Rally Iraq's Muslims against ISIS beheadings

The ISIS rebels in Iraq advanced quickly in part because they use beheadings to instill fear. The world, as well Muslims, must condemn this tactic. Even Al Qaeda rejects it.

Reuters
A baby sleeps with his family, who fled from the violence in Mosul, inside a tent at a camp on the outskirts of Arbil in Iraq's Kurdistan region June 13.

Over the past few months, large parts of Syria and Iraq have fallen to the extremist militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Now this terrorist group, which formed only last year, plans to take Baghdad and create a theocracy that cuts across borders in the Middle East.

As world leaders struggle in how to respond, they should ask this: How did these Sunni Muslim fighters, who come from many nations, advance so quickly? One clue lies in the brutality of ISIS, especially its use of beheadings to cast dread far and wide.

Such a tactic strikes an unusual fear in its opponents and helps the group to impose harsh Islamic law in areas now under its control. In Iraq, both civilians and government soldiers have taken flight even though the militants barely raised a sword or pointed a gun.

Last week, a third of the people in Mosul fled as the group took over Iraq’s second largest city – in only four days. Journalists report that ISIS fighters have lined up decapitated heads on the streets to keep the population in line.

In a recent report entitled “Rule of Fear” about ISIS’s barbarous ways,  Amnesty International interviewed dozens of people in Syria who were able to escape from the militants. One young man told this tale:

I didn’t want to be taken by them… so I started running. They ran after me, all masked, and captured me. I started shouting loudly to get the attention of the crowd of people: ‘What have I done, what have I done?’ I could see people looking at me, but no one said a word. They were all killed by fear…

The world cannot remain frozen in the face of this brutal form of killing. Beheadings are “cruel and unusual punishment,” to borrow a phrase from the United States Constitution. They have a long history going back to ancient times, such as the murder of John the Baptist. They were common in the West until the 18th century, such as in France during the days of the guillotine. Yet humanity has made progress in imposing rules on warfare and punishment, adopting less cruel forms and banning such methods as chemical weapons, hangings, and land mines.

Such progress requires a strong consensus that certain people, such as civilians, prisoners of war, and political opponents, are worthy of a degree of respect and deserve to be treated humanely. This is still a bold concept about universal worth in a world that continues to break down people over differences that are then often demonized.

Can Iraq and other Arab states form a consensus about the use of beheadings? One precedent is a campaign begun in the United States in the early 20th century to end the lynching of blacks by whites. By the 1930, the campaigned had achieved success.

One sign of hope for Iraq: Al Qaeda cut ties with ISIS in February, in part because it knows that the butchery of beheadings is no way to gain the support of Muslims. And in recent years, many Islamic leaders have expressed an abhorrence of this tactic, even though the Quran makes mention of “smiting the neck” of nonbelievers (a similar practice found in the Hebrew Bible).

Repealing the fighters of ISIS will take more than the might of government armies. Iraqis of all faiths and ethncities must join in rejecting this savage tactic. They cannot be “killed by fear.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.