Was Sergeant Ali al-Sayyed really beheaded or not? Why has his fate not been confirmed yet? Is it logical for the radical Sunni group the Islamic State to execute a Sunni hostage? Why did it not behead a Shia soldier first instead? What message was the Islamic State trying to send? And finally, what prospects do negotiations with the group have?
Doubts continue to be cast on the reports about the beheading of kidnapped Lebanese army Sergeant Ali al-Sayyed, despite the impact on the feelings of his bereaved family. Has the son of the village of Fneideq been killed or not? This is a question that the Lebanese army has yet to answer.
On Sunday, Ibrahim Shaaban, one of the soldiers who have been released, said, “Al-Nusra Front told us Ali al-Sayyed was still alive,” but Sayyed was kidnapped by the Islamic State rather than al-Nusra. Though it is hard to substantiate this information, Shaaban’s revelation brought some relief to people in Fneideq, and restored some hope for his family, which had held funerary services for him.
The news of the beheading of a Lebanese soldier was preceded by statement from the Islamic State, threatening to “behead a soldier within 24 hours.” The statement was followed by two images posted on Twitter, purportedly showing the slain sergeant. The decapitated corpse was dressed in the same shirt Sayyed wore when he appeared in a video declaring his defection from the Lebanese army. Sayyed also appeared in another footage that the Muslim Scholars Association handed over to the prime minister, allegedly showing him and other kidnapped soldiers.
These are enemies hiding in the guise of religion, and their leaders are more sinister than the Syrian regime and all enemies. - Sheikh Adnan Umam
The story did not end here. On Saturday, a video was posted to YouTube showing a restrained man on the floor in front of masked gunmen, of whom one then addressed the Lebanese government saying, “This is a soldier of yours. If you continue haranguing the Sunnis in Lebanon, the fate of your soldiers will be like the fate of this soldier.” The man sitting on the ground, wearing military trousers, was moving in the manner of someone who is sobbing, but the background music added to the footage muffled his voice.
Al-Akhbar asked sources close to the emir of the Islamic State in Qalamoun Abu Talal al-Hamad whether or not the group had killed the Lebanese soldier. The sources answered, “We have nothing to do with all that is being published in the media. If the Lebanese government insists on not complying with us and on continuing to disbelieve us, they will see soon a second slaughtered soldier. They must believe.”
Before the video allegedly showing the beheading was shown by several media outlets, jihadist social media accounts posted the contents of a leaked phone conversation between Muslim Scholars Association member Sheikh Adnan Umama and an aide to salafi cleric Dai al-Islam al-Shahhal. In the conversation, Umama is heard commenting on the reports about the soldier’s beheading by saying, “Unfortunately, it’s true. These are enemies hiding in the guise of religion, and their leaders are more sinister than the Syrian regime and all enemies. They have started with us.”
Despite the campaign launched on social media sites by Islamic State sympathizers and affiliates against Sheikh Umama, who was in charge of the negotiations, a question is being raised now regarding Umama’s statement, “They have started with us,” meaning the Sunni community. Indeed, why has the Islamic State started by beheading a Sunni soldier ahead of those who belong to other religious communities?
According to sources, the Islamic State based its choice on both sharia-related and political grounds. Politically, the Islamic State has judged that “killing a Shia soldier would not serve their cause like killing a Sunni soldier would, and would backfire because it would push Shia to rally around Hezbollah even more,” with the argument being that “the cohesion of the Shia and their unity behind their cause is stronger than among the Sunnis, who are weak and divided.”
This was more or less the same logic for al-Nusra Front, which released six Sunni soldiers it had captured to gain Sunni support. Al-Nusra followed this with a political statement titled:
“O Sunnis: You are of us and we are of you.”
In terms of Sharia-related arguments, which are the main benchmark for most of these groups, the idea is that “Lebanese Sunni soldiers are apostates, while Shia are infidels,” with the punishment for the first being death, in a way that supersedes punishment for infidels. According to sources close to the Islamic State in Qalamoun, the group sees “Shia are infidels, with a blasphemous doctrine.” By contrast, Sunni soldiers are originally Muslims who, by joining the army, have committed an act of apostasy. To be sure, the army in the group’s perception is a “satanic entity that must be opposed, declared as infidel, and fought, and joining it removes one from the community of Muslims.”
Since Sunni soldiers became apostates after being originally Muslim, they are punishable by death, in a way that supersedes the priority for fighting infidels. According to the ideological principles of this group, “Shia cannot be invited to repent and are not allowed to convert to Islam, and therefore, the only solution for them is death,” though this comes second after killing Sunni apostates.
When asked why the group has barred repenting when God allows it, the sources responded with the Quranic verse,
“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind. In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot…those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have gone astray.”
They also rely on the biography of the “rightly guided caliphs, specifically the first Caliph Abu Bakr, who stopped campaigns against infidels to fight apostates who had renounced Islam after the Prophet’s death.”
Follow Radwan Mortada on Twitter: @radwanmortada
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition
RELATED.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment