In 1978, after a coup d’état reminiscent of Marx’s notion of revolution, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) under the leadership of Nur Mohammed Takari came into power with the sole objective of transforming Afghanistan into a socialist state.
Principled on Marxist’s ideology, the new leaders envisioned ‘the establishment of a socialist nation in which class oppression would be wiped out and the productive energies of the poor mobilized’ (Edwards, 2002: 25). In a move to quell the incertitude of the people, the new government astutely reassured them that all the reforms would be in accordance with the Shari’a (Hiro, 2002: 202). On the international front, the PDPA leadership and its Marxist counterparts the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation emphasising close military, political and economic ties between the two.6 To fulfil its promise to abolish class oppression according to Marxist principles, the government of the PDPA began its campaign of implementing policies to achieve its goal. These policies consisting of ‘radical agrarian reform, compulsory literacy and the imposition of socialism through thousands of
6 For instance, Article 4 of the Treaty read that ‘the signatories shall consult with each other and take, by agreement, appropriate measures to ensure the security, independence and territorial integrity of the two countries’ (Hiro, 2002: 205).
60
arrests and summary execution’ (Kepel, 2002: 138), alienated the majority of the population.
A growing sense of estrangement coupled with public dissatisfaction resulted in an increase of people and religious leaders began voicing their discontents against the leadership.
In order to suppress a growing opposition, the government began to target religious leaders.
This led to many fleeing and joining resistance groups in neighbouring Pakistan. The momentum of the wave of opposition against the Marxist regime intensified and in April 1979 reached its crescendo with a general uprising. In December 1979, the ruling party made the grim realisation that it had lost control of the majority of the country and subsequently appealed to the Soviet Union for help. As a result, the Soviet Union responded by sending in its troops on the 24th of December 1979 and three days later, the Red army captured the military installations and seized the presidential palace. Taking control of the Afghan government, the Soviet Union appointed Babrak Karmal as the new leader of Afghanistan in a move to restore peace and stability (Hiro, 2002: 208; Kepel, 2000: 138). In short, the revolution envisaged by the PDPA did not deliver the intended benefits as they had expected it to. The so-called ‘socialist paradise’ that the regime wanted to institute only managed to create a situation where ‘tens of thousands…took up arms against the regime and millions chose exile in Pakistan and Iran’ (Edwards, 2002: 25). Instead of contributing towards the promotion of the socio-economic welfare of the population, the revolution ushered in an epoch of violence and conflict with consequences that would have resounding effects for years to come.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan horrified the West as President Carter describing the act as the ‘greatest threat to peace since the Second World War’ (cited in Urban, 1988: 56) and pledged to help defend the Persian Gulf region. Meanwhile, the Afghan exiles who fled to Peshawar in Pakistan, began to organise their own resistance movement to launch an attack in order to remove the Soviets from their homeland. It is important to note that these fighters belonged to a heterogeneous group of organisations under the umbrella of Islam and the differences extended to the social, ethnic, political and military arena. In terms of ethnicity, the fighters or mujahedeen varied from members of Traditional Sufi groups, the Muslim Brotherhood to the enthusiasts of the Wahhabite doctrine (Kepel, 2002: 140).
61
Nonetheless, the mujahedeen set their differences aside, organised themselves and set out to defend the territory of Islam from the Soviet infidels through the launch of a struggle or defensive jihad.
In addition to the support of the international Muslim community, the fighters soon received
‘assistance from the United States, logistical support from Pakistan, and financial contributions from Saudi Arabia’ (Migaux, 2007: 292). At the beginning of the jihad, Islamic solidarity consisted mainly of monetary help but gradually it became more practical in that a number of foreign jihadists joined the movement in Peshawar then proceeded to the battleground of Afghanistan. Mignaux (2007: 293) describes the widespread influence of the Afghan jihad on these Arab volunteers from different parts of the Muslim world. As such,
more than 20,000 Muslims from the Middle East and the Maghreb were involved in jihad. The largest battalions came from the Middle East. Their numbers likely included approximately 6,000 Saudis, 4,000 Egyptians, and 1,000 Yemenis, as well as several hundred Syrians and the same number of Jordanians of Palestinian origin. A smaller number came from the Maghreb—
maybe 2,000 Algerians and a few hundred Tunisians, Moroccans and Libyans.
Some hailed from farther afield, including a few Westerners and a handful of Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos, and Sudanese.
Although these recruits possessed the will and determination to engage in jihad, they lacked the combat training required for such an undertaking. On the other end, the huge amount of monetary donations provided by Saudi Arabia and wealthy Muslim donors for the training and accommodation of the volunteers opened up opportunities for corruption and thus the services of a trustworthy person was required. A Jordanian professor of Palestine origin Abdullah Azzam who was a pivotal figure among the Afghan Arabs was chosen as the trustworthy person and he was responsible for housing and training the new recruits. To this end, he co-founded an organization known as Maktab al-Khidmat ulMujahideen al-Arab (MAK) in Peshawar and it ‘housed, trained and financed the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad’
(Gunaratna, 2002: 4). Azzam’s objective was to promote the cause of mujahedeen and illustrate that it was the duty of every Muslim to participate in the Afghan jihad through either physical participation or monetary assistance. This message was propagated through his magazine Al Jihad containing news from the war, doctrinal texts and editorials written by Azzam himself.
From an ideological standpoint, Azzam’s modelled on Salafist scholar Ibn Taymiyya as he advocated that the only way for Islam to restore its original glory was for the faithful to
62
engage in jihad (Hiro, 2002: 215). Although both Azzam and his predecessors called for jihad, their resulting effects were different in that Azzam attracted thousands of volunteers to fight while for his predecessors the result was purely rhetorical. In other words, while his predecessors only managed an idealistic result, Azzam had a more practical success. Kepel (2002: 147) links this practical accomplishment on the context and circumstance within which Azzam found himself. Unlike his antecedents, he had an organised group at his disposal to make the jihad a reality. Finally, a decade after they invaded Afghanistan, the Soviet troops withdrew in February 1989 with the casualty of about 14 500 soldiers. For the Afghan mujahedeen, this was a monumental victory demonstrating that the infidels had finally left the land of Islam. Subsequently, the Arab and Asian mujahedeen, inspired by the victory over the Soviets, returned to their country of origin with the aim of effecting radical political and social change in their societies (Gunaratna, 2002: 5).
Azzam, who eventually became the symbol of the mujahedeen movement, died together with his sons in a bomb blast in Peshawar in December 1989. Prior to his death, Azzam anticipating the victory of the Afghan mujahedeen, decided to put in place a new project that would continue the work of the Afghan jihad in the form of an international jihadi army after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops. He would presciently note that
obligation will not end with victory in Afghanistan, and jihad will remain an individual obligation until we have reconquered all Muslim lands and reinstalled Islam: we still have ahead of us Palestine, Bukhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, Yemen, Tashkent, and Andalusia (cited in Migaux, 2007: 294).
This ideological vision would be carried on even after his death by his former protégé and deputy of the MKA – Osama Bin Laden. In the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal and the return of the mujahedeen to their respective region of origin, the MKA gradually became obsolete in terms of pursuing its original objectives. Nonetheless, Osama was resolved to continue the legacy of his mentor by creating an international network of jihadists who had participated in the Afghan jihad (Hiro, 2002: 227).7 Mahamedou (2007: 46) asserts that in late 1989, Bin Laden was joined by Ayman al Zawahiri, the leader of the Islamic Jihad group
7 In this regard, it is noteworthy to clarify certain aspects concerning the relationship between Osama and Azzam. Robin Gunaratna (2002:25-26) believes that the alliance between the two slowly deteriorated over the issue of reconfiguring MAK once they reached their objective of removing the Soviets. Osama wanted MAK to adopt terrorist tactics to achieve its aim to which Azzam was strongly opposed. Gunaratna further posits that some believed that Osama was behind the assassination of Azzam although he publicly revered his former mentor.
63
in Egypt and together they formed what became one of the world most infamous terrorist network, more commonly known as Al Qaeda.8