Not just one abomination, but two! (FB Ali)

The burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot by the Islamic State (IS) was a horrific act, and deserves to be wholeheartedly condemned by everyone. It is, sadly, true that people are incinerated during war, both combatants and non-combatants. But the burning alive of Lt al-Kassasbeh was a brutal crime, since he was a prisoner of war and also because of the 'production' made of the whole miserable episode.

The IS compounded this vicious act by committing a second abomination: claiming that this punishment was administered according to the tenets of 'Islam'.

This 'Islam' that the IS adhere to is a simplistic, medieval code derived from the Wahhabi creed, which is the usual religion of Jihadis. But this creed is not the Islam that was first taught by the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE. It is not even the Religion of Islam that began to be formulated some 200 years after the Prophet and, over the centuries, developed into a complex structure with many variations in different parts of the world (the usual trajectory of religions that start from a simple, fundamental ideology).

Unfortunately (for Islam and Muslims), the Wahhabi creed is spreading in the Muslim world and has become the face of Islam for many on the outside. It is important to understand how this has come about.

This creed arose in Arabia in the 18th century and advocates a return to the purity and simplicity of early Islam through a purging of all the 'dross' that the religion has subsequently acquired. The "early Islam" that it seeks is that of the first few generations of Muslims, but the sources it relies on are of much later provenance and of very mixed quality. Inevitably, the picture that emerges from them is of life in an early medieval time, requiring much interpretation and extrapolation to apply it to current conditions.

This creed gained some local standing by allying itself to the Ibn Saud family that went on to ultimately achieve power in that backward and poor desert country. It then became the state religion, and also spread among the Gulf Arabs. With the discovery of oil the Saudi kingdom and the Gulf emirates vaulted from a poor backwater to important players on the international stage. It was not until the 1980s, however, when the US began its campaign to push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, that the Wahhabi creed started to spread outside its home base.

The Saudis, urged by the US to assist the Afghan Mujahideen fighting the Soviets, poured in money, weapons, and a number of Arab volunteers, along with their creed. The latter appealed to the unsophisticated Pashtun tribesmen in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and, boosted by the accompanying financial incentives, soon spread widely among them. At the same time, Gen Zia-ul-Haq assumed power in Pakistan and eagerly embraced Saudi assistance to Islamicise the country, mainly through generously financed Wahhabi madrassahs (religious schools). In time this creed became the religious belief of the Jihadi movement, first in the form of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and later the Pakistani Taliban and other offshoots. And, of course, the IS.

The Saudis have consistently sought to increase their influence and standing in the Muslim world through a combination of their huge financial resources and the propagation of the Wahhabi creed. They have found a receptive audience among Muslims of many lands, either fed up with the misgovernance, corruption and lawlessness in their own countries or living alienated lives in other countries.

Muslims generally have also felt themselves to be under pressure or outright attack by the West, with the only obvious resistance coming from the Jihadis (with their Wahhabi creed). Its status is also much burnished when they see the leaders of the powerful West bow and scrape before the Saudi monarchs, its patron.

The fall of relatively secular Muslim regimes and their modernising agendas has also fueled its rise; Jihadis, often backed by Wahhabi money, exploit the chaos and resulting power vacuums. This has happened in Afghanistan (yes, the Soviet-backed regime was one such!), Iraq, Libya, and Syria (while Egypt and Tunisia have progressed only part way through this scenario). No doubt these regimes were authoritarian, often harsh, and corrupt, but no more so than most other Muslim countries, and indeed many others. That this fate has befallen all of them makes many wonder whether Ian Fleming's classic formulation applies here: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, Mr Bond, it's enemy action!

It seems odd that the West continues to support, and even show deference to, the Saudis and their Gulf satellites, given their support for anti-West Jihadis and their efforts to radicalise more and more Muslims around the world. It becomes understandable, however, when one realises how many constituencies in these countries and governments benefit from this situation. There is the boost this 'terror threat' provides to their militaries, security agencies and their supporting structures (corporations, think tanks, the media, etc). The former acquire more power and financing, while the latter stand to make lots of money. A frightened citizenry accepts the promise of increased security in lieu of many of their rights and freedoms, while marginalised groups can legitimately be denied resources.

For many Muslims this onslaught of Saudi money and ideology is deeply disturbing. It is leading to the rise of fundamentalism, and pulling the religion of Islam more and more towards the Wahhabi model. (Since, at its core, the religion also presents a medieval ideal as its standard, this results in the shedding of more and more of the ameliorating beliefs and practices that it has acquired over the centuries). Such Muslims are faced with the difficult choice of either abandoning their aspirations for a progressive system of life or adopting the hypocrisy of a purely external belief.

This agonizing choice can be avoided if Muslims realise that the religion of Islam as they know it is not the Islam that the Prophet Muhammad received. That original was a profound and powerful set of beliefs relating to the existence of God, the relationship of humans to the deity, and our role in the world. This Islam was recorded in the Qur'ān, and is still available to us today to study and rediscover these fundamental, nurturing beliefs.

(Anyone interested in seeing how this can be done, and what these beliefs are, can refer to my paper Understanding the Qur'ān's Message. Interestingly, if they explore these issues in some depth and without preconceptions, non-Muslims, even atheists, can arrive at pretty much the same conclusions, as discussed here).

Comments

[CTuttle]

Aloha, Gen. Ali...! Al Akhbar had a great article on the burning...!

Slaying, Slaughtering, and Burning: ISIS, the Cinematic Caliphate

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/slaying-slaughtering-and-burning-isis-cinematic-caliphate

Nice to see the Muslim community condemning it widely...!

http://newsr.in/n/World/754wk7car/Muslim-clerics-condemn-burning-to-death-of-Jordanian.htm

[Babak Makkinejad]

ISIS has claimed that they had carried "Qisas" - Just Retribution in Arabic - since the pilot had bombed and set on fire innocent civilians.

As I have stated before, there is nothing that ISIS is doing that contradicts or contravenes Islamic Precepts.

Like Osama bin Ladin, who went and found a Sheikh to justify his war against America, ISIS, no doubt, has its collection of malleable sheikhs who will find a justification for whatever ISIS wishes somewhere in Islamic Tradition.

I remember Anwar Sadat calling Ayatollah Khomeini un-Islamic too.

[CTuttle]

I agree, Babak, in that all the Abrahamic religions can pick and choose their preachers...! But, as I keep a close eye on the A/P, it's heartening to see Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia, widely condemning the Wahabbist excesses in the MENA, and elsewhere, for that matter...!

[Fabs]

Babak Makkinejad,

"As I have stated before, there is nothing that ISIS is doing that contradicts or contravenes Islamic Precepts."

Can you elaborate on this with proofs from any Shariah you want ( Shia, Sunni etc..) and not just some random fatwas.?

The treatment of POW in Islam is specifically detailed . Here is an entry in Wikipedia for ease of access, and there is a whole lot more information I would be happy to provide that shows that what ISIS is doing contradicts the spirit and the law of Islamic jurisprudence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_Islam

[Abu Sinan]

Just because one can find some scholar somewhere to claim something is Islamic, doesnt make it so. Somewhere in the middle of the hubris from the extreme right and the extreme left in Islam there is the truth. If course all sides claim to have it.

The fact is, the majority of the Muslim world does not believe in the Islam of ISIL.

The general's point about the Saudis, the Khalij in general, is spot on. Saudi is the epicenter of where this all came from and where it was exported from. The fact that we still have not addressed this at any level is a shame. Things will not change as long as money, arms and propaganda is still being exported.

[Babak Makkinejad]

ISIS does not recognize Jordan as a legitimate enemy; she is being led by a possibly apostate ruler who is attacking ISIS under the Christian Crusader flag. So the Jordanian pilot was not a legitimate soldier but only a common criminal to him was applied "Qisas:.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I have known many people who support the amputation of limbs or other "cruel and unusual punishments" as the very essence of Islamic Justice.

[confusedponderer]

"Just because one can find some scholar somewhere to claim something is Islamic, doesnt make it so."

True enough, but since Islam is a layman religion built on group consensus that doesn't matter all that much. For all practical purposes, it suffices that ISIS agrees with themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

It is no accident that historically the different schools of Islam engaged in violent conflict with one another.

[Abu Sinan]

I agree and so have I. The majority of them would also hate ISIL. Because you support traditional hudud punishments does not make you a supporter of ISIL, far from it.

[Abu Sinan]

The lack of any sort of official leadership, unlike Shi'a Islam, is both a benefit and a draw back. It is similar with some strands of Protestantism.

[Shah]

Thank you, Brig Ali, for voicing the opinion of the quiet majority.

How pure is pure! Wahhabis claim themselves to be the purest of the breed but across the desert ISIS asserts otherwise. To them the Saudis have derailed from the true and pure path of Islam. ISIS considers destroying the Kaaba in Mecca as one of their goals to purify Islam further.

Sooner or later one extreme ideology will sort the other out but it will not end there. Far from it. The Muslims’ desire (and I am a Muslim) to continue purifying Islam from within is a long way from being over. Whether US participates, or sides with one or the other, we will continue to witness more of the unintended consequences and extremes of savagery for many more centuries to come.

Note: ISIS on destroying The Kaaba: http://goo.gl/dk3wzo

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes.

But then one could ask them what is it about ISIS is that they find un-Islamic.

[turcopolier]

Abu Sinan

"unlike Shi'a Islam" 12er Shiism is still consensus based in the Hawza and no man's opinions survive his death unless endorsed by the living. pl

[confusedponderer]

Agreed!

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, but at least they have succeeded in reducing the number of people whose opinion defines Islam and the rank-and-file Shia are comfortable with that.

Sort of like what a few professors in a few famous universities set the agenda for research in this or that field.

[turcopolier]

Babak

Yes. What do you think of similarities between 12er Shiism and the LDS religion (other than LDS polytheism)? And how abut a few words on the different kinds of 12er Shiism? I have never really been clear on that. pl

[Charles I]

I recall you and I sparring over death to drug addicts one time, bearing in mind that if that was the prevailing justice in my one-time milieu, I wouldn't have been there to argue with you!

[Patrick Bahzad]

Actually ISIS has done a number of things contradictory to precepts of Islam, but there are enough 'surahs' in the Quran, or enough hadiths, that even mediocre clerics could use as an excuse and justification for what ISIS did.

Regarding Sadat calling Khomeini un-islamic, it probably didn't have the same meaning as in the context of ISIS.

To the Takfiris among them, any Shia religious leader might risk being accused of apostasy or of being a kafir, with the unpleasant consequences this may entail under their interpretation of sharia.

[Babak Makkinejad]

name one...

[Babak Makkinejad]

Those opinions will get you killed in Pakistan.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Drug usage, in fact, was not considered against Islam for centuries until relatively recently. The Quran is silent on it and the current death penalty laws in Iran or in Indonesia are administrative in source.

[Patrick Bahzad]

I'll name just a few, in no particular order:

- the number of death penalties by crucifixion has "boomed" in areas taken over by ISIS. the penalty as such is perfectly acceptable in Islamic Law but its application is strictly codified (under sura 5:33 of the Quran). ISIS 'judges', in particular Raqqa's Tariq al-Jibuli, apply this punishment more and more indiscriminately. That goes against precepts of Islam.

- foot soldiers of the FSA who refused to swear allegiance to the "Caliph" were executed under the rule of 'Al Walla'a wa Al Bara', meaning they were accused of being allied to infidels, which is a form of apostasy. Which infidels were they allied with, given they fought the same [apostate] enemy that ISIS is fighting against in Syria ?

- punishment of amputation of thieves in times of war, when civilians have no decent way of finding food, goes against the precepts of Islam. Sharia clearly states the conditions in which amputation is acceptable and these conditions are not met in ISIS territory.

- more fundamentally, under Sharia, the Caliph is not the ultimate judicial authority. It's the "doctors of the law" who make sure everybody, including the Caliph himself, abides to Islamic law. The Caliph himself is at the service of Islam, and Islam is not at his service. In the ISIS-entity, Baghdadi makes decisions and has them approved by the 'judges' he appointed himself. That goes against the precepts of Islam.

Need more ?

[Lord Curzon]

I've always tried to steer those Muslims I've encountered who take a more literal interpretation towards Allamah Tabataba'i's Tafsir Al Mizan. The look on their faces as they progress through each volume is like watching the sky when a new planet appears!

[Babak Makkinejad]

Thank you for your comments.

The verse 5:33 reads:

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"

Since ISIS rejects the need for interpretation of the Quran in light of Reason, its application of the punishment of crucification cannot be challenged.

ISIS is self-declared True Islam and by definition all its enemies are warring against God and His Messenger.

The most another Wahabi can argue is that ISIS has been too selective in the form of punishments it metes out on basis of this verse; that perhaps ISIS ought to cut limbs off instead of crucification.

As to your last point, the revivalist Muslims - such as Wahabis - do not care one whit about the historical evolution of Islamic societies; they want to recreate the days of the Prophet and the 4 Khalifs - who were the Ultimate Judicial Authorities.

They are closest to Khwarej and others of their ilk; fantasizing about riding with the Prophet on a Holy War, but this time perhaps in a tank.

Your other point, in the last paragraph, about supremacy of the Law - that was never the case in reality of Islam; nothing ever protected a Muslim from the depredations of the Khalif, his regents, his commanders, his agents etc. in a consistent and coherent fashion.

The idea that the ruler is subject to the Law itself is a Revolutionary idea.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, that is a great book and he tries his best even where he could have used subject matter experts such as in the areas of modern science and medicine.

But I think for many people, specially Wahabis, it is precisely the need for people like him that is being rejected; "I know Arabic, I can read the Quran, and I can make my own mind" and "I certainly do not need no rafizi to tell me what to think."