The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS

by Robert Spencer

  The idea that jihadis would be rewarded in this life was thoroughly Qur’anic. At one point in the Muslim holy book, Allah chastises a group of unbelievers and adds: “if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter.” (9:74) One can avoid the painful punishment in this world by repenting and doing Allah’s will, which, of course, includes jihad. Allah tells the unbelievers, “already there has been for you a sign in the two armies which met” at Badr, “one fighting in the cause of Allah and another of disbelievers” (3:10). The sign is that Allah blesses those who do his will and punishes those who do not, in this world. At Badr, “Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order and disobeyed after he had shown you that which you love.” (3:152)

  Sayyid Ahmad wanted to drive the British from India but knew that his movement, although it was gaining a large following, had no chance of doing that. So instead, in 1826, he declared jihad against the Sikhs who ruled in northwestern India, close to the Afghan border. In 1831, he was killed in a battle against the Sikhs at Balakot, just north of Islamabad. That same year, Titu Mir, another Tariqa-i Muhammadi leader, was killed as the jihadis battled the British army in West Bengal.

  In 1857, the British captured Delhi and put an end to the Mughal Empire. Although there was hardly any Mughal Empire to conquer by that point, this was the official end of a thousand years of Islamic rule in India, and confirmation of the fact that India had now completely lost its independence. There was, accordingly, a large-scale uprising against British rule in India in which not only Muslims but Hindus also participated. Nonetheless, in the course of it, Tariqa-i Muhammadi clerics issued fatwas justifying armed jihad against the colonial rulers. Tariqa-i Muhammadi continued to wage jihad against the British until 1883, when the British army finally put a complete stop to its activities.98

  There was never, however, a major jihadi uprising against the British in India, in large part because many Islamic authorities held that no such jihad was justified. The ulama (Islamic scholars) of northern India stated: “The Musalmens here are protected by the Christians, and there is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the absence of protection and liberty between Musalmens and Infidels is essential in a religious war and that condition does not exist here. Besides it is necessary that there should be a probability of victory to Musalman and glory to the Indian. If there be no such probability, the Jihad is unlawful.”99

  This was not just a prudential directive but an element of Islamic law. A manual of Islamic law dictates that “jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines,” but that a Muslim may leave the field of battle “if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force.”100 This did not efface the jihad imperative entirely, for the Muslims were to work to gain strength in order to fight more effectively later; but if the odds were prohibitive, Muslims were not obligated to walk into certain death. And so the Muslims in India, faced with the overwhelming might of the British imperial forces, for the most part did not wage jihad.

  In the same vein, the Muhammadan Literary Society of Calcutta even went so far as to say that if some Muslims in India began to wage jihad, other Muslims would be obliged to fight with the British against them: “If anyone were to wage war against the Ruling Powers of this Country, British India, such war would be rightly pronounced rebellion; and rebellion is strictly forbidden by Muhammadan Law. Therefore such war will likewise be unlawful; and in case any one should wage war, the Muhammadan subjects would be bound to assist their Rulers, and, in conjunction with their Rulers, to fight with such rebels.”101

  Likewise, the nineteenth-century Indian Muslim reformer Sayyid Ahmad Khan determined that “an Infidel Government in which the Mahomedans enjoy every sort of peace and security, discharge their religious duties with perfect freedom, and which is connected with a Mahomedan Government by treaty, is not Dar-ul-Islam, because it is a Non-Mahomedan Government, but we may call it so as regards the peace and religious freedom which the Muslims enjoy under its protection; nor is it Dar-ul-Harb, because the treaty existing between it and the Moslem Government makes Jihad against it unlawful.”102

  The idea that Muslims must obey a non-Muslim ruler who was not interfering with their practice of Islam came from Muhammad himself, who is depicted in a hadith mandating obedience to rulers in all cases except when a ruler called upon a Muslim to sin:

  It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen [to the ruler appointed over him] and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither listen to him nor should he obey his orders.103

  Ultimately, in a non-Muslim state this put the Muslim population on a collision course with the rulers, for Islamic law mandates the submission and subjugation of the unbelievers, and so ultimately, nonenforcement of that subjugation is a sinful act that the Muslim population cannot tolerate. But this did not come to a head in British India.

  Nonetheless, British colonialism increased Muslim anger, as Islam no longer dominated. Indian politician Muhammad Yusuf asked the British on May 3, 1883, for specifically Muslim representation in the raj’s government: “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community.”104 Sayyid Ahmad Khan articulated why in 1888 when he declared that Muslims and Hindus in India were two nations that were at war with one another, and could never coexist in peace.

  Indian Muslim politician Rahimtulla Mahomed Sayani explained why this was so in 1896: “Before the advent of the British in India, the Muslims were the rulers of the country. The rulers and their chiefs were Muslims, so were the great landlords and officials. The court language was their own [Persian was the official language of India till 1842].… The Hindus were in awe of them. By a stroke of misfortune, the Muslims had to abdicate their position and descend to the level of their Hindu fellow-countrymen. The Muslims resented the treatment.”105

  That resentment would come to a head in the twentieth century.

  IV. JIHAD AGAINST THE COLONIAL POWERS

  While Muslims in India debated over whether jihad against the British was justified under Islamic law, Muslims under colonial rule elsewhere were not so hesitant. In 1830, the French invaded Algiers and defeated an Ottoman army. Almost immediately, a Muslim leader named Ahmed Bey declared jihad against the French and battled them for seven years until the French army forced him to flee into the desert.

  An Islamic revival movement, the Qadiriyyah, also pursued the jihad against the French, and was so strong that in 1834 the French agreed to a treaty with its leader, Abd al-Qadir, recognizing his authority in western Algeria. But in accord with the dictates of Islamic law, that say treaties can be concluded with infidels only when the Muslims are weak and need time to gain strength, and can be broken when they are no longer useful, Abd al-Qadir soon resumed the jihad against the French, and concluded a new, more favorable agreement with them in 1837.106

  Abd al-Qadir lamented “the serious and distressed situation in the land of Algiers, that has become a place where the crows of unbelief slaughter [the believers], since the enemy of the Religion attempts to subject and to enslave the Moslems, sometimes by means of the sword and sometimes by means of political intrigues.”107 Resolved to end this, he continued expanding the territory under his control, even writing to the French King Louis Philippe in 1839 to protest French encroachment upon what he said they had recognized as his territory. Because of this violation of the agreement, he said, he had no choice but to wage jihad against the French once again. Finally, the French had enough of it and pursued Abd al-Qadir vigorously, capturing h
im in 1847 and imprisoning him in France for five years. When he was released, he did not resume his jihad.108 Others did, however. It wasn’t until 1871 that French rule in Algiers was fully established.

  The Mahdi Revolt

  As if all this weren’t enough, there was more coming for the Ottomans in the North African domains they nominally ruled. In 1881, the Sudanese Sufi sheikh Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mahdi, the savior figure of Islamic apocalyptic literature. Muhammad himself, he announced, had chosen him for this role:

  The eminent lord [the Prophet Muhammad], on whom be blessing and peace, several times informed me that I am the Mahdi, the expected one, and [appointed] me [as] successor to himself, on whom he blessing and peace, to sit on the throne, and [as successors] to their excellencies the four [“Rightly-Guided Caliphs” (khilafah)] and Princes [of the Faith].… And he gave me the sword of victory of His Excellency [the Prophet Muhammad] on whom be blessing and peace; and it was made known to me that none of either race, human or jinn, can conquer him who has it.… He ordered me [to take my exile [hijrah)] to Jebel Kadeer close to Masat, and he commanded me to write thence to all entrusted with public offices. I wrote thus to the Emirs and Sheikhs of religion, and the wicked denied [my mission], but the righteous believed.… this is what the eminent lord [the Prophet Muhammad], on whom be blessing and peace, said to me: “He who doubts that thou art the Mahdi has blasphemed God and His Prophet.”…If you have understood this, we order all the chosen ones to [make their hijrah] unto us for the jihad…in the cause of God, to the nearest town, because God Most High has said, “slay the infidels who are nearest to you.”…Fear God and join the righteous, and help one another in righteousness, and in the fear of God and in the jihad…in the cause of God, and stand firm within the boundaries of God, for he who transgresses those boundaries will injure himself. Know that all things are in the hand of God. Leave all to Him and rely on Him. He who makes God his support has been guided into the straight way. Peace [be with you].109

  The Mahdi also declared: “Cease to pay taxes to the infidel Turks and let everyone who finds a Turk kill him, for the Turks are infidels.”110 He declared jihad against the Ottomans and the Egyptians, and enacted a series of Messianic decrees reminiscent of the Qarmatians, who a thousand years before had forsworn mosque worship and the pilgrimage to Mecca in anticipation of the imminent arrival of the Mahdi.

  Now Muhammad Ahmad, in the role of the Mahdi, likewise began to alter what orthodox Muslims considered the unchangeable aspects of Islam. He revised the profession of faith from “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” to “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad Ahmad is the Mahdi of Allah and the representative of his prophet.”111 He directed that zakat, Islamic almsgiving, be paid only to his movement, and replaced the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, as a pillar of Islam with jihad.

  The Mahdi called upon Muslims around the world to emigrate to his domains for the sake of Allah, after the manner of Muhammad’s hijrah from Mecca to Medina. He wrote to Muslim leaders:

  It is evident that times have changed and that the Sunnah has been abandoned. No one with faith and intelligence will approve of that. Therefore, it would be better that he leave his affairs and his country in order to establish the Religion and the Sunnah…Emigrating with the Religion is obligatory on the strength of the Book and the Sunnah. Allah has said: “Oh ye who have believed, respond to Allah and to the messenger when He calls you to what will give you life.” [Qur’an 8:24] The prophet has said: “He who flees with his religion from one territory to another, even if it is [only the distance of] an inch, will be worthy of Paradise and be the companion of his father Ibrahim, Allah’s bosom friend, and of His prophet Muhammad.” And [there are] similar Koranic verses and Traditions.… If you understand this, [know then that] I have ordered all those [of you] who are legally capable, to emigrate to us for the sake of jihad in the way of Allah, or to the country that is nearest to you, on the strength of Allah’s words: “Oh ye who have believed, fight the unbelievers who are near to you.” [Qur’an 9:123]…If you understand this, then: onward to the jihad in His way.112

  The Mahdi proceeded to wage that jihad against the Egyptians, until finally the Egyptian khedive Tewfik became determined to kill this imposter and put down this uprising. But the Mahdi was popular, and Tewfik and the Egyptian rulers, to say nothing of the Ottomans, were not. Thus, for help in finding and killing the Mahdi, Tewfik turned to the British. The Mahdi, enraged, wrote to Tewfik: “You were not right in taking the unbelievers as patrons in preference to Allah and asking their assistance while they were shedding the blood of the community of Mohammed.”113 He quoted the Qur’an: “O ye who have believed, do not choose Jews or Christians as patrons, they are patrons to each other; whoever makes patrons of them is one of them.” (5:51) He exhorted the khedive to “declare yourself above being permanently the captive of Allah’s enemies and do not lead to perdition those of the community of Mohammed that are with you.”114

  The khedive was unmoved. Ottoman Islamic scholars issued a number of fatwas refuting Muhammad Ahmad’s claim to be the Mahdi, and charging that he was illegitimately killing fellow Muslims, in violation of the Qur’anic prohibition against doing so (4:92). These fatwas had little effect; the Ottomans and the Egyptians were hoping that the British would finish the Mahdi off for good.

  Getting help from the British came at a price. Anti-English riots broke out in Egypt in June 1882. Ahmad Urabi, the khedive’s minister of war, rebelled against the khedive’s pro-English policy and led an army against the British, only to be condemned by the Ottoman sultan and the khedive. But in July 1882, however, Egyptian ulama published a call for jihad, calling for support of Urabi’s army and reminding Muslims: “Those who sacrifice themselves in support of their Religion will attain success and acceptance [with Allah].”115 But Urabi was defeated, and British rule in Egypt secured. The British army could now turn its attention to the Mahdi.

  Calling in the British imperial army against the Mahdi was akin to calling in the police to swat a fly, and yet the fly won. To be sure, the British didn’t commit nearly as much as they could have, and the Mahdi’s forces far outnumbered those of the British, but the followers of the Mahdi still took the crushing defeat of the British at El-Obeid in the Sudan in 1883 as a sign that Muhammad Ahmad was indeed the Mahdi, and Allah was blessing their jihad, as he had blessed the pious Muslims at Badr. To ensure that they would not lose that divine favor, which came only as a reward for obedience, the Mahdi issued a sweeping decree after El-Obeid:

  Let all show penitence before Allah, and abandon all bad and forbidden habits, such as degrading acts of the flesh, the drinking of wine and smoking tobacco, lying, bearing false witness, disobedience to parents, brigandage, the non-restitution of goods to others, the clapping of hands, dancing, improper signs with the eyes, tears and lamentations at the bed of the dead, slanderous language, calumny, and the company of strange women. Clothe your women in a decent way and let them be careful not to speak to unknown persons. All those who do not pay attention to these principles disobey God and His Prophet, and they shall be punished in accordance with the law. Say your prayers at the prescribed hours. Give the tenth of your goods, handing it to our Prince, Sheikh Mansour [whom the Mahdi had made governor of El Obeid] in order that he may forward it to the treasury of Islam. Adore God, and hate not each other, but assist each other to do good.116

  Or else. The Mahdi endorsed the harshest Sharia punishments for transgressors. This was because, he said, “well-being with Allah can only be achieved by following the Religion, by reviving the Sunnah of His prophet and His community, by suppressing these recent innovations [bida] and errors and by turning repentantly to the Exalted One in all situations.”117 Even reading a book other than the Qur’an or hadith collections could cost a man his life. And, for a time, it did appear as if strict adherence to Sharia, as Allah had promised, would result in earthly success. In 18
84, the British sent to the Sudan the renowned general Sir Charles “Chinese” Gordon. Gordon himself was less than enthusiastic about fighting to secure control of this barren and desolate region, writing: “No one who has ever lived in the Sudan can escape the reflection ‘What a useless possession is this land!’”118

  Nonetheless, he did all he could, only to find himself betrayed by his nominal allies. In March 1884, the Mahdi’s army attacked Egyptian troops at the oasis of Halfaya, near Khartoum. Gordon set out to retake Halfaya from the Mahdi; as the British approached, the Egyptians inside the oasis warned the Mahdi’s troops to retreat or face annihilation. The Mahdi’s forces, cautious considering Gordon’s reputation, complied, and began a retreat, only to be suddenly and inexplicably called back by two Egyptian officers. The rest of the Egyptian troops, seeing this betrayal, fled in panic. Gordon wrote in his diary: “Sixty horsemen defeated two thousand men.”119 He questioned the Egyptian officers, who insisted that they were encouraging the Mahdists to surrender, not betraying their own side. Gordon, however, was unconvinced. Were these followers of the Mahdi within his own ranks? The possibility could not be discounted. He had them executed.

  The following year, flush with these unexpected victories, the Mahdi’s army besieged Khartoum. Finding a way into the city, the Mahdists found Gordon and cried out, “O cursed one, your time has come!”120 They beheaded Gordon and either killed or sold into slavery thirty thousand men, women, and children.

  Again, the Mahdi and his followers had won a victory that shocked the world and reinforced the idea among them that Allah was blessing them and would lead them to final jihad victories over the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and infidels everywhere.