ISIS and The R Word

For many Muslims, the sudden rise of ISIS has posed a dilemma and triggered a need for introspection. On an official level, condemnations have flowed، effortless and abundant: Egypt’s Mofti, Dr. Shawky Allam, called upon western media to refrain from using the self-declared “Islamic State”’s chosen title, because “it is misleading… Islam has nothing to do with such atrocities”. His Saudi counterpart, Sheikh Abdel Aziz Aal Al Sheikh, described ISIS as “Islam’s number one enemy”. 

Denouncing ISIS has been easy enough for the establishment. All scholars have to do is stick to indisputable generalities: terrorising the innocent is an unspeakable crime, human life is sacred, etc. But it is away from the safety of generalisation that scholars do not come across too confident. Should an average, non-scholarly muslim pose an essential question like: “how did we wake up to ISIS then?” or, “what do they base their rhetoric upon?” the establishment would find itself obliged to answer: the texts ISIS claim to be there are all, indeed, there. What’s more, they are sound, and binding.

The very motto of ISIS, “Here for the slaughter”, is based upon a saying attributed to Prophet Mohammed in several major books of Hadeeth. Scholars who wish to distance mainstream islam from ISIS argue that the saying was addressed to a very specific group of men, leaders of Quraysh. It was never even acted upon - when victory finally came to Mohammed they were all spared death.

This, then, is what the main argument seems to be: the text is credible enough. But consider the context, the interpretation. 

It is not an argument that seems to be putting many muslims’ minds at rest, though.

Ill At Ease

Here is how one Kuwaiti writer, Saeed Bin Taflah Al Ajmy, expresses his unease : “The members of ISIS went to our schools, prayed in our mosques, watched our media, read our books, followed our fatwas. This is the undeniable truth. ISIS did not land on us from another planet”.

Another writer, Hani Naqshabandi, draws disturbing analogies between horrific ISIS rulings and ‘the norm” in some Islamic countries today: “In Saudi Arabia there are clerics who maintain that laughter kills the heart, that wearing long clothing is a sin, that whoever shaves off his beard is an infidel. ISIS in disguise? And in Egypt, there are sheikhs who readily legalise murdering or imprisoning anyone who dares provide an alternative interpretation to religious script. ISIS much?”

During Mohammed Morsi’s one-year rule, it was commonplace for his - Islamic - supporters to demand the killing of protesters; they are, after all, blocking the roads and wreaking havoc if nothing else - a good enough reason to exterminate them. 

You’d think that all this is over and done with the fall of political Islam in Egypt, right? Wrong. 

Every so often, similar stories still make the headlines. Regular, non-politicised, hardly “islamic” villagers caught attempting to apply “Had Al Haraba” on petty criminals, robbers and the like. This is the Arabic term for that particular punishment. It consists of one of four options: execution, crucifixion, cutting off one arm and leg from opposite sides, or exile. 

The majority of Egyptians are fully aware of “Had Al Haraba”, thank you very much, but would have thought that in a modern sovereign state the constitution and the law would be the only framework for penalising criminals.

Supporting you - virtually. For now. 

As with lots of other matters, the internet is a good place to gauge the popularity of ISIS. Whereas most muslims on social media denounce ISIS and even mock it, it has its loyal fans: a Facebook group called ‘Caliphate is Salvation” boasts more than 35K members. Its posts mainly celebrate ISIS’s ‘victories’ (such as beheadings of non-Sunnis), and call upon muslims to help establish the caliphate - not through elections but in the same way that the prophet built his rule: by the sword. An AK47 would be fine too.  

On twitter, @addula1982 says “No dogs will enter Syria after ISIS arrives. We will all be ISIS. We are all suicide bombers. Just try us.” 

@ju7aa from Saudi Arabia writes “we are all would-be-jihadists. Nothing holds us back but cowardice and worldliness. Therefore, if you can’t join ISIS, at least don’t criticise them.”

@nono5522 commends an attack on tourists in Saudi Arabia by the religious police : “We are all ISIS. Who wants lewd tourists in our land?” 

The R Word

If there is a need for an internal debate among Muslims it has yet to be met. What we are currently witnessing seems to be predominantly split two ways: On the one hand you have the islamists  arguing that ISIS is a post-Arab spring phenomenon: the injustices that lead to revolutions in Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries are still very much in place - a typical case of Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. 

That party warns that the Arab world has never been more conditioned to embrace extremism, hence the emergence of ISIS. 

On the other hand you have everybody else. Leftists, secularists, and your average man-of-the-street all seem to harbour a not-so-far-fetched feeling that ISIS is actually a post-Qaeda episode in Arab history; a lamentable, terrifying, albeit natural progression.

And everyone is avoiding that all important self scrutiny, the inescapable soul-searching for answers to some tough questions. What is the definition of terrorism? Are there really ever circumstances that justify it? Where does Jihad end and terrorism begin?

How about those texts, do any of them need re-interpretation?

Is reform now in order?

Note: All hyperlinks lead to Arabic websites.

Nouran Sallam