There’s No Such Thing as ‘Radical Islam.’ There Are Only Terrorists Who use name of Islam

How many Muslims does ISIS have to slaughter before people will stop calling the group “Islamic” anything? Seriously, can someone please tell me the number of innocent Muslim men, women, and children who have to die at the hands of ISIS before people will realize that ISIS is truly unIslamic and arguably anti-Islamic?

On Tuesday, we saw more of ISIS’s barbaric brutality on display with the release of the video depicting its killing of Jordanian Muslim fighter pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh. He was flying sorties as part of the U.S.-organized coalition to destroy ISIS.

The way he was killed sets a new low in depravity. ISIS militants first chained Kasasbeh in a cage and then poured flammable fluids into his cell. With Kasasbeh watching, an ISIS militant lit the fluid on fire. Then while Kasasbeh was burning to death, they dropped debris on him, like brick masonry. Finally they drove a bulldozer over him several times.

What makes the killing of this man so noteworthy is not just the viciousness of his execution, but that it actually received national U.S. media coverage. We rarely see our media cover the Muslims killed by ISIS or al Qaeda. I often wonder, is it because some in the media feel that Muslims lives don’t matter? Or is it because they sense that collectively, most (though not all) Americans could care less about it when non-Americans are killed, so that translates into low ratings for these types of stories?

To be honest, how many have heard about the details of ISIS slaughtering of Muslims? In 2014 in Iraq alone, can you guess how many Muslims civilians—not fighters, civilians—ISIS killed? At least 4,325. ISIS is murdering an average 12 Muslim civilian men, women, and children every single day.

And these killings are not “collateral damage” deaths. Per a United Nations report released last September, ISIS targeted Muslims, both Sunnis and Shias, who refused to submit to it. We are talking a Sunni leader from the Salah ad Din province of Iraq beheaded (PDF) in August for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS. Do you recall U.S. media wall-to-wall coverage of that beheading, like when Westerners were beheaded?

Three Sunni nurses were executed in Mosul for refusing to treat ISIS fighters. A Sunni imam in eastern Baquba was killed for simply denouncing ISIS.

And in neighboring Syria, per the London-based Syrian Human Rights Committee, in December 2014 alone, ISIS killed at least 49 civilians, executing almost all in front of their families.

Look, there’s no such thing as “radical Islam.” There is only one Islam. But there are radical Muslims. And there are Muslims who engage in terrorist acts. They are called terrorists.
Why do these facts matter? Because I think it makes it clear to any reasonable person that ISIS is not about the tenets of Islam. Their religion is power.

Those aren’t just my words. In September, more than 120 Islamic scholars and clerics wrote a letter to ISIS in both English and Arabic denouncing ISIS and its invoking of Islam to justify its horrific actions. They even explained in great detail how ISIS is violating the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, concluding that ISIS is truly unIslamic.

Yet these words don’t move many on the right in America, who continue to argue in essence: If a Muslim yells “Allahu Akbar” after committing any action, that absolutely means that their conduct is based on the faith. That is beyond simplistic—it’s idiotic.

And nearly as ludicrous is the claim by people like Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who stated on Fox News on Sunday that we need to call it “radical Islam” because we “have to define our enemy.”

Look, there’s no such thing as “radical Islam.” There is only one Islam. But there are radical Muslims. And there are Muslims who engage in terrorist acts. They are called terrorists. That is the proper way to describe them.

That is exactly what White House Press secretary Josh Earnest stated a few weeks ago when refusing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe al Qaeda or ISIS. As Earnest noted, it’s about “accuracy,” noting correctly that “these terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion.”

Just read the ISIS magazine and you will see how they desperately seek to frame its battle with the United States as an “American crusade against Islam.” (PDF) That is why when Sen. Lindsey Graham recently called the fight with al Qaeda a “religious war,” I can only imagine these terrorists were high-fiving each other because he was parroting their words.

Using the word Islam in any way to describe ISIS or al Qaeda, or framing our fight as a religious war, is exactly what they want. It helps them recruit and raise funds. Let’s call ISIS—as well as al Qaeda—what they are. They are terrorists with a political agenda who are using the Islamic faith, not acting in accordance with it. That is our enemy. Now let’s defeat them.
There’s No Such Thing as ‘Radical Islam.’ There Are Only Terrorists Who Are Muslim
by Dean Obeidallah, thedailybeast.com

A battle for the soul of Islam

Grand mufti: Jordanian pilot's murder not part of Islam.
The actions of the Islamic State are anything but Islamic, and Muslims must battle extremism to maintain the religion's message of mercy, the grand mufti of Egypt.

Sheikh Shawki Ibrahim Abdel-Karim Allam spoke about the recent execution of a Jordanian pilot at the hands of ISIS. Lt. Moath al-Kasasbeh, 27, was burned alive while confined in a cage.

"What happened to the Jordanian pilot is by all means a crime. This barbaric action is far away from humanity, much less religions. Islam is innocent of this act," the grand mufti said on Thursday.

Allam leads Dar El-Ifta, or the House of Fatwas, the premier authority in Islamic legal interpretations. The institution was founded in 1895, although the grand muftis of Egypt have been interpreting Islam for 800 years. It releases more than 500,000 edicts a year.

The battle is ideological, Allam said, and the fight is not confined to Egypt or the Middle East.

"Violence and radicalization have become an international phenomenon that has no home or belief. But it runs through the entire world," he said.

Can beheadings ever be justified?
The pilot's death was captured in a horrific video that was posted online this week.

ISIS has distributed footage of its executions before, but previous videos showed beheadings.

The grand mufti weighed whether beheadings could ever be justified by Islam.

He considered the example of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the region. There, defendants may be sentenced to death and beheaded.

"What happens in Saudi Arabia is based on judicial investigations and implementing the predominant law. If it is the case, then we respect the rule of law in this state," Allam said.

By contrast, he argued, ISIS does not follow any system of investigation.

"Everything ISIS does is far away from Islam. What it is doing is a crime by all means," the grand mufti said.

Tradition versus reform
Earlier this year, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for a "religious revolution."

Allam believes in the need for reform, but he also believes the foundation of Islam must remain untouched.

What does this mean?

It means "renewing the methods, renewing the tools, and renewing the way Islam's teachings are presented, " Allam said. "At the same time, we preserve and uphold the stable pillars of religion. Rattling the pillars leads to destabilizing communities."

In an effort to reclaim the voice of Islam from radical groups, Dar Al-Ifta issues publications in 10 languages, engages in awareness campaigns and joins regional and international efforts to battle extremist ideas and to present a better image of Islam.

The grand mufti's advice to young Muslims is to seek specialized scholars to understand the true meaning of Islam.

"We tell youth, Islam didn't carry a message of sabotage and destruction. It only came to serve humanity, to achieve world peace and bring mercy to the world," he said.
A battle for the soul of Islam
by Ian Lee and Sarah El Sirgany, edition.cnn.com
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/05/world/egypt-grand-mufti-interview/

DAESH, ISIS, داعش Not Islamic

ایک سوال جو آج کل پاکستان میں بہت زیادہ پوچھا جا رہا ہے، وہ شدت پسند مسلح تنظیم داعش کے بارے میں ہے۔ عسکریت پسندی میں دلچسپی رکھنے والوں کے لئے یہ موضوع بڑی اہمیت کا حامل ہے۔ عالمی میڈیا میں بھی اس حوالے سے رپورٹس شائع ہوتی رہتی ہیں۔ رہی سہی کسر کراچی، پشاور اور پنجاب کے بعض شہروں میں داعش کی جانب سے وال چاکنگ نے پوری کر دی۔ اس سوال کا جواب کھوجنے سے پہلے ضروری ہے کہ ہم داعش کے پس منظر کا جائزہ لے لیں کہ یہ نئی تنظیم آخر کہاں سے وارد ہوئی؟
داعش یعنی د ا ع ش دراصل چار عربی الفاظ دولت اسلامیہ عراق شام (الدولت الاسلامیہ فی العراق والشام)کا مخفف ہے۔ اس کا یہ نام تو سال ڈیڑھ سال پرانا ہے، مگر کوئی دس گیارہ سال پہلے اس کی بنیاد عراق کی سنی تکون (تکرت، فلوجہ، سماویہ وغیرہ) کے شدت پسند سنی مسلم جنگجوئوںنے رکھی۔ ابومصعب الزرقاوی عراق میں القاعدہ کے مشہور کمانڈر تھے۔ اردنی نژاد الزرقاوی ایک گروپ جماعتہ التوحید و الجہاد کے قائد تھے۔ جب امریکہ نے عراق پر 2003ء میں حملہ کیا اور اس کے ردعمل میں مسلح جدوجہد شروع ہوئی‘ تو صدام حسین کی بعث پارٹی اور القاعدہ کے جنگجوئوں نے آپس میں ہاتھ ملا لئے اور مشترکہ جدوجہد شروع کی۔ ابو مصعب الزرقاوی نے اپنے سخت گیر سلفی گروپ کا نام بدل کر تنظیم قاعدہ الجہاد فی بلادالرافدین رکھ دیا۔ یہ القاعدہ کا عراق چیپٹر تھا۔ الزرقاوی بڑے مستعد اور متحرک کمانڈر تھے۔ امریکی فوج کو انہوں نے خاصا ٹف ٹائم دیا؛ تاہم ان کے شدت پسندانہ اور تکفیری مسلکی نظریات کی بنا پر خاصے مسائل بھی پیدا ہوئے۔ عراق میں بعض ایسی کارروائیاں ہوئیں، جن کے بارے میں القاعدہ کی اعلیٰ قیادت کو تحفظات پیدا ہوئے۔ کہا جاتا ہے کہ شیخ اسامہ بن لادن بھی الزرقاوی کی شدت پسندی سے نالاں تھے۔ بعض حلقے تو یہ دعویٰ بھی کرتے ہیں کہ انہوں نے عراق میں مسلکی بنیادوں پر شدت پسندانہ حملے روکنے کی بھی کوشش کی۔
ابو مصعب الزرقاوی کا نام 2004 ء میں عالمی میڈیا میں آیا، جب ایک آپریشن کے دوران الزرقاوی کا ایک ریکارڈ شدہ پیغام پکڑا گیا، جس میں القاعدہ عراقی کی حکمت عملی اور ان کی تکفیری فکر کی جھلک ملتی تھی۔ انہی دنوں عسکریت پسندی پر لکھتے ہوئے الزرقاوی کا نام میری نظر سے گزرا، کچھ تحقیق کی تو دلچسپ معلومات ملیں۔ اس پر 2004ء کے وسط میں ایک کالم اسی حوالے سے لکھا۔ مجھے یاد ہے کہ ایک ساتھی نے کالم پڑھ کر تبصرہ کیا کہ آپ نے عراقی عسکریت پسندی کے ایک اہم کردار کو اردو اخبارات میں متعارف کرایا ہے، لگتا ہے کہ یہ مشہور ہو گا۔ الزرقاوی بطور کمانڈر بہت مشہور ہوئے، حتیٰ کہ دو برس بعد وہ ایک امریکی حملے میں ہلاک ہوئے۔ ان دنوں اطلاعات ملیں کہ ان کے بارے میں اطلاع اردنی انٹیلی جنس ذرائع نے فراہم کی تھیں۔ الزرقاوی کی فکر سے ہمدردی رکھنے والے بعض حلقوں نے ایک دو شدت پسندانہ ویب سائٹس پر یہ الزام بھی لگایا کہ زرقاوی کی اپنی تنظیم کے اندر سے مخبری ہوئی اور ان کی سرکشی سے نالاں لوگ انہیں سائیڈ میں کرنا چاہتے تھے۔ واللہ اعلم بالصواب۔
الزرقاوی کے بعد ان کے ساتھیوں نے (2006ء میں) دوسرے عراقی سنی گروپوں کے ساتھ مل کر مجاہدین شوریٰ کونسل کی بنیاد رکھی۔ عراق کے مشہور سُنی صوبے الانبار اور بعض دوسرے علاقوں میں اس پلیٹ فارم سے امریکی فوج کے خلاف بڑی سخت اور شدید مزاحمت کی گئی۔ اگلے چھ سات برسوں تک یہ اپنے ایک خاص دائرہ اختیار میں نبرد آزما رہے۔ یہ گروپس خود کو آئی ایس آئی ایس (اسلامک سٹیٹ آف عراق یا دولت العراق الاسلامیہ) قرار دیتے تھے۔ ابو عبداللہ رشید البغدادی اور ان کے بعد ابو ایوب المصری اس کے سربراہ تھے۔ جب امریکی حملوں میں یہ مارے گئے تو پھر ابوبکرالبغدادی نئے امیر بنے۔ ادھر جب عرب سپرنگ کے دوران شام میں بشارالاسد حکومت کے خلاف عوامی بغاوت شروع ہوئی، جس نے بتدریج مسلح مزاحمت کی شکل اختیار کر لی تو بعض ہمسایہ ممالک نے شامی حکومت کی حمایت کی اور کچھ نے شامی باغیوں یا شامی اپوزیشن کا ساتھ دیا۔ شورش بڑھتی گئی، شامی حکومت کے ہاتھ سے بعض علاقے نکل گئے، بعض دور افتادہ علاقوں پر حکومتی کنٹرول قائم رکھنا ممکن بھی نہ رہ سکا۔ یہ صورت حال شدت پسند گروپوں کے لئے نہایت سازگار تھی۔ القاعدہ نے اس سے بھرپور فائدہ اٹھایا اور شدت پسند سلفی سوچ رکھنے والے زرقاوی کے ہم خیال گروپ بھی مضبوط ہوئے۔ دولت العراق الاسلامیہ نے بھی اپنے ہاتھ پیر پھیلائے اور اسے دولت العراق الاسلامیہ والشام یعنی داعش یا آئی ایس آئی ایس کا نام دے دیا۔ شام کے کچھ علاقوں پر ان کا کنٹرول قائم ہوا اور پھر جنوبی عراق کے بعض علاقوں میں بھی انہوں نے تیزی سے اپنا کنٹرول مضبوط کیا۔ اس دوران حکمت عملی کے فرق یا پھر شدت پسند تکفیری خیالات کی بنا پر داعش کے لوگوں اور القاعدہ کے مابین شدید اختلافات پیدا ہو گئے۔ چند ماہ تک یہ صورتحال چلتی رہی۔ رواں سال کے اوائل میں القاعدہ نے باضابطہ طور پر داعش کے ساتھ اپنا تعلق ختم کرتے ہوئے‘ اسے ڈس اون کر دیا، مگر اس سے داعش پر کوئی خاص فرق نہ پڑا۔ داعش کے جنگجوئوں نے اچانک ہی ایک نئے جذبے اور ولولے کے ساتھ موصل اور بعض دوسرے عراقی شہروں پر حملہ کیا اور انہیں غیرمعمولی کامیابی حاصل ہوئی۔ جنوبی عراقی شہر، شام کے ساتھ سرحدی قصبے اور عراقی سرحد کے دوسری طرف کچھ شامی علاقہ داعش کے کنٹرول میں آ گیا۔ داعش نے اس صورتحال سے نفسیاتی فائدہ اٹھایا اور دولتہ الاسلامیہ فی العراق و الشام سے اگلا قدم اٹھاتے ہوئے خلافت قائم کرنے کا اعلان کر دیا۔ داعش کے امیر ابوبکر البغدادی کو خلیفہ کا درجہ دے دیا گیا۔ یہ معلوم نہیں کہ خلیفہ کا انتخاب کیسے کیا گیا، مگر داعش کے جنگجوئوں نے ان کی بیعت کر لی اور نئے ''خلیفہ‘‘ کا ایک ویڈیو پیغام بھی جاری کر دیا گیا، جس میں انہوں نے دنیا بھر کے جنگجوئوں سے خلافت کو تسلیم کرنے اور اس کی حمایت کرنے کی اپیل کی۔ البغدادی کی اس اپیل کا مغربی دنیا کے شدت پسند عناصر نے جواب دیا۔ عالمی میڈیا کی اپنی اطلاعات کے مطابق امریکہ اور یورپ سے سینکڑوں لوگ لڑائی لڑنے عراق اور شام پہنچے ہیں، جن میں بعض خواتین بھی شامل ہیں۔
داعش کے جنگجوئوں نے شروع شروع میں اپنی ہیبت بٹھانے کے لئے مخالفین کے قتل و غارت کی ویڈیوز سوشل میڈیا پر بڑے جوش و خروش سے جاری کیں۔ ان ویڈیوز میں داعش کے لڑاکے اپنے مخالفوں کو بے دریغ گولیوں کا نشانہ بنا اور ذبح کر رہے ہیں۔ دو امریکی مغویوں کو بھی اسی انداز میں قتل کیا گیا۔ داعش کے امیج کو اس سفاکی اور بربریت سے شدید دھچکا پہنچا۔ بعد میں انہوں نے حکمت عملی قدرے بدلی اور سوشل میڈیا پر بچوں کے ساتھ کھیلتے، ان میں مٹھائیاں بانٹتے، سکولوں میں تعلیم دیتے، فٹ بال کھیلتے تصاویر اور ویڈیوز بھی جاری کی جاتی رہیں، مگر داعش کا جو ایک خاص قسم کا خونی اور انتہائی سخت گیر امیج بن چکا تھا، اس میں کوئی خاص تبدیلی نہیں آئی۔ داعش کے سپانسرز کے بارے میں مختلف تھیوریز موجود ہیں، کچھ سازشی مفروضے بھی گردش کر رہے ہیں۔ بعض لوگ امریکہ کو داعش کا پہلا سپانسر قرار دیتے ہیں، کچھ بعض عرب ممالک پر الزام لگاتے ہیں۔ عملی صورتحال البتہ یہ ہے کہ داعش سے اس وقت ہر کوئی کسی نہ کسی حد تک خوفزدہ ہے۔ امریکیوں کو خطرہ ہے کہ یہ تنظیم کہیں مشرق وسطیٰ میں ان کے روڈ میپ کو نقصان نہ پہنچا دے۔ داعش کس حد تک اپنا وجود برقرار رکھ پائے گی، عراق اور شام میں جو علاقہ اس کے کنٹرول میں ہے، وہ کب تک رہ پاتا ہے... یہ سب ایسے سوالات ہیں، جن کے جواب کسی کے پاس نہیں۔ ہمارا سوال مگر یہ تھا کہ کیا داعش پاکستان میں آ چکی ہے یا اس کے آنے کا کس قدر خطرہ ہے؟۔ اس پر انشااللہ اگلی نشست میں بات ہو گی۔
Aamir Hashim Khakwani
Dunya.com.pk

ISIS claims about slavery in Islam debunked

Desperate plight of Yazidi woman sold into sex slavery by ISIS

► 3:04► 3:04

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../i-ve-raped-30-times-s-not-lun...

5 days ago

A young Yazidi woman forced into sex slavery by the Islamic State begged the West to bomb the brothel where ...

The Holy Qur’an does not even once use the words ‘Sab-i’ or ‘Riqq’ (Arabic for slavery). Instead, it uses derivatives of the word ‘asr’ which means taking someone captive. The Qur’an never says that the captives could be kept for ever as slaves (33:26, 76:8, 8:67, 8:70 and 2:85). In one of these verses, it offers solace to the captive by saying that God willing his condition will change for the better (8:70). In another verse, the Quran says that believers are those who though themselves hungry feed captives (76:8).

Various derivatives of the other word for slave (‘abd) have been used 275 times in the Qur’an but never in the context of ordering Muslims to enslave others. It is almost always used in the context of prayers or emphasizing that the faithfuls are slaves or servants of God.

It is correct that the Islamic Shariah (law) allows slavery but the only way someone may lose his/her natural freedom is if he is captured while physically and actually fighting in a battle against a Muslim army – in other words, he is a prisoner of war (PoW). There is no other way to deprive someone of his natural state of freedom. There is no instance where the Prophet (pbuh) or his immediate successors ever enslaved ordinary people who were not actually fighting a Muslim army. The Prophet used to give his armies clear instructions not to touch children, elderly men and women and people who are not involved in fighting.

While enslaving a person has been made extremely difficult in Islam, freeing a slave has been made extremely easy and is an act of piety. Once a non-Muslim combatant is taken captive, there are many ways in which he could secure his freedom. During the time of the Prophet (pbuh) one finds that such persons (always males) could be ransomed by their families or tribes or they themselves could secure their own freedom by teaching Muslims how to write or some other craft or by paying their masters an agreed amount of money. Islam has expressly forbidden taking free men as slaves.

While Islam makes it extremely difficult for someone to be enslaved, the door is wide open for faithfuls to free slaves. For example, a slave is to be freed as penance (kaffara) for some serious sins. Also, freeing slaves has been termed in Islam as one of the best deeds that please God.

We should keep in mind here that Islam allowed only a limited form of slavery to solve the issue of prisoners of wars. This took place during those pre-Medieval times when there was no international law and no UN or international treaties. In fact, even in those times, Islam followed reciprocity in such matters of international relations — i.e., if a non-Muslim nation followed a certain rule or norm in treatment of the residents of a Muslim country, its residents too were treated in the same way.

Today, in the presence of universally-accepted international laws and treaties, such laws will take precedence in international issues and in relations with foreign countries. And this is exactly what the 58 members-countries of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are doing today.

As such, ISIS by capturing ordinary residents of the territories it has overrun in Iraq and Syria is not only disobeying Islam, it is also violating the Islamic rule of reciprocity and respect of international laws. By flouting these clear norms, ISIS or any such group of thugs and self-proclaimed fighters will never be accepted in the comity of nations and will live their limited and short lives as pariahs and outcasts.

Zafarul-Islam Khan, senior Muslim scholar, who is an alumnus of Al-Azhar and Cairo universities and holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Manchester, said it is a lie to claim that Islam allows enslavement of ordinary men and women of conquered lands.
The Indian scholar, who is the head of the Delhi-based Institute of Islamic & Arab Studies and a core member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, said this lie has been concocted by ISIS propagandists whose knowledge of Islam is highly doubtful. Dr Khan is the current president of the Indian Muslims apex body, the All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/11152-indian-scholar-debunks-isis-claims-about-slavery-in-islam

Islamic Thought & Terrorism انتہا پسندی اور ہمارا رد ِ عمل

اسلام اور جہاد و قتال 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DTRse5xVJ

   

گرچہ ترکی کے صدر اردوان داعش کے خلاف کارروائی کے لیے امریکی کولیشن فورسز کا حصہ بننے کے لیے تیار نہیں، لیکن داعش کے جنگجو عراق اور شام کو تاراج کرتے ہوئے اب ترکی کی سرحد پر کھڑے ہیں۔ اس دوران امریکی میڈیا میں بھی ایک تنازع جنم لے رہا ہے۔ گزشتہ دنوں بل مہر(Bill Maher) کے ایک بہت زیادہ دیکھے جانے والے شو میں شرکا کے درمیان گرما بحث چھڑ گئی۔ کچھ کا کہنا تھا کہ داعش کے نظریات مکمل طور پر اسلامی تعلیمات کے مطابق ہیں جبکہ دوسروں نے اس کی سختی سے تردیدکرتے ہوئے کہا کہ اسلام کا ان قاتلوں اور لٹیروںسے کوئی تعلق نہیں۔ 

افسوس کہ جس دوران اسلامی دنیا کو شدید نظریاتی آزمائش کا سامنا ہے، مشرق ِو سطیٰ کے اسلامی حکمرانوںنے اس طرح چپ کی چادر تان لی جیسے ان کی ذرا سی لب کشائی سے داعش کے تیس ہزار سفاک جنگجو ان پر چڑھ دوڑیں گے۔وہ داعش کے ٹھکانوں پر بمباری کے لیے امریکی کولیشن فورسز کے ساتھ تعاون تو کررہے ہیں لیکن اُنہیں مسلمانوں کی نظریاتی رہنمائی کی توفیق نہیں ہو رہی۔ یہ کتنی بدقسمتی کی بات ہے کہ جب امت کو فکری رہنمائی کی ضرورت تھی تورہنمائی کے دعویدارغائب ہو گئے۔ یہ کتنی افسوس ناک صورت ِحال ہے کہ دہشت گردوں کے نظریات کو کھل کر غیر اسلامی قرار دینے والا بھی کوئی سامنے نہیں آرہا۔ 

امریکہ کے کچھ انتہا ئی سوچ رکھنے والے اسلام دشمن گروہ اس موقع سے فائدہ اٹھاتے ہوئے اسلام کو ہدفِ تنقید بنا رہے ہیں۔ اس میں حیرانی کی کوئی بات نہیں اگر بل مہر اور سام ہیرس جیسے مذہب دشمن افراد اسلام کے خلاف جذبات کو ہوادے رہے ہیں۔ وہ ان داعش کے قاتلوں کے نظریات کو اسلامی نظریات ثابت کرنے کی کوشش میں ہیں۔ اس دوران، جبکہ اسلام پر حملہ کیا جارہاہے، مسلم دنیا کی آواز کہاں گم ہوگئی ہے؟اسلامی دنیا کی متعدل آوازیں داعش کی مذمت کرتے ہوئے بل مہر جیسے افراد کا منہ بند کیوں نہیں کردیتیں؟جس دوران اسلامی دنیا سکوت کی تصویر بنی ہے، نیویارک ٹائمز کو سلام کہ جس نے مسلسل دو دن ایڈیٹوریل صفحے پر ایسے مضامین شائع کیے جن میں کالم نگاروںنے ثابت کیا تھا کہ داعش اور اسلام کے درمیان کوئی قدر مشترک نہیں۔ 

اگرچہ بل مہر نے اسلام کو ایک مافیا قراردیا لیکن طمانیت کی بات یہ ہے کہ صدر اوباما نے اس بات پر زور دے کر کہا کہ داعش اور دیگر جنگجو گروہ اسلام کی نمائندگی نہیںکرتے۔ اکیڈیمی ایوارڈ یافتہ اداکار بن افلک(Ben Affleck) نے بن مہر کی شدید مذمت کرتے ہوئے ان پر نسل پرستی کا الزام لگا یا اور کہا کہ وہ مسلمانوں کی دشمنی میں سوچ سمجھ سے محروم ہوچکے ہیں۔ رضا اسلان (Reza Aslan) جو کہ ایک ایرانی نژاد امریکی مصنف اور سکالر ہیں ، نے نیویارک ٹائمز میں شائع ہونے والے اپنے مضمون میں مسلمانوں پر زور دیا کہ وہ انتہا پسندوںکے نظریات کے مقابلے میں اسلام کے اصل نظریات اجاگر کریں۔ مسٹر اسلان نے اسلام دشمن عناصر کو انتہا پسند قرار دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ وہ اصل اسلام کو سمجھنا ہی نہیں چاہتے حالانکہ یہ دنیا کا دوسرا سب سے بڑا مذہب ہے۔ 

پاکستان کے معاملات پر بہت قریب سے نظر رکھنے والے نیویارک ٹائمز کے کالم نگار نکولاس کرسٹوف بھی اس پروگرام میںبن مہر کے مہمان تھے ۔ اُنھوں نے بھی اسلام کا دفاع کرتے ہوئے بن افلک کی حمایت کی۔ بعد میں کالم لکھتے ہوئے مسٹر کرسٹوف نے کہا کہ اسلام عدم برداشت کا مذہب نہیں ، بلکہ یہ پہلا مذہب ہے جس نے عورتوں کا سماجی درجہ بلند کرتے ہوئے ان کے حقوق کا تحفظ کیا ۔ اُنھوں نے لکھا۔۔۔''تاریخ پر غیرجانبداری سے نظر رکھنے والا کوئی شخص بھی یہ آسانی سے جان سکتا ہے کہ اسلام تشدد پسند مذہب نہیں ہے۔ یہ عیسائی، نازی، کمیونسٹ ،ہندو، مائو اوربدھ مذہب کے ماننے والے ہیں جنھوں نے وسیع پیمانے پر قتل ِ عام کیا ۔‘‘اسلام کے دامن پر قتل ِعام کا کوئی دھبہ نہیں ہے۔ 

ہم مسٹر کرسٹوف کا شکریہ ادا کرتے ہیں کہ اُنھوں نے جرات سے کام لے کر اسلام کا دفاع کیا۔ دوسری طرف مسلمان سکالرز کو یا تو اس کی توفیق نہیںیا پھر وہ اتنے بزدل ہیں کہ کھل کر اپنے عقیدے کا ہی دفاع نہیں کرسکتے۔ نکولاس کرسٹوفر نے یہ بھی کہا کہ اسلام فوبیا سے بچنے کی ضرورت ہے تاکہ مسلمان خود کو نسل پرستی کا شکار نہ سمجھیں۔ تیرھویں صدی میں فرانس میں پوپ کا یہ جملہ کون بھول سکتا ہے جب عیسائیوں کے مذہبی پیشوا نے بیس ہزار کتھار افراد(Cathar) ، جن میں آدمی بھی تھے اور عورتیں اور بچے بھی، کو قتل کرنے کا حکم دیا۔ اُنھوںنے کہا۔۔۔''ان سب کو قتل کردو، اچھے برے کی تمیز خداخود کرلے گا۔‘‘کرسٹوف نے مزید لکھا کہ اسلام کو مسخ کرتے ہوئے اسے تشدد پسند اور تنگ نظر مذہب ثابت کرناخوفناک غلطی ہے۔ اُنھوںنے کہا کہ انتہا پسندوں کے خلاف مسلمان بھی کھڑے ہیں۔ اُنھوںنے ملالہ اور مختاراں مائی کا بھی حوالہ دیا۔ 

تاہم یہ تنازعہ ابھی ختم نہیں ہوا ہے۔ بن افلک اور کرسٹوف کی طرف سے اسلام کے دفاع نے فاکس نیوز اور اسلام دشمن نظریات رکھنے والے دیگر چینلز کو مشتعل کردیا۔ اُنھوںنے اسلام اور مسلمانوں پر تنقید کی توپوں کے دہانے وا کردیے۔ نائن الیون کے بعد بھی ایسا ہی ہوا تھا۔ میں اُس وقت امریکہ میں ہی تھی اور میں نے وہ وقت دیکھا ہے جب ورلڈ ٹریڈ سنٹر پر حملے کے بعد امریکی مسلمانوں پر عرصۂ حیات تنگ ہوگیا تھا۔ایسا لگتا تھا کہ ہم قرون ِ وسطیٰ میں جی رہے ہیں۔ اتنی مذہبی تنگ نظری حالیہ تاریخ میں دیکھنے میں نہیں آئی تھی۔ اُس وقت رسول ِ اکرمﷺ کا فرمان ِ اقدس یاد آتا تھا۔۔۔''ایک وقت آئے گا جب تمھارے ہاتھوں میں مذہب دہکتے ہوئے کوئلوں یا سمندر کی لہروں کی طرح ہوجائے گا۔ ‘‘ ایسا لگتا تھا کہ امریکہ میں وہ وقت آگیا ہے۔ بہت سے انتہا پسند، جیسا کہ جیری فلویل اور بلی گراہم شعائر ِ اسلام پر حملے کررہے تھے۔ وہ اپنے پیروکاروں کو مسلمان شہریوں پر حملے کرنے پر اکسارہے تھے۔ 

آج تیرہ سال بعد ایک مرتبہ پھر داعش کے حوالے سے مسلمان امت آزمائش کا شکار ہے۔ آج ہم پر اغیار حملہ آور نہیں بلکہ مسلمانوں کے روپ میں ہی قاتلوں کا ایک ٹولہ عراق اور شام میں قتل وغارت کا بازار گرم کرتے ہوئے دیگر اسلامی ممالک کی طرف بڑھ رہا ہے۔ آج کوئی صلیبی جنگ نہیں ہونے جارہی۔ ہمیں صرف یہ کرنا ہے کہ کنفیوژن سے بچتے ہوئے یک زبان ہوکر ان کی مذمت کرنی ہے اور اپنے عقیدے کا تحفظ کرنا ہے۔ دنیا دل سے جانتی ہے کہ اسلام تشدد پسند مذہب نہیں ہے، لیکن ہم کس تذبذب کا شکار ہیں؟ ہم آگے بڑھ کر دہشت گردی کے خلاف کیوں نہیں بولتے۔ کتنے افسوس کی بات ہے کہ آج اسلام کا دفاع ایک اداکار اور ایک غیر مسلمان لکھاری کررہے ہیں جب کہ اسلامی دنیا نے چپ کا روزہ رکھا ہوا ہے۔ یہ بات ہم پاکستانیوں کو فراموش نہیں کرنی چاہیے کہ داعش طالبان سے مختلف گروہ ہے۔ طالبان کے مقابلے میں عسکری قوت کام دے رہی ہے، لیکن داعش کے خلاف نظریات کی جنگ لڑنا فوج کا کام نہیں۔ اس کے لیے اہلِ فکر کو سامنے آنا پڑے گا۔ یہ سجدے میں گرنے کا نہیں، قیام کا وقت ہے۔ 

Anjum  Niaz

Turkey’s balancing act in Kobani

IN August 1944, the Red Army was close to Warsaw after having pushed the invading German army back from Russia in a series of titanic battles. The Polish underground resistance, thinking help was at hand, rose against Nazi occupation forces. Some historians assert they had been encouraged by Polish Communists at the Kremlin’s behest.

But as the desperate fighting continued for weeks, and the partisans were crushed by vastly superior German forces, the Red Army remained outside Warsaw. Only after resistance had ceased did the Soviets engage with German forces and evict them. The reason for this callous indifference to Polish suffering was that the Soviets did not want nationalist freedom fighters to seize power in Warsaw, preferring to see them eliminated so that the Communists could take over.

Something similar happened to Iraqi Shias in the south and to the Kurds in the north of the country in 1990. After routing Saddam Hussein’s forces in the first Gulf War, American forces halted and encouraged Saddam’s non-Sunni opponents to rise. Even though the Americans imposed a no-fly zone, the Iraqi dictator sent in his troops to put down the rebellion ruthlessly. Against the Kurds, Saddam used poison gas, killing thousands.

Turkey is playing a similar waiting game while the Islamic State besieges the Syrian border town of Kobani. As the militants threaten a bloodbath, the Kurds are holding on heroically, vastly outgunned and outnumbered. Meanwhile, Turkish tanks and soldiers look on at the unequal battle from a couple of kilometres away.

Despite international pressure to intervene and prevent the massacre of tens of thousands of Kurdish fighters and civilians, Recep Teyyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, is equivocating in an attempt to use the plight of the Kurds to impose his agenda on the anti-IS coalition. Basically, he is demanding a buffer zone on Syrian soil to house refugees fleeing the fighting, as well as a commitment from the coalition to topple Bashar al-Assad.

The Kurds are not interested in these goals: all they are asking for is a corridor for their Iraqi cousins to send men and arms to help them fight off IS. They see the Syrian dictator as their ally in the fight against extremists, and fear that his fall would produce a vacuum in which the jihadi forces would be strengthened.

The Americans, meanwhile, are pressing the Turks to allow them to use their bases close to the border so their planes would have a shorter distance to fly to Kobani, and operate for longer over the besieged town. Erdogan is caught in the middle as he tries to push his own agenda in the face of international criticism and the growing anger of his own Kurdish citizens.

In the last few days, at least 24 people have been killed in riots in predominantly Kurdish towns in Turkey. Rampaging crowds have torched buses and attacked government buildings. Erdogan has criticised these violent protests as a plot to derail ongoing reconciliation talks between the government and the separatist PKK.

But the reality is that Turkish Kurds are understandably furious at what they see is Erdogan’s complicity with IS. This impression was reinforced when, talking to journalists about IS and the Kobani Kurds, he was quoted in the Guardian as saying: “It is wrong to view them differently, we need to deal with them jointly.”

Day after day, Kurds fleeing the jihadi fighters from in and around Kobani have crossed the border with gruesome stories of terrible atrocities. Reports of hundreds of women and young girls raped, and children slaughtered, have infuriated Kurds everywhere.

Another reason Erdogan is not anxious to save Kobani is that before the IS onslaught, Syrian Kurds had taken advantage of the civil war to establish a largely autonomous region. After decades of fighting Kurdish separatists in the east of the country, the Turkish government was inching towards a deal over the degree of independence that would be acceptable to both sides. Erdogan fears that the success of Syrian and Iraqi Kurds in securing self-rule will encourage their Turkish cousins to raise their demands.

Beyond his domestic political concerns, Erdogan would like to save what he can of Turkey’s ambitious foreign policy. In the first few years of his AK Party’s long stint in power, he successfully projected Turkey’s influence in the region. The West saw Turkey as a bridge to Central Asia and the Middle East. Dreams of an Ottoman sphere of influence were kindled in Ankara. But with the increasing bloodshed in Syria, Erdogan has been shaken by his inability to influence events there, or elsewhere in the region.

The Americans, while maintaining their anti-Assad rhetoric in public, have come around to accept that the Islamic State’s enemy is — if not a friend — at least an ally. In the same vein, Stalin was acceptable as an ally to Roosevelt and Churchill in the war against Nazi Germany. There is thus little enthusiasm in Washington, London and Paris for regime change in Damascus.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE — states that have sent a few aircraft to bomb IS targets — want to topple Assad at all cost. They see the civil war in Syria as a regional, Shia-Sunni conflict.

However, the West perceives the larger danger of allowing a rogue extremist state to emerge in a crucial part of the world. Apart from the permanent threat IS would pose to Western allies (and oil exporters) in the region, the state would also act as a magnet to zealous young Muslims in the West.

These, then, are some of the considerations and concerns shaping policies in Washington, Ankara and Riyadh. While politicians weigh up their gains and losses, the people of Kobani face terrible danger from some of the most ruthless militants on the face of the earth.
by Irfan Husain, dawn.com
Published in Dawn, October 13th, 2014

The Muslim faith is not to blame for ISIL

How the global community handles this barbarity is a big question, writes Abdul Bari.
The beheading of British aid worker David Haines on September 13 was the latest monstrosity carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). For British Muslims, it was doubly distressing that this evil act was carried out, apparently, by a British Muslim. The Muslim community here unanimously condemned this barbarism.

From a moral and theological point of view, an entire community or religion should not be blamed for the actions of a crazy few. But all too often, when people see evil emanating from some Muslims, the potential is there to unfairly put the whole community in the dock.

There are now fears that ISIL's extremism is fuelling Islamophobia and a far-right backlash in the UK. While others have denied there is a growth in the actual number of far-right activists, most observers seem to agree that there is a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment across the UK. This is a big worry for Muslims and a huge burden on our social and political leadership. And of course ISIL's rise also re-emphasises the danger of sectarian tensions within the Muslim community. Thankfully, David Haines' brother, Mike Haines, quoted verses from the Quran and made it clear by saying: "The Muslim faith is not to blame for ISIL, nor is it the fault of people of Middle Eastern descent."

Global crisis

ISIL has, in fact, created a global crisis and presented world leaders with a challenge they cannot afford to ignore: They must hold their nerve and the civilised world needs to find creative, political, and more importantly, human ways of solving this problem of nihilism in our midst. For that is what ISIL is, a nihilistic movement that is the enemy of hope and togetherness.

How the global community handles this barbarity is a big question. Certainly Muslims worldwide have unanimously rejected ISIL's publicity-seeking terror antics, endlessly repeating that it is a million miles away from Islam's teachings.

When citizens see only limitless injustice orchestrated by their corrupt and incompetent leaders, sustained by foreign players, the result is a vicious circle of despotism and violence. In an inter-connected global village with instant communication, no country can remain insulated from another.

The easiest option for some trigger-happy leaders would be to bomb ISIL into the stone age. This may temporarily halt or reduce its power, but it will come back again or re-emerge in another name.

Violence in the Middle East will not simply go away without ethical politics in the region. We must not forget how al-Qaeda emerged in the 1990s, due in part to a political vacuum in Afghanistan; the result was the Taliban regime that gave shelter to the terrorist group.

It is now clear that the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a recipe for the influx of al-Qaeda into Iraq that has now morphed into the more vicious ISIL. With swaths of land in Iraq and Syria under its control, it has plunged the Middle East into an even more serious predicament than before - one in which the viciousness of al-Qaeda and the Assad regime is all too easy to forget.

Common sense

Common sense and natural wisdom suggest that a replay of the post-9/11 knee-jerk reactions, and another display of "shock and awe" firepower by the US and its allies, would be the worst step: This will give ISIL the propaganda coup it needs and deepen the crisis for all involved.

US President Barack Obama has at least grasped that reality and said that US forces will not fight another ground war in Iraq. This is a welcome declaration, but there are big holes in the US-led strategy in the current crisis. With the United States' resumption of "the long war" in Iraq and possibly in Syria, a new open-ended "war on terror" (WoT) appears to have started.

By waging this endless war, the US appears to be digging its heels in the Middle East sand. Gone are the days when the world sighed with relief at Obama's declaration in 2010 that the "war on terror" was over. Very few people now believe him.

The Middle East needs some respite from violence. The US can be a catalyst for this if it decides to become a fair player in the region, with a consistent people-friendly policy. By siding with authoritarian regimes depending on military might alone, the US has so far made things worse in this region. It is an irony that western democracies have one rule, a robust democracy, for their own people but different ones for others.

You can kill terrorists through fire power, but slaying the demons of terrorism needs something more - a human dimension in politics, as well as accountability, and allowing local citizens a stake in their public affairs.

Limitless injustice

When citizens see only limitless injustice orchestrated by their corrupt and incompetent leaders, sustained by foreign players, the result is a vicious circle of despotism and violence. In an inter-connected global village with instant communication, no country can remain insulated from another. By ignoring others' peril, we sow the seeds of our own peril at a future stage.

There are positive examples of global cooperation. Powerful and rich countries - governments and private citizens alike - have dug deep to help fellow human beings in developing countries. Britain leads in this area, devoting up to 0.7 percent of its GDP to foreign aid.

Why can't this happen in the political field of weaker countries? Why do the powerful nations often go "fishing in the muddy waters" in other parts of the world? The rise of ISIL could have been thwarted if the US had insisted earlier on a non-sectarian inclusive government in Iraq and if mainstream political opposition to Syria's brutal regime had received timely support. No wonder some cynics and conspiracy theorists can feel free to accuse the US and its allies of giving ISIL a free hand, so that the terror group can then be used as a bogeyman to continue a long war in the Middle East.

The emergence of violent extremism and nihilism in some parts of the Muslim world is primarily due to the failure of politics, exacerbated by the harmful influence of foreign powers. Although al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, Boko Haram and ISIL speak in the language of Islam, they have emerged in an authoritarian, corrupt, and incompetent political system.

We are in the midst of a generational and geopolitical crisis in the Middle East. Until the Arab world can institute minimum democratic accountability and establish basic rights for its people, the region will remain unstable and a breeding ground for violence. As it stands, this will not happen until the US and its close allies stop supporting or propping up brutal regimes.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an author and commentator on social and political issues. He was the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, 2006-10.
aljazeera.com

What if ‘Islamic State’ didn't exist?

What if the so-called Islamic State (IS) didn’t exist?

In order to answer this question, one has to liberate the argument from its geopolitical and ideological confines.

Flexible language
Many in the media (Western, Arab, etc) use the reference “Islamist” to brand any movement at all whether it be political, militant or even charity-focused. If it is dominated by men with beards or women with headscarves that make references to the Holy Koran and Islam as the motivator behind their ideas, violent tactics or even good deeds, then the word “Islamist” is the language of choice.

According to this overbearing logic, a Malaysia-based charity can be as ‘Islamist’ as the militant group Boko Haram in Nigeria. When the term “Islamist” was first introduced to the debate on Islam and politics, it carried mostly intellectual connotations. Even some “Islamists” used it in reference to their political thought. Now, it can be moulded to mean many things.

This is not the only convenient term that is being tossed around so deliberately in the discourse pertaining to Islam and politics. Many are already familiar with how the term “terrorism” manifested itself in the myriad of ways that fit any country’s national or foreign policy agenda - from the US’ George W. Bush to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. In fact, some of these leaders accused one another of practising, encouraging or engendering terrorism while positioning themselves as the crusaders against terror. The American version of the “war on terror” gained much attention and bad repute because it was highly destructive. But many other governments launched their own wars to various degrees of violent outcomes.

The flexibility of the usage of language very much stands at the heart of this story, including that of IS. We are told the group is mostly made of foreign jihadists. This could have much truth to it, but this notion cannot be accepted without much contention.

Foreign menace
Why does the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad insist on the “foreign jihadists” claim and did so even when the civil war plaguing his country was still at the stage of infancy, teetering between a popular uprising and an armed insurgency? It is for the same reason that Israel insists on infusing the Iranian threat, and its supposedly “genocidal” intents towards Israel in every discussion about the Hamas-led resistance in Palestine, and Hezbollah’s in Lebanon. Of course, there is a Hamas-Iran connection, although it has been weakened in recent years by regional circumstances. But for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran has to be at the heart of the discourse.

There are ample examples of governments of the Middle East ingraining the “foreign menace” factor when dealing with solely international phenomena, violence or otherwise. The logic behind it is simple: if the Syrian civil war is fuelled by foreign fanatics, then al-Assad can exact his violence against rebelling Syrians in the name of fighting the foreigners/jihadists/terrorists. According to this logic, Bashar becomes a national hero, as opposed to a despotic dictator.

Netanyahu remains the master of political diversion. He vacillates between peace talks and Iran-backed Palestinian “terror” groups in whatever way he finds suitable. The desired outcome is placing Israel as a victim of and a crusader against foreign-inspired terrorism. Just days after Israel carried out what was described by many as a genocide in Gaza - killing over 2,200 and wounded over 11,000 - he once more tried to shift global attention by claiming that the so-called Islamic State was at the Israeli border.

The “foreign hordes on the border” notion is being utilised, although so far ineffectively, by Egypt’s Abdul-Fatah al-Sisi also. Desperate to gain access to this convenient discourse, he has made numerous claims of foreigners being at the border of Libya, Sudan and Sinai. Few have paid attention aside from the unintelligible Egyptian state-controlled media. However, one must not neglect the events that took place in Egypt when he himself overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood’s democratically-elected government of Mohamed Morsi last year.

When US President Barack Obama decided to launch his war on IS, Sisi lined up to enlist his country in a fight against the “Islamists” as he sees them as part and parcel of the war against the supporters of the deposed Muslim Brotherhood. After all, they are both “Islamists.”

US-western motives
For the US and their western allies, the logic behind the war is hardly removed from the war discourse engendered by previous US administrations, most notably that of W. Bush and his father. It is another chapter of the unfinished wars that the US had unleashed in Iraq over the last 25 years. In some way, IS, with its brutal tactics, is the worst possible manifestation of American interventionism.

In the first Iraq war (1990-91), the US-led coalition seemed determined to achieve the clear goal of driving the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, and to use that as a starting point to achieve complete US dominance over the Middle East. Back then, George Bush had feared that pushing beyond that goal could lead to the kind of consequences that would alter the entire region and empower Iran at the expense of America’s Arab allies. Instead of carrying out regime change in Iraq itself, the US opted to subject Iraq to a decade of economic torment - a suffocating blockade that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That was the golden age of America’s “containment” policy in the region.

However, US policy in the Middle East, under Bush’s son, W. Bush, was reinvigorated by new elements that somewhat altered the political landscape leading to the second Iraq war in 2003. Firstly, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were dubiously used to mislead the public into another war by linking Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda; and secondly, there was the rise of the neoconservative political ideology that dominated Washington at the time. The neo-cons strongly believed in the regime-change doctrine that has since then proven to be a complete failure.

It was not just a failure, but rather, a calamity. Today’s rise of IS is in fact a mere bullet point in a tragic Iraq timeline which started the moment W. Bush began his “shock and awe campaign.” This was followed by the fall of Baghdad, the dismantling of the country’s institutions (the de-Baathification of Iraq) and the “missions accomplished” speech. Since then, it has been one adversity after another. The US strategy in Iraq was predicated on destroying Iraqi nationalism and replacing it with a dangerous form of sectarianism that used the proverbial “divide and conquer” stratagem. But neither the Shia remained united, nor did the Sunni accept their new lower status, or did the Kurds stay committed to being part of an untied Iraq.

Al-qaeda connection
The US has indeed succeeded in dividing Iraq, maybe not territorially, but certainly in every other way. Moreover, the war brought al-Qaeda to Iraq. The group used the atrocities inflicted by the US war and invasion to recruit fighters from Iraq and throughout the Middle East. And like a bull in a china shop, the US wrecked more havoc on Iraq, playing around with sectarian and tribal cards to lower the intensity of the resistance and to busy Iraqis with fighting each other.

When the US combat troops allegedly departed Iraq, they left behind a country in ruins, millions of refugees on the run, deep sectarian divides, a brutal government, and an army made mostly of loosely united Shia-militias with a blood-soaked past.

Al-Qaeda was supposedly weakened in Iraq by then. In actuality, while al-Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the US invasion, at the eve of the US withdrawal, al-Qaeda had branched off into other militant manifestations. They were able to move with greater agility in the region, and when the Syrian uprising was intentionally-armed by regional and international powers, al-Qaeda resurfaced with incredible power, fighting with prowess and unparalleled influence. Despite the misinformation about the roots of IS, IS and al-Qaeda in Iraq are the same. They share the same ideology and had only branched off into various groupings in Syria. Their differences are an internal matter, but their objectives are ultimately identical.

The reason the above point is often ignored, is that such an assertion would be a clear indictment that the Iraq war created IS, and that the irresponsible handling of the Syria conflict empowered the group to actually form a sectarian state that extends from the north-east of Syria to the heart of Iraq.

IS must exist
US-Western and Arab motives in the war against IS might differ, but both sides have keen interest in partaking in the war and an even keener interest in refusing to accept that such violence is not created in a vacuum. The US and its western allies refuse to see the obvious link between IS, al-Qaeda and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Arab leaders insist that their countries are also victims of some “Islamist” terror, produced, not of their own anti-democratic and oppressive policies, but by Chechenia and other foreign fighters who are bringing dark-age violence to otherwise perfectly peaceable and stable political landscapes.

The lie is further cemented by most media when they highlight the horror of IS but refuse to speak of other horrors that preceded and accompanied the existence of the group. They insist on speaking of IS as if a fully independent phenomenon devoid of any contexts, meanings and representations.

For the US-led coalition, IS must exist, although every member of the coalition has their own self-serving reasoning to explain their involvement. And since IS mostly made of “foreign jihadists” from faraway lands, speaking languages that few Arabs and westerners understand, then, somehow, no one is guilty, and the current upheaval in the Middle East is someone else’s fault. Thus, there is no need to speak of Syrian massacres, or Egyptian massacres, or of Iraq wars and its massacres, for the problem is obviously foreign.

If the so-called Islamic State didn’t exist, many in the region would be keen on creating one.

- Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

US Secratery of State John Kerry and other attendees at a meeting in Jeddah on 11 September (AFP)

middleeasteye.net

Fighting the Islamic State

PRESIDENT Obama announced a “strategy” to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State (formerly, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) on Sept 10. The announcement came scarcely two weeks after Obama had explained US reluctance to escalate military action against IS by admitting he did not have a strategy to deal with this challenge. He was roundly criticised by US politicians and pundits for his honest admission.

The announced strategy comprises four components: first, systematic air strikes against IS in Iraq , in coordination with Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and in Syria if IS there threatens Americans; second, increased support (training, intelligence, equipment) to those fighting “these terrorists”; third, improving counterterrorism capabilities: intelligence, counter-narrative, preventing the flow of Western jihadis and mobilising the international community; and four, continuing humanitarian assistance to civilians and threatened religious groups.

In fact, the announced ‘strategy’ looks very similar to what the US has been doing already for the past several weeks against IS. The two new elements are: the apparent US willingness to attack IS in Syria and the aim of building a broad coalition against it, including the major Arab states and Turkey.

It is not wholly evident why IS has emerged as America’s top military target.

It is not wholly evident why IS has emerged as America’s top military target. The head of US Homeland Security confirmed, before Obama’s speech, that there is “no direct threat from ISIS” to the US. There is no evidence of ISIS plans to attack the US or even the desire to do so. It poses a regional threat and may attack US targets there. The presence of ‘foreign fighters’ (3,000 from Europe and 100 from the US) is a possible future threat when they return home. The official said that the major threat to the US homeland still emanates from Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Thus, superficially, Obama’s new anti-IS priority seems to have been driven purely by domestic considerations: on one hand, the growing criticism of his responses to foreign policy challenges, including IS successes, and, on the other, the higher US public support for action against the group after its brutal beheading of two American journalists.

There is no assurance the Obama “strategy” will be successful, especially without US “boots on the ground”. There may be unintended consequences. Attacking IS may create the very threat it is meant to avoid. It may make Sunni reconciliation within a united Iraq more difficult and enhance Kurdish capabilities to break away from Iraq. Degrading IS would also strengthen the Assad regime in Syria.

Yet, Obama’s ‘strategy’ could become the start of a broader plan to stabilise the region.

The 150-plus US air strikes against IS in Iraq have inevitably brought the US into operational alliance with Iranian military advisers known to be attached with the Iraqi army and Shia militias acting as its auxiliaries. Both the US and Iran have declared that there can be no direct cooperation with the other. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has indeed asserted that IS is an American creation.

But perhaps they protest too much. Iran’s foreign minister declared some months ago that Iran is prepared to cooperate with other parties to end the sectarian conflicts in the region. It is widely known that the US and Iran have held secret talks for several years which enabled them to reach the interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme. They also have had quiet contacts in Baghdad.

In exchange for American and Arab cooperation in degrading IS, which poses a threat to Iran’s allies in both Baghdad and Damascus, and a fair agreement regarding its nuclear programme, Tehran could help to ensure an inclusive government in Iraq, broker a political settlement between Assad and moderate insurgent groups in Syria, dampen the Shia opposition to the Sunni regimes in Bahrain and Yemen, restrain Hezbollah’s threat to Israel and end its support to Hamas.

It is possible that at least some aspects of such a ‘bargain’ have been discussed. Such discussions may have encouraged the Obama administration to launch the strategy against IS.

To be successful, the strategy would also require the support of the major Arab states. Saudi Arabia’s initiative to convene a meeting of 10 Arab states and Turkey in Jeddah is significant. Saudi Arabia and the UAE now consider the Muslim Brotherhood and related extremist groups a threat to their own stability and are determined to suppress them. A US strategy which both degrades IS and other Sunni extremist groups, including the Brotherhood, and secures Iran’s cooperation to contain Shia militias and insurgents across the region, would be doubly attractive. In turn, the contribution of these Arab powers would be essential to wean the Sunni tribes in Iraq away from IS and reach a political settlement in Syria.

As yet, Arab support to Obama’s anti-IS strategy is not universal. Egypt has its hands full with putting down the Brotherhood. Jordan fears the backlash from IS which now operates just across its borders with Iraq and Syria. Turkey is worried about the fate of its 49 diplomats captured by IS and averse to reinforcing Kurdish forces, which include the anti-Turkish PKK. Qatar’s closeness to the Brotherhood and other Sunni extremists has complicated its relationships with the US and its GCC neighbours.

A ‘grand bargain’ involving the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia and their respective allies and proxies would be obviously most difficult to construct and consummate. Proxies and puppets are not always easy to control. There is enormous and accumulated mistrust between the principal parties. And the sheer number and complexity of the local, sub-national and regional issues that need to be addressed is daunting.

Unless a comprehensive strategy is pursued, the fight against IS is likely to prove frustrating. Air strikes with ground support from unreliable local forces; eliminating IS’s financial sources and countering its brutal ideology will not be sufficient to destroy it. The legitimate grievances that attract its recruits will have to be addressed. Ultimately, eliminating extremism in the region will require the rapid generation of jobs and economic development.

stake is the present and future stability of the Middle East — a region in the midst of multiple and violent transitions — and its impact on the world order.

By Munir Akram, www.dawn.com
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.