(Peace be upon all of them, b.t.w. Not taking sides here.)
[Update, evening of 29 VI] OK, now all that “S vs. L” business is
moot: they indeed meant the entire
Levant, but now they mean everything. They have dropped the geographic
limitation from their name; they
intend to be a caliphate. From al-Jazeerah:
أعلن تنظيم الدولة
الإسلامية
في
العراق
والشام
الخلافة
على
المناطق
الواقعة
تحت
سيطرته،
وبايع
عبد
الله
الإبراهيم
عواد
السامرائي
الملقب
بـأبو
بكر
البغدادي
خليفة
للمسلمين.
Nonetheless, they continue to call themselves a “Dawlah”
rather than an “Imârah” or a “Khilâfah”:
وأضاف المتحدث باسم التنظيم أن اسم تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام سيلغى ليحل بدلا منه الدولة الإسلامية فقط.
[Update 30 June] A pleasant phantasy: al-Baghdadi meets Omar Khayyam:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100278157/a-jug-of-wine-a-loaf-of-bread-and-thou-is-this-the-islamic-caliphate-isis-imagine/
[Late-breaking update] An even pleasanter phantasy -- Late-breaking news from the Eastern Seaboard:
Dr Justice Declares a Caliphate
[Latest Update, 3 July]
With their declaration of a caliphate, the earlier Syria/Levant
opposition is aufgehoben -- its
validity preserved on the higher plane, but OBE in its original form. In the words of one of their spokesmen,
"Como
pueden ver, estoy en la frontera de Irak y Sham (así es como llama a Siria).
Ésta es la llamada 'frontera de Sykes-Picot', la cual nunca reconocimos y nunca
reconoceremos", advierte Safiyya en el comienzo del video, asumiendo el
rol de presentador de las máximas geopolíticas del grupo al que pertenece.
"Ésta
no es la primera frontera que rompemos, vamos a romper muchas otras también,
pero vamos a empezar con esta", señala.
www.sinmordaza.com/noticia/246777-un-yihadista-chileno-es-la-nueva-cara-de-la-propaganda-del-terrorismo.html
That “the Caliph Ibrahîm” (pron. ib-ra-HEEM) was
self-appointed, that the whole thing is a publicity stunt, is evident. But understand just how dramatic a
claim it really is. It is not like
declaring an independent nation or a new political party or anything remotely
like that. A caliph (Arabic khalîfah,
pron. kha-LEE-fah), is literally the successor
to the Prophet as leader of the whole Muslim world; as such, there can only
legitimately be one at any given
time. The position is
comparable in some ways to that of Pope
-- back before the Church split --
but more powerful, since it has always had political/military implications as
well. And nowadays, in Christendom
(to the extent that that concept even exists any longer), nobody occupies such
a role: the different Christian denominations have gone their separate ways:
partially, as regards doctrine;
and utterly, as regards governance.
But as “caliph” Ibrahîm emphasizes again and
again: ex officio, he requires the allegiance of every Muslim, throughout the world, regardless of sectarian
affiliation. The only person who
could demand the same thing of every Christian of every denomination, would be
… Christ himself, in the parousia.
It is, thus, an extraordinary claim.
The questions are:
(a) Why did he do it?
(b) What does the move portend?
a:
Clearly, some idiopathic psychological currents may be in play. On these we won’t comment, since we
know nothing about the man nor his handlers. But taking a best-case
interpretation -- giving credit to such logic as the move may have: al-Baghdadi had already picked, so to
speak, the low-hanging fruit (and even that hung rather high). A great many forces are massing against
him now, both state players (now strange bedfellows) and in-country
actors. He needed to do something
dramatic. Also, the general sense
of stagnation and disorder in the Muslim/Arab world at present, means that,
just beneath the surface, there is widespread longing for a real leader to emerge,
to bring everyone back into line.
b: I
never really know what anything portends, as history unfolds, especially in a
situation as fluid as this. Nobody
predicted the twists and turnings of the “Arabic spring”, beginning not long
ago (though it feels like an age) in Tunisia. Only in special circumstances does one have a prayer of
predicting anything, and that only in the short term. But the short term is exactly what concerns me; by a certain internal logic, there
might be quite dramatic and quite violent developments, not so much within Iraq
and Syria, as cross-border: and
that, mayhap, within the week.
Al-Baghdadi (the Ted Cruz of jihad) has crossed the Rubicon. He has upped the ante to
go-for-broke. Unless he now does
something spectacular, he will soon look like a fool -- as AQAP did when it
(accidentally, actually) declared ‘emirates’ in the towns of Ja`âr and Zinjibâr
in Abyan (Yemen), only to make a mess of things and be unceremoniously booted
out.
Further, his ‘logical’, play-by-the-rules military
options are at present few. If he
tries to take Baghdad, he will run smack dab into the Mahdi army -- street
toughs who will not throw away their guns the way the Iraqi regular army did. Even a single such setback could break
his mojo, roll back the Big Mo.
What to do?
Well, you call a hail-mary.
Now, in football, the worse that can happy in that
case is that your far-fetched attempt does not get you that touchdown after
all, so you lose the game -- but then, you were about to lose it anyway, and
your loss now is in no way materially worse. But for al-Baghdadi, the odds are much better. For if he “goes long” militarily,
and suffers crushing retaliation -- well, that’s just fine, since now
(i) he
dies a martyr (and hops on the Firdaus Express)
(ii)
he goes out in a blaze of glory, in a manner befitting a caliph.
The early caliphs, after all, took on the Persian
empire, and the Byzantine empire, stuff like that. They did not
settle for controlling, say, half of Baghdad, with their enemies in control of
the rest (like Beirut).
And indeed, contrary to what most people were
expecting, the ISIL did not immediately press on to Beirut. What they did do was to seize the
border crossing into Jordan.
So far, Jordan has been largely left alone. It is heavily identified with the West,
in a way that Iraq and Syria have never been. If he invades -- even if he is crushed in the attempt -- it
will be spectacular. Caliphal.
There seems to have been very little media
commentary on this possibility (particularly, as an imminent, publicity-driven possibility). Here is one exception:
22 juin 2014. Après s'être emparés
de Rutba, située à une soixantaine de kilomètres de la Jordanie, les
combattants de l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL, Isis,
Dae'ch) se seraient rendus maîtres du poste de frontière de Tarbil, point de
passage entre l'Irak et la Jordanie. Des renforts militaires jordaniens ont été
déployés sur les 180 km de frontière, qui sépare les deux pays.
30 juin 2014. L'EIIL a proclamé son
«califat»,
concept qui suppose la fin des frontières nées de la guerre de 14-18 et qui
remet aussi bien en cause les limites de l'Irak, de la Syrie mais aussi celles
de la Jordanie, du Liban et de la Palestine (mandataire).
La
Jordanie visée
Même si la frontière semble calme,
la menace sur Amman est claire.
«Seuls ceux qui ne sont pas au courant ou qui sont dans le déni
penseraient que l'EIIL n'a pas de partisans en Jordanie. Comment expliquent-ils
la présence de 2000 djihadistes jordaniens en Syrie et en Irak?»,
questionne Oraib Rantawi, directeur du Centre al-Quds pour les études
politiques.
Thus, IS(IL) already has a fifth column within
Jordan.
The other, even more spectacular move, would be to
attack Israel in a significant way.
No-one has dared do this in decades.
Hamas periodically shoots off one of its pitiful
homemade rockets -- “I shot an arrow into the air; it fell to earth, I know not where” -- landing sometimes in
an open field, sometimes back on Gaza itself, sometimes managing to kill an
Israeli dog or cat, at which point Israel retaliates by killing a couple dozen
Palestinians.
Hizbollah has better missiles, but has a keen
survival instinct, and a real commitment to its Lebanese home-territory. Its sparring with Israel, accordingly,
is mostly defensive, measure, tit-for-tat.
Al-Baghdadi knows no such constraints. Already ISIL has boasted of its
war-crimes on videos.
Whether the “caliphate” possesses armaments
capable of a real strike, is uncertain.
Here is a skeptical view:
And here as well:
But all they really have to do is to out-Hamas
Hamas, and go all-out against Israel.
After all, unlike Hamas, they are not cooped up in Gaza, they can
scatter all over the world. Indeed,
many of their fighters are Europeans, who could make their way back to their
home countries. What could Israel
do then -- bomb London? And they
would have shown up AQSL as relatively moderate do-nothings over the past
decade.
Anyhow, um -- Have a safe Fourth of July weekend,
everyone. Be safe with fireworks;
don’t drink and drive; and watch
that barbecue. Meanwhile …
[Update] A very good historical survey, by Renaud Girard:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2014/07/04/31002-20140704ARTFIG00215-califat-irakien-le-reve-de-l-oumma-est-il-realiste.php
[Update 5 July 2014] Here is a video of Caliph Ibrahim, given the Friday sermon
(the principal one of the Muslim week) in the grand mosque in Mosul. He speaks at length without notes, in
perfect classical Arabic, lilting and inflected with the notes of Koranic tajwîd,
in a voice both resonant and confident:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-isis-leader-pictured-for-first-time-after-declaring-islamic-caliphate-9586787.html
As an audio production, it is very impressive.
Consider too the group's
long video Salîl al-Sawârim ‘The Clash of Swords”. In the following episode, they document the raid on Hadîthah
(al-Anbar province, Iraq). Their fondness
for the Râshidûn caliphs is reflected in the names of the
individual brigades, each named for one of the four.
[Note: Aiman al-Zawahiri, in
a public address from Jan 2014, called for "al-xilaafah al-raašidah”, using the same root. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqaE4biYlM]
صليل الصوارم
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsHRTNG-vcs
The pace and production are compelling. But -- Trigger warning! This is literally a snuff film. These guys do not take prisoners. And they are quite happy to film
themselves capturing Iraqis in a barracks, cuffing them, and then summarily
executing them, with silenced weapons.
[Note] There are, as you might expect, various tendentiously
misleading videos out there, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z5dyMM-KWs
This attempts to portray AAZ has having acknowledged “ISIS”
and “al-Baghdadi” as leaders of the Muslim faith community. But although
posted just recently, the video dates from years ago, before ISIS even existed;
the reference is to the ISI, in context quite different. And the
“al-Baghdadi” is not Abu-Bakr of that monicker (now “Caliph Ibrahim”), but his
late predecessor, Abu-Umar. Thus, disinformation.
(Similarly, both Hitler and Mussolini, in their early
careers, portrayed themselves as Socialists. An assessment of these
figures at that time, by no means carries over to their later careers.)
[Update 4 August 2014] Alright OK, so now
they've seized a town in Lebanon.
Lebanon is Levant; "Sham" is not just Syria.
As indicated.