This is how an event more than 1,300 years ago today sparked the birth of Isis

Salim Kassam

Though Islam has little to do with the historical acts committed in its name, the preoccupation with the existence of a Caliphate is a much older phenomenon than many realise.

"Islam is misunderstood because many of us – Muslim and non-Muslim – are ignorant of Islamic history. It is this secret history that can tell us not only where Isis really come from, but why they are not going away any time soon, despite losing their territory.

For example, this Tuesday is Ashura, one of the saddest days of the calendar for the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, marking the day the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, Husayn ibn Ali, was killed during the Battle of Karbala, But few Muslims – and even fewer non-Muslims – truly understand what happened on this day over 1300 years ago. 

This was the crucial date when, just a few years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, Islam went from being practiced as a divine religion to being a tool used by a regime that, like its modern counterpart, had little interest in faith and more interest in territorial expansion and supremacism.

It was the birth of the first Isis, as a militant, brutal perversion of the religion massacred a vulnerable minority. The hijacking and abuse of Islam goes back a long way and it has been an onlgoing struggle for Muslims to isolate their faith from its often grimey historical context. This is a fact not appreciated by the majority of counter-extremism experts, meaning that much of their work is ineffective or even counter-productive, as policies and strategies are employed which target entire Muslim communities when really the pivot to violence and supremacism has always been isolated to very few marginal and radical individuals.

After 800 years of conflict between the Byzantine and Persian empires, a power vacuum had emerged, which the new empire of Islam filled. But expansionism came at a cost: the brutal Umayyad dynasty who siezed control of Islam had to eliminate all rivals, including the Prophet Muhammad’s own family. It is this injustice – and the chain of events it led to, where Imperialism in the name of Islam was unleashed on much of the civilised world – that many Muslims will mourn on Tuesday.

But this is about much more than history – it is about how, at the hands of a few self-elected strongmen, extremism and supremacism came to be a common byproduct of Islam’s interaction with the world, to the point where the two are almost indistinguishable to some. It is this blurring of the lines between faith and empire, that has led so many to wonder if Islam can peacefully exist in the modern world. It has also created powerful imagery of Islam’s “glory days”, used by extremists the world over to inspire their impressionable young recruits.

As many jump between two caricatures of Islam (that it is either an inherently violent and fascistic ideology, or that Muslims are perennially innocent victims of hatred and discrimination) we must understand that there are two Islams, both of which are very real. There is the Islam of the Umayyad dynasty and their modern ideological descendants in Wahhabism and Isis, which is a violent perversion of a harmonious faith. And there is the Islam of the vast majority of the world’s Muslims, which is an Abrahamic faith in the lineage of Judaism and Christianity.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims do the religion an injustice by confusing the faith with the historical acts committed in its name. There is a western intellectual tradition, going back to Orientalism and the idea of the “Clash of Civilisations” that primes some observers to believe that Islam is indeed an agressive, alien force. Many in the far-right seem more comfortable with the idea of being in perpetual conflict with Islam than with an acceptance of a shared Abrahamic tradition among the three major monotheistic faiths. 

At the same time, some Muslims fall into the trap of idealising their own history. Many in the diaspora prefer the self-image of being part of an ancient (albeit militaristic and unjust) empire, than an embattled minority with a range of complexities and often socio-economic disadvantages.

At the extreme end of this scale are some Islamists who believe that all the problems in the world can be solved merely by the existence of a Caliphate, regardless of its moral compass. The date 1924 (the end of the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire) has been immortalised by many activists who want nothing other than a return to Islamic political authority – whatever the outcome of that regime.

This idea, that the simple existence of a Caliph (however brutal or barbaric he may be) will solve all the world’s problems, is dangerous. Isis showed what happens when it is taken to its natural conclusion. 

But this ideology is not going to go away: “power at all costs” has been a belief amongst some Muslims from the time of the Umayyads and the Ashura massacre that will be commemorated on Tuesday. 

It was Yazid, the Umayyad commander, that introduced the Arabs to beheadings and the eating of one’s enemies’ vital organs – both of which are favoured tactics of Isis. And their sense of supremacism, evident in their exclusion of other tribes and sectarian minorities from power, is still alive today in some parts of the Muslim world.

Most importantly, Yazid used the Quran to justify his war crimes, and called his enemies (including Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Hussain) apostates.

If all this sounds familiar, it is because Isis themselves do not identify as a 21st century grouping, but rather the continuation of this war that began on the sands of Kerbala, Iraq 1339 years ago. It is a war that is far from over.

Salim Kassam is a community activist and co-founder of TheMuslimVibe.com

Ashura Uprising Inspires Islamic Movements

In the name of God. Throughout history, many movements have occurred in different regions of the world. Some of these movements have been so great that they have impacted not just their own people but the people of other regions and even the next generations.

However, nearly all movements have declined and lost their impact and significance after a few years. But the uprising of Imam Hussein (AS) on the day of Ashura in the year 61 AH, is the only movement in history that has had huge impact on next movements and revolutions throughout the world. This movement not only has not weakened but has impacted one generation after the other and has indeed gone beyond the Islamic realm. This great movement, despite the lapse of 14 centuries, has remained powerful and effective and beckons as the best model for the seekers of truth and justice.

By the way, why has the tragedy of Ashura been so important and effective?

This movement has specific features which have made it a perpetual model for all. The uprising of Imam Hussein (AS) was launched with a purely divine intention to safeguard the religion of God. This uprising was launched with the leadership of a unique personality, Imam Hussein who was the grandson of the last divine Messenger. Moreover, prominent personalities sacrificed their life before him, who were the most pious and courageous people of their time. In addition, they were killed in the most savage manner and utter loneliness. What adds salt to the injury is that their women and children were also put in chains and taken as captives.

Another feature of Imam Hussein's unique movement was that he fought oppression and corruption which were embodied in the Umayyad ruling system and the person of Yazid. Seeking of truth was another feature of Ashura uprising. In defence of truth and fighting falsehood, Imam Hussein (AS) was not scared of the fact that his small army of 72-strong men was going to confront the 30,000- strong hordes of the enemy; and that he was just preoccupied with his sacred goal.

The faith, piety and valour of Imam Hussein (AS) and his loyal companions indicated their firm belief in the truthfulness of their path and the divine assistance.

The everlasting movement of Imam Hussein is confirmed by both the intellect, logic and the innate nature. Thus, it has been taken as role model by even non-Muslim nations and figures. Another feature of this uprising was that it was in pursuit of freedom and dignity. The younger grandson of the Prophet of Islam, in spite of threats and temptations, stood fast on his sacred goal and proved that one must pay whatever price for his correct belief.

These outstanding features of Imam Hussein's movement caused it to affect other movements such as the uprising of Tawwabin (penitents), led by Mukhtar Saqafi to avenge the blood of Imam Hussein and his companions and overthrow the Umayyad oppressive rule. Fourteen centuries after the tragedy of Ashura, the blood of Imam Hussein and his companions keeps moving the nations and free-spirited humans against oppressors and tyrants.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran, as the greatest movement in the present era, is a very clear and irrefutable example of the impact of Imam Hussein's movement. The initiator of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, and the present leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, have always emphasized on the radian path of Imam Hussein (AS). Other prominent persons of the Islamic Republic have also repeated the clear remarks and stances of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei. Imam Khomeini said, "The Islamic Revolution of Iran is a ray of Ashura and its great divine revolution."               

Before and after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, people showed in words and deeds that they were following the model of Ashura. Resistance, self-sacrifice, fighting oppression, freedom-seeking and other features of the Islamic Revolution have all been adopted from Ashura uprising. The point to ponder is that, although this Revolution considers itself inspired by the movement of Imam Hussein, it has turned into a motor to inspire other grassroots movements in different parts of the world, especially the Islamic world. In other words, every uprising that is staged on the model of Ashura, will turn into a center for promotion of the ideal and values of Ashura.

When speaking on oppressive and usurper systems the name of the Zionist regime of Israel comes to the mind as the most bestial system in the current era. The regime has occupied Palestine through brute force and massacre of its people. The fabricated regime has imprisoned thousands of Palestinian s in its dungeons and expelled millions of them from their ancestral land. The oppressed Palestinian nation, like Imam Hussein, has embarked on defending their land and identity with bare hands. But some of the cowardly leaders of Palestine have connived with the Zionists and granted them ample concessions. This is the way that Imam Hussein decisively rejected compromise and submission, saying, "Beware that the mean (Yazid) son of the mean (Muawiyah) has put me in a dilemma; to choose either the sword or humility' while too far from us is humility."

The Palestinian people have rejected any submission to the fake Zionist regime and started their Intifada years ago. This great uprising is similar to Ashura from numerous aspects. First, it is uncompromising against the oppressive and usurper Zionist regime. Secondly, it seeks truth. Thirdly, it is in pursuit of justice.

Another feature of the Palestinian Intifada is that it has firmly stood, with bare hands, in the face of the armed-to-the-teeth enemy who enjoys the full support of the world powers, especially the Great Satan (the US). What is more regrettable is the fact, except few Arab countries, all of them have betrayed to the Arab cause and become the boot-lickers of the Zionist enemy. This reminds us of Imam Hussein (AS) who fought the enemy with a handful of companions while those who had invited to Iraq breached their covenant, and in violation of their signatures, joined the godless Yazid to fight the Prophet's younger grandson and third infallible successor. The divine uprising of Imam Hussein (AS) achieved its lofty goals with trust in God and in pursuit of His satisfaction. The Palestinian people, too, consider God as their support and refuge and have little trust in foreign support.

The pressures and hardships inflicted by the enemy, like the siege and banning water for the family and troop of Imam Hussein, failed to deflect him from his uprising and surrender. Palestinians, too, have endured carnage, imprisonment, torture, destruction of homes, burning of farms, and myriads of other crimes by the Zionist regime; but have not kowtowed to the illegal demands of the regime.

Another movement that has been shaped on the pattern of the Ashura against usurpation and bullying of the brutal regime in Tel Aviv, is the Islamic Resistance of Lebanon which has been directly inspired by the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, Leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, has repeatedly stressed, "We recognized Imam Hussein and loved him and pledged allegiance with him via our resistance in the battlefield."

When the combatants of the Lebanese Islamic Resistance started their fight in their country, in the form of Hezbollah, against the Zionist military, they were small in number and had few outdated arms. Yet, marching in the footsteps of Imam Hussein, they continued fighting the enemy so that in 2000, they expelled Zionist usurpers from their soil. The faith and bravery of the Hezbollah combatants spring from the faith and valour of Imam Hussein's companions. That's why the Zionist have so far shunned to confront them directly. The anti-terrorist movement of Hezbollah has proved that it marches in the footsteps of Imam Hussein (AS) and will never accept compromise and humility as its support is the source of every power, God. In view of this, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah expressly says, "I say to all who plan for killing us that, so far, we have emerged with full strength because we have the spirit of intransigence and this is the very spirit that Imam Hussein showed on the day of Ashura while saying, 'Too far from us is humility.'"

These features have made Hezbollah an effective and popular power both in Lebanon and abroad.

Fore-think, though you cannot fore-tell

By Abu Dharr

By Abu Dharr

The success of the Islamic revolution in Iran exposed the secular nationalists both in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.

Some people ask, either out of goodwill, ignorance, or malicious knowledge, why Iran is “expanding” from its (imperialist) imposed geographical frontiers into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (also colonialist defined and penciled nation-states)? The question is meant to present the Islamic political will in Iran as if it were invading, occupying, or annexing these countries!

The secular sloppy cerebrum wants to sway public opinion into believing that Islamic Iran is a hegemon. Some would postulate that Iran’s ruling classes from ancient times to the present always had their eyes set on that stretch of territory from Iran to Lebanon — Cyrus the Great, the Sassanians, the Safawids, and now the Islamic Republic. In the Muslim mind it does not take a great deal of effort to distinguish between pre-Islamic dynasties and Islamic-based governance. So we will throw that one to the wind.

These secular haranguers, especially within a peculiar Iranian nationalist strata, go on to say that in history, Iran has been defeated twice through invasions emanating from its west: Alexander of Greece and ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab of Arabia. Even the Umayyad Dynasty was finished off by a revolt with an Arabian content and a Persian structure. This counter-movement went from the east (Persia) westward toward Bilad al-Sham (the Levant).

During the fourth hijri century the (Shi‘i) Buwayhids took control of ‘Abbasid Baghdad. Even the royal family of Harun al-Rashid, the celebrity ‘Abbasid king, saw two of the princely sons split on the issue: one favored the “Arabs” (al-Amin) and the other favored the Persians (al-Ma’mun).

Strictly from this type of reading of history, some Persians, of course lacking an Islamic perspective, look at that whole region from an Iran-centric point of view. Iran was known as Persia until the Pahlavi family came along in the first quarter of the last century and stamped the country with its “Iran” imprimatur. For them it wasn’t WWI that changed the political landscape of the area; it was the 1906 Constitutional Revolution. Then came the Pahlavi coup in 1921. That was followed by the rise and expansion of the communist Tudeh Party from 1941–1953.

These internal Persian stirrings led to the nationalization of the Iranian-British petroleum consortium and the ambition of nationalizing other enterprises (the early-1950s). During Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh’s reign Persia became a bone of contention between a fading British colonialism and an emerging American imperialism. All these internal developments in certain secular Iranian circles were the catalyst for other developments in the countries around Iran. Like all other people, Iranians also have their self-centric tellers of tales.

We are not much concerned with this intellectual deviation. Our concern is that an Islamic paradigm shift occurred in Persia in 1978–1979. This revolution, for anyone who is willing to understand, broke from nationalist and sectarian eccentricities. The psychologically defeated talking-heads monitoring this exceptional event say that reformist efforts have failed to mend this revolution (for instance, the presidency of Muhammad Khatami from 1997–2005). Even the “Arab Spring” in the eyes of these observers was an offshoot of the failed “Green Revolution” of 2009.

With all the sectarian mud that is being thrown around, we should hasten to preempt the Wahhabi sectarians by saying that the Shi‘i Buwayhids, when they ruled in Baghdad, never imposed their Ithna ‘Ashari madhhab on the rest of the Muslims. This was to happen much later, at the beginning of the 16th century CE, when the Safawids pressed the Shi‘i Ithna ‘Ashari madhhab on the people in Iran, who were prior to that a “Sunni” population. At that time the Muslims (Sunnis and Shi‘is) were operating at a depleted intellectual level. Thus the disagreements and battles between the Safawids and Ottomans turned into a sectarian conflict. In 1514, the Ottoman sultan, Salim I, defeated Shah Isma‘il at the battle of Chaldiran and occupied the Safawid capital of Tabriz. There were pitched battles back and forth between the Ottomans and the Safawids in Iraq, ending ultimately with the Ottomans taking control of Iraq in 1638. Some may look at the 1502 Safawid conquest of Persia on par with the Yalta agreement and what it meant for Europe, or the collapse of the Soviet Union and what that meant for the world.

During the reign of the Pahlavis, Iranian nationalist fervor was pronounced. The friction between Iran and its neighbors (Bahrain, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates) was one of Persian nationalism versus Arabian nationalism. Persian nationalism took a back seat where imperialist interests were concerned, and so the Persian Pahlavis found common cause with the Arabian autocrats: Nuri al-Sa‘id in Iraq and King Faysal in Saudi Arabia. They all were at “imperialist attention” against ‘Abd al-Nasir of Egypt.

The Islamic governance in Tehran today has its contemporary beginnings in its opposition to the scandalous Shah. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, anti-Shah committed Muslims built bridges with anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Zionist forces. And no one that this writer knows of came out and labeled these self-determined Muslims to be “Persian enemies” or “Shi‘i sectarians.” They were motivated by their Islamic commitment — the way they understood that commitment to be. Once that Islamic consolidated effort came to fruition in 1979 the solidarity with it was phenomenal. People in Arab countries expressed their support bypassing ideological and religious affiliations: whether Islamic, nationalist, or leftist, they were all inspired by it and hopeful for it. The American political class — always at the Zionist beck and call — did not know how to challenge or tackle this burst of Islamic self-determination. A repeat of the 1953 American supported coup was out of the question.

Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow and Saddam Husayn in Baghdad were now equally scared of this Islamic awakening and solidarity. Saddam’s first reaction to the triumphant Islamic political will in Iran was to depose President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. Brezhnev’s first reaction was the occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets deposed and disposed of their less confrontational communist comrade Hafizullah Amin who, it is said, was inching toward an understanding with the Islamic Afghan resistance (jihad). The Kremlin brought out of his Prague exile the vicious Babrak Karmal.

The Islamic sea change in Iran stirred its Shi‘i kin in Iraq who were in opposition to Saddam’s bloodthirsty regime. Some of this opposition took sides in the rivalry between Saddam and the Shah thereby fostering a relationship of sorts with the Pahlavi regime. The Shah had his own plans for unseating Saddam and some of the “Islamic” Shi‘i personalities and parties may have been active or passive abettors (Hizb al-Da‘wah, the Hakim family). Those who want further information should look up the attempted coup in Iraq led by General ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Rawi.

These fast-paced events brought together the enemies of Islamic self-determination and Saddam, on reassurances from Arabian rulers and on orders from their imperialist masters to launch the eight long years of a bloody war of aggression that drained the two populations of their combined potential to deliver the Palestinian people to their homeland. Saddam and his imperialist-Zionist handlers knew that this Ba‘thi war of aggression would have the double multiplier of antagonistic nationalism and fanatical sectarianism.

The expulsion of the Israeli diplomatic mission from Iran and the handing over of its embassy to representatives of Palestinians did not register with the Arabian decision makers as they began to lose sight of an Israeli enemy and the Palestinian cause.

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, who are the closest bloc of activists, had their run in with President Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat when he hosted a Shah without a country. The Ikhwan also could only go so far in their verbal support of the Islamic Revolution in Iran as they were estranged by years and decades of trying to milk the Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari, and other cash cows in the Arabian Peninsula. When Imam Khomeini (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) passed away, some Ikhwan mourned his passing in silence and opacity.

The Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought (Majma‘ al-Taqrib Bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyah) with its yearly international conferences tried to close the ranks of committed and enlightened Muslim scholars, intellectuals, activists, and officials but the Saudi spoilers would not stomach any of this Islamic rapprochement. The Islamic awareness in Iran proved to be light years ahead of the cash-centric Islamists. The Islamic scholars in Iran understood their Islamic scholar counterparts outside of Iran; but the opposite was not true. The Islamic scholars outside Iran are still having difficulties understanding their counterparts in Iran. The support of Islamic Iran for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as real and as helpful as it is could be, did not convince the Islamic doubting Thomases of Islamic Iran’s indisputable independence and its unpretentious brotherhood with the oppressed Muslims.

To muddy the waters even more, some Shi‘i decision makers and officials in Iraq are trying to play America against Iran or vice versa. Some of them have managed to prove they are sectarians. And these “some” are amplified in the murky day-to-day bombings in Iraq to prove to the world that “Shi‘is” are by their nature and definition sectarians. And the target of this false impression is Islamic Iran.

Bumbling Iraqi officials did not have a say when the US and Islamic Iran were over a powder keg concerning the peaceful enrichment of uranium. The inability of the Iraqi regime to assume day-to-day responsibility for its own citizens and its inability to side with Islamic Iran gave birth to the takfiri phenomenon: a loophole viciously utilized by the Saudi-Israeli-American axis.

The Islamic Republic in Iran is being tainted with a broad “Shi‘i” sectarian brush — not because Islamic Iran is sectarian (although sectarians are to be encountered here and there) but mainly because some of their high profile Shi‘i kith and kin contacts are sectarians. Many Arabians who are under the spell of a local and worldwide network of poisonous propaganda conclude that Islamic Iran is not what it says it is.

Now, with Donald Trump in the political cockpit in Washington, we can expect the neoconservative political class in the US to edge its way into war position against Islamic Iran. Trump’s initial soft talk about Vladimir Putin can only be interpreted as an attempt to win him into a position of abandoning Islamic Iran. News is beginning to come out about American boots on the ground in Syria. This would mean that the Iraqi popular mobilization will not be permitted to pursue Da‘ish into Syria. America becomes the de facto guardian of Da‘ish. American and Kurdish forces are teaming up in Syria.

Trump and his advisers are trying to checkmate Islamic Iran throughout Iraq by putting together a “Sunni Arabian,” “Kurdish Sunni,” and “Shi‘is-in-opposition-to-Iran” alliance. Trump and his mentors are ratcheting up the conflict in Yemen. The unspoken consensus on the Tel Aviv-London-Washington axis is that Islamic Iran has to be reined in. The geostrategic outlook from this axis is that Islamic Iran is the linchpin in a continuum of interests ex-tending from a Chinese ene-my to an ill-disposed Pakistan to a volatile Levant. The political forecast is for what appears to be an American-Israeli controlled massing of forces from Arabia, Egypt, and maybe Turkey. These armies are expected to do the fighting for those who pay their salaries.

Whoever is elected to become the next president of the Islamic Republic of Iran this month should visit some of these actualities and realize that “Iran” is the center of the world — not because it is Persian and not because it is Shi‘i, but because it is Islamic. In the words of Allah’s Prophet (pbuh), “O Allah! If this esprit de corps is defeated, You will not be revered on earth.”