We all experienced the terror and fear when the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) expanded unprecedentedly in the Middle East. This rogue state came with the purpose of applying all the barbaric and savage laws that the modern world neglected centuries ago. ISIS was not fooling around about applying Sharia literally. This resulted in debates among Muslims questioning the religion they were following and whether the Islamic State were true believers of Islam or a deviated group that lost its way.
Muslims often take pride in the past Islamic victories and all the rewards that came with them, but some Muslims were upset when the Islamic State kidnapped and shackled the Yazidis in Iraq. Moreover, it did not matter whether the Yazidi women were married or not; they were now nothing more than sex slaves for ISIS. The terrifying act resulted in Muslims stating that this had nothing to do with Islam. In fact, some Muslims claimed that if this was Islam, then they were happy to leave this religion. But the question remains, did ISIS follow the rules of Jihad or not? Weren’t they following the same steps of the previous Islamic glories?
ISIS did not come out of the blue, and any educated person knows full well that this terrorist organization was supported by countries and political parties. Some of the parties supported them to prosper the dream of the long-awaited Islamic Caliphate (Islamic leadership), such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabis. Other countries supported them to get rid of Bashar Al-Assad and Iran’s influence in the region, such as the Gulf regimes and the West. But it was too late until all of them realised that what they have done was the mistake of the century. After the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they understood that it was in no one’s favour to support a brutal terrorist group that is out of control and did far more damage than good. We counted on developed countries to push our developing countries towards more progress and prosperity and not the opposite.
The days passed, and this disastrous era ended, and most of the nations who supported ISIS in the past changed their policies and decided it was time to put an end to them. Even those radical parties which sponsored and collected donations to aid those fundamentalist groups were being held accountable and punished in the Gulf region. However, one country decided to go against the grain and continue to protect and nurture those freaks. Guess which country this is? The beloved, peaceful, and rich country named Kuwait. The reader may find it quite shocking to believe that, but allow me to explain and elaborate.
Kuwait didn’t only open the door and welcome ISIS members back to the country, but it created a program that rewards the ones who claim that their ideas have changed. Is it conceivable that the Kuwaiti regime sympathizes with murderers and terrorists who pose a real danger to Kuwait and its neighbours more than innocent individuals with a political or religious opinion? Just imagine that a judge in Kuwait may sentence you for 10 years for mocking Islam or criticising the Amir (ruler of Kuwait), while he has no problem in bailing out a murderer, rapist, and terrorist. This is no joke or exaggeration; this is all well documented and well known among the Kuwaiti people. For example, one of the Kuwaiti fundamentalists who appeared on television and asked publicly to bring him ten Shiites to slaughter appeared in a well-known local newspaper as a reformer of Islam! Further, he was even nominated to be one of the mentors of the terrorists who returned from abroad. There are other Kuwaitis who are on the US and global terrorist lists, but they live peacefully in Kuwait. Finally, let’s not forget those who till this day, collect donations for suspicious groups, but the Kuwaiti government still turns a blind eye towards them.
What has happened to Kuwait is very disturbing even among its brothers in the Gulf district. So what is really going on? Are the Islamists the new ruler of Kuwait? Or did the Kuwaiti government sell the country to them in exchange for protection? I laugh very loud when I read the scripted Kuwaiti government reports about fighting terrorism. But what makes me laugh harder is when the Americans and the rest of the West buy them. Seriously? This doesn’t look good for countries that claim that they have the best intelligent agencies worldwide.
Before I conclude, I would like to direct this message to the Kuwaiti officials:
- Have tweets become a greater threat to Kuwait’s national security than terrorist groups?
- Are intellects who criticize Islamists a bigger enemy than a person who chops heads and rape women in the name of Islam?
Today the whole world is watching you, and you still have the choice to do the right thing, or continue to prove that Kuwait, represented by its political leadership, is more interested in aligning with terrorists against their own people and Western allies.
Bashar Albaghli is a Kuwaiti content writer, behavioural researcher, data analyst, and an academic who specialises in the scientific study of religion. He was sponsored by Kuwait University and was supposed to go back to Kuwait and be a lecturer after he completed his PhD studies. However, he was prosecuted and sentenced to prison because of his political opinions against the Islamists and Gulf regimes. Today he resides safely in the UK.
Frank Anderson says
The last sentence in the bio raises a question to me. For how long will his views make him safe in the UK. From what I read here, not long. I wish for him and all others better than seems to be coming.
Angemon says
My thoughts exactly – UK is seemingly not the best place for open critics of ISIS and islam.
Steve says
God help the UK.
Justin says
God helps those who help themselves. They’re without God, and without hope.
Infidel says
This somewhat confirms my belief that we – myself included – were wrong in opposing the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein in 1991. We should have just let him take over both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia: that would have strengthened him vis a vis Iran and Syria. Israel would still have remained powerful enough to defeat Iraq, but that would have created a regional stalemate b/w Iraq and Iran. Nothing would have happened to oil prices or supply: Saddam would have continued to trade w/ the US like he did previously. Also, Soviet support to Hafez al Assad would have driven him more firmly into the US camp.
Yeah, he had his faults. But we’re no better off 28 years later having removed him: instead, Iran has the Shi’ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon, and we still have to keep troops there or risk being called treacherous towards our allies – the Kurds
Also, this proves Hugh’s point made many times – that Muslim loyalties can’t be bought: only rented
gravenimage says
Saddam Hussein was not invading Kuwait because he opposed Jihad.
Infidel says
That’s tangential to the underlying point that if there were no al Sabah or al Saud kindgoms remaining today, there would be less dawa projects in the West and all that oil money – Iraq’s, Kuwait’s and Saudi’s – would be used in buying up trillions of $$$ in Russian weaponry
I’m not seeing the downside, as long as Israel too was armed to the teeth so that Saddam would be more tempted to go after either Iran or Turkey
tf says
In July 1995, Sheikh Khalifa was on holiday in Switzerland when his son, Hamad, seized power in a bloodless coup d’état.
Don McKellar says
The world at large is always better off when strongmen rule moslem rat holes — provided they are strongmen whose relationship with western powers is trade and their relationship with their strongman moslem neighbours is war.
Infidel says
That’s precisely what we had w/ Saddam during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war
gravenimage says
Is Kuwait the last hope for ISIS?
……………….
Probably not–although Kuwait may be a major supporter. Turkey also appears to have been protecting ISIS leader Baghdadi.
The fact is that all pious Muslims support the Caliphate–and many accepted that this is exactly what the Islamic State was.
Infidel says
In the days of the original caliphates – the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, Muslim warlords who were vying to seize power vis a vis their rivals in far off places like Samarqand would try and get the endorsement of the caliph. Once they got it, they had a major advantage vs their rivals, since they could rally the ‘faithful’ behind them. The caliphs, in turn, had a network of loyal allies from Samarqand to Algiers
What ISIS achieved mirrored that if one removes the requirement that the entities involved be actual governments, and recognizes Jihadist groups as their ‘governments’. Groups from Boko Haram in West Africa to Abu Sayyaf in Mindanao to Islamic Movement of Turkestan all swore allegiance to ISIS. Only thing ISIS was missing that previous caliphates had – actual control on Mecca and Medina
Quazgaa says
I would have believed him 100% if not for the last sentence;
“Are intellects who criticize Islamists a bigger enemy than a person who chops heads and rape women in the name of Islam?”
This shows me that, his common sense aside, the author hasn’t yet ventured into the uncomfortable thought area of ‘what if’.
Had he done so, he would have discovered that ISIS chopped and raped precisely because of islam, not in spite of it, and he probably would have left islam by now, like other muslims before him.