It is, in my opinion, a three tiers cocktail which may defeat the Islamic State (IS). Since a few days we hear a lot about the first tiers, i.e. the military option which by bringing war into the enemy’s camp attempts to neutralize its exponential expansion as well as increase our security – if not because attacking, as we all know, is best defence. We also talk a lot of the third one, i.e. the “after IS” or “after Daesh”, which is rightly concerned with the vacuum which the elimination of IS may leave in Syria and Iraq; no less the difficult political actions which need be taken to paliate this vacuum.
We however hardly hear anything concerning what, again in my humble opinion, is the second intermediate and most important component to defeat IS, i.e. the neutralization of the very ideas which feed this organisation and ultimately lead young men to calmly leave their spouses and children to blow themselves up on specific or less specific European or foreign targets. The current undergoing military action may weaken the physical expression of these ideas (military actions, terrorist attacks, etc..) for an indeterminate period of time and one very much equal to the amount of military input which will be fed, but it will not kill them. So what to do? Whoever has analysed the IS ideology realizes that we are facing a clearly strong, archaic, and suprisingly even self destructive, religious fanatism. To fight it on the mental battlefield will not be easier than once upon a time nazism, to which the radicalism of IS shares in fact many aspects.
Hence any would be communication program should be aimed at two very distinct categories of persons: those who are about to join IS, some of whom are still within our close sphere of influence as still in the country, and those who are already part of the organisation and are not only far less reachable but far more indoctrinated. For the former group the notion of idea “barring” applies, like caries prevention at the dentist, but for the second “unrooting” seems more appropriate. For the former group the help of the highest muslim authorities, such as for example the influential and highly respected Grand Mufti of Al Azhar (Egypt) will still be efficient, particularly if these authorities are given wider access to worldwide mass medias and tell young men that, for a start, killing indiscriminately innocents will not gain paradise – quite the contrary.
Then that IS practices a type of Islam which was born 1200 years ago and needs re-interpretation. For the latter group, the IS fighters, such authorities do not practice “true” islam and are not in fact “true” muslims as precisely they do not wish such re-interpretations and be truer to the original divine content and wording of the Koran, which unfortunately includes beheadings and crucifixions as means of punishment. Hence only IS believes to be the true and only representative of Islam on earth and its new expanding caliphate the structured entity which can ultimately govern the world under shariah law. In other words there is not only one God, and his prophet but also one type religion, the IS religion. An “Islamic Sect” in effect rather than an “Islamic State” as which country will for a start ever have exchanges with a state which wants the disappearance of all others?
And in this respect are we witnessing the birth of a new type of “muslim imperialism”? Fortunately recent statistics show that only 30% of IS members are fundamental ideologists, most other fighters having joined by fear of reprisal. These 70% are hence unstable IS believers the minds of which should not less be targeted and “bombed” than IS installations. There, only wide and deep communication campaigns could have a positive influence. Hence a theological siege on the first group of muslims, those who have not yet joined, to asphyxiate IS of its supply of militants is the one most likely strategy to give results. Results which will be more effective and lasting than bombing, will generate far less hate and will be undoubtedly be far less costly where money and in particular the lives of military personnel are concerned.
* Christian de Vartavan is an eminent scholar and now CEO of a London blockchain consulting company and Associate, APPG AI, House of Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
16 Comments
I’m not convinced we are trying to kill this ideology, it’s a symbiosis between Muslims that share Sayyid Qutb’s worldview and the western industrial military complex. We’re not trying to stop this war, we’re trying to create a sustainable arena for it, because in a global unipolar military landscape we need an enemy to justify defense spending, as detailed in the PNAC reports. Everything is as planned on both sides, it’s a really good time to make money in the arms trade.
No, but you do smash oil infrastructure and military hardware up with them.
Some good points about ideology though. You clearly are knowledgeable on yhe subject. There is also a risk of trying to defeat such ideologues with theocracy alone. In a way we are accepting their terms of debate and the end result might not be Isis, but still something undemocratic and expansionist.
Careful! Some seem to think that talking sense costs lives! 🙁
Interesting, but we never destroyed the idea of fascism. The scale was reduced, but there are still active fascist and indeed a growing number of far right parties. IMO, we are vastly overestimating the appeal Islamism as a political movement to western Muslims and accidently giving extremism more credence than it deserve as well as, arguably, reinforcing the idea of Islam as a special case which can lock communities within a faith at the time when religion is in decline in the wider population. To me we need to stop treating people like they are strict followers of or even automatically believers in the faith they were born into.
Sorry I meant theology not theocracy. Obviously pointing out they are not islamic is a start, but the democratic movement for liberalism should be bigger than just trying to make sure people aren’t violent extremists. We should be careful not to get bogged down into a debate about the specifics of Islam too much.
Dear Glenn, you are right we have not yet suceeded in fully destroying the idea of fascism, because so long as there will be grounds to thrive, it will and this will attract a category and number of people who will try to perpetuate it . What we can do, like for nazism, it to muzzle any attempt at its revival and expansion. The same applies to IS. or even for keeping democracy going, not least good versus evil. These are every day battles, the outcome of which should never been taken for granted.
Dear Eddie, your point on the expansion of Democratic Liberalism is a very moot one. I have heard so many times some tell me that neither the Egyptians under Mubarak or the Syrians under Assad and even the Lybians under Khadafi were ‘ready’ for democracy (forget about liberalism). And when I would then mention the right of every individual to be free I would here that for some people (sic), some sort of ‘political enslavement’ was a better solution,. This precisely because of their alledged philosophical and political immaturity was better. And then.. we suddenly saw a portion of Egyptians fight and die for this very ‘democracy’ they were not supposed to need, want or even be capable of considering. Now as to the specifics of Islam, knowing them is strategically necessary when you are dealing with such an entity as IS and want to defeat it.
Hi Christian, I agree that Muslims want democracy, but my point is that even if a holy-book did endorse what IS were doing it still wouldn’t make it right, so sometimes I think we have to step back and ask what we are doing when secular democrats are getting into a debate about what proper Islam looks like. I agree it is a side point, but I still think one worth mentioning.
If you could just persuade ISIL to appoint Nick Clegg as leader they would virtually disappear as a fighting force within 10 years 😉
“Then that IS practices a type of Islam which was born 1200 years ago” Not really.
The first Muslims turned to face Jerusalem to pray. There was no Koran. They worshipped the first God, Arabs being polytheistic. Their religion being a syncretic form of Judaism and the beliefs of Arabian Christian sects.
I haven’t read the Koran and I have no reason to. The question for me, is why people CHOOSE to follow a particular interpretation of what is in the Koran.
I could choose to follow a particular version of the bible. I could ignore what scholars and priests said was the correct interpretation if that did not fit my own pre-existing prejudices.
I believe we should be looking at the psychology of the still numerically small, in relative terms, ISIS hardcore. I think we are more likely to find the answer there than in the Koran. Strip away the religious coating and self -serving religious justifications and their behaviour is utterly abnormal.
ChrisB’s comments resonate with me, but I don’t agree. Certainly some governments, academics and party strategists need an enemy and a war mentality – War on Drugs and so on – both for the materialistic reasons he gives and for psychological reasons. But quite a large number of enemies can do. For the US it was the USSR – hence supporting radical Islamists in Afghanistan . I don’t believe the people Chris refers to are quite so short-sighted as to be sustaining IS now. They have an enemy – a much more genuine and evil enemy than some – and defeating IS would be a long job. At the distant end of the job, another enemy would be available. IS has potential not only to kill a lot of people and ruin the lives of many more, but also to disrupt oil supplies, overthrow West-friendly governments etc etc – not good business.
Studies of “radicalised” Muslims in the West suggest many are people who were looking for a cause and an identity and almost any would do. Radical Islam was the one that was available and got to them. The implications of that are (1) to work on what would help people become less dependent on such things and (2) maybe – I don’t like this – try to provide other answers for them.
@Simon Banks,
Could you provide the link for these studies? They seem to confirm what I intuitively believe to be the case .
I don’t suppose the increase in terrorism from the Islamic faith has anything to do with the occupation of Palestine.!!!
If so – the many-headed monster it is creating will not go away- no matter who or where you bomb; until it ends. (1967 borders will help) .
In his article the French journalist Nicholas Herein, for 10 months an ISIS hostage tells us what members of ISIS are really like. He did not find the ones he saw particularly impressive., though very skilful at social media. A point he makes are that the best thing we could do is provide security with no-fly zones. This should have been an obvious thing to do but now that the Russians are involved and are there to support the Assad regime which has done most of the bombing it is too late. Another point he makes is that what ISIS dreads most is if we are united, That is the only justifiable reason for us to cross the non-existant frontier between ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in Syria. In trying to appease his Euroskeptic party members Cameron has been rather pointedly disunited with the EU. For instance he left the Christian Democratic moderate conservative block in the European parliament, he refused to help with the immediate refugee crisis, he wants to undermine our legal human rights when we were one of the strongest actors in s setting up the European Convention, which will incidentally undermine our standing. Not refusing to join our allies on Syria might help on this.
Something I heard on the radio is a little comforting. As I remember it there have been 1000 to 2000 sorties over Iraq but only 300 odd turned into bombing raids which must mean there is a great deal of effort on targeting being really precise.
Dear Manfarang, what you say about Islam’early hours is absolutely correct, except that this did not happend 1200 years ago but 1400 years ago. Before explaining I will put some water to your windmill. Yes, Islam is a syncretic form of Judaism, the beliefs of Arabian Christian sects (this why Jesus is present in the Quran) as well as in fact even ancient pagean elements. If you are a student of the Quran you may have come across the figure of «Zul Qarnayn›, the «Horned-One› which clearly refers to Alexander the Great in his form of Zeus-Amon worshipped in Alexandria, Siwa and elsewhere and represented as such on Ptolemaic coins with ram horns (Zeus was also represented as a ram, like Amon previously). Now I mention this as it drags us to Egypt which is a type example of how Islam evolved since its original 640 A.D. conquest, 1375 years ago, by the horsemen of Prophet Mohamad (that is eight years after the latter’s death). At the time Egypt is under Byzantine rule. «Extortion» would be a better term as Byzantium used Egypt as it granary and the Egyptians, at the time essentially Christians, as its working slaves. To the point that when the above mentioned horsemen penetrated Egyptian territory, only about 18.000 of them, Egyptians to escape Byzantine power converted to Islam by the tens of thousands (this is why incidentally, those who still claim that only Egyptians who are Copts are the descendants of pharaohs are completely wrong). Once Egypt was conquered, the type of Islam installed by the new ruling power was of an extreme tolerance. The Christian population was left to worship in its churches and even the Greek language was kept as administrative tool as it had been for the previous centuries. This situation lasted about 150 years, after which the descendants of these first soldiers of Islam radicalised the situation by not only removing Greek and installing Arabic as administrative language but by starting forced conversion to Islam and persecutions against those who did not embrace it. In other other words by becoming ‹more catholic than the Pope› to use a common expression. This happened around 800 A.D., hence 1200 years ago.