ISIS: the need to understand

THE AUDACIOUS VENTURE TO UNDERSTAND

 Maryam Sakeenah

A good deal has been said about ISIS being a grotesque travesty of Islam and a defiant rejection of all that is commonly held to be moral and humane. Islamic scholars from a variety of denominations have come forward with a single voice to condemn it as a grave wrong, and this of course was vital and timely. However, condemnation alone misses a vital point; it flatly rests on the surface of a much deeper phenomenon.

It is more helpful to engage in an effort to understand- because when groups like ISIS emerge, we are warned that something about our collective humanity has gone terribly wrong. When human beings take up ruthless violence against one another, it shakes our faith in humanity. And yet the perpetrators and oppressors are not any less human than the rest of us- so what disfigured our humanity that we became capable of systematically inflicting pain on others and then celebrating it in the name of ideology?

Phenomena like ISIS are not rare in human history. But to begin to solve a recurring problem we do not need to just condemn, but to understand. A serious and honest effort at understanding is essential because when we engage in it we identify the deep-seated grievances and pent-up feelings of being wronged without redress that fuel the vicious cycle of reactionary violence.

But understanding becomes difficult when we ‘otherize’ and then condemn the ‘other’ whom we have created in our morally superior self-perception. The interconnectedness of a globalized world shows the error in viewing phenomena in isolation from contexts and other events- contemporary or historical. So much of what we see happening today can somehow or the other be traced to events that took place in the recent or not-so-recent past.

It certainly adds a deeper dimension to our understanding to remind ourselves that ISIS was born in the detention camps of the US in Iraq, and got recruits from refugee facilities during and shortly after the US invasion. This gives the context to the radicalization of many of the human beings who now associate themselves with the group.

Lest we forget, Iraq was invaded in 2003 on an utterly false pretext of the threat of what was virtually a dysfunctional and impotent weapons programme. The official strategy of the invasion was ‘Shock and Awe’, which explicitly called for ‘paralyzing the country... destroying food production, water supplies and infrastructure’; the strategy involved the use of chemical weapons- white phosphorus, to name one- in civilian areas which has so far led to hundreds of thousands of stillbirths and birth defects other than instant fatalities. 740,000 women are war widows, 4.5 million were rendered homeless. Hundreds of thousands were made refugees during the brutal invasion of Fallujah alone that left 70% of the town’s buildings completely destroyed. Prison abuse and torture by US soldiers in Iraq has been brought to light, but so much remains still shrouded in history’s oblivion. But while mass deception may hide this narrative from public perception, it lives and rankles in the memories and consciousness of the victims and the witnesses. As the African proverb goes, 'The Axe forgets what the Tree remembers.'

When disempowered human beings are subjected to ignominious occupation and oppression, they will seek redress in militant, often frenzied ways; they will cling on to ideologies that legitimize and glorify the revenge which they believe is the vent. The direct experience of torture and killing desensitizes sensibilities from the use of violence on others, and routinizes it.

The mistake we make is when we locate the root of the problem with violent groups in the ideology they associate themselves with. In doing so, we fail to see the roots that run deeper. Violent ideologies triumph in violent contexts.

When we condemn such groups and vow to strike back with force against them, we again miss the point that to stem violence we need to understand what fuels it- and in most cases, what fuels it is not ideology but the ignominy of defeat and oppressive occupation. Ideology helps later to corroborate, legitimize and sanctify. Hence military operations against such organizations have not yielded stable and enduring peace.

At the terrible risk of being judged as the devil’s advocate, I dare to understand  that it may at times and in part be the work of our own hands that nurtures extremist violence . As long as such wrongs continue to be done to human beings by the powerful, violent groups seeking lost pride will continue to proliferate in multifarious forms- sometimes as Khmer Rouge, sometimes as ISIS or as the undiscovered many who may just be in various stages of their genesis that contemporary global politics fosters.   

The Need for Empathy in these times...

THE MURDER OF HUMAN EMPATHY

Maryam Sakeenah

Following the reprehensible attack on Christian homes in Lahore, a spine-chilling, grotesque image of an arsonist cheering over the burning flames went viral. One wonders what sort of man thumps his chest over destroying innocent lives and how human beings can become capable of such naked, audacious sadism that seeks justification in a faith that decrees ‘Whosoever harms a non Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I shall be the complainant against him on the Day of Judgement.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

Throughout history human beings have shown themselves to be capable of wreaking terrible destruction and causing great suffering- from burning ‘witches’ at the stake, crucifying God’s noble messengers, butchering refugees in sacred precincts, gassing Jews at Auschwitz, to the nationalistic wars of the twentieth century, the liquidation of millions in nuclear destruction and poisoning of the biosphere through relentless commercial-industrial activity.

Yet Jeremy Rifkins in his phenomenal book ‘The Empathic Civilization’ insists that human beings are ‘Homo Empathica’, that is, defined and distinguished for the ability to empathize. He writes, ‘Human beings are soft-wired to experience others’ plight as if we were experiencing it ourselves.’

Empathy allows us to stretch our sensibility to another so we can cohere into larger social groups. It is curbed and limited by defining these social groups through narrow, parochial banners of ethnicity, nationalism, race and creed so that the empathic drive does not extend to the out-group. The Prophet (SAW) said: "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah’, (prejudiced, parochial association)" (Abu Daud.) The out-group is then ‘otherized’, made out of the reach of our empathy. This creates indifference and apathy towards the suffering of people belonging to a different classification. However, a more severe form of limiting and deflecting the empathic impulse is dehumanization of the other ‘as flies to the wanton boys’, often institutionalized by the social superstructure: state and government, media, education, religion. Through stereotyping, essentialism, ethnocentrism, prejudice and propaganda as well as censorship and selective relaying of information to the public, minority groups and those whose interests clash with or threaten one’s own are systemtically dehumanized  and even demonized to appear less than human despicable, lower-order bestial ‘others’ whose eradication may not be of any great loss to human civilization. In the process we forget that as members of the human family, we all share a common, precarious existential predicament- our ‘little lives rounded with a sleep’- on a little finite planet in the mystifying universe.

Der Spiegel carried a report last year on the psychology of American drone operators whose button-clicking while reclining in plush chairs in air-conditioned offices decrees death to anonymous distant targets. The method of modern technological warfare seems to be designed to keep empathy at bay- the victim is invisible and remote, represented by a red dot on a laser screen, annihilated by a light, single click. Drone pilot Vanessa Meyer said, “When the decision had been made, and they saw that this was an enemy, a hostile person, a legal target that was worthy of being destroyed, I had no problem with taking the shot." (Nicola Abe: ‘Dreams in Infrared’) Gitta Sereny writes of Fratz Stangl, the annihilator of thousands at a Nazi camp: “Prisoners were simply objects. Goods. “That was my profession,” he said. “I enjoyed it. It fulfilled me. And yes, I was ambitious about that, I won’t deny it.” When Sereny asked Stangl how as a father he could kill children, he answered, “I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. … [T]hey were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips. …” (Chris Hedges: The Careerist)

Few and far between, there may be those whose empathy grows militant and unkillable. Brandon Bryant was able to humanize his victims in his drone operations_ he noticed the details of their lives and patterns of behaviour akin to his own. "I got to know them. Until someone higher up in the chain of command gave me the order to shoot." He felt remorse because of the children, whose fathers he was taking away. "They were good daddies," he says. He felt ‘disconnected from humanity’ while at his job, going through terrible unease and remorse. Having quit his job, he wrote in his diary, "On the battlefield there are no sides, just bloodshed. Total war. Every horror witnessed. I wish my eyes would rot." (Nicola Abe: ‘Dreams in Infrared’)   

Perhaps the most integral parts of this institutionalized dehumanization embedded in the superstructure of modern industrial society are the ‘Careerists’- the good men and women efficient at their jobs that make the system function. Chris Hedges describes them as ‘...armies of bureaucrats serving a corporate system that will quite literally kill us. They are as cold and disconnected... They carry out minute tasks. They are docile. Compliant. They obey. They find their self-worth in the prestige and power of the corporation, in the status of their positions and in their career promotions. It is moral schizophrenia. They erect walls to create an isolated consciousness. They destroy the ecosystem, the economy and the body politic... They feel nothing. And the system rolls forward. The polar ice caps melt. The droughts rage over cropland. The drones deliver death from the sky. The state moves inexorably forward to place us in chains. The sick die. The poor starve. The prisons fill. And the careerist, plodding forward, does his or her job.'

In Pakistan religion is increasingly used as one of the most powerful means of deflecting empathy from those outside the faith and sectarian affiliation. Religious intolerance in a culture of violence and anger is a fatal mix and has gone on a bloody rampage.  While the causes, factors and agents responsible for the ongoing madness are complexly intertwined, the resistance, rejection, counternarrative and healing that ought to have come from the representatives of religion in this part of the world has been inadequate, half-hearted, ambiguous and equivocal. The voice of condemnation from the pulpit is faltering, and this has been extremely damaging in a number of ways. The contemporary discourse of political Islam in Pakistan is heavily lopsided, selectively highlighting the plight of victims of American, Israeli and Indian misdemeanours (which certainly are important human rights issues), while keeping mum or issuing periodic enfeebled and rhetorical statements of condemnation over the plight of minorities and other innocent victims of those committing violence in the name of religion.

For Islamist groups, the cost of this silence has been and will be crushingly enormous. The disappointment felt by members of the civil society and educated youth over a criminal silence and inability of the religious leaders and scholars to rise to the occasion and give clarity to the public with a single voice has been shattering. This has not only alienated scores of good, intelligent people belonging to Pakistan’s educated urban middle and upper classes from Islamic groups and organizations but in many cases from the faith itself.  A colleague posted the picture of the gleeful arsonist with the comment, ‘Happy mob rightfully burns down Christian homes. Another great day for Islam. Another victory against the forces of evil.’ While this is an extreme reaction showing inability to draw a line between despicable, crazed fanatical elements and the faith itself, but it increases the onus on spokespeople of religion to address the burning issues that blur the lines.

Going to college in Pakistan shortly after the U.S declared all-out ‘war on terror’ and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, I witnessed scores of young people around me turning to Islam, primarily out of empathy for the Muslim victim, the underdog. In this country, the Islamist persona has now understandably metamorphosed into a perpetrator devoid of compassion, rationality and empathy, and this has alienated and repelled hundreds of thousands, resulting in a completely opposite trend that I, now an educator, see around me: a clear de-Islamization of Pakistan’s urban educated youth. While there also is a swing in the opposite direction, but the de-Islamization trend is clearly on the rise, understandably fuelled by the aforementioned.

Islamists in Pakistan are not cognizant of this terrible loss as they perceive themselves to be locked up in a crusade against the onslaught of the West, the secularists, the Zionists et all. Any voice calling for the need to provide clarity, answers and solutions is dismissed as ‘Westernized’, ‘secularized’, ‘liberalized,’ hence misguided and insincere, unworthy of serious consideration.

The narrative in Pakistan needs a rethink: the ethos of the Quran is the extension of identity to embrace the human race as fellow sojourners held together by a common human nature and destiny: ‘Mankind is but a single nation, yet they disagree.’ (2:213) Secondarily, we are taught to understand our responsibility towards those outside the faith fraternity not merely through divine directive but lived example and established paradigm.

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

Empathy humanizes and civilizes. Its suppression intensifies secondary drives like narcissism, materialism, violence and aggression. The task of religion, education and the media must be to bring out the empathic sociability stretching out to all of humanity and prepare the groundwork for what Rifkins has called an ‘empathic civilization.’

Mercy and gentleness, said the Prophet (SAW), are defining traits of believers: ‘Allah is gentle, and He loves those who are gentle.’ (Sahih Muslim)   Mercy and gentleness beautify the spirit: "Whenever kindness is in a thing it adorns it, and whenever it is removed from anything, it disfigures it." [Muslim]

Empathy is engraved into the core of our consciousness as human beings- that softest part inspired from the Divine Ruh (Spirit). Those who confine or deflect it are on the wrong side of humanity and history. In the long run, their narrative will lose out and history’s merciless verdict against them shall be ineradicable.        

On the offensive Youtube video....

                                                             FROTH ON THE SEA

Maryam Sakeenah

That a thirteen-minute long tawdry inanity from a dubious manic character could trigger off an uproar both from the emotionally and psychologically volatile fundamentalist groups as well as from states and governments is something that needs talking about. Complex social trends are taking over, quite beyond taming- a plethora of forces, factors, ideas and ideologies that collide and crack and clash and rebound.

For one, the disproportionately huge impact of something that deserves no more than a contemptuous sideglance points towards the enormous sway of the mass media in determining what ought to garner attention, how much and for how long. It also raises critical questions about the ‘freedom of expression’ that defines the cyber world- a blind and amoral freedom with no parameters and no ethic, that knows neither good nor evil, truth nor falsehood. Before the communication revolution becomes a hydra on the loose making fools and gasping helpless spectators of us all, we need to engage in a rethink of the entire concept of freedom and liberty as it relates to expression. Where does one draw the line between free expression and hate speech? And who draws those lines? Do we want to live in a world where everyone has complete and unlimited access to misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, pornography, falsehood, hate and prejudice indiscriminately disseminated all in the name of freedom of expression?

Still more interesting is the predictability of the action-reaction, provocation- backlash sequence that plays itself out every now and then. Whoever posted the filth onto Youtube seems to have done it with calculated deliberation- in his own words, it was a ‘political act’ in order to push the button driving Muslims into a feverish frenzy sending them to a spree of smashing and burning and ripping. It is like a bored passing urchin looking for some fun, who decides to throw a rock at a rival group so that he can stand back to watch the ensuing entertainment for a cheap thrill. A sick-minded desperado throws the bait and it is eagerly picked up by emotionally charged extremists. The theatric episode gives Islamophobes and extremists from both sides, much to shout out from the rooftops, much to reinforce their simplistic us-and-them narrative of binaries. It is too familiar and too regular a pattern.

And deeply distressing too. One can compare the sudden surge of religious passion over a despicable piece of filth a random maniac posted on Youtube to the lull in the Muslim world, over the state-sponsored carnage in Syria. One can also read into these pathological religious hysterics a tragic disconnect with the spirit and essence of the personage in whose blessed name it is claimed to be. Umm Jameel bint Harb, the wife of Abu Lahab, made up some verses of poetry to defame the Prophet by changing his name to a word that meant ‘the insulted one’ as opposed to "Muhammad" (i.e. the praised one). This enraged Muslims, especially in the early days of Islam when they were weak. The Prophet (SAW), however, responded thus: “Allah is protecting me from the Quraish's insults as they are cursing and swearing at "The Insulted One", whereas I am "Muhammad", the Praised One! (Sahih Al-Bukhari) 

In an Islamic Studies class while explaining Surah Al Kausar I could not help but draw the obvious and vital connection between the ‘Abundance’ (Kausar) granted to Muhammad (SAW) and the contemporary context. Kausar, the Abundance of God’s blessing, of virtue, of God’s Mercy and Love, of felicity, peace, spiritual richness, radiance and beatitude through which any obscenity spewed out by odious villains matters nothing. Kausar is also interpreted as abundance of following- but a following not as the froth on the beach...

Thauban (R.A) reported that the messenger of Allah said: "It is near that the nations will call one another against you just as the eaters call one another to their dishes." Somebody asked: "Is this because we will be few in numbers that day?" He said: "Nay, but that day you shall be numerous, but you will be like the foam of the sea, and Allah will take the fear of you away from your enemies and will place weakness into your hearts." Somebody asked: "What is this weakness?" He said: "The love of the world and the dislike of death." (Abu Daud)

An important narrative in the Islamic tradition is of the man who refused to make puerile effort to guard and defend the Sacred House in Makkah against an attacking army, realizing the futility of such an attempt, and relying instead, wholly on the help of Allah Himself while displaying great courage and strength of character. Divinely armed hordes of midget birds crushed the army in an awe-inspiring miracle that manifested the Glory of Allah and His transcendence above and beyond human machination. Realizing that the honour of the Prophet of Allah (SAW) does not stand in need of violent protest marches, nor does such expression accentuate his spiritual stature is a fundamental lesson in faith.

In my part of the world the angry mobs in the name of the Prophet (SAW)’s honour betray the spirit of what they seek to defend. It exposes the superficiality of our understanding of the message of Muhammad (SAW). The audacity of the corrupt and inept regime’s decision to celebrate the ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ (Day of the Love of the Prophet SAW) is revolting, and uncontrollable street mobs on the rampage smashing public property make a grotesque mockery of the grandiose motive. Such street sentiment actually expresses the pent up feelings of frustration and grievance, helplessness and anger over drones and poverty and Gitmo and joblessness and the great atrocity of the War on Terror, seeking cathartic relief in burning and boot-kicking effigies of freakish blaspheming idiots which personify the invisible Effigy of that one hostile monolithic entity called ‘The West.’

I long for a ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ wherein I can relive the message of Muhammad (SAW) in acts of kindness and compassion and spread around me some of the goodness he exuded in abundance. I long for a ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ when I work with greater honesty and integrity, and smile at my colleagues at work more spiritedly than usual, and lend a helping hand more enthusiastically than usual; refuse to throw that plastic wrapper in the street and dispose off the ones I see lying around; send blessings to the Prophet (SAW) and read about the Prophet (SAW) to derive lessons relevant to my personal life and understand more clearly my responsibility towards the community I am part of. That would be a ‘Youm e Ishq’ I would love to celebrate. Not one with aggressively externalized displays of religious passion that turn ugly and then dissipate and fade away like froth on the sea, swept away by the incoming tides just as easily as it came.

We have a remarkable capability to transform into celebrities and global figures of great importance petty deranged slimeballs with our mislaid enthusiasm and fervour. Terry Jones and Nakoula Basseley ought not to matter, as they do not.

What matters, uplifts and heartens is that glow on the horizons still young and rosy but promising- of a rising, rejuvenating contemporary Islam personified by a new generation of young Muslims in the West and also emerging in the Muslim world who have risen to the occasion and responded with composure and wisdom, creativity and intelligence. Lesley Hazelton describes these Muslims as ‘writers, filmmakers, political activists, comedians, academics who wear their Muslim and hyphenated Muslim identity with a casual confidence, are activists but not of a defensive nature, armed with wry humour and a sharp sense of irony. They laugh at simplistic slogans like ‘Islam versus the West’ and the infamous ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as they represent the blending of civilizations. These are the polar opposites of Islamist extremism and confound the stereotypes, and the more visible they become, the less the smallest and most extreme minority can claim that it represents the whole.’

 During a particularly long day at work and longing for a respite, my senior batch of students walked in, telling me they wanted to work on a documentary film on the personality and legacy of the Prophet (SAW). It was heartening, a breath of fresh air to see the enthusiasm, positivity and activism of these young girls. They wanted to record my views on the film by Nakoula. “That doesn’t matter,” I answered. “Like froth on the sea. But this work matters. It is not the froth on the sea, but the glow in the eastern sky. And that is something to talk about.”