Although Dar Al Ifta’ in Cairo requested that everyone deny the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) the legitimacy it craves by identifying itself as the ‘Islamic State’, utterly confused decision-makers and, even worse, immensely gullible commentators, continue to give credence to criminals. Why?
On the surface, ‘Caliph’ Ebrahim Al Baghdadi’s meteoric rise is nothing short of spectacular, on account of his gang’s prowess to gain alleged control over large swathes of Iraqi and Syria lands with a few thousand bandits. No one seems to wonder where these extremists learnt how to drive tanks, much less refuel them. No one is asking basic questions about logistical support to move any given number of fighters from point A to point B, and maintain lines of communications and supplies, without running into insurmountable problems.
Where did they learn how to use the computer wares on the missile launchers, etc ... These may indeed be silly questions but their answers will surely reveal the genuine identities of these criminals whose access to the Photoshop application must not be underestimated.
Be that as it may, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shaikh Shawki Allam, is right when he declares that extremists are violating all Islamic principles and laws — in fact, they are violating all human principles and laws — when he describes these criminals as a danger to Islam as well as the whole world. Consequently, Dar Al Ifta’ is recommending that everyone drop ‘Isil’ in favour of the ‘Al Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria,’ or the acronym QSIS.
Instead of heeding such common sense ideas and mobilising to defeat militants, we now have a chorus in several western capitals, where intense debates are under way to devise appropriate military and political responses to the latest events in northern Iraq and Syria. In summary, these cry out for a reassessment of ties with Baghdad and Damascus that is truly offensive. Still, whereas the situation in Iraq seems to follow a two-pronged direction — a less tainted prime minister backed by solid Kurdish military action that is supported by western air strikes — the situation in Syria is far more complicated than many assume.
Somehow the brutal death of more than 200,000, the use of banned weapons, the support of extremists galore, and the significant involvement of both Iranian and Hezbollah militias — duly backed by Russia and China — can all be excused because President Bashar Al Assad could, just could, assist in the destruction of Islamists his government helped create in the first place.
It’s amazing to note how attitudes changed over a very short period of time. Indeed, while the British Parliament emasculated David Cameron’s government by denying London the right to assist Syrians in 2013, we now hear sad voices ask the British Prime Minister to work with the Syrian regime to defeat QSIS. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, one of Britain’s most senior parliamentarians, and Lord Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, have recently asked Cameron not to be “squeamish about it” and forge close ties with Al Assad.
Mercifully, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond firmly rejected the proposal, although the absurdity of such a request did not escape the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al Mua’llem, who declared that Damascus would raise no objections to Western military attacks on extremist positions, provided it was involved in the coordination of air strikes. It was unclear whether Rifkind, Dannatt or Mua’llem were high on any kind of banned substances when they uttered such nonsense, but no one should be surprised by so-called “realist” policies.
The logic behind these bizarre pronouncements, often camouflaged in the rhetoric that public opinion in Britain or the US or any number of countries opposed further military entanglements in the Middle East, should be a wake-up call. Somehow, while decent people are appalled and disgusted by the barbaric beheading of the American journalist James Foley, they allegedly object to entanglements that end the equally barbaric murder of thousands at the hands of a regime that reinvents barbarism.
To better answer the question at the top of this column, it is now time to assess whether western Governments were hasty when they called for Al Assad to leave power, or whether Russian President Vladimir Putin — who opposed US intervention in Syria and vetoed several UN Security Council resolutions — was right all along. In fact, Putin’s admonitions — in the opinion pages of the New York Times no less — that military strikes “would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism,” failed to prevent the added aggression.
On the contrary, by standing with criminals, Moscow and its acolytes tolerated the rise of far more sophisticated terrorists. Further complicating matters, facile predictions like Putin’s rekindled dormant Sunni-Shiite confrontations, could now stretch over decades if not centuries.
For the Putins, Rifkinds, Dannatts and Mua’llems of this world to now identify Al Assad as a secularist, someone with whom one could do business, smacks of sheer hypocrisy.
Insincerity is nothing new, of course, which is why the Dar Al Ifta’ recommendation is so important. Naturally, while it is not the only source concerned with extremism — the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdul Aziz Al Al Shaikh, has also called the group Islam’s Number 1 enemy — its authoritative pronouncements are valuable and should be given their due.
Although the world is asked to overlook the violent attacks — including mass shootings, wholesale destruction of mosques and churches, the dropping of barrel bombs on civilians, the use of chemical weapons to subdue entire city neighbourhoods, beheadings galore, the burying of people alive, the torture civilians, etc ... — it is up to decent individuals to rise to the occasion.
We are witnessing the first steps in Kurdistan and one hopes that others will step up to the plate to permanently defeat extremists, whether they behead, or drop barrels on civilians.
Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming ‘Iffat Al Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.
