In the third episode (of five) in VICE News’s series on the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), we see what happens when a political group has complete power to rule using sharia law. It ain’t pretty, and remember that in many countries Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land.
In this video from Raqqa, the IS sharia enforcers (“hisbah”), are particularly scary: they appear genial but are armed and determined that their dictates be obeyed. Women must be covered from top to toe, there must be no “Western” signs, and of course no eating or drinking during the day during Ramadan. Flogging is the usual punishment for infraction.
The station’s notes on the episode:
The Islamic State now governs its caliphate from the north central Syrian city of Raqqa, which was once a relatively westernized agricultural hub. As the State’s power base, Raqqa is where it imposes its version of Sharia law throughout large swaths of Iraq and Syria.
The “Hisbah” are the new Sharia police. In the latest episode of The Islamic State, VICE News joins them on their daily patrols during Ramadan, and witnesses how they check on shops and scrutinize produce, while at the same time ensuring their strict rules on women’s appearances are adhered to.
We are also taken to an Islamic State prison and speak with inmates accused of abusing drugs and selling alcohol. There we learn firsthand of the prisoners’ punishments, and how they have since “rediscovered” their devotion to the Islamic faith since their incarceration — but are yet to be granted permission to declare their allegiance to the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
On a related note, here’s a video of Maryam Namazie, tireless worker for human rights (especially women’s rights under Islam), praising Richard Dawkins for focusing on the problems of Islam; she then tears up an ISIS flag. This just occurred at the World Humanist Congress in Oxford:
Namazie explains a bit more on her website, where she criticizes humanists who target other “aggressive atheists” (presumably including Dawkins) rather than Islamists, a statement that won’t win her friends in some circles:
At the World Humanist Congress this weekend, I urged Humanists to stop self-flagellating and called on them to focus on the fascists of our era – the Islamists – rather than looking inwards to the so-called “aggressive atheists”. It’s during a question and answer period with Richard Dawkins where I also mention his contribution to those coming out as ex-Muslims.
I then rip the ISIS flag.
Most amusing is the woman who thinks I am calling Muslims fascists. Pretty sad that there are so many people that can still not distinguish between a Muslim and a fascist. Islamists are the fascists not Muslims. Try focusing on the fascists for a change and stop being so racist as to think that all Muslims are far-Right Islamists!
I invite her and the others at the Congress – like Alom Shaha – who think that criticising Islam and Islamism are bigotry to come to our October conference and learn the differences by people – Muslim and none – who are on the frontlines…
You can still buy tickets for the Secular Conference and some of you need to buy it more than others!
“Pretty sad that there are so many people that can still not distinguish between a Muslim and a fascist.”
Unfortunately as the atrocities in Iraq continue to dominate the headlines this view is becoming much more prevelent in the UK. A trawl through the comments under stories about the current crisis in the likes of the previously middle ground Daily Telegraph would have me believe that there’s no such thing as a moderate, peaceful Muslim and that eventually they’ll all turn into extremists.
How many “nice” Muslims have we seen turning up as suicide bombers, ISIS fighters etc? It’s not easy distinguishing a Muslim from an Islamist, especially given that intentional deceit (taqqiya) is permissible in Islam. Nice Muslims should turn their backs on Islam rather than be mixed in, even by association, with the Islamists.
sub
Bloody well done, Maryam.
This is like saying, “I’m a card-carrying member of the KKK but I’m not a racist.”
First, there is no race called “Muslim”. So the racism canard is bunk. It’s like the KKK saying that people who criticise them are “anti-white” and that being anti KKK is the same as being racist. It’s nonsense.
Second, it’s abundantly clear that Islam teaches that it is the One True Faith™ and that everyone else is an infidel and less than a Muslim and we will all be killed or converted on Judgement Day. If this is not fascist, what is?
Namazie is a disappointment to let Islam off the hook.
Is there any such thing as a cultural Jew regardless of ethnicity?
What have Jews got to do with this?
Nothing. ( yet, at least ).
I was trying ( provocatively or stupid depending on taste ) to illustrate that painting all Muslims with this brush might not be all that correct and might make enemies of allies ( ex-Muslims for example ).
I live in a Christian nation and your claim is compareable to labelling all Danes as Christians. Cultural Muslim, for all I know, is the same.
It’s a generalization and we simply don’t know how many Muslims are Islamists.
But we can guess and keep on guessing until the cows come home.
You’re right. It was stupid.
A cultural Jew (who can even be atheist) is not uncommon. I know several.
I don’t know HOW you could have a ‘cultural Muslim’ (maybe a cultural Arab, but by definition, Muslim is a belief structure)
You can have a cultural muslim in the same way you can have a cultural christian. Brought up in the traditions and vaguely following some pieces of it.
You then have those with differing levels of belief, again like any other religion, and for obvious reasons many of those wont be overly keen on sharia law.
Putting everyone into the same box is a dangerous oversimplification
I don’t think she let islam off the hook at all. In fact I’ve seen her described in print as the UK’s most vocal critic of islam, an assessment with which I agree.
“stop being so racist as to think that all Muslims are far-Right Islamists!”
This would be “bigoted,” not “racist” – Islam is not a race.
But I think we can forgive Maryam that slip, given that she perhaps was not reciting a rehearsed speech.
Watching the VICE reports all I can think of is Heston’s cry in the POTA movie, in the face of civilization turned upside down:
“It’a a MadHouse! A Maaaaad Hoouuse!”
I have a really hard time with those fellow liberals who are continually giving Islam a pass. Any criticism of Islam is called racist (!), failure to understand their suffering and not allowing freedom of religion.
I criticize all religions that promote ignorance, misogyny, homophobia, genocide etc. Islam just happens to be the worst. As Bill Maher said, in their efforts to be liberal, many are forgetting about liberalism.
I can just see many of these so-called liberals praising the efforts of the Hisbah to make their society better. They either fail to recognize, or simply excuse, the complete lack of humanity displayed towards anyone who disagrees with the Hisbah. They wouldn’t put up with this in their own country, but somehow it’s different “over there”, the irony of which they don’t see.
It seems some might have misunderstood Maryam Namazie’s point about Islamisnm vs. Islam/Muslims. She was actually being ironic.
Someone in the audience can be overheard in the video saying “What, she’s calling all Muslims fascists???”, having “heard” Maryam say that ‘Muslims are the fascists of our time’, despite the fact that Maryam clearly said “Islamists”.
The irony is of course that people who refuse to criticize ISIS for fear of being racist, actually wind up themselves counting all Muslims as fascists.
She was being Ironic?
I understood her to be saying that we should let Moderate Muslims™ off the hook because they aren’t part of the insanity of the “Islamists” – whatever that term is supposed to mean.
Yet hundreds of millions of Moderate Muslims™ would be dancing in the streets tomorrow if 9/11 repeated itself.
What part did I misunderstand?
I think it was an off the cuff remark, noting the tendency of many on the left to do exactly what you interpret her to be saying. I’m only a little familiar with her work, but as far as I know, she’s a very outspoken ex-Muslim, who would not want to let “moderate” Muslims off anything they do.
I think her point was more focused on the way that any criticism of Islamism is immediately seen as “Islamophobia”.
I might be wrong, but that’s my interpretation of the context and her remarks.
There is something that’s not clear to me in all this mess. What is the position of other “muslim states” before this new caliphate? I think specially on the Saudi monarchy, which on one hand have been financing Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, madrasas, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in general (or am I wrong?) but on the other hand would be displaced by the imposition of the caliphate as a super state.
Unless the Saudis themselves are the ones behind ISIS, I don’t see any reason for them to be happy with a caliphate, nor I see any reason for any other Islamic monarchy or republic to be so (Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain,…), without mentioning how at odds some big states in the region would be with that (Turkey, Iran).
Why aren’t we seeing a multinational (Arab or else) alliance against the new caliphate?
Where are the ISIS jihadists receiving financial support from?
Can someone enlighten me?
I can.
There is a yearning (nay, salivating) for a Caliphate.
The Jews are the owners of the original insanity: Jews will tell you that they are waiting for the Messiah but He will not come until all the worlds’ Jews are pious enough to warrant his arrival. Everyone on the planet will become believers in The One True God™ of Israel upon His arrival.
Muslims – and there are obviously many different types with many different beliefs on the theme – are also waiting for their Mahdi. They also believe that they (through globalisation) are not pious enough. They think that a Caliphate and Sharia will hasten the coming if the Hidden Imam. This imaginary Imam with rule for a disputed number of years until Judgement Day™
On this day, the righteous will go to heaven and the rest of us to hell.
It’s eschatology pure and simple. It’s a yearning for ultimate destruction. It’s disgusting. And it’s all stolen from Judaism and Christianity that came before it.
The Caliphate needs to be established before the world can be destroyed. A necessary evil, so to speak.
You want I continue with the fireside chat?
This might help a little — a brief run down of who wants to do what to whom in the Middle East.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/-sp-middle-east-politics-2014-egypt-syria-palestine-iraq-gaza
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudis and others are pretty nervous. After all this preaching of religious purity, along comes a ‘pure’ movement with political ambitions.
Civil war is not out of the question.
Yet the Saudis appear to be backers…
Nice people!
The problem is that “the Saudis” is not one group of people. There’s the immediate monarchy, who no doubt want stability and their theocratic regime at home primarily or exclusively. Then there are the (I have no idea how many) super rich oil tycoons and second-level royalty. It is *these* that are the principle funders of various Islamist movements etc: until recently, anyway. I have no idea who is behind ISIS.
I found some background info using this simple google machine I’ve got here…