RSS FeedIn a series of blog posts over the last few weeks I have been arguing that the international response to ISIS is hopelessly inadequate. Even if the military effort succeeds in rolling ISIS back, it can be nothing more than a temporary palliative. This is because it is failing to address the underlying ideology on which ISIS, and groups like it, are built.
Although ISIS is seen as the main threat at the moment, it's important not to forget that there are plenty of similar groups elsewhere in the world: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and Tunisia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and the Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia. Even if they are driven back one by one, other groups will emerge to replace them unless the ideological problem is tackled.
But violent jihadists are only the most extreme end of the spectrum. The Middle East in particular is plagued with sectarian conflicts – current or potential – and others that have been sectarianised to give them a veneer of religious legitimacy. Arab governments indulge in sectarian politics constantly and this rubs off at street level too. Millions of ordinary folk have grown up with the idea that their own faith or sect is the only "true" one and that foisting it upon others and discriminating against "heretics" is not merely OK but a religious duty.
ISIS and the battle of ideas
ISIS bans evolution, patriotism and literature
Islamic Kingdom versus Islamic State
Clarity over ISIS? You must be joking!
ISIS, the Middle East's do-gooders
Mosul’s first death by stoning
Thankfully, there are now a few signs that the central role of sectarian dogma is beginning to be recognised – and not in the simplistic "all Muslims are evil" kind of way.
On Saturday, the Telegraph quoted General Jonathan Shaw, a former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in Britain, as saying that ISIS can only be defeated by political and ideological means. "Western air strikes in Iraq and Syria will, in his view, achieve nothing except temporary tactical success," the paper reported.
Gen Shaw also singled out Saudi Arabia and Qatar for specific mention: "The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil [ISIS] is a violent expression of Wahhabist Salafism."
In a recent interview, Omar Saif Ghobash, the UAE's ambassdor to Russia, also highlighted the need to tackle ISIS "in the realm of ideas":
"What’s probably the most dangerous thing about them is they have a very attractive, reductive view of how Islam should progress. One of the worries is also that in the realm of ideas they provide all the correct references ...
"They legitimise themselves by making references that are very common in the Muslim world about the khilafat [originally, the 1920s movement to support the Caliphate of Turkey], about fighting both the Persian empire through Baghdad and Iran and then the West, presumably representing historical Rome. In a sense, they’re playing to all the themes that we’ve been educated in. That’s what’s extremely worrying."
Asked what could be done about that, Ghobash replied:
"The first thing to do is to recognise that there is a strategic element that hasn’t been addressed, which is the realm of ideas. We’ve heard about it ever since September 11… that the realm of ideas is where these battles really need to be fought. That’s part of the reason why I’ve continually been personally very interested in where this is going. We often hear about moderate Islam and moderate Muslims. I regard myself as a moderate Muslim. Frequently, there are calls on moderate Muslims to stand up and say something, and that’s pretty much where it ends.
"Moderate Muslims will appear on television, on news broadcasts, and they will make an appeal to other moderate Muslims to say something. But they themselves don’t say anything. So, I think we moderate Muslims have done Islam a disservice by not providing a clear framework for young men and women, whether in the West or in Indonesia or in the Arab world, to deal with the problems of modernity.
"There is an existential crisis that young men face when they haven’t got a job, when they haven’t got a wife, and they haven’t got any opportunities. How do we take Islam as this moderate force and provide sustenance to them rather than providing an extremist version of Islam that satisfies their anger and their need for vengeance of some sort?"
And he added:
"What is worrying is that the ISIS in a sense represents a breakthrough for extremism. Their ideology does not differ that much from other groups who are often called moderate by the Western press who have the same goals, the same intentions, but who are described as being more pragmatic, ready to make compromises with the present. We within the Arab and Muslim community know that they actually have precisely the same goals, which are essentially intolerant and a very narrow worldview."
In an article for The National last week, Faisal al-Yafai looked at the development of jihadism over the last quarter-century and how it has adapted in the face of attempts to destroy it. He concluded:
"This is not a battle that can be won by weapons; it has to be won by ideas. Even as US warplanes fly over Iraq again, the Middle East and the West – on this, at least, clear allies – are ceding the vital battleground of ideas to the militants. The actions of the West merely influence the ideology; they do not counter it.
"Jihad is an evolving battle of ideas. Before our eyes, jihadis are experimenting across a wide theatre of war. Ideas from the past are updated and refined; methods of persuasion are experimented with. Jihadis learn from each other; they are looking at what works in one area and trying to replicate it elsewhere; they seek past mistakes and avoid them.
"In Syria, ISIL has set up an administration in Raqqa, seeking to establish a base of operations, as al-Zawahiri tried to do in Afghanistan. In the West, jihadis seek lone-wolf attacks, drawing on the writing of al-Suri – indeed, ISIL encourages them, as it did last week, to attack Americans wherever they can. And everywhere, drawing on the teachings of Azzam, young men and women leave their families and communities without permission, seeking to join a divine caravan of war.
"This crucial battlefield of ideas has been ceded by the Middle East and the West, which focus on a military solution to these weeds of war. All the while, in the dark corners of the internet and the ungoverned spaces of the world, the cancer of jihadism is mutating and spreading."
Recognising the centrality of these pernicious ideas is one thing but what, in practical terms, can be done about them?
The first requirement is to challenge them directly and openly. It is counterproductive to try to suppress them (as Egypt, for example, is doing with the Muslim Brotherhood) because that merely allows them to fester beneath the surface. The more they are exposed to the light, the easier it is to show what is wrong with them.
Another basic step is to put pressure on governments which foster sectarianism in any form, whether violent or not. It should not to be unreasonable to ask that any country joining the alliance against ISIS must show a commitment to opposing sectarianism and supporting freedom of belief – otherwise they cannot be part of the solution.
But that is not the case at present. Saudi Arabia, as I have pointed out before, is the main offender here but there are 10 other Arab countries in the alliance – Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – and to varying degrees they have all contributed towards the problem.
I will take a detailed look at the role of these countries in a future blog post.
