Quora Answer: Could We Destroy ISIS by Killing Its Top 100 Leaders?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Could we destroy, or almost destroy, ISIS by killing its top 100 leaders?”

No.  That is not how these groups work.  ISIS is a diffused network of cells and affiliate groups.  Killing these leaders only means that newer, unknown leaders will arise, making them harder to root out.  This also has the inconvenient effect of creating martyrs.  Rather, these groups should be uprooted by attacking their finance network and their recruitment process.  In the former, it means attacking their assets, using anti-moneylending laws to shut down bank accounts and businesses, and by seizing their assets.  In the latter, it means using Muslims to attack and discredit their ideology.  This means closing down certain mosques and centres, discrediting preachers, banning books, monitoring classes, banning some hate preachers, and the detention of anyone who preaches this doctrine of exceptionalism.

Singapore is an example of how we deal with ISIS.  First, we identify three categories of preachers, from the most public friendly, such as Ismail ibn Musa Menk; to major exceptionalists, such as Zakir Abdul Karim Naik; to outright local recruiters to their ideology such as Rasul bin Dahri.  In the case of the first two, depending on the need and political expediency, we ban them from entry, or simply ban them from public speaking.  This is a process.  In the case of the final group, we strip them of their religious credentials, ban them from teaching any sort of classes, or outright detain them.

Next, we put in place a mechanism to monitor the religious institutions through co-opted religious authorities.  It is in the interest of the Muslims themselves to root out these terrorists.  We must also be aware that some of them, such as Zulfikar bin Mohamad Shariff, couch their language in terms of minority rights.  In this case, it is Malay rights.  Whilst we must have a balance, we must also never allow any form of exceptionalism to take root.  To that end, we should look, with suspicion, at initiatives such as World Hijab Day and this drive towards halal certification beyond food to becoming a lifestyle choice coerced by religiosity.  This is a threat to secularism and multiculturalism.  It allows a certain form of ghettoisation to develop.

Finally, there has to be a national education programme about ISIS, and how these groups are different from orthodoxy.  The goal of ISIS is to turn civil society against Muslims to feed disenfranchisement and radicalisation.  We must never allow the vocal minority of self-appointed gatekeepers of “Muslimness” to turn the Muslims against the state.  When it comes to the outright radicals themselves, they should either be hunted down and killed if they are in the field.  If they are arrested and detained, we have a deradicalisation programme in place.  Whilst my preference would be to hang the lot of them, it serves only to create martyrs for their cause.  It is better to have them detained for the duration of their natural lives so that they die in obscurity.  There is no place for sentiment in dealing with what is, in effect, an infection upon civilisation.