September 06, 1808 - May 26, 1883

Arab emir, national hero of Algeria, commander, scientist, orator and poet

Biography

He came from a very ancient and noble marabout (priestly) family in Oran.

In France, he lived under gentle, honorable supervision with his family until Napoleon III released him with a pension. On December 21, 1852, he moved to Bursa, and then settled in Damascus, where in the summer of 1860 he stood up for Christians who were being severely persecuted. Since then, his quiet, contemplative life was interrupted only by wanderings on a pilgrimage undertaken by him from time to time. He once again made a hajj to Mecca, visited the World Exhibition in Paris in 1867, and in November 1869 was present at the opening of the Suez Canal.

Abd al-Qadir wrote a very interesting religious and philosophical work, which Gustave Dugas (fr. Gustave Dugat) translated from Arabic into French under the title: “Rappel? l'intelligent; avis? l'indiff?rent" (Paris, 1858).

Abd al-Qadir (September 6, 1808 - May 26, 1883), national hero of Algeria, commander, scientist, orator and poet. Belonged to an influential feudal kind. In 1832-1847 he led an uprising against the French occupation of Algeria (see Abd al-Qadir uprising). In 1832, the rebellious tribes proclaimed Abd al-Qadir the ruler of Western Algeria (he soon assumed the title of emir). In 1847-1852 he was a prisoner in France, in 1853-1854 he lived in Bursa, from 1855 in Damascus, where he studied theology. During the Christian pogrom in Damascus in 1860, he called for an end to the enmity between the Druze and the Maronites, which was fanned by the French colonial authorities.

Materials of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are used.

Abd al-Qadir (1808-1883) is the national hero of Algeria and since 1831 the leader of the struggle of the Algerian people against the French colonizers. Born in Wadial-Hammam near the city of Mascara in western Algeria in the family of Maha ad-Din, sheikh of the Hashim tribe and head (muqaddam) of the military-religious brotherhood of Qadiriyya. Having received a religious and philosophical education in Algeria, he traveled with his father in 1825-1828 to the countries of the Arab East. From 1831 he took part in the resistance to the French who invaded Algeria. In November 1832 he was elected by the tribes of the West. Emir of Algeria and created a state that existed until 1847. A. al-K. twice (in 1834 and 1837) forced the French to make peace with him. A gifted poet, orator and connoisseur of Arabic-Islamic literature, a collector of valuable books and manuscripts. In 1847-1852 he lived in captivity in France, in 1853-1855 in Broussa, in Turkey, and then until the end of his life - in Damascus, studying literature and theology. He corresponded with Shamil, who was exiled to Kaluga. In 1860, he saved thousands of Damascus Christians from death during an outbreak of religious strife, for which he received awards from many countries, including Russia. He enjoyed considerable prestige both in the Muslim world and in Europe. A large Algerian diaspora formed around him in Damascus, he published the newspaper Al-Muhajir (Emurant),

R. G. Landa.

Russian historical encyclopedia. T. 1. M., 2015, p. 23.

Abd-al-Kadir, Nasir-ad-din ibn Muhyiddin al-Hasani (1808-26.V. 1883), - leader of the liberation struggle of the Algerian people against the French colonialists, national hero of Algeria. Belonged to an influential feudal family. Born in the town of Getna, near Mascara (Algeria). He received a religious and philosophical education. In 1832, the tribes of Western Algeria proclaimed Abd-al-Qadir sultan (he soon assumed the title of emir). A talented commander, intelligent and energetic politician, Abd-al-Qadir in 1832-1847 led an uprising against the French occupation of Algeria (see Abd-al-Qadir uprising). Abd-al-Kadir - a scientist, orator and poet, contributed to the creation of folk schools in Algeria, collected a library of rare books and manuscripts. In 1847-1852 he was a prisoner in France; then he lived in Damascus, where he studied theology. In 1860, during a Christian pogrom in Damascus, provoked by agents of France, he advocated ending the hostility between the Druzes and Maronites and saved the lives of 1.5 thousand Christians, for which he received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor from the French government, and the Order of the White Eagle from the Russian .

A. I. Maltseva. Moscow.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 1. AALTONEN - AYANS. 1961.

Compositions: Rappel a l "intelligent, avis a l" indifférent, trad. par G. Dugat, P., 1858.

Literature: Azan P., L "émir Abd el-Kader, P., 1925; Bu Aziz Yahya, Batl al-kifah al-amir Abd-al-Qadir al-Jazairi (Fighting hero Emir Awd al-Qadir al-Jaaairi) , Tunisia, 1957.

Abd-el-Kader (1808-1883) - Arab political and military figure, the leader of the national struggle for the independence of Algeria against France. In 1832, Abd-el-Kader was elected emir of the tribes of western Algeria. Having rallied these tribes into a single union, Abd-el-Kader created an Arab state (emirate) on their territory, the main task of which was to organize a guerrilla war against the French. At the same time, in the fight against the French, Abd-el-Kader successfully used the weapons of diplomacy. On February 25, 1834, he concluded a peace agreement with the governor of Oran, General Demichel, according to which the French recognized the authority of Abd-el-Kader over all of western Algeria (with the exception of Oran and the coastal strip adjacent to it). In 1835, the French resumed fighting against A., but were defeated. According to the new peace agreement concluded by Abd-el-Kader with Marshal Bugeaud in Tafna (May 30, 1837), the French recognized his authority not only over the western, but also over the central part of Algeria. Abd-el-Kader, for his part, renounced his claim to the province of Constantine and guaranteed the French freedom of trade in his territory. In 1839, the French, having concentrated a 100,000-strong army in Algiers, twice the strength of Abd el-Kader, violated the agreement in Tafna and invaded the territory of the emirate. Having lost his territory, Abd-el-Kader fled to Morocco in 1844. Pursuing him, the French invaded Morocco, defeated the Moroccans and imposed a peace treaty on them (10 September 1844), according to which Abd-el-Kader was outlawed and Morocco pledged to stop helping him. Abd-el-Kader returned to the Algerian Sahara and continued to fight there until the end of 1847, when, as a result of betrayal, he was taken prisoner by the French. Abd-el-Kader was imprisoned in France until 1852; After his release, he lived in Syria.

Diplomatic Dictionary. Ch. ed. A. Ya. Vyshinsky and S. A. Lozovsky. M., 1948.

Compositions:

Rappel a 1 "intelligent, avis a 1" in-different, trad. par. G. Dugat, P., 1858.

Literature:

Oganisyan Yu., Abd-al-Kadir, M., 1968;

Bou Aziz Yahya, Batlal-kifahal-amirAbd-al-Qadiral-Jazairi (Fighting HeroemirAbdal-QadiralJazairi), Tunisia, 1957.

Khmeleva N. G. State of Abd al-Qadir of Algeria. M., 1973;

Azan P., L "émir Abd el-Kader, P., 1925;

Kaddache M. L "emir Abdelkader. Madrid, 1974; Lacoste.

Nouschi A., Prenant A. L "Alg6rie: passe et present. P., 1960.

The genealogy of Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhidin ibn Mustafa ibn Muhammad ibn Mukhtar ibn Abd al-Qadir refers to Imam Hasan, the son of a companion of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them). (September 6, 1808 - May 26, 1883, Damascus), this is the national hero of Algeria, a military leader, scientist, Sufi, orator and poet.

He came from an ancient and noble marabout (priestly) family in Oran.

He studied at Maskar, at the Khetne spiritual school, which was under the guidance of his father, the Sufi sheikh Mukhidin.

Abd al-Qadir was also a follower of Sufism. He is in many ways similar to the Libyan Omar al-Mukhtar from the Sanusite tariqa and is similar in his affairs to the imam of Chechnya and Dagestan Shamil.

Thanks to his extraordinary abilities, piety, learning and the art of wielding weapons, Abd al-Qadir gained wide popularity even in his youth. Already at the age of 17, Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi was known in the world as a leader. From childhood he received an excellent religious education, knew foreign languages.

To get rid of the persecution of a suspicious Algerian dey (the title of lifelong ruler of Tunisia at the end of the 16th century-1705, Tripoli in 1609-1711 and Algeria in 1711-1830), he went to Egypt, where he first had to meet with European civilization. From here, together with his father, he made the Hajj to Mecca, visiting different cities of the Islamic world along the way. In Damascus, he met with the great Tariqat sheikh, the world-famous scientist Khalid al-Baghdadi (1778-1826). Abd al-Qadir, having entered under the spiritual care of Sheikh Khalid al-Baghdadi, became his murid. When he returned to his homeland, the French conquered Algeria, driving out the Turks, however, many Arab tribes rebelled.

The uprising of Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi is a popular uprising in Algeria against the French in 1832-1847.

The prerequisite for the uprising was the beginning of the French colonization of the territory of modern Algeria in 1830. The uprising was launched by the Arab-Berber tribes of the province of Oran in May 1832. With the support of scholars and theologians, Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi raised the banner of struggle against the invaders.

He managed to overcome the fragmentation of different social groups. The war turned out to be extremely stubborn and bloody, the French suffered a series of defeats and were forced to conclude a peace treaty in February 1834.

In 1835, the war resumed, but the French were again defeated and in May 1837 another peace treaty was concluded, according to which France recognized the authority of Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi over most of Western Algeria.

The years 1837-1838 were the highest point in the heyday of the state of Abd al-Qadir. By 1838, almost all of Algeria was under his control.

The state system that he created can be compared with the imamate of Imam Shamil in Dagestan in 1829-1859.

Abd al-Qadir and the sheikh of the Nakshbandi tariqa Shamil were contemporaries, and they had a lot in common: they were Muslim leaders, great commanders, military strategists, politicians, diplomats, and most importantly, they were very God-fearing righteous people, true Sufis who followed the path knowledge of the Supreme Creator.

Through the efforts of Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi, the country's economy became militaristic due to the need to resist further French incursions. The military industry was intensively developing: saber, rifle, foundry, cannon and gunpowder enterprises were created. In the country, along with the tribal militia, a regular army was organized, several lines of defense were created.

The Algerian army became very formidable in technical terms. So, it was armed with about 250 guns, which, of course, played a significant role.

During the armistice, Abd al-Qadir carried out reforms: administrative, dividing the country into several regions; economic, aimed at the redistribution of income in society; judicial and tax. The state of Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi issued its own currency.

On October 18, 1838, the French violated the peace treaty of 1837. The French army captured the city of Constantine, and by 1843 captured most of the country's territory, weakened by the betrayals of large feudal lords. Abd al-Qadir took refuge in the territory of neighboring Morocco, whose authorities also participated in the resistance to the French troops. However, they too were defeated and were forced to send Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi out of the country. In 1845, a new uprising began in Algeria, led by Abd al-Qadir, who had returned from exile. In 1847 the rebels were defeated.

The colonial troops, to which reinforcements constantly arrived, began to destroy entire settlements, leaving no one alive.

The French army was brought to 110 thousand people, 18 punitive detachments began to destroy Algerian villages and exterminate their inhabitants.

Realizing that further resistance will lead to the complete extermination of the people, Sheikh Abd al-Qadir makes a difficult decision - he goes to negotiate with the French. On December 21, 1847, he agrees to surrender. The main condition that the sheikh puts is to stop the persecution of the civilian population, and as a concession, for his part, he promises to leave Algeria and leave with his family and closest supporters to Egypt.

After 2 days, the surrender was officially accepted by the French command and the Governor-General of Algeria - Prince Henry of Orleans. They promised to meet the conditions of Abd al-Qadir, but broke their word. The captive sheikh, along with his family, was sent to France, where he was imprisoned in Toulon, and then from November 1848 - in the castle of Amboise (in the Loire Valley).

In France, he lived under gentle, honorable supervision. A campaign for his release was launched in Britain, rivaling France. In October 1852, Abd al-Qadir was released by order of Napoleon III, vowing not to appear in Algeria again. Napoleon III gave him a pension.

After that, at the invitation of the Ottoman Sultan, he settled in Brus, and in 1855 he moved to Damascus, where in the summer of 1860 he stood up for Christians who were being severely persecuted.

In July 1860, Abd al-Qadir helped save many Christians. For this, the French government, which provided the former enemy with a pension of 4 thousand lire, awarded him the Order of the Legion of Honor.

The Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Empire of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also contains valuable materials directly related to Shamil. Of particular interest is the exchange of letters between him and Abd al-Qadir, who at that time led the anti-French uprising in Algeria. These letters show that, like Shamil, Abd al-Qadir clearly spoke out against acts of violence, against terrorism, called for religious tolerance, peaceful intercivilizational communication.

Since 1855, after the defeat of the uprising, Abd al-Qadir lived in Damascus and studied theology. During the Christian pogrom in Damascus in June 1860, when the Russian vice-consulate was attacked, Abd al-Qadir, who preached the ideas of religious tolerance, saved many Christians, including Vice-Consul Makeev. The merits of Abd al-Qadir were highly appreciated by Russia. He was awarded the Order of the White Eagle.

Immediately after this, Shamil, in a letter to Abd al-Qadir in 1860, reacted to what had happened: “My ears were struck by the news, unbearable to hearing and contrary to nature itself, about what happened between Muslims and non-believers and what should not have happened in the Muslim world. world, especially since it threatened to spread a rebellion among all Muslims. My hair rose from all these horrors, the smile disappeared from my face ... ". And further: "May you reconcile with God Almighty! And may He bless you with wealth and children, for you have fulfilled the words of the great Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), not only allowed, but also desirable - this), sent by God by mercy to people, - and did not allow enmity to take root against us because of our faith.

In turn, Abd al-Qadir answered Shamil in 1861: “Violence triumphs in all countries, and its results are shameful. However, people in our days of temptations lose their heads to such an extent that little seems good to them. there are so few religious people and so few who still resort to the power of justice. They are so few that the ignorant began to believe that the source of faith in Islam is rudeness, cruelty and detachment from all the gentiles.

Such a position of these well-known Muslim figures to the world seems to be very relevant and instructive in the current conditions.

During the period of exile, Abd al-Qadir wrote a lot, studied philosophy. He made two more hajjs to Mecca, as well as several trips to other Islamic countries and to Europe.

In 1867 he visited the World Exhibition in Paris and in November 1869 was present at the opening of the Suez Canal. There he met with the Imam of Dagestan and Chechnya Shamil.

Abd al-Qadir wrote a very interesting religious and philosophical work, which Dugas translated from Arabic into French under the title: “Rappel à l’intelligent; avis à l'indifférent" (Paris, 1858).

The great leader Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi died in Damascus on May 26, 1883, AH 1300. He was buried next to ibn Arabi, according to his will in a cemetery in which no one was buried except for the leaders of the country. His remains were returned to Algiers in the 1970s.

By the grace of Allah Almighty, we have entered the last ten days of the blessed month of Ramadan. One of the graces bestowed by the Creator on believers these days and nights is the opportunity to catch and spend the night of Laylatul-Qadr in worship.

Sura 97 "al-Qadr" "The Night of Destiny"

Meccan sura.

It speaks of the beginning of the sending down of the Holy Quran and the virtues of Laylatul-Qadr (Night of Predestination). Almighty Allah singled her out from the general series of nights of the year with special honor and greatness. The value of this night and its secrets, as well as the blessings that Almighty Allah bestows on His believing slaves on this blessed night, are innumerable. We do not know everything: many things concerning Laylatul-Qadr are unknown to us and incomprehensible.

Reason for sending down

Ibn Abi Hatim reports from Mujahid that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told his Companions about a Jewish warrior who carried a weapon for a thousand months without ever folding it. The Muslims were amazed when they heard this. After that, this sura was sent down, which says that the worship in Laylatul-Qadr granted to this ummah is better than a thousand months of war in the path of Allah, in which this warrior participated.

Sura name

The first meaning of the word "frame" is greatness, honor or dignity. Imam az-Zuhri and other scholars believed that Laylatul-Qadr is the night of Greatness and the night of Honor. Abu Bakr Varrak believed that this night was named so because a Muslim can acquire these qualities (gain dignity, become a man of honor) as a result of repentance, turning to the Lord for forgiveness and spending this night in worship of his Creator.

The second possible meaning of the word "frame" is predestination. It is believed that this night was named so, since the fate of an individual and entire nations, predetermined for them by Almighty Allah in eternity, is transferred for incarnation to special angels responsible for the implementation of predestination. Information about the events of each person's life, the time of his death, his food, rainfall and all other things are transmitted to these angels for implementation during the year - from one Ramadan to another. Ibn Abbas said that four angels are responsible for this: Israfil, Mikail, Israel and Jibril, peace be upon them.

When is Laylatul Qadr?

The Qur'an unequivocally states that this night falls on the blessed month of Ramadan, but on which night it is not reported. Therefore, this issue has become the subject of discussion among scientists. There are approximately forty opinions on this subject.

Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, reported the hadith:

"Search for Laylatul-Qadr on the odd days of the last decade of Ramadan."

Narrated ʼUbada ibn as-Samit, may Allah be pleased with him:

“The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, went out to inform us about the night of Laylatul-Qadr, but then two Muslims began to argue with each other, and he said: “I went out to inform you about the night of Laylatul-Qadr, but such- so-and-so argued with each other, and I was deprived of knowledge of it. Maybe that will be better for you. Look for her nine, seven and five nights before the end of Ramadan!”

These and other hadiths and messages about the date of Laylatul-Qadr can be agreed with each other as follows: it can be any of ten odd nights, and it can change from year to year, that is, with the greatest probability it is 21, 23, 25, 27 or 29 night of the month of Ramadan.

Scholars explain the wisdom of Allah’s concealment of the exact date of this night: if it were announced, then the majority, worshiping on this particular night, would leave worship on other nights. Whereas her hiding in one of the last ten nights of Ramadan motivates to worship more and, accordingly, increase the reward at times. Also, knowing the exact date is fraught with the fact that believers who are not able to leave their sins, having caught this night, will not be able to refrain from sin, and committing a sin consciously on this night is dangerous for iman.

Transcription of Surah Al-Qadr

Bismillayahir-Rahmaanir-Rahimim

Inna Anzalnahu Fi Lailatil-Kadr.

Wa Ma Adraka Ma Laylatul-Qadr.

Laylatul-Qadri Khairun Min Alfi Shahr.

Tanazzalul-Mala`ikatu War-Ruhu Fiha Bi`izni Rabbihim Min Kulli Amr.

Salyamun Khiya Hatta Matla`il-Fajr.

How to determine the onset of this night?

The surest way is to spend the last ten nights of Ramadan in worship. If not, then at least odd ones. You can also try to identify this night by its characteristic features. The following signs of Laylatul-Qadr are mentioned in the hadiths:

• It is light, clear, not hot and not cold (taking into account the climate of a particular area).
• The moon is bright tonight.
• The wind blows with moderate force.
• Believers feel special peace and grace on this night.
• After it, in the morning the sun rises without rays - round, like the full moon. Scientists say that this sign is the main one, it is always present.

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ فِي لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْر

1. Indeed, We sent it down (the Qur'an) on the night of Destiny.

This night is marked primarily by the fact that it was on it that the Holy Quran was sent down in its entirety from the Protected Tablet (Lauh al-Mahfuz) to the sky of this world.

The Quran acquired a verbal form and was originally recorded in the Preserved Tablet. And from the Sharia texts it follows that the transmission of the Koran in the form of a revelation came precisely from Laukh. Our master Jibril, peace be upon him, by the command of Almighty Allah, lowered the Koran from Laukh to the sky of the earthly world. This opinion was called the most faithful by Imam at-Tabari in his tafsir, passing it on from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father. The very form of the verb "أنزل" indicates a one-time occurrence, which confirms the opinion of scholars, according to which the verse speaks of the revelation of the Qur'an in Laylatul-Qadr in full.

Imam Abu Su'ud writes:

“By “sending down” in this verse is meant the sending down of the Qur’an in its entirety to the heaven of this world. And it is reported that it was sent down exactly in Laylatul-Qadr from the Preserved Tablet (Lauh al-Mahfuz) to the sky of this world.

Then Jabrail, peace be upon him, gradually handed it over to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, over twenty-three years.

Some reports also mention angel scribes who dictated the text of the Koran to Jabaril, peace be upon him, but Imam al-Kurtubi reports from Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi that this is not true:

“There was no intermediary (intermediate link) between Allah and Jabrail, just as there was no later between Jabrail and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.”

وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ

2. How could you know what the night of Predestination is?

Where did you, Muhammad, get the knowledge about what the Night of Predestination (or the Night of Majesty and Honor) is? A question in this form is a well-known technique in Arabic rhetoric, emphasizing the special significance and dignity of what is being said.

Then Almighty Allah names three features of this night that make up its greatness.

لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ خَيْرٌ مِّنْ أَلْفِ شَهْر

3. The Night of Predestination is better than a thousand months.

Worship performed on the night of Predestination or the night of Majesty and Honor is better than uninterrupted worship for a thousand months, that is, about eighty-three years in which there is no this night.

In an authentic hadeeth from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, it is reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

“To the one who spends Laylatul-Qadr in prayer with faith and hope (for a reward), all past sins will be forgiven.”

Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, once asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) what dua she should recite if she caught that night. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, advised her to say the following dua:

للَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عُفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّي

“Allahumma innaka ʼafuvvun tuhibbul-ʼafwa faʼfu ʼanni.”

“O Allah, indeed You are Forgiving, You love to forgive, so forgive me!”

Another hadith says:

“Whoever performs Maghrib and Isha Jamaat prayers in Laylatul-Qadr, he will receive a share (of the blessings) of Laylatul-Qadr.”

Mufti Muhammad Shafiʼ Usmani writes:

“If a person performs night and morning prayers with jamaat, he will receive the blessing and reward of Laylatul-Qadr. The more worship he performs that night, the greater will be his share of her grace. Sahih Muslim says that our master Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, reports that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “If a person performs the night prayer (isha) jamaat, he will receive so many blessings, as if spent half that night in worship. And if he performs the morning prayer (fajr) with jamaat, he will receive so many blessings as if he had spent the entire night in worship.”

تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ أَمْر

4. Angels and the Spirit (Jabrail) descend into it (on this night) with the permission of their Lord (to Earth) with all (His) commands.

The second feature of this night: on Laylatul-Qadr, angels, among which Jabrail, peace be upon him, descend to Earth by order of Allah in order to fulfill everything predetermined by the Lord from this night to Laylatul-Qadr of the next year. This interpretation is transmitted from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father.

Having descended, the angels also say “amin” in response to the dua of the believers who spend Laylatul-Qadr in worship of Allah and supplications until the time for the morning prayer of the next day comes.

It is also narrated that the angels greet with salam each believer who is caught worshiping on this night and ask for forgiveness for his sins.

سَلَامٌ هِيَ حَتَّى مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْر

5. She is well until dawn.

The third feature of Laylatul-Qadr: the day before it and the night itself until dawn is prosperous - only good things happen at this time.

Ibn Kathir writes:

"This night is devoid of evil and harm."

Praise be to Allah, this completes the tafseer of Surah al-Qadr.

Al-Wahidi, Asbab Nuzul al-Quran, p. 486. See also Ibn Kathir (Taiba), 8/442-443. Maʼarif al-Quran, 8/843. There. The basis of this is in the tafsir of al-Qurtubi. "Maʼarif al-Quran", 8/845. Bukhari. Bukhari. Fuda "ash-Sharh al-Kabir", 580 - 582. Abu Su'ud, 9/182. Al-Kurtubi, 22/391. Al-Qurtubi, 22/393. Bukhari, No. 1901; Muslim, No. 760, etc. Narrated at-Tirmizi, No. 3513; and others. Narrated by al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Abi Sheyba. "Maʼarif al-Quran", 8/848. Al-Qurtubi, 22/396. Ibid., 22/395. Ibid., 22/396. Ibn Kathir (Taiba), 8/445.

Hero's path

Myths and reality

History has its own logic, which is found in the regularity of the events that take place. Comprehending this logic, the historian comprehends the historical facts in their total development and evaluates their significance. Only in this way can one somehow explain the course of human life, called history, and find some meaning in this universal course.

But it often happens that historians themselves invent the logic for history. To the extent of the providentiality of their consciousness. In accordance with their interests, beliefs, tastes, personal and social. In this case, the historian turns into a person who composes history. Acting in this role, he interprets the facts according to such a "logic of history", which is really a product of his own consciousness, or the collective consciousness of the social group to which he belongs. As a result, everything “illogical” is declared ahistorical, the facts are schematized, the connections between them are deadened, illusions are presented as reality, reality looks like an illusion. Personalities opposed to this "logic" are considered, as it were, historically optional, their very emergence belongs to the realm of incomprehensibly accidental, almost mythical.

If a saint suddenly appears amid the general sacrilege, they will begin to inquire whether the stork brought him. If a people known for its virtues comes under the despotic rule of a tyrant, they will look for the fool who let the genie out of the bottle. If an unimaginable jester has established himself at the head of a great empire, they will say that he arose from a pea pod.

Something similar happened to the hero of our book in the writings of French historians of the 20th century of the right and liberal persuasion. According to their enlightened opinion, Abd-al-Qadir was made into a historical figure by... French generals, memoirists and historians, but in the nineteenth century. The prominent French historian M. Emery claims that Abd al-Qadir owes his fame to the French. J. Yvert, M. Val, d'Esteyer-Chanterin and a number of other modern historians stand on the same grounds.

The French generals mistreated Abd al-Qadir as an equal and exaggerated his importance in their memoirs. Historians of the 19th century wrote unnecessarily much about him. The Chamber of Deputies debated the Algerian question immoderately, and the French emperor showed Abd al-Qadir undeservedly great attention. Thus, the idea of ​​the Algerian emir as a national hero allegedly arose. The idea, they say, is completely ridiculous, since, as d'Esteyer-Chanterin, the author of several books about Abd al-Qadir, wrote, the Algerian nation "never existed" and is found only "in the imagination of European romantics."

Responding to such statements, the French Marxist M. Egreto wrote in the book "The Algerian Nation Exists":

“The true nature of popular feelings, which found expression in resistance, is often portrayed in a perverted form under the pretext that Algeria was not yet constituted into a nation. However, this fact cannot serve as an argument. The French people rightly consider Joan of Arc to be a national heroine (author's detente), and yet the French nation was formed much later than the self-sacrifice of the young Lorraine. The Algerian people have every right to honor the memory of those of their sons and daughters whose self-sacrifice prepared the Algerian national association.

In the last century, the personality of Abd al-Qadir really occupied French and, to a large extent, European public opinion for decades. In France, many books, magazine articles, speeches by politicians were devoted to him. Few of the French commanders can compete with Abd al-Qadir in the number of books dedicated to him in France. Much has been written about him in other countries. Books and articles about him were published in England, Germany, Italy. The name of Abd-al-Qadir is repeatedly mentioned in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels. In 1857, F. Engels wrote a special article about Algeria for the New American Encyclopedia, in which the description of the liberation struggle of the Algerians occupies a significant place. In Russia, in 1849, a book by Colonel of the General Staff M. I. Bogdanovich “Algeria in Modern Times” was published, entirely devoted to the analysis of hostilities between the troops of Abd al-Qadir and the French army. In 1877, Captain Kuropatkin wrote about the emir in his book Algeria. At that time, Algeria was often covered by Sovremennik, Son of the Fatherland, and other Russian magazines.

Little of what was written about Abd-al-Qadir in the 19th century is marked by benevolence in approach and objectivity in assessments. But in general, the famous emir still appears as a figure of historical significance. And how could it be otherwise? If for many years he successfully led the resistance to the onslaught of the most combat-ready army in Europe, numbering more than a hundred thousand, well-armed and trained, led by the best French generals. No matter how partial the European contemporaries were to the emir, they were forced to put him among the major historical figures of the century. Here is a characteristic statement on this subject by the contemporary French author E. Barest to Abd-al-Qadir:

“History will probably find it strange that some Arab, undoubtedly intelligent, but not possessing either a large army or money, was able to resist such a state as France for fifteen years, that this simple son of the desert managed to frustrate the plans of scientists and strategic combinations of generals such as Comte d'Erlon, General Damrémont, Marshal Clausel and Marshal Bugeaud, and that he finally succeeded in bringing the French army of more than a hundred thousand soldiers to the brink of disaster."

In the twentieth century, the French official historiography set out to put the Algerian Emir in the ranks of those adventurers, robbers, self-proclaimed messiahs who breed in dozens in the Arab East in all eras and times. Why? And for what?

Because this was required by the "logic of history", that is, the logic of the bourgeois consciousness of the first half of the 20th century. Then, to bring the actual history in line with this logic, which is thus presented as an objective historical truth.

The point here is this.

Back in the period of the first European colonial conquests, the myth of the “civilizing mission” of Europeans was born in the countries of Africa, Asia and America. In subsequent centuries, this myth invariably sanctified and justified the colonial policy of "civilized" governments. In relation to Algeria, it looked like this:

“We are creating in Algeria a nation that without us would not have reached civilization ... If we believe in any religious truths, is it not joy, is it not the duty of our conscience to fulfill the mission entrusted to us, by conquest, to call these peoples to the knowledge of our beliefs and happiness from faith in the future? Providence entrusted and even ordered us to carry out a wonderful mission, for on the very day when we conquered this country and drove out the barbarian government that oppressed it, we took upon ourselves the care of the fate of these peoples, pledging, together with the best government, to bring them such enlightenment, knowledge and beliefs with which Providence, in her good pleasure, has bestowed upon us ourselves.

The myth of the "civilizing mission" was firmly held in the European public consciousness until the beginning of the 20th century. Almost all political movements believed in him, including the most liberal ones. Refusal of this mission was considered even immoral. True, there was a lot of criticism. The forms and methods of "civilization" were condemned. Abuse exposed. They ridiculed racial arrogance. Here, for example, is a very critical passage from the article "The Colonial War and the Condition of the French in North Africa", published in August 1881 in the Russian liberal newspaper "Order".

“There is something profoundly bleak in these relations of civilized peoples to the patriarchal tribes of other parts of the world, who had the misfortune to attract the attention of European political entrepreneurs. Extermination by fire and sword, the complete devastation of the country, to the point of subjugation and slavish subjugation of the inhabitants - this is what, first of all, European civilization in its military form brings with it to distant lands subject to its fertilizing influence. The highest governmental, religious and other interests are attributed only to the "higher" European races, called to domination and free development, and the native populations of Asia or Africa are accustomed to be treated with arrogant contempt ... Asian and African tribes learn to see in Europeans not representatives of light and truth, but tireless workers of evil, bloodthirsty and greedy enemies, which, unfortunately, they are in most military expeditions.

The criticism is certainly sincere. But the author is equally sincerely convinced - and this is typical of most critics of colonialism of that time - that the "civilizing mission" itself is certainly necessary. It is only necessary that the African and Asian peoples be subjected to "peaceful colonization", which, in his words, will lead to "a real lasting moral conquest of them for European culture."

For a European of the 19th century, his cultural superiority over the "colored", over the "savages" is eternally given, taken for granted, beyond doubt. Otherwise, they say, it simply cannot be. In the same way, the inability of the "savage" to approach civilization without European reins is obvious to him. This conviction stemmed ultimately from the European's confidence in the superiority of his own strength.

This superiority - strength, not culture - has indeed been proven and confirmed many times in the past. Until the beginning of the 20th century, history knew no exceptions here, developing in this way quite “logically” for the European bourgeoisie. Therefore, its representatives in the colonial world had no need to belittle opponents in their writings. For the memoirs written by the generals who fought with Abd al-Qadir, as a rule, a respectful attitude towards the emir is characteristic. The point here, of course, is not so much in the love of truth, but in the general's vanity: the more significant the defeated enemy, the more glory to the winner. French historians of the middle of the 19th century also highly appreciate his work. They had nothing to fear: every national hero, no matter how great he was, was obviously doomed to defeat by the “logic of history” itself. There were no exceptions.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the situation changed dramatically. The revolutions in Russia, Mongolia, Egypt, the upsurge of the national struggle in all the Eastern countries finally destroyed the illusion of the steadfastness of the superiority of the capitalist West. Everything in the colonial world became unsteady and unreliable. The myth of the "civilizing mission" began to evaporate from the minds of Europeans.

The bourgeoisie could not accept these changes. I did not want to part with the myth. Even more so with the colonies. What to do?

Adapt history to colonial logic - at least in official historiography. Canonize the civilizing myth - albeit with reservations. To deprive national heroes of the rank of historical figures - in order to reduce national movements to the level of "savage riots."

By the care of loyal historians, Abd al-Qadir was presented as an ordinary ambitious tribal leader, perhaps more successful than others. The liberation war of the Algerians began to look like a senseless resistance of the barbarians to the onset of the era of European civilization. The invaders, on the other hand, have turned into disinterested and well-behaved culture-tragers.

But in reality it was so.

"In less than forty-eight hours after the arrival of the army in this country, one of the most beautiful in the world, the country was ruined."

“The water that the Algerians handled so skillfully and used it so well, our soldiers diverted, destroyed underground water pipes to fill their flasks.”

“Morals were deplorable. Our behavior offended, I will not say Muslim virtue - I do not believe in it - but the chastity of the Moors and Arabs, generously endowed with these qualities. Every day, vile things were told with laughter, which they seemed to have learned from Tiberius and Heliogabalus.

These testimonies belong to French officers who participated in the Algerian expedition. They wrote a lot. Their books are not yet imbued with falsehood and hypocrisy, with which almost all the writings of colonial officers and historians of the 20th century are thoroughly saturated. They did not hesitate to call a spade a spade. They were confident in their future.

Algiers for them was a won prize, which they could use as they pleased. The French publicist Jean Hess wrote in 1905 on this subject:

“The conquest, which was completely unpopular at first, gained popularity as soon as it was seen as a profitable business for everyone. “There is a scale for everyone,” they sing to the motive of the signal to attack.

Yes, in Africa one could find a scale for everyone. For everyone: for a soldier, for a migrant. And since 1830, all events in Algeria were determined solely by the pursuit of selfish interests, "business and junk." There could no longer be any talk of any purely civilizing activity.

There really wasn't any talk about it. Not those "civilizers" came to Algeria. “A whole flock of speculators attacked Algeria,” wrote the French lawyer Larcher, “trying to buy everything on the cheap, in order to then sell it as quickly as possible: first of all, urban buildings, and then buildings in the countryside ... Everyone speculated, not only private individuals, but even officials.

The colony became for the French government a convenient place of exile for criminals and politically unreliable persons. The prefect of the Parisian police Baud was one of the first to take part in the implementation of the "civilizing mission" in Algeria.

“During January and February 1831,” he wrote, “about 4,500 people from among the most restless inhabitants of Paris were sent to Africa ... The survey I conducted in other departments of the Paris police convinced me that the possession of Algeria could have a beneficial effect on security and morality of the capital”.

Judging by this, it is more likely that Algeria contributed to the growth of French civilization, freeing it from criminals. Orders reigned in the colony itself, an idea of ​​​​which is given by a letter from the wife of General Bro to her brother, written in 1834: “You ask me how things are going with the colonization. I will say that so far it has been limited to hype, land fever. Here they play on land plots the way they play on rent, vodka and coffee on the stock exchange. You will be surprised if I tell you that Blida was sold out to thousands of colonists before we conquered and occupied it. These gentlemen amuse themselves by looking at their estates through a telescope, having traveled three kilometers for this, in order to establish their observation post on one of the hills. Many, without even giving themselves this entertainment, are content with going to a notary and buying land. The plain of Mitidja, a swamp about 25 leagues long and 12 leagues wide, is also sold. All that remains for us now is to lay down our lives to win estates for a pack of beggars who do nothing but abuse the army, while the army is still wasting its time and youth in order to provide them with income.

The most piquant thing is that Mitidja is 25 leagues long and 12 leagues wide, and the land sold at least three times more, and when the time comes to unravel this tangle, people are ready to cut each other's throats. The venerable colonists are mostly runaway convicts or people who belong to hard labor. Instead of cultivating the land, they trade it, and as a result, the lands around Algiers are not cultivated. So we have to pay a franc for a small head of cabbage, five centimes for one carrot, and two and a half francs for a pound of bad meat.

Drinking establishments flourish magnificently, they are found everywhere. The tavern-keepers compete: who better and faster will rob the poor soldier. Recently, one soldier jumped out of the tavern in one shirt, so zealously the colonist tavern tried to get a pledge from him ... "

These documents do not need commentary. They are quite eloquent on their own. But it is worth talking about a new group of evidence. But first, let's get to know them.

A week after the capture of the city of Algiers, in the former residence of the dey, according to an eyewitness, the following happened:

“In the depths of the main courtyard of the Kasbah, an altar was erected. The symbol of the salvation of the world appeared in the center of the fortress, which the sons of Mohammed erected against the Christian peoples. And the words of the gospel were proclaimed in the place where it still reminded of Islam. Generals, officers and soldiers surrounded the altar, and after the service, the venerable priest offered up praise to God by reading a prayer of thanks.

In Instructive and Curious Letters on Algiers, Abbé Suchet, Vicar-in-Chief of the first Bishop of Algiers, writes of the Algerian governor:

“Mr. Valais is a thoughtful, conscientious, most importantly, skillful person. He rules Algeria as an autocratic king. First of all, he wants religion to be strengthened, to be respected everywhere. He wants to multiply crosses and chapels in Algiers. With such a man, His Eminence can do anything. He had just chosen the most beautiful mosque in Constantine to turn it into the finest church in the colony. And when the kindest abbot is appointed to found this church, he will very much want to get as a pulpit the pulpit from which Mohammed preached and which is located in the mosque called holy. It is said to be a masterpiece of Arab architecture."

The transformation of mosques into Christian temples is carried out at the wave of a general's finger.

“I need,” says General Rovigo, “the most beautiful mosque in the city to turn it into a temple of the Christian god. Arrange it as quickly as possible. Ask for the Djemaa Hshawah Mosque: this is the most beautiful mosque in Algeria, it is located next to the palace, in the heart of the civil institutions of the European quarter.

On December 18, 1832, at noon, a company of the 4th Line Regiment took up position in Sudan Square, thousands of Muslims barricaded themselves in the mosque. A detachment of sappers appears to break open the door with axes ... Soldiers drive the natives into the mosque with bayonets. Several Arabs fall, trampled or wounded. A company of infantry occupies the temple all night.”

And finally, one more statement belonging to the secretary of the Algerian governor.

“The last days of Islam have arrived. In twenty years there will be no other god in Algiers but Christ. The Lord's work has already begun. If it is still possible to doubt whether this land will remain with France, then it is already quite clear that it is lost to Islam ... The general return to the bosom of the Lord will be the sign by which I will know that France will keep Algeria. The Arabs will belong to France only when they become Christians.”

Where is the promised "freedom of worship"? Tolerance? Freedom of conscience? And after all, perhaps the most important accusation that the "civilizers" brought against the Arabs who opposed them was the accusation of religious fanaticism, which, supposedly, was the cause of the "holy war." In part, this was true. But who caused this fanaticism? After all, it was not expressed: in the desire of the Arabs to establish Islam among the French, but was a natural reaction to the suppression by foreigners of the spiritual life of the people. By declaring a "holy war", the Algerians did not at all try to resolve the dispute about whose god is better. They aspired to one thing: to remain Algerians and Muslims.

Colonial civilization, no matter how lofty its slogans, in practice always turns into a monstrous moloch, devouring lands, property, and then the souls of the civilized. Her mission brings "success" only when it ends with a general extermination. Obvious proof of this is provided by the history of North America and Australia.

Ultimately, a colonial civilization offers its victims only two choices: slavery or annihilation. In Algiers, however, at first she admitted another possibility:

“Since it is impossible to introduce them to civilization, it is necessary to push them away; just as wild animals cannot live in the neighborhood of inhabited lands, so they must retreat to the very desert before the advance of our institutions, in order to remain forever in the sands of the Sahara.

But maybe all this is happening because the implementation of the "great mission" is out of control of the highest state power - parliament, government, king? Perhaps the whole point is in the independent abuses of the colonists and the military? And maybe the French society did not know what they were doing?

Knew. Both in general and in particular. And I knew it was cruel and inhuman. And in 1834, a parliamentary commission that examined the situation in Algiers presented a report that sounds like a self-incriminating act.

“We attached to the state property all the possessions of religious institutions; we imposed a sequestration on the property of that part of the population that we promised not to touch; we began the exercise of our dominion with extortion (a forced loan of 100,000 francs); we seized private estates without paying any compensation, and more often than not, we even forced the owners who were so expropriated to pay the costs of demolishing their houses. Once it was done in relation to the mosque.

We leased to third parties buildings that belonged to state property; we desecrated temples, tombs, houses, which are considered by Muslims as a sacred refuge.

It is known that the demands of war are sometimes inexorable, but in the application of the most extreme measures one can find delicate and even just forms that will hide everything that is disgusting in these measures.

We killed people who were given safe conduct; we, on mere suspicion, exterminated entire groups of inhabitants, who later turned out to be innocent; we prosecuted people who had a reputation in the country as saints, people respected for having the courage to defy our fury, to come to work for their unfortunate fellow citizens; there were judges to sentence them, and civilized people to execute them.

In barbarism we have surpassed those barbarians whom we came to introduce to civilization. And after that we still complain about the fact that we were not able to win the trust of the locals…”

Conclusion? Colonization must be continued, trying only to avoid extremes: "Moderation, proclaimed by strength, is effective strength."

So, they were aware of what they were doing. And they knew it was stupid. And yet they continued to do so. Reservations here will not deceive anyone. Even then it was clear (although colonial historians will deny this even a hundred years later) that the goal was carried out by methods that were the only ones possible for this. It was the end that justified the bad means. It turns out that the goal itself was vicious.

This is something they couldn't admit. To agree with this is to abandon the very goal of colonization. So, to remove the mission of a “civilizer” from oneself. A European of the last century could not do this. And I didn't want to. By virtue of historical necessity, the determinist would say, what was, was, and could not be otherwise. The truth, which is not worth objecting to. But only if it is not connected with the idea of ​​progress.

As a result of such a combination, the slippery idea inevitably arises that colonization, as well as many other things, since it was caused by historical necessity, was ultimately reasonable, justified and progressive. And that in terms of world progress and in the context of the movement towards universal satisfaction, it was, sadly, a necessary link. In this respect and in this context, the opponents of colonization naturally turn into retrogrades who put sticks in the wheels of history and world progress. One can sympathize with them, one can admire them and enroll them in the ranks of the great ones, but one has to admit that they have turned their backs on historical progress.

Some clarity needs to be made here. It's not about turning the Emir towards progress. And about just to protect Abd al-Qadir from legends representing him as an enemy or champion of progress.

In conjunction with axiomatic truth, any idea can acquire the power of objective regularity. This force is real or fictitious, depending on whether the idea itself has grown in the field of historical reality. If not, then another myth is born. In this case - the myth of the omnivorous progress, which essentially objectifies the principle of wood splitters "the end justifies the means." Turned to the past, the idea of ​​such progress turns the axiom "what was, it was" into a nimble formula about the "reasonableness of the past." Aimed at the future, it turns the really probable "what will be, will be" into recklessly cheerful "whatever happens."

But in general, according to this idea, everything goes as it should in this best of all possible worlds. So is it worth breaking spears?

Our hero broke spears.

Knight of Islam

Before him was a mighty European power. It has advanced science and technology for that time. Possessing a powerful army that went through the school of the Napoleonic wars. Ruled by a class that was eager for colonial conquests and, in the words of one of the representatives of this class, considered Algeria as "French land, which the French should own, which they should immediately settle and cultivate, so that it may someday be in the hands of the French an effective tool for arranging human destinies.

Behind him was a country living according to the laws of the Middle Ages. Deprived of a unified system of statehood. Fragmented into many feudal principalities and tribal holdings. Only a few of them knew about him and recognized his authority.

Not only Abd-al-Kadir was a contender for the role of the religious leader of the Algerians. He had rivals who were not inferior to him either in military strength or in influence on the Algerian tribes.

Bey Ahmed ruled in Constantine, to whom many tribes in the east of the country obeyed. Pasha Ben-Nuna sat in Tlemcen, recognizing only the authority of the Moroccan sultan. In the Shelifa valley, the sheikh of the Flitt tribe Sidi al-Arabi was an independent ruler, who considered it below his dignity to obey the young emir. The powerful leader Mustafa bin Ismail treated Abd al-Qadir in exactly the same way, contemptuously calling the emir "a beardless boy." In the south of Algeria, the religious brotherhood of Tijinia, led by the marabout Ain Mahdi, refused to recognize the authority of Abd al-Qadir. Only the mountain tribes of the Kabils agreed to obey their own leaders.

In the west of the country, in Orania, the influence of Abd-al-Qadir at first was supported by the authority of Mahi ad-Din, who until the end of his life did not leave his son with his advice and help. But this support was short-lived. The words of the marabout that death awaits him if Abd al-Qadir is elected sultan really turned out to be prophetic: in July 1833, Mahi ad-Din died.

From now on, Abd-al-Qadir could rely only on himself.

The young emir acted differently: he relied on Allah.

Unconditionally. To end. Self-denying. in temporal and spiritual matters. In personal and social life. In absolute agreement with the commandment of the Koran: “If Allah helps you, then there is no winner for you, and if He leaves you, then who will help you after Him? Let the believers rely on Allah!” (3:154).

Every Muslim leader, as well as any true believer, recognized this commandment. There is nothing unusual about this. However, not everyone was able to believe in it to the end. A rare person capable of doing this made her a practical guide in life. And only an exceptional person could so fully and selflessly "rely on Allah" to acquire in his own eyes and in the eyes of those around him the face of the messiah, the executor of the will of the Almighty.

No one else would have been able to rally and lead the Algerians in the fight against foreign invaders. Religion was the only force that united people who were divided in every other respect - political, social, ethnic, cultural. Only a man, who was God's chosen one for the people, could turn this force into a political instrument, make it a form of Algerian statehood.

For Algeria, as well as for the entire Muslim world of that time, the era of the Middle Ages had not yet ended. Religion has not yet separated from social and political life. Therefore, mass popular uprisings inevitably took the form of messianic movements. “So,” F. Engels noted on this occasion, “the situation was from the time of the conquests of the African Almoravids and Almohads to Spain until the last Mahdi from Khartoum, who resisted the British with such success. The same or almost the same was the case with the uprisings in Persia and in other Muslim countries.

Only a religious messiah could be the leader of the people in Algeria.

Abd-al-Kadir was prepared for this role by all his past. And, most importantly, he understood better than any of his rivals the political significance of Islam. “What love for the motherland does not achieve, religious passion will accomplish,” he said about the possibility of uniting the tribes. And he was absolutely right. In the view of the Algerian of that time, Algeria was not yet his homeland. His homeland was the land of his tribe. In the man of the neighboring tribe, he had not yet seen a compatriot. But he saw in him a fellow believer. Therefore, any kind of broad and lasting unification was possible only in the religious shell of theocratic power, and the people's struggle against the invaders of other faiths - only in the form of a "holy war" - jihad.

And if at first Abd-al-Kadir was inferior to some Algerian sheikhs and marabouts in political power, then even then he had no equal in the messianic zeal of the defender of Islam. Above all, he wanted to establish himself as a religious leader. That is why, in all his sermons and appeals, he emphasized the sacred goals of the war against the French. He often called himself "Nasser al-Din" - "The one who brings triumph to the faith." In his appeals to the people about the war, the emir did not get tired of repeating a verse from the second sura of the Koran: “And fight in the way of Allah and know that Allah is Hearing, Knowing!” (2:245).

Messianic zeal alone was, of course, not enough to lead the people. For all their religiosity, the faithful for the most part were practical people. The very fact that the emir was chosen by God could become reliable for them only on the real condition that he would confirm it with his this-worldly deeds. Only then will the chosen one of the Almighty become the chosen one of the people.

Abd-al-Qadir himself was a practical man, remaining in this the true son of his people. Immediately after his election, he resumed hostilities against the French army. The emir had small forces and, as a contemporary writes, "expected to achieve in these attacks not so much major victories as to test his people and strengthen their loyalty."

In May 1833, Abd al-Qadir again led his army to Oran. Twice the Algerians rushed to storm the city walls, but both attempts were repulsed. Convinced that it was impossible to take the city without siege artillery, the emir withdrew his army to the Ersibia valley. Here he was attacked by a French detachment led by General Demichel. The battle lasted several hours and ended in vain for both sides. At nightfall, the French retreated and took refuge behind the walls of Oran.

A few days later, Abd-al-Qadir won his first victory over the enemy. He set up an ambush on the road leading to Oran, and with a surprise attack defeated a French cavalry squadron heading for the city. The Arabs took thirty prisoners.

The news of Abd-al-Qadir's victory quickly spread throughout Oraniya. The first success inspired confidence in the possibility of success, inspired the Arabs, and attracted new supporters to the emir. A triumphant reception awaited him at Mascara. The sheikhs, who had previously refused to recognize the authority of the emir, now hastened to assure him of their loyalty. Detachments of armed Arabs arrived in Mascara from all over the region. The famous marabout Hajj ibn Isa brought an embassy from the Sahara, representing twenty tribes who decided to support the "holy war" declared by Abd al-Qadir.

Inspired by the first success, the emir set about expanding his possessions. He unexpectedly attacked Arzev, a city a few kilometers from the port of the same name, and captured it. Leaving his governor in the city, Kadir led troops to Tlemcen, which was in the hands of the Moroccan Pasha Ben-Nuna. The emir invited the pasha to join jihad. He refused. Then Kadir took Tlemcen by storm. Pasha fled to Morocco with his detachment.

In an effort to isolate the enemy from the local population, Abd al-Qadir sent an order throughout Orania forbidding all contact with the French, especially trade with them. Violation of this prohibition was severely punished. Here the emir knew no mercy, even if it was about people close to him.

Abd al-Qadir's former mentor, Qadi Arzev Ahmet Ben-Tahir, defied the ban. Counting, perhaps, on the emir's former attachment to him, he conducted a very profitable trade with the French quartermasters. The qadi supplied them with food, fodder and, what was considered especially criminal, horses. Abd-al-Qadir wrote to him more than once, demanding to stop trading and warning about the consequences of violating the precepts of jihad. Ben-Tahir remained silent, hoping that at worst the French would protect him. When Arzev was captured by the Arabs, the emir, despite the pleas of the Qadi and his relatives, ordered him to be put in chains and sent to the Mascara prison. By decision of the military council, the traitor was executed.

There were many cases of this kind in the activities of the emir. Abd al-Qadir could forgive the enemy a lot, but he never forgave his followers for their deviations from the commandments of jihad, no matter how dear and close they were to him.

Intolerance towards those who act differently is characteristic of every knight of an idea. But how often this intolerance turns into stupid hypocrisy and arrogance when it comes to the champion of the idea himself! No one could blame Abd-al-Qadir for this. In big things and in small things, he was much more demanding and stricter with himself than with those around him.

Here are the qualities of the leader, which Kadir forced his assistants to follow and which together represent the spiritual self-portrait of the Emir himself:

“It is absolutely necessary that the leader possess personal courage and courage, that he be morally impeccable, firm in faith, patient, enduring, prudent, honest and wise, remaining so in all difficulties and dangers. For the commander is to his subordinates what the heart is to the body; if the heart is not healthy, the body is worthless.”

In everyday life, Abd al-Qadir led the life of a righteous man and an ascetic. His permanent dwelling was a tent, divided by a curtain into two parts. There was a reception room in the larger one, where the emir received visitors, held court, and held military councils. The smaller one served as a bedroom and library; here, according to a contemporary, the emir "not so much rested as indulged in reading and prayers."

Abd-al-Qadir dressed like ordinary warriors and ate the same food that they ate. He never even used a penny for his personal needs from those taxes and contributions that came to his treasury. The gifts that the emir often received, he partly transferred to the same treasury, partly turned to alms. The clothes he wore were woven by the women of his family. The emir's personal expenses were provided by the property he inherited, which consisted of a small plot of land and several dozen sheep.

Abd al-Qadir did not see his family for years, refusing for the sake of a sacred goal the joys of married life, so highly valued among the faithful. Few of those who have the opportunity will not take advantage of the right of polygamy granted to him by the Koran. Emir was no exception to this. In addition to Lalla Heira, he had two more wives. But he did not spoil them with attention. Usually he was able to visit his family only twice a year, as the German Gerndt, who served with the emir and in 1840 published in Berlin a book about his adventures in Algiers, testifies.

Once Abd-al-Kadir with his detachment passed not far from Getna, where his family was. Lalla Heira sent a messenger to him with a timid request to visit her at least for a short time. The emir replied to the envoy: "I love my family very much, but the cause of Islam is dearer to me." To the son who complained about the long absence of his father, Abd-al-Qadir answered in verse:

My son, if the love of a father one day inescapable longing will squeeze your heart, if your sadness can be healed just meeting with me let the image appear before you, whose heart burns with love for you. If I hide this passion in my soul it is only because a man of noble feelings keeps the secret of his love ...

All personal secrets are hidden from others. For them, Abd-al-Kadir is a religious leader, a fearless warrior, a righteous ascetic. Nothing can turn him away from the struggle for the intended goals. Vanity and greed are alien to him. Neither victory nor defeat leaves a noticeable imprint on his personality. Under any circumstances, he remains a model for his subjects, worthy of admiration and imitation.

“Due to the fact that I led such a way of life,” Abd-al-Qadir himself later said, “I had the right to demand great sacrifices from the Arabs. They saw that all the taxes and! the offerings that I received went entirely to public needs. When the war demanded additional taxes and the Arabs were reluctant to pay them, I immediately sold all my family jewels in the market at Mascara and declared that the money received for them was fully transferred to the treasury. After that, only the question of the order of tax contributions remained, because everyone agreed with my demands.”

They believed in Abd al-Qadir. They followed him. In a very short time he became the most powerful leader in Algeria.

Within a few months, Abd al-Qadir subjugated almost the entire Oran region. In August 1833, he laid siege to the large fortress of Mostaganem. The Arabs made a tunnel and undermined part of the city wall. But in the midst of the assault, the emir received news that General Demichel had attacked the tribes allied to him. Abd-al-Qadir was forced to lift the siege and move to their aid. He arrived on time. The French withdrew to Oran, having lost during the retreat the rearguard detachment, defeated by the emir.

The French command begins to take Abd al-Qadir seriously. It turned out that he had little in common with the former idea of ​​him as the leader of a gang of robbers. It is not possible to destroy his army. Push back into the desert too. The cities captured by the French are in the position of besieged fortresses, cut off from the country. The Arab population refuses to supply food and fodder to the French garrisons. Those few Arabs who are tempted by high prices agree to deliver goods to the cities only accompanied by a French escort. Emir's detachments attack such caravans, capture the French. It was on this occasion that General Demichel addressed Abd al-Qadir with a message in which he reproached the emir for the lack of "humanity" and asked to release the French prisoners.

Emir responded to this with a letter:

“As for me, when the French capture my people, I do not ask you to release them. As a human being, I am saddened by their unfortunate fate, but as a Muslim, I view their death - if it happens - as a transition to a new life. You inform me that the French were assigned to guard the Arabs. I see no justification in this either for the defenders or for the length of the defended. Both are equally my enemies; all the Arabs who are on your side are apostates from the faith who have betrayed their duty.”

The duality of consciousness and personality is characteristic of a religious person in general, and of a Muslim in particular. It stems from his belief in an afterlife, in comparison with which earthly life looks like only a transient illusion. “For the possessions of the present life, compared with those of the Hereafter, are insignificant” (9:38). According to this revelation of the Qur'an, if life here has a certain purpose, then this purpose can only consist in preparing for the transition to another world, where only true life begins.

Human consciousness is alienated. The believer looks at himself here through the eyes of an inhabitant of that blessed monastery, where “rivers of water that does not spoil, and rivers of milk, the taste of which does not change, and rivers of wine that is pleasant for drinkers, and rivers of purified honey flow” (47:16,17 ). It is clear that this local will seem a miserable and worthless creature. But in real life, this view in practice is expressed in self-abasement and self-neglect only among fanatics. The ordinary true believer craves earthly blessings just like any normal mortal. The believer ultimately evaluates his own worthlessness in this world in terms of purely worldly interests.

The situation changes when this view is transferred from one's own personality to the personality of one's neighbor. This look immediately acquires all the power of extramundane detachment. The new object is perceived as if the true believer is looking at it through a hole in the gates of paradise, from within, of course. And this object, of course, under the gaze from heaven turns into a vanishingly small size. As a result, moral ties between people are torn, a person is alienated from a person and remains alone with himself, which, by the way, causes forms of unbridled arbitrariness of an individual typical of Muslim countries - from the despotism of the head of the family to the tyranny of state rulers.

But again, in the everyday world, the alienation of moral ties between people in a relatively pure form can take place only in some community of dervishes. On the whole, in society, religion, no matter what fires it blazes with, cannot completely evaporate these ties into the sepulchral void! For they have too tenacious earthly roots, going deep into labor and other worldly relations between people. Religion, like any blind faith, usually only dries up these bonds. As a result, the image radiated from them becomes an autonomous area of ​​human consciousness. Hence the split personality into secular and religious, each of which perceives the outside world in its own way. The first - directly, as he is, the second - as she sees him in the illumination of an extraterrestrial ideal.

This dichotomy is very clearly expressed in Abd-al-Qadir's letter to the French general. Emir is humanly sorry for his soldiers who were captured. Here he is a worldly man. But then he soullessly renounces them: why care about them, if even in the worst of worldly cases - death - they will only gain a “new life”. Here he is a religious man.

Remarkable in all this is that the self-consciousness of the emir retained the worldly human principle. There would be nothing surprising in that if we were talking about a simple orthodox. But Kadir was a religious leader! Mahdi! Messiah! A man who was instilled with the idea of ​​his highest appointment from the cradle. Behind which a religious legend was drawn all his life. Which, finally, the very position in society exalted above his neighbors. And over what neighbors! Zealously religious. Those who wanted to see an idol in their leader. Knowingly denying him the right to everything worldly that is allowed by him.

Maintaining humanity is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. Not to mention the darkness of despots, great and small, with which the history of religious societies is littered, the life of any powerful advocate of a religious idea can testify to this truth. Even if the idea itself is pure and majestic, and its champion is well-intentioned, he must be a truly great person - he can be a great doer regardless - in order to remain in some measure worldly human. .

An ordinary person, obsessed with a religious idea, inevitably becomes its slave. Nothing worldly will force him to betray the Idea - his mistress. Sooner or later, for such a knight of ideas, subjects become faceless signs that can be crossed out, erased, rewritten, if his mistress pleases. After all, the inquisitors were the true knights of the Christian idea. And besides, big puritans.

Abd al-Qadir does not belong to this category of warriors for the purity of faith. His personality is clearly manifested not only in the deeds of a religious leader, but also in the socially significant deeds of a worldly person. And if in the first role he acted as an instrument of the idea of ​​Islam, then in the second role he was the spokesman for the worldly consciousness of his people, thus combining in his personality the religious messiah and the folk hero.

However, in real life, a mentally healthy person always acts almost as a whole. It can appear to the world - either by its own will or by force of circumstances - in various guises, while relating, however, as a whole to a part, to any of them and maintaining its internal unity. For it has its own indecomposable constant - the human character, which forms the binding unity of any personality, individually separates it, constitutes the main condition for maintaining its integrity in collisions with the outside world or during periods of internal spiritual crises.

It is the character of our hero that combines in his personality the seemingly incompatible: fanatical religiosity and sober realism, messianic alienation and worldly humanity. Thanks to his character, which absorbed the strength and purity of the patriarchal nature of the tribal environment, hardened by religious asceticism, which gained flexibility under the influence of life's trials, Abd-al-Qadir, depending on the conditions and situation, could act in various roles, always remaining himself and preserving the integrity of your personality.

The character of Abd-al-Qadir was stronger than his vocation. Therefore, his personality was more significant than any of the roles in which life forced him to perform. And even more than the main one - the role of a religious leader.

This is revealed already in the initial period of the emir's activity.

After the Arabs managed to lock the enemy in the coastal cities, Abd al-Qadir decided to end the war with one blow. But he hoped to carry out this decision in a very peculiar way. At the end of 1833, the emir sent a message to General Demichel, inviting him to single combat in the open field. “If you make a two-day march from the walls of Oran,” Kadir wrote, “I will meet you, and let the duel decide which of us will remain the master on the battlefield.”

Naive? Certainly. Stupid? In no case. Wouldn't it be wisdom and good for peoples to decide wars by the single combat of leaders? And would the leaders themselves be so warlike if they knew that they would be the first to expose their own foreheads to a blow? How soon and with what little blood would wars end! But this is already from the realm of idyllic utopias. Abd al-Qadir was not a utopian. He was simply a man of another world, where common sense had not yet been relegated to the realm of utopias.

By inviting the French general to a knightly duel, the emir hoped to win the "holy war". But his very chivalry did not come from Islam here. It was rather epic, pagan chivalry, flowing from pre-Islamic folk ideas about war. These ideas became relics already in the era of the Crusades, when clashes between European and Eastern countries took place in the form of religious wars.

Since then, Europe has undergone transformations that can best be described in the words of the Communist Manifesto:

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has achieved dominance, has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. She mercilessly tore apart the motley feudal fetters that tied a person to his "natural masters", and left no other connection between people, except for bare interest, a heartless "chistogan". In the icy water of selfish calculation, she drowned the sacred awe of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, petty-bourgeois sentimentality. It has transformed the personal dignity of man into an exchangeable value, and has replaced innumerable freedoms granted and acquired with one unscrupulous freedom of trade. In a word, she replaced exploitation, covered with religious and political illusions, with open, shameless, direct, callous exploitation.

Abd al-Qadir remained entirely in the knightly era. True, later he would understand in his own way the significance of the European rebirth. In 1839, the emir will write bitterly to the French king:

“Since the founding of Islamism, Muslims and Christians have been at war. For centuries it has been the sacred duty of both sects; but the Christians neglected their religion and ended up regarding war as the usual means of worldly exaltation.

For the true Muslim, war against Christians continues to be a sacred duty; how much more it has become for the Christians when they come to conquer the Moslem country!”

But even realizing that he was not dealing with an unambiguous opponent, Abd al-Qadir remained faithful to his ideals, separated by a centuries-old thickness of grandiose historical changes from the ideals of contemporary Europeans. He continued to break spears. And not without success for his business.

It can be seen that not every copy-breaking has no practical meaning.

In war as in war

The French general responded to Abd-al-Qadir's challenge in accordance with the ideals of the class he served as squire in Algiers. And this class, which came to power in France as a result of the July Revolution of 1830, demanded decisive action from its army. The colony must be "pacified". The Algerians must submit to the laws of the new religion professed by capital, the "religion of the purest". Everything is permitted and everything is allowed in the name of the approval of these laws.

General Demichel, probably surprised at the naivety of his enemy, took advantage of the news of the remoteness of the emir's troops from the walls of Oran for another raid on the Arab tribes. He secretly led the French detachment out of the city and suddenly attacked peaceful villages. The houses of the Arabs were burned, adult men were killed almost without exception, women and children were taken to Oran. Intoxicated with easy success, the French officers triumphed.

In Paris, these same officers shone in their uniforms in the theater boxes, kissed the ladies' hands in the salons, and competently could talk about the verses of a fashionable poet. They were the embodiment of nobility and courage. Their scrupulousness in matters of honor was not in doubt. Duels over petty quarrels occurred in Paris at that time almost daily. Rejecting a challenge to a duel would have dishonored the officer for the rest of his life, and indeed any "secular person." In 1834, General Bugeaud, later the main "pacifier" of Algeria, killed the Dulon deputy in a duel just for a caustic remark thrown by him during a debate in Parliament.

Everything changed in Algeria. Here the general would only laugh at the challenge of the Arab leader. The concepts of honor and nobility in dealing with the Algerian population were simply excluded. "Natives" were not considered people. In the war with them, good ways.

“This is how you should wage war with the Arabs, my friend,” wrote Colonel Montagnac in his book Letters from a Soldier, “all men over the age of 15 should be destroyed, women and children should be captured, loaded onto ships and sent to the Marquesas or to another place - in a word, to destroy all those who will not crawl at our feet like dogs.

Elsewhere in the book, the valiant colonel, not without some coquetry, says: “You ask me in a letter what we do with the women we capture. Some of them we keep as concubines, others we exchange for horses, and the rest we sell at auction as beasts of burden.”

When cruelty becomes the norm, people get used to it. The worst things are ignored. The French historian Netteman wrote in 1856 in his book The History of the Conquest of Algiers: “I heard the most brilliant officer of the African army talk about how he often had breakfast with the general, not feeling any anxiety because of the numerous bags piled in the corner of his tent. with severed heads.

The reasons for the cruelty of the French soldiers are, of course, neither social nor national in nature. In their homeland, these French people would be like people. But they were sent to war, and in war, as in war. Another question is that the war was unfair, predatory. In such wars, cruelty enters the system, and those who unleash these wars bear direct social and national responsibility for this. And not only before the people who were attacked, but also before their own people.

The position of the French in Algiers was very difficult for many years. Unusually hot and dry climate, ignorance of the country, hostility of the local population - all this from the very beginning doomed the French army to severe trials. The French became very ill when the troops of Abd al-Qadir blocked the cities they had captured from land. In the early years of the conquest, almost all of the supplies to the French garrisons came through the Mediterranean. Products spoiled quickly. French soldiers suffered from hunger and disease. There was a time when the head of the French garrison in Arzev was forced to pay 50 francs for a cat so that fresh meat appeared on his table at least occasionally. Conditions were slightly better in other blockaded cities.

The Duke of Orleans, who fought in Algiers, wrote in the book "African Army Campaign":

“Products go bad. In Mostaganem, a thousand barrels of rotten meat are thrown away; no doctors. Not only that, the campaigns are being undertaken recklessly; so reckless that the people responsible for them do not want to recognize this responsibility.

And here is an episode of one of the campaigns of the French troops, described by the same author:

“Unable to even run, this whole mass circled randomly in place, distraught and panting. The soldiers were as if delirious. Naked, unarmed, they rushed towards the Arabs with laughter; some, blinded, fell into the river (they did not see it) and tried to swim, although the water was several inches deep; others, falling on their knees, sang a hymn to the sun, whose pitiless rays clouded their consciousness. Everyone had lost a sense of the real, a sense of duty, and even the instinct of self-preservation.

But no circumstances can justify the cruelty and treachery of the conquerors. Ultimately, no one invited them to Algiers. And even if we assume that their cruelty was forced, a response to the cruelty of the Arabs, then in this case it is impossible to judge both opponents by the same measure. The modern French author M. Egreto, who in his book on Algeria cites many evidences of the cruelty of the colonialists, writes about this:

“Lovers of universal justice and harmoniously balanced development will reproach us for presenting this war of conquest not objectively, even one-sidedly. They will tell us that cruelty and atrocities were not limited to one camp. Perhaps it was. However, we will not remind them of hard-to-disprove facts, namely, that according to the most elementary principles of international law, in this war one side acted as an invader, while the other was a victim of aggression, and that under these conditions it is simply unworthy to try to throw responsibility equally on both camps. ".

But for the sake of truth, let us dwell on the attitude of the Algerian population towards the conquerors. Let's say right away: the Algerians did not have the slightest reason to treat them well. As well as not responding to the cruelty of the colonialists with the same coin. In war, as in war. Cruelty on the Arab side towards the enemy took place, although it was expressed on an incomparably smaller scale than that of the French army. Severed heads, finishing off the wounded, the destruction of civilians - all this happened. Moreover, all this was consecrated by long-standing traditions and unwritten rules of warfare against the "infidels".

The history of "holy wars" is written in senselessly spilled blood. Their leaders were usually distinguished by a dull and cold ferocity. And from the fact that these leaders were saints for their subjects, who assumed full responsibility for waging war, the subjects themselves indulged in atrocities to the full extent of their own irresponsibility and with a consciousness of the sanctity of their deeds.

The war led by Abd al-Qadir was no ordinary "holy war". And not only because it was purely worldly in essence, fair in purpose, defensive in form. All this would not in the least prevent it from being an ordinary "holy war" in terms of its methods of waging. However, in this respect, too, it falls outside the general rule. First, unbridled cruelty has not become a system in dealing with enemies. Secondly, it in most cases manifested itself in areas beyond the control of Abd al-Qadir.

The treatment of prisoners of war is the measure of humanity in every war. According to many testimonies of contemporaries, the emir was distinguished by true chivalry in this. “In all cases,” writes one of them, “Abd al-Qadir treated the captured French more like guests than like prisoners. He sent them money and food from his personal reserves. They were well dressed…”

Abd-al-Qadir was disgusted by the capture of French women. One day, a detachment of cavalry from one of his leaders brought him four young women as a valuable gift. He indignantly rejected the gift. “Lions,” he said, “attack the strong, jackals pounce on the weak.”

The captured French could use the library of Abd al-Qadir, they were allowed to correspond with their relatives, no one encroached on their right to profess Christianity. The emir even invited Christian priests to his camp so that the captives would not be left without spiritual mentors. One French officer said:

"We were forced to hide these facts from our soldiers: if they had known about them, we would never have been able to force them to fight with such cruelty against Abd al-Qadir."

In war, however, it is not like in war. At the same time, nobility looks especially attractive, because its sincerity and disinterestedness do not cause any doubts. In Abd-al-Qadir, it borders on a moral feat. After all, he had to rebel against the time-honored traditions, change his own role as a religious leader, and finally violate one of the commandments of the Koran about jihad: “Whoever transgresses against us, then you transgress against him just as he transgressed against you” (2: 190).

Abd al-Qadir not only did not follow this commandment in dealing with the defeated enemy, but also demanded the same from his subjects. He issued a special decree which read:

“Every Arab who captures a French soldier, or Christian, unharmed, will receive a reward of eight piastres for a man and ten piastres for a woman. Whoever captures a Frenchman, or a Christian, is obliged to treat him well ... In the event of any expression of dissatisfaction on the part of the captive with ill-treatment, the Arab is deprived of all rights to reward.

This decree, among other things, was aimed at eradicating the old barbaric custom of cutting off the head of a wounded or killed enemy in order to certify the fact of killing the enemy by presenting the head and receive a reward for that. The "civilizers" not only encouraged their local allies to follow this custom (hence the bags of severed heads Netteman writes about), but very quickly adopted it themselves. Colonel Montagnac boasts in his Letters from a Soldier:

“I ordered that his head and left hand be cut off and I came to the camp with my head on a bayonet and my hand tied to a ramrod. All this was sent to General Barage d'Hilliers, who was encamped nearby. You yourself understand that he was delighted.

In the army of Abd al-Qadir, such cases, rare in the past, ceased completely after the promulgation of the decree. Only once the decree was violated, and the emir took advantage of this to teach an object lesson to his soldiers. He personally tried the criminal in the presence of his entire army. According to a contemporary, it happened like this.

On the appointed day and hour, the army was lined up around the emir's tent. Abd al-Qadir stood surrounded by civilian and military leaders. The severed head was laid before the emir. The offender was brought forward. Emir asked him:

Did you take this head from the dead or the living?

At the dead.

Then you will receive two hundred and fifty lashes for disobeying me. This punishment will teach you that the head of a person cannot be an enemy, cowardly and cruelly mutilate him.

The soldier was laid on the ground and subjected to the imposed punishment. After that, he got up and, thinking that the execution was over, wanted to leave. Emir stopped him:

I want to ask you one more question. Where was the gun at the time you cut off your head?

I put it on the ground.

Another two hundred and fifty lashes for leaving your gun on the battlefield.

After the second punishment, the soldier could hardly stand on his feet. Several people came to take him away. The emir stopped them again:

Take your time, I have one more question for him. How did you manage to carry both your gun and someone else's head at the same time?

I held the gun in one hand and my head in the other.

Are you saying that you carried your gun in such a way that you couldn't use it? Give him two hundred and fifty more hits.

The unfortunate man was nearly beaten to death.

Cruel? Undoubtedly. Inhuman? No. Just like, say, the punishment of looting. But here we are talking about a marauder who hunted for enemy heads. Wars are generally inhumane. Humanity itself is often manifested in them in an inhuman form, when, for example, a commander sacrifices part of his soldiers in order to save the lives of others. Who will judge him for this? War has its own system of morality. And one should evaluate the actions of a person in a war in terms of this system: in a war, as in a war.

Abd al-Qadir had a firm hand. And although the emir never abused his power - and she gave all kinds of opportunities for this - he did not stop at the most extreme measures to force the soldiers to obey his orders. Only in this way it was possible to turn the tribal army, variegated and not accustomed to discipline, into a combat-ready army.

Thanks to firmness and perseverance in the implementation of his goals, Abd al-Qadir in 1834 became the master of the situation in the Oran region. The power of the French ended behind the walls of coastal cities. The supply of the occupying troops by sea was very expensive. The Algerian war increasingly burdened the state budget of the metropolis. The French bourgeoisie could not yet derive any economic benefits from the possession of a colony. The future of France and Algeria began to appear very doubtful to some bourgeois politicians. But as the famous French historian and public figure Guizot taught them, “one must trust” the future and not speed up the course of events.”

The French bourgeoisie was sure that sooner or later Algeria would be at its complete disposal. So was it worth the rush? Moreover, there were no opportunities for this yet. Wouldn't it be better to negotiate peace with Abd al-Qadir? And thereby alleviate the fate of the French army and gain time to prepare new conquest revenues?

At the end of 1833, General Demichel, taking advantage of the correspondence that had begun with the emir about the prisoners, sent him a message with a proposal for peace negotiations. Knowing that only difficult circumstances forced the general to go for it, Abd-al-Qadir does not respond to the message. But at the same time, he secretly instructs his agent in Oran, Mordechai Omar, to subtly and cautiously induce the general to more definite proposals.

Abd al-Qadir needed peace no less than his French opponents. He needed to restore order in his possessions, strengthen the army, extend power to new tribes. The very conclusion of the peace treaty, according to the correct calculation of the emir, should have legitimized in the eyes of the French and in the eyes of his subjects his position as an independent and independent head of the emerging Algerian state.

However, for Abd-al-Qadir to decide on peace negotiations with the enemy, it was not easy. He took Demichel's first offer with restraint, not only because he wanted to achieve more favorable conditions for himself. The emir also needed to convince his supporters of the necessity and, most importantly, of the permissibility of a peace agreement with the enemy.

The fact is that part of the emir's inner circle, consisting of sheikhs and ulema, stagnant in religious fanaticism, perceived any non-military relations with the "infidels" as apostasy from the law of the "holy war". After all, the commandment of the Koran quite definitely inspires the faithful: “And kill them where you meet, and drive them out from where they drove you out: after all, temptation is worse than murder!” (2; 187).

Is it not a temptation to negotiate with the enemy in order to find peace and tranquility? And is it possible to succumb to it if it means recognizing the right of the "infidels" to maintain their dominance in the part of the Muslim world they have captured?

No politically real arguments, no matter how reasonable they may be, would not convince fanatics otherwise. Abd al-Qadir did not do this. He convinced them with his own arguments. No one in the Emir's entourage knew better than his Koran and other Muslim books. No one was more skillful than him in their interpretation. Is there at least one sacred book in the world where the ends would meet? It costs nothing to a sophisticated mind, remaining true to the spirit and letter of any such book, irrefutably proving ten times a day that black is white and vice versa.

Abd al-Qadir never stooped to that. He was neither a cynic nor a sophist. He always remained sincere in his religiosity. But in practical life, religious dogmas served for him only as a shell of common sense, while for narrow-minded fanatics, common sense, if they retained it, serves, on the contrary, to clothe religious dogmas in it.

Soon, General Demichel sends a new message to the emir, in which he directly proposes to make peace. In the general's letter, there is a reproach that the emir did not appreciate the French peace initiative, although he should have done it, given the power of France. The Emir rejected the reproach. He agreed to maintain relations with the enemy only on an equal footing. In that period, the emir also had military superiority and knew that this was the only reason the French wanted peace. “You say,” he replied to the general, “that, despite your position, you have decided on the first demarche. But it is your duty according to the rules of war."

Abd-al-Qadir immediately rejected all the humiliating terms of peace that were contained in the French proposals: recognize himself as a vassal of the French king, pay an annual tribute, present hostages, and buy weapons only in France. In February 1834, Demichel was forced to sign a treaty that legally legitimized the de facto power of the emir. The terms of the agreement were as follows.

Military operations cease. The authority of Abd al-Qadir is recognized throughout Orania, with the exception of the cities of Oran, Mostaganem and Arzev. The emir sends his ukil consuls to these cities. The French consul is in Mascara.

France undertakes to respect the religion and customs of the Algerians. There is an exchange of prisoners and the mutual extradition of deserters. Free trade is guaranteed by both sides. Europeans can move freely in Algiers with passes signed by Abd-al-Qadir's ukil and the French representative.

This treaty was a great diplomatic achievement for the 26-year-old emir. Among other things, he opened the way for Abd-al-Qadir to assert his power outside of Orania, because in the text of the treaty the emir was recognized as the "commander of the faithful." Thanks to this, he received a legal basis for insisting that Muslims, that is, in fact, all local residents, are subject to submission to his spiritual authority, which in the conditions of Algeria meant political power for the local population.

Recognizing that he would not be able to completely drive the French out of Algeria for the foreseeable future, Abd-al-Qadir sought to find the best possible solution to the problem of relations with France. In his ideas about the future of the country, he treated the French colonies in Algeria in much the same way that the inhabitants of North Africa once treated the Phoenician trading colonies. The English Colonel C. Churchill, who, as a result of studying documents and long personal communication with Abd al-Qadir, wrote a book about the emir, writes: “Their essence was that he be recognized as the ruler of Algeria: the French would continue to live with his tacit consent on the outskirts of the empire, benefiting from trade with his subjects."

The French side interpreted the treaty and its possible consequences in a completely different sense. General Demichel presented the case as if by his military successes he forced Abd-al-Qadir to make peace and that the emir recognized the supreme authority of France in Algeria. In a report to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the general wrote: “I must notify you of the conquest of Orania, the most significant and militant province of the regency. This great achievement is the result of the advantages achieved through the fighting of my troops.

However, they did not believe the general: the benefits received by Abd al-Qadir under the terms of the agreement were too obvious. Although the king approved the agreement, the ruling circles of France were extremely dissatisfied with the outcome of the agreements with the emir. In January 1835, Demichel was recalled, his place in Oran was taken by General Trezel, a staunch supporter of continuing the war to a victorious end. Shortly before this, a new governor was appointed to Algeria - General Drouet d'Erlon. According to the royal decree, Algeria is beginning to be called "French possessions in the north of Africa", and not "the former regency", as in the past, and thus the inhabitants of Algeria formally turn into French subjects, which opens the way for the expansion of conquests.

The new governor hurries to warn Abd al-Qadir not to delude himself with hopes of expanding his possessions.

“And I would like,” writes d’Erlon to the Emir, “that you be aware that the jurisdiction of General Demichel was limited only to the boundaries of the provinces. Oran and that he had no right to discuss any terms of the agreement with respect to the rest of the country. Oran".

Trezel insists on resuming the war in order to prevent the emir from gaining a foothold in his former possessions and capturing new ones. However, the cautious d'Erlon, mindful of the failures of his predecessors, refrains from aggravating relations with Abd al-Qadir. He prefers to gather his strength and wait for the right moment to start a war.

Abd-al-Qadir, meanwhile, is carrying out his plans, reassuring the French with messages about his loyalty to the terms of the treaty and insisting on his own interpretation of these terms. He sends an envoy to the governor with a letter in which, as a matter of course, he announces his intention to restore order in the territories not occupied by the French.

“Kaid Milud ibn-Arash,” the emir writes, “will inform you about the state of our affairs. I instructed him to assure you that we only want to find the best way to establish calm in all areas, seaside and inland, along the coast between Algiers and Oran and inland from Tlemcen and Mascara to Medea and Miliana.

D'Erlon is outraged. He demands the conclusion of a new treaty that would force the emir to recognize the sovereignty of the French king and renounce his claims to dominance in Algeria. French officers deliver a draft of such an agreement to Abd-al-Qadir. The Emir warmly welcomes the envoys, but shows no interest in new proposals. He invites them to tour the country with him, skillfully using it to show the wavering tribes that the French are his allies, who approve of his policies and that the sheikhs have no choice but to recognize his authority. Upon his return from the trip, the emir offers the governor's ambassadors his own terms of a peace treaty, in which there is not even a hint of recognition of dependence on France.

The former treaty, not based on unity of views, established only a shaky truce. The struggle actually continued, resulting in a diplomatic war. And in war, as in war: the interests of the enemy are not taken into account. Each side sought to use the truce for its own purposes.

Continuing negotiations with the French, Abd al-Qadir simultaneously expanded his possessions. His troops crossed the Shelif River and occupied the province of Titteri. The emir appointed his people as caliphs in the main cities of the province - Medea and Miliana, where the Turks had previously ruled. General Trezel offered in response to seize the emir's capital Mascara. But the governor, not relying on his strength, did not dare to do so. In addition, Abd-al-Qadir hastened to assure him of his readiness to start new negotiations. He needed peace with foreigners in order to finally subjugate the Compatriots. Inside the country, a wave of tribal riots was growing, threatening to overturn the emir's state power, which had not yet been established.

Without taking a breath

This internal war was no less difficult for Abd al-Qadir than the struggle against the French. And the victories and defeats in this war had the same bitter aftertaste, because in any case they had to fight with their fellow countrymen and co-religionists. But this is only one side of the matter. The most difficult thing was that both wars were in direct connection with each other; One war led to another.

Abd al-Qadir needed peace in order to take care of the internal structure and, above all, to achieve the unification of the tribes under his rule. But he could do this only by military means. There was no peaceful respite. The tribes allied with the emir - besides them, there were always hostile ones - agreed to act together and recognize him as a leader only during the war against foreigners. As soon as hostilities ceased, the tribal sheikhs considered their allied duty fulfilled and insisted on their complete independence from the supreme authority of Abd al-Qadir.

After the conclusion of the peace treaty, most of the tribes that united around the emir during the war refused to pay taxes to him. And without taxes, Abd-al-Qadir would not have been able to establish a seedy principality. The tax system is the main economic basis of any feudal state. The tribes could not and did not want to understand this. Unification and central authority, which they needed during the war with foreigners, in peacetime became unnecessary and burdensome fetters in their eyes.

Even the Beni-Amer tribe, whose devotion Abd-al-Qadir never doubted, stopped paying the traditional tax after the end of the war. The enraged emir gathered the sheikhs of this tribe in the mosque of Mascara and, after the prescribed prayer, turned to them with a sermon:

“Weren’t you, O beni-amer, the first to call me to the post I now hold? Were you not the first to implore me to establish a permanent government that would encourage good and punish evil? Have you not solemnly sworn by your life, your property, and everything that is dear and sacred to you, to help me and support me? So will you be the first to leave the common cause? Can there be any kind of power without taxes, without cordial union and mutual support of all subjects?

Don't you think that at least a penny of the taxes that I demand will be used for my needs or for the needs of my family? You all know very well that what my ancestral property gives me is enough. I demand only that the law of the Prophet imposes on you, as Muslims, a direct obligation and that in my hands - I swear this - will serve the triumph of faith!

Abd al-Qadir's eloquence had an effect on the Beni-Amer sheikhs: they were long-time allies of the Emir's native tribe of Hashim and, most importantly, were interested in maintaining a strong central government, because they lived near the cities captured by the French, and the constant danger of a resumption of the war prompted them to seek salvation in alliance with neighboring tribes.

It was worse with the tribes that inhabited the remote areas of Algeria. Only a close, visible threat of foreign invasion could force them to act under the banner of the emir. If they did not feel such a threat, then all the fiery calls to their sacred duty of the faithful left them indifferent. The clan spirit, expressed in the tribal asabiya, was stronger than the consciousness of the common goals of the struggle in defense of the faith. The commonality of these goals only then became an effective force when it was superimposed on purely worldly, material interests, that is, when foreigners directly encroached on the life and property of one or another tribe.

The mountain tribes of the Kabils maintained their independence with particular stubbornness. Abd al-Qadir sent ambassadors to them more than once with a proposal to join his struggle against the colonialists, promised all kinds of help, sent gifts to their leaders - amins. Everything was in vain. Then he himself went to the mountains and, at a meeting of the amines, delivered an incendiary speech about the "holy war."

“Know that if I had not resisted the ambitious intentions of the French and had not proved to them in practice their impotence in the fight against me, enemies would have flooded your country long ago, like the waves of a furious sea, and subjected it to such disasters that were hitherto unknown. to you. They left their homeland with the sole purpose of enslaving our common homeland and turning us into slaves. I am the thorns with which the Almighty covers their path, and with your help I will throw them into the sea. Thank the Prophet that I am an enemy to your enemies, wake up and believe that my only desire is to establish peace and prosperity in the country of the faithful. For this purpose, I demand from you humility, assistance with the sword and property to the common cause, as the Lord of the world bequeathed to every faithful Muslim.

The speech of Abd-al-Qadir was received with approval: wherever he appeared, he was met by enthusiastic crowds of Kabyles; festivities were held in his honor; he was given expensive gifts. But to all the calls of the emir to submit to his authority, the kabils answered the same thing: "We obey only our amins." Amins, confident in the impregnability of their mountain villages, preferred to remain independent. Only a few outlying tribes, for whom the threat of a French attack had already become tangible, agreed to recognize the power of the emir.

Under peaceful conditions, no other means than military force could overcome the separatist aspirations of the tribes. Abd-al-Qadir understood this; and when appeals and exhortations did not work, without delay and very cruelly punished apostates from the "holy war". He could not do this to the Kabiles because it was beyond the capabilities of his army, and because they never agreed with him on an alliance, and therefore did not betray him. In all other cases, Abd-al-Qadir was quick to deal with apostates from his cause.

More often than others, the Makhzen tribes broke away from the emir and betrayed him. These tribes, covering about a tenth of the rural population of the country, even in the era preceding the Turkish rule in Algeria, occupied a privileged position. They performed military and police service for local dynasties and collected taxes from other tribes, in contrast to them called raya. The Makhzen were a feudal caste of warriors and robbers. The only peaceful occupation that they considered worthy of themselves was the breeding of camels. They looked upon the Raya tribes with contempt. The very proposal to unite with the Raya in a union was perceived by them as an insult.

All the conquerors invariably preserved the old order of tax collection and took the Makhzen tribes into their service. This was the case in the era of Janissary domination. So soon after coming to Algeria, the French colonialists began to do it. Already in 1833, General Demichel agreed with the sheikhs of the Dwair and Zmala tribes who lived near Oran that the French would take over their protection from the troops of Abd al-Qadir in exchange for the services that these tribes related to the Makhzen performed in the past for the Janissary authorities. But Abd-al-Qadir did not allow the implementation of this agreement. He came with his army to the tribes and, under the threat of weapons, forced them to move to Tlemcen, where they were under the supervision of his people.

The leaders of the mahzen hated the emir because he did not make any difference between them and the sheikhs of other tribes who had previously been under their subordination. The leader of the Banu Angad tribe, Mustafa ben Ismail, said: "Those who served me yesterday now occupy an equal position with me or even a higher position." This leader not only refused to recognize the authority of Abd-al-Qadir, but also used every opportunity to harm him. Mustafa ben Ismail resettled back the Dwair and Zmala tribes, and in the summer of 1834 attacked the Beni-Amer tribe loyal to the emir. Abd-al-Qadir, with a small ion detachment, rushed to the aid of his allies, sending ahead of himself feasible and ordering Mustafa to stop the robbery. The sheikh refused to obey the order. Then Abd-al-Kadir, despite the numerical superiority of the enemy, entered into battle with him. But the forces were too unequal. Almost all the emir's soldiers were killed, and he himself barely had time to ride on a wounded horse to Mascara.

The defeat of Abd-al-Qadir inspired his opponents. He was opposed by Sidi al-Arabi, the sheikh of the Flitts, a large Makhzen tribe. He was joined by other leaders who wanted to use the opportunity to settle accounts with the emir.

Difficult days have come for Abd-ayy-Qadir. First in one, then in another region of Algeria, the feudal lords raised against him the tribes subject to them. For days the emir did not get off his horse, moving with his detachments from one end of the country to the other, in order to keep it in his power by force.

The most dangerous opponent for him at that time was Sidi al-Arabi, who convened a large tribal militia in the Shelnfa valley.

Abd al-Qadir hastily gathered a 15,000-strong detachment and attacked the rebellious sheikh with him. The army of Sidi al-Arabi was defeated, and its leader was taken prisoner. Immediately after this, Abd al-Qadir moved on the tribal army of Mustafa bin Ismail. The battle took place on July 13, 1834. It lasted almost all day with varying degrees of success. By evening, the exhausted opponents dispersed. Abd al-Qadir began to prepare for a new battle. But Mustafa chose to recognize the power of the emir and made peace with him.

In early 1835, the mahzen feudal nobility formed a new conspiracy against Abd al-Qadir. The conspiracy was led by the sons of Sidi al-Arabi, who had died shortly before in the Mascara prison. They were supported by the marabout Hajj al-Derkawi, the head of the religious brotherhood of Derkawiyya, which united many Bedouin tribes.

And this time Abd-al-Kadir defeated the feudal lords. But immediately after this, the Makhzen tribes dealt him a new blow in the back. In June 1835, the sheikhs of the Dwair and Zmala tribes concluded an agreement with General Trezel, according to which they recognized themselves as French subjects, pledged to put their soldiers at his disposal and supply food and fodder to the heavenly garrison. For this, Trezel promised them to pay two francs a day and protect them from attacks by the emir's troops.

Abd al-Qadir sends a letter to the general, protesting against the violation of the terms of the treaty, which provided for the extradition of prisoners and deserters. Trezel replies that tribes that want to submit to French rule cannot be considered deserters, and therefore there is no violation of the treaty here.

Abd al-Qadir cannot possibly agree with this, because all the Makhzen tribes are ready to follow the example of the Dwair and Zmal. In a new letter, he continues to insist that General Trezel hand over the traitors to him.

“Dwair and Zmala,” writes the emir, “are my subjects, and according to our law, I am free to do with them as I please. If you deprive them of your patronage and, as before, do not prevent them from obeying me, then peace will be preserved. If, on the contrary, you persist in violating your obligations, then immediately recall your consul from Mascara ... "

General Trezel recalled his consul and began hostilities. In June 1835, a French detachment attacked the Hashim Garaba tribe and robbed them of their entire grain crop. Abd al-Qadir set out with an army from Mascara, deciding in revenge to punish the Dwair and Zmala tribes that had betrayed him. Trezel sent an infantry column of five thousand soldiers and a large detachment of cavalry to their defense.

The emir set up an ambush on the path of the French troops in the Moulay-Ismail forest. As soon as the French went deep into the forest, a hail of bullets rained down on them from all sides. Having lost several dozen soldiers killed and abandoned part of the convoy, the French, fighting off the attacks of the Arab cavalry on the move, got out of the forest and camped on the banks of the Sig River. Trezel decided to retreat, but the emir cut the road to Oran, and the French were forced to head for Arzev.

Abd-al-Qadir, who knew the area perfectly, set up a new ambush. He selected a thousand of his best cavalrymen and ordered each of them to take an infantryman on his horse. This detachment, having overtaken the side of the French column, took refuge on the densely forested slopes of the gorge formed by the Makta River. It was here that the French army went. There was no other way to Arzev.

Entering the gorge, the French found themselves in a mousetrap. Dozens of French soldiers were killed by the first volleys from the hillsides; At the same time, the cavalry of Abd al-Qadir rushed at the French from the front and from the rear. There was a general panic. Many soldiers who tried to flee drowned in the river. The destruction was complete. The remnants of the French army, having lost almost the entire convoy, with great difficulty broke through to Arzev.

The metropolis was shocked by the defeat of the French troops on Makt. But as the French historian of the official direction M. Val wrote, "this defeat at least caused an explosion of patriotism in France." Trezel was removed from his post at Oran and replaced by General d'Arlange. Marshal Clausel was appointed to replace the governor of Algiers d'Erlon. The new governor, having arrived in Algiers in August 1835, issued a proclamation about the imminent conquest of the country.

Abd al-Qadir responds by intensifying and multiplying attacks on French troops and colonist settlements. He clears the Mitidzhu plain of invaders and tightly blocks all port cities, including Algeria, so that, in his words, "even a bird could not fly through the city walls."

The situation of the French garrisons becomes desperate. Marshal Clausel is demanding more reinforcements be sent. The government goes to meet him. Having strengthened the occupying army, Clausel leads it from the city of Algiers to Orania, deciding to capture the capital of Abd al-Qadir Maskara.

The emir, avoiding a direct confrontation, pursued the French army, disturbing him with sudden attacks by small cavalry detachments. He was waiting for the right moment for a major battle. This moment came when the French reached the Sig river valley. Here, the emir's main forces were already waiting for them, located by him in convenient positions, the choice of which, according to the English Colonel Churchill, "would have done honor to any European general."

But, despite the commander's talent of the emir and the courage of his warriors, the Arab army was utterly defeated. The fire of the French field artillery overturned the attack of the Arab cavalry and dispersed the Emir's infantry. Abd al-Qadir could answer him with only a few shots from the four old cannons that made up all his artillery. In addition, he was again betrayed by the sheikhs of the Makhzen tribes, who fled with their troops even before the start of the battle. The defeated army of the emir scattered over Orania.

Abd al-Qadir, with a handful of his closest associates, takes refuge in his family estate. He does not give in to despair and does not reproach anyone. Emir remains confident in himself and in the final triumph of his cause. To his mother, who tries to console him, the emir gently replies: "Women need pity, but not men."

Clausel, meanwhile, enters Mascara, but does not find there almost none of the inhabitants who left the city at the first news of the approach of the French army. Having blown up the city fortress and destroyed the arsenal and food stores prepared by the emir, the French leave Mascara.

The next morning, a lone rider appeared in front of the open gates of the empty city. It was Abd al-Qadir.

Soon his retinue arrived. For the emir, they pitched a tent at the gates of Mascara. By evening, the inhabitants of the city returned to their homes. Thousands of soldiers of his defeated army gradually gathered around the emir's tent. Abd al-Qadir went out to the sheikhs. The emir reprimanded them in an angry speech for cowardice and swore not to enter Mascara until he had avenged the defeat of the enemy. Lot, looking closely at the sheikhs, he said, pointing to one of them: “I see traitors among you. Here's one of them, hang it up."

The order was immediately carried out.

Having frightened the traitors with this execution and instilled confidence in his comrades-in-arms with his firmness, Abd-al-Kadir immediately sets about restoring military order. He divides the crowd of soldiers into detachments, appoints commanders for them, and orders them to be delivered from secret warehouses.

On the same night, messengers rushed from Mascara to all parts of the country, with the emir's orders to his governors and sheikhs about the further conduct of the war ...

A few days later, the cavalry, led by Abd al-Qadir, defeated one of Clausel's marching columns heading for Mostaganem. By early 1836, the emir had regained his control over the countryside. The French were again forced to hide behind the city walls. The expedition of Marshal Clausel to Mascara did not significantly change the situation in the country. According to the historian M. Val, "the fruits of this expedition, nicknamed the" masquerade ", were insignificant."

But Clausel achieved one important result: having received news of the defeat of Abd al-Qadir in the battle of Mascara, the sheikhs of the Makhzen tribes began to go over to the side of the French. The first to do this was the old opponent of the Emir, Mustafa ben Ismail, who offered Clausel help in the campaign against Tlemcen. But when the French occupied this city, they demanded 150 thousand francs from the sheikh as proof of his loyalty. In vain Mustafa begged the marshal to believe in his devotion. Under the threat of execution of the hostages taken by the French, he had to give up all his gold and jewelry.

Abd-al-Qadir sent out a proclamation written on this occasion to the tribes. In it, he asked the sheikhs: “If the French behave in this way with their allies, then what can be expected from them at their gates?” The treachery of Marshal Clausel forced some of the sheikhs, who were inclined towards an alliance with the colonialists, to change their minds and join the emir.

The rest of Abd-al-Kadir mercilessly punishes. He invades with his army the valley of the Shelifa River, where the tribes, led by the sons of Sidi al-Arabi, surrendered to the protection of the French. As punishment for his betrayal, the emir takes the livestock from 18 tribes and executes several of their leaders. He dealt particularly severely with the Borgia tribe, which more than once attacked his small detachments and intercepted his messengers, then handing them over to the French. The emir orders every tenth man in the tribe to be beheaded, and the tribe itself is resettled in a remote region of the country.

During this period, the personality of Abd al-Qadir manifests itself in relations with the outside world by one, and only one, of its side - the one that expresses his mission as a knight of Islam. Everything worldly is pushed aside by the religious idea that burns it. Everything human is hidden behind the hypostasis of the called of God. He is only an instrument of the Almighty. He is the personification of the punishing sword of Allah.