Skip to main content

Certainly Certain



An interesting read was a book[1] analysing modern tyrants and comparing them with tyrants from the past. It turns out, according to the authors, that tyrants used brutal power throughout history for different reasons. Tyrants in the pre-middle ages period used excessive power against their opponents because they simply knew no other way to maintain order. Their only known mechanism to settle disputes and rivalries that may form any threat to their rein was to wipe masses off the face of the earth in the name of preserving peace. Now middle age tyrants used excessive brutality to keep opponents in check, knowing that despite the barbarity of the act, those closest to the ruling sphere are in fact constantly and maliciously planning to over throw the rule of whoever is in power or create disturbances (economic and social) between the ruling elite and the peasants. Their act represented “preventative measures”, void of any compassion or humanity, but was necessary in their set of beliefs. Meanwhile, modern tyrants have exercised their tyrannies for multiple reasons, one that does stand out is based on the “ideology of certitude”. These tyrants are certain that their line of thought is the only correct reasoning, that their religion is the only true religion, and that their analysis of socio-political realities are facts written in stone. Hitler did believe that the Arian race was superior; his bespoke rationalism that was stripped of compassion and humanity justified his brutalities in the name of promoting the perfect race. Stalin was also convinced in a Communist society for all; there is no other way, and thus, the promotion of the ideology must come at any cost.

I wonder now if this ideology of certitude is present amongst ISIS militants. First, a brief summary on the Islamic State’s history: the Al-Qaeda affiliated Musab Al Zarqawi founded the “Islamic States of Iraq” concept back in 2006, when he insisted that Sunni Iraqis deserve to have a State of their own that is not subject to the rule of the western affiliated infidel Shias. Islam, and Sunna in particular, is the only accepted religion and line of belief. Shias and everyone else are not only wrong to hold to different views, but have a set of beliefs that are a direct threat to Sunni Muslims. His (Zarqawi) ideals were passed on to both Baghdadi and the ISIS gang, and the Sunni versus everyone else ideology has been gaining popularity by the day. These ISIS militants are certain that their Sunni religious interpretation is the only right one, that Islam is the only true way to heaven, that the death of innocent people will be tolerated as they (innocent dead people) will be considered martyrs and will go to heaven, that their twisted interpretation of jihad is the only solution to the crisis in the Arab and Muslim world, and that they are doing many a favour by spreading the word of God, even if using the sword.

Certitude is indeed dangerous, especially when certainty about something implies negation and utter refusal of anything that contradicts it. If it is white, then it is not black nor orange nor yellow, it is white. If it is an apple, it is not an orange nor a pear nor a chair. Certainty leads to closed-mindedness and jealousy over objects and concepts that have acquired their “certain status”.  The danger becomes even more perilous when the ideology of certitude is mixed with political discourse, where politics and religion become two faces of the same coin. ISIS did not decide to fight off infidels in Lebanon or Israel or Singapore, it did not launch a war against Jews, Christians or atheists, it did not move towards Mecca to liberate from its non-Hashemite rulers or Jerusalem to drive away the Israelis and agnostic Palestinians. The Islamic State chose the Shiites, Iraqi Shiite (and of course their American patrons) as the number one target. It did not move towards any Sunni populated areas to liberate them, but those filled with natural resources, oil and sympathetic Sunni citizens. It did not prioritise fighting the Assad regime in Syria, but chose rival Islamic militant groups in Syria as its target. Calculated, politicised and radicalised is the ISIS certainty about everything.

Not intentionally provoking anyone with the quote I chose to sign off with, as I am sure there are many Muslim scholars and clerics who have uttered similar beautiful words of wisdom, but in the spirit of coexistence and existence, here goes:

If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.

Pope Francis



[1] Axelrod, A., Phillips, C. (1994) Dictators & Tyrants: Absolute Rulers and Would-Be Rulers in World History,

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a