jihad and the Rifle Alone”: ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam and the Islamist Revolution

Andrew McGregor

Journal of Conflict Studies 23(2), Fall 2003, pp. 92-113

 INTRODUCTION

Palestinian-born Islamist Dr. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam (1941-89) played a leading role in promoting and developing the modern Islamist concept of jihad. Little known in the West despite lengthy stays in the United States, ‘Azzam was responsible for internationalizing the Islamist struggle against secularism, socialism, and materialism. Though a scholar, ‘Azzam took his campaign to the front lines of Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet war, organizing the agency that would evolve into Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. In many ways the life and work of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam have already made him one of the most influential figures in modern times. As forms of jihad erupt from Algeria to the Philippines, it is important to understand the man whom so many mujahidin cite as their inspiration.

Azzam 1‘Abdullah ‘Azzam

By tracing ‘Azzam’s thought through his most important influences, mediaeval scholar Ibn Taymiyah, Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb, and Egyptian radical Muhammad Faraj, it is possible to see how the Shaykh’s ideology transformed radical Islam from a group of disparate movements defined by national borders into a potent (if scattered) force in the international arena.

“Jihad and the rifle alone; no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues”

This was the uncompromising answer of Shaykh ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Azzam to the encroachments of the Western and communist worlds into Islamic lands in the 1980s. Shaykh ‘Abdullah’s militant interpretation of the Islamic doctrine of jihad1 contributed to the success of the Afghan mujahidin, and has been an inspiration since his assassination in 1989 to a new generation of radical Islamists, including Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization and ‘Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Islamic jihad group in Egypt. While Islamists are frequently portrayed in the West as archconservatives who “want to return to the 7th century,” ‘Azzam saw himself and his confederates as revolutionaries, advancing a modern interpretation of Islam that could stand toe-to-toe with Western secularism or Eastern socialism. Part of ‘Azzam’s legacy is the internationalization of the Islamist movement and the authority he lent to the movement as a religious authority, something rare in militant Islamist groups.2 ‘Azzam’s recorded sermons and two influential books, Join the Caravan and The Defence of Muslim Lands, continue to receive wide circulation in Islamist circles.

Born in the West Bank village of Seelet al-Hartiyeh in Palestine in 1941, ‘Azzam’s philosophy was deeply influenced by the sight of Israeli tanks entering his village unopposed in 1967. After taking a BA in Islamic law in Damascus, ‘Azzam moved to Jordan to join the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation. It did not take ‘Azzam long to discover he had little in common with the largely secular and socialist Palestine Liberation Organization. After Jordanian security forces brought a sudden and violent end to the unruly Palestinian movement within Jordan in 1970, ‘Azzam continued his studies on a scholarship at the al-Azhar University in Cairo (the preeminent school of Islamic studies), completing a PhD in the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence in 1973.3 While in Egypt, ‘Azzam became close to the family and ideas of the late leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin), Sayyid Qutb (1906-66).

Sayyid Qutb: Man Without Compromise

Qutb was an important ideologue in the modern Islamist movement, and his ideas so at odds with the Arab nationalism of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser that he was executed in 1966, accused (with several other Ikhwan) of plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government.4 Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (assassinated 1949), had sought the Islamization of the Egyptian people before the creation of an Islamic state. Qutb went further, suggesting that “a revolutionary vanguard should first establish an Islamic state and then, from above, impose Islamization on Egyptian society and export Islamic revolutions throughout the Islamic world.”5 Qutb made the unique proposal that the existing Egyptian state could be overthrown on the grounds that it was “un-Islamic” and a promoter of modern jahiliya (ignorance of the truths of religion).

Azzam 2Sayyid Qutb

Qutb is regarded in many quarters as the father of uncompromising militant Islam. Yet, much of his work is inspired by Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), and was part of an increasingly militant approach to Islam that can be traced through the thought of Qutb’s Egyptian predecessor, Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905) and ‘Abduh’s Libyan disciple Rashid Rida (1865-1935). ‘Abduh foresaw an inevitable triumph of Islam over other world religions, citing God’s promise in the Koran:

God has promised those of you who believe and do good works
To make them masters in the land,
as He has made their ancestors before them,
to strengthen the faith He chose for them,
and to change their fears to safety.
Let them worship Me and serve no other gods beside Me. (Koran 2, 55)

‘Abduh provided the following interpretation of this passage; “The Most High God has not yet succeeded in fulfilling his promise for us, but he has realized only part of it. It is destined that he will fulfill it by giving Islam mastery (siyada) over the whole world, including Europe, which is hostile to it.”6

Without fully realizing it, the Egyptian reformers were moving closer to the beliefs and practices of the Saudi Arabian Wahhabis. The Saudi Wahhabis originated in the seventeenth century as an Islamic reform movement dedicated to eradicating religious innovation, mysticism, pre-Islamic practices, saint-worship, and Shi’ism. Through an alliance formed between the al-Saud family and the Wahhabis, the latter are the dominant religious movement in the kingdom today. The royal family derives its legitimacy through Wahhabi approval. In Wahhabist theology, the Muslim community is continually revitalized and purified through the effort to “replace the customs of the jahiliyya by the Shari’a [Islamic law] and the ‘asabiyya [solidarity of the clan or tribe] of the tribes by the sense of Islamic solidarity, and thus to canalize the warlike energies of the beduin in a perpetual holy war.”7

Sayyid Qutb reinterpreted the concept of jahiliya, applying it to the expansionist non-Muslim world. This was a subtle reworking of the traditional Islamic division of the world into two spheres, dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam), and dar al-harb (the abode of conflict, i.e., an imperfect, non-Islamic social order). While a Muslim might ignore conditions in the dar al-harb, it was his duty to combat the threat posed by the jahiliya. To Qutb, jahiliya also meant the modern forces of “ignorance,” the secularism of both the Western capitalists and the Eastern communists. Soviet influence was strong in Egypt during the 1960s, but secular socialism had no more appeal to the Muslim Brothers than did secular materialism.

The jahiliya denoted, for Qutb, a polity legitimized by man-made criteria, such as the sovereignty of the people (rather than by divine grace), as well as a man-centred system of values and social mores (e.g., materialism, hedonism). Philosophical explanatory models — built on science alone with no place in their universe for God — are the apex, or perhaps nadir, of that jahiliya.8

Qutb’s own experience in the United States, as well as America’s perceived failure to support post-colonial independence movements led to Qutb’s harsh pronouncement on America’s moral legacy: “I fear that when the wheel of life has turned and the file on history is closed, America will not have contributed to anything.”9 Qutb was one of the first Muslim theorists to recognize early postwar American efforts to manipulate Islam in the interests of containing the spread of communism, a strategy that was to culminate in covert American support for the international mujahidin of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam’s organization.

Hassan al-Banna had sought to convince Muslims that everything they needed to order society could be found in Islam: “We believe the rules and teachings of Islam to be comprehensive, to include the people’s affairs in the world and the hereafter . . . Islam is an ideology and a faith, a home and a nationality, a religion and a state, a spirit and work, a book and a sword.”10 By reminding Muslims of their duty to reform jahiliya, Qutb was able to externalize what many Islamic scholars had interpreted as the essentially defensive nature of the concept of jihad (a fight against religious oppression). Qutb objected to the idea that jihad was restricted to the defence of a territorially defined “homeland of Islam.” To Qutb, the “homeland of Islam” represented “Islamic beliefs, the Islamic way of life, and the Islamic community”:

The soil of the homeland has, in itself, no value or weight. From the Islamic point of view, the only value which the soil can achieve is because on that soil Allah’s authority is established and Allah’s guidance is followed; and thus it becomes a fortress for the belief, a place for its way of life to be entitled the ‘homeland of Islam,’ a center for the total freedom of man.11

S.M.A. Sayeed noted that, “Qutb took jihad into the widest possible connotation as the sole instrumentality to combat Jahiliyyah. It could issue in actual war on the physical plane and be extended to the efforts of creating a dynamic social organization which by virtue of its ideological strength could erode Jahiliyyah completely.”12 Nevertheless, some in the Brotherhood felt that Qutb had gone too far, and his influential work, Milestones on the Way (Ma’alim fi altariq), was denounced by Hassan al-Hodeibi, the spiritual leader of the Ikhwan. Al-Azhar condemned the book as heretical, the work of a “Kharajite.”13 This last work by Qutb was written from the prison hospital where the Islamist spent most of his sentence after enduring an initial year of torture and brutality in jail. Qutb’s opinions hardened as he witnessed the beatings and murders of his fellow incarcerated Islamists. He revised many of his earlier works and completely disowned others written in his secularist phase.14

Qutb also emphasized the importance of a return to ijtihad (the process of reasoning in regard to the interpretation of Islamic law), an activity that was declared “closed” to Sunni Muslims by Islamic scholars of the eleventh century. Again, Qutb was following Ibn Taymiyah’s lead in declaring that the process of ijtihad must never cease. This stance is now almost universal to modern Islamists, who call for the “reopening of the gates of ijtihad” while rejecting compromises with non-Islamic thought and ways.15

Qutb foresaw the emergence of a spiritual leader who would take the battle to the frontlines by citing the example of Ibn Taymiyah, a controversial Muslim theologian who lived in the Mamluk sultanate of Egypt and Syria. Qutb noted the pan-Islamic nature of Islam in Egypt in the Mamluk era, and its importance in defending Arab culture:

It is worthy to note that the Mamluks who repulsed the Tartars and drove them from the Islamic countries were not Arabs, but rather belonged to the same race as the Tartars. However, they stood fast against their kinsmen in defense of Islam because they themselves were Muslims, inspired by the Islamic ideal and fighting under the Islamic spiritual leadership of the great Muslim scholar (Imam) Ibn Taymiyah who lead the campaign of spiritual mobilization and who was in the forefront of the battle.16

During Ibn Taymiyah’s lifetime the Mamluk sultanate was constantly threatened by vast Mongol armies, which had inconveniently converted to Sunni Islam. This made it technically impossible for the Mamluk regime to call their war against the Mongols a jihad, with all the implicit ability to draw on the sultanate’s resources to a maximum. Ibn Taymiyah played an important part in legitimizing the religious aspect of the Mamluk war against the Mongols by challenging the Mongol’s understanding of Islam, pronouncing them un-Islamic in their knowledge and their practices. Declaring the Mongol leaders un-Islamic relieved the Mamluks of the injunction against fighting other Muslims, but but set a dangerous precedent that is at the heart of modern Islamist attacks on the legitimacy of national leaders in the Muslim world. Taymiyah’s inflexibility on religious matters would inspire both Qutb and ‘Azzam in their own challenges to the governing structures of the Islamic world.

Returning to the Law of God and His Apostle

Ibn Taymiyah has since been cited extensively by bin Laden as the inspiration for the jihad against corrupt regimes, such as the Saudi monarchy.17 In this case bin Laden follows the examples of two radical Egyptian Islamists, Shukri Mustafa and Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, both of whom drew heavily on Ibn Taymiyah and his modern popularizer, Sayyid Qutb.18 At his trial for the 1977 murder of a former minister of Religious Affairs, Shukri Mustafa gave lengthy explanations of Ibn Taymiyah’s thought (which did not prevent his conviction and execution by Egyptian authorities).

Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, the ideologue of the radical Egyptian Tanzim al-jihad group, was executed for his role in the 1981 assassination of President Sadat. Faraj wrote a defence of the actions of Tanzim al-jihad entitled Al-farida al-gha’iba (The Neglected Duty).19 Intended only for internal distribution among Islamists, Faraj’s work became highly influential in the Islamist network despite its many shortcomings as a work of Islamic scholarship. An examination of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam’s works suggests that the jihad scholar was well acquainted with The Neglected Duty.

The title of Faraj’s document refers to the failure of “lax” Muslims to add jihad to the other five compulsory pillars of Islam: the profession of faith (shahada), prayer (salat), social taxation (zakat), fasting (saum), and pilgrimage (hajj). The concept behind the work appears to owe something to the writings of Mawlana Abul A’la Maududi (1903-79), an Indian-born journalist who became a leading Islamist theorist in post-independence Pakistan.20 Maududi asserted that, “the real objective of Islam is to remove the lordship of man over man and to establish the kingdom of God on Earth. To stake one’s life and everything else to achieve this purpose is called jihad, while Salat, Saum, Hajj and Zakat are all meant as a preparation for this task.”21

Using Ibn Taymiyah’s work and a very limited selection of Koranic verses, hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), and other sources as a justification for a jihad against an un-Islamic government, Faraj identified the leaders of the Egyptian state as apostates to Islam. For Faraj they were guilty of a greater crime than the Mongol rulers of Ibn Taymiyah’s day, who could at least be excused for their ignorance of Islam. Singling out the Egyptian government, Faraj quoted Ibn Taymiyah’s disciple, Ibn Kathir:

God disapproves of whosoever rebels against God’s laws, (laws) that are clear and precise and that contain everything which is good and that forbid everything that is bad . . .. Whosoever (rejects these laws in favour of other systems, i.e., the Mongols) is an infidel and he must be fought (yajib qitaluhu) until he returns to the Rule of God and His Apostle, and until he rules by no other law than God’s law.22

Faraj’s Islamic reformation was, however, directed solely at Egypt, relegating his revolution to a type of Islamic nationalism that many modern Islamists now reject in favour of wider aims. Faraj maintained that Muslims should strike first at “the enemy who is near”; in Faraj’s case, the allegedly apostate president of Egypt is implied.23 One of the most important elements of Faraj’s work is the definition of jihad as fard ayn (individually obligatory), a notion that echoes Maududi’s thought and would be returned to as a core point of ‘Azzam’s works. Faraj remarked:

With regard to the lands of Islam, the enemy lives right in the middle of them. The enemy even has got hold of the reins of power, for this enemy is (none other than) these rulers who have (illegally) seized the Leadership of the Muslims. Therefore, waging jihad against them is an individual duty, in addition to the fact that Islamic jihad today requires a drop of sweat from every Muslim.24

Al-farida al-gha’iba drew a major refutation in the form of a 1982 fatwa from Shaykh Jadd al-Haqq (mufti, or leading Islamic scholar, of Cairo’s al-Azhar University).25 The Shaykh’s unambiguous and decisive repudiation of Faraj’s work exposed the weakness in Faraj’s Islamic scholarship, typical of the fragile attempts of the non-scholars who dominate Islamist ranks to use Islamic discourse in justifying their actions. Al-Haqq deconstructed Faraj’s argument point by point, asserting the existence of “the greater jihad” (the spiritual struggle, repudiated by Faraj), and denying that “armed struggle” was the only possible interpretation of jihad, as suggested by Faraj. The mufti was especially opposed to the idea that Muslims had the right to declare other Muslims apostate (takfir) for the long list of reasons given by Faraj.26 In al-Haqq’s view, only the failure to acknowledge tawhid (the unity of God) could render a Muslim apostate. The evolution of Islamic society in Egypt had placed the responsibility for jihad upon the army of the state: “The character of jihad, so we must understand, has now changed radically, because the defence of country and religion is nowadays the duty of the regular army, and this army carries out the collective duty of jihad on behalf of all citizens.”27 In his analysis of Al-farida al-gha’iba, Mohammed Arkoun remarked upon how Ibn Taymiyah and the founders of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence were used by Faraj and other Islamists as authoritative and authentic sources on a level with the Koran itself: for the Islamists, “their information is incontestable and their interpretations infallible.”28

It is a common misperception in the West that Islamists are arch-conservatives in matters of law and religion; to the contrary, their belief in constant and even creative use of ijtihad (within certain restrictions) places them outside the Sunni mainstream and in opposition to not only the modernizing forces in Islam that emphasize the flexibility of the Shari’a, but also to the traditionalists who adhere to the importance of rigid observance of early interpretations of Islam.

“Never shall I leave the land of jihad

Dr. ‘Azzam’s contribution to Islamic radicalism was to popularize the idea of a universal and international Islamic jihad, rather than the existing condition of each national Muslim group concentrating on a narrow area of concern related to their own circumstances (as in the jihad pursued by Muhammad ‘Abd al- Salam Faraj). It is easy to see how this conception grew from Qutb’s description of the jahiliya as a threat to Islamic life. In ‘Azzam’s words:

Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah alone is worshiped. Jihad continues until Allah’s Word is raised high. jihad until all the oppressed peoples are freed. Jihad to protect our dignity and restore our occupied lands. Jihad is the way of everlasting glory.29

Unlike many earlier jihad theorists who never fired a shot in anger, ‘Azzam provided an example to young Muslims by actively taking up jihad in Afghanistan, providing not only his considerable leadership and organizational skills, but by also serving on the front-line of combat. To ‘Azzam, Afghanis provided a model in resistance to the jahiliya: “the difference between the Afghan people and others is that the Afghans have refused disgrace in their religion, and have purchased their dignity with seas of blood and mountains of corpses and lost limbs. Other nations have submitted to colonization and disbelief from the first day.”30

‘Azzam’s long-term goal was the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, a far more ambitious plan than was ever conceived by Qutb or the Muslim Brothers. Qutb’s concerns were first and foremost with the Islamic development of the Egyptian people.31 In 1924, the Ottoman Sultan (to whom the honour had devolved) was relieved of his role as Caliph of the Islamic world by Turkish arch-secularist Mustapha Kemal, bringing an end to any sort of central authority in Islam. Muslims, in ‘Azzam’s opinion, must not wait for the reestablishment of the Caliphate to pursue jihad; on the contrary, jihad is the “safest path” for the establishment of the universal leadership of the Caliphate.32 Faraj had already noted the downward spiral into which Muslims had fallen in the absence of the Caliphate:

After the disappearance of the Caliphate definitively in the year 1924, and the removal of the laws of Islam in their entirety, and their substitution by laws that were imposed by infidels, the situation (of the Muslims) became identical to the situation of the Mongols.33

‘Azzam did not refrain from admonishing those Muslims who failed to join the jihad in Afghanistan:

Through the course of this long period of time, the Afghans had expectations of their Muslim brethren in case their numbers became decreased, and also so that the Muslim brotherhood could be aroused in their depths. Yet, until now, the Muslims have not heeded their call. In the ears of the Muslims is a silence, rather than the cries of anguish, the screams of virgins, the wails of orphans and the sighs of old men. Many well-off people have deemed it sufficient to send some of the scraps from their tables and crumbs from their food.34

Like many modern Islamic reformers, ‘Azzam focused his interpretation of Islam on the concept of tawhid, the oneness of God. While the concept is universal in Islam, the reformers take it upon themselves to eliminate any threats to tawhid, especially the idea that there can be any intercession between man and God. Attempts to establish a mode of intercession are condemned as shirk (literally “association,” associating others with God in such a way as would threaten His absolute uniqueness). Such intercession may take the form of veneration of saints, shaykhs, imams, and even the Prophet Muhammad. Also condemned are pilgrimages to shrines or the tombs of saints, the wearing of amulets (usually inscribed with quotations from the Koran), and most aspects of Shi’ite religious observance. In doing so, the reformers find themselves opposed to the modes of worship followed by most Muslims in one form or another. The austerity and discipline of the Islamists therefore has little appeal to most stable and prosperous Muslim communities, but takes on a vital importance to communities in strife or perpetual economic disadvantage. In Chechnya, for example, radical Islamists have found fertile ground for their reform message, succeeding in having Shari’a declared state law following the defeat of Russian forces in 1996. Islamist discipline has proved a major factor in the success of some Chechen field commands in almost constant combat with Russian units.

In 1987 ‘Azzam presented a list of reasons why young Muslims should join the Afghan jihad:

  • In order that the disbelievers do not dominate;
  • The scarcity of men;
  • Fear of Hell-fire;
  • Fulfilling the duty of jihad, and responding to the call of the Lord;
  • Following the footsteps of the Pious Predecessors;
  • Establishing a solid foundation as a base for Islam;
  • Protecting those who are oppressed in the land; and
  • Hoping for martyrdom.35

‘Azzam traveled throughout Afghanistan on foot or by donkey, but was sorely disappointed by the lack of unity he found among mujahidin commanders. Despite this, ‘Azzam confirmed his commitment to the Afghan jihad; “Never shall I leave the Land of jihad, except in three circumstances. Either I shall be killed in Afghanistan, killed in Peshawar, or handcuffed and expelled from Pakistan.”36

Creation of the Mukhtab al-Khidmat

After completing his studies in Egypt, ‘Azzam returned to Palestine to fight the occupation, but was disgusted by the lax morals and inattention to religious observance of the largely secular and socialist Palestine Liberation Organization. The Saudis offered a teaching position at King ‘Abdul-‘Aziz University in Jeddah, and ‘Azzam remained there until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. It was at Jeddah that ‘Azzam first met a young and impressionable Osama bin Laden. While Cairo’s Al-Azhar University was essentially a conservative institution that preached cooperation between the state and the ulama, ‘Abdul-‘Aziz University was a hotbed of uncompromising approaches to the establishment and conduct of an Islamic state, bred in an atmosphere of puritanical Wahhabism.

In 1979, ‘Azzam determined it was time to put his principles into action and moved with his family to Islamabad in Pakistan. In Islamabad ‘Azzam would get to know the leaders of the anti-communist Afghan jihad while supporting himself as a lecturer at the International Islamic University. Before long ‘Azzam was involved in the jihad full-time, being one of the first Arabs to join the Afghan mujahidin.

‘Azzam moved to Peshawar with a plan to internationalize the jihad. In order to facilitate the movement of Islamist volunteers to the mujahidin struggle, ‘Azzam created the Mukhtab al-Khidmat (Services Centre) in 1984. This office also served as a means of channeling donations from Islamic charities and wealthy individuals in the Gulf States to support the mujahidin — sources of funding included the Saudi Red Crescent, Saudi intelligence services, the World Muslim League, and many individuals in the Saudi royal family.37 The establishment of this office was in large part the work of the Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brothers, many of whom were originally from Palestine. ‘Azzam began publishing an Arabic-language full color monthly journal from Peshawar called al-Jihad to publicize the Afghan jihad in the Arab world. At times it seems that ‘Azzam was occasionally overwhelmed by would-be mujahidin, arriving in Pakistan without any resources:

When we call people for jihad and explain to them its ordinance, it does not mean that we are in a position to take care of them, advise them, and look after their families. The concern of the scholars is to clarify the Islamic legal ruling. It is neither to bring people to jihad nor to borrow money from people to take care of the families of Mujahideen. When Ibn Taymiyyah or Al-‘Izz Ibn ‘Abd As-Salam explained the ruling concerning fighting against the Tartars [Mongols] they did not become obliged to equip the army.38

The Tragedy of al-Andalus

After founding the Mukhtab al-Khidmat, ‘Azzam became close to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Afghan Hizb-i Islami party, and a severe Islamic conservative who sought to eliminate traditional Islam within Afghanistan. Like most leading Islamists, Hekmatyar was a professional rather than an imam, and is referred to (in Central Asian fashion) as “Engineer Hekmatyar.” While receiving funding from Libya and Iran, Hekmatyar remained the leading recipient of American military aid via the increasingly Islamist Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Hekmatyar preferred to conserve his precious American arms and munitions in Pakistan while his political rivals, such as Tajik Islamist Burhanuddin Rabbani, exhausted themselves fighting the Soviets. The Saudi intelligence service under Prince Turki ibn Faisal avoided funding the Tajik Islamists, as it was feared that the Persian-speaking Tajiks might align themselves with Saudi Arabia’s Shi’ite rival, Iran.39 Both Hekmatyar’s and Rabbani’s political movements were called Hizb-i Islami.

Hekmatyar asserted the right to ijtihad, and promoted the strict Arabian Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence over the less rigid Hanafite school common in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar was brought into a coalition government as prime minister in 1992, but was highly suspicious of his partners, President Rabbani and Defence Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud (assassinated by al-Qaeda operatives in 2001). Eventually, Hekmatyar settled on demolishing Kabul with rockets from the heights he controlled nearby, killing thousands of Afghan civilians with weapons he had failed to use on the Soviets. During the anti-communist jihad of the 1980s, bin Laden, like ‘Azzam, was closely associated with Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i Islami party.40

Abdul RabbAbdul Rabb Rasul Sayyaf

‘Azzam also associated with Abdul Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, a Pashtun Afghan religious scholar resident in Peshawar who received Saudi funding to spread Saudi-style Wahhabism.41 Sayyaf formed a political party, Ittihad-i Islami- Barayi Azad-i Afghanistan (Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan), and adopted the Wahhabis’ rejection of Shi’ism, striving relentlessly to eliminate Afghanistan’s small Shi’ite community through violent means. Sayyaf, trained in Mecca rather than Cairo’s al-Azhar University — the preferred destination of Afghanistan’s religious scholars — was known to be hospitable to the Arab volunteers that passed through Peshawar on their way to Afghanistan.42 During this time ‘Azzam must also have come to know the Egyptians Muhammad ‘Atef and Dr. ‘Ayman al-Zawahiri, both of whom would eventually form part of the highest level of al-Qaeda’s leadership. The Shaykh was especially close to future al-Qaeda leader Khalid al-Shaykh Muhammad (recently captured in Pakistan) and his two brothers. ‘Azzam attributed a decisive role to the Arab volunteers in the fight for Afghanistan:

Indeed this small band of Arabs, whose number did not exceed a few hundred individuals, changed the tide of battle, from an Islamic battle of one country, to an Islamic World jihad movement, in which all races participated and all colours, languages and cultures met.43

‘Azzam saw unlimited potential for a united and militant approach to Islam: “If only the Muslims applied the command of their Lord, and executed the verdict of their Shari’a in going out to Palestine [for jihad] for a single week, Palestine would be permanently purified of the Jews.”44 Carefully going through works produced by the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence,45 ‘Azzam sought to establish that the pursuit of armed jihad was obligatory on all Muslims in such a way that could potentially draw the entire ummah (Islamic community) into conflict on behalf of Islam:

Ibn ‘Abidin, the Hanafi scholar says, “(jihad is) fard ‘ayn [individually obligatory] when the enemy has attacked any of the Islamic heartland, at which point it becomes fard ‘ayn on those close to the enemy . . .. As for those beyond them, at some distance from the enemy, it is fard kifayah [obligatory on a community scale] for them unless they are needed. The need arises when those close to the enemy fail to counter the enemy, or if they do not fail but are negligent and fail to perform jihad. In that case it becomes obligatory on those around them — fard ‘ayn, just like prayer and fasting, and they may not abandon it. (The circle of people on whom jihad is fard ‘ayn expands) until in this way, it becomes compulsory on the entire people of Islam, of the West and the East.46

‘Azzam often pointed to the precedent of al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), where the Muslims were divided and failed in their jihad against their Christian enemies. In some cases Muslims made alliances with the Spanish Christians against their fellow Muslims. The result was the loss of the European jewel in the Muslim Empire. ‘Azzam’s analogy was clearly directed at the leaders of Muslim states like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.47 Bin Laden specifically cited the “tragedy” of al-Andalus in his video statement of 7 October 2001: “Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish.”48

The reference to al-Andalus proved so obscure in the West that some “expert” analysts thought it was a secret code disguised as gibberish. It was, of course, a reference to ‘Azzam’s works, little known in the West, but essential to someone like bin Laden, whose own scholarship in Islamic questions was deficient. The motif of al-Andalus has long found resonance in Arabic poetry as a spiritual and political metaphor, appropriate to the aims of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam:

The poetic self that finds its meaning in the Andalusian movement . . . replicates Orientalist procedures in order to overthrow a Eurocentric, colonialist vision of history, and replace it with a vision of its own former colony, the utopian ideal of al-Andalu. It is not simply the case, however, that al-Andalus stands for a superior version of modern European civilization. It is, rather, an altogether higher reality, beyond the rule of fate and mortality for which Western imperialism stands. The turn toward this higher reality, the inward discovery of the image of al-Andalus, is therefore the foremost act in resisting the colonial order, and the foundation of political subjectivity.49

Jihad means the obligation to fight”

In his seminal work on the necessity of armed jihad, Join the Caravan (Ilhaq bil-Qafilah), ‘Azzam described both the legal obligations and practical considerations surrounding the concept of jihad. The conditions upon which jihad becomes fard ‘ayn (individually obligatory) are outlined in an unambiguous fashion. jihad becomes fard ‘ayn when disbelievers enter the land of the Muslims. This condition thus makes jihad currently obligatory for every Muslim until the disbelievers are driven from Muslim lands. “It remains fard ‘ayn continuously until every piece of land that was once Islamic is regained.” It was acknowledged that this was a different situation than that which prevailed in the time of the Prophet’s immediate successors, when jihad was fard kifayah (a community obligation, not binding on individuals), since the Muslims were still embarking on new conquests.

‘Azzam stated that when jihad becomes individually obligatory there is no difference between it and the obligations of fasting and prayer. jihad means only combat with weapons and is a lifetime obligation that cannot be relieved through the mere donation of money.

The Shaykh also outlined the process that leads to jihad. First comes the hijrah, the emigration from non-Muslim lands, after the example of the Prophet’s hijrah from Mecca to Medina. Aperiod of preparation is followed by ribat (occupation of the front-lines of Islam), then combat. The Islamic community “remains sinful until the last piece of Islamic land is freed from the hands of the Disbelievers, nor are any absolved from sin other than the mujahidin.”50

The idea that jihad was fard ‘ayn quickly spread throughout the recruitment literature found in the Afghan refugee camps, which also extolled the virtues of the shahidin (martyrs). ‘Azzam was particularly hard on the widely held idea that there were two types of jihad. In most Sunni thought, jihad may consist of the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar — the struggle against evil within oneself), and the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asgar — the physical fight against injustice). This belief in two types of jihad is based on a hadith that is not included in any authoritative collection of hadith, but which has nevertheless assumed enormous importance to many Sufi orders, who have devoted themselves to the pursuit of “the greater jihad.”51 Ibn Taymiya had challenged the Sufi orders for their deviations from Shari’a law, accusations that were taken up centuries later by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and again by Egyptian Ikhwan founder Hassan al- Banna in the twentieth century.52 According to ‘Azzam:

The saying, ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul),’ which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith that has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi ‘Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.53

‘Azzam was well aware that one of Ibn Taymiyah’s disciples, Ibn al- Qayyim al-Jawziya (1292-1350), described the hadith as a complete fabrication in his work Kitab al-Manar. Faraj added that, “The only reason for inventing this tradition is to reduce the value of fighting with the sword, so as to distract the Muslims from fighting the infidels and the hypocrites.”54 ‘Azzam made his interpretation clear in a videotaped address to the al-Farook mosque in Brooklyn in 1988: “Whenever jihad is mentioned in the holy book, it means the obligation to fight. It does not mean to fight with the pen or to write books or articles in the press or to fight by holding lectures.”55

The disunity that continued to plague Afghanistan and other areas of conflict in the Islamic world was recognized by ‘Azzam as a major impediment for the Islamist program: “Muslims cannot be defeated by others. We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves.”56 From 1985 to 1989, ‘Azzam spent much of his time traveling throughout the United States with his chief aide, Palestinian-born Shaykh Tamim al-Adnani, raising money, spreading the word of the new jihad through some 28 states. Support centers were established in New York, Detroit, Dearborn, Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Francisco. At one point half the readership of ‘Azzam’s magazine Al-jihad was in the United States.57

The Ink of Scholars and the Blood of Martyrs

‘Azzam turned against the Pakistanis in 1989, when it became apparent that manipulations by the ISI were causing heavy casualties among the mujahidin, particularly in the ISI-engineered siege of Jalalabad. The ISI was encouraging frontal assaults (of the type discredited in 1914) against reinforced communist positions supported by the Afghan air force. These tactics were a fatal break from the proven hit-and-run guerrilla attacks favored by the mujahidin.58 Some, like ‘Azzam, believed that with the imminent departure of the Russians from Afghanistan, the ISI was seeking to eliminate those factions of the resistance that were not under their control. During the summer of 1989, ‘Azzam attempted to mediate in the dispute between Ahmad Shah Massoud’s group and Hekmatyar, always returning to the need for unity among the mujahidin. Later that year a large quantity of explosives was placed beneath the minbar (pulpit) of the mosque in which ‘Azzam gave the Friday sermon. The explosives failed to detonate during the service (which would have killed hundreds), but ‘Azzam’s enemies were not deterred.

On 24 November 1989, a powerful bomb was planted along the narrow road that ‘Azzam habitually took to the mosque on Fridays. The blast ripped through ‘Azzam’s car, killing him, his two sons, and a young passenger. There were allegations that ‘Azzam’s assassination was undertaken by Burhanuddin Rabbani’s Hizb-i Islami, but to date no one has ever claimed responsibility for the attack. The list of suspects was long, and included the CIA, the ISI, the KGB, Israel’s Mossad, and Afghanistan’s own brutal security service, KHAD. An Israeli source cited rumours, “that have consistently linked Osama Bin Laden to ‘Azzam’s assassination.”59 Bin Laden is alleged to have become angered at ‘Azzam’s plan to ship arms to Hekmatyar’s enemy, Ahmad Massoud. Bin Laden took control of ‘Azzam’s organization, recreating it as al-Qaeda (“The Base”), a much more secretive group with narrower aims than al-Makhtab. With its almost exclusive focus on the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda became more of an ideological throwback to earlier state-centred Islamist movements rather than the international movement envisioned by ‘Azzam.

CONCLUSION

Dr. ‘Azzam left a powerful legacy which his martyrdom only served to underline. The story of this leader and organizer of the international mujahidin in Afghanistan was circulated widely. Slight alterations reinforced ‘Azzam’s piety, such as the account that ‘Azzam’s companions in the fatal bombing were blown to pieces, while ‘Azzam’s body was discovered intact and unmarked, save for a small trickle of blood from his mouth. As ‘Azzam’s “Afghans” (as the international Arab volunteers came to be known) spread out to new fronts in the war against jahiliya, many cited him as their inspiration. Typical were the comments of Commander Abu ‘Abd al-‘Azziz, an Indian-born leader of the international mujahidin fighters in Bosnia in the mid-90s:

I was one of those who heard about jihad in Afghanistan when it started. I used to hear about it, but was hesitant about (the purity and intention) of this jihad. One of those who came to our land [Kashmir?] was sheikh Dr. Abdallah Azzam. I heard him rallying the youth to come forth and (join him) to go to Afghanistan. This was in 1984 — I think. I decided to go and check the matter for myself. This was the beginning (of my journey with) jihad.60

Cassette tapes of ‘Azzam’s speeches have circulated throughout the Middle East and Central Asia since his death. Until recently ‘Azzam’s thought has been propagated worldwide by a popular web-site, http://www.azzam.com (the site has suffered numerous disruptions since the events of 11 September 2001). In the West some radical preachers have taken up ‘Azzam’s call for hijrah as a first step in an international jihad. In Central Asia the Hizb ut-Tahrir movement has taken up the call for a revived Caliphate, to the considerable alarm of the ex-communist rulers of the region.

Even in death ‘Azzam’s ideas remain a perceived threat to the existing world order. ‘Azzam had (perhaps with some intuition) dealt with the role of the scholar as martyr in the service of the jihad:

The life of the Muslim Ummah (community) is solely dependent on the ink of its scholars and the blood of its martyrs. What is more beautiful than the writing of the Ummah‘s history with both the ink of a scholar and his blood, such that the map of Islamic history becomes coloured with two lines: one of them black, (that is what the scholar wrote with the ink of his pen); and the other red (and that is what the martyr wrote with his blood). And something more beautiful than this is when the blood is one and the pen is one, so that the hand of the scholar that expends the ink and moves the pen is the same as the hand that expends its blood and moves the Ummah. The extent to which the number of martyred scholars increases is the extent to which nations are delivered from their slumber, rescued from their decline and awoken from their sleep.61

One of the major projects of ‘Azzam’s Mukhtab al-Khidmat was the commissioning of the Mawsu’at al-jihad al-Aghani (The Encyclopedia of the Afghan jihad), a multi-volume Arabic-language work that describes everything from guerrilla tactics to bomb-making in simple terms with clear diagrams. The work appears to have been published in Peshawar sometime between 1994 and 1996. The first of four dedications was to ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, who did not live to see it completed:

A word of truth with a tear of allegiance,
To our beloved brother and reverend Sheikh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam,
Who revived the spirit of jihad in the souls of the youth with the
word of God,
Who suffered harm from most people except from the faithful,
This work is dedicated first to Allah, then to you.

The encyclopedia mixed practical knowledge gained the hard way by Afghan mujahidin in their struggle with the Soviet Union with existing literature on terrorist methods. Much of the latter was American in origin: “CIA blackbooks — paramilitary training guides that the agency produced in the late 1950s and early 1960s — and other explosives literature available from Paladin Press, the militiaman’s favorite guide to weaponry and guerrilla tactics.”62 In 1995, Belgian police seized a copy of what appeared to be the entire encyclopedia on diskette, consisting of 8,000 pages of text. American troops and journalists found various parts of the work during the campaign in Afghanistan. The Encyclopedia of the Afghan jihad has become the On War by von Clausewitz of the Islamist fighters, explaining methods of maintaining what the West has come to call “asymmetrical warfare.”

While the encyclopedia is anonymous, it is known that Abu Bakr Aqidah, a one-legged Egyptian veteran of international jihad movements, wrote the volume on explosives. The mujahid spent two years as an instructor in one of ‘Azzam’s military training camps. Abu Bakr also completed a widely distributed manual on “Operational Tactics and Effectiveness,” based on the operations of the Chechen guerrillas. Abu Bakr was eventually killed in a daring raid on a Russian tank base in Daghestan in January 1997. The raid was led from Chechnya by the late Ibn al-Khattab (real name Samir bin-Salih bin-‘Abdallah al-Suwaylim), a Saudi-born veteran of Islamist guerrilla groups in Afghanistan and Tajikistan.63 Both men were typical of the ‘Azzam-inspired Arab volunteers who were willing to travel to the far-flung frontiers of Islam to give their lives for the cause of jihad.

It’s not surprising that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the main sources for the 9/11 terrorists. These countries are, respectively, the homes of Egyptian jihad movements and Wahhabist theology, two trends that have grown closer on their extreme wings in recent decades. A convergence of the most extreme proponents of these lines of thought occurred when Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri brought his Islamic Jihad organization from Egypt to Afghanistan to join bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group in 1998. The result has been a self-justified ruthlessness in a war against the forces of the jahiliya. Al- Zawahiri, a physician rather than a religious scholar, appears to have combined the roles of ideologue and operations planner. The doctor also acts as a new mentor to the capable but impressionable bin Laden, who does not possess the religious training to provide justification for his own actions. According to bin Laden’s chosen biographer, “If Bin Laden had to give a speech at one of these rallies where people shout Osama’s name and call for jihad, the crowd would be sorely disappointed.”64

‘Azzam’s charismatic presence and powerful oratory are completely absent from the al-Qaeda of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Both men, however, see themselves as leaders of a mandatory jihad against the forces of the modern jahiliya. They have rigidly applied ‘Azzam’s belief that obedience to a leader is a necessity in jihad, “and thus a person must condition himself to invariably obey the leader.”65 al-Qaeda‘s leaders are believers in ‘Azzam’s chilling and inflexible approach to historical change:

History does not write its lines except with blood. Glory does not build its lofty edifice except with skulls; honour and respect cannot be established except on a foundation of cripples and corpses. Empires, distinguished peoples, states and societies cannot be established except with examples. Indeed those who think that they can change reality, or change societies, without blood, sacrifices and invalids, without pure, innocent souls, then they do not understand the essence of this Din (religion).66

Endnotes

  1. There is an extensive literature on the concept of jihad. Useful works in English include R. Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of jihad in Modern History (The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter, 1979); S.A. Schleifer, “Understanding jihad: Definition and Methodology,” Islamic Quarterly 27, no. 3 (1983), pp. 117-32; and “jihad and the traditional Islamic consciousness,” Islamic Quarterly 27, no.4 (1983), pp. 173-203.
  2. Radical Islamist movements are rarely led by religious scholars, consisting for the most part of professionals, such as engineers and doctors. “An important implication of the Islamist power model is that it excludes the ‘ulama (religious scholars) as an intermediary authority (between God and the head-of-state). The argument here is that the basic principles of Islam have been rendered unalterable and that no authority, whether secular or religious, is in a position to subvert or circumvent them — in other words, the prerogatives of the religious authorities in Islam are very limited.” Asta Olesen, Islam and Politics in Afghanistan (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1995), p. 242.
  3. While al-Azhar’s senior faculty is closely watched by the Egyptian government, the student body of Egyptian and international students has frequently become involved in extreme Islamist politics. Steven Barraclough, “Al-Azhar: Between the government and the Islamists,” Middle East Journal 52, no.2 (Spring 1998), p. 239.
  4. Qutb and other members of the Ikhwan provided vital assistance to the “Free Officers Movement” in their revolution, expecting to play a major (if not definitive) role in the new government. Nasser betrayed the brothers, offering Qutb only a minor position as deputy minister of Education. See Helmi el-Namnam, Sayyid Qutb wa Thawrat Yulyou (Sayyid Qutb and the July Revolution) (Cairo: Meret for Publication and Information, 1999). After his execution Qutb was buried in a hidden and unmarked grave by the Egyptian government.
  5. Mir Zohair Husain, Global Islamic Politics (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 15. The idea of an Islamic revolutionary vanguard was also developed by Mawlana Abul A’la Maududi in his work, Process of Islamic Revolution (Lahore: 1955), pp. 37-55.
  6. Muhammad Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-hakim (Cairo: 1346-54AH (1927-35)), I, p. 170. Muhammad ‘Abduh’s lectures and writings were collected and added to by Rashid Rida, and published as a great multi-volume commentary (never finished) on the Koran, popularly called Tasfir al-Manar, after the name of Rida’s journal.
  7. Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 38. Jahiliya may also refer to “the age of ignorance,” i.e., pre- Islamic times.
  8. Emmanuel Sivan, “Ibn Taymiyya: Father of the Islamic Revolution: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics,” Encounter 60, no. 5 (May 1983), p. 45. Qutb had been sent on a study mission to the United States in 1948-50 that was expected to moderate his opposition to the West. Instead, it confirmed Qutb’s vision of the United States as the embodiment of the modern jahiliya, a nation lacking a moral conscience (damir). See John Calvert, “‘The World is an undutiful boy!’: Sayyid Qutb’s American Experience,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11, no. 1 (2000), pp. 87-103.
  9. Sayyid Qutb, “Amrika allati ra’ayt fi mizan al-insaniyya,” Al-Risala, no. 957 (1951), pp. 1245-6, cited in Calvert, “The World is an undutiful boy,” p. 100.
  10. Quoted in Abd al-Moneir Said Aly and Manfred W. Wenner, “Modern Islamic reform movements: The Muslim Brotherhood in contemporary Egypt,” Middle East Journal 36, no. 3 (Summer 1982), p. 340. The slogan of the Muslim Brothers was ‘Al-islam din wa’dawlah’ (Islam is a religion and a state).
  11. Sayyid Qutb, “Paving the Way,” 24 November 2001, Internet source: http://www.islam.org.au/articles/23/qutb.htm, taken from Nida’ul Islam, no. 23 (April-May, 1998).
  12. S.M.A. Sayeed, The Myth of Authenticity (A Study in Islamic Fundamentalism) (Karachi: Royal Book Co., 1995), pp. 151-2.
  13. Gilles Kepel, Muslim Extremism in Egypt: The Prophet and the Pharaoh (London: Saqi Books, 1985), p. 101. The Kharajites (Ar.: khawarij, ‘outsiders’) were a seventh century sectarian movement that favoured the establishment of a theocracy in preference to violent struggles for leadership in the Islamic community. Under the slogan “No government but God’s,” they were defeated on the battlefield but adopted a campaign of political assassinations, on the grounds that the ruling Ummayad dynasty were not true Muslims.
  14. Useful works on Qutb include Yvonne Haddad, “Sayyid Qutb: Ideologue of Islamic Revival,” in John Esposito, ed., Voices of Resurgent Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Gilles Kepel, Muslim Extremism in Egypt: The Prophet and the Pharaoh (London: Saqi Books, 1985); Olivier Carré, Mystique et politique: lecture révolutionnaire du Coran par Sayyid Qutb, frère musulman radical (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984); Ahmad Mousalli, Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: The Ideological and Political Discourse of Sayyid Qutb (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1992). Qutb’s work became known in Afghanistan after Mawlawi Younos Khales translated and published Islam wa edalat-i ijtemai (Islam and Social Justice) in 1960. Ex-Afghan president and leader of the Jami’at al-islami party Burhanuddin Rabbani translated several of Qutb’s works while studying at al-Azhar University in Cairo (1966-68). The Jami’ati Islami party journal Misaq-i Khun would later publish many translations of works by the Egyptian Muslim Brothers.
  15. Qutb’s advocacy of violent jihad may be contrasted to the “intellectual jihad” pursued by his Indian-born contemporary, Fazlur Rahman (1919-88), who also sought to reopen “the gates of ijtihad.” “The intellectual endeavour, or jihad, including the intellectual elements of both the moments — past and present — is technically called ijtihad, which means ‘the effort to understand the meaning of a relevant text or precedent in the past, containing a rule, and to alter that rule by extending or restricting or otherwise modifying it in such a manner that a new situation can be subsumed under it by a new solution.'” Fazlur Rahman, Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 6-7. Rahman was a lecturer at McGill University’s Institute of Islamic Studies in the 1950s.
  16. Sayyid Qutb, Islam: The Religion of the Future (Al-mustaqbal li-hadha al-din), (Delhi: Markazi Maktaba Islami, Delhi, 1974) (Written in 1960).
  17. Osama bin Laden, I’lan al-jihad ‘ala al-Amrikiyyin al-Muhtalin li Bilad al-Haramayn (Declaration of War against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Mosques) (Afghanistan, 23 August 1996).
  18. The 1970s saw a proliferation of radical Islamist groups in Egypt, inspired by the works of Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taymiyah, and Indian/Pakistani ideologue Mawlana Abul A’la Maududi (1903-79). The radicals were dismayed by the defeat of the Arab allies in the 1967 war with Israel (which also marked the death of secular Arab nationalism as an inspirational political movement). The new Islamist groups included Munazzamat al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Organization), Jama’at al-Muslimin (Association of Muslims, often better known as Takfir wa’l Hijrah [Denouncement and Holy Flight]), and Munazzamat al-jihad (Holy Struggle Organization). These groups were eventually joined by the powerful al-Gama’a Islamiyya (Islamic Group), responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
  19. A complete translation of this work can be found in J.G. Jansen, The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East (New York: MacMillan, 1986), pp. 159-230.
  20. Maududi was greatly admired by Qutb, who appears to have been influenced by Maududi’s conception of Islam as a revolutionary force. As Maududi expressed it in 1926, “Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its tenets and ideals,” A.A. Maududi, jihad in Islam (Beirut: Holy Koran Publishing House, 1980), p. 5.
  21. A.A. Maududi, Fundamentals of Islam (Delhi: 1978), p. 243
  22. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (Cairo: n.d.), vol. 2, p. 67.
  23. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, Al-farida al-gha’iba, in Jansen, The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins, pp. 192-93, §68.
  24. Ibid., p. 200, §87.
  25. Jadd al-Haqq ‘Ali Jadd al-Haqq, et. al., Al-fatawa al-islamiyah 10/31 (Cairo: 1983), p. 3733. Al-Haqq was Shaykh of al-Azhar from 1982 until his death in 1996. Al-Haqq’s condemnation of Egyptian Islamist groups did not include the Muslim Brothers, who ceased to advocate violence in the transition to a fully Islamic society following their failed assassination attempt on Nasser.
  26. “The debate about takfir, that is, declaring a Muslim to be an unbeliever, is the watershed between moderate and radical Islamism. If takfir is religiously lawful, then violence and revolution are religious duties. For radical Islamists, one should kill a ruler who claims to be a Muslim but does not rule according to Islam.” Olivier Roy, Afghanistan: From Holy War to Civil War (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1995), p. 37.
  27. Jadd al-Haqq, et. al., Al-Fatawa al-islamiyah, p. 3733.
  28. Mohammed Arkoun, “The Topicality of the Problem of the Person in Islamic Thought,” International Social Science Journal no. 117 (August 1988), p. 417. Many radical Islamists reject the authority of the four traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence altogether.
  29. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, Internet source: >http://www.exboard.com, http://pub63.ezboard.com/fyoungmuslimsfrm4.showMessage?topicID=30.topic, p. 4, (11/7/01), — originally on http://www.azzam.com, now suspended from the web.
  30. Abdullah ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qafilah (Join the Caravan), Conclusion, at http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam/caravan_6_conclusion.htm.
  31. Radical Islamists believe that no legitimate Islamic state has existed since the time of the Prophet and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (634-661 AD), Muhammad’s four immediate successors (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali).
  32. Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam on Jihad, Internet source: http://calvin.usc.edu/~jnawaz/ISLAM/JIHAAD/Azzam.Jihad.html, (11-15-01).
  33. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, “Al-Farida al-Gha’iba,” in Jansen, The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins, p. 167.
  34. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qafilah (Join the Caravan), Part Three, Internet source: http://www.soa.uc.edu/org/msa/mssn/joinaa.html.
  35. Ibid. Part One.
  36. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, Internet source: http://pub63.ezboard.com/fyoungmuslimsfrm4.showMessage?topicID=30.topic, p. 4, (7 November 2001).
  37. See Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), p. 131.
  38. ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qafilah (Join the Caravan), Part Three.
  39. Roy, Afghanistan, p. 87.
  40. Michael Griffin, Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan (London: Pluto Press, 2001), pp. 24-26, 136-37.
  41. On the Wahhabi movement in Afghanistan, see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shah ‘Abd Al- Aziz: Puritanism, Sectarianism, Polemics and Jihad (Australia: Ma’rifat Publishing House, 1992).
  42. Sayyaf was a nominal member of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, but his field commanders did little fighting against the Taliban in 2001-02. Sayyaf is suspected by some of having a hand in the assassination of Tajik commander Ahmad Shah Massoud in September 2001. Sayyaf vouched for the assassins (posing as Algerian journalists) before they arrived in Massoud’s camp.
  43. Sheikh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, “Martyrs: The building blocks of nations,” Extracts from the lectures of Sheikh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam titled “Will of the Shaheed” and “A Message from the Shaheed Sheikh to the Scholars,” Internet source: http://www.azzam.com (29 January 2003).
  44. “Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam on jihad,” Internet source: http://calvin.usc.edu/~jnawaz/ISLAM/JIHAAD/Azzam.Jihad.html (15 November 2001).
  45. The four schools of Islamic jurisprudence are all named for their founders: first, Hanafite (Abu Hanifa, d.767), found in Afghanistan, India, China, Turkey, and other ex-Ottoman territories; second, Malikite (Imam Malik, d. 795), found in Arabia, Upper Egypt, Sudan, West Africa, and parts of North Africa; third, Shafi’ite (Imam al-Shaf’I), found in Syria, South Arabia, Lower Egypt, Malaysia, East Africa, and Indonesia; fourth, Hanbalite (Imam Ibn Hanbal, d. 855), found almost exclusively in Arabia, where it has become closely linked to the Wahhabist movement. (Ibn Taymiyah was a member of the Hanbalite school, whose founder urged obedience to the government). ‘Azzam warned incoming mujahidin that the Afghans knew only the Hanafi school, and were likely to regard anything else as un-Islamic.
  46. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qafilah (Join the Caravan), Part Two, Internet source: http://www.soa.uc.edu/org/msa/mssn/joinaa.html. ‘Azzam believed that women could assist in the jihad through nursing, education, and assisting refugees, but must be accompanied by a nonmarriageable male guardian.
  47. For example, see, “Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam on Jihad,” Internet source: http://calvin.usc.edu/~jnawaz/ISLAM/JIHAAD/Azzam.Jihad.html, (15 November 2001).
  48. http://www.mideast.web.org/osamabinladen3.htm.
  49. Yaseen Noorani, “The Lost Garden of al-Andalus,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 2 (May 1999), p. 239.
  50. ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qalifah (Join the Caravan), Conclusion.
  51. The hadith in question quotes the Prophet as returning from battle and saying, “We have returned from the small jihad to the great jihad.” He was asked, “What is the great jihad, O Apostle of God?”, and Muhammad replied, ‘The jihad against the soul.'”
  52. Olesen notes that al-Banna himself retained a respect for early Sufist thought, but “among his followers there was a widespread revulsion and contempt for Sufism, which was considered a phenomenon of Greek-Hindu origin with no relation to Islam. The rejection of Sufism was not only doctrinal, but also rooted in the activist strategy of the Ikhwan, as Sufism was seen as drugging the masses, inspiring them to a spiritual withdrawal from life, being useless members of society and thus forming an obstacle to progress.” Olesen, Islam and Politics in Afghanistan, p. 248.
  53. ‘Azzam, Illhaqbil-Qalifah (Join the Caravan), Conclusion.
  54. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, Al-Farida al-Ghaiba, in Jansen, The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins, p. 201, §88.
  55. Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (New York: Free Press, 2002), p. 130. The ethnic-Arab Atlantic Avenue area of Brooklyn was host to several Islamist mosques and organizations, including the Al-Kifah Afghan Refugee Center, an important conduit for recruiting and fundraising.
  56. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, Internet source: http://www.ezboard.com, http://pub63.ezboard.com/fyoungmuslimsfrm4.showMessage?topiciD=30.topic, p. 4 (7 November 2001).
  57. Emerson, American Jihad, p. 131.
  58. General Hamed Gul, Director General of Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) was removed from his post after the failure of the siege of Jalalabad. Gul had actually spoken out against an attack made without air cover, anti-aircraft guns, or artillery. See Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars 1839-1992: What Britain Gave Up and the Soviet Union Lost (London: Brassey’s, 1993), p. 202.
  59. Yoni Fighel, International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), 27 September 2001, Internet source: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.ctm?articleid=388, (7 November 2001).
  60. Interview with Abu ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem (The Straight Path), no. 33, (Aug. 1994), Pakistan. At the time of the interview, al-‘Aziz’s command was integrated with the 7th Battalion of the Bosnian Army. The mujahid was eventually imprisoned by the Saudis.
  61. ‘Azzam, “Martyrs: The building blocks of nations.”
  62. Reuel Marc Gerecht, “The Terrorists’ Encyclopedia,” Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2001), p. 81. Gerecht was a CIA agent from 1985 to 1994.
  63. See “Communique from Emir Khattab, Mujahideen attack Russian base in Dagestan,” (Parts 1- 2), Azzam Publications, MSA News, 29 December 1997, Internet source: http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/199712/19971228.1.html, (19 August 1999).
  64. Hamid Mir, quoted in: Scott Balduf, “The ‘Cave-Man’ and al-Qaeda,” Christian Science Monitor (31 October 2001).
  65. ‘Azzam, Ilhaq bil-Qalifah (Join the Caravan), Conclusion.
  66. ‘Azzam, “Martyrs: The building blocks of nations.”

Bush as Bonaparte: ‘Regime change’ in the Middle East, Then and Now

Dr. Andrew McGregor, Aberfoyle International Security

Shout Monthly, Toronto

October 2002

President George W. Bush

As the Bush administration promotes regime change in Iraq, it finds elements of its armies in action against Muslim foes in Afghanistan, the Philippines and Georgia. Preparations are ongoing for assaults on Yemen and, ultimately, Iraq. In the midst of all this military activity the US administration must convince the rest of the Islamic world that ‘regime change’ in Muslim countries is not an attack on Islam itself. George W Bush might look at the experience of an earlier ‘Republican’, Napoleon Bonaparte, who two hundred years ago also found himself trying to overthrow local Islamic rulers while trying to assure Muslims of his respect for Islam.

In 1798, while still a general in the army of Revolutionary France, Bonaparte was entrusted with a bold mission designed to seize Egypt and reopen the ancient trade route to the East through the Suez. Egypt was still a land of mystery to the Europeans, ruled nominally by the Ottoman Turks, but in practice by a military caste known as the Mamluks. The latter were brought as slaves to Egypt from the Caucasus and Central Asia and trained in the military arts. The Mamluks amused themselves with constant and bloody struggles for supremacy as well as looting the merchants and citizenry at will. In arrogance they were unsurpassed, and few of them ever bothered to learn the language of their subjects, Arabic. The Mamluks, however, never forgot to present themselves as benefactors and patrons of Islam, often giving rich endowments to Koranic schools and Islamic foundations.

After Bonaparte had driven the Mamluks from northern Egypt he sought to impress the Islamic establishment by attending their prayers and Koranic discussions. One time, Bonaparte’s aides discovered the general awaiting the Islamic council in Turkish garb. Horrified, (“He cut such a poor figure in his turban and caftan”) they persuaded Napoleon to change before the arrival of the dignitaries. Eventually Bonaparte became known as a talib, or student of Islam. (The Afghan “Taliban” were so-named for the participation of students from Pakistan’s madrassa-s, or Islamic schools, as fighters in the early stage of the Taliban conquest of Afghanistan).

Just as President Bush quickly retracted his early use of the word “crusade” to describe his anti-terrorist action, Napoleon also strove to separate himself from the traditional model of Christian/Islamic enmity; “We have nothing to do with those infidels of barbarian times who came to fight against your faith; we recognize its sublimity, we adhere to it, and the moment has come when all regenerate French will also become true believers.” Bonaparte proclaimed the Republic’s imprisonment of the Pope and his own destruction of the Knights of Malta to the skeptical Islamic leaders as proof of his army’s detachment from Christianity. Napoleon further claimed that his successes were the result of the will of Allah and the protection of the Prophet Muhammad. The general admitted privately, however, that his Islamic policy was designed to “lull fanaticism to sleep before we uproot it.”

At one point, Bonaparte met with a panel of Cairo’s learned shaykh-s and agreed that he and his army would convert to Islam in exchange for a fatwa (religious ruling) ordering the submission of Egyptian Muslims to French rule. The astonished shaykh-s reminded Napoleon of the usual provisions regarding circumcision (not practiced in France at the time) and the prohibition of wine. Unwilling to approach his troops with these conditions, Napoleon attempted to negotiate with the scholars. While the shaykh-s proved flexible on the question of circumcision, they were adamant on the prohibition of wine, the life’s-blood of the French army. In time it was agreed that wine drinking could be overlooked if the soldiers donated one-fifth of their wages to charity. Napoleon eventually lost his enthusiasm for this idea, but many of his men (including a leading general) converted privately to Islam in order to take Egyptian wives.

The Bush administration has conceded that anti-terrorist action in the Middle East and Central Asia will not succeed without the cooperation of Muslim states, and has worked hard to create an inclusive ‘alliance’. Bonaparte also realized that the French occupation of Egypt could not survive without the acquiescence of Egypt’s Muslim neighbours. A diplomatic correspondence started, with Napoleon proposing alliances with sultans from India to Morocco. Napoleon even suggested that the mysterious Sultan of Darfur in the African interior provide him with thousands of black slaves to replace his ever-shrinking number of French soldiers.

In his correspondence, Napoleon stressed that within his territory the mosques were open, religious traditions were respected, pilgrimage was protected, and Islamic festivals celebrated with more grandeur than ever. In practice mosques were destroyed to create fields of fire for French artillery near the Citadel, taverns were opened everywhere in Cairo, and the pious citizens forced to watch their unveiled daughters consorting with French soldiers. The scandalized Egyptian chronicler, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Djabarti, recorded that “the French prided themselves on their slavery to women.”

Nevertheless, it was a real-estate tax that sparked a vicious urban revolt in Cairo. The rebellion was brutally repressed through many days of horror in Cairo’s narrow streets and courtyards. In victory Bonaparte appeared magnanimous, but from that point on the volleys of firing squads could be heard behind the Citadel walls each night, their victims dumped quietly into the Nile before daybreak. So many were killed that eventually the French found it necessary to change the method of execution to decapitation in order to make less noise and save precious ammunition.

Djezzar Ahmad Pasha

Napoleon’s occupation army was intended to be supported by the French fleet, but Nelson’s destruction of this force left Bonaparte in need of regional alliances for his isolated regime. Failed overtures to the Ottoman ruler of Syria, the ‘Butcher’, Djezzar Pasha (the Saddam Hussein of his day) led to a disastrous French campaign in Palestine where the army was ravaged by plague and heavy battle losses. The Sharif of Mecca, whose economy was dependent upon coffee exports to Egypt, maintained a pleasant correspondence with Bonaparte while allowing thousands of fierce tribesmen to cross the Red Sea to fall upon the French troops.  The eager tribesmen had heard that the French wore armour of gold and silver.

Napoleon abandoned his army to return to France in mid-1799. The army held on until their capitulation to the Turks and English in 1801. In exile at St. Helena, Bonaparte romanticized his Egyptian exploits; “If I had stayed in the Orient, I probably would have founded an empire like Alexander’s by going on pilgrimage to Mecca.”

George Bush is unlikely to contemplate the conversion of himself or his army in order to win over Muslim opinion in the “War on Terrorism.” If the conflict expands beyond Afghanistan to Iraq and Yemen, however, American troops will run into the same problems of distrust and resentment from Muslims that made the French conquest of Egypt impossible. In Afghanistan the limited American presence has not been enough to prevent power returning to the warlords, Afghanistan’s modern “Mamluks.” Afghanistan’s new US-approved president is as powerless as Napoleon’s native appointees in Cairo.

Protestations of friendship and respect will continue to dominate US relations with most of the Muslim world, but there is always the danger of a modern-day Sharif of Mecca turning his eyes when his people begin to join the fray. Bonaparte wrote at the time, wrongly, that “by gaining the support of the great shaykh-s of Cairo, one gains the public opinion of all Egypt.” Throughout the French occupation the Egyptians expressed a preference for misrule by the Muslim Mamluks to the scientific administration of their self-proclaimed benefactors, the infidel French. It was a lesson the French found hard to understand, but one that the Americans must recognize if they are to have success in forming effective governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unilateral imposition of unpopular puppet regimes will not contribute to the security of the Middle East and Central Asia. The real challenge for Washington is the introduction of forms of government that will engage the interest and participation of the citizens of the Muslim world. When under pressure in Egypt, Bonaparte’s republicanism quickly turned to imperialism. Unlike Bonaparte, however, Mr. Bush cannot simply walk away from the Mid-East if the going gets tough. To succeed, “regime-change” must be about governance issues as much as the consolidation of petroleum interests.