IS follows Saudi doctrines

Syed Kamran Hashmi  

We cannot fight a war against radicalism by promoting and exporting radical ideas ourselves either. Experience tells us that people who play with fire ultimately get burnt by it.

Quite often, we have to feign our disapproval over the news of beheadings carried out by Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, pretending we truly believe there is no place for such practice in sharia law. “Barbaric, inhuman and un-Islamic,” some of us proclaim aloud to conform to social pressure, while others wear a mask of innocence on their faces, exclaiming: “A ‘true’ Muslim cannot approve of the actions of IS and its rigid interpretation of Islam.” Others may try to make it an individual problem denying its divine spirit altogether. “Who are these people joining hands with the terrorist organisation?” they ask. “They must belong to poor, uneducated or unstable families.”

However, whether we admit it or not, the reality is that we cannot disagree with IS on an ideological basis. The reason? Just next door to the ‘brutal’ regime of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, there sits a similar administration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country in which a Pakistani is decapitated almost every week with the approval of the courts and authorisation from its rulers. Do we not know about this already? Is beheading in Saudi Arabia really news to us? What difference does it make if it is carried out by IS, the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Saudi royals? In the end, all of them claim to follow the same scripture. In fact, we have never protested against their punishment or condemned the practice on religious grounds, nor have we raised our voices to save the lives of our citizens. Instead, as soon as we hear about the court judgment, we forsake our countrymen, letting them die alone with little, if any, community or consulate support.

Even if we keep the barbarity of the procedure aside for a moment, can we trust the quality of investigation in Saudi Arabia, a society infamous for mistreating people from the subcontinent on racial grounds? Based on the attitude of its police and the administration towards us, we can surmise that most, if not all, of us suffer a substandard investigation, get represented by incompetent lawyers and receive conviction in a partial trial through a biased judge, a trial in which all the odds are held high against the poor, non-Arab, non-white man to defend himself.

While a Pakistani loses his life, his compatriots here endorse his execution, declaring it as the reason for the low crime rate in the holy lands, a huge achievement by their standards. On numerous occasions, because of its tight grip on power and its ability to maintain law and order, the Saudi government emerges as a role model for Pakistanis. Now, with Mr Baghdadi following in the same footsteps, how can we be disappointed? We should be proud, celebrating the fact that we do not stand alone in our acknowledgement of the royals; our Iraqi ‘brothers’ are also picking up the lead.

For most religiously inclined Pakistanis though, the real question does not entail the ferocity of execution. That does not bother them. Instead, the real question is if Saudi Arabia or IS can back their decision with the Quran and Sunnah. As a rule, Muslims, other than believing in a single omniscient God and Muhammad (PBUH) as his last messenger, disagree on almost everything else. If we start debating, the definition of every word and every term, including the messenger, would become so confusing and convoluted that all of us would need a PhD in the Arabic language and/or linguistics to understand it. So, without going into further details and disclosing tens of meanings of every phrase, we can conclude that there will always be two points of view on the subject of beheadings: one sect recommending decapitation and the other opposing the punishment, both of whom would quote a verse from the Quran to support their argument. You can find them as well. Just spend a few minutes on Google and you will come across hundreds of related articles along with verses in Surah Muhammad (47:4) and Surat Al-Infal (8:12) presented most often to support the practice.

Realising the complexity of the problem, I do not want to focus on the religious aspect, nor do I want to bash the royals anymore. That will take us nowhere. Rather, my goal is to bring up the hypocrisy of our own attitudes towards it. I believe if we have to criticise the punishment, it must be done across the board, including criticising the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And if we have to approve it, that needs to be approved as a general rule too, including in the areas now being ruled by IS.

Does this mean we should then support IS? Of course not. However, we cannot fight a war against radicalism by promoting and exporting radical ideas ourselves either. Experience tells us that people who play with fire ultimately get burnt by it. It has bitten Pakistan when it used religion to secure foreign policy objectives in neighbouring countries, killing almost 50,000 people in 10 years or less. And, through IS or any other similar organisation in the present or future, Middle Eastern, African or Indian, Saudi Arabia faces the same threat. Labelling it as a terrorist organisation, while it follows the same rules as yours, will not help either because, in that case, we will need to put the elite class of Saudi Arabia in the same category. Are we ready for that?

The only way the House of Saud can wage a real war against the House of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and succeed is by taking on the issue in its homeland first. How? Modernise Saudi society. I think both its clergy and its ruling elite will need to find a way to bring moderation to their interpretation of the religion, a radical change from their current approach. If they do not, extremism will prevail and haunt Saudi Arabia long after IS is defeated in Iraq.