Saturday, December 12, 2015

Historical Context To The Rise Of ISIS

Imagine being Catholic and Vatican City is conquered and the Pope deposed. Imagine the despair, anguish, and disbelief of such a horrific event.  A similar scenario happened to the Jews several thousand years ago when Jerusalem was destroyed, the holy temple razed, and all Jews expelled from Israel.  The destruction of the holy temple was particularly unnerving because it was the site where God resided.  Jews wondered whether their God was not all powerful or worse not real?  This was unthinkable.  To resolve the cognitive dissonance and make sense of what happened, they concluded that God was punishing them for not following His ways and a period of self examination followed.  Jews experienced pain and loathing and complete impotence for the suffering they wrought upon themselves.  Homeless, the Jewish people wandered through through many European countries experiencing outer rejection and hostility from European natives and inner shame.  This journey lasted several thousand years until Israel was reestablished.  Once home their psyche changed and they vowed never again would others control their fate.

Muslims, particularly Sunnis, are undergoing a similar journey today which began with the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, and the subsequent end of the caliphate in 1924.  The Ottoman empire was conquered by Britain and France and divided between them without regard to the religious and ethnic makeup of the lands.  Sunni Muslims were a minority in Iraq and Iran and a majority without power in Syria and Egypt.

In WWI the Ottoman army was almost entirely Turkish. Turkish nationalism precluded Arabs from serving in the military.  Hoping to fracture the Ottoman Empire, the British offered Arabs their own Arab Kingdom in exchange for revolting against the Turks.  Unbeknownst to the Arabs, Britain and France had a secret post war agreement that they would divide the Arab lands between them.  British representative, T.E. Lawrence encouraged a group of Arabs who were Sunni Muslims from the Western Arabian Peninsula to side with the British and revolt against their brothers in Islam. The Arab revolt allowed the British to easily conquer Iraq, Palestine, and Syria from the Ottoman Empire. For the first time since 1187 the holy city of Jerusalem was under the control of Christian Europe.  At the end of WWI the Western European powers per their wartime agreement kept the conquered lands for themselves rather than create an Arab Kingdom.  This betrayal, the loss of Jerusalem, and the end of the caliphate reverberated throughout the Muslim community, particularly elements of Sunni Muslims,and ignited the path towards Islamic terrorism that is the scourge of the 21st century.

Sayid Qutb, an Egyptian religious scholar and devout Sunni Muslim martyr is considered the ideological father of Al Qaeda as his writings and lectures greatly influenced Ayman-Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden. Qutb encouraged takfir, the religiously sanctioned killing of apostates.  According to Qutb's takfir, Muslims not adhering to the true Islamic faith, Sunni Muslim, were to be killed.  This idea and others were incorporated into the Muslim Brotherhood and followed by its leader Ayman-Al-Zawahiri.  The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood was provincial, the overthrow of the secular President of Egypt and the installation of the Qur'an as the state religion.  The Muslim Brotherhood's mottoes were:  the Qur'an is the constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, death for the sake of Allah is our wish.

Ayman-Al-Zawahiri later merged the Muslim Brotherhood with Al Qaeda founded by Osama Bin Laden.  Bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi appalled that the Western apostate, the United States had military bases on the soil of Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca the holiest city in Islam. Bin Laden agreed with the Muslim Brotherhood mottoes but also believed in the implementing the goals internationally, particularly against the United States, the great defiler of the holy lands and of Islamic teachings and practices.

In 2014 ISIS broke from Al Qaeda and adopted a version of the the Wahhabi doctrines that are practiced in Saudi Arabia.  ISIS primary goal was the re-establishment of the caliphate which they did by conquering large parts of Iraq and Syria.  ISIS now overshadows Al Qeada as the dominant terrorist group, doubling its size since its inception in 2014 and receiving pledges of allegiance from Al Qaeda affiliates in other parts of the world.  

Isis is now more dangerous, brutal, and robust than Al Qaeda. ISIS practices a medieval form of Islam embodied by Wahhabi doctrines which aim to return to the practices of the first two Caliphs of Islam and rejects all subsequent innovations to the religion as a corruption of Islam.  .  In accordance with Wahhabi practices ISIS terrorizes infidels into submission using beheadings, crucifixions, rape, and enslavement.  This is akin to the medieval form of Christianity in which Christian crusaders, Christian inquisitions, and Christian pogroms led to multiple massacres and tortures of Jews based on a New Testament reference to Jews acknowledging blood on their hands for the crucifixion of Christ.

ISIS is more dangerous, brutal and robust than Al Qaeda.  ISIS practices a medieval form of Islam embodied by Wahhabi doctrines which aim to return to the practices of the first two Caliphs of Islam.  Like these first Caliphs ISIS terrorizes infidels into submission using beheadings, crucifixions, rape, and enslavement.  This is akin to the medieval form of 
Christianity in which Christian crusades and Christian Inquisitions led to multiple massacres of Jews based on a New Testament reference to Jews acknowledging blood on their hands for the crucifixion of Christ.

The great attraction to ISIS flows from its perceived religious legitimacy through its establishment of the caliphate.  Unlike other terrorists groups where recruits pledge loyalty to a cause, recruits to ISIS undergo a religious conversion and pledge their lives to the Caliph, the representative of Allah on earth.

Religious conversion is powerful, powerful stuff.  It provides deep meaning and purpose and is rapturous to the disaffected, alienated, or marginalized.  On top of that, ISIS re-establishment of the caliphate, the Suni Muslim homeland, lifts the deep shame that Suni Muslims feel, in the same way it did for Jews when Israel was re-established.  This explains why ISIS recruits cross socioeconomic boundaries.  It is not economic justice that drives these recruits to ISIS but the search for meaning, purpose, and positive identity.  Similarly, religious conversion explains why recruits who show no history of violence are able to commit the most heinous acts.  They are acting for the glory of Allah to purify the world of subhumans in accordance with the Prophet Mohamed.

Religious conversion can happen very, very quickly.  Muslims versed in the teachings and practices of the Qur'an do not need a full religious conversion but merely an acceptance of the ISIS Caliph as their true religious leader.  So there is urgency in having plans to adequately protect the homeland and to eliminate ISIS from the face of the earth. Examining current plans in the light of the historical context of the rise of ISIS is the subject of the next blog.






Sunday, December 6, 2015

On Terrorism

Americans are divided about so many things nowadays, including the uprise in random shootings and violence throughout our communities which is igniting both sides of the gun control debate.  One can hardly miss the fiery rhetoric and calls to actions, yet even in this volatile atmosphere, the threat and reality of terrorism does not strictly cleave along partisan lines.  As the recent congressional vote on Syrian refugees illustrated, Republicans and Democrats have found kindred spirits within each party, but there is a real divide on what to do about terrorism that needs context for true understanding and bipartisan solutions. 

Contrasting the national experiences of our nation, a settled nation, with that of Israel, a conquered nation, helps explain the two mindsets of terrorism now seen in this country.  The profound historical experiences of America and Israel has shaped the national mindset and psyche of the people in these two nations.  For our country the psyche is of American exceptionalism.  Americans see our country as a beacon of freedom and the most powerful country in the world that uses its economic and military power for good.  When Israelis are asked to describe their national psyche, they often use the Hebrew word sabra.  Sabra is a tenacious thorny and prickly desert plant with a thick skin that conceals a softer sweeter interior.

American history, from 1776 through the end of the 20th century is one of a settled country.  From thirteen states we expanded westward settling the land until our expanse reached from coast to coast.  With vast oceans separating us from Europe and Asia, with a friendly country to the north and underdeveloped countries to the south we had little concern about being conquered.  We have only been invaded twice, with the only serious threat to our sovereignty happening early in our history during the war of 1812.  Free from fears of invasion we  established the most open, free, and prosperous society on the planet.  We welcomed immigrants and refugees from all over the global, to share in our bounty.  With hard work anyone from any nation, no matter their circumstances, could achieve the American dream.   

Contrast the American experience with that of Israel, where the reality of being conquered has been a constant threat haunting Israelis since the birth of their nation.  In Israel, the threat of terrorism and annihilation makes security take precedence.  Immigration and citizenship is denied to those from countries deemed enemies of the state.  Israel has walled itself off from it's neighbors, and multiple roadblocks screen those entering the country.  Armed guards are stationed at public places and people are searched before entering such spaces.  Restrictions are even placed on the freedom of the press, so that office holders are safe, and state secrets protected.  The restrictions would be unthinkable in our country.  

But should they all be?  Certainly the 9/11 attack on American was psychically searing and cognitively dissonant, but should it change the way our nation looks at security?   That's the question that divides us.  Most Americans never imagined that the most powerful nation in the world, located so far from the upheaval in Europe and the Middle East, would ever be attacked.  Initially united in the path forward, as time passed, perspectives bifurcated into the settled country mindset that we should not let our fears and prejudices undermine our long held and cherished values, and the conquered country mindset that saw Israel as the canary in the coal mine requiring that security be given a higher priority.  The terrifying rise of ISIS and the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino has only accelerated and intensified this debate.  Should we hold strong to our American ideals or add more security measures and become more like Israel?  The two views came head to head during the Syrian refugee debate.  Both sides were emotionally moved  by the photo of the body of the Syrian child that washed onto the beach and the videos of desperate refugees marching miles with tiny children, exhausted, desperate, with seemingly nowhere to turn.  Those with the settled country mindset argued that denying entrance to refugees went against American values and who we are as a people.  Photos of the statue of liberty crying flooded the internet, petitions were signed, and lines drawn in the sand.  However, as terror continues to rise around the world, many Americans have adopted a conquered country mindset. Worried about security--flaws in vetting the immigrants, along with the very real threat of homegrown radicalization, they are willing to curtail some individual liberties to protect the homeland and their families.  These two mindsets break on all the other  issues related to terrorism: NSA bulk data collection, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes, border control, prosecuting terrorists within the criminal justice system, etc,

The debate between these two mindsets is important but is spoiled by the rancorous and vitriolic accusations hurled by each side.  Just as one side needs to stop accusing  the other side of being uncaring and un-American, the other side must stop calling other Americans naive or unable to acknowledge evil.   If each side recognized the historical precedents for the other sides' passionately held views then perhaps each side would listen and debate the issues in a constructive fashion towards reaching a consensus on the way forward.  First, though, we must determine the nature and the degree of threat radical Islamic terrorism presents here in America.  As such, a historical perspective on radical terrorism and the rise and meaning of ISIS will be broached in my next blog. 

As always, I welcome your thoughts. 


Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The meaning of words

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Hello everyone who has found their way to this blog.

These days it seems more and more things that were once considered common sense are no longer seen this way.  It's a new world, so I am naming my blog Uncommon Sense, to reflect this change. 

Not too long ago words had objective meaning.  In this new world, words can be far more subjective than they have ever been before.  Take for example, microaggressions, which are mostly subjective, that are now a part of University campus life.  Words have always been powerful weapons, used to heal or hurt, but the use of the term microaggression has taken this to an "Alice In Wonderland" level.  Someone might feel hurt because of the racist or sexist implications of their words, even if that is unintentional.  One recent example is saying that America is a melting pot, commonly considered something positive about our nation, which now takes on negative meanings because use of the term melting pot denies the value of individual races and cultures.  Sadly, if someone fears speaking or sharing ideas because those ideas might unintentionally hurt another, then the exchange of ideas becomes impossible.  Uncommon sense because the exchange of ideas is what higher education is supposed to be all about. 

Tracing how the meaning of words came to depend on subjective reactions to them, as well as how other examples of uncommon sense came into being will be the subject of this blog.  As always I look forward to your reactions and insights.  


Talk to you soon.