Editor's Note: This article was written by Mukhtar Usman-Janguza: A London based Africa and Middle East public affairs commentator. He blogs at janguzaarewa.blogspot.com
This article is in response to the set of questions posed by Tunde Alabi on his Facebook wall regarding the group known as the “Islamic State”. I also suggest three lessons Nigeria should draw and learn from Iraq’s tragedy.
Islamic State fighters take part in a military parade along the streets of their proclaimed capital, the Syrian northern province of Ar-Raqqa (Reuters)
1.
What is wrong
with their establishment [as a State] and mode of expansion?
2.
Are their mode of
establishment, expansion and objectives truly in line with Islamic teachings as
preached by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?
Let
me preface my answer by first briefly describing what the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham (ISIS) now known as the Islamic State (IS) is, and what its stated goals
are.
The
IS is a movement led by a man called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
which aspires to re-establish a type of polity known as a Caliphate – an Islamic form
of government underpinned by Shari’ah which first emerged in the 7th
century after the death of the Prophet, and was abolished in 1924 with the end
of the Ottoman Empire. The group is a Jihadi organization in that it ideologically
believes the Caliphate can only be re-established through armed force (i.e. Jihad).
And finally it is an extremist sect in that, as we have seen, it doesn't shy
away from using mind-numbing violence to impose its narrow minded and
literalist interpretation of religious tenets.
Its
stated
goals are the:
- re-establishment of the Caliphate – which it believes it has already fulfilled
- expansion of the Caliphate across the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine) – hence the “al-Sham” in its original name (al-Sham is the Arabic term for the Levant area)
- and eventually the spread of their Caliphate across the whole world.
Similarly from a religious perspective, there is nothing wrong in principle with the establishment of the Caliphate through violence and conquest. The Islamic Caliphates and Empires of the past were established, and dissolved, through exactly that process. There are major problems with the way the IS has gone about establishing its State however.
The
first is the wanton butchery with which Baghdadi’s followers have gone about
their business of state-building. It’s one thing when the violence unleashed is
a product of the war being fought to establish the State – i.e. battlefield
deaths. It is quite another thing entirely when that violence is transferred wholesale
beyond the battlefield and is used to indiscriminately kill captured prisoners
of war – as IS openly boasts of doing – or to target civilians – as they seem
to be doing, simply because the civilians in question happen to be from a
different religious sect. This is just nothing but slaughter. Criminal
slaughter! I find it difficult to believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – who
after all, led many campaigns – would openly revel in such a bloodthirsty
manner as Baghdadi’s followers are known for doing after killing their enemies.
And to my mind, it is the atrocities more than anything else that will
eventually doom IS’ Caliphate to destruction. It will not only repel potential
followers and supporters, it will also provoke the Major Powers into taking
military action against it – as seems to have happened now with the US’ decision
to conduct airstrikes against it.
The second major problem with the IS Caliphate is the fact that it has been rejected by the majority of Islamic scholars. Ironically, the IS Caliphate has also been rejected by other Jihadist groups. The rejection by the majority of Islamic scholars, including scholars respected within Jihadi circles, is not to be underestimated. Under Islamic law, a Caliphate can only be established one of two ways: when there is a broad consensus amongst scholars that the time is right for it, or through war. Baghdadi has obviously settled for the latter, hoping that battlefield success will legitimize his claim. Whether he succeeds or not, remains to be seen. As for me, I am highly skeptical of his chances.
3.
Are they the ones
beheading the Christian communities and issuing deadly warnings to non-Muslims?
If yes, what is the basis for this in Islam?
To be honest, I have not come across any credible news outlet which has substantiated the claim that the IS are beheading Christian communities. And personally, I’d be very surprised if this was the case.
The IS, particularly its leadership cadre, are intensely ideologically motivated. The core of their ideology is their interpretation of Islam. Within Islam, Christians are recognized as “People of the Book” which means their religion is recognised, and theoretically Christians are safe from persecution – certainly this is what happened with Islamic Empires in the past. Now given that Baghdadi and his followers are intensely ideologically motivated, I find it hard to believe that they will go out and wantonly behead, or otherwise execute, entire Christian communities on a whim.
Be
that as it may, what has happened to the Christian community in IS controlled
territory however, is a tragic calamity in its own right. When the IS comes to
town, Christians are often given three choices: convert to Islam, pay the Jizya (a form of protection tax),
or leave. Not willing to convert and unable to pay, practically all have chosen
to leave rather than stay and gamble with their lives given the well-known
ruthless brutality of IS operatives. Therefore, Christians have essentially
been ethnically cleansed
from areas they've called home since time immemorial. They've been forced to
flee with what little possession they can carry, not knowing when, if ever,
they will return to their homeland.
The
role of Ideology which makes me confident that the fate of Christians in IS
controlled territory will not necessarily result in a pile of corpses, makes me
less so when it comes to the fate of other religious groups that according to
IS’ ideological framework are not recognised as religions. We've all seen the harrowing
and heart-breaking images of the Yazidis atop the freezing mount Sinjar.
Their hearts in their throats, their possessions in their hands, and the
frailer members of the community on their backs, escaping what they believed
was certain death had they chosen to hang around after IS took over their city.
The options for them were stark: convert or die – according to reports.
Unlike the Christian story, which I am for now skeptical of until provided
credible evidence, for other non-Christian religious groups that the IS doesn't
recognize, such as Yazidis, Shi’ites etc. I honestly believe to be true the
claims that they face Genocide, or at the very least mass killings of their
civilian population, at the hands of the IS. The ideological beliefs of IS
fighters, their sectarian rhetoric, and the increasingly sectarian nature of the
Iraqi conflict makes these danger a very real possibility.
4.
Do they pose any
danger to the peace and stability of the Arab region and by extension the
world?
To
the Arab region, absolutely they do; to the whole world, in the long term
potentially yes. The IS has made it quite clear that it aims for the
destruction of the Middle East’s state system – which they view as the
artificial construct of Europe’s colonial powers. Their erasure of the Iraq-Syria
border, the declaration of a proto-state which straddles the two countries,
and the very immediate danger they pose to Jordan
and Lebanon
is the most visible manifestation of this territorial threat. To the extent
that the Middle East is punctuated by weak states, this threat will endure for
as long as expansion and conquest remains the driving force of Baghdadi’s State.
While
the territorial danger is real, we shouldn't overestimate it however. To my
mind, the IS has probably reached its furthest extent. It may still secure some
tactical gains – a town here, a city there – but the big sweeping strategic advance
that catapulted it to the limelight earlier this year seems unlikely for now. Everywhere,
the IS Caliphate looks boxed in to me. To the south lies Baghdad, a prize Iran,
and for that matter the Americans, will not let fall to the IS. To the north
are Kurdish territories which the Americans, with the announcement of a supply
of weapons to the Peshmerga (Kurdish militia) to better defend their areas
from the IS, have practically committed themselves to protecting. To the east
is Iran, one of the Middle East’s few strong and capable states. And to the
west are Jordan and Saudi Arabia, countries which due to their strategic
relations with the US, means that country would probably unhesitatingly defend
them should their territorial sovereignty be comprehensively threatened by IS
forces.
The
biggest long-term danger the IS poses to the world is through the material
support and training facilities it could offer to other terrorist groups. The
IS is now listed as the world’s richest terrorist group, with billions
in cash and gold
bullion; and it now controls a vast swathe of territory straddling two
countries. These are obviously resources that could be used to plan and support
devastating terrorist attacks against adversaries. While precautions should
always be taken, I however don’t believe any international terrorist operation
to be among Baghdadi’s top list of priorities for now given that he is still
trying to consolidate his territory. Any terrorist spectacular against
especially Western countries will only draw those countries into taking more
aggressive military action against the group.
5. What do we do as people of
different faiths in the face of this newest empire with determined objectives?
As
for Nigerians, there are at least three pertinent lessons that we can draw from
the tragedy that has befallen Iraq.
1. No country lasts forever: Iraq may yet survive the IS assault and emerge with its State intact. But for now, and probably for the foreseeable future, the possibility of stitching back together the broken societies of that traumatized country will remain a distant prospect. A country that was once a regional player in its heyday has now become a playing field for all the regional powers to act out their ambitions. With Iraq’s ruling elites having botched the opportunity to reform their country’s badly dysfunctional polity, when the forces of disintegration came knocking at the door, their enfeebled State simply collapsed.
1. No country lasts forever: Iraq may yet survive the IS assault and emerge with its State intact. But for now, and probably for the foreseeable future, the possibility of stitching back together the broken societies of that traumatized country will remain a distant prospect. A country that was once a regional player in its heyday has now become a playing field for all the regional powers to act out their ambitions. With Iraq’s ruling elites having botched the opportunity to reform their country’s badly dysfunctional polity, when the forces of disintegration came knocking at the door, their enfeebled State simply collapsed.
As
for the Nigerians who mindlessly parrot the slogans that ‘Nigeria will never
break apart because God put us together’, or because ‘we are destined to be
together’, should soak in for a while the stories of an Iraq in turmoil. While I
am a firm believer in the One Nigeria project; I am also a political realist in
that I recognize that States don’t emerge and stay together because some higher
Power has divined for it to be so. Rather, States stay together because the
societies over which they govern have decided to stay together, and have
decided to act purposely towards that goal. They stay together because the
leaders and the elites of those societies have decided to set aside all
parochial interests to forge a common destiny, and a common vision of a shared
political community.
The
fact is when unbridgeable fissures emerge within weak states like Iraq and
Nigeria; it provides the space for the forces of decay and disintegration to
thrive. Not even a Kingdom of God on earth can escape this fundamental law of
political reality.
2. No one will save
you when you are unwilling to save yourself: This is a particularly
pertinent lesson for those Nigerians who, faced with the resurging power Boko
Haram, often insist that ‘America should do this, The international community
will do that, Why isn't Cameroon doing this or that?’. It is also particularly imperative
for our indolent and short-sighted elites to sit up and take note of this
lesson. As the Iraq example has amply shown, when a State is faced with
existential challenges, the drive for survival must come from within. An absence of this internal drive, disintegration becomes inevitable. It is a brutal world out
there. And no amount of appeals to brotherly solidarity will convince
neighbors, or the wider international community, to lift a finger and save a dysfunctional
state from tumbling over the precipice.
Despite
the Iraq crisis now having dragged on now for a while, the US only decided to
act when a community was facing the real threat of Genocide (in other words not
because the State itself was collapsing), and when it became clear that IS
forces were expanding further into Kurdish held territory. Given that the US
has strategic installations and personnel stationed here; this was a direct
national security threat. As for Iraq’s neighbors, what have they done to aid
the country as it floundered to contain the threat of the IS? Well, they have
contented themselves with watching the drama afar; unwilling to act lest they
provoke the beast now tearing Iraq apart.
3. A demoralized and politicized army can’t fight: Iraqi army collapse as IS forces surged into the north and the west of the country earlier this year was stunning. Faced with about 800 Jihadi warriors bearing down on them, two entire divisions of the army – roughly 30,000 men – simply buckled and fled. This comical, were it not so tragic, performance didn't happen because the soldiers were ill-equipped – the soldiers were actually relatively well-equipped compared to the Jihadist and insurgent forces. Rather it happened because the soldiers were demoralized and, in a process known as “coup-proofing”, the officer core had been gutted; with competent officers replaced with politically pliant ones. This meant that when it came time to actually fight, the soldiers were simply not willing to sacrifice their lives for a mission they didn't believe in. Neither were their officers competent enough to restore military discipline once it began to break down.
This
is a very important lesson for Nigerians, particularly for our military planners
and political leaders, to ponder on as we battle our own determined group of violent
extremists intent on imposing their narrow (and heterodox) vision of Islam.
While it is now no secret that Nigerian troops are badly equipped. The “mutiny”
of the soldiers from the 7th Division on the 14th of May,
and the often reported stories of soldiers fleeing at the sight of Boko Haram
fighters, should be seen as warning signs of creeping mission weariness. It
should also be seen as a problem arising not only from poor weaponry, but also
from low morale and the erosion of command and control capabilities – i.e. the
ability and competence of commanders to exercise authority over their troops.
If
there is anything we can draw from the Iraq experience on this issue, it is
that, even if adequately equipped, soldiers debilitated by poor morale, lacking
belief in the mission they are meant to risk their lives for, and are led by
incompetent officers, will likely flee when faced with a determined adversary!
Comments
Post a Comment