Countering Victory over Extremism

In his closing remarks at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama asserted, “we’ve got to discredit these ideologies. We have to tackle them head on. And we can’t shy away from these discussions.” A positive sign that finally, America would hear an honest assessment of the Global Jihad.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration spent the three days of the Summit shying away from genuine discussion through excuses of poverty or grievances, never once tackling them head on or discrediting the ideology of jihad. But while the Administration’s counterterrorism efforts are hampered by this refusal, ISIS recruiting efforts on social media continue to proudly declare that jihad, not jobs, await foreign fighters.

The President still signaled confidence in an eventual victory because of “…the overwhelming response of the world community to the savagery of these terrorists — not just revulsion, but a concrete commitment to work together to vanquish these organizations.”

Secretary of State, John Kerry, recited the Administration’s stance in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Our Plan for Countering Violent Extremism. His assertion was: “…that violent extremism can’t be justified by resorting to religion. No legitimate religious interpretation teaches adherents to commit unspeakable atrocities.”

A deeper examination of the response to ISIS atrocities, such as the burning of the Jordanian Pilot or beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, throws into doubt claims the Islamic State has no religious legitimacy and no part of Islam.

Salafism – the very Sunni movement from which the totalitarian theologies of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and all other major threats take their cues – puts serious stress on the word “legitimate.” An authority no less prestigious than Sheikh Aadel Al-Kalbani, the former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, declared, “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”

What never seems to accompany attempts to deny the Islamic part of that curiously named state are convincing refutations of ISIS’s own religious justification. The central premise of Salafism lethally straight forward: follow the example of Muhammad and his earliest companions. Rather than twisting passages selectively as President Obama has claimed, Salafist’s pride themselves on their literalism to the distress of true reformers. Some such as Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa write an impassioned plea, asking honestly in a titular article Will It Take The End of the World For Obama To Recognize ISIS As ‘Islamic’?

“We have to own the issue of extremist Islamic theology in order to defeat it and remove it from our world. We have to name it to tame it. Among Muslims, stuck in face-saving, shame-based cultures, we need to own up to our extremist theology instead of always reverting to a strategy of denial, deflection, and demonization. “

Even with the immolation of the Jordanian pilot that sparked outrage and this last week’s summit, the Islamic State issued a religious ruling or fatwa which claimed that not only were they still following the example of Muhammad, but that two of the four mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence permit burning people to death.

The response from Islamic authorities, such as al-Azhar, is extremely troubling since they refuse to condemn the Islamic State as apostates. They state: “No believer can be declared an apostate, regardless of his sins.” Additionally, those same authorities take the stance that is no different in substance from the actions of the Islamic State by declaring: “Islamic State militants merit punishments under Islamic law such as ‘killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs.”

Before the immolation of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, were not the brutal decapitations, murders, and crucifixions of the Islamic State decried as having nothing to do with Islam by our President? Objections from various Sheiks and Imams were taken as proof by the President and his Administration that the Islamic State is warped, twisted, and illegitimate. Yet how can these terrorists be accused of perverting Islam if the Islamic State is using established penalties under mainstream Islamic law?

The objection from some Muslim religious scholars seems to have been made on the basis of legal jurisdiction rather than a moral condemnation against brutal atrocities. Compare the Islamic State to Saudi Arabia, a country that no one could possibly claim as having nothing to do with Islam, and one will notice the beheadings, strict religious law, and nonexistent human rights are all common attributes of Shariah law.

John Kerry said in his WSJ piece: “There is no room in this fight for sectarian division. There is no room for Islamophobia…” Examining the words and deeds of the Islamic State and the wider Muslim world, it would be more accurate to say this fight, the war for the free world against the Global Jihad Movement, is entirely over sectarian divisions within Islam. As for there being no room for Islamophobia, if the Islamic State is successful in expanding their Caliphate across the Muslim world and establishing themselves in centers of religious learning like al-Azhar and Mecca, it will no longer be a matter of if America and the West are at war with Islam. Islam, under the banner of the Islamic State, will be at war with us.

The military focus on airstrikes are not deterring new recruits to the cause. A new focus on socio-economic opportunity will not deter well-off Muslims coming from Europe, or stop the plunder-rich Islamic State’s conquest. The President refuses to recognize that the Salafi narrative that animates contemporary terrorism is actually grounded in Islamic legal tradition. Blind to the dark irony that he is actually recruiting extremists.  In a self-defeating attempt to counter extremism, President Obama’s Summit on Countering Violent Extremism might as well be called the Summit on Countering Victory over Extremism. By contrast, the Defeat Jihad Summit and the Secure Freedom Strategy that it showcased offer exactly what they say they do, rather than obfuscation about the Global Jihad Movement.