Baghdadi alive? The loathsome ISIS cult may be nearly dead, at least in its present form as a territorial state. However its so-called "caliph," Abu Bakr Baghdadi may still be alive. New audio of a man who sounds like Baghdadi has been posted to an ISIS-affiliated website. In it, the speaker mentions recent events such as North Korean saber-rattling and the Battle for Mosul. Although the US Department of Defense is still analyzing the recording for authenticity, it appears that Russian claims of having killed Baghdadi in a May airstrike are greatly exaggerated.
Iraqi Kurds overwhelmingly vote for secession: The Kurdish Autonomous Region held a referendum on Monday on seceding from Iraq and establishing an independent nation. 3.3 million people—73% of the electorate—turned out at the polls. The referendum passed by a whopping 92% of the vote.
The Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East (after Arabs, Persians, and Turks) and the only one out of the four without a state of their own.
The referendum is non-binding and will not lead immediately to independence, but it should give the Kurds considerable leverage to negotiate with Baghdad for their departure.
The bid for Kurdish independence has almost no support among the governments of the world, especially Turkey and Iran, who worry that their own Kurdish populations will get ideas. Other nations, including the United States, oppose Kurdish independence on the grounds that it will be destabilizing. One of the few supporters is Israel, which sees in the Kurdish quest for a homeland a reflection of its own cause.
In a related story, the Turkish and Iraqi armies have begun joint exercises near the Kurdish border.
Saudi women to be permitted to drive: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—notorious for its restrictions on the freedom of women—announced a historic reversal of policy on Tuesday: starting next June, the gentle sex will be allowed to drive.
Around the kingdom, and around the world, women took to social media to celebrate. Many activists tempered their jubilation with caution: women still have a long way to go in the kingdom. In particular, the “guardianship” system still persists. Under this system, women need permission from their male custodians to travel, marry, start businesses, and many other common activities.
Palestinian gunmen murders three: On a sadder note, a Palestinian man, identified as 37-year-old Nimer Jamal, shot and killed two Israeli security guards and a border policeman at the gate of the Har Adar Jewish settlement in the West Bank. The Information Office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party blamed Israel.
Egypt arrests seven for displaying rainbow flag: The government of President Abdel Fattah this week continued to pile up its abysmal human rights record. In the latest incident, seven individuals were arrested for “promoting sexual deviancy” after raising the LGBT rainbow flag at a Cairo concert.
All kneel before Faisal, King of Saudi Arabia, and his little friend Yoda: In an embarrassment to the Ministry of Education, the Saudi government released a textbook that included a photo of King Faisal signing the UN charter in 1945, while seated next to Jedi Master Yoda, of Star Wars fame. Analysts believe the picture has been photoshopped. The BBC reported that education minister Ahmad al-Isa called it an “unintended mistake.” No word yet on how it happened.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write books about science instead of burning them.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—notorious for its restrictions on the freedom of women—announced a historic change on Tuesday: starting next June, the gentle sex will be allowed to drive.
Around the kingdom, and around the world, women took to Twitter to celebrate.
A bunch of people posted this awesome video:
Some speculated what the roads would be like in a kingdom where segregation of the sexes was still the law of the land:
Others wondered, now that women were mobile, why the hell they’d stay in Saudi Arabia:
Of course, social conservatives were unhappy, and announced their intention to put their foot down where their own wives and daughters were concerned. And so, #The_harem_of_my_house_won’t_drive hashtag was born.
Naturally, these assholes invoked the usual sexist stereotypes:
But such tweets soon became hard to find as harem_of_my_house was hashjacked by the forces of modernity:
I’m uncertain whether the gratitude to “Uncle Trump” was sincere or sarcastic.
I had a little trouble with the translation on this one:
I did okay with the first line, “#The_harem_of_my_house_will_not_drive Harem?! Hahahahahahaha.” But, stuck on the second line, I tweeted the author and asked her what it meant. Her reply:
I’m not sure if that’s the actual translation, or she was merely giving me advice :-)
Many took the trouble to thank the king for his decree:
But as my friend Ammar Anwer pointed out, the real heroes, “are the brave Secular activists, who are either put behind bars, like Raif Badawi, or compelled to leave the country for their own safety. It is a moment to congratulate them, not the totalitarian Extremist dynasty.”
You may recall Raif Badawi; I wrote about him previously. Mr. Badawi is a blogger who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a thousand lashes (he’s received 50 so far) for “insulting Islam.” The last I heard, his wife had had no word from him for over a year. Needless to say, he’s been unable to comment on Tuesday’s news. But the Raif Badawi Foundation tweeted on his behalf:
Among the activists who have been driven out of the country is Manal al-Sharif. In 2011, Ms. Sharif posted video of herself driving. She was arrested, lost custody of her son, and was publicly shamed. During a sermon at a mosque—with her father in the congregation—the imam called her a whore. She now lives in Australia but says she looks forward to driving in her home country. She posted this cartoon about what would happen to all the men, many of them foreign, who are currently employed as chauffeurs for the women of Saudi Arabia:
On a more serious note, Ms. Sharif pointed out that the women of Saudi Arabia still have a long way to go. In particular, the “guardianship” laws are still in place. According to the BBC, under these laws,
There are many things women must ask the men in their lives for permission to do. These things include, but are not limited to:
Applying for passports
Travelling abroad
Getting married
Opening a bank account
Starting certain businesses
Getting elective surgery
Leaving prison
So Ms. Sharif and her allies have their work cut out for them.
One of those allies, who I also wrote about previously is Loujain Hathloul. Like Ms. Sharif, she was arrested—and held for two and half months without charges—for posting video of herself driving. Her response to Tuesday’s news was eloquent and succinct:
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write books about science instead of burning them.
Saudi Arabia is in an uproar: the government allowed women into King Fahd stadium this weekend.
The occasion was National Day—the anniversary of the founding of the kingdom in 1932. Although the women who joined the celebration in the stadium and other venues were suitably covered in black abayas, in accord with the law of the land, many Saudis were nevertheless outraged, and #Patriotism_is_not_Sin began to trend:
Some thought even without women in the picture, the celebration lacked sufficient decorum:
Many thought they knew the problem: last year the government scaled back the powers of the infamous Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. If only the Committee could once again arrest people for using the wrong gender entry to the mall or playing musical instruments in public, rather than merely report these infractions of shari'a to the police, society would no longer be on the verge of collapse, what with women going to stadiums and all. And so #The_People_Demand_the_Return_of_the_Committe became a thing.
Others had more fun with the impending breakdown of civilization:
Meanwhile, in neighboring Abu Dhabi, they sat back and enjoyed the show:
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
Today is referendum day in Kurdish northern Iraq. Some four million voters turned out to weigh in on whether to secede from the country and establish an independent nation. The Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East (after Arabs, Persians, and Turks) and the only one out of the four without a state of their own. The referendum is non-binding and will not lead immediately to independence, but if it passes, it should give the Kurds considerable leverage to negotiate with Baghdad for their departure.
In many parts of the region, a festive atmosphere has reigned for days:
On Twitter, #Kurdistan is trending.
Just as in the west, many want to broadcast their votes:
I couldn’t tell if this voter was giving the finger to independence or to someone who voted against it. The caption wasn’t much help, but it’s nice to know that some gestures are universal.
Many wish the Kurds well:
Nevertheless, the bid for Kurdish independence has almost no support among the governments of the world, especially Turkey and Iran, who worry that their own Kurdish populations will get ideas.
Some find significance in the decision of the Turkish and Iraqi armies to begin joint exercises near the Kurdish border today:
Israel is one of the few nations that have announced support for Kurdish independence. Many welcome this,
But others see something sinister, as in this loathsome anti-Semitic cartoon:
Incidentally, despite being depicted as sitting next to Israel at the feast, the US government opposes independence.
Julian Assange, of Wikileaks fame, posted this cartoon:
It depicts the Kurdish nation, pierced by the arrows of Iraq, Turkey, ISIS, Iran, and a few others I don’t recognize. Nevertheless, the Kurds persist and climb the ladder of freedom out of the abyss and into the sunlight.
As we await the results of the vote, I hope that proves prophetic.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
We all saw highlights of President Trump’s speech. But what did other world leaders have to say?
Sure, Donald Trump got all the publicity. That’s par for the course when you threaten to “totally destroy North Korea.”
But this is a blog about Islam, so rather than North Korea, the focus here is the Muslim world. What did the various world leaders have to say about that?
I'll start with President Trump: he called out the “vile and sinister ideology” of “radical Islamic terrorism.” In particular, he singled out Iran’s “corrupt dictatorship” and “murderous regime.” Good stuff, noticeably absent from his 9/11 and Afghanistan speeches. Still, it's mostly a rehash of his May 21 address in Riyadh, which I covered previously.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel shared President Trump’s concern about Iran: “From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean,” he said, “from Tehran to Tartus, an Iranian curtain is descending across the Middle East.” (If you don’t follow the reference, look it up. “Iron Curtain speech.” Get it? Iron Curtain/Iranian Curtain).
Hassan Rouhani of Iran came back swinging. He called the accusations against his country “ignorant, absurd, and hateful rhetoric” from a “rogue newcomer.”
Overall, President Rouhani wins the award for smarminess. “Our ambassadors are our poets, our mystics, and our philosophers,” he intoned piously. But my favorite part was, “The path of moderation nurtures beauty. Deadly-weapons exports are not beautiful; rather peace is.” He should know; his country is exporting weapons all over the Middle East to fight its proxy wars, including the humanitarian catastrophes in Yemen and Syria.
Rouhani concluded with a sales pitch for investment in the Iranian economy. He invited “all those who seek peace, security, and progress through partnership and cooperation among nations to visit Iran.” I’d actually like to take him up on that. I discovered in the course of research for my book The Thread of Reason that Iran is a country of spectacular and diverse natural beauty which, to its credit, takes great pride in its wealth of historical monuments, even pre-Islamic ones. Those who seek to destroy the monuments of the Confederate States of America could take a lesson from the Iranians. Still I think I’ll postpone my visit until I can travel in Iran without fear of being arrested and tried behind closed doors on dubious charges of espionage, as has been the fate of other Americans in that country.
Abdu’l-Fattah as-Sisi of Egypt presides over one of the world’s worst human rights abusers. It’s a place where Giulio Regeni, a Cambridge University student who was researching trade unions in 2016 mysteriously disappeared. His corpse, showing signs of excruciating torture, turned up in a ditch along a highway nine days later. In another story, just this week, an Egyptian court sentenced some 500 people in a mass trial for their role in the 2013 anti-government demonstrations. Amnesty International reported that 330 of them had already been detained for four years or more, and among these, there was evidence against only two of them. So one can only marvel at the irony of President as-Sisi lecturing the world body on “upholding the notion of the modern nation-state, which is based on the principles of citizenship, equality, rule of law, and human rights.” In a less hypocritical vein, he continued that he intended to defeat “any attempts at retracting to doctrinal, sectarian, ethnic, or tribal loyalties.” You read that right. No loyalty to religion, culture, or ideas allowed. One must be loyal only to the State.
On the subject of terror, President as-Sisi said, “We in the Muslim world need to face our reality and work together to rectify misconstrued notions which have become an ideological pretext for terrorism and their destructive discourse. As you may recall, Egypt has launched an initiative to rectify religious discourse in order to revive the moderate and tolerant values of Islam.” This showed some insight in that the roots of terror are ideological, but as-Sisi is mistaken that Islam has been misconstrued. While the ideology of ISIS and al-Qaeda isn’t the only possible interpretation of Muslim scripture, it’s certainly an interpretation with deep roots in that scripture. As for the prospect of any government “rectifying” religious discourse, or any discourse—that is truly chilling.
President as-Sisi also called for “global order that can face challenges, such as climate change.”
Mahmud Abbas, leader of the Palestinians, called Israel a colonial, Apartheid, occupying power, but nevertheless he promised that “upon Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied in 1967, the Arab and Islamic States would recognize Israel and normalize relations with it.” One has to wonder about his sincerity, since he then went on to denounce the “historical injustice” of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the document which laid the foundation for Israel’s right to existence in the first place. In any case, we're unlikely ever to put Mr. Abbas's sincerity to the test. There's only a small chance he'll ever have to follow through on this promise. Territories "occupied" in 1967 include East Jerusalem, which Israel views as part of its eternal, undivided capital.
As for Abbas’s view of the roots of terror, he claimed that “draining the swamp of colonial occupation of our land and ending its unjust, oppressive, and illegal practices against our people would greatly affect the fight against terrorism, depriving terrorist groups of one of the key rallying cries they exploit to promote their repugnant ideas.” This is an argument that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, recently called “pure, unadulterated insanity.”
Mr. Abbas also said, “We once again affirm our commitment to…the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”
Aung San Suu Kyi, First State Counsellor of Myanmar, chose not to attend, due to the anti-Muslim violence engulfing Rakhine State in her country; I wrote about that earlier this week. Instead, Counsellor Suu Kyi sent Vice President U Henry Van Thio, who for the most part parroted the awful speech that the First Counsellor delivered on Tuesday. But not to worry. Despite the atrocities in Rakhine, Mr. Van Thio assured the world that, “Myanmar welcomes the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”
Well, that gives you some flavor of the 72nd UN General Assembly. As I read through page after page of self-inflicted grievances and smug hypocrisy, not to mention the pathological obsession with climate change, there was one question that kept nagging at me:
Why is the United States part of this?
Michael Isenberg drinks bourbon and writes novels. His latest book, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092, and tells the story of the conflict between science and shari’ah in medieval Islam. It is available on Amazon.com
Transcripts and video of the speeches from the 72nd UNGA may be found on the UN Website.
In my blog yesterday, I called on Aung San Suu Kyi, First State Counsellor of Myanmar (Burma), to speak out against the persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of the Burmese army. I argued that even if the political realities of Myanmar prevented her from doing anything more forceful than speak out, that’s still a powerful thing.
The story of Ahmad ibn Abdallah al-Khuzistani illustrates just how powerful words could be.
Ahmad lived in the ninth century, a time when everyone in the Muslim world, low and high, immersed themselves in poetry. He started life as an ass-herder, but managed to work his way up to become Emir of Khorasan (eastern Iran, more or less). Nizami Arudi wrote, “[T]he affairs of Ahmad ibn ‘Abdu’llah prospered so greatly that in one night in Nishapur he distributed in largess 300,000 [gold] dinars, 500 head of horses, and 1000 suits of clothes, and to-day he stands in history as one of the victorious monarchs.”
When asked how he managed to rise so high, from such humble beginnings, Ahmad replied, according to Nizami,
One day I was reading the Diwan of Hanzala of Baghdis…when I chanced on these two couplets:—
'If lordship lies within the lion’s jaws,
Go, risk it, and from those dread portals seize
Such straight-confronting death as men desire,
Or riches, greatness, rank and lasting ease.'
An impulse stirred within me such that I could in no wise remain content with that condition wherein I was. I therefore sold my asses, bought a horse, and [quit] my country.
And thus, inspired by a poem about risking everything to snatch greatness, the one-time ass-herder embarked upon a glorious career.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
Quotations from Nizami come from Chahar Maqala (The Four Discourses), Edward G. Browne, tr., Mirza Muhammad, ed., London:Luzac & Co., 1921, Anecdote XII, pp. 27-29.
Myanmar’s State Counsellor uses her eagerly awaited speech about the atrocities in Rakhine to discuss sustainable development and Five Year Plans.
Yesterday I wrote about the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims, who live in Rakhine State, Myanmar (Burma). For some years they have been in conflict with the ethnic Burmese. Last month the situation escalated when Rohingya jihadists attacked government outposts. The jihadists, like jihadists everywhere, are a blight on the landscape. The military counterattacked, as they should. But the brutal nature of the counterattack, drawing no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, is shaping up to be one of the great crimes of our still young century. Together with Rakhine civilians, who they armed, the military burned dozens of Rohingya villages and murdered numerous women, children, and elderly, triggering a humanitarian crisis that sent nearly 400,000 Rohingya—almost half their population—fleeing to Bangladesh. A skeptical world may doubt some of the harrowing stories told by the refugees. But there is no doubting the burning of the villages. The flame and smoke are there for all to see.
Despite the horrific nature of the crisis, I ended on an optimistic note:
In the absence of any acceptance of responsibility by the government, all eyes have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi, holder of the Nobel Peace Prize and de facto leader of Myanmar…For some years now, she’s been evasive about Rakhine…But with the recent attention, perhaps she is reconsidering. A spokesman for Ms. Suu Kyi announced that she will deliver an address on the situation this week. The world will be watching.
Ms. Suu Kyi gave her speech this morning.
It was awful.
I have sympathy for Ms. Suu Kyi, I really do. For decades, as leader of the opposition against Burma’s military government, she suffered numerous rounds of house arrest. And now, with the return of civilian rule, she has taken on the task of rebuilding a poverty-stricken and divided country. It’s an excruciatingly difficult job, and I realize I’m guilty of some Monday morning quarterbacking here.
But, God, that speech was awful.
She did not acknowledge the seriousness of the atrocities. “There are allegations and counter-allegations,” she said. “I have not gone into any of them because it is not my purpose to promote and encourage conflict.” So she hid behind the “both sides” argument, and not for the first time. And she did it disingenuously: when it came to the allegations against the Rohingya, she did go into them.
There was no acceptance of responsibility on the part of the government. Instead she called for more study to find out what was really happening—which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already been doing for weeks.
There was no plan put forward for stopping the violence. Indeed she denied there was anything to stop. “Since the 5th of September, there have been no armed clashes and there have been no clearance operations,” she claimed, apparently incorrectly. CNN reports, “Satellite imagery examined by Amnesty International appears to show more than a dozen burned villages and fires since that date.”
Some of what Ms. Suu Kyi said was downright absurd. “We are concerned that numbers of Muslims are fleeing across the border to Bangladesh. We want to find out why this exodus is happening.”
See above, re: burning villages.
And then there’s this jewel: “The great majority of Muslims in the Rakhine state have not joined the exodus. More than 50% of the villages of Muslims are intact.”
What a relief to know that only half the Rohingya have been driven away!
But more than anything else, Ms. Suu Kyi’s address was technocrat-speak. Instead of the leader that I know she is, she sounded like a Soviet apparatchik or an EU bureaucrat:
We had established a central committee for rule of law and development in the Rakhine…
In accordance with the counterterrorism law, section six, subsection 5…
The final report of the advisory committee…
A strategy with specific timeline has been developed to move forward the national verification process…
Social development programs…
Sustainable development…
The Rakhine state socioeconomic development plan, 2017 to 2021, has been drafted to boost regional development in various sectors…
Yes, she literally cited the Five Year Plan.
Toward the end of her speech, Ms. Suu Kyi offered a metaphor which I thought was instructive. Her intent was to deflect attention from Rakhine state to the problems of Myanmar as a whole:
I would like to use the analogy of a healthy human being. A healthy human has to be healthy all over—you cannot neglect his general health, just to concentrate on one particular ill.
Yes, you can concentrate on one particular ill. When things are bad enough, you have to concentrate on one particular ill. Like if a patient is brought into the emergency room with a gunshot wound. Stop the bleeding. Don’t inquire into whether he gets enough exercise or has too much salt in his diet!
So it is with nations. I’m all for sustainable development and strategies with specific timelines. But there are always unforeseen events that disrupt the Five Year Plan. That's one of the great insights of conservatism and one of the reasons socialism doesn't work. And when events occur, a leader has to deal with them, and that's what Ms. Suu Kyi is not doing. Stopping the bleeding.
I recognize Aung San Suu Kyi has many constraints and few options. I recognize that, under Burma’s Constitution, she does not control the military. But at the very least, she can speak out against the very real atrocities happening in her country. Some say that words don’t make any difference, but I beg to differ: Aung San Suu Kyi’s whole life is proof that they do.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
If you’ve been on social media lately, you've probably seen references to the Rohingya people being persecuted by the government of Myanmar (Burma). Words like “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” appear. But, what with DACA, Hurricane Irma, and the Hillary excuses tour, the story has not gotten as much attention as it should. And it should get attention—horrible things are going on, and people need to know about them.
Granted, figuring out just what is going on is no small task. The situation reminds me of the debate back in the 60s over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the naval battle that led to escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. A cartoon at the time depicted angry government officials standing in front of a map and pointing at each other accusingly. Scratching his head, an honest but puzzled onlooker says, “Only thing we’re sure of—there is a Tonkin Gulf!”
Similarly, it seems like the only thing we’re sure of regarding the violence in Myanmar—there is a Myanmar.
Charges and counter-charges fly back and forth between the Rohingya and the government. All the tools of modern disinformation are in play—evasive statements by government officials, accusations of “fake news,” photographic “evidence” of atrocities that turn out to be pictures of some other atrocity in some other country, and a general willingness of both sides to believe even the most absurd accusations about the other, while dismissing any criticism of itself. To complicate things, the press is not able to operate freely in Myanmar, especially in Rakhine State, where the Rohingya live. News about Rakhine must be cleared by government censors.
In any case, despite these obstacles, here’s what I’ve been able to piece together:
Who are the Rohingya?
The Rohingya are Muslims of Indian origin living in northern Rakhine, on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, near the Bangladeshi border. The government claims they are recent arrivals, fleeing crowded conditions in Bangladesh. The Rohingya claim they have been there for 1,000 years, the descendants of Arab seafarers. The truth is somewhere in between. Muslims have lived in the region since at least the 1430s—the Santikan Mosque in Mrauk U dates from that era. The term “Rooinga” appears in a British article from 1799, “Burma Empire” by Francis Buchanan-Hamilton.
Migration of Indian Muslims into the region accelerated during the colonial era; the British brought them in for agricultural labor.
World War II saw violence between the Rohingya, who allied with the British, and the Rakhine, who were sympathetic to the Japanese. Thousands died on both sides.
As the war ended and Myanmar achieved its independence, there was division among the Rohingya as to their future. Some wanted to join Pakistan, but that was rejected by that nation’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Others formed separatist groups to fight for independence—and these groups persist to this day. Still others integrated into Burmese society—at least one became a member of parliament.
The number of Rohingya in Rakhine is unknown. There hasn’t been a census since 1983. At that time, there were 585,000 Muslims living in the state, 29% of the population. Estimates of the Rohingya population on the eve of the current round of violence is somewhere around a million.
How do the Burmese view the Rohingya?
With hatred. Many Burmese Buddhists dislike Muslims in general and the Rohingya in particular. Just as some of my right-of-center friends believe that hordes of Muslims are migrating illegally into Europe in order to take over that continent for Islam, many Burmese believe Muslims are attempting to do the same thing in Rakhine. There is little solid evidence for this; the only migration that’s been significantly documented is the flow of refugees going the other way.
The New York Times reports, “In online forums, Rohingya are referred to as dogs, thieves, terrorists and various expletives. Commenters urge the government to ‘make them disappear’ and seem particularly enraged that Western countries and the United Nations are highlighting their plight.” Although Buddhist monks are generally thought of as exemplars of peace, when it comes to despising the Rohingya, some of them are leading the charge. Notable among these is Ashin Wirathu, who Time magazine called “The Face of Buddhist Terror.”
Is this the first outbreak of persecution against the Rohingya?
No. In 1962, a military junta overthrew the government of Myanmar, ushering in decades of autocratic rule under which the Rohingya suffered greatly. Some argue the junta needed the Rohingya to justify their own dictatorship. A 1982 nationality law stripped the Rohingya of citizenship; legally they are now stateless persons. Periodic waves of violence crashed down on them. In Operation King Dragon (1978), the military conducted mass arrests and torture under the pretext of cracking down on jihadists. Amnesty International reported that in 1991-1992, there were “massive human rights violations in the Rakhine State, including extrajudicial executions, torture, forced labour and portering.” The persecution persisted even after the end of military rule in 2011. In 2012, riots broke out in the wake of questionable accusations that three Rohingya youth had raped and murdered a Rakhine woman.
What sparked the current outbreak?
Jihadist separatist groups meanwhile continued their loathsome campaign of violence in Rakhine. One of these is the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), under the leadership of Ata Ullah, a Pakistan-native, of Rohingya descent, who grew up and was educated in an “Islamic school” in Saudi Arabia (Why is it always Saudi Arabia?). Last October, an attack on Burmese border posts along the Bangladesh border killed nine government officials. A second round, on August 25 of this year, left seventy-one dead. ARSA has claimed responsibility for both of these attacks.
What’s happening now?
The military struck back. As it should; ARSA really is a dangerous jihadist group. But to the military's eternal shame, the scope of its counterattack went far, far beyond jihadists. The latest (Sept 15) report from Human Rights Watch states, based on satellite data and eyewitness reports, that the Burmese military has burned 62 Rohingya villages near the Bangladesh border. Huge numbers of Rohingya have fled in their wake. CNN reports that a mind-boggling 370,000 refugees have fled to Bangladesh in a three week period.
The refugees offer harrowing accounts of attacks by the military and its allies on women, children, and the elderly—a chilling demonstration of the end game of identity politics. This is what happens when people look on each other as members of groups rather than as individuals. Among these accounts is that of Ali Omar, of Whykhong, who witnessed the burning of a neighboring village:
I watched as the government landed in helicopters in Tula Toli and distributed arms.
They distributed arms to the Mughs, the Hindus, the Buddhists and to the Murongs, everyone. We watched helicopters landing and then the weapons being given out. They suddenly had everything; uniforms, knives, guns, everything.
I saw these friends of mine put on uniforms and holding weapons. We used to be childhood playmates.
Once everything was distributed, they started the operation.
The women and children hid in the paddy field by the river bank. But when the militants saw people in the paddy field, they started to shoot at them, killing them this time.
You could hear the children crying. There were so many bodies in the water, they were floating down the river like pieces of wood.
Ali Omar’s experience is just one of scores. You can read more in the September 8 report from Human Rights Watch.
What does the Burmese government say?
So far, very little. A statement from the foreign ministry blames everything on ARSA, and assures a concerned world that, “The security forces have been instructed to...exercise all due restraint, and to take full measures to avoid collateral damage and the harming of innocent civilians in the course of carrying out their legitimate duty to restore stability.”
In the absence of any acceptance of responsibility by the government, all eyes have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi, holder of the Nobel Peace Prize and de facto leader of Myanmar. Many expected her to be sympathetic to the plight of the Rohingya; after all, Ms. Suu Kyi herself was for decades under house arrest at the hands of the military. But for some years now, she’s been evasive about Rakhine, employing the “both sides” argument. That satisfied her critics as much as President Trump's critics were satisfied by his use of the same tactic in the wake of Charlottesville.
The Washington Post attributes her reticence to a number of factors including party politics, other priorities (the economy and insurgencies in other parts of the country), the need to accommodate a still powerful military, and just plain stubbornness.
But with the recent attention, perhaps she is reconsidering. A spokesman for Ms. Suu Kyi announced that she will deliver an address on the situation this week. The world will be watching.
(UPDATE 9/19: Ms. Suu Kyi gave her speech today. Here's my two cents.)
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
Photo credits: CNN, Newark Star-Ledger, Google Maps
Kurdish Independence: The Iraqi Kurdish Parliament voted this week to proceed with a September 25 referendum on independence from Iraq. The move is opposed by the Iraqi government of course, as well as the governments of Iran and Turkey, which seek to discourage Kurdish separatism in their own countries. The United States also opposes it, on the grounds that it will bring instability to Iraq. But as Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government correctly points out, “When have we ever had stability or security that we should be worried about losing it?”
In light of the significant contributions the Kurds have made to the fight against ISIS, it is my humble opinion that they have earned independence. However, a yes-vote on the referendum will not necessarily lead to that outcome. Some pundits think the intent is merely to strengthen the Kurds’ hand in their negotiations with Baghdad.
Syria de-escalation: Turkey, Russia, and Iran have agreed to establish a “de-escalation zone” in Idlib province, Syria, the last major enclave of non-ISIS opposition to the Assad regime. The agreement is significant for two reasons, neither of them good: First, it helps Assad enormously. As I’ve written previously, these escalation zones free him to move his troops around the country and pick off his enemies one at a time. His opponents, pinned down in isolated enclaves, enjoy no such freedom. Second, it shows that the US, who isn’t a party to deal, has nearly completely lost influence in Syria.
Anti-woman Tunisian marriage law abolished: The government of Tunisia abolished a law which prohibits Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims. The new law raises the status of women in the country, putting them on a more equal footing with men as to who they can marry.
Tunisia is pretty much the only country in the region that has seen positive change come out of the Arab Spring.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.
(mostly).
Part II in a Series.
By Michael Isenberg.
Today marks the anniversary of a tragedy.
Sixteen years ago, Muslim terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons with which they cruelly murdered almost three thousand people. As President Trump said in his speech this morning (he was talking specifically about the victims of Flight 77, but his words apply to all victims of terror), “Every one of them had a family, a story, and beautiful dreams. Each of them had people they loved and who loved them back. And they all left behind a deep emptiness that their warmth and grace once filled so fully and so beautifully.” (It’s a touching speech; read it in its entirety at whitehouse.gov.)
In the wake of that terrible day, many of us took on new missions. Some confronted terror on the battlefield—the bravery of the men and women who chose that path is inspiring. Others confronted terror by gathering intelligence or building weapons. And still others, myself included, attacked the ideology of terror at its roots. And the roots are the doctrine of jihad.
In commemeration of September 11 then, here is the next installment in my series about jihad:
Every once in a while, social media erupts in a debate over what that word means. While the literal meaning is struggle or striving, jihad is often translated holy war—a violent conflict of Muslims against unbelievers. However, those of the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace persuasion claim this is a misunderstanding. They say jihad is more of an internal struggle to master one’s own weaknesses and conquer one’s inner demons.
The latest round in the debate was kicked off by activist Linda Sarsour’s May address to the Islamic Society of North America, in which she called for jihad against the Trump Administration. She said in her remarks that what she meant by that was “a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler,” or what many would call “speaking truth to power.” However, her critics insist that she was being disingenuous. Jihad means violence, they say, and Ms. Sarsour knew perfectly well she was calling for the violent overthrow of the American government.
In Part I of this series, I explored what the Quran has to say on the subject. I looked up every instance of the word jihad and its various forms (jahid, tujahidun, etc.). There were forty-one of them. I found that in the majority of cases, it was ambiguous. The Quran commanded Muslims to “struggle (tujahidun) in the Way of Allah” without actually saying what that meant. But in six cases it was clearly a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, and in two cases it was clearly an armed conflict. In no cases were there any reason to think it meant an internal struggle or speaking truth to power.
However, despite pride of place, the Quran is not the only source of authority in Islam. The Hadith is almost as important in forming the basis of the shari’a. The use of the term jihad in the Hadith is the subject of the present installment.
The word hadith literally means a narrative or a telling. In other words, a story. Typically it’s a story about something Muhammad did or said, but sometimes it’s about one of his companions. I’ve never seen an estimate how many hadith there are, but it must be in the hundreds of thousands. The intellectual effort that has gone into studying and authenticating them over the centuries is mind-boggling. In the early years of Islam, scholars compiled what they considered the most reliable hadith into six collections that were canonized. In Sunni Islam, these collections have the force of law. (A seventh, the Muwatta Malik, is also canon but only in the Maliki school of thought).
Analyzing what they have to say about jihad is a bit more of a challenge than analyzing the Quran. A search of the seven canonical collections, using the hadith database at sunna.com turned up nearly eight hundred narratives that contained some form of the word jihad. I read every one of them and eliminated uses of the word that clearly had nothing to do with the religious obligation of jihad—in various forms it can mean fatigue, poverty, judgment, and even sex—the versatility of Arabic is a wonder to behold. I also eliminated hadith that were narrated by a guy named Mujahid, which happens to mean jihadist.
That left me with 195.
As in the Quran, many were of little help. Eighty-eight, almost half, commanded jihad without saying what it meant. For example,
A man asked the Prophet "What deeds are the best?" The Prophet said: "(1) To perform the (daily compulsory) prayers at their (early) stated fixed times, (2) to be good and dutiful to one's own parents, (3) and to participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book on the Unity of Allah)
Others were more germane. One (and only one) even spoke of jihad as an internal struggle:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (may the Prayer and Peace of Allah be upon him) saying: "The Mujahid is one who strives against his own soul." (Jami` at-Tirmidhi, Book on the Virtues of Jihad)
The hadith that Ms. Sarsour referenced, about speaking truth to power, appeared five times (this is common since a particular hadith can appear in multiple collections or in different versions within the same collection):
Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (may the Prayer and Peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Indeed, among the greatest types of Jihad is a just statement before a tyrannical ruler." (Jami` at-Tirmidhi, Book of al-Fitan)
So she didn’t make it up, and it has the force of shari’a behind it.
Still, the majority of hadith about jihad are clearly talking about violent conflict against the unbeliever. Many of these (45) refer to jihad as something you leave your home for. Or something that you die for (28). Or if you survive, something you get spoils of war for (17). Or all of the above:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (may the Prayer and Peace of Allah be upon him) say: “Allah has promised the one who goes out in His cause and does not go out except with faith in Me and for Jihad in My cause, that he is guaranteed to enter Paradise no matter how, either he is killed, or he dies, or he will be brought back to his home from which he departed having acquired whatever he acquired of reward or spoils of war.” (Sunan an-Nasa'i, Book on Faith and its Signs)
Women can challenge their inner demons or speak truth to power. But going to war is more problematic and a substitute was found.
Narrated Aisha (mother of the faithful believers [she's the girl who according to tradition married Muhammad when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Because she was so young, she outlived him by many years and became well-respected as the go-to woman for the inside scoop. She was therefore the narrator for many, many hadith]): I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shouldn't we participate in Holy battles and Jihad along with you?" He replied, "The best and the most superior Jihad (for women) is Hajj [pilgrimage] which is accepted by Allah." Aisha added: Ever since I heard that from Allah's Apostle I have determined not to miss Hajj. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Penalty of Hunting while on Pilgrimage)
Muhammad also made exceptions for the elderly and the disabled.
Finally, I found twenty-one miscellaneous hadith where jihad is clearly discussed in the context of battle. For example,
It was narrated that ‘Amr bin ‘Abasah said: I came to the Prophet (May the Prayer and Peace of Allah be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?” He said: “(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.” (Sunan ibn Majah, Book of Jihad)
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stimulated people for jihad and mentioned the Garden. One of the Ansar was eating some dates in his hand, and said, "Am I so desirous of this world that I should sit until I finish them?" He threw aside what was in his hand and took his sword, and fought until he was slain. (Muwatta Malik, Book on Jihad)
So yes, in the hadith, the ideas of jihad as inner struggle and speaking truth to power can be found. But in general, jihad is exactly what its critics say it is: armed conflict against the unbeliever.
The great collections of hadith were completed around the year 900. In the next installment of this series, I’ll look at what later medieval commentators had to say on the subject.
Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092 and depicts the battle for the Muslim soul between those who embrace science and tolerance, and those who would throw in their lot with mysticism and persecution instead.
