The Derailment of Religion

As many invariably are everyday, today I was involved in a discussion about terrorism. The debate was stimulating, and greatly frustrating. I felt the compulsion to speak up.

We can all agree that terrorism is a scourge that we must defeat. The question then becomes how.

The implications of the discussion left me feeling very upset. Although nothing was made explicit, the overriding subtext was a microcosm for what I view as the whole problem with the approach to the "War on Terror" (aside from the fact that waging a war on an act rather than an actor is rather curious, if not senseless).

Approaching the problem of terrorism with the presumption that the answer lies in something inherent to Islam is both foolish and counterproductive, not to mention offensive. It is as foolish and offensive as posing a question such as "Is there something inherent to Christianity that makes Christian states more prone to the invasion and occupation of non-Christian states?" This is a ridiculous question that takes us no where toward resolving the issue of abuses of the laws of war, for example.

Equally, a state which is explicitly founded on religion and uses its religion as a pretext for all its actions, such as Israel, is never faced with a question such as "Is there something about Judaism which makes Jewish Israelis more prone to inhumane treatment of Palestinians?" Such a question would not be posed because not only is it racist, but also because it is counterproductive.

Yet, the world feels the compulsion to pose such questions about Islam without reflecting on the consequences, let alone the bigotry. I am not making these points in defense of Islam, but rather because I feel the questions are epiphenomenal and lead us down the wrong path. Lashing out in anger and shrouding oneself in delusions is not a defense strategy.

Combating terrorism requires that we stop thinking of the "other" as though they were Martians or bogeymen. People do bad things for rational reasons with whatever means they have. We must get to those reasons and address them, as well as stifle their means.

You can't fight what you don't know no matter how strong your convictions may be. All you end up doing is punching at air.

Assassin - Another Word for "The Base"

© 2005 justdahlia.blogspot.com

The etymology of the word ‘assassin’ is still hotly debated amongst historians. Early travelers and chroniclers such as Marco Polo (“Now no man was allowed to enter the Garden save those whom he intended to be his ASHISHIN”) attribute the word which emerged into Latin and later most European-based lexicons as derived from the Arabic word for “hashish’, an herb-based drug (hemp) which came to the Middle East through India, and those who use the drug as ‘hashasheen’. As Latin does not have a sound for “sh”, it became ‘s’ and thus ‘assassin’. This theory is supported by one of the earliest European writers on the Assassins, Sylvestre de Sacy in his 1809 memoir to the Institut de France (also found in the annex to Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall’s The History of the Assassins - 1835).

However, "[m]any scholars have argued, and demonstrated convincingly, that the attribution of the epithet 'hashish eaters' or 'hashish takers' is a misnomer derived from enemies the Isma'ilis and was never used by Moslem chroniclers or sources. It was therefore used in a pejorative sense of 'enemies' or 'disreputable people'. This sense of the term survived into modern times with the common Egyptian usage of the term Hashasheen in the 1930s to mean simply 'noisy or riotous'. It is unlikely that the austere Hasan-i Sabbah indulged personally in drug taking… There is no mention of that drug [hashish] in connection with the Persian Assassins - especially in the library of Alamut ('the secret archives')." (Edward Burman, The Assassins - Holy Killers of Islam). This theory is further debunked by Bernard Lewis when he observed that the word ‘hashish’ (originally in Arabic meant to refer only to dry herbs) only in more modern times was used to refer to the drug, and only in Syria (and later in Egypt). A great majority of historians argue that the attribution of hashish-users in reference to the Nizari Isma’ilis, even if directed towards them, probably was only used by their critics such as Sunni contemporary chroniclers and was only used with respect to the Nizaris of Syria, and not Persia.

Other theories of the etymology put forth the argument that the word derives from the name of the founder of the sect, Hassan Sabbah, and that those who followed him were referred to as a’Hassan, or followers of Hassan, and that with time the word became ‘assassin’.

Still another theory postulates that the word derives from the Arabic word “hassas” which applies to ‘quiet intruder’ or ‘night thief’.

A final, and most likely, theory is that the word derives from the Arabic word for foundation or basis, ‘assass’, which is very interesting in light of the name of the modern terrorist group, Al Qa'eda, which is the Arabic word for ‘base’. “According to texts that have come down to us from Alamut, Hassan liked to call his disciples Assassiyun, meaning people who are faithful to the Assass, the "foundation" of the faith. This is the word, misunderstood by foreign travelers, that seemed similar to "hashish."” (Amin Maalouf in Samarkand)

The First Terrorists - The Assassins

This is the summary of a study I made of a religious sect, Nizari Isma'ilis, who are often pointed to as the first terrorist group in history. I will from time to time post various sections of this study.

The Nizari Isma'ilis (The Assassins): The Truth and Dare
© 2005 justdahlia.blogspot.com

An Overview:
The story of the Shi'a Nizari Isma'ili (popularly known as the Assassins[1]) is one of a group of people who represent an internal religio-political resistance movement who, soon after the death of the Prophet Mohamed, took three hundred years to develop (wherein their true story lies), saw the height of manifestation for approximately two hundred years and then fell into a silent existence through to modern times. They have captured the minds of the Western world since the time of the Crusades because of some of the tactics they employed at the pinnacle of their strength against perceived political adversaries as well as the seemingly ritualistic secrecy surrounding their most ardent followers. However, it should be noted that their movement was always grounded in seemingly rational political objectives, namely, the undermining of the ruling Sunni Abbasid Caliphate based in Baghdad and the restoration of the glory of Isma'ili Shi'a rule as per the heyday of the Fatimid Caliphate based in Egypt.

The Nizari Isma'ilis emerged at the end of the 11th Century in Persia, Syria and Iraq. They are a sub-group of the Isma'ili Shi'a who themselves represent 10% of the Shi'a sect of Islam. The Shi'a, in turn, represent about 10 to 15% of the total approximate 1.2 billion Moslems worldwide. The Nizari Isma'ili are still today a sizable group extending from the frontiers of Russia to Iran to India and are led by their holy imam, the Aga Khan IV[2]. Isma'ilism emerged from a schism within Shi'a Islam in the 9th Century which led to the emergence of the Fatimid dynasty in North Africa. Eventually the Fatimids gained control of Egypt and reigned over North Africa and parts of southern Europe until the 12th Century[3]. As in the case of most of the schisms which occurred in Islam after the death of the Prophet Mohammed (570 - 632 AD), Nizari Isma'ilism emerged as a result of internal dissent concerning succession of the leadership of the faithful. In this case, upon the death of the Fatimid Caliph al-Mustansir (1036 - 1094 AD) in Egypt, his younger son Al-Musa'li was catapulted to the caliphate by the powerful vizier al-Afdal, who was also his father-in-law. This angered many in the wider Isma'ili community who believed that the older son Nizar, was the one entitled to the caliphate, thus leading to a break-off Isma'ili group known as the Nizari Isma'ilis led by one Hassan Sabbah. The bastion of this group was Alamut in the northern region of Persia and south of the Caspian Sea with a secondary center of influence established later in Syria near Aleppo.

Isma'ili Shi'ism is based on the concept of the batini, or the hidden meaning, leading many chroniclers to call them Batinis especially during the time of the Crusades[4]. The belief is that the Quran and all its stories are actually allegories for inner meanings and that the truly faithful should not base their beliefs on literal or apparent (the zahir) readings of the holy book. Unlike the egalitarian principles of the majority Sunni tradition, essential to Shi'ism in general, but Isma'ilism in particular, is the concept of ranked clergy where at the top sits the imam, or spiritual leader, who was elevated to a near divine-level. As noted, many schisms occurred in Islam especially among the Shi'a, often times resulting in violent break-away groups. The Isma'ilis also suffered from many waves of persecution, which underscored another element of their tradition, namely, the concept of taqiya, or caution and precaution, which allowed for the faithful to dissimilate from their belief. This, when applied, is a special dispensation from observing religious tradition so as to avoid identification and/or persecution.

Taken in their totality, these concepts of batini, imam and taqiya, in addition to others, laid the ground for the development of a group who were able to interpret and adapt Islam to their political objectives and social reality, believe in the absolute supremacy of their leader, while maintaining an aura of complete secrecy. Such were the elements of this religio-political group which led to the fascination of the West with the 'Assassins' and the total disdain of other contemporary Moslems for the Nizari Isma'ilis.

The Nizari Isma'ilis emerged as a group in 1094 AD with the death of their self-appointed imam Nizar, who an element of the Isma'ili faithful felt had been cheated of his divine right to succeed his recently deceased father, the Fatimid Caliph Mustansir. Hassan Sabbah established a stronghold in Alamut in Persia from which emerged a Nizari Isma'ili state whose influence extended to Syria and beyond. The heyday of their political impact was brought to a screeching halt in 1256 AD with the devastation brought by Hulegu Khan and the Mongol conquering of Persia and much of the Asian Arab lands. The final nail in the Assassins coffin was struck by the Egyptian Mamluk Baybars who first ruled then eradicated the Syrian wing of the Nizari Isma'ili political structure. Thus ended in 1275 AD nearly two hundred years of the Nizari Isma'ili state and led to the legend of the Assassins. This is their story

[1] This essay relies heavily on the work of Bernard Lewis, Marshall G. S. Hodgson, Philip K. Hitti, Amin Maalouf and Edward Burman.
[2] For more on contemporary Nizari Ismailism and their global community, see The Institute of Ismaili Studies at http://www.iis.ac.uk/home_l1.htm
[3] For a complete overview of Arab history from the rise of Islam to modern times see Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, and Bernard Lewis "A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. For a history of the Middle East during the Crusades, see Amin Maalouf's The Crusades Through Arab Eyes and Francesco Gabrieli's Arab Historians of the Crusades.
[4] See Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes.

A Problem We All Share.... Terrorism

In June 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States issued a report that quickly became a best-seller. On Dec. 5, 2005, the Commission issued a follow-up assessment of the US government’s response to the series of recommendations made in its earlier report and the overall preparedness of the US in facing possible future terrorist attacks. The grade was dismal with failure highlighted in most areas. In Emergency Preparedness, Transportation Security, Civil Liberties, Intelligence, Congressional Reform, Foreign Policy, Nonproliferation, and Public Diplomacy, the US response leaves much to be desired.

In my view, the greatest single weakness both in the 9/11 report and in the US’s general approach, is that it views terrorism primarily as a US problem. Not only is it not a US problem, but even if it were, it will not be defeated with US action alone; this is not a matter for chest-thumping nationalist bravado, it is one for sober nationalist realism. Terrorism exists everywhere and throughout history. The particular international reach of the recent Extremist Terrorist Moslem groups has the Western world sitting up and taking notice. This is both a cause for immediate action and an opportunity; acting as an international community, terrorism needs to be perceived both in the short term and the medium to long term through an array of international instruments of which military action is only one, and perhaps not even the most effective instrument against it. Furthermore, until “it” is defined, “it” can not be defeated even with concerted international cooperation. The Geneva Conventions put to rest all unnecessary nuances concerning the freedom-fighter versus terrorist debate. Civilian noncombatants should never be a target of hostilities, whether by state or non-state actors. Nor is it valid to argue that a definition is not necessary since “we know it when we see” and by defining “it” we are limiting our options. Even the International Bar Association’s Task Force on International Terrorism felt that a definition was in order.

Accordingly, and despite the international community’s failure to define “it”, I, despite the element of individual hubris involved in such an endeavor, suggest the following immediate international actions:
1. A convention is entered into defining terrorism as a crime against humanity and relegating any and all who engage in it to the International Criminal Court for criminal proceedings that are based on respect for due process. This, in turn, means that the US must become a signatory to (again) and ratify the ICC.
2. The definition of terrorism to be adopted by this international convention (and further adopted by the UN Security Council) is: Terrorism is any threat or act of violence against civilian noncombatants, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, by a non-state actor for the furthering of political objectives.
3. In the short term, vigilance is the best mode of prevention. This means that more concerted international cooperation is needed in the area of travel, goods transportation, intelligence gathering and sharing and, finally, mobility of financial resources.
4. For the medium to long term, the international community, through the United Nations and special initiatives, should address the root causes of terrorism, namely, government corruption and lack of accountability, economic stagnation, unemplyment and poverty, cultural imperialism, and, last but not least, political and self-determination injustices.

While this may look like wishful thinking, it is actually the only way to seriously and honestly address terrorism. Terrorism will not be defeated through military conquest and occupation. If anything, that only creates a whole new generation of terrorist soldiers.