On a Successful Call to Holy War, 1914

Would it be a religious duty for all the Muslims in all countries, whether young or old, infantry or cavalry, to resort to jihad with all their properties and lives, as required by the Quranic verse of Enfiru, if the Sultan of Islam declares war and calls the entire population under arms, when there is an enemy attack against Islam and Islamic countries are extorted and pillaged and Islamic people are enslaved?

Answer: It would.


In this way, would it be a religious duty for them to declare war against Russia, Britain and France and their helpers and supporters, who are enemies of the Islamic Caliphate and trying to –may God forbid- extinguish the divine light of Islam by attacking the seat of the Caliph and the Ottoman nation with battleships and land forces?

Answer: It would.

In this way, when success depends on all Muslims to resort to jihad, would it be a sin and a major rebellion if they –may God forbid- refuse to do so and would they deserve the wrath of God and the punishment for this great sin?

Answer: They would.

In this way, would the above mentioned state, who are fighting against the state of Islam deserve to be killed and burn in infernal fire if they, deliberately or under coercion, murder Muslim people, destroy their families and fight against the soldiers of the state of Islam?

Answer: They would.

In this way, would the Muslims living under the sovereignty of Britain, France, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro and their supporters deserve sever suffering if they fight against Germany and Austria, who are helping the Ottoman government, because it would be harmful for the Caliphate of Islam?

Answer: They would.


Above is an English translation of the Fatwa issued by the Ottoman Empire after its entry into the first world war, and since I've been reading a book about the Berlin-Baghdad railway and German-Ottoman relations, I've been curious as to its potential impact. Now, IRL this call really didn't have much of an impact; most Muslims remained loyal or at least co-operative with the Entente colonial/regional governments, and would fight or work for them throughout the course of the war, fizzling out Kaiser Wilhelm's dream of a great uprising by his "friends" in the Muslim world ripping apart his rivals' Empires. For the sake of discussion, however, what if for whatever reason (A more successful campaign of Pan-Islamism by Sultan Abdul Hamid, perhaps. Maybe backed covertly in previous decades by German gold?) the Ottoman call to Jihad was more widely answered?

I'm not under any impression this would create some kind of unstoppable wave of suicidal Muslim zealots which would easily sweep over local Russian, British, and French garrisons (That would require more arms and organization then they likely have), but a combination of revolts, protests, sabotage, and mass civil disobedience in areas such as the Raj (at least in regions with a large Muslim minority), Egypt, French North Africa, and the Caucuses, as well as a strong surge of pro-CP feelings among other Muslim nations/subnations (Afghanistan, for instance) and the butterflying away of the Arab Revolt. How and to what extent would this impact the logistics and war capabilities of the Entente nations? What would their responses be, and what would the results be in other theaters as a result?
 
In our time line, the lack of serious trouble in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia made it possible for France to deploy to the Western Front most of the front-line troops that had been stationed in those places before the outbreak of war. The same is true for the troops of the Indian Army that guarded the Northwest Frontier. So, relatively small revolts in those places would have had the effect of depriving the French and British armies on the Western Front of dozens of their best infantry battalions. At the same time, it would have had little effect on the availability of artillery.

The result would have been an acceleration of the changes that took place in organization and tactics in our own time line. That is, changes such as the triangularization of infantry divisions, the increase in the ratio of artillery batteries to infantry battalions, and the proliferation of infantry heavy weapons (machine guns, light machine guns, mortars, infantry guns) would have taken place sooner rather than later.
 
Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the forces that would have been needed to deal with revolts in North Africa and the Northwest Frontier would have been roughly comparable to the forces involved in the expedition against the Dardanelles. So, if these revolts had taken place, there would have been no British Empire landings at Gallipoli and no French landings at Kum Kale.
 
It would have helped if the previous Sultans had not issued pro Britain proclamations to Indian Muslims.
 
The call to Jihad was not followed mainly because leading Arab chieftains had other ideas. They, most notably the Hashemites, were more interested in using the British to rid them of the Ottomans. The mandate system came after the war, so there are no British garrisons to evauate or reinforce. I suspect that Indian muslims might have been apprehensive of giving the British an excuse to loose the Hindu nationalists on them. Still in the spirit of the thread I suspect not much would change as Churchill said "We have Maxim (machine gun) and they have not." The British most likely had plans inplace in case of a second Indian Mutiny and to secure the Suez canal. The lines in Europe were pretty static so this would not really cost frontline troops. There is no appreciable Muslim population in Britain, France or the US at this time as a fifth column. Algeria and Morroco may be a problem for France. However, this is a period of time when the French tactics used inthe Algerian war of independance (1960's) would be considered acceptable . No large scale TV broadcasts of suffering and jingoistic journalists means less revulsion in civil society and demands to leave the colonies.
 
I guess I could see existing rebel movements being cooptd into the Ottoman call for Jihad, the problem is of course getting them the necessary weapons and equipment.
 
A rebellion in Algeria would be extremely dangerous for France. Algeria was France's settler colony; if France could not protect it's own people it would loose respect. And yet, it didn't have the troops to spare. On one hand, this is where Italy would be important, in that at least in theory it could hold the Austrians enough to help stomp colonial revolts. Then again, Italy had it's own Muslim populations it would have to deal with...


I wonder what the Dervish Sultanate would do with this? It is my understanding that they decently were able to hold off the British until airplanes were sent to fight. Could this get them at least unofficially put into the CP camp? And if so, would they be allowed to be in the peace conference/etc?
 

Deleted member 94680

The British retained all the troops they needed to secure the NW Frontier, the Indian Army sent abroad in WWI were either 'spare' troops or newly recruited men for the conflict.
 
I was under the impression that outside Ottoman Empire,the claims of the Ottoman Sultan being Caliph was not taken seriously.
 
While the Ottoman Sultan was the "Caliph" there was no real unified Muslim Umma like in the early days. The problem with Fatwas, then and now, is they are not definitive and even the Caliph did not have the sort of religious authority the Pope did after Papal infallibility doctrine was promulgated. The response of Muslims outside the Ottoman Empire would depend much more on local considerations, power politics, etc rather than his Fatwa. There will be "dueling" Fatwas, other Muslim clerics may say that the war is a plitical thing not a Jihad/religious thing.
 
While the Ottoman Sultan was the "Caliph" there was no real unified Muslim Umma like in the early days. The problem with Fatwas, then and now, is they are not definitive and even the Caliph did not have the sort of religious authority the Pope did after Papal infallibility doctrine was promulgated. The response of Muslims outside the Ottoman Empire would depend much more on local considerations, power politics, etc rather than his Fatwa. There will be "dueling" Fatwas, other Muslim clerics may say that the war is a plitical thing not a Jihad/religious thing.

Also unlike today the ability to communicate this fatwa to the world would be difficult if not impossible within any meaningful timeframe
 
Top