Khorasan pledge splits al-Qaeda

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (

Al-Akhbar Management

Rebel fighters from the "Al-Mujahedin The Falcons of Islam" brigade looks at a map as they prepare an operation in an area controlled by Syrian government forces in the northern city of Aleppo on April 7, 2014. (Photo: AFP- Baraa al-Halabi)

By: Radwan Mortada

Published Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The global jihad movement has split in two. Members of al-Qaeda will now have to choose between two different emirs. The so-called "Khorasan pledge" was the final nail in the coffin of the reconciliation between al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The rift no longer pertains to Syria only, but has spread to the other arenas of global jihad.

Nine al-Qaeda emirs from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran declared their allegiance to the new emir of the faithful, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - the head of ISIS - in what is being termed as the "Khorasan pledge." A few days later, ISIS spokesperson Mohammed al-Adnani declared that "al-Qaeda deviated from the rightful course," indicating that "it is not a dispute about who to kill or who to give your allegiance. It is a question of religious practices being distorted and an approach veering off the right path."

This is a turning point in the clash – currently limited to the Syrian arena – between Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, threatening to create an open conflict throughout jihadist movement. The anticipated split had been declared by ISIS advisor Abu Ali al-Anbari. "Either we eliminate them or they will eliminate us," he said in one of the reconciliation sessions, repeating the sentence three times.

The nine defected emirs’ declaration have put Baghdadi in a direct confrontation with current al-Qaeda leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. They want to attack al-Qaeda's leader, saying his rule was "a thing of the past and today's triumphs are made by the soldiers of ISIS."

Mullah Omar had been the emir of emirs of al-Qaeda, enjoying both Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri's allegiance. During his reign, Afghanistan was destroyed after he refused to deliver Bin Laden and others to the United States.

Baghdadi's challenge to Mullah Omar is a major confrontation on the jihadi scene. He identified his adversary, bypassing al-Joulani and Zawahiri and going for their senior sheikh. Although it was thought that Mullah Omar was killed, after news of him stopped in the wake of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, some facts and indicators point to the opposite.

On the eve of the September 11 attacks in 2012 in Libya, Zawahiri came out with a eulogy of Abu Yehia al-Libi, considered to be the number two man in al-Qaeda. "I announce to the Islamic nation, the mujahideen, Emir of the Faithful Mullah Mohammed Omar, and the mujahideen in Libya, the news of the martyrdom of Sheikh Hassan Mohammed Qaed [al-Libi]."

The Khorasan pledge, circulating on jihadi online sites such as the Shumukh al-Islam forum, was all that was needed by the war raging in Syria between al-Nusra Front and ISIS. It will be adding more fuel to the fire between the two sides. However, a jihadi officer in al-Qaeda gave little weight to the news.

"Only a few people pledged allegiance, but it was blown out of proportion in the media," he told Al-Akhbar. "The people mentioned are not in a leadership position and do not carry any notable responsibilities." The nine emirs are Sheikh Abu Ubaidah al-Lubnani, Abu al-Muhannad al-Urduni, Abu Jurair al-Shamali, Abu al-Huda al-Soudani, Abdulaziz al-Maqdisi (brother of Sheikh Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi), Abdullah al-Punjabi, Abu Yunus al-Kurdi, Abu Aisha al-Qurtubi, and Abu Musab al-Tadamuni.

Those who follow jihadi affairs say it was a "referendum on the leadership of global jihad." They base this on "the first seeds sowed in Iraq at the time of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," when the group was known as the Tawhid and Jihad Group in Mesopotamia. Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Bin Laden, who was responsible for the events of September 11, 2001. According to them, Zarqawi was a key component of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) at the beginning. The emirs of the Khorasan pledge see him as the man who created the first al-Qaeda cell in Iraq and consider him the father of ISI.

In the Khorasan pledge message, the nine emirs elaborated on the stages of jihad against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. They talk about the experience of the Tawhid and Jihad group under Zarqawi, who pledged allegiance to Bin Laden from Iraq to Khorasan. Then they spoke about Zarqawi's death in 2006, which was followed by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir taking the reign of al-Qaeda's emirate in Iraq. This coincided with Abu Omar al-Baghdadi announcing the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Muhajir gave him his support and merged his emirate with ISI.

When Baghdadi and his war minister, Muhajir, were killed, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over ISI with the blessings of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. They believed it to be an "extension of jihad." It was also highly praised by Sheikh Atiyyah Allah and Sheikh Abu Yehia al-Libi. The nine emirs continue with assessing the events up to the war in Syria, "where it was the duty of ISIS to reach out and provide support for its people, to defeat the conspiracy of the two armies, the Syrian Army and the Free [Syrian] Army (FSA)."

The Khorasan pledge emirs: Zawahiri betrayed his duties

According to the nine sheikhs, after the expansion of ISI, "the forces of infidelity and apostasy quickly sowed the seeds of hypocrisy, using new groups under Islamic sounding names to be a rival and an obstacle to the Islamic state." They criticized Zawahiri and al-Nusra Front without naming them, saying "the group did not have any courage to enforce judgements over those who disobey sharia, under the pretext of avoiding a clash with the people or due to their inability and incapacity, although they enforced in secret more than they did out in the open."

The emirs denounced the "former Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi, who was proven to be an apostate, even for those who had a semblance of comprehension. Or was it an indication of a new kind of jihad?" They believed Mursi's discourse to "be a political call, without mentioning the question of arms. They replaced many sharia terms with new concepts, which carry different interpretations." The emirs criticized Mursi for "congratulating the Arab peoples for the Arab Spring and claiming that [deceased Grand Imam of al-Azhar Mosque sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi and [TV preacher Sheikh Yusuf] al-Qaradawi were Islamic scholars." They also criticized Mursi for "repudiating ISI, which enforced religion, called for teaching monotheism and innocence from polytheism and its people, and was a symbol of justice and equality."

They concluded by saying, "we ask God for forgiveness for being late to reveal the truth and fix what we corrupted, disobeyed, and did not accept. Thus, we wrote this message to the Muslim nation and to ask forgiveness from our Lord. We showed that ISIS was right. It raised the banner without hesitation, weakness, or account to anyone by God. We count them as such and, as long as they persevere, they have [our support and allegiance] for its Emir of the Faithful Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Qurashi and our obedience in fortune and adversity and in hardship and prosperity, without challenging his command. But if it alters or deviates, it will only get from us what others had gotten before before."

The war between ISIS and al-Qaeda is no longer confined to Syria. It is an open conflict with each side vying for legitimacy. ISIS emirs, in turn, recalled past events. They argued about the origin of the disagreement between Zarqawi and Zawahiri in 2005. "Zawahiri had always been lax," they replied. "It is not enough that he does not declare Shia as infidels. He objects to Zarqawi's methods, accusing him of being a takfiri."

Follow Radwan Mortada on Twitter: @radwanmortada

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


"The nine defected emirs’ declaration have put Baghdadi in a direct confrontation with current al-Qaeda leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar."

Mullah Omar is leader of Taliban, not al-Qaeda.

The author is absolutely and technically correct. Abu Abdullah (UBL)'s bay'a to Muhammad 'Umar is well known. Thus he, the mullah, was and is leader of all those who pledged bay'a to UBL. When UBL did so, it was a stressful time for the Gulf Arabs as they opposed it, but they were religiously obligated to obey. To understand the committed takfiri ethos is to know that rituals and linear thought are profoundly important. The Poster is also correct that the Mullah is the Amir of the Afghan Talibs.

I'm fairly certain that Mullah Omar isn't affiliated with the the official AQ central command chain. The Taliban is a separate organization that was just hosting bin Laden. No pledges for or against Mullah Omar were made by AQ emirs. Why has the author chosen to portray Zawahiri as a subordinate to Omar? I don't even imagine that Zawahiri would be able to recognize Omar's face, the ISI likely hasn't kept them both in the same house for a decade.

This is a pathetic media stunt, and the fact that the author appears to be able to contact all these jokers without problems shows what a paper-thin pretence of maximum illegality lies behind it. For two years I have been posting comments stating quite clearly that I think al-Qaeda is a CIA travesty. I refer to it as "al-CIA-duh". And you print my comments, while the other readers continue to solemnly pretend that 'al-Qaeda' is real. After almost 13 years of post-9/11 rubbish (much longer for those who remember AQ's pre-9/11 appearances) , isn't it time some of you at least faced up to the truth? You've been made fools of, in the biggest, cruellest deliberate deception every perpetrated. All these vile, mass-murdering gangs belong to the CIA. 'Al-Qaeda' can do what it wants, including kill US soldiers and civilians, to maintain its credibility, but it's nothing but a huge CIA con, largely managed on the ground by the Saudi mukhabarat. Speaking of which, the 'dismissal of Bandar' is also a mere diplomatic fiction. But from the way you uphold these huge, implausible myths, it's evident that all of you are either paid servants of empire or complete idiots.

@Rowan Berkeley it is called analysis based on facts figures and reported events. The article appears to be the most relevant and factual analysis on ISIS. Since it is a technical analysis there can be some shortcomings and errors specially regarding the Saudi Royal family and ISIS connection / contention but never the less this does not eclipse the fact about ISIS.

Thanks for that emotional blast of Trooferism, RowanB. I note it substitutes an appeal to authority (namely, yourself) for any actual reasoned argument.

If you really believe what you say re. AQ, why don't you write up the oh-so-ample 'evidence' for your conclusion in a coherent fashion, in order to assist us complete idiots to see the light of revelation? Even if you fail to convince, if original, it might be a bit more interesting that the usual clip'n'pastry on your blog.

Cheers, etc.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top