ISIS—Who are they? What do they stand for?

NEARLY a month has already passed since terrorists attacked Marawi City, once a bucolic lakeside green city and home to an emblematic state university to spread knowledge and understanding among Mindanaoans. But the coming of ISIS destroyed that image of Marawi.

ISIS (which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is a jihadist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic State or a caliphate, where it invites Muslims from all over the world to come and practice an extremist doctrine of Islam.

The group gained prominence in 2014, when it conquered large swaths in Iraq and Syria. They used social media adroitly to circulate videos of gruesome beheadings and wanton destruction of world heritage sites. They have since launched high-profile suicide attacks in France (Paris and Nice), Germany (Berlin), Turkey (Istanbul), the UK (London), and recently, Iran (Tehran).

Their beginnings can be traced to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, where Sunni Muslims took up arms to fight the invading allies. But theirs wasn’t a struggle against foreign occupation. Deep sectarian conflicts were at play. Sunni Muslims, comprising a significant minority in Iraq, were historically oppressed by the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, a replay of the historic feud between Islam’s major denominations—Sunni and Shia.

ISIS started off as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s jihad against “infidels” around the world. Bin Laden adhered to a fundamentalist strain of Islam called Wahhabism, widely practiced in Saudi Arabia. In fact, the US airlines that destroyed the World Trade Center during 9/11 were piloted by Bin Laden’s men.

Wahhabism was founded in the 1700s by Mohammed Ibn ‘Abd alWahhab who advocated for the “purification” of Islam through a strict and rigid adherence to the scriptures, as practiced by the Prophet Mohammed and his followers in Medina.

Many strains of Wahhabist thought can be seen in ISIS’s actions today, such as the destruction of false idols; the belief in only one, true interpretation of Islam; and the unbending rule that those who do not conform be punished.

Some argue that Wahhabism, and in turn Saudi Arabia, should not be blamed for the propagation of Islamist extremism. Mohammed Alyahya, of the Atlantic Council, wrote in a 2016 New York Times article that blaming Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia for Islamist radicalism is a “dangerous red herring” and a single-cause explanation that “distracts from the complex, political, economic and psychological reasons people join terrorist groups.” Alyahya noted that most Islamist militants have nothing to do with Saudi Wahhabism. In fact, many of those who join radical groups like ISIS were disenfranchised by their communities, even prior to their radicalization.

This suggests that ISIS’ allure to Muslims around the world, including the Philippines, goes beyond religious lines. Audrey Kurth Cronin, Director of the International Security Program at George Mason University, noted in a 2015 Foreign Affairs article that ISIS’ core message is about raw power and revenge.

She stated, “The group attracts followers yearning for not only religious righteousness but also adventure, personal power, and a sense of self and community. And, of course, some people just want to kill—and ISIS welcomes them, too. The group’s brutal violence attracts attention, demonstrates dominance, and draws people to action…In short, ISIS offers short-term, primitive gratification. It does not radicalize people in ways that can be countered by appeals to logic.”

In recent years, ISIS has been losing ground in Syria and Iraq, owing to the actions of US-led coalition forces and Russia’s bombings. Some suggest that these defeats in the Middle Eastern theater is what prompted their calls to jihadis around the world to fight here in Southeast Asia, symbolized by the selection of Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon as ISIS emir.

While military action is necessary and is reportedly winning against the ISIS-linked terrorists in Marawi, the long-term solution needs to be founded along ideological lines, socioeconomic initiatives and firm political direction. And a more dynamic and vigorous, interfaith dialogue.