Ricin Fever: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in the Pankisi Gorge

Andrew McGregor

December 15, 2004

With Russia once again threatening pre-emptive strikes on “terrorist” installations in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge, it seems timely to re-examine the alleged activities of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the region several years ago. The Pankisi Gorge is a river valley about 34 km long in north-eastern Georgia. It is home to about 10,000 Kists, belonging to the same ethnic group as the Chechens and Ingush. After the outbreak of the second Russo-Chechen war in 1999, eight thousand Chechen refugees joined the Kists there. Arriving later were Chechen field commander Ruslan Gelayev and the survivors of the Battle of Komsomolskoye (site of a major Chechen defeat). Gelayev chose to rebuild his forces in the Pankisi Gorge; with Georgia engaged in a struggle with Russia over the breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia there was little danger of extradition.

Ricin 2Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

By 2002, unsubstantiated reports began to emerge of al-Qaeda leaders taking refuge in the Gorge after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov even suggested Bin Laden himself might be in the Pankisi Gorge. [1] Russia wished to focus international attention on the Gorge, where Gelayev had built up a significant armed force of 800 Chechens, together with about 80 international mujahideen, mostly Turks and Arabs. Georgian authorities pretended to be ignorant of their presence, despite having negotiated a deal to supply and arm Gelayev’s force in return for a little extra-curricular combat on behalf of Georgia in Abkhazia in 2001.

In his pre-Iraq invasion address to the United Nations Security Council Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that “we know that Zarqawi’s colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi’s network said their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.” Powell emphasized the production of ricin as a major threat, and the importance of Zarqawi as a master poisoner. Abu Atiya (Adnan Muhammad Sadik) was named by Powell as the leader of al-Qaeda’s Pankisi operations and part of Zarqawi’s network. In July 2002, there were reports that the CIA had warned Turkish officials that Abu Atiya had sent chemical or biological materials to Turkey for use in terrorist attacks.

Georgian raids started in February 2002, while the main security “crackdown” in Pankisi was carefully timed to follow the September 2002 departure of Gelayev’s forces for Russian territory. At the end of the security sweep in October, fifteen minor Arab militants were turned over to the U.S. The operation marked the first deployment of Georgian graduates of the Train and Equip program, a U.S. initiative to train a core professional army for Georgia. No evidence of chemical labs was discovered, though Georgia cautiously conceded that some militants in the Pankisi Gorge “may” have been chemical weapons experts.

The Ricin Crisis

There seems little reason for Zarqawi to move to the Pankisi Gorge, which makes a useful base for striking into Chechnya but is remote from Middle Eastern operational environments. The languages in the region are unfamiliar to most Arabs and the militants in Pankisi under the command of Ruslan Gelayev were nearly all bound for Chechnya. Gelayev feuded constantly with Islamist commanders in the Chechen resistance, and would be unlikely to have taken orders from Arab Islamists. Indeed, the entire story conflicts with the usual account of Zarqawi being wounded in Afghanistan and receiving medical treatment in Baghdad before joining Ansar al-Islam in the north.

Ricin 1In the buildup to the Iraqi war in early 2003, dozens of North Africans (mainly Algerians) were arrested in Britain, France and Spain on charges of preparing ricin and other chemical weapons. Colin Powell and others trumpeted the arrests as proof of the threat posed by the Zarqawi-Chechen-Pankisi ricin network (which had now been expanded to include the Ansar al-Islam of Kurdish northern Iraq).

French and British security officials were astounded by Powell’s insistence on February 12, 2003, that “the ricin that is bouncing around Europe now originated in Iraq.” With the Iraq invasion only weeks away, the source of the ricin threat moved from Georgia to Iraq. In the UK charges were dropped when government laboratories could find no trace of the poison in seized material. In Spain all the suspects were released when the poisons turned out to be bleach and detergent. In France, ricin samples were revealed to be barley and wheat germ. [2]

Responding to the arrests in Britain and France, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated that the suspects had been trained in Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge, where al-Qaeda laboratories were manufacturing ricin. Few bothered to question why anyone would set up a ricin lab requiring large numbers of castor beans for the production of even a tiny amount of purified ricin in a region with no native castor plants.

The “Chechen Network”

French Judge Jean-Louis Brugiere (a leading anti-terrorism official) led the attack against what came to be known as the “Chechen network” declaring that “the Chechens are experts in chemical warfare. And Chechnya is closer to Europe than Afghanistan.” The “Chechen network” was curiously devoid of Chechens: nearly all the suspects were Algerian. Despite the outcome of the European cases, the myth of the ricin-producing “Chechen network” took hold.

Chechen Brigadier General Rizvan Chitigov is the only Chechen leader who appears to have taken an interest in chemical weapons, and is frequently accused by the FSB of planning chemical operations against Russian troops. In 2001, leading FSB officials cited “serious grounds for suspecting him to be a CIA agent.” [3] Last October, Chechen police discovered two kilograms of mercury, which they claimed Chitigov intended to use to poison a water intake facility.

By August 2002 reports were emerging that Ansar al-Islam were experimenting on animals with aerosolized ricin under Zarqawi’s direction. Aerosolization is the only method of delivering lethal doses of ricin to large numbers of people, but requires a great deal of specialized equipment and expertise, certainly far beyond the limitations of a primitive lab. Ricin cannot be absorbed through the skin and was abruptly dropped from most state weapons programs as soon as the more lethal Sarin nerve gas was developed. Despite its potency, no effective method has yet been devised for the mass distribution of ricin. The weaponization of ricin is sufficiently complex that it almost precludes such use by non-state parties.

Conclusion

There is no evidence that Zarqawi knows anything about the manufacture or deployment of chemical and biological weapons. In the aftermath of the Jordan bombing attempt in April, Zarqawi made his only known statement on the use of chemical weapons, posted on alminbar.front.ru: “If we had such a bomb – and we ask God that we have such a bomb soon – we would not hesitate for a moment to strike Israeli towns.” [4]

Jordan’s King Abdullah II referred to Zarqawi as a “street thug” last July, adding that the media had inflated Zarqawi’s intelligence and skills to create a larger threat. Jordanian security services claimed the attempted attack was a chemical assault using nerve gas and blister agents, capable of killing 80,000 people. No evidence was presented, and even Zarqawi refuted the use of chemical agents in the plot. [5] Zarqawi’s career has followed the path of high-school dropout, failed video retailer, prisoner and gunman. It is thus impossible to identify how or when Zarqawi became an expert in chemistry.

The identification of a ricin-producing “Chechen network” under Zarqawi’s control developed because it was useful. In the media, every unproven allegation “from un-named intelligence sources” was treated as unquestionable evidence, each being used as proof of the last. This house of cards was saluted by Britain, Russia, the U.S. and eventually even the Georgians as it served to advance the interests of each. The British government was trying to justify an unpopular decision to join the Iraq war, and Russia was able to implicate Georgia in a Chechen-al-Qaeda network of terror, invoking “the common cause” of the anti-terror coalition in support of their methods in Chechnya. The U.S. trained Georgian troops essential for the protection of the two new oil pipelines about to cross Georgia under the cloak of counter-terrorist assistance, while using the Zarqawi chemical threat to drum up support in the United Nations. [6]

Last month Russia claimed that Abu Atiya (together with Abu Hafs “Amjet” and Abu Rabiya) commanded 200 Chechens and 30 Turkish “mercenaries” in Pankisi, though there is no explanation of how Abu Atiya, who was arrested in Azerbaijan in September 2003, has returned to action. [7] Georgia continues to deny the presence of any Chechen or Arab militants in the Gorge, calling Russian statements “a provocation.” Meanwhile Abu Musab al-Zarqawi remains central to the disinformation campaigns that obscure our understanding of Islamist terrorism.

Notes:

  1. “FM: Bin Laden could be in Caucasus”, Associated Press, Feb. 17, 2002.
  2. “The strange case of the dangerous detergent” New Statesman, April 14, 2003, By Justin Webster, “Ricin scare in Paris is false alarm,” AP, April 11, 2003.
  3. Russian Public TV (ORT), Interview with Nicolai Patrushev and Aleksandr Zdanovich, April 18, 2001 (BBC Monitoring, April 19, 2001).
  4. Translation from “‘Zarqawi tape’ says non-chemical attack planned on Jordanian intelligence”, AFP, April 30, 2004.
  5. “Al-Zarqawi denies the Jordanian version over the chemical attack”, Arab News, May 1, 2004.
  6. Baku-Tbilisi-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan.
  7. Not to be confused with the late Abu Hafs al-Misri or Abu Hafs ‘the Mauritanian’.

 

This article was first published in the December 15, 2004 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

The Chinese Siege of the French Fortress at Tuyen Quang, Tonkin, Vietnam, 1885

Andrew McGregor

Military History Quarterly 17(1), Autumn 2004, pp. 52-61.

Trading the sands of North Africa for the jungles of Tonkin, French Foreign Legionnaires and Vietnamese riflemen fought off waves of Chinese attackers for thirty-six days in 1885 at remote Tuyen Quang.

Siège de Tuyên Quang (1884-1885), by Hippolyte Charlemagne

Tired and bloodied, a long relief column of French troops snaked its way through the thick Tonkinese jungle late on the afternoon of March 3, 1885. As the soldiers emerged into a large clearing surrounding a battered fortress, their senses were overcome by a gruesome spectacle. One officer recalled, “All the approaches – churned, blasted, lamentable – were covered with corpses and the carrion rotted in the air.” The column had reached its destination: Tuyen Quang, where a small garrison mainly composed of Foreign Legionnaires had been battling as many as twenty-four thousand Chinese attackers since January 26.

Commerce and religion had drawn France to Vietnam in the first half of the nineteenth century. The persecution of Christian missionaries there resulted in French military intervention in the form of several clashes on land and sea in the 1840s. France was also envious of recent British success in gaining access to lucrative Chinese markets, and hoped to open up Southeast Asia to French trade and gain access to China via northern Vietnam. The Vietnamese emperor, who ruled from Hué, was well aware of France’s colonial intentions. According to an 1848 imperial commission report:

These barbarians are very firm and patient; the works they have not been able to complete they hand on to their posterity to bring forth to completion. They relinquish no undertaking and are disturbed at no difficulties… These barbarians enter every land with neither fear nor weariness; they conquer all peoples, regardless of expense… They pretend to seek commercial freedom, but actually this is the means to spread their dark and monstrous errors. They are interested but little in commerce, but under its guise seek to render futile the laws of the empire… These men, akin to sheep and dogs by their manners, cannot be persuaded by the language of reason; reason to them is the voice of the cannon. In the art of making the cannon speak, they are extremely clever!

Continued persecution of Christians led to more clashes in the 1850s that culminated with the French capture (with Spanish assistance) of Tourane (present-day Da Nang) in 1858 and the occupation of Saigon in southern Vietnam the following year. Over the next few years the French expanded their hold over southern Vietnam. They referred to that region as Cochin China, to central Vietnam as Annam, and to the north as Tonkin. In 1862 the imperial court reluctantly ceded several provinces of Cochin China to France, which also gained a protectorate over Cambodia the next year, and during the next several years extended its control to include all of southern Vietnam.

China, however, had regarded Vietnam as part of the Celestial Empire for more than a thousand years. Initially the French were encouraged by the lack of Chinese protests to their advances in Cochin China and to an 1874 treaty between France and Vietnam that declared the remainder of the country “independent of all foreign powers” while giving France concessions in Tonkin’s Haiphong and Hanoi. It seems that the Chinese leadership failed to grasp that the French regarded the treaty as ending Vietnam’s tributary relationship with its northern neighbor. The French interpretation was apparently also misunderstood by the imperial court in Hué, which continued its former relationship with China.

Black Flag leader Liu Yung-fu

During this period, Tonkin was wracked by fighting that at one time or another pitted Chinese, Vietnamese and Montagnards (the indigenous people of Vietnam’s Central Highlands) against each other. An army of Chinese brigands known as the Black Flags emerged as the most ruthless and successful of the combatants. The fighters were led by Liu Yung-fu, who, although illiterate, was widely regarded as a formidable strategist. He had turned bandit in southeastern China’s Guangxi Province during the chaotic days of the Taiping rebellion in the 1850s, and before long Liu had thousands of followers who swore allegiance to him before a black flag.

After crossing the Vietnamese border with his followers, Liu ingratiated himself with the local authorities by defeating the defiant Montagnard tribesmen of north Tonkin. The Black Flags, with the blessing of Chinese and Vietnamese officials, then began a long campaign against a rival brigand band, the Yellow Flags. In 1875, after more than five years of fighting, the Black Flags emerged victorious. Liu’s forces were now the foremost military power in Tonkin.

Over the next several years, France became increasingly concerned about the security of its concessions in Hanoi and Haiphong and frustrated by its inability to make further inroads in opening Tonkin’s Red River to trade. Then in 1882 French naval Captain Henri Laurent Rivière arrived in Hanoi at the head of several hundred troops sent as reinforcements for the concession there. Disobeying his explicit orders, he stormed and captured the city’s citadel on April 25.

Rivière, having seized northern Vietnam’s seat of government, soon found himself unable to expand his hold in Tonkin and was virtually cut off in Hanoi. Vietnamese authorities turned to the Black Flags, and a steady stream of their troops, as well as other Chinese fighters, poured into the countryside around Hanoi. Liu expressed his opinion of the French occupiers in an invective-filled ultimatum:

You French brigands live by violence in Europe and glare out on all the world like tigers, seeking for a place to exercise your craft and cruelty. Where there is land you lick your chops for lust of it; where there are riches you would fain lay hands on them. You send out teachers of religion to undermine and ruin the people. You say you wish for international commerce, but you merely wish to swallow up the country. There are no bounds to your cruelty, and there is no name for your wickedness. You trust in your strength, and you debauch our women and our youth. Surely this excites the indignation of gods and men, and is past the endurance of heaven and earth… If you own that you are no match for us; if you acknowledge that you carrion Jews are only fit to grease the edge of our blades; if you would still remain alive, then behead your leaders, bring their heads to my official abode, leave our city, and return to your foul lairs.

Rivière’s forces had been besieged in Hanoi for about eleven months when the ambitious captain was killed in May 1883 during an operation to loosen the Chinese grip around the city. France promptly used his death to step up its efforts to subdue all of Vietnam. In August, French warships bombarded Hué and landed troops nearby. The emperor immediately called for a cease-fire and reluctantly signed a treaty allowing France to establish protectorates over Tonkin and Annam. The Chinese, however, explicitly rejected the treaty’s terms.

Algerian “Turcos” and fusiliers-marins (armed sailors) at Bắc Ninh, 1884.

As part of France’s redoubled efforts, the Foreign Legion’s 1st Battalion arrived at Haiphong Harbor in November 1883 intent on suppressing the Black Flags and expelling the Chinese from Tonkin. The unit did not have to wait long to see action, successfully storming the well-defended Black Flag stronghold at Son Tay on December 16, 1883. After being reinforced by the 2nd Battalion in February 1884, the legionnaires occupied the former Chinese fort at Bac Ninh in March. Two months later, China agreed to withdraw its forces from northern Vietnam and it appeared that the French conquest of Tonkin was complete.

That impression, however, was shattered when a French column en route to occupy Lang Son (in northern Tonkin) attacked but was repulsed by a Chinese garrison that had remained behind. To punish China, France embarked on an ambitious two-front war. One French force was to invade the Chinese island of Formosa, while a second was to reinforce troops already in Tonkin that would then pacify the Red River Delta and extend French control farther inland.

Like many colonial conflicts of the time, the ensuing war was presented to the French public as a series of flag-plantings, bugle calls and triumphant bayonet charges. The reality, of course, was much harsher. In fact, France never officially declared war against China; according to international law, doing so would have prevented French ships from refueling at the neutral ports of Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong and thus would have completely disrupted supply lines. The Chinese likewise did not declare war, as they were awaiting military supplies ordered in Europe, and a declaration of war would have resulted in the contracts’ suspension.

The conflict in Tonkin was an especially brutal one from the beginning and was played out in unforgiving jungle and heavily wooded limestone mountains. It was a war without quarter. Chinese and Vietnamese prisoners were regularly executed, and French prisoners could expect to be decapitated, with their heads pickled in brine before being exhibited as trophies. The French were also known to display the severed heads of enemy combatants in an effort to weaken Chinese resistance. The two sides plundered and raped the helpless population, both in victory and in defeat.

Black Flag fighters

The Tonkin war also fired up the prejudices of the participants as well as observers. The Chinese and native Vietnamese were particularly shocked by their introduction to French colonial troops, especially those from North Africa. According to the Black Flags’ Liu Yung-fu, “You [the French] set black devils to plunder and ravage a defenseless population, more cruelly than the vilest of bandits.” A British reporter alluded to the alleged rapacity of the North Africans: “The bestiality of the Turcos [Algerians] is not to be laid, perhaps, at the French door, except that if the French introduce such animals into a country they ought to muzzle them.” Answering charges of French brutality, French writer Pierre Loti noted: “After all, in the Far East, to destroy is the first law of war. And then, when one comes with but a handful of men to subjugate an immense country, the enterprise is so adventurous that one must spread much terror, under penalty of perishing one’s self.”

Initially France relied on Foreign Legionnaires and troops of the Ministère de la Marine (Naval Ministry) for the combat component of its expeditionary force in Vietnam. The Foreign Legion of the 1880s was largely composed of men from the former French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, which had been annexed by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War. Also, Germans were well represented, as were Belgians, though many of the latter were actually Frenchmen evading the prohibition on the enlistment of native French in the legion by pretending to be French-speaking Belgian Walloons. The geographic contrast was stark between the legion’s normal sunny and wind-swept posts of North Africa and the humid bush of Tonkin, where one could often not see through the thick jungle more than a few feet ahead. The soldiers of the Legion, however, proved remarkably adaptable – more so, in fact, than their officers, who persisted in sacrificing their men (and themselves) in European battlefield tactics.

Tirailleurs Tonkinois

Tropical uniforms were slow in arriving, and the typical French soldier on the march carried an absurd amount of equipment. By 1883 France had begun recruiting militia in Cochin China and Christian convert auxiliaries in Tonkin. Legionnaire Charles Martyn complained of the native north Vietnamese light infantry serving with the French, the Tirailleurs Tonkinois: “It is beneath the dignity of these warriors to carry anything beyond their arms and ammunition, so our column presented the strange spectacle of natives of the country loafing along at their ease while we Europeans were loaded up like pedlars’ asses.”

“Loaded up like pedlars’ asses”: A Legionnaire on the march in Indo-China.

Ironically, by 1883 the Black Flags were armed with modern repeating rifles of European and American make, including Remingtons, Spencers, Winchesters and Martini-Henrys, while France’s troops made do with outdated single-shot Model 1874 Gras rifles. Fortunately for the French, many of the Chinese and brigands seemed to entirely misunderstand the principle of their weapons, firing at an upward angle in order to “drop” bullets onto their enemy. There was a widespread opinion in the French camp that Chinese troops had a special distaste for the Gras’ fearsome twenty-one inch bayonet blade. The bayonet charge thus became a staple of Foreign Legion warfare in Indochina. Overconfidence in this tactic (often ordered without artillery support) would cost many legionnaires their lives during the following years.

The Chinese, despite their weaponry, must have presented an unmilitary appearance to the Europeans. According to a French officer: “Some had a black garment decorated in blue, others a black garment with red borders, others a garment in iron-gray, a certain number wore an all-red costume, others a sky-blue costume; finally a group wore a sort of dark-blue smock. These last are without doubt some Black Flags.” The Black Flags had also readopted the Manchu pigtails (abandoned in China during the Taiping rebellion) and typically wore the broad conical straw hat of southern China and Vietnam.

In May 1884 French forces, extending control toward Tonkin’s highlands, occupied a Chinese-built square fort at Tuyen Quang, on the west bank of the Clear River, a tributary of the Red River. The area’s generally low-lying ground was accented by many rounded, steep-sided hillocks that the French called mamelons (nipples). One of these distinctive hills, seventy meters in height, was enclosed within the four three-hundred meter long by three-meter high walls of the fortress and provided an excellent observation point. The areas was also full of multi-storied pagodas, several of which lay within the brick walls of the citadel. A group of small pagodas surmounted the fort’s mamelon and served as quarters for the French officers. A small village of about one hundred Vietnamese peasants was located four hundred meters downstream from the citadel.

Disease soon started taking a toll on the small garrison, and in October French patrols began clashing with bands of Black Flags. Before long, thousands of the brigands were deploying in the jungles surrounding Tuyen Quang. The next month, the garrison was reinforced by the arrival of the 1st and 2nd companies of the Legion’s 1st Foreign Regiment, along with a company of freshly raised Tirailleurs Tonkinois, gunners of the Artillerie de la Marine to man a section of four small cannons, a detachment of eight sappers from the 4th Engineers, and the dozen sailors from the small gunboat Mitrailleuse, which was anchored off the citadel. Altogether, the garrison then numbered 619 men, 390 of whom were Foreign Legionnaires. Ammunition supplies were meager, but six month’s-worth of foodstuffs were on hand.

The legionnaires initially viewed the Tirailleurs with skepticism, and the latter were settled in a small pagoda-centered camp abutting the south corner of the fort. One member of the garrison recalled: “They had no drill to speak of, and they were dressed in a most hideous streaky blue uniform, with a singular ugly red, white and blue-tipped bamboo, soup-tureen like hat. The number of their company, sewed in red tape on a white oval on the left chest, dealt the final blow at any hopes they might have had of presenting a soldier-like appearance.” Moreover, several companies of the Tirailleurs had deserted earlier in 1884, taking their weapons and ammunition with them. Though the French troops initially deprecated them, referring to the north Vietnamese soldiers as bashi-bazouks – a reference to the Turkish army’s undisciplined irregular troops – the Tirailleurs soon displayed the endurance, marching ability, aggressiveness and steadiness under fire that would later bedevil French and US armies in the twentieth century.

Marc-Edmond Dominé (1848–1920), the commander of the Tuyen Quang garrison.

The garrison’s commander, thirty-seven year old Major Marc-Edmond Dominé, was a veteran officer of the hard-fighting Bataillions d’Afrique (known as the Bats d’Af), North African penal units in which conscripted and heavily tattooed ex-convicts could redeem themselves by performing the most hazardous battlefield tasks. Dominé quickly set his men to work building additional fortifications. A former journalist, twenty-five year old Sergeant Jule Bobillot of the 4th Engineers oversaw the construction of a bamboo palisade that surrounded the fort, as well as trenches, dugouts and earthworks in the strongpoint. A large mamelon three hundred meters west of the fort was judged a threat to the security of the citadel if occupied by the Black Flags, so Dominé ordered the talented Bobillot and his sappers to construct a fortified blockhouse on its summit. With the help of seventy legionnaires, the engineers completed the blockhouse in only six days.

For a time the garrison was able to stockpile supplies brought in on river junks escorted by French colonial troops. The last convoy arrived on December 20 and carried the all-important wine that French armies lived on at the time.

In January 1885 a twelve-thousand-man army of Chinese regulars from the southeastern province of Yunnan reinforced the thousands of Black Flag troops outside Tuyen Quang. The Yunnanese soldiers were expert in the construction of earthworks and field fortifications and in mine warfare, all learned by the province’s miners who had fought on both sides of the Muslim rebellion in their home province during the 1860s. These troops quickly set to work digging an intricate system of trenches that crept ever closer to the citadel, as well as building earthworks to defend against any force attempting to relieve Tuyen Quang.

A fanciful depiction of the Siege of Tuyen Quang – The pristine Legionnaires wear North African dress uniforms rather than tropical kit. The Black Flags are similarly outfitted like wealthy mandarins. Loose-fitting black clothes comprised the most common Black Flag “uniform” and bayonets were not a normal part of their weaponry.

On January 26, Liu launched the first concerted attacks on the French positions. After torching the Vietnamese village, troops assaulted the blockhouse and the bamboo palisades erected outside the walls of the citadel. In a typical Blag Flag onslaught, the attackers rushed forward screaming, banging gongs and cymbals, blowing trumpets and waving numerous banners. Three columns of three hundred men each advanced on the blockhouse, which was defended by only eighteen soldiers under the command of Sergeant Libert of the Foreign Legion. Two of the columns were quickly driven off by shell fire from the Mitrailleuse and rifle fire from the blockhouse and the citadel, but the third group of attackers was more tenacious and only fell back after the French opened up with their small cannons.

The fierce fight and the hundreds of enemy campfires visible at night on the hills surrounding Tuyen Quang alerted the garrison to its desperate predicament. No mercy could be expected from the Chinese, so surrender was out of the question. Virtually cut off from the outside world, the garrison resorted to tossing messages stuffed in bottles or bamboo tubes into the Clear River in the hope that they might make it to their comrades downstream.

A more realistic view of the battle, from a contemporary French postcard.

By the end of January, Dominé found it necessary to abandon the blockhouse after discovering the Chinese had tunnelled under it, where they were likely preparing to ignite a mine. A small French victory was earned when its garrison crossed the three hundred meters of no man’s land to the fort with the loss of only one soldier. Surrendering the mamelon was a severe blow as it allowed the Chinese to extend their entrenchments around the west corner of the citadel without having to worry about fire from their rear. The Black Flags were also able to deploy some outdated Krupp cannons on the mamelon which they had hauled through the jungle on the backs of elephants. The garrison was soon taking daily losses from a constant artillery bombardment.

While the Legionnaires and tirailleurs were battling for their lives at Tuyen Quang, French reinforcements had arrived in eastern Tonkin. The fresh troops allowed General Louis-Alexandre Brière de l’Isle, commander of France’s forces in the province, to launch a campaign to clear the northern route through Lang Son to the “Gates of China,” a narrow defile along the mountainous border. His column of about nine thousand soldiers set out on February 3.

Meanwhile, outside Tuyen Quang, the Yunnanese sappers devoted their labors to the citadel’s southwest wall, once protected by flanking fire from the blockhouse. Mines were run up right against the wall, but Bobillot’s small group of engineers dug counter-mines. At one point a group of French sappers unintentionally broke through into a Chinese tunnel, sparking a short firefight in the dark between the two surprised parties. By February 5, Chinese troops had crossed the river and from the east bank began a steady fire that made life uncomfortable in the tirailleurs’ camp and aboard the Mitrailleuse.

On the morning of February 5, the garrison beheld a peculiar sight when a Chinese soldier wearing a mask covered in charms and amulets came close to the citadel walls and planted a flag. The act was certainly a type of ritual designed to weaken the garrison; despite his strategic skills, Liu was prey to almost every form of superstition. A lieutenant and several of his men along the wall used a rope noose attached to a bamboo pole too snag the banner and were pulling it into the citadel when two Chinese soldiers attempted to save the flag, only to be shot dead.

At 5:45 AM on February 12, a thunderous explosion shook the early dawn as a one-hundred-kilogram mine placed by the Yunnanese against the base of the fortress exploded. Thousands of Black Flags poured out of their trenches and rushed toward the breach, but sheets of deadly rifle fire forced the attackers to withdraw. A simultaneous assault on the tirailleurs camp was also driven off.

Another mine explosion followed the next night, this time toppling a section of wall near the west corner of the citadel. Again thousands of Chinese rushed for the opening, and one even managed to plant his flag at the summit of the breach. The legionnaires and tirailleurs poured heavy rifle fire into the opening and dead and wounded attackers began falling into the mine’s crater, making it difficult for those behind to pass through the breach in the wall. The Foreign Legion counter-attacked, and for a time bitter hand-to-hand fighting raged for control of the gap before the Black Flags broke off their assaults. The garrison had repulsed another attack, but there was no time to rest, as new bamboo palisades needed to be built to fill the gaps in the citadel’s defenses.

On the night of February 15, the Chinese again assaulted the fort’s weakened west corner. Sergeant Beulin gathered twenty-five volunteers and drove off the Chinese with a furious bayonet charge in which four legionnaires were killed. Although the garrison managed to beat off successive attacks, the citadel was being demolished bit by bit. To bolster the crumbling fortifications, Dominé assigned forty Legion volunteers to form permanent, rotating work parties under the command of Sergeant Bobillot. On the eighteenth, however, the garrison suffered a critical loss when Bobillot was mortally wounded. In his journal entry for the day, Dominé also noted the loss of three large barrels of wine to shrapnel.

A statue of Sergeant Bobillot was erected in Paris but was melted down by German occupation forces in 1942.

Liu soon resumed his tactic of blowing a breach in the fort’s walls and then launching waves of attackers in an attempt to storm through the opening. On the twenty-second, Captain Cattelin saved his men from destruction by moving them away from the wall they were defending when he heard the screams, gongs and trumpets that preceded a Chinese attack. The subsequent mine explosion breached the wall but resulted in few casualties.

Captain Jean-Baptiste Moulinay, commander of the 1st Company, then moved his legionnaires into the opening to repel the expected attack, but the Chinese had cunningly planted a second mine which detonated and killed Moulinay and a dozen of his men and wounded thirty others. The Chinese then launched their clamorous assault. Tuyen Quang’s defenders were nevertheless able to rally, and with rifle fire and the points of their bayonets turned back the attackers.

The legionnaires and tirailleurs earned only a brief respite. During an assault two days later, a group of Chinese battled their way into the fort and fought off two French counterattacks before Capatin Cattelin arrived with his reserves, driving off the enemy a la baïonnette. By month’s end, the French had only 180 working rifles, and Chinese mines and artillery had reduced more than 10 percent of the citadel’s walls to rubble. The last day of February saw some of the gravest fighting of the siege, with more mine explosions and massed Chinese attacks against the gaping breaches in the French position. But again and again the exhausted garrison was somehow able to muster the energy and firepower to repel the assaults.

During the siege Major Dominé had been trying to summon help for the beleaguered garrison. Vietnamese laborers carrying messages about the command’s desperate plight had been quietly slipping out of the fort and through the enemy’s lines. Against all odds, one of the messengers had returned to the fort on February 25 with news that a three-thousand man column led by General Brière de l’Isle was advancing to the garrison’s relief.

French Marines (colonial infantry) and Algerian tirailleurs (riflemen) take Lang Son. In reality, the decisive battle for Lang Son was fought at nearby Bac Vie in a heavy fog.

The French commander’s northern expedition had routed a Chinese army that had crossed into northern Vietnam from Guangxi province on February 13, and after entering Lang Son unopposed his troops pushed on to the Gates of China, where they blew up the stone entrance to the fortified defile. Brière de l’Isle then received word of the Tuyen Quang garrison’s plight. Leaving General François-Marie-Casimir de Négrier in charge of the bulk of his troops, de l’Isle hurried south at the head of the relief force.

A more realistic depiction of the battle at Bac Vie. The Algerians took heavy losses in the victory.

The Black Flags made his march as difficult as possible. Chinese resistance was especially stiff seven miles south of Tuyen Quang, at Hoa-Moc, where the Black Flags had thrown up earthworks. Arriving there on May 2, the relief column drove out the defenders with concentrated artillery fire and a bayonet charge, though at great cost. In fact, more French troops died in the battle than fell during the entire siege of Tuyen Quang. In total, the relief column suffered some five hundred casualties en route to the fort.

With the Black Flags’ defeat at Hoa-Moc, Liu reluctantly concluded that he must end his siege of Tuyen Quang. Thant night his forces silently retreated northward. The next morning, the cratered corpse-covered fields surrounding the fort and the outlying jungle were eerily silent. A patrol of legionnaires led by Captain de Borelli went out to investigate and discovered that the six miles of Chinese trenches that laced around the fort were apparently deserted. At least one group of Yunnanese regulars, however, had remained behind. When the patrol drew near, one of the Chinese soldiers rose up and fired a shot at de Borelli, whose life was saved by one of his legionnaires who threw himself in front of his captain and was fatally wounded.

De Borelli was so moved by the soldier’s selfless act, as well as by the sacrifice of all his legionnaires who fell at Tuyen Quang, that he later wrote an emotional poem dedicated “To my men who are dead, in particular to the memory of Thiebald Streibler who gave his life for mine, the 3rd of March, 1885, Siege of Tuyen Quang.”

Late that day, the relief column finally arrived at the battered fortress. Although appalled at the sight and stench of hundreds of rotting corpses covering the battlefield, the recently arrived soldiers must have been filled with admiration as the heroic garrison stood at attention and saluted them. Of the original 619 defenders, about fifty were dead and two hundred wounded. Sergeant Bobillot would die of his wounds in a Hanoi hospital on March 18.

General de Négrier, meanwhile, had become aware that the Chinese were building up forces on the other side of the Gates of China, and he launched an offensive across the border that the enemy repulsed. The French fell back on Lang Son, which was soon attacked. When de Négrier was seriously wounded, command fell to Colonel Paul Herbinger, who immediately ordered a retreat to the Red River Delta. In the army’s flight, Herbinger ordered all artillery, equipment and even the regimental funds to be discarded. While the French campaign in Formosa had drained manpower and resources and reached a dead end, the debacle at Lang Son was so poorly received in Paris that Prime Minister Jules Ferry was forced to resign.

With the Chinese again on the offensive, French diplomats hastened to fashion an armistice, which was signed on April 4, 1885. By terms of the agreement (and the following treaty of June 11), the Black Flags and the Chinese army were ordered to return to China in exchange for the French abandoning their designs on the Pescadores Islands and Formosa. Somehow France had turned a string of military defeats into Chinese acknowledgement of French sovereignty over Tonkin. The Vietnamese, who had not been consulted, did not accept the new state of affairs, and their subsequent revolt took the French fifteen years to repress, despite using measures of the utmost brutality.

In the aftermath of the siege of Tuyen Quang the courage of the brave legionnaires who defended the citadel was widely extolled in France (with little mention of the Tirailleurs Tonkinois who had fought with them). But while the defenders’ courage was toasted in the cafés of Paris, the Chinese were also celebrating what they regarded as their victory over the French. Although they failed to take Tuyen Quang, the Chinese had inflicted severe losses on French forces in the spring of 1885. Their efforts were taken as evidence of the ability of Chinese fighters to defeat Europeans in the field.

As historian Douglas Porch has pointed out, however, the strategic significance of Tuyen Quang is unclear. The commitment of large numbers of Black Flags and Chinese regulars to the eventually fruitless siege prevented their more useful deployment elsewhere, such as the Red River Delta, while Brière de l’Isle was occupied in the north. The French debacle at Lang Son undermined any support in Paris for a general war with China and probably helped prevent the enormous loss of life that might have resulted from such a conflict.

Liu Yung-fu and his Black Flags later went on to fight bravely but vainly against superior Japanese forces on Formosa. He finished his career chasing bandits in Kwangtu Province and died in 1917 as a hero of Chinese resistance to colonialism.

Captain de Borelli’s poem extolling the virtues of the self-sacrificing foreign soldiers of the Legion who had died for France was poorly received by the upper echelons of the military, and he received no further promotions in a long and active service career. The captain left behind two additional legacies of his service in Tonkin: a pair of black banners seized during the siege of Tuyen Quang, which he donated to the Foreign Legion’s shrine at Sidi Bel Abbès, Algeria, with the condition that they be destroyed if the legion ever left Africa. In accordance with his wishes, the flags were burned in a ceremony in 1962 before the French pulled out of the country, their last major colonial stronghold.

The Assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev: Implications for the War on Terrorism

Andrew McGregor

July 14, 2004

“Now is the Time of the Assassins” – Arthur Rimbaud

The February 13 assassination in Qatar of former Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev by Russian agents is one of many challenges to international law posed by the new tactics of the “War on Terrorism.” America’s doctrine of preemptive “defensive” use of force has been enthusiastically taken up by several other powers, including Russia, which announced its own policy on the preemptive use of military force in the case of “direct threats” to Russia in October 2003. Unfortunately the definition of justified pre-emptive action depends on the national interests of each nation-state, as does the identification of individuals as “terrorists,” a prescription for inevitable conflict. The consequences of reinterpreting international law were recently displayed at the trial of Yandarbiyev’s assassins in petroleum-rich Qatar, base of operations for U.S. Central Command during the Iraq campaign.

Yandarbiyev 1Zelimkkhan Yandarbiyev (Reuters)

A Theorist of Jihad

Yandarbiyev, 52 at his death, was born in Kazakhstan during the years of Stalin’s exile of the Chechen nation. A poet and children’s author, Yandarbiyev became a leader in the Chechen nationalist movement as the Soviet Union began to collapse. During the 1994-96 war, Yandarbiyev had little connection with military operations, spending his time writing books on the independence effort. After the Chechens retook Grozny, Yandarbiyev helped negotiate the war-ending Khasavyurt Accords, shocking Boris Yeltsin by his insistence that the Chechen delegation be accorded equal status with Russia at the negotiations. It was the high point in his struggle for Chechen independence.

Yandarbiyev served as President of Chechnya from April 1996 to January 1997 after the assassination by targeted missile of his predecessor, Djokar Dudayev. His vision of an Islamic Chechnya was soundly rejected in the Presidential elections of 1997, in which he placed a distant third. In the second Chechen war, Yandarbiyev was assigned as Chechen representative in the Gulf because of his “authority and connections” in the region.

In his appearances on al-Jazeera TV and elsewhere, Yandarbiyev grew increasingly dismissive of appeals to the West for moral or material support for the Chechen cause. It was his belief that all Muslim nations should provide the Chechen jihad with military as well as humanitarian assistance in support of “Chechnya as an independent Islamic state.” [1] After numerous disagreements with Maskhadov, Yandarbiyev dissociated himself from the government in November 2002, calling for less restraint in the methods used in the “national liberation struggle.” Living in Qatar as a guest of its ruler, Emir al-Thani, Yandarbiyev wrote extensively on his radical interpretation of the theory of jihad, including the books Whose Caliphate? and Jihad and Problems of the Contemporary World.

Yandarbiyev’s attempts to gather official Arab and Muslim support for Chechen aspirations were largely unsuccessful, save for recognition of Chechen independence by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. This effort was unappreciated by Maskhadov, who refused to give his approval. Hindered further by Russia’s warnings to Muslim states that a visit from Yandarbiyev would be regarded as “a hostile act,” Yandarbiyev spent much of his time writing in his Qatar villa. Russia made the first of several requests for extradition in February 2003, citing Yandarbiyev as a major international terrorist and financier of the “al-Qaeda backed” Chechen resistance.

In June 2003, Yandarbiyev was placed on the UN Security Council’s blacklist of al-Qaeda-related terrorist suspects. By the terms of the UN’s decision all member states were called upon to freeze funds, ban financial support, and prevent the entry of Yandarbiyev to their countries. Yandarbiyev expressed outrage at the listing: “I should say that those trying to label me as a terrorist showed what they are, by agreeing with the most dirty and inhumane stronghold of international terrorism and criminal activity, such as is Russia today in its criminal military-political regime.” [2]

On February 13, 2004, a car bomb killed Yandarbiyev and badly injured his young son. In Grozny, the newly “elected” Russian-backed President Akhmad Kadyrov declared that no one in Chechnya would regret Yandarbiyev’s fate. A few months later, Kadyrov would himself be victim of an assassin’s bomb.

A Trial of Two Agents

After the bombing there were many in Russia who were willing to give the opinion that Yandarbiyev was the victim of a traditional Chechen blood vendetta or Mujahideen angry at alleged misappropriation of funds. The most creative explanation of his death came from the Headquarters of Russian forces in the Caucasus, suggesting that Yandarbiyev was the victim of angry Azerbaijani book-publishers who had lost money on his “anti-Russian” books. [3]

Yandarbiyev 2Yandarbiyev’s Van after the Bombing (Middle East Online)

The arrests occurred at a villa rented for the Russian agents some distance from the Russian Embassy. Alexander Fetisov, First Secretary of the Embassy, claimed diplomatic immunity and was eventually released. For the others, the future looked grim; there were witnesses, bomb-making materials seized from the villa, and the Qataris had recordings of all their cell-phone traffic. Convinced that they had been abandoned to their fate, the two agents gave detailed confessions. These were later withdrawn when a team of top Russian lawyers arrived to defend them, but despite Russian allegations that the statements were the result of torture, they were accepted into evidence. Efforts to claim the villa as Russian diplomatic territory to force the exclusion of evidence taken there were also unsuccessful.

Many leading Russian politicians called for the use of military force to release the suspects. One proposal called for Qatar to be targeted by dummy missiles, with real ones to follow if the agents were not released. Other politicians hinted at American responsibility for the assassination; according to Duma Deputy Nikolai Leonov (a 33 year veteran of Russian intelligence), “There is only one country in the world today, which widely practices political murders – it’s the USA. Moreover, this activity is completely legal there – there is this special President’s Decree, which permits them to conduct such ‘special operations’.” [4] Russia had actually threatened to rescue the agents with a Special Forces operation – an act of madness considering the concentration of U.S. forces in the tiny Emirate. [5]

A senior U.S. diplomat admitted that the U.S. had rendered ” very insignificant technical assistance” to Qatar in the apprehension of the Russian agents, [6] apparently in the form of “a small team of experts in the technical aspects of explosives.” [7] The head of the Russian team of lawyers alleged that investigation records had been doctored to omit American involvement. [8]

In a return to the methods of the Cold War, two members of the Qatar wrestling team were arrested on February 26 for alleged currency violations while changing planes in Moscow. Their detention sparked predictable outrage in Qatar. The wrestlers were released a month later when Fetisov was allowed to return to Russia. Shortly after, a Russian spokesman made the surprising and unsubstantiated charge that Yandarbiyev was responsible for the 1996 attack on a Red Cross hospital in Noviye Atagi in which six international workers were murdered.

The Russian position was consistent throughout the trial: the agents “stayed in Qatar legally and carried out informational and analytical tasks related to the fight against international terrorism without any violation of the local legislation.” [9] Foreign Minister Lavrov pointed to Russia’s condemnation of the assassination of Hamas leader Shaykh Yassin as proof of Russia’s rejection of extrajudicial punishments. As the verdict approached, the Kremlin made a surprising show of clemency itself, releasing seven alleged Russian Taliban members [10] recently transferred from Guantanamo Bay – despite an understanding with the U.S. that the prisoners would be prosecuted on their return to Russia.

On June 30, the Russians were found guilty of carrying out a murder “ordered by the Russian leadership.” Chechen rebels declared that the verdict had finally shown “who is the terrorist and who is the victim of terror.” [11] Yandarbiyev’s widow is now seeking to have his UN terrorist designation reversed posthumously. A pardon for the killers remains uncertain; the murder was an enormous affront to the personal dignity of the Emir. Yandarbiyev was buried in the royal family’s cemetery, and praised as a “holy warrior for Islam.”

The Tactic of Assassination

U.S. Pentagon officials began to consider the use of assassination in 2002 as part of a boundary-less War on Terrorism, unhindered by Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 against the use of such tactics. Press reports cited Israeli cooperation in training U.S. Special Forces to carry out “extrajudicial punishments.” [12] Assassination is widely accepted as being prohibited by two international agreements:

1) Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV (1907), in which it is forbidden to “kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army,” and

2) The Geneva Conventions on the Law of War, Common Article 3, which prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court.”

Nevertheless, there are many members of the current U.S. administration who believe that these agreements and related executive orders have no application in the War on Terrorism. Some legal experts have argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for “anticipatory” self-defense, though others argue that the Charter refers only to nation-states and not individuals. After the November 2002 assassination of al-Qaeda leader Qaed al-Harthi and five compatriots in Yemen by the missiles of a CIA Predator unmanned aircraft, U.S. National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice maintained that President Bush was “well within the bounds of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.” [13] When authority to launch similar strikes was passed to various members of the administration, assassination found new legitimacy as a tactic in the War on Terrorism.

When asked if Russia had the right to kill terrorists on foreign territory, Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to U.S. and Israeli precedents: “This is a conceptual question, connected with actions of Israel against Palestinian terrorists, and also by actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, (and) the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. This question shouldn’t be put to Russia.” [14]

Conclusion

The Yandarbiyev case is an important milestone in the renegade approach to the War on Terrorism. The boldness with which Russia carried out its operation in the midst of sensitive U.S. military installations suggests that America may have acquired a “rogue-partner” in the war on terror. Hopefully the case will act as proof that the targeting of individuals given political refuge in third-party countries is counter-productive. The verdict also begs a clarification from the United States on its own pre-emptive policies, so often cited by Russia and others as the inspiration for their own campaigns of targeted killings. The UN must also make it clear whether the Security Council’s blacklist is also a “hit-list.” The alternative is a future in which assassination squads roam the world’s capitals, leaving murder and mayhem in their wake in the name of the “War on Terrorism.” It is the choice between an era of international law, or the “Time of the Assassins.”

Notes

  1. “War, unleashed in Georgia and Azerbaijan 12 years ago, has not ended” [Interview with Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev], Zerkalo (Azerbaijan), Sept.24, 2002.
  2. “Exclusive interview of the ex-president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev with the Daymohk News Agency,” July 15, 2004, www.daymohk.info/rus/index.php.
  3. Ilya Shabalkin, quoted in: “Former Chechen rebel leader killed for $200,000,” Gazeta.ru, Feb.16, 2004.
  4. Olga Kultonova: Nikolai Leonov: “Only Americans could kill Yandarbiyev,” Feb.29, 2004, www.newsinfo.ru.
  5. Michael Binyon and Jeremy Page: “Qatar bombers ‘were Russian special forces’,” The Times (London), March 12, 2004.
  6. Andrey Zlobin: “Interview with Steven Pifer [U.S. Deputy Assistant for European and Eurasian Affairs],” Vremya Novostey no.47, March 22, 2004, www.vremya.ru/2004/47/5/94450.html.
  7. Anatoly Medetsky: “U.S. helped Qatar make the arrests,” Moscow Times, March 23, 2004.
  8. Mikhail Zygar: “They have inquisitional trial” [Interview with Dmitriy Afanasyev], Kommersant no.77, April 28, 2004.
  9. Yuri Zinin: “Russians on trial in Qatar feel ‘normal’, says Russian embassy,” RIA Novosti, June 28, 2004.
  10. Andrew McGregor: “From Russia to Cuba: The Journey of the Russian Taliban,” Central Asia – Caucasus Analyst (Central Asia Caucasus Institute – Johns Hopkins University), July 16, 2003, www.cacianalyst.org/view_article.php.
  11. Akhmad Zakayev, quoted in Andrew Hammond, “Qatar court jails Russians over Chechen killing,” Reuters, June 30, 2004: Nearly identical comments were made by Shamyl Basayev: “Chechen warlord says won’t hurt Russians abroad –TV,” Reuters, July 2, 2004.
  12. Julian Borger: “Israel trains U.S. assassination squads in Iraq,” The Guardian, Dec.9, 2003.
  13. “Bush gives nod to more attacks on terrorists,” Reuters, Nov.11, 2002.
  14. MFA Sergey Lavrov, quoted in: “Yandarbiev assassination: No Russian connection, says Foreign Minister,” RIA Novosti (Moscow), March 18, 2004.

 

This article was first published in the July 14, 2004 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

Al-Azhar, Egyptian Islam and the War in Iraq

Andrew McGregor

June 16, 2004

The recently replaced flag of Iraq has three stars in its middle band, representing a stillborn alliance between the great Arab nations of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. Though the wave of post-colonial Arab nationalism that sparked the would-be alliance is today no more than an episode of history, the three nations remain bound by a common religion, language and cultural identity. Of the three, Egypt alone has been a firm ally of the United States for 25 years, despite the general opposition of Egyptians to America’s support of Israel, its campaign in Afghanistan, and the current war in Iraq. Egypt has only recently emerged from a vicious struggle between state security forces and Islamists seeking to overthrow the government through a campaign of terrorism and assassination. In the fight for Egyptian “hearts and minds” the regime has traditionally relied on the scholars of an ancient institution in the heart of Medieval Cairo.

al-Azhar 2Al-Azhar Grand Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid Tantawi

Al-Azhar (“The Brilliant”) was founded in 970 AD as a Shi’ite mosque and center of learning by the ruling Shi’ite Fatimid dynasty. After Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university’s scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam. Since the beginning of the 19th century, however, the institute’s refusal to consider the implications of rapid modernization outside its walls led to a growing alienation from a ruling elite unable to ignore these changes. This dichotomy grew until Gamal Abdel Nasser brought the independence of al-Azhar to an abrupt end by placing the university under the direct control of the president’s office. The president would henceforth select the Grand Shaykh, and all the university’s scholars became state employees on the government payroll.

The transformation of al-Azhar into an institution whose role is simply to give religious approval to government decisions has not been without opposition. To some extent the growing militancy and independence of the institution’s junior scholars has been channeled into social issues. When called upon, however, the university’s leadership has been ready with approval of controversial political actions, such as the signing of the Camp David accords and participation in the Gulf War of 1990-91. Though cosmetic changes have been made to the curriculum in recent years, al-Azhar’s rigid orthodoxy and compliance to the state fails to appeal to either Egypt’s secularists or militant Islamists. The result is a reputation greater beyond Egypt’s borders than within.

The university has been at the front of anti-colonial struggle once before. Shortly after Napoleon took Cairo in 1798 the city erupted in a rebellion centered on al-Azhar. The revolt was led by a number of lesser shaykhs and imams while the great shaykhs of the university held back, waiting to see how things went before committing themselves. After French artillery finished the rebellion scores of rebels and scholars were executed while Napoleon gave public forgiveness to the great shaykhs. Though much criticized for this gesture by his own men, Napoleon still sought the approval of the university’s leaders for his posture as Guardian of Islam. Quiet encouragement of the revolt was as close as al-Azhar’s leadership ever came to opposing the governing authority in Egypt.

The division in 1798 between al-Azhar’s militant junior scholars and a more cautious leadership is similar to the rifts in al-Azhar today as the university struggles to respond to calls for rulings on the legitimacy of the anti-Coalition jihad in Iraq. It is a role the Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi, has declined, for reasons closer to Egyptian state policy than Koranic interpretation. Since his appointment, Tantawi has been heavily criticized for his close ties to the state and failure to assert the independence of al-Azhar. The schism between Tantawi and less pliant scholars of al-Azhar often takes the form of competing fatwas, creating confusion for Muslims seeking guidance from the institution.

The Egyptian regime regards public demonstrations as a threat to order, and the angry protests at al-Azhar earlier this year against Israel and the United States (the “originators of terrorism” according to the chants) led to the arrest of 54 Islamists, mostly members of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood. One of the charges against the Brotherhood was that they were preparing to send members to Iraq and other conflicts in order to gain military experience. [1] The death of a leading member of the Brotherhood from injuries suffered in detention has revived fears of renewed state repression of the Muslim Brothers and other independent Islamists. In an effort to keep individuals and organizations from tapping into the great wave of popular anger over Egypt’s alliance with the United States, authorities have clearly stated that “legitimate support for the Palestinian and Iraqi resistance” will not be allowed to threaten the stability of the state.

In the opening days of last year’s Iraq campaign, the government found itself faced with thousands of Egyptians demanding an opportunity to join their Arab brothers to drive off the coalition of “unbelievers.” The government assured the volunteers that nothing would stand in their way. Tantawi also gave his approval, saying that “Combating injustice is a religious duty… We do not prevent anyone from going to help those who are facing injustice.” [2] Those who followed government instructions were given forms to fill out, rather than weapons. In the end, most of the volunteers added a sense of betrayal to their anger as the government buried their attempts to fight in the red tape of Egypt’s formidable bureaucracy.

Those few Egyptians who succeeded in going to Iraq were ultimately disillusioned by their experience. Many complained of being placed in exposed positions, a climate of defeat, and outright hostility from most Iraqis. In some cases the Iraqi army abandoned Arab volunteers, leaving them to fend off American tanks with light arms. Others were forced to defend themselves against Iraqi fire. [3]

In March 2003 Shaykh ‘Ali Abu al-Hassan, the chairman of al-Azhar’s fatwa committee, ruled that it was obligatory to fight Coalition forces in Iraq, and that the blood of American and British soldiers was “permitted.” After representatives from the U.S. and UK embassies visited al-Azhar with concerns over the statement, Tantawi fired al-Hassan, who, two years earlier, had called for all Muslims to give armed resistance to U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. Only a few days later, however, the University’s Islamic Research Center urged Muslims to take up jihad against a “Crusader invasion.” Tantawi read and approved the fatwa, but did not sign it. Al-Azhar later issued a “clarification,” asserting that “Islam was not and will not be at war with Christianity.” [4] Nevertheless, Tantawi continued to make verbal calls for jihad in Iraq by all means (including suicide operations), but no longer gives encouragement to Egyptian fighters eager to join the conflict.

al-Azhar 3Egyptian Grand Mufti Shaykh ‘Ali Guma’a

It is important to note that in the many calls to jihad from Egyptian and other Middle Eastern sources there is often an important qualification. There is agreement between most Sunni scholars that since the creation of state armies in the Islamic world, the conduct of jihad has become a state responsibility. Calls for jihad therefore no longer imply a mass movement of armed individuals to the zone of conflict, but may take the form of material, financial and spiritual support to a state or to fighting groups in a region of war. In the opinion of the Chief Mufti of Egypt, Shaykh ‘Ali Gum’a, “the one with the right to declare jihad is the one with the flag. The one with the flag in our day is the president of the state.” [5] It is a point hotly disputed by a new generation of radical scholars, who have revived the moral imperative of individual responsibility to carry out armed resistance in areas where Islam is threatened. [6]

In August 2003, Azhari Shaykh Nabawi al-Eish issued a fatwa banning recognition of the Iraqi Governing Council. After a well-publicized meeting with the American ambassador, Tantawi dismissed el-Eish and insisted the ruling was only “a personal opinion.” Although the fatwa had the support of many Islamic scholars, Tantawi insisted al-Azhar had no right to interfere in the affairs of other nations. Tantawi’s unexpected rejection of al-Azhar’s traditional role as a center of spiritual guidance for the entire Islamic world did immense damage to the university’s reputation. Many Azharis supported al-Eish, and the affair was followed by another demonstration at the university in support of the Iraqi resistance.

One reason for President Hosni Mubarak’s reluctance to have thousands of Egyptian Mujahideen fighting in Iraq was revealed on June 11, when Egypt received an additional $300 million dollars in U.S. aid as compensation for economic damage of the Iraq war and as encouragement for liberal reforms. Despite the failure of the privatization campaign, Egypt was also given U.S. loan guarantees for an additional two billion dollars. As the second largest recipient of U.S. aid (after Israel), Egypt already receives $2 billion per year in exchange for its peace treaty with Israel.

The President is in a precarious position, in absolute need of the American aid that threatens his credibility within Egypt and restricts his attempts to restore Egypt’s position as a leader of the Arab world. The Islamists reject American aid, but have little to replace it with, other than “God’s protection.” Mubarak, like the Saudi royal family, fears that George Bush’s Middle East reform initiatives will target America’s allies as well as enemies.

 Conclusion

To this point Mubarak has succeeded in keeping the lid on Egypt’s political boiler, to the great relief of Coalition forces. Ironically the means of doing so, the pervasive presence of a paternal/military government in every aspect of Egyptian life, may be among the first targets of a regional democratization process. Mubarak is no Gorbachev; like most of the regime, he views political dissent as a threat to the stability of Egypt and its ability to obtain American aid. While most of the gunmen of the 1990s have been eliminated or driven out of Egypt, the government’s failure to more effectively resist U.S. operations in Iraq threatens to revive the militant faction of Egyptian Islam. The confusion spawned by conflicting opinions out of al-Azhar only serves to inspire Egyptian Islamists to look for leadership elsewhere. If Westerners have difficulty interpreting the rulings of al-Azhar it is due in part to different definitions of common terms; according to Tantawi, “Jihad is sanctioned by God to either defend religion, money, soul, land, honor and freedom, or to support those who are subject to injustice. Terrorism, by contrast, refers to acts of imperialism, the killing of civilians, the destruction of homes, and aggression against civilians.” [7]

The usefulness of al-Azhar for Islamic confirmation of government policy is also in question, again a consequence of the regime’s own insistence on controlling all political voices. For many Egyptians, the impression that al-Azhar now consults with the American ambassador on its rulings has destroyed Tantawi’s remaining credibility. Anything short of a meaningful transfer of power to Iraqis on June 30 will provide extremists with further ammunition in their campaign to topple an “apostate” Egyptian regime.

Today Egypt stands at the brink, its leaders attempting to satisfy the conflicting demands of its foreign partners as well as its secular, Islamist and military constituencies. Azhari professor ‘Abd al-Azim al-Mut’ani warned shortly after 9/11 that “Even if the present [Arab] regimes support America, these regimes are only passing clouds. They do not enjoy stability; stability is in the hands of the people…” [8] Exposed daily to horrific images of suffering and brutality from the Iraq campaign and the Palestinian conflict that are rarely broadcast in North America, many Egyptians are experiencing a groundswell of anger against their American patrons. A descent into a renewed cycle of terrorism and repression may be only a videotape away.

Notes:

  1. Gihan Shahine, ‘The Brotherhood’s latest challenge’, Al-Ahram Weekly Online: 3-9 June 2004; Isssue 693, weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/693/eg5.htm
  2. Shaden Shehab, ‘On the road to Baghdad’, Al-Ahram Weekly Online: 10-16 April 2003; weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/eg9.htm
  3. A collection of interviews with these fighters from the Arab press can be found in Steven Stalinsky, ‘Arab and Muslim Jihad Fighters in Iraq’, MEMRI Special Report – no.19, July 27, 2003, www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi
  4. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 20, 2003. It is interesting to note the growing number of Muslim scholars who now assert that both Christians and Muslims alike oppose the Bush government’s conduct in the Middle East, often citing statements by both the Coptic and Roman Catholic popes.
  5. ‘The new Egyptian Mufti – Dr. Sheikh ‘Ali Gum’a: Opinions about jihad, supporting suicide bombings, and forbidding Muslims in the U.S. military from fighting other Muslims’, (Interview with Al-Haqiqa, Egypt), MEMRI Special Dispatch Series no. 580, October 1, 2003, memri.org/bin/articles.cgi
  6. One of the most forceful adherents of the idea that armed jihad is fard ayn (individually obligatory) was Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam, the spiritual founder of al-Qa’idah. See: Andrew McGregor: ‘Jihad and the Rifle Alone: ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam and the Islamist Revolution, Journal of Conflict Studies 23(2), Fall 2003, pp.103-104
  7. Gihan Shahine, ‘Debating Jihad: Jihad need not imply a war of religions’, Cairo Times 7(26), 4-10 September 2003
  8. Moussa Hal, ‘Islamic clerics in Egypt declare war on America’, www.lailatalqadr.com, October 11, 2001, available in English at memri.orgbin/articles.cgi

This article first appeared in the June 16, 2004 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor

“Operation Boomerang”: Shamil Basayev’s Justification for Terrorism

Andrew McGregor

February 26, 2004

Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev is no stranger to violence. In the turbulent world of the northern Caucasus, Basayev has fought in the Abkhaz rebellion of 1992-93, and played a central role in the first Chechen war of 1994-96, the invasion of Dagestan in 1999, and the current conflict in Chechnya. In addition, he received training in guerrilla warfare and covert operations from both Russia and Afghanistan. There is no question that Basayev is one of the most experienced and dangerous practitioners of “asymmetrical warfare” in the world today. It is often said that the suicide truck-bombers of Iraq have adopted Palestinian or al Qaeda tactics, but it was Basayev who perfected the procedure in a series of attacks on Russian targets that began in 2000. Today Basayev declares himself at war with Russian “state terrorism,” alleging genocidal intentions on the part of Moscow.

basayev 1Shamyl Basayev

TACTICAL SHIFT

Once an exponent of purely military tactics against the Russians, Basayev has openly embraced the tactics of terrorism in the last year, seeking to provoke a catalytic event that would free Chechnya from Russian rule. The shift comes from the recognition that the Chechen resistance can no longer mount mass assaults like the one on Grozny that ended the first conflict in 1996. “Our mission today is to give the invaders a good kick to push them to withdraw, and, God willing, we will do that!” His dismissal from the Chechen command structure after admitting his complicity in organizing the infamous hostage taking at a Moscow theater in October 2002 appears to have liberated Basayev from the necessity of harmonizing his words and actions with those of the beleaguered Chechen president, Aslan Maskhadov.

In his defense of terrorism Basayev uses a mix of reasoning, Chechen proverbs and bitter humor to pose difficult questions to the West regarding appropriate responses to “state terrorism.” While the concept of “state terrorism” is rarely part of the security discourse in the West, it has a prominent place in the Islamic world, as seen in the provocative comments of Malaysia’s President Mahathir Mohamad at the October 2003 APEC conference:

“Terror attacks are not just by irregulars… Indeed, we see states launching massive retaliation, not just to curb suspected terrorists, but his family, his village and his town. It would be ridiculous to think that such attacks do not terrorize the innocent. In fact, the terrorism is even greater, for it is systematic and executed with heavy weapons in the hands of trained soldiers.” [1]

In response to the atrocities carried out by Russian security forces in Chechnya, Basayev remarks: “Today we can see on TV how rapid-reaction units and special-purpose police units are getting dispatched (to Chechnya), and how their wives, their sisters and their mothers are wishing them a good trip. We will be conducting operations right in those cities and villages where they came from.” This declaration follows a decision taken by Basayev’s Riyadus Salikhin Brigade of Martyrs to undertake “Operation Boomerang,” applying the principle of collective responsibility to the Russians, just as the Russians apply it in Chechnya by carrying out retaliation attacks on the families of Chechen resistance fighters. “Collective responsibility” has long been an established policy in Israel’s war on terrorist formations, and the United States has recently been accused of applying the policy in Iraq (in violation of the Geneva Conventions) through arrests of family members of suspected resistance members and the destruction of their homes.

BASAYEV’S ARGUMENT

On August 4, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell designated Basayev a threat to U.S. security, adding that Basayev “has committed, or poses the risk of committing, acts of terrorism” against America. [2] Before the American intervention in Afghanistan, Basayev rarely commented on the United States, other than to criticize its lack of support for the Chechen struggle. Since then, however, Basayev now refers to “Adolf Bush,” and describes America as a mirror image of the Roman Empire, thrashing out against “the barbarians” as it collapses from internal corruption and moral decay.

Unlike many Islamists, however, Basayev denies that the United States is engaged in an anti-Islamic “crusade.” “There is nothing crusading in America’s actions. This is a satanic campaign against the entire world, against anything sacred in this world, against Islam, against Christianity, against Judaism–it is… the attack of godlessness and Satanism against the Faith on all fronts and all levels under the guise of all sorts of slogans.” [3] Basayev also adds that the removal of dictators like Saddam Hussein will benefit Muslims, giving them the chance to rise together in unity. Saddam, a vocal supporter of the Russian campaign in Chechnya, is little missed in rebel circles.

Basayev 2Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev

Basayev calls the bombings of Russian security installations “anti-terror” operations. The use of suicide bombers in attacks has been defended by a former president of Chechnya, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev: “Acts of self-sacrifice have been happening in all times during all wars that had a sacred nature, like the national liberation Jihad of the Chechen people. Chechens, Palestinians and other people are all using them… The main thing is that they were aimed at achieving godly goals of the fight and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy.” Current President Aslan Maskhadov takes another view: “Shamil thinks, I’m sure, he’s absolutely sincere, that in the conflict with Russia, all methods are permitted for the Chechens. In the view of the specific circumstances, I can’t agree with this. Today Shamil Basayev isn’t part of the armed forces of the Chechen Republic.” [4]

The tactics of terror are, of course, nothing new to Basayev, who first came to attention as an airplane hijacker in 1991. Since then he has planted radioactive material in Moscow (as a warning), seized a hospital with 200 hostages in Budennovsk, and executed Russian prisoners after the Russian army failed to exchange alleged war criminal Colonel Yury Budanov for the men (a decision Basayev and Saudi warlord al-Khattab claimed was fully justified by Islamic law).

“They are trying to accuse us of killing innocent people… They cannot be “totally innocent,” for the simple fact that they are approving of this slaughter, financing it, electing the rulers that are publicly promising to deal with the Chechens, and conducting genocide on the Chechen land.” [5]

Amir Abu al-Walid, leader of the Arab contingent in Chechnya, has similarly declared that the Russian people bore responsibility for electing the Putin government, and must now pay “with their blood and their sons.” [6] Basayev is not the first radical to come to a conclusion of “collective responsibility” on the part of his opponents. His defense of terrorist methods recalls the statement made by anarchist bomber Emile Henry at his Paris trial in 1894:

“Those good bourgeois who hold no office but who reap their dividends and live idly on the profits of the workers’ toil, they also must take their share in the reprisals. And not only they, but all those who are satisfied with the existing order, who applaud the acts of government and so become its accomplices … We will not spare the women and children of the bourgeois, for the women and children of those we love have not been spared.” [7]

In November of 2002 Basayev warned the NATO nations of the havoc he intended to wreak in the Russian interior, outlining the cost to the Western world of a Russian collapse. Hampered in mobility by multiple wounds and the amputation of his foot, Basayev nevertheless remains capable of mounting deadly strikes at Russian targets. Despite being declared a threat to American interests, Basayev appears to be satisfied with verbal jabs at the West for now, choosing to remind the West of its complicity in the coming violence through its support of President Putin.

FAR FROM ALONE

Basayev’s charges have been echoed within Russia by the co-leader of the Union of Right Forces (SPS), Irina Khakamada, who has appealed to Russian victims of “state terrorism,” and by independent presidential candidate Ivan Rybkin, who has described the activities of Putin and his circle as “state crimes.” Basayev now finds himself at odds with the foreign minister of Chechnya, Ilyas Akhmadov, who routinely condemns every action of the “Brigade of Martyrs.” Akhmadov himself refers to the “terrorist and bandit formations calling themselves the Russian Army,” and opposes efforts to categorize Maskhadov’s military command (which now excludes Basayev) as “terrorists.”

Ahmed Zakaev, Maskhadov’s personal representative in Europe, also condemns the “Brigade of Martyrs,” but adds: “Let me stress that Basayev’s suicide bombers are not religious fanatics but people gripped by feelings of vengeance for their tortured sons, murdered infants, and raped daughters.” [8] President Maskhadov, a resolute advocate of the application of international law in the conflict, nevertheless displays some understanding of Basayev’s rage against Russia:

“Basayev is a warrior. He is somebody who is exerting revenge. He employs the same methods as the enemy, who uses them against the Chechens, civilians. It is an eye for an eye… If it were possible to subordinate Basayev and to funnel all his energy against the enemy, employing acceptable methods, he would achieve much more.” [9]

Basayev, now the lethal wild card of the Chechen conflict, is defiant to the end. He has offered to end the activities of the “Riyadus Salakhin” if the Russians agree to conduct the Chechen/Russian conflict according to international law. Otherwise,

“If the Kafirs (infidels) want me to die so bad, I can make them an offer: let them give me some money, about 10-20 million (or) more, and I will give that money to Maskhadov to continue the Jihad, and I myself will buy me a good Kamaz truck and will drive right up to them!” [10]

 

NOTES

  1. Mahathir Mohamad, quoted in Tomi Soetjipto, “Mahathir lashes out at state terrorism, WTO,” Reuters, October 22, 2003.
  2. U.S. Department of State: Public notice 4436: Determination Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 Relating to Shamil Basayev.
  3. “Interview with Basayev: Jihad is only starting to flare up in Ichkeria,” Kavkaz Center, June 9, 2003.
  4. “Aslan Maskhadov: After “Nord-Ost”, Basayev has been acting on his own,” Interview by Novaya gazeta, October 2, 2003; at www.chechnya-mfa.info/print_press.php.
  5. “Statement of the Amir of the Islamic Brigade of Shaheeds Riyadus Salikhin, Abdallah Shamyl Abu-Idris (Shamil Basayev),” Kavkaz Center, January 12, 2004.
  6. “Arab commander says Chechnya war to spread to rest of Russia,” Al-Jazeera, November 19, 2003 [BBC Monitoring]. In a rare public statement al-Walid has also called on Iraqis to use suicide bombings against Coalition forces in Iraq: Muhammad al-Shafi’i, “Abu-al-Walid Al-Ghamidi, Commander of the Arab Fighters in Chechnya, Advises the Iraqis To Store Weapons and Stage Suicide Operations,” Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic (London), June 11, 2003.
  7. recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/HenryEmile.htm
  8. “Zakaev: Basayev Is Not Clearing His Actions With Maskhadov,” Moscow Grani.ru, June 15, 2003.
  9. “Chechnya: Aslan Maskhadov’s appeal to put an end to the war,” Le Monde (Paris), October 3, 2003.
  10. “Statement of the Amir of the Islamic Brigade of Shaheeds ‘Riyadus Salikhin’, ‘Abdallah Shamyl Abu-Idris (Shamil Basayev),” Kavkaz Center, January 12, 2004.

 

This article first appeared in the February 26, 2004 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

Ambivalence or Radicalism? : The Direction of Political Islam in Kazakhstan

Andrew McGregor

Modern Kazakhstan: Between East and West, Conference at the Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto

December 5, 2003

Despite being surrounded by states experiencing various degrees of religious/political turmoil, Kazakhstan’s independence era has so far been marked by the relative absence of radical trends in Islam. Moderate religious traditions, the influence of Soviet secularism and the presence of a large Orthodox Christian population have all played a part in the general absence of radical Islam in Kazakhstan. Since the events of 9/11, however, there have been warnings from within the Kazakhstan government of growing Islamic radicalism, especially in the south of the country, which has a substantial Uzbek population.

Islam penetrated Kazakhstan’s southern region in the 9th and 10th centuries, but did not spread to the northern nomads until the 18th and 19th centuries. Russia encouraged the work of Tatar missionaries as a means of ‘civilizing’ the nomads. A reversal of this policy in late Tsarist times began a period of religious repression that lasted down to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In relative isolation the Kazakhs developed a very localized brand of Islam that is strongly flavoured by native customs and traditions.

Like most successful religions, Islam has proven remarkably adaptable to local situations and traditions. This is due, in part, to the lack of centralized control so that the concept of what constitutes Islam draws not only on the Koran, but also from the consensus (ijma) of local scholars. It is this tendency towards innovation (bid’a) that the Islamist reformers seek to correct through the application of a narrow interpretation of Islamic scripture that is not subject to regional readings and understanding. Many of these reformers are inaccurately referred to as “Wahhabis,” though they are better described as “Salafists” in that they call for a return to the ways of the salaf, the pious ancestors who lived at the time of Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. With their rejection of secularism and even most types of Islam, the Salafist movement is frequently cited as a threat to the governments of Central Asia, including Kazakhstan.

In dealing with the growth of Salafist movements Kazakhstan has adopted the language used throughout the rest of the former Soviet states, warning of the ‘Wahhabi’ threat. Wahhabi is a popular catch-all term that implies Saudi inspiration and direction of all types of Islamic reform in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The term has become inextricably linked with religious violence in the popular imagination, though in practice it may be applied to almost anyone involved in Islamic worship outside of the official structures.

In the Soviet era Kazakh religious affairs were administered from Tashkent by the Muslim Spiritual Board of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Most Kazakhs recognized Uzbekistan’s important role as a regional centre for Islamic study, but the location of both seminaries and administration in Uzbekistan left religious structures comparatively underdeveloped within Kazakhstan. In the 47-year history of the supervisory board not a single Kazakh served as director of the muftiate, while Kazakhs had little say in the distribution of religious donations, all of which were sent to Tashkent. As Bruce Privratsky puts it: “Religious ambivalence was a strategic advantage for the Soviet Kazaks, who could apologize to the Russians that, in comparison to the Uzbeks, they had never really been religious at all.”

In 1990 the establishment of the Spiritual Board for the Muslims of Kazakhstan (DUMK) returned control of official Islamic structures to the Kazakhs. This was done in anticipation of a sudden growth of interest in Islam as Soviet ideology passed into history. The further creation of a Higher Islamic Institute offered a chance for Islamic education in Kazakhstan.

Recently the Kazakh government has identified the southern regions of Shymkent, Kentau and Turkistan as areas of growing Islamic radicalism. Shymkent is home to most of Kazakhstan’s Uzbek minority, who are increasingly viewed as a channel for Islamic radicalism. Islamic communities that fail to register with the authorities risk being labeled as ‘Wahhabis’. New laws on religious activity seek to re-establish state control of Islam, using the threat of religious radicalism as justification. Missionaries will have to register with the government, the result of a lengthy trial of two Arab teachers who began to agitate for the restoration of the Caliphate after their arrival in Kazakhstan. The republic’s small Uyghur minority also remains suspect due to the insurgency in the Uyghur homeland in China’s western province of Xinjiang, or East Turkistan as it is known to the Uyghur nationalists. Kazakhstan has endured great pressure from China to crack down on Uyghur groups suspected of aiding the insurgency.

Mosque in Astana, Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is unique among the Central Asian states for its sizable Russian Orthodox minority. The government has resolutely stood behind official secularism in an effort to stem the outflow of ethnic Russians from the republic. Moderate religious leaders have managed to maintain a sense of harmony between the faiths, a situation the government would like to preserve. Islamist propaganda in Central Asia is frequently anti-Christian, but the choicest invective is always saved for the Jews, who are held responsible for many of the region’s ills despite having an insignificant presence in the area.

Shortly after 9/11 Uzbekistan became the main beneficiary of American largesse after offering nearly unrestricted use of several former Soviet bases. The Karimov regime has been immensely strengthened through its close cooperation with the American military. The result was an increased antagonism within the Kazakh government towards Uzbek leaders they feet had become dismissive of Kazakhstan’s regional concerns. In 2002 important steps were taken to improve relations with Uzbekistan. The long festering border disagreements were finally resolved and Kazakhstan returned two Uzbek fugitives who were wanted in connection with the 1999 Tashkent bombings. Military aid from the U.S. has now begun to flow to Kazakhstan, initially in the form of much-needed high-tech equipment for the border guards. The conclusion of a new five-year defence cooperation plan between the U.S. and Kazakhstan gives Kazakhstan access to increased military aid, including helicopters. Both the US and France have offered assistance in turning Kazakhstan’s defence forces into a professional army ready to undertake peacekeeping and anti-terrorism activities. Astana has also grown closer to NATO after having been a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace since 1994. In talks with NATO last summer, Nazarbayev was reportedly seeking greater military aid and training.

Supreme Mufti of Kazakhstan Absattar Derbisali with President Nursultan Nazarbayev

For many Kazakhs the subsequent conduct of the Afghanistan campaign dulled the attraction of a close alliance with the United States, but there are still many who argue the economic and strategic benefits of opening Kazakhstan to the American military. Opposition politicians urged the government to condemn the American invasion of Iraq, but such efforts found little popular support, as most Kazakhs had little sympathy for the Baghdad regime. More covert attempts by the Islamists to rouse anti-American indignation have not met with any more success.

The main Islamist challenge to the Kazakh government comes from the Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Salafist movement founded by diaspora Palestinians in 1952. Though the movement has members throughout North Africa, Great Britain and the Middle East, the party only came into its own in Uzbekistan in the latter half of the 1990s. Compared to the violence of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the movement appeared to offer a peaceful path to the establishment of an Islamic state. Highly secretive, the movement adopted the cell structure usually found in terrorist movements in order to protect its leaders and organization. The party’s leaders oppose both Sufi and Shi’ite interpretations of Islam, seeking a return to the ‘pure Islam’ of the ‘Righteous Caliphs’ who followed Muhammad. In recent years the movement has spread into Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and there are reports of efforts to establish a foundation in southern Kazakhstan.

Hizb ut-Tahrir regards it as obligatory for every Muslim to work towards the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate. According to the movement, Islamic rule has ceased to exist since the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924. No system but Islam is suitable for government over Muslims, and no system of law but Shari’a is permissible. It is haram (forbidden) for the Muslim states to seek the protection of America, Britain, ‘or other kufr states’. Also forbidden is the participation of Central Asian armies in military maneuvers with Western forces (such as in NATO’s Partnership for Peace exercises). Since the establishment of US bases in Central Asia, the Hizb ut-Tahrir has accused the region’s leaders of turning their states into ‘US colonies’. Only a handful of Hizb ut-Tahrir activists have been arrested in southern Kazakhstan in the last couple of years, and there have been no reports of religious violence despite police reports of arms seizures. In the most recent cases, the Kazakh language pamphlets have criticized American and British activities in Iraq, together with the usual calls for the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Despite the unease of Kazakh authorities, there is little resemblance between the relative calm that prevails in south Kazakhstan and the growing religious/political turmoil of Uzbekistan and southern Kyrgyzstan. The distribution of leaflets to a largely indifferent Kazakh populace hardly represents an immediate threat to the Kazakh regime. The level of religious/political dissent is largely in the hands of the government as it deals with accusations of corruption in the distribution of oil revenues and issues of political succession surrounding the leadership of President Nazarbayev.

Long active in Uzbekistan, Hizb ut-Tahrir propagandists have been extremely busy in southern Kyrgyzstan in the last few years. Though the circulation of leaflets seems to be the party’s main weapon Kyrgyz security forces claim to have foiled an attempt to set off 30 bombs throughout Jalalabad. The attempted assassination of the Secretary of the Security Council (Misir Ashirkulov) has also been attributed to the Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is difficult to assess the validity of these claims, but they represent a substantial deviation from the party’s customary tactics. While its secret nature shields the movement’s leaders from arrest and prosecution, it also prevents the development of a well-known and charismatic leadership capable of mobilizing public sentiment. The movement’s ‘paper rebellion’ also fails to satisfy those Islamic militants seeking more direct action.

Since 1996 Kazakhstan has participated in a regional security alliance with Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Initially called the Shanghai Five, the group’s transformation in 1991 to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization coincided with a new emphasis on counter-terrorism activities. The organization conducted anti-terrorism exercises in Kazakhstan and Xinjiang last August, demonstrating a spirit of cooperation amongst the member countries in the face of a perceived threat from militant Islam. Kazakhstan is the only member state of the SCO not to have experienced armed conflict with Islamic radicals or Muslim nationalists, but the exercises prove the government’s concern with the possibility.

The SCO has in large part taken its lead from the US in its rhetoric and the intensity with which ‘Islamic’ threats are dealt with. Soon after George Bush revealed the existence of ‘evil-doers’ in the world, the SCO began to refer to its war with ‘evil forces’. SCO members have closely observed the overwhelming force the US has brought to bear on Muslim nations identified as a threat to American interests. There is a feeling among these states that the ‘war on terrorism’ represents an opportunity to deal with political and religious dissent free of the usual criticism of human rights abuses.

In the years preceding 9/11, Kazakhstan displayed little interest in the fighting against the guerrilla army of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Though the conflict had spread to Kyrgystan, the Kazakhstan government preferred to remain aloof from its neighbours’ problems. Since then, however, the regime has moved much closer to the concerns of its SCO partners, which by happenstance have become nearly identical to the interests of the United States and its allies in the ‘War on Terrorism’.

Conclusion

The crash in oil prices expected once the U.S. took control of the Iraqi oilfields has not materialized, sparing Kazakhstan’s oil-reliant economy from a severe shock, as well as depriving the Islamists of an opportunity to exploit economic dissatisfaction as a source of anti-government agitation.

I would suggest that only some type of internal crisis could create the conditions under which a militant Salafist-type Islamic movement might achieve a significant presence in Kazakhstan.  The special conditions of Kazakhstan’s ethnic composition and the staggered and very local development of Islamic practice in the republic almost preclude such a possibility. Having received Islam mostly through the work of Tatar missionaries, the Kazakhs may not feel a special need to look towards the Arab world for spiritual guidance, nor do they feel especially inspired by extremist elements in Uzbekistan. Even non-official Islam tends to be inextricably tied to Kazakh nationalism. In this sense there is an eagerness in Kazakhstan to define and develop Kazakh Islam free of external influence. A complicating factor is general displeasure with the leadership of the DUMK, which opens the possibility for foreign-influenced unofficial Islam to increase its following in Kazakhstan. For the moment though, pan-Islamic movements hold little appeal for Kazakhs.

Despite the emergence of separatist tendencies in the ethnic Russian north, the Nazarbayev government has succeeded in avoiding the ethnic-based conflict that has plagued other post-Soviet states in Central Asia and the Caucasus. For the moment Islam represents one of several competing identities in creating the post-Soviet national character of the republic. The government’s efforts to create a civil Kazakh identity that would subdue the importance of religion are inhibited to some extent by the regime’s failure to engage the citizenry on a political level. Without the development of democratic norms and a viable opposition the independent structures of radical Islam may provide an alternative for political expression. In this context the centralization of executive powers in recent years by President Nazarbayev is not encouraging. A decline in the President’s accountability has been accompanied by allegations of corruption in the state-controlled oil industry, human rights abuses and political repression. These activities all contribute to the attraction of political opposition outside the rather narrow official structures.

We also have to ask to what extent the Kazakh government feels legitimately threatened by terrorism, and to what extent it is manipulating its wealthier security partners to improve its own security structure and keep apace with Uzbekistan’s improved strategic position. Western military assistance provided in the name of anti-terrorism operations can also help Kazakhstan to strengthen its defensive capabilities in the all-important and much-contested Caspian Sea region. Russia also appears eager to inflate the threat from radical Islam, allowing it to justify its actions in the Caucasus while bringing it closer to its “counter-terrorism” partners in Central Asia. President Putin speaks constantly of the threat posed to Russia by the creation of a revived Islamic caliphate encompassing Central Asia, the Caucasus and much of Russia. In the post 9/11 world such fantasies have found a receptive audience.

From a military point of view, the presence of American air-bases and a newly energized Shanghai Cooperation Organization would rule out the possibility of an IMU style guerrilla movement operating within Kazakhstan. The republic is also favoured by geography in this sense; guerrillas cannot operate in the open steppes without air cover. IMU operations were always restricted to the mountains of Central Asia, likewise the Chechen resistance, which ranges widely through the southern mountains, but operates only with great difficulty in the open plains of the north. If small radical groups found it impossible to proselytize peacefully they could turn to terrorism as a means of expressing their grievances, though this would surely alienate the vast majority of the Kazakh people.

Kazakhstan has an opportunity to avoid much of the religiously inspired conflict that has engulfed its neighbours in Central Asia, but ultimately much will depend on the ability of the government to create opportunities for political expression alongside an equitable and sustainable development based on growing petroleum revenues.

Dagestan’s Politics of Murder: The Unsurprising Death of Nadirshaykh Kachilayev

Andrew McGregor

Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, John Hopkins University

November 19, 2003

BACKGROUND:

Nadirskhaykh Khachilayev’s car was approaching his home in Makhachkala when a passing Lada motorcar opened fire with machine-guns, killing the 44-year-old leader of the Lak community. Police claimed their investigation led to three unidentified Chechen suspects after finding a burnt-out Lada on the outskirts of Makhachkala. While it is possible the Lak leader was the victim of a political assassination, he may have been the victim of a blood feud, arising after the deaths of several ethnic Dargin policemen in the 1998 Islamist assault on Parliament.

Lak 1Nadirshaykh Kachilayev

The Khachilayev brothers seized on ethnic politics to build their political base during the years of uncertainty following the demise of the Soviet Union, providing the muscle for the Lak community’s Tsubarz movement. Using the revenues of their criminal activities, the Khachilayevs armed and equipped the Lak national movement during the Novalakskii dispute. The land belonging to Akkin Chechens, deported from Dagestan’s Aukhovskii rayon in 1944 had been given to Laks and Avars, and the area renamed Novolakskii rayon. The resettled Laks became the victims of a 1991 Russian policy to resettle internally exiled peoples, including the Akkin Chechens. Following a brief armed confrontation, the Khachilayevs proposed a compromise that was accepted by all parties. The settlement served to propel the Khachilayevs to the leadership of the Lak movement.

The Laks are an indigenous Caucasus group, believing themselves to be descended from an eighth century Syrian Arab governor of Dagestan. They were the first group in the area to convert to Islam after the conquest of Abu Maslama in 733. This early conversion may be only legendary, but by the 15th century the Laks were spreading Islam throughout Dagestan, becoming known as Ghazi-Ghumuqs, “warriors for Islam.” The Lak are one of 14 ethnic groups receiving equal representation in the Daghestan State Council.

Lak 2Lak Regions of Russia (Joshua Project)

In 1994 the Dargin group succeeded in having their nominee, Magomedali Magomedov, appointed to the post of Chairman of the State Council. Charges of corruption and ethnic favoritism began almost immediately. Ironically, some of the strongest charges came from the leaders of Dagestan’s powerful ethnic mafias, including the Khachilayev brothers. Publicly, Khachilayev posed as a corruption-fighter, and had embarrassed the government in recent years by collecting incriminating documents. When nothing came of his campaign, he declared himself retired from politics. After his acquittal on charges of illegal arms possession in March 2002, Khachilayev re-entered politics, alleging government responsibility for 35 unsolved political murders.

Despite having only scant knowledge of Islam, Nadirshaykh took the leadership of the Union of Muslims of Russia (SMR) in 1996 and embarked on an ambitious program to promote himself as the leader of Russia’s Muslim community. In the same year he became a member of the Russian Duma. Dagestan’s religious community, deeply divided by schisms between various tariqas (Sufi orders) and Salafist reformers, has failed to generate any widely accepted leaders, allowing populist politicians such as Khachilayev to assume roles as ‘Islamic’ leaders. As the Khachilayevs and other Laks gained prominence in Dagestan’s political system, Nadirshaykh began to dabble in separatism. In May 1998 Magomed and Nadirshaykh joined forces with the Avar national movement and others to seize the Daghestan Parliament building in Makhachkala in the name of Islam. The leaders described the event as a protest against Daghestan’s corruption and feudalism rather than a coup d’état. These few hours under arms led to the dissolution of the SMR and criminal charges for the Khachilayevs. Though found guilty, the brothers were given suspended sentences and later amnestied. Magomed was murdered by one of his bodyguards in 2000.

IMPLICATIONS:

After 1991, Lak resentment of Avar and Dargin domination of official Islamic structures increased. Khachilayev was instrumental in arranging the 1996 peace negotiations that ended the first Chechen conflict, one of many times in which the Khachilayevs were used as mediators by Moscow. Following the war, Khachilayev established contacts with figures like Muammar Khadafi, Saddam Hussein and Louis Farrakhan while calling for an Islamic state in Dagestan.

Beginning in 1998, there were attempts to establish autonomous ‘Wahhabi’ enclaves governed by shari’a . Dagestan relies overwhelmingly on federal subsidies from Moscow that would be endangered by any local separatist movement. The radicals of the Jama’at al-Islamiyun al-Daghestani led by Bagauddin Kebedov were opposed not only by traditional Sufis, but also by elements of the Dagestani mafia, who had suffered from local Wahhabi anti-crime campaigns. The jama’at declared jihad against Daghestani authorities in 1998. Though there were reports Khachilayev was actively involved in fighting on the Wahhabi side during the 1999 incursion by al-Khattab and Shamyl Basayev, he vigorously denied them. Criminal charges of armed insurrection were eventually dropped for lack of evidence, but there were reports that Basayev sentenced Khachilayev to death for failing to rally Daghestani Muslims to their cause. It is unlikely, however, that Basayev now has the time to indulge himself in assassinations that have no effect on the Chechen conflict.

CONCLUSIONS:

In an interview done shortly before his death, Khachilayev was in a pessimistic mood regarding the future of Islam in Dagestan: “The people are not ready yet to accept a Shari’a state, they are afraid of the word ‘Shari’a’, they think that it is something very harsh and scary.”

Though Khachilayev’s political influence had waned greatly, he was reported to be contemplating another run at the State Duma despite warnings not to do so. Khachilayev himself often said that Russian security forces were preparing to kill him. Chechen rebel sources report that the Russian-backed Chechen National Guard leader Sulim Yamadayev fulfilled a four year old contract on Khachilayev’s life, in an attempt to instigate fighting between Laks and Chechens in the still volatile Novalak rayon. Lak leaders have already promised revenge for Khachilayev’s death, ensuring Dagestan’s cycle of political murder will continue.

“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.”

From Russia to Cuba: The Journey of the Russian Taliban

Andrew McGregor

Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, John Hopkins University

July 16, 2003

BACKGROUND:

The reaction from the Tatar leaders of official Russian Islam to the American campaign in Afghanistan was mixed. Mufti Talgat Tadjuddin referred to the ‘aggressive, half-learned, maniacally ambitious rabble forming the core of the Taliban’. Siberian Mufti Nafigulla Ashirov condemned the American ‘crusade’ against Islam and warned of the threat posed to Russia by a permanent US military presence in Central Asia. Ashirov added that every Muslim had the right to fight on behalf of the Taliban. The powerful Muslim Duma member Abdul-Wahid Niyazov declared that it was clear that the U.S. was ‘pursuing goals far-flung from the struggle against terrorism’. None went so far as to encourage Muslim volunteers to join the Taliban.

Russian Taliban 1Mufti Nafigulla Ashirov (RFE/RL)

The eight Russian citizens in Guantanamo Bay are members of the Tatar and Balkar ethnic communities. Despite American claims that they were involved in heavy fighting with elite Chechen units in Afghanistan, none of the prisoners are Chechen. The Russian citizens were incorporated into the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a guerrilla group led by Tahir Yuldash and Juma Namangani (the latter believed killed in last year’s fighting in Afghanistan). Under pressure in their operational theatre of Central Asia, the IMU had moved to Afghanistan to rebuild, and was already involved in the fighting against the Northern Alliance before 9/11.

In an unusual step, the U.S. allowed representatives of the Russian Prosecutor General’s office (supported by FSB and Defence Ministry officials) access to the prisoners in March 2002. The team was led by Igor Tkachev, Russia’s most experienced investigator in cases involving radical Islam. Tkachev reported that several of the prisoners were seeking extradition, believing they faced the death penalty in the U.S. Criminal charges of illegal border crossing and membership in illegal armed formations were laid in Russia after the Prosecutor’s team returned, representing a possibility of 8 years in prison.

IMPLICATIONS:

The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Russian Muslims cut off from their traditional ties with the Islamic communities of the newly independent Central Asian nations. Due to the absence of Islamic educational institutions in Russia, most of Russia’s Muslim clerics had been trained in Tashkent and Bukhara. Much of the slack was picked up by a massive Saudi-financed campaign to spread Saudi-style Salafist Islam (‘Wahhabism’) in Russia.

The backgrounds of the Russian Taliban reflect the grass-roots dissatisfaction with official Islam. The first three were captured at the siege of Kunduz by the Uzbek forces of Rashid Dostum, and were only discovered to be Russian citizens after their arrival in Cuba. They included Rasul Kudayev of Kabardino-Balkaria, Ravil Gumarov and Shamil Khaziev (alias Almaz Sharipov), the latter two natives of Bashkortostan. 32-year old Khaziev is a former policeman who left his work in 1997 to move to Chelyabinsk, where he developed an interest in Islam. According to Russian sources, Khaziev joined the Chechen mujahidin in 1998 before leaving for Afghanistan in 2000. 38-year old Gumarov is reported to have known Kudayev from a ‘Wahhabist’ madrassa (Islamic school) in Naberezhnye Chelny, but found his own way to the Taliban through Uzbekistan in early 2001. Both Khaziev and Gumarov told Tkachev that they were looking for a ‘real Islamic state’. Russian prosecutors are especially interested in questioning these suspects at length about their association at the Yoldyz madrassa with Deniz Saitakov, a Balkar radical accused of taking part in the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings. Saitakov was reported killed in Chechnya, but his body has never been recovered.

Kudayev, only 20 when taken prisoner, was already known to the FSB and is alleged to have been closely associated with the jama’at members tried last year for attempting to overthrow the Kabardino-Balkaria government. Kudayev, like many of the others, claims to have been an Islamic student compelled to join the armed units of the IMU. The remaining detainees include a Balkar and four Tatars including a Siberian Tatar from the far northern Tyumen region. There is considerable friction in the Tatar community between Arabian educated or influenced Muslims (‘Wahhabis’ in Russian parlance) and official Islam, which follows the traditional Hanafi madhab (judicial school of Islam).

russian Taliban 2Guantanamo Bay

Tatarstan official Islam works within the non-threatening framework of ‘Euro-Islam’, a rejuvenation of Tatar reformist Islam, Jadidism, which first developed in the 1880s. The ‘young Imams’ of the community favor a full Islam-based participation in the political process, unlike many of the older leaders who prefer separation of mosque and state. Jadidism has failed to penetrate far from the Tatar region and is opposed even there by the more conservative Qadimist faction. Muslims not wishing to become part of officially registered congregations are often drawn to radical ‘unofficial’ communities that encourage confrontational responses to White House and Kremlin policies in the Islamic world. The isolation of popular Islam during the Soviet period encouraged the return and growth of native customs alongside Islamic practices. The rapid expansion of post-Soviet Islam has led to a proliferation of spiritual leaders with no religious training. A recent Russian decision to bar Islamic teachers of Arab background has only exacerbated this problem. Exposure to the outside world of Islam has encouraged some young Muslims in the belief they have gained access to ‘Pure Islam’. The many accretions and innovations (bid’a) in Russian Islamic practice tend to be brutally exposed under the harsh light of Salafist teachings.

CONCLUSIONS:

The existence of radical Islam provides a divisive force in the Russian Muslim community that is both constant and elusive. The number of militant Islamists in Russia remains extremely small, yet according to the leaders of official Islam everyone is practicing Wahhabism except their own faction. There have been attempts by Tadjuddin’s rival, Mufti Ravil Gainutdin, to link Tajuddin with Bin Laden, using the flimsiest of evidence. For his part, Tadjuddin recently warned of tens of thousands of ‘extremist zombies’ returning to Russia from Islamic training centers abroad.

While their leaders brawl in public, moderate and secular Tatars grow increasingly frustrated with the portrayal of their community in the popular Russian press as a nest of potential terrorists. It is uncertain how many Russian citizens fought on the side of the Taliban. What appears to be certain is that the Russians held in Cuba represent the flotsam of war rather than threats to American security. No links to al-Qaeda have been established or even suggested. The prisoners’ value to Russian investigators is likely far greater than to the U.S.

Muftis to the Front in a Russian Jihad: Official Islam Goes to War

Andrew McGregor

CACI Analyst, May 21, 2003

BACKGROUND:

On April 3, 2003, the man who claims the leadership of Russia’s twenty million Muslims brandished a sword at a rally of 4,000 people in Ufa, Bashkortostan, and declared a jihad against U.S. forces and U.S. President George Bush, ‘the Anti-Christ of the world’. The man was Mufti Talgat Tadjuddin, the ethnic Tatar leader of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of Russia and the CIS (TSDUMR). Tadjuddin suggested that the jihad would take the form of a fund to buy weapons and food for the Iraqis. The Mufti emphasized that the declaration of jihad was only the second in modern Russian history, the first having been made against Germany at Stalin’s instigation in 1941.

Mufti 1Talgat Tadjuddin

On April 15, a huge rally was organized by Duma deputy Ghadzhi Makhachaev in the Daghestan capital of Makhachkala. Numerous politicians and religious figures declared that 8,000 Daghestanis were ready to defend Iraq from an American invasion, a figure confirmed at the time by the Iraqi Embassy, which claimed to have the names and signatures of all 8,000. Just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, Tadjuddin visited Baghdad at the head of an interfaith Muslim and Orthodox peace mission. While there, Tadjuddin postured grandly, calling President Bush a ‘drunken cowboy’ and vowed to remain in Iraq throughout any American invasion.

In the end, Tadjuddin returned to Russia with the rest of the mission before bombing began. On his return, Tadjuddin accused the UK of both inventing and supporting ‘Wahhabism’. With reference to the Americans, the Mufti announced that ‘every inch of land will burn beneath the feet of the warmongers’. In Daghestan, early enthusiasm translated into the departure of only two Siberian Tatar volunteers for the front and a reversal a month later by Makhachaev, who declared the efforts of the Foreign Ministry on Iraq to be sufficient. Makhachaev is a major player in the often brutal world of Daghestani politics, and participated in the May 1998 Islamist assault on the Daghestan Parliament led by the Khachilaev brothers. On March 26 Makhachaev survived an assassination attempt by an unknown assailant when he answered his cell phone just in time to have it block an otherwise fatal shot to the head. It remains unclear whether the attempt was related to Makhachaev’s political role or his control of the Daghestan oil industry.

IMPLICATIONS:

Soviet official Islam was rigidly controlled with a central administration and four geographically based muftiyats. Since perestroika, Russian official Islam has broken into two major muftiyats (led by Tadjuddin and his main rival Ravil Gaynutdin) and dozens of lesser groups, all with overlapping spheres of influence. Nearly all the half-dozen major Islamic leaders in Russia are Tatar, with the exception of the powerful Duma deputy, Abdul-Wahid Niyazov, a half-Tatar convert to Islam. While most are related by marriage into a spiritually powerful Tatar clan, the Muslim leaders spend an inordinate amount of time accusing each other of promoting ‘Wahhabism’ or various obscure heresies.

In contrast to the silence that met the Daghestani declaration of jihad, there was a furor throughout Russia at Tadjuddin’s statements. Movladi Udagov, a Qatar-based leader of Islamic-minded Chechen separatist groups, accused Tadjuddin of being an agent of the FSB (Federal Security Service), and proclaimed the imam to be an apostate, the most serious charge in Islam. Siberian-based Mufti Nafigulla Ashirov initially spoke of ‘tens of thousands’ of Russian Muslims ready to fight in Iraq, but later said that no Russian Muslim took Tadjuddin’s declaration seriously. Despite being a frequent visitor to Iraq himself, Chechnya’s Kremlin-appointed governor Akhmad Khadyrov, a former Mufti of Chechnya, called Tadjuddin’s declaration ‘mindless self-promotion’. Even the chief Mufti of his own power base in Bashkortostan failed to support Tadjuddin.

Mufti 2Ravil Gaynutdin (Asia News)

Tadjuddin’s most serious challenger for President Putin’s favor is a former protégé, Mufti Ravil Gaynutdin, leader of the Council of Muftiis of Russia (SMR). In recent years, Gaynutdin has attempted to make Moscow the capital of Russian Islam, with the financial and political aid of Russian Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Gaynutdin was scathing in his response to Tadjuddin’s jihad, calling the Mufti a ‘false prophet’, whose call for jihad carried ‘neither clerical nor legal nor moral force’. The Russian Justice Ministry warned that any military aid or intervention in Iraq by Russian citizens would be subject to criminal investigation and there were threats from the Prosecutor-General’s office that the TSDUMR could be disbanded for inciting religious hatred. In their attempts to garner the Kremlin’s support, Gainutdin, Tadjuddin and other leading Muftis all proclaimed the legitimacy of the recent referendum on Chechnya’s future in the Russian Federation. Tadjuddin made sure to note that his organization was the first to support the referendum, calling it ‘a necessary measure against terrorists’. The referendum campaign was accompanied by several gestures from Russian authorities to reach out to the Russian Islamic community at a time when Muslims are alarmed at the growing patronage of Russian Orthodoxy by the Kremlin.

CONCLUSIONS:

Lacking popular support, the Daghestan jihad amounted only to a war of words. The demonstrations of anti-American militancy in Ufa and Makhachkala appear to be unrelated. There is little contact between the leaders of the North Caucasus muftiyats and those in the Volga/Urals region. Islamic revival in the latter area is closely tied to Tatar and Bashkir nationalism. Tadjuddin’s declaration followed a fractious meeting in late March of all Russia’s Islamic leaders, a failed attempt by the Kremlin to unify official Islam as in Soviet times. Tadjuddin was one of the ‘young Imams’ who emerged from Central Asian religious schools in the 1980s. These individuals opposed the passive pro-Soviet conduct of the older spiritual leaders and actually succeeded in gaining a number of concessions from the government before religious laws were relaxed in 1990, permitting the modern Russian Islamic revival. By the early 90’s, Tadjuddin was himself being challenged by a new generation of ‘young Imams’ on nearly identical charges, with the addition of schizophrenia. Tadjuddin’s jihad may thus be regarded as a desperate attempt to exploit public opinion to outmaneuver his rivals in official structures and the young Tatar radicals. There remains the possibility that the ever-pliant Tadjuddin was encouraged by the Kremlin to adopt a militant pose, a discrete means of communicating Moscow’s displeasure with Washington’s campaign in Iraq.

This article first appeared in the May 21, 2003 issue of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute’s CACI Analyst.