What made IS founder Baghdadi a fundamentalist

On Saturday morning news headlines screamed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the shadowy leader of the jihadist group IS (Islamic State) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), had died in a US airstrike. The Iraqi government went on to officially announce that al-Baghdadi had been killed on November 10th. However it was not long before both the US and Iraqi governments retracted their earlier statements, since al-Baghdadi’s death was not confirmed. It turns out that there were several other strikes on the same day, some ordered by the Iraq government as well. In each instant it was claimed that Baghdadi was "hit" or killed. This naturally led to much chaos and confusion and currently it is not known whether the feared leader of IS is dead or not.

Fundamentalist

Let us, for the sake of argument assume al-Baghdadi is in fact dead. This would be huge news, since IS's Islamist movement is predicated on the idea that al-Baghdadi was Amir al Mumineen — the "leader of the faithful," a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad selected by God to guide Muslims. If Baghdadi dies, the movement could continue with him as a martyr, but its ability to hold sway over far-off Muslims and other violent Islamist groups could grow "tenuous".

The news bites got me wondering about the man what made him a fundamentalist. Was he a "reluctant fundamentalist"? Or was he just a ruthless one? The YouTube clip of the beheading of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, watched by millions online, confirms the methods practiced by ISIS was more toward the latter. Aside for making headlines for his fancy wristwatch, al-Baghdadi was also a learned man, having studied for his PhD in Islamic studies at the University of Baghdad. It made me wonder, what makes learned men turn to terror? Liberals, and I consider myself among them, are quick to explain away this "choice of vocation" when the terrorist outfit preys upon disenfranchised youth, who are half educated, unemployed and look at a life of poverty and hardship ahead.

For instance, Ajmal Kasab, the young terrorist who was the only surviving member of the terrorist outfit that attacked and laid siege to the metropolis of Mumbai in 2008. Though young and incoherent he was none-the-less hanged in 2012 at the Yerwada Jail in Pune. One of the reasons cited was that keeping him alive in Indian prisons was proving too expensive for the government! Other more plausible reasons were that he had been found guilty of 80 offences, including murder, waging war against India, possessing explosives, and other charges. In total he had four death sentences and five life term sentences. Yet there were articles, laced with some sympathy for the youth because of his inopportune circumstances that may have led him to take up arms.

Militancy

Be that as it may, how does one explain taking to terrorism when a man as privileged and learned as al-Baghdadi turns radical? It is a very complex argument for which there are no easy answers. There is of course the famed argument that "one group’s terrorist is another group’s freedom fighter".

Was al-Baghdadi an ISIS "freedom fighter"? Looking at a brief history of his "career" as a militant, one learns that al-Baghdadi "turned" after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. He became the founding member of the militant group Jamaat Jaish Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah (JJASJ), where he served as head of the sharia committee. After this, he joined the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC) in 2006 and then al-Baghdadi became the general supervisor of the IS's sharia committee and a member of the group’s senior consultative council. There are also reports al-Baghdadi spent four years in Camp Bucca, a US run prison in Garma Iraq, as a "civilian internee". It is believed the four years spent in this camp, also known as the birth place of IS, radicalised al-Baghdadi. It was those formative years, from 2005-09, that set his feet on the path to terrorism.

Psychologists’ findings suggest assuaging people's fear of cultural annihilation, highlighting our common humanity or demonstrating the discrepancy between the dream and reality of terrorist involvement could keep would-be terrorists from turning to violence.

In a study conducted by Dr John Horgan from the Pennsylvania State University's International Center for the Study of Terrorism, thorough interviewing over 100 imprisoned terrorists, Horgan found people who are more open to terrorist recruitment and radicalisation tend to feel angry, alienated or disenfranchised. They often believe their current political involvement does not give them the power to effect real change and they feel the need to take action rather than just talking about the problem.

Recruitment

They are further led to believe either by recruiters or friends and family members sympathetic to the cause, that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral. Lastly, and perhaps most heartbreaking of all, terrorists believe that joining a movement offers social and psychological rewards such as adventure, camaraderie and a heightened sense of identity. Cultural studies have revelled it is the fear of death that often leads men towards terror, not in fact the fearlessness of it.

The purpose of studies like Horgan’s is not just academic. It may become a tool in the hands of those conducting "de-radicalising" programs across the world. Once thought of as a "pipe dream", these programs may be the answer to Camp Bucca that seems to birth a new al-Baghdadi every fortnight.