Why ISIS’ dream of a caliphate is fading away – By: Asiff Hussein

ISIS’ hopes of establishing an Islamic Caliphate is fast fading away as they choose to tread an extremist path, committing unspeakable acts that undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims everywhere

The idea of a Caliphate needless to say evokes strong sentiments among Muslims in this day and age when regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have proven themselves to be utterly corrupt and impotent. In such a context the declaration of a Caliphate by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was cautiously welcomed by some hopeful Muslims, but this seems to have changed overnight. The extremist path it has chosen to follow means only one thing, that they are fast losing their appeal in Muslim eyes. Such extremist positions will only tend to hasten their downfall and the sooner they realize this, the better.
ISIS’s killings of prisoners of war, expelling religious minorities and forcing women to wear face veils are acts that go beyond, and in fact, contravene Islamic teachings. One would have thought that whatever harsh methods they previously employed to consolidate their hold would cease with their recent declaration of the caliphate to legitimize their rule; that they would mend their ways and seek to win over the hearts of Muslims with enlightened governance over whatever lands they occupy in Iraq and Syria, but as it seems, things are only getting worse. Even at this late stage if they do not change themselves for the better, they will very likely go the way of Pol Pot, Hitler or Idi Amin. Ruthlessness is by nature self-defeatist. Did the Nazis gain anything from the reprisal killings of innocent French people as revenge for partisan attacks? Absolutely not, it only strengthened the resolve of the French resistance and hastened Hitler’s downfall. The French revolution, they say, ate its own children. Why, because there were people like Robespierre who in their sickening fervour for change, first turned on the monarchy, and then turned on their own people. Such is the nature of extremism. It knows no sense or rationale until it consumes itself or is utterly destroyed by forces that regard it as a grave threat. Is this the way ISIS wants to go? 

Indiscriminate Killings

Take the case of a recently circulated 30-minute video clip, marking the end of Ramadan, depicting the brutal methods the outfit is likely to employ as it presses ahead with its blitz.  After sweeping through a town with quick-hit raids, the militants are filmed standing over dozens of terrified, handcuffed Iraqi soldiers. One fighter mocks a soldier for wearing civilian clothes over his uniform out of fear of being identified and killed. He pleads for mercy, but to no avail. Dozens of soldiers are then led to a sandy desert pit and are executed one by one with bullets from AK-47 assault rifles pumped into their heads. Worse still are the beheadings of captured soldiers which are video filmed and proudly posted on militant websites, one of which is called by the Arabic name for monster. And if you think, its only soldiers are treated thus, you’re sadly mistaken. When the group overran a Syrian oil field last week, they executed not only captured soldiers, but also civilian oil workers.

Is this Islamic? 

Do not these killings go against the express words of the Qur’an: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him” (Qur’an 4: 93). Should not this threat of hellfire itself make the perpetrators fear taking Muslim lives. Indeed in Islam even the taking of non-Muslims lives is clearly forbidden, for the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) himself declared in no uncertain terms: "He who kills a man protected by Islam (Ahl al-dhimmah) will not know the smell of Paradise".  There is also the saying of the Prophet: “A woman was punished with hell-fire on account of a cat she had imprisoned till it died. She neither gave it food nor water, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth”. If this is the way animals should be treated, then we have to ask ourselves, how much more should human lives be valued? 
The fact is that in Islam, Prisoners of war are to be treated with kindness and magnanimity. The Qur’an (47:4) commands that once the enemy has been defeated, they are to be taken as captives and shown generosity (released without ransom) or for ransom (whichever benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burden. To discard this Qur’anic injunction and kill prisoners, and on top of it to gloat about it and publicise their killing in the most gory manner possible, is something that simply cannot be Islamic.

Oppression of minorities

Then take the recent move of theirs to expel Christians from their homes. These are folk who have been living alongside their Muslim brethren for over a thousand years, bearing ample testimony to the tolerance the Muslims have shown them throughout the ages. Again one may look at the treaty the Prophet entered into with the Christians of Najran. When the delegation arrived at Medina the Prophet even permitted them to pray in his mosque and gave them the following accord:

The people of Najran and their dependents shall remain under the protection of God, and Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of God. Their persons, their religion, their lands, their possessions and their churches shall remain safe. This treaty holds good for all people of Najran, whether present or not. No bishop shall be removed from his bishopric, no monk from his monasticism and no devotee from his devotions

Also consider the covenant Caliph Umar entered into with the Christians of Jerusalem following the capitulation of the city in 637 AC: 

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is the security which Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Aelia (Jerusalem). He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, their churches and their crosses, and all that concerns their religion. Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed. Neither shall they or their appurtenances be in any way diminished.

Does not ISIS moves to give them little alternative but to convert or face death or leave the areas under their control amount to going against the Sunnah of the Prophet. Although they gave Christians in Mosul the option of jizyah, they later backtracked and gave just three options – Convert, Leave or Face the Sword. What the Sunnah lays down is to charge a capitation tax known as jizyah which is only a little more than the compulsory alms tax known as zakatA tax that is the duty and social obligation of every Muslim. This as the fourth Pillar of Islam. every Muslim male and female has to pay to the state. This in turn releases them from the compulsory military service the Muslim subjects of the state have to render. The tax was imposed in return for the protection Muslims gave them. History bears ample testimony to this. For instance, in a treaty entered into by the Muslim Commander Khalid bin Walid with some towns in the neighbourhood of Hira in the days of Caliph Umar, he stipulated: “If we protect you, then jizyah is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due”. It happened one day that the Byzantine emperor Heraclius raised a large army with which to drive back the Muslim forces who had in consequence to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The Arab general Abu Ubaydah accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, ordering them to pay back all the jizyah that had been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people saying “We give you back the money we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took. But if we are victorious, we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of the agreement”. In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims saying: “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious against the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us”.

This is the true spirit of Islam. Again we have to ask ourselves, is the IS following this?

Imposing the face veil

Then take the recent reports that ISIS is forcing women to wear the niqab or face veil. How we may ask can a regime that calls itself Islamic force something on somebody which has not been made obligatory? Does not this amount to prohibiting something that has been permitted by God? What the Sunnah of the Prophet requires is to cover all except the face and hands. Ayisha, the Prophet’s wife has narrated that when her sister Asma once came to see him, she was wearing a thin dress and the Prophet turned away from her and said to her: “O Asma, once a woman reaches the age of puberty no part of her body should be uncovered except this and this” and he pointed to the face and hands. 

Even the extremely orthodox Salafi scholar Nasiruddin Al-Albani has convincingly shown that the covering of the face is not obligatory for Muslim women. Many incidents from the lifetime of the Prophet and the early caliphs bear this out. For example, we hear of a lady from the tribe of Khatham who sought a verdict from the Prophet. She has been described as being very beautiful, showing that she was unveiled. Did the Prophet admonish her for being unveiled ?  absolutely not. It is also related that when the Prophet was preaching to a group of women on Eid day, a woman with a dark spot on her cheek stood up seeking clarification of a matter, showing that she too was unveiled even in the presence of the Prophet. This was even the case in the days of the early caliphs. When Umar attempted to forbid people from paying excessive dowers, a flat-nosed woman from among the women of the audience stood up and successfully challenged his decision and again it may be argued that the woman concerned was unveiled since there could not have been any way for the others to know that she was flat-nosed.

The Qur’an also presupposes a society where women are not necessarily veiled, as in the verses: “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity. This will be most conducive to their purity. Verily, God is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms (in public) beyond what may be apparent thereof” (An-Noor:30-31). That the Qur’an should instruct men to lower their gaze when in the presence of strange women itself suggests that it was permissible for women to go about unveiled, for otherwise there would have been no reason for the Qur’an to command thus. It is also reported that when a well known companion of the Prophet, Ibn Abbas was asked about the verse regarding women not displaying their charms except what appears thereof (24:31), he replied: “it refers to the face and hands” Evidence from the ahadith too could be cited in support of this view. For instance the Prophet’s statement “The Muhrima (a woman in the state of ihram, i.e. the attire of one performing the pilgrimage) should not cover her face or wear gloves”. It may be argued here that anything that is haram (prohibited) in the normal course of life can never be made fard (obligatory). Hence, if exposing the face was in fact prohibited for women, then how could it be made obligatory in ihram ? This again shows that veiling the face is not an obligatory requirement in Islam. 

How then can the IS seek to force women to wear the face veil. Such a measure will only be counter-productive. Worldwide less than 10 percent of Muslim women wear the veil. Over 90 percent do not. In such a context is it practical for the ISIS to impose such a dress code ? Obviously not. Most Muslims will not agree to it, especially as they well know that it is not an absolute requirement in Islam, at most only a recommendation that is dependent on the choice of the woman concerned. Would not imposing such an unpopular measure be counter-productive to IS goals? It will obviously. Rather than winning hearts, such measures will only earn them contempt and ridicule and erode whatever legitimacy they aspire for. 

Finally, it is up to the ISIS leadership to decide what way they want to go. Towards their goal of establishing a true Islamic state or to be thrown into the dustbin of history, where their roar will fade into a whimper as Muslims all over turn away from them. They don’t have to look at modern human rights charters to learn how to conduct themselves. They can look at the example of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) who treated everybody including the greatest enemies of Islam, like Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind with the utmost compassion. They can look at the great Saladin who treated all those Christians who came under his power with the greatest consideration in spite of the terrible massacres the Crusaders perpetrated against the Muslims. Islam was successful with people like this who won the hearts of all and sundry. As our beloved Prophet said: “Show mercy to those on earth so that He who is in heaven will have mercy on you”. Will not even now ISIS learn from their example?