In today’s world, most countries are Democratic. That is, there are several leaders in line, should something happen to the head leader-which makes him/her incapable of leading the nation. Democratic countries have throughout it’s short history, seen very few assassinations of it’s head leaders. In fact, there have been no Coup De Etat’s in any true Democratic countries. But as far as assassinations are concerned, several have occurred, but not so much by enemy states, but by their own country men. Some good examples include Julius Caesar and Hendrik Verwoerd. The reason why Democratic nations are not familiar with Coup’s, is because should the head leader be eliminated, he/she will be speedily replaced by the Vice-President or next in charge. Therefore, trying to eliminate a countries leaders in a Democratic country, is not practical. However, should there be a leader that is to strong politically, his ideas would interfere with his enemies or opponents, he/she can be eliminated. However, eliminating a Leader in a Democratic country, does not cause a break down in the country, except for the obvious shock-especially if the Leader is very popular (which he most probably was).
However, in autocratic countries, it’s the complete opposite. Generally when the leader of an autocratic nation is eliminated, he’s entire political philosophy is generally eliminated as well, resulting in changes in that nation. Therefore, for another nation whom is threatened by an autocratic nation, carries out a Coup’ de etat, would in most cases subdue and eliminate the threat. Eliminating the head of an autocratic county also has military advantageous. Generally autocratic leaders have main command over the army(Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Castro etc), and so, if that leader is eliminated, the army of that nation will be temporarily dysfunctional, which could cause the that nation to be successfully invaded.
This article is written about Islamic assassination, and in order to get an idea, it is vital we travel back in history. The first secret society, was the Assassins of the Middle East. The name does tell it all. The Assassin society was found in the 11th century in the middle east as a secret society/cult that believed it’s members could do as they pleased-including murder.
Now one would expect that during the Crusades, the Assassins society being an Islamic sect, would have participated in the fight against the Crusaders, yet, they did not. In fact, the main enemies and so targets of the Assassins, were mainly fellow Muslims (Sultans, Generals, judges and Ministers of the state as well as Caliphs.). One cannot help but to find this fact interesting. The Crusaders’ Templar Society were a Democratic society-if the leader had fallen away, he would be replaced by a fellow member. The Assassins knowing this fact of the Templars, did not seek to assassinate the high ranks of the society-as those fallen would be replaced. And so, the Knights Templar society is a resemblance of a Democratic State, and so as in history, Democratic states and institutions experience very few Coup’s.
From the beginning of Islam, it was based on the sword. Muhammad had forcibly taken Mecca, and enforced Islam unto the people, the rest of the middle east soon took suit. Muhammad also justified murder by himself participating and encouraging murder. It is therefore conclusive to say that Islam, and it’s followers are a belligerent religion.
Muhammad’s encouragement of murder, would shape the middle east both in history and in modern times. Islam had now become a motive and justification of murder-not only for non-Muslims, but for fellow Muslims as well. In fact, it was the encouragement of murder, that caused the split in Islam-Sunni’s and Shiites. The Shiites found justification for murder in the Koran, and carried it out by assassinating the next Caliph in line, Uthman. What would become known as the Sunni’s, strongly rejected the assassination of Uthman, while the Shiites saw the assassination as justice. Civil war soon enveloped Islam, and to this day, rivalries between the two groups are high and fragile.
In today’s day, murder between Muslims are as high as ever. Muslims believe that any government that in any way oppresses it’s native Muslim populace in that country, are seen as irreligious leaders, that should be eliminated, as they are not Islamic enough-and need to be replaced by a more Religious leader. These high standards do not only apply to internal oppression, but as we have seen in modern times, Muslim believe that foreign policy should also be governed and enforced religiously. One good example is Egyptian President Sadat, whom sought complete peace between Egypt and Israel. The Islamic world was outraged, as Sadat was seen as dealing with the enemy, and not carrying out the religious duty of fighting the enemy. Sadat’s foreign policy of peace was unacceptable, and he was assassinated.
Islam, and for that matter sovereign Islamic nations, due to their religious believes disregard International Law on many occasions. One example is that of Salman Rushdie, whom wrote a novel regarding the prophet Mohammed. The Iranian Ayatollah issued a Fatwa against Rushdie, which stated that any Muslim could and must murder Rushdie-the Fatwa even went as far as telling the reader how to murder Rushdie. After all, Mohammed quoted “If anyone insults me, then any Muslim who hears him must kill him immediately, without any need to refer to the imam or the sultan”.
Rushdie was living in England, and not in the Middle East, which meant that murdering Rushdie would prove a difficult task. Yet, Iran knowing that it would break International Law, called on Muslims residing in Britain, to murder Rushdie. This would be a dangerous task for anyone, and to increase the chances that someone would take up the task of killing Rushdie, a reward of $3 million. Iran now called for the assassination of a foreign citizen, on foreign sovereign land.
Another quick example, would be the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein fired several SCUD missiles at Israeli (Israel did not participate in that war) populations in Israel. Israel and Iraq was not at war with each other, and the fact that Iraq targeted densely populated Israeli citizens, was against international law.
While we are on Israel, it would also be interesting to note how even to this day, Syria is braking International law by harboring and supplying terrorist organizations whom target innocent civilian populations in Israel. Harboring and supplying of terrorists is just two examples, and therefore makes Syria guilty of State Sponsoring International Terrorism-which is a breach of International Law.
“The prophet Mohammed condoned or approved or instigated the murder of one or other of his opponents”-Tehran Times.
When one analyzes murder in ancient Islam, and one is observing modern day Islam, one can conclude that not only is murder approved of, but it is also rampant-in the past and present.
After about two hundred years after Mohammed, Islamic cults started to occur, where groups would specialize in a particular form of killing. These groups believed that it was their Islamic obligation to murder. To clarify, these new cult groups specialized in their own unique way of killing another human being, but also, the weapons or objects used was included in their specialization-meaning they would only kill with that weapon. For instance, one cult group would club their victims to death, where another would strangle their victim to death.
But what is extremely interesting to note, as writer Bernard Lewis(From Babel to Dragoman) observed, none of all the cults, used weapons or methods of ease. By that I mean, weapons or tactics that were used, none of them provided the assassin with relative safety. For instance, range weapons e.g. arrows or spears, or poisons, were used. Weapons that provided the assassin with chance of escape, or at least, with little sacrifice- was not used.
Instead, the Muslim assassin wanted close contact with his victim, he wanted to see the victims’ eyes, and fear. What is striking of today’s Islamic Terrorists, is when they behead hostages/prisoners. The Terrorists do not just simply shoot the hostage, but rather come in close contact, and then slid the hostages’ throat-feeling the fear, and the life exiting the body.
Another key concept of killing their victims in close contact, was that the assassins wanted to feel that they had sacrificed their lives. In fact, the assassins sought death on their assassination mission. The assassins, after they had completed their mission(killing their targeted victim), wanted to be killed in the aftermath-so, be caught and then killed. It is reported that many assassins would kill their victim, and then purposely sit and wait alongside the body, so he could be caught and then killed. This was seen as martyrdom-and the assassins believed that they would now enter paradise.
Once again, what is very striking is the ancient assassin, and the modern day suicide bomber. The suicide bomber seeks death, as his assassin counter part, as the bomber would become martyr-and enter paradise
Another interesting fact, of the past and modern, is the headquartering of the assassins and the assassins of the masses (modern day terrorists). The assassins’ headquarters were based in Iran. Today, Iran is a State Sponsor of International Terrorism, to many Islamic Terrorists Organizations-Hezbollah, and Terrorists fighting in Irag-mostly Shiite Terrorists to name a few.
Today’s suicide bomber, seeks to kill as many innocent civilians as possible(also applies to government and military personnel.), usually detonating in a dense civilian area. But the ancient assassin, was much more discreet. The assassin would carefully plan his act-so as to not kill any other, except his intended target. And so, one can conclude that today’s suicide bomber/assassin of the masses, has become much more deadly and illegal(murder of innocents)
In conclusion to the first chapter(Democracy and terror), it is fair to say that today’s terrorists are a continuation to the ancient assassins-only that today’s assassins(terrorists) have evolved quite significantly. To understand Islamic Terrorism, one has to look at it’s past. Terrorism is a method of successfully combating Democracy.
Bibliography
From Babel to Dragomans-Bernard Lewis 2004
Topic: Islam's Modern Assassins, Assassins of the Masses (Read 1677 times)