On March 19, 2020, the ‘Islamic State’ (IS) had a lot to say in the opening editorial of its newsletter, El Naba’, on what it makes of the coronavirus. In a nutshell, IS made it very clear that the highest form of godly protection that the believers can acquire against the coronavirus is to fight the crusaders and unbelievers. IS pressed its followers that in striking during this season of a pandemic outbreak they must “have no pity for the disbelievers and the apostates even as they are at the height of their tribulation, and they must intensify the pressure on them so they become more reassured and incapable of harming the Muslims by the permission of God the Lord of the Worlds.”
In another editorial, IS dictates that all measures be taken to protect against infestation but yet it also claims that the ultimate immunity against the disease is achieved through a jihadist struggle against the disbelievers. Herein lies the paradox, for if its adherents die of coronavirus, they won’t be able to claim martyrdom for God because they were supposed to have been protected against the disease which according to IS is largely inflicted by God on the disbelievers.
The fact of the matter is that the contingencies of the coronavirus may dictate what happens to IS more than its leaders and followers can envisage or imagine. This is not a negation of IS’ intent on killing. On the 25 March, IS claimed responsibility for the bomb that killed at least 25 members of the Sikh-Hindu community in Kabul, Afghanistan. However, IS may be at the mercy of the coronavirus in unexpected ways: pandemics have a logic of their own.
