Experts React to ISIS's Gruesome Execution of Jordanian Pilot

Experts React to ISIS's Gruesome Execution of Jordanian Pilot

Avideo released yesterday by ISIS, the terrorist group also known as ISIL or the Islamic State, appears to show Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasaesbeh burned alive in a cage. Militants reportedly captured al-Kasaesbeh in December.

The gruesome execution comes roughly one month after individuals associated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula seized international attention with a deadly attack on the Paris offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. 

Thus, al-Kasaesbeh's death could be the latest display of “theater” in a “fierce competition” between ISIS and al Qaeda for leadership of the global jihadist movement.

RAND experts Brian Michael Jenkins, senior adviser to the RAND president; Jonah Blank, senior political scientist; Howard Shatz, senior economist; Andrew Liepman, senior policy analyst; Benjamin Bahney, adjunct researcher; and Dalia Dassa Kaye, director of the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy, participated in a question-and-answer session shortly after the video's release, as details about its authenticity and regional responses materialized.

According to this hadith, Muhammad specifically forbade burning as an instrument of execution or torture on the grounds that it resembled hellfire. 

Thus, those using fire in this way are setting themselves up as God: the worst possible crime in Islam. (Incidentally, this is the line of argument Saudi Arabia appears to have used in condemning ISIS for burning al-Kasaesbeh.)

Instead of the Quran or the ahadith literature, the militants may be drawing on the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah. 

The fountainhead of much current jihadi reinterpretation of longstanding Islamic orthodoxy, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote more than half a millennium after the death of the Prophet. His writing is in no way part of the Islamic canon.

Writing when Mongol invaders had just wiped out the Abbasid caliphate, Ibn Taymiyyah sees them as having cynically converted to Islam to legitimize their rule.

 In this context, he preached the doctrine of takfir (excommunication of apostates), the idea that a true Muslim can declare another Muslim to be a non-Muslim.

Ibn Taymiyyah used this to declare the Mongol rulers illegitimate and call on all Muslims to rise up against them. 

Modern-day takfiris make similar pronouncements against rulers deemed too moderate, or against private citizens practicing a form of Islam the takfiris dislike.

Ibn Taymiyyah has been cited as authorizing the burning of apostates, as well as other non-canonical punishments. 

I interpret this as suggesting that any act is permitted if it is truly in defense of Islam. But there's no evidence that he or his immediate followers actually set their opponents on fire.

Howard Shatz: What Jonah mentions would be consistent with ISIS's modus operandi: find an obscure example from early Islamic history or a ruling that no else agrees with and say to your followers, “See? We know more. We are more pure.”

Andrew Liepman: I wonder how much more evidence we need to confirm that ISIS is acting outside the norms of Islam. 

It seems that everyone from mainstream clerics to the most militant supporters of al Qaeda have denounced this.

Benjamin Bahney: As Andrew indicates, the issue of religious justification for burning may be secondary. But it's noteworthy that ISIS chose a seemingly escalatory way of killing al-Kasaesbeh, a Jordanian, versus the captives of other coalition members.

What does this mean for Jordan? How might they respond?

Bahney: Jordan has responded quickly, executing two prisoners before dawn today, including Sajida al Rishawi, the failed female suicide bomber. 

As of yesterday, some news outlets were reporting that Jordan would execute six prisoners, so there could be more to come.

There are important tribal dynamics at play here. Al-Kasaesbeh is from an "important" tribe in the North. Reciprocal executions could trigger tribal tensions, depending on which prisoners Jordan decides to dispense with.

My sense is that ISIS never intended to make a deal to swap prisoners with Jordan. They may have used this episode to deliberately discredit the Jordanian government and inflame sectarian tensions in Jordan. 

While it's not clear yet when al-Kasaesbeh's execution actually occurred, it's clear to me that the negotiations between ISIS and Jordan were never serious and were meant to heighten media attention to this incident.

Jenkins: The execution will provoke calls for revenge among Jordanians, especially those of al-Kasaesbeh's tribe, who also happen to be strong supporters of the king. 

But other Jordanians will displace culpability to the United States and the Jordanian government for provoking this killing by joining the American-led coalition against ISIS. 

If Jordan escalates in response, these divisions will sharpen. Jordan and the entire coalition are fragile.

Thanks for reading.