Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or داعش) has recently been causing a great amount of terror in the Middle East and this essay aims to investigate the current political turmoil caused by ISIS through a melodramatic lens. ISIS is a Sunni Jihadist group which was formed after splitting apart from Al-Qaeda in February 2014. Having taken its ideologies after Wahhabism, ISIS has set its goal to establish a caliphate ( (خلیفةin Iraq and Syria, and for doing so, they have murdered hundreds of non-Sunni’s (Kirkpatrick, 2014). These terrorist activities can be viewed through two contradicting melodramatic lenses. One view is that of the majority, where ISIS is thought to be the villain, the religious minorities in the Middle East to be the victims and America to be the hero; while the other view thinks of Sunni Jihadists—who only seek after the almighty God—and follow the caliphate as heroes/victims and anyone who refuses to do so as villains. As a Christian who comes from the Shia country of Iran and is familiar with the Shia, Sunni, and Christian theologies, I will be attempting to do a thorough analysis of the history of Wahhabism—which sets the foundation for ISIS’s political and theological view, followed by proposing reasons behind the current political activities of ISIS, and at the end, the way melodrama has been playing two contrary roles; one in forming Americans’—as well as all non-Sunnis’—negative view of ISIS and the other, the way ISIS itself justifies its actions through melodramatic principles.
Wahhabism (وهابية) is the most fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam which tries to restore the “Pure Muhammadi Islam” or in other words the Islam that existed in the time of Islam’s great Prophet Muhammad. Wahhabi was formed based on the principle of Tawhid (توحید) or “the uniqueness of God” by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the eighteenth century. Visiting the shrines and tombs of Islamic Prophets (Hajj or حج), Imams and Imamzadehs is a common practice across most branches of Islam. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, viewed those visitations, as well as many other practices as idolatry and impurities in Islam. It is important to note that at the time of Prophet Muhammad and his successors—the 4 caliphates—the Islamic conquests were at their peak and the way Prophet Muhammad would conquer a land was by sending a letter to the leader of the region (Sa’d, 1990). The letters included 4 main sections:
1. A brief description of Allah.
2. An invitation to Allah.
3. Stating that Muhammad was a prophet sent from Allah.
4. Giving them the option of either believing in Allah and being safe or not believing in him and accepting the consequences.
Therefore, ibn Abd al-Wahhab, wanting to follow after Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, started conquering different regions especially in Saudi Arabia and bringing people into submission of the “Pure Muhammadi Islam” where there is no idolatry, by sending them letters containing the main 4 sections of Prophet Muhammad’s letters. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab started his conquests under the name of Jihad, and promoted the idea that whoever died while fighting for Jihad was a martyr and would immediately enter into paradise (Moghadam, 2008). Having instilled fear of death and afterlife in its members and the people of neighboring regions, Wahhabism had an explosive growth in Arabic countries and specifically the Persian Gulf region. More than a century after the emergence of Wahhabism, Osama bin Laden who had somewhat similar views to ibn Abd al-Wahhab decides to start a new group named al-Qaeda (القاعدة) and advocate his rather strict interpretations of the Quran. Bin Laden’s main goal was to make a unified Islamic state in the Middle East, where everyone practices the “Pure Muhammadi Islam,” which would require for all kafirs (infidels, or unbelievers of a certain branch of Islam) to either leave the region or die. Having seen America’s intruding in the politics of the Middle East region, Al-Qaeda carried out many attacks—including 9/11—on America in order to gain power. After the death of bin Laden, in February 2014, ISIS branched off of Al Qaeda and started fresh with somewhat even more strict doctrines. In order to reach the “Pure Muhammadi Islam,” ISIS has been sending letters to many Shias, Christians, and Assyrians in Iraq and Syria giving them 3 options; whether to convert to Sunni Islam, to pay a fine, or to die (Miller, 2014). ISIS has been destroying the shrines of the Shia Imams in Iraq—since that is seen as idolatry, and killing women and kids which has raised the concern of many countries including America, Israel and Iran.
Melodrama has been around for over 2 centuries and has taken many forms to itself. One of the ways that melodramatic literature is used in today’s society is in the form of news. As mentioned by Jones (2009), “Melodrama is a form of literature mostly involving emotion evoking elements for the purpose of getting its reader or audience to a point envisioned by the writer.” Therefore, one can look at melodrama as a very effective tool and can use it to promote a certain idea. Humans are emotional beings who are carried by their emotions, many times without even realizing it. As unpleasant as this statement might sound, this is the principle melodrama is founded upon. Many great leaders throughout history have used melodramatic elements as a tool to advocate their ideas and attract people. One great example is Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech which laid the groundwork for the abolition of slavery. Hence, it would not be unexpected to see the mass media’s great use of melodramatic elements in order to promote certain ideas. Then it would also be safe to say that governments can use mass media to instill certain beliefs in its citizens through usage of melodramatic elements. Therefore, a government can use those elements in the news in order to brainwash its citizens into thinking in a certain way and keeping them pleased which creates a sense of “us” and “them” morality where if a country is not working in our favor then that country is “evil” (Goodwin, 2001). I believe that American politicians are using this opportunity to show ISIS as a potential threat to America and American values by portraying Jihadists as fierce animals who only kill, rape and steal and hence, as threats to America and American values. This constant victimization of America in American melodrama leads Anker to write “Essentially, the melodramatic character of the virtuous victim/hero signifies America” and he continues by writing “The villain is a shifting category populated most often by a foreign invader or a domestic subversive seemingly intent on destroying either American ideals or American territory.” This definition of melodrama is almost unfailingly observable in the way all foreign policies of America have always been presented to the American public through mass media by victimizing America and villainizing foreign countries that pose a threat to American values. The purpose behind using melodramatic elements by the American government—as it is with the government of most nations—is buying respect from their citizens and forming their country into a unified body. Thinking the same way, Anker (2005) writes “Through the melodramatic narrative, "the American People" become a united entity whose shared values and social solidarity create a homogenous body.” Therefore, homogenization of the country is key to understanding American melodrama.
American forces invaded Iraq in 2003 and had been in power in that region ever since. Barak Obama announced U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq in 2013, a few months before the formation of ISIS. Consequently, ISIS came to power in the beginning of 2014 and planned many attacks within Syria and Iraq’s borders. United States, having no longer its military forces in Iraq, America was unable to resolve the turmoil which resulted in the massive killings of Shias, Christians, and many other minority groups. Since the majority of the population of Iran is Shia, and that Iraq borders Iran, this was a great threat to Iran. Two months after ISIS’s attacks, the U.S. government suggested Iran to send its forces to Iraq to settle the mayhem, knowing that Iran would refuse. But as Weber (2014) asks, how can ISIS actually just form in less than 5 months after American troops’ departure and actually have such military organization to take over the power in two countries with only a few thousand soldiers? One logical explanation can be that America wanted to show that Iraq was only in peace in presence of American forces, that Iran—which is not in good terms with America because of the issues with its nuclear power and Israel—does not care about Shias in that area, and also make its citizens want American forces back in Iraq. Therefore, American politicians are trying to make their citizens believe that what they have been doing is “just” and that they are the heroes—this is just a thought and not an accusation.
Another way to look at the ISIS situation in Iraq and Syria is through seeing it through a Jihadist’s perspective. Growing up in Iran, I have encountered a number Islamic extremists and have been able to get an understanding of how they actually view the situation in the Middle East. The main difference between Sunnism and Shiaism lies in the idea that Sunnis believe in the 4 caliphates after Muhammad while Shias only believe in Imam Ali—the fourth caliphate—and his 11 successors because they believe that Prophet Muhammad publically announced Imam Ali as his successors (Qur'an, 5:67) before his death but Sunnis disregarded his command and chose 3 other caliphates before him. Hence, knowing that based on the Quran, the wages of being kafir (or infidel) is death, Shias see Sunnis, and Sunnis see Shias as sinners, and therefore, deserving death. The way Prophet Muhammad himself conquered many countries in the Middle East was by fighting against the Mushrikin—or sinners of practicing idolatry or polytheism—and invading their countries. Therefore, fighting against injustice and sin is a common practice in “Pure Muhammadi Islam” and is “prescribed” to any Muslim (Quran, 2:191-193, 2:216). Now, having an extremist group such as ISIS with its members being so committed to their religious ideas that are ready to die for them at any moment leads to, as Durkheim (1965) writes, a feeling of belonging to a collective effervescence which ultimately forms a “Feeling of morality. The emotionally solidary group generates its own standards of right and wrong. The highest good becomes commitment to the group and sacrifice of individual selfishness in its service; those who are outside the group, or worse yet, oppose it, are morally tagged as unworthy, evil, or inhuman.” Hence, the members of ISIS most probably believe that they are doing the “right” thing and anyone who opposes them is “wrong.” Therefore, now we can see that there is the idea of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” within such frightening group as ISIS too. So is that to say that members of ISIS actually think they are the victims/heroes? I say yes with a high confidence, because otherwise why would they put their lives in such jeopardy by constantly living in a state of fear against such great powers as the U.S., Iran, or Israel? Therefore, melodrama in this case is twofold. On one side there is America trying to be perceived as the victim/hero by all non-Sunnis because of its ability to maintain peace in Iraq and on the other side, ISIS trying to be the victim/hero in the eyes of its members and wanting them to think that they are rescuing Islam from the impurities of sinners and non-believes for the satisfaction of God.
While one can have all the reasons to condemn ISIS because of their inhumane activities in Syria and Iraq, it is important to be able to understand the Jihadists’ point of view of sin and Islam to get a clearer understanding of the situation. The problem lies where one only looks at the violent acts of ISIS from the somewhat biased view of the United State news condemning the Jihadists and making themselves look virtuous. It is also important to notice that this violence started after the U.S. claimed to call its troops back to the country. On the other hand when one looks at the fundamental beliefs of the Quran it is easy to see that killing the nonbelievers is actually what makes one virtuous—the purpose of this essay is by no means disrespecting a certain religion (Quran, 2:191-193, 2:216). So, can there be two different definitions of virtue at the same time? Yes again. It all depends on which perspective one looks from. Even though Islam is obviously not a religion of violence, but fighting for one’s beliefs is “prescribed” for its believers. Now, the ISIS Jihadists might be taking that interpretation too far but in their minds they are the ones doing justice and serving Allah by “creating an Islamic state across Sunni countries of Iraq and in Syria” (CNN, 2014). As mentioned earlier the U.S. government tries to villainize ISIS by zooming into their “physical and sexual aggressions” to make themselves look virtuous and keep the country unified (Grant, 1995). I believe that the U.S. government is using melodramatic elements such as “extreme physical and violent actions” in order to “generate the suffering crucial for strong, empathetic viewer responses” (Friedman, 2006). Therefore, the issue that this article is concerned with is the villainization of ISIS by the U.S. government for the mere purpose of gaining public satisfaction rather than actually focusing on the issue as a problem and trying to solve it. In the writings published by the U.S. media ISIS referred to as “extremely hostile,” “lethal,” “terrorist” and etc. in order to generate an emotional response rather than actually revealing the both sides of the argument and looking for a solution (Parker, 2014).
The United States’ mass media uses many melodramatic elements in order to gain satisfaction of the “American people” for the government through portraying the government as virtuous and wanting its people to be unified in order to fight the “common enemy.” This might be one of the reasons why America has survived after so much political disarray and is still thriving. Therefore, I personally do not condemn the use of melodrama in media for purposes of drawing people together in order to form and maintain a unified entity. My only purpose in this writing is to highlight the fact that there are two sides to the ISIS situation, one of which we typically ignore. But, if we always ignore the side of the story that is not presented to us, we can turn into political machines that have no understanding of issues that are not directly presented to them and fail to see both sides of an argument which can eventually alter our view of global justice—As in the on-going war between Israel and Palestine.
Wahhabism (وهابية) is the most fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam which tries to restore the “Pure Muhammadi Islam” or in other words the Islam that existed in the time of Islam’s great Prophet Muhammad. Wahhabi was formed based on the principle of Tawhid (توحید) or “the uniqueness of God” by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the eighteenth century. Visiting the shrines and tombs of Islamic Prophets (Hajj or حج), Imams and Imamzadehs is a common practice across most branches of Islam. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, viewed those visitations, as well as many other practices as idolatry and impurities in Islam. It is important to note that at the time of Prophet Muhammad and his successors—the 4 caliphates—the Islamic conquests were at their peak and the way Prophet Muhammad would conquer a land was by sending a letter to the leader of the region (Sa’d, 1990). The letters included 4 main sections:
1. A brief description of Allah.
2. An invitation to Allah.
3. Stating that Muhammad was a prophet sent from Allah.
4. Giving them the option of either believing in Allah and being safe or not believing in him and accepting the consequences.
Therefore, ibn Abd al-Wahhab, wanting to follow after Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, started conquering different regions especially in Saudi Arabia and bringing people into submission of the “Pure Muhammadi Islam” where there is no idolatry, by sending them letters containing the main 4 sections of Prophet Muhammad’s letters. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab started his conquests under the name of Jihad, and promoted the idea that whoever died while fighting for Jihad was a martyr and would immediately enter into paradise (Moghadam, 2008). Having instilled fear of death and afterlife in its members and the people of neighboring regions, Wahhabism had an explosive growth in Arabic countries and specifically the Persian Gulf region. More than a century after the emergence of Wahhabism, Osama bin Laden who had somewhat similar views to ibn Abd al-Wahhab decides to start a new group named al-Qaeda (القاعدة) and advocate his rather strict interpretations of the Quran. Bin Laden’s main goal was to make a unified Islamic state in the Middle East, where everyone practices the “Pure Muhammadi Islam,” which would require for all kafirs (infidels, or unbelievers of a certain branch of Islam) to either leave the region or die. Having seen America’s intruding in the politics of the Middle East region, Al-Qaeda carried out many attacks—including 9/11—on America in order to gain power. After the death of bin Laden, in February 2014, ISIS branched off of Al Qaeda and started fresh with somewhat even more strict doctrines. In order to reach the “Pure Muhammadi Islam,” ISIS has been sending letters to many Shias, Christians, and Assyrians in Iraq and Syria giving them 3 options; whether to convert to Sunni Islam, to pay a fine, or to die (Miller, 2014). ISIS has been destroying the shrines of the Shia Imams in Iraq—since that is seen as idolatry, and killing women and kids which has raised the concern of many countries including America, Israel and Iran.
Melodrama has been around for over 2 centuries and has taken many forms to itself. One of the ways that melodramatic literature is used in today’s society is in the form of news. As mentioned by Jones (2009), “Melodrama is a form of literature mostly involving emotion evoking elements for the purpose of getting its reader or audience to a point envisioned by the writer.” Therefore, one can look at melodrama as a very effective tool and can use it to promote a certain idea. Humans are emotional beings who are carried by their emotions, many times without even realizing it. As unpleasant as this statement might sound, this is the principle melodrama is founded upon. Many great leaders throughout history have used melodramatic elements as a tool to advocate their ideas and attract people. One great example is Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech which laid the groundwork for the abolition of slavery. Hence, it would not be unexpected to see the mass media’s great use of melodramatic elements in order to promote certain ideas. Then it would also be safe to say that governments can use mass media to instill certain beliefs in its citizens through usage of melodramatic elements. Therefore, a government can use those elements in the news in order to brainwash its citizens into thinking in a certain way and keeping them pleased which creates a sense of “us” and “them” morality where if a country is not working in our favor then that country is “evil” (Goodwin, 2001). I believe that American politicians are using this opportunity to show ISIS as a potential threat to America and American values by portraying Jihadists as fierce animals who only kill, rape and steal and hence, as threats to America and American values. This constant victimization of America in American melodrama leads Anker to write “Essentially, the melodramatic character of the virtuous victim/hero signifies America” and he continues by writing “The villain is a shifting category populated most often by a foreign invader or a domestic subversive seemingly intent on destroying either American ideals or American territory.” This definition of melodrama is almost unfailingly observable in the way all foreign policies of America have always been presented to the American public through mass media by victimizing America and villainizing foreign countries that pose a threat to American values. The purpose behind using melodramatic elements by the American government—as it is with the government of most nations—is buying respect from their citizens and forming their country into a unified body. Thinking the same way, Anker (2005) writes “Through the melodramatic narrative, "the American People" become a united entity whose shared values and social solidarity create a homogenous body.” Therefore, homogenization of the country is key to understanding American melodrama.
American forces invaded Iraq in 2003 and had been in power in that region ever since. Barak Obama announced U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq in 2013, a few months before the formation of ISIS. Consequently, ISIS came to power in the beginning of 2014 and planned many attacks within Syria and Iraq’s borders. United States, having no longer its military forces in Iraq, America was unable to resolve the turmoil which resulted in the massive killings of Shias, Christians, and many other minority groups. Since the majority of the population of Iran is Shia, and that Iraq borders Iran, this was a great threat to Iran. Two months after ISIS’s attacks, the U.S. government suggested Iran to send its forces to Iraq to settle the mayhem, knowing that Iran would refuse. But as Weber (2014) asks, how can ISIS actually just form in less than 5 months after American troops’ departure and actually have such military organization to take over the power in two countries with only a few thousand soldiers? One logical explanation can be that America wanted to show that Iraq was only in peace in presence of American forces, that Iran—which is not in good terms with America because of the issues with its nuclear power and Israel—does not care about Shias in that area, and also make its citizens want American forces back in Iraq. Therefore, American politicians are trying to make their citizens believe that what they have been doing is “just” and that they are the heroes—this is just a thought and not an accusation.
Another way to look at the ISIS situation in Iraq and Syria is through seeing it through a Jihadist’s perspective. Growing up in Iran, I have encountered a number Islamic extremists and have been able to get an understanding of how they actually view the situation in the Middle East. The main difference between Sunnism and Shiaism lies in the idea that Sunnis believe in the 4 caliphates after Muhammad while Shias only believe in Imam Ali—the fourth caliphate—and his 11 successors because they believe that Prophet Muhammad publically announced Imam Ali as his successors (Qur'an, 5:67) before his death but Sunnis disregarded his command and chose 3 other caliphates before him. Hence, knowing that based on the Quran, the wages of being kafir (or infidel) is death, Shias see Sunnis, and Sunnis see Shias as sinners, and therefore, deserving death. The way Prophet Muhammad himself conquered many countries in the Middle East was by fighting against the Mushrikin—or sinners of practicing idolatry or polytheism—and invading their countries. Therefore, fighting against injustice and sin is a common practice in “Pure Muhammadi Islam” and is “prescribed” to any Muslim (Quran, 2:191-193, 2:216). Now, having an extremist group such as ISIS with its members being so committed to their religious ideas that are ready to die for them at any moment leads to, as Durkheim (1965) writes, a feeling of belonging to a collective effervescence which ultimately forms a “Feeling of morality. The emotionally solidary group generates its own standards of right and wrong. The highest good becomes commitment to the group and sacrifice of individual selfishness in its service; those who are outside the group, or worse yet, oppose it, are morally tagged as unworthy, evil, or inhuman.” Hence, the members of ISIS most probably believe that they are doing the “right” thing and anyone who opposes them is “wrong.” Therefore, now we can see that there is the idea of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” within such frightening group as ISIS too. So is that to say that members of ISIS actually think they are the victims/heroes? I say yes with a high confidence, because otherwise why would they put their lives in such jeopardy by constantly living in a state of fear against such great powers as the U.S., Iran, or Israel? Therefore, melodrama in this case is twofold. On one side there is America trying to be perceived as the victim/hero by all non-Sunnis because of its ability to maintain peace in Iraq and on the other side, ISIS trying to be the victim/hero in the eyes of its members and wanting them to think that they are rescuing Islam from the impurities of sinners and non-believes for the satisfaction of God.
While one can have all the reasons to condemn ISIS because of their inhumane activities in Syria and Iraq, it is important to be able to understand the Jihadists’ point of view of sin and Islam to get a clearer understanding of the situation. The problem lies where one only looks at the violent acts of ISIS from the somewhat biased view of the United State news condemning the Jihadists and making themselves look virtuous. It is also important to notice that this violence started after the U.S. claimed to call its troops back to the country. On the other hand when one looks at the fundamental beliefs of the Quran it is easy to see that killing the nonbelievers is actually what makes one virtuous—the purpose of this essay is by no means disrespecting a certain religion (Quran, 2:191-193, 2:216). So, can there be two different definitions of virtue at the same time? Yes again. It all depends on which perspective one looks from. Even though Islam is obviously not a religion of violence, but fighting for one’s beliefs is “prescribed” for its believers. Now, the ISIS Jihadists might be taking that interpretation too far but in their minds they are the ones doing justice and serving Allah by “creating an Islamic state across Sunni countries of Iraq and in Syria” (CNN, 2014). As mentioned earlier the U.S. government tries to villainize ISIS by zooming into their “physical and sexual aggressions” to make themselves look virtuous and keep the country unified (Grant, 1995). I believe that the U.S. government is using melodramatic elements such as “extreme physical and violent actions” in order to “generate the suffering crucial for strong, empathetic viewer responses” (Friedman, 2006). Therefore, the issue that this article is concerned with is the villainization of ISIS by the U.S. government for the mere purpose of gaining public satisfaction rather than actually focusing on the issue as a problem and trying to solve it. In the writings published by the U.S. media ISIS referred to as “extremely hostile,” “lethal,” “terrorist” and etc. in order to generate an emotional response rather than actually revealing the both sides of the argument and looking for a solution (Parker, 2014).
The United States’ mass media uses many melodramatic elements in order to gain satisfaction of the “American people” for the government through portraying the government as virtuous and wanting its people to be unified in order to fight the “common enemy.” This might be one of the reasons why America has survived after so much political disarray and is still thriving. Therefore, I personally do not condemn the use of melodrama in media for purposes of drawing people together in order to form and maintain a unified entity. My only purpose in this writing is to highlight the fact that there are two sides to the ISIS situation, one of which we typically ignore. But, if we always ignore the side of the story that is not presented to us, we can turn into political machines that have no understanding of issues that are not directly presented to them and fail to see both sides of an argument which can eventually alter our view of global justice—As in the on-going war between Israel and Palestine.