The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has a utopian vision of a community established on its definition of Islamic values. But their community will be like no other the world has seen for well over a millennium. In fact, the community they ultimately want to build seems to be not of this world. For their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, portrays himself as the caliph precursor to that messianic leader (Mahdi) who will lead Muslims to ultimate victory before the end of time. This type of apocalyptic vision is not unusual in world religions. You can find eschatological references in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. Since I am not an Islamic scholar, I cannot comment on the nature of the Muslim afterlife. What I can comment on, however, is the nature of the community they seek to establish in this world. It is a community that seeks to expand beyond all borders and to extend ISIL’s interpretation of Sharia law over all it conquers. This interpretation is not recognizable to contemporary Muslims. For example, ISIL has greatly extended its use of excommunication (takfir). In its most strict application, Sharia law would require a death sentence for any apostate, that is, a Muslim who denies the Koran or the Prophet. But ISIL would dole out the death penalty for many other non-conforming behaviors, to include shaving one’s beard, wearing western clothes, selling alcohol or drugs, voting or participating in a democracy, governing Muslims without the strictest adherence to Sharia law, lacking full-throated support for naming and condemning apostates, or simply being a Shi’ite. The latter sin encompasses over 200 million Shi’a. ISIL’s contention with the Shi’a runs deep. For it believes the anti-Messiah (Daijal) will arise from the eastern regions of Shi’ite Iran and trigger the final battle in Jerusalem where the ISIL caliphate will emerge victorious. Since ultimate victory is preordained, no setback can sway the course of ISIL. Before that last triumph, ISIL interprets the sacred texts to outline another historic victory on the plains of Dabiq (currently a Syrian city under ISIL’s control and the name of ISIL’s magazine) where the “armies of Rome” will be defeated. “Rome” here may be a pseudonym for Istanbul, the seat of the former Ottoman Empire and the last caliphate, or America, the “great Satan.” This projection of America as the “Rome” of modern times is the basis for brutally killing American hostages and constantly tempting the US government to send its armies to fight ISIL. America is being invited to an inevitable defeat at the hands of a preordained ISIL victory. All humanity will then cower to the caliphate and adhere to ISIL’s version of Sharia law. Except for those Christians who accept the caliphate’s authority, possible enslavement, and a special tax (jizya), ISIL will slay any remaining infidels (kuffar). All that will remain in the end is an ISIL community ruled by its caliph and governed by the sacred dictates of the Koran and ISIL’s interpretation of Sharia law.

Before delving further into the nature of ISIL’s prophetic vision of conquest and Islamic utopia, I should note that nearly all Sunni Muslims do not agree with ISIL. In fact, the vast majority of the apostates slaughtered so far by ISIL are Sunni. ISIL considers this genocide necessary to maintain the homogeneity of its community and assure strict obedience and absolute commitment to its world vision. In exchange for this gruesome purge of apostates, ISIL will provide a stable community for its followers, where food, clothing, and healthcare are provided for everyone—and even a job, for those who want to work. The measure of this community is its ongoing conquests and enslavement of the conquered, giving license for its members to fire their weapons in the air, shout with joy, and dance in the streets. The community, then, is defined by its success in battle and the extension of its dominion. Infidels and apostates are the scapegoats for all that hinders or encumbers the community and must be liquidated. As a political philosophy, this type of merciless pursuit of power, domination, and scapegoating is not unfamiliar to the West. It is called fascism. As a social philosophy, it begs the question of what is a community. People forced to live under conditions of strict mandates or be doomed to extermination cannot be reasonably expected to form binding, constructive relations between individuals. The emphasis is on group success in conquest; the individual is immaterial to that end. The governing impetus is fear; the mandated response is absolute obeisance; and the overriding mission is uncompromising preservation of the status quo. An actual community, by contrast, is alive with creative energy where its members actively engage with each other in the development of new art forms, progressive education, and the evolution of support systems and a culture that better serve its general welfare. Amassing people into a closed, oppressive system is not unlike collecting animals for the cages in a zoo. ISIL does not provide for a community, but a collective.

Living a life of strict orthodoxy can be fulfilling if its adherence to rules and ritual is a willing engagement with the inspiration behind those rules and rituals. Out of a period of persecution, Mohammed established a community (the Ummah) governed by a system of jurisprudence to secure the peace and prosperity of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and pagans. Its initial inspiration was for racial equality, religious freedom, uniform enforcement of the law, protection of women, and the preservation of the community. How could anybody identify these founding principles with the ISIL community? It is possible, however, for ISIL to justify its murderous ways from sacred texts written in ancient times. Taken out of historical context and interpreted literally, these texts, like elements of the Christian bible, could be quoted by the devil himself. It is true that Mohammed fought wars ruthlessly to secure the Moslem community. But his community was inclusive and founded on principles of mutual respect and compassion. He also said, if you will forgive my paraphrase, to murder another is to murder one’s self. In another blog (reference “Tempered Reactions to Paris Massacres”), I stated that there is no such thing as a religious terrorist. What I meant did not exclude a terrorist from using a faux religion to justify terrorism. Religion is not and cannot be merely a set of prescriptions that separates humanity into warring camps. Instead, all the great world religions provide signposts to a transcendent experience that brings us in harmony with the ground of our being and with each other. ISIL may be religious in the sense that it clothes itself in the words of the Koran, but it is not a religion. For example, its concept of martyrdom, the suicide bomber who slaughters infidels and apostates, is not a gateway to everlasting bliss, but a meaningless annihilation of being and the spiritual essence of the so-called martyr. By contrast, Jesus Christ, considered a great prophet in the Islamic tradition, gave his life to protect his disciples, not to kill those opposed to him. He died for love of others. All the world religions have love of others or the golden rule of doing no harm as a centerpiece of their belief systems. What ISIL proposes as religion is actually anti-religious. Let’s review its primary proposals. It vindicates its mission based upon past injustices such as the crusades, colonialism and despotic leaders supported by the West. It inspires its followers with the promise of a utopian community under the auspices of Allah. It advocates the establishment of this new community with an urgency emanating from an eminent apocalypse. And so we have an ISIL community born of vengeance and inspired by millenarian fantasy. Its enemy is the past; its future, a new world order—ultimately one not of this world. What is missing in this new community is the present, the world we currently inhabit for which we are communally responsible.

As an American, my analysis is naturally biased. The founding principles of this country were derived after the religious wars of Europe and were based on the principles inspired by the Enlightenment and natural law. The separation of church and state is fundamental to these principles, thereby guaranteeing the ability to practice any religion, free of government interference. On our streets, we can see the hijab, the cassock, the Sikh headdress, or the shaved head of a Buddhist monk. Every American is free to choose a faith and to follow his/her own path to Self-awareness and to the mysteries of life, while governance is left to a common wisdom born of the rational capacity in every citizen. (I could mischievously exempt certain politicians who seem to foreswear common sense in lieu of a voting constituency, campaign donors, and/or lobbyists.) When Mohammed established the rule of religious tolerance, he was recognizing something that is basic to the nature of religion: every human shares the experience of self-awareness and of its transcendent nature. That experience opens us to the mystery of our existence—to God and to each other. It is also at the core of our sense of community—why we feel connected, why we help one another in our daily interactions. Even philosophers, who swear allegiance to no specific religion, attribute human altruism (even Kant’s moral imperative) to an inherent religious impetus. Religion, therefore, cannot be vengeance for past actions or violence perpetrated for future glory. The former is the justification for fascism; the latter is the inspiration of fanaticism.

The seeds planted by ISIL are poisonous not only to its adversaries, but to itself. Of course, ISIL cannot see the root of its own demise. It believes it cannot be bombed out of existence, for any military confrontation serves only to justify its mission. By some estimates, the number of ISIL fighters killed in battle each month is replenished by an equal number of new recruits. Also, it cannot be put down in debate. Its followers are unable to engage in any dialogue for they simply turn a deaf ear to the infidel or apostate whom they consider a non-person. What ISIL cannot do, however, is to create a vibrant community or justify its existence on rational or religious grounds. Brute force cannot create, but only compel. Herein is the fruit of ISIL’ self-immolation, its destructive destiny. So what can the rest of the world do, other than to watch its eventual collapse from within?

Today, the Middle East is a cauldron of suffering masses. Taking the long view of history, we might yet witness the emergence of one of those breakthrough moments, when communities, even civilizations, have suddenly awakened to a new reality. Such breakthroughs have resulted in revolutions, social reconstructions, or a significant evolution in the zeitgeist of an era. It is clear that the Middle East in general is on the verge of such a breakthrough. ISIL is but a cancer that has opportunistically grown out of the civil unrest that exists in both Syria and Iraq. Both of these countries governed inequitably and suppressed large portions of their citizens. In fact, the entire Middle East has writhed with this malady for generations. The Arab “spring” gave voice to this long-suffering. But, if change is on the horizon, it will have to rise from within. ISIL will only prolong the agony. The rest of the world can help indirectly, but not with military intervention or the provision of more deadly armaments. I do have a few personal prescriptions, but they should be taken with an obvious caveat. I am no expert on Middle Eastern diplomacy. Nevertheless, may I offer a few discussion points for the consideration of the more informed:
• In the interest of containing ISIL, shut off its markets for oil and the laundering of money through underground banking.
• In an effort to undercut ISIL’s opportunistic use of tribal antagonism, promote some measure of diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and its Arab Sunni neighbors. A starting point might be with a diplomatic agreement to halt the Houthi rebellion and to negotiate a political compromise for mutual governance in Yemen. Any agreement of this nature could be the precursor to developing some form of common cause against ISIL and an eventual political settlement to the civil unrest in both Syria and Iraq. As long as Iran remains the outlier, not only will there be no joint action, but even the Sunni states will remain largely on the sidelines, allowing Iran to go it alone.
• In order to defuse concerns among the Arab Sunni nations, conclude the Iran nuclear non-proliferation talks as soon as possible and stage a major diplomatic mission to apprise these nations of the security benefits and of the verifiable nature of the resultant agreement. (Of course, this effort depends upon the effectiveness of the final agreement.)
• With the purpose of countering ISIL propaganda, promote the use of social media to refute the historical, religious, and apocalyptic justifications for ISIL’s barbarous, anti-religious actions. The traditional world press has a role to play here as well. An Islamic reformation has been underway since the 7th century, but its nature is hardly referenced in journalistic and broadcast media. The voice of modern Islam has not been heard, largely because Western media has limited its access to the general public as well as to those caught underfoot of ISIL. (Remember what followed Christian persecution, internecine wars of conquest, crusades, and eventual inquisitions were reformation and the ecumenical movement. Islam has long been on this same path.)
• Break the stalemate with Russia over a political settlement in Ukraine. We need Russia to be more constructive in any diplomatic efforts undertaken with Syria or Iran. The Western allies may need to concede some form of local governance in Eastern Ukraine—without admitting Russia’s right to intervene militarily. The government in Kiev has long considered some form of federation, granting more self-governance to eastern Ukraine. More than that concession, the West may have to admit its hand in slighting Russia since the end of the Cold War. Two facts are relevant here: first, the West is guilty of attempting to isolate Russia financially and of allowing NATO’s extension to its borders; second and more relevant here, China supports the Russian position and its actions in Ukraine. This last fact is relevant because we need China, as well as Russia, not only in the “five plus one” nuclear agreement with Iran but also in any constructive diplomatic discussions with the nations of the Middle East. China is now a large importer of Middle Eastern Oil and a growing influence in that region.
• Pressure the government in Bagdad to offer more self-government to the Sunni minority now under the control of ISIL. In order to make this offer real, it might be required to reform the Iraq constitution to form a three state confederacy composed of the three major political factions of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a. Under this constitution, the “federal” government would be responsible for recruiting and managing a common military defense force, for securing the civil rights of all citizens, and for sharing resources equitably among the states, including the disbursement of income derived from oil. This political framework was once suggested by the Vice President and rejected at the time for lack of support both within the government in Bagdad and the U. S. Administration. Perhaps now is the right time to re-introduce this framework for governing those pseudo states that are drifting further apart with every ISIL victory or incursion into Sunni territory. Soon it will be too late to win back the Iraqi Sunnis.
• And, finally, we need to tighten our security net against terrorism, starting in Europe where are intelligence support is vital both to Europe and to extending our security as far as possible from our own borders.

It remains to be seen how relevant any of these prescriptions may be. The future is as uncertain as the outcome of the “hundred years” war or the Christian reformation. But ISIL will eventually decay from within. There is no grand strategy to defeat an idea, other than its own refutation. ISIL’s grand idea is dead on arrival, for it is not a vision of a community blessed by Allah and preordained for world conquest. Instead, it is humanity’s nightmare: a vision of dystopia.