They weren’t Muslims. But, my dear, they were.
Istanbul. Baghdad. Dhaka. Jeddah. Medina. All cities that were targets of deluded hate-mongers in the last 7 days. All these attacks have one thing in common. All of them were claimed by ISIS. Or Daesh, because apparently the word Daesh really pisses Daesh off. And all of these attacks [minus Dhaka] were designed to kill as many Muslims as possible.
They also have one other thing in common — all attacks were carried out by Muslims who had “pledged allegiance” to Daesh.
But, I hear your mental cogs spinning, these weren’t Muslims! No Muslim would attack another Muslim in the holy month of Ramadan! This goes against all the teachings of Islam! But I’m here to ask: is it?
You see of late, I’ve been fascinated with the history of the caliphs that came after Islam’s prophet passed away. The chosen ones. Or were they? Even before the prophet’s body had been lowered in the grave, there was dangerous infighting taking shape. Ali’s [the prophet’s cousin married to the prophet’s daughter Fatima] supporters were unequivocal in their stance that Ali should lead the growing numbers of Muslims, whilst Umar and his supporters were of the opinion that Abu Bakr should lead them. Aisha, the prophet’s wife with her own charm and sass supported Abu Bakr over Ali. And there are reports [although I have not been able to completely verify them] that Umar actually went to Fatima’s house, where Ali and his supporters had gathered, and told them he would burn her house down if they did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Let’s for a moment assume that Umar did no such thing, and Ali himself happily pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. What is undisputed is the fact that there were supporters of Ali who gathered to declare him the new caliph. What is also undisputed is that in the aftermath of Abu Bakr becoming caliph, Muslims were pitted against Muslims. The prophet’s wife Aisha was pitted against Ali, and Ali was pitted against Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman.
You see the thing that got me interested in the lives of the caliphs wasn’t that the prophet died, and I wanted to understand how succession took place. No. What got me was the fate of the caliphs. Specifically that of the third caliph, Usman. We all talk about Ali’s death; his gruesome, terrible death, at the hands of Muslims no less. But we don’t often talk about Usman’s death. Well let’s talk about that today.
Usman was killed after muderers climbed over the wall of his house, and repeatedly struck him with their swords, because they claimed that Usman was nepotistic and soft and was not willing to take strict action against, what they said were transgressions by his relatives, who he had appointed as governors across the Muslim empire. They then proceeded to mutilate his body — yes, these were Muslims who wanted to mutilate Usman’s body — and were only thwarted because Usman’s two wives threw a hysterical fit that alerted the people standing outside the front of the house. They didn’t even let the supporters of Usman bury him in a Muslim cemetery. No. They had to bury Usman in a Jewish cemetery, without a bath. This is what Muslims did to their Muslim ruler. No — that is what Muslims did to a beloved companion of the prophet, a man prophesied to enter heaven before he had even left this world.
And when Aisha, the wife of the prophet, the mother of all Muslims, heard what had been done to Usman, she took it upon herself to go into battle against Ali to avenge his death. She rode a camel into a battle — by the way, that’s some serious feminist badass shit right there — and watched as the other side butchered her forces and lay them on her feet. The mother of all Muslims went to war with one of the prophet’s beloved companions [Ali], a man who was his cousin, over a man [Usman] who was another beloved companion of the prophet.
Wrap your head around that.
When we think about the companions of the prophet, we imagine them with these reverent goggles; goggles that trick our brains into thinking that these men were perfect. They could do no wrong. They are supernatural. They are larger than life. But what we forget is that these men, were men. Humans. Prone to human needs, and human errors. And prone to human thirst for vengeance and blood. Put yourself in Usman’s shoes for a moment. Forget that you are a special person. Just imagine you are the ruler of the Muslims, and suddenly they’ve turned against you because they accuse you of nepotism. Now, if you were a God-fearing man, you would recuse yourself and let somebody else take charge because that’s what religion teaches us, doesn’t it? So why didn’t Usman?
Now imagine that you are a Muslim man with a vendetta against Usman and you’re standing outside his house with your sword drawn. You are there to kill him. Did Islam tell you that? Did Islam teach you that? Yes, no? And if the answer is no, then are you saying that those companions of the prophet who survived him, who partook in the murder of Usman, are actually going to hell? Remember, if you’re against Usman, you’re actually part of the Shia’t Ali — party of Ali. So in your brain, you think killing Usman and appointing Ali as the successor is actually going to save… whatever the hell it is you’re trying to save. Or not.
Now let’s talk about Daesh. We’ve established that Muslims have been cutting Muslim necks before the prophet’s body went cold. That was almost 1,450 years ago. And since then, we’ve had Muslims killing other Muslims. First it was Ali’s followers against Usman, then Usman’s followers and the prophet’s wife against Ali, then Muawiya and his son against Ali, and then we have the two dynasties that spawned off, and the Sunni-Shia conflict that’s been thrust upon us ever since.
So tell me, why does it surprise all of you so much when Daesh kills in the name of Islam? We’re guilty of killing people in the name of Islam since 632 AD. This is nothing new. This mantra that a true Muslim cannot kill another Muslim and thus Daesh is not full of Muslims is, excuse my French, complete bullshit. Daesh kills Muslims because in their perverted logic, those who do not support them — and they could be anyone; not just Christians or Jews, but even Muslims — are apostates and thus liable to be killed. They justify this using our scriptures, our religion, our tradition. What, we’re going to deny killing people isn’t mentioned in the Quran? Of course it is. The only problem is, we refuse to officially disown those parts of our religion.
Look those ideas might’ve worked 1,450 years ago but since then the world has changed. It has evolved. And our religious understanding and practice hasn’t. And even if it has, that understanding has been under constant attack from the toxic and radical interpretation of the Wahhabis. So today, you can say ‘they’re not Muslims’ all you want. The only problem is, your saying they’re not Muslims means jack-shit to Daesh, or the rest of the world.
Daesh is Muslim because it believes in a perverted version of Islam that’s based on the same doctrines, scriptures and traditions that all other Muslims believe in. And besides what exactly does saying “they’re not Muslims” mean anyway? That they’re atheists? Oh, maybe you’re trying to say no “true” Muslim would kill another Muslim. Meaning that a “true” Muslim would only kill non-Muslims? Really?
Leaving all these semantics aside, let’s get one thing clear. Us saying “they’re no Muslims” isn’t helping our cause. It’s making us oblivious to the horrors we’re allowing to brew among our midst. Daesh and it’s supporters might only represent 1% of all the Muslims in the world. But they are responsible for giving the rest of the 99% a very bad name. Question is, what are we going to do about it?
