How long before we refuse to feed the monster of Islamism?

All those familiar with Greek mythology would know the Cretan Minotaur myth. The story has many variants but it broadly goes like this: Minotaur, a monster, was born on the island of Crete to Queen Pasiphae when she mated a bull sent to her by Zeus. King Minos who was embarrassed by the half bull and half human progeny hid him in an especially constructed labyrinth. Enemies in Minos’ kingdom were sentenced and sent to the labyrinth so that Minotaur could be fed. After a while, Minos, to avenge the killing of his son Androgeus in Athens, demanded Athenians send seven boys and an equal number of virgin girls sent every year for Minotaur to devour them. Instead of fighting Minos, Athens decided to buy its peace and continued the supply of young boys and girls until Theseus killed the monster one day.

In the present, a similar peace has been bought by voluble liberals who have convinced the world that there isn’t much which can be done except to keep sacrificing hundreds and thousands, day after day and year after year, to the monster of Islamism. They have forwarded apologies which justify the global jihad as an “understandable” response to “Western imperialism”. They keep coming up with false equivalences to make jihadi violence look unexceptional and commonplace. They mouth platitudes which are supposed to be shows of determination but, in essence, are no more than wailings of the helpless. They have aggressively advanced terms like “Islamophobia” to pre-empt all scrutiny and criticism of jihad. In all, the shrill liberal noise has lulled the responses and debilitated the will to respond adequately.

They have convinced the world opinion, like King Aegeus of Athens in his day, that there is no way other than to passively accept things as they are. Leaders, even of the affected nations and societies, refuse to see religious underpinnings of global jihad. They refuse to see that scores of Islamist groups from Abu Sayyaf in Phillipines to Boko Haram in Nigeria, indulging in jihad, cannot be an “interpretation” issue. They are blind to the fact that if terror was an aberration and contrary to core Islamic teachings, there would be some protests somewhere in Muslim world for tainting Islam.

The fact of the matter is anything less than calling out the bluff of Islamism is dishonesty at best and cowardice at worst. If we were looking for a modern day Theseus to sail out and take on the monster of Islamism, stupid clichés like “terror has no religion” take the wind out of the sails. The failure to recognise the jihadi menace in its totality has made solutions to be sought in operational terms whereas the challenge mainly lies in confronting the behavioural aspects of radical Islam. No amount of security and vigil will be able to contain the evil of jihad unless the ideological underpinnings are clearly understood and comprehensively addressed.

For long, inaction against global jihad took shelter in the excuse that Islamism was a non state actor and that responsible nations could not act brazenly in violation of sovereignty of respective nations. This excuse remains no more with the emergence of ISIS. A tough blow and a swift and emphatic defeat of ISIS would have crushed the jihadi spirit worldwide; more so when jihadis see their territorial advances and unpunished acts of violence as godly benefactions.

All the fury and angst after Paris attacks will be meaningless if the multipronged designs and assorted players in global jihad are not identified clearly and their apparatus dismantled thoroughly. Besides dealing strong military blows to jihadi organisations all over the globe, it will require that rogue nations like Pakistan who are harbouring and aiding terror not only be isolated but also put under global sanctions; it will require that overground jihadis like Anjem Chaudhary and Al Qaradawi are treated as threats and not given respectability by inviting them to TV studios; it will need mosques and madarsas radicalising youth to be put under permanent surveillance; it will necessitate that Islamic expansionism and sectarianism are not given legitimacy by mingling it with the narrative of a freedom struggle; it will call for fake victimhood mongering to stop; it will obligate regressive and discriminatory Shariah orders to be unequivocally shamed and denounced as human rights violations. In short, if the jihadi menace is to be fought seriously, no quarters relating to Islamism are to be yielded.

Coming back to the Minotaur analogy, to confront the threat of Islamism, will need a Ship of Theseus which replaces the existing physical and behavioural features before we set out to attack the labyrinth.