What Should We Call ISIS

President Obama in recent appearances has tried to downgrade the term Islamic or islamist routinely used when talking about terrorism. I have sympathy with his quest, being of Muslim heritage, I have a “dog in this fight” or a “horse in the race” (depending of what part of the country one is from. However, I would approach it differently. I don’t have a problem with the name Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The fact of the matter is that ISIS, in its very name, by using the term State, announces that it is not a religious group but a geo-political entity and even goes so far as to identify the territory over which it intends to rule. The Islamic part of its name indicates the basic beliefs of its followers (though I would have liked a little more specificity). An approach I would use to separate Islam from terrorism, is to emphasize this fact. This is easier said than done. There are groups interested in the opposite, trying to tie terrorism to the religion practiced by over a billion people across the world. Israel is one such. It feels the decades long unprecedented and unprecedented brutal occupation of the West Bank, which allows it to continue to expand settlements, and drive out Palestinians needs to be perpetuated until they have enough land and there are few enough Arabs to have a truly Jewish State. This position, strongly opposed by most Muslims and only halfheartedly supported by the US, has an interest in having all Muslims painted with the “terrorist “brush. The more evil Muslims appear, the less evil does the occupation. The Republican Party, though for different reasons, has the same interest. In a quest to expand its base, since economic conservatism doesn’t give them enough headcount to gain power, they have a multipronged strategy to expand their electorate to include individuals whose financial interests are not in alignment with Republican economic policies (Lower Middle Class). To that end it uses the so called “Southern Strategy”, values politics, xenophobia and fear. The various conflicts in the middle-east gives them a tool whereby they stoke the fires of fear and xenophobia by painting Muslims as dangerous people. It is not enough to rile people against the actual terrorists. The notion of a bunch of Arabs with guns is in itself not too scary, but a billion Muslims with their Sharia overrunning this country certainly is. So how do you separate terrorism from Islam, or for that matter any religion. As mentioned above, stress the economic and geo-political goals of these groups pointing out that throughout history, kings, emperors and leaders of all stripes have used religion as a means of rallying the masses. Point out that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda originally known as Uganda Peoples Democratic Christian Army, designated as a terrorist organization, hasn’t turned the World against Christianity. It is recognized as a revolutionary group with an agenda whose leader proclaims them as fighters for their God. The Jewish Defense League, committed to do” whatever” is necessary to defend Jews, also designated a terrorist group, has committed atrocities including burnings and vandalizing Mosques, not only in Israel and Palestine but also here in the US. Certainly Jews here and elsewhere are not expected to explain that the JDL does not represent their views. But then, the two don’t have a media, a country and a political group interested in painting them as representing Christianity or Judaism. Another way is to clarify the difference in terms I discussed in a previous post “Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East”. Educate people on the differences within Islam, in particular Wahhabism and within it the history of the Salafi movement and its subsequent splintering into groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party (Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida was such a splinter). Teach the history of the Middle-east. Maybe then, people will come to look at revolutions and conflicts within Islam through the same lens as the conflict during the Reformation, not as a Christian thing, but speak of a war between Catholics and Lutherans.

“`Detachment from the Self” in the Workplace

About ten years ago I read a Hindu text, the Bagavad Gita, and recently decided to read it again. It tells a story of a young prince, Arjuna, readying to engage in a battle against his relatives and former associates. With the battle soon to begin,, he has reservations about fighting and killing his kith and kin. As he hesitates, his charioteer reveals himself to be the Lord Krishna who lecture him and goes on to argue that he should fight. Krishna tells Arjuna that he is incapable of taking any lives and that only he, Krishna, can create or destroy life. Krishna then goes on to advise that going into this battle, Arjuna should set aside the effect of the outcome, good or bad, on him personally. He further points out that not only in battle but in any enterprise one should be totally committed and focused and not be distracted by the self, concentrating all the energy on the outcome Reading this I thought back to my working days and my experience supported Krishna’s advice. I was fortunate in that the majority of my associates intuitively practiced the personal detachment from results. A few however, were primarily motivated by personal gain. Some were driven by greed or success while others by the need to prove their worth to themselves or others. They made decisions, not for benefit of the outcome, the team or the organization but to further their own agendas and careers. In general, with a few exceptions, I found people who were driven primarily by a quest for personal success, be it career or ego, to be less wise and less successful in the long run (I guess one could debate what constitutes success) than those who naively put the endeavor first. The problem is that whenever one undertakes a task, plays a game or goes into battle and is focused on themselves, they are not giving their full attention on the enterprise and the results will be sub-optimal. I remember playing football as a kid, and whenever instead of charging ahead, totally involved in the play, I worried about myself, invariably I would not make the play and worse, get injured. Having said that, the degree to which one benefits from putting personal ambitions aside, in the workplace it depends on the nature of the organization and the integrity and experience of the leadership. There needs to exist a sense that one will be evaluated fairly and on the results of the actions and not on other factors. Also there needs to be enough skill within the organization to recognize the quality of the outcome. I remember years ago, I along with a half dozen of my colleagues were interviewing a young scientist. He had recently earned his PHD and was working for a small company. He lamented that within the organization there was no one who could recognize his achievements. I assured him that here there would be at least a dozen people who, not only, would recognize his accomplishments but also any blunders. He took the job.