I Have a Purpose

Brian Fox

Freelance Writer

7:24 PM 04/22/2015
The world is finally arriving at much needed consensus on the need to confront the group calling itself the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL and Daesh). But targeted airstrikes, necessary temporarily effective as they may be, when used alone will ultimately fail. The socio-political factors that have given rise to ISIS need to be addressed.

That’s because even more so than its rigid theological underpinnings, the ISIS phenomenon is an outlier by-product of the deep socio-political fragmentation that has been dangerously smoldering in Iraq and Syria. Religious fundamentalism will, no doubt, play some role in the region for many years to come but this particular group would not have achieved anywhere near their recent, stunning successes without the tacit support that it has received from a significant number Sunni tribes and sympathizers who have been cruelly shut out by the current political systems that respectively exist in Iraq and Syria today.

That’s a shame, because the political situation in Iraq has a relatively easy fix. At the core of Iraq’s problem is a deeply flawed constitution that absurdly relies on the good graces of the ruling political party to accommodate the various groups. In any successful democratic system, the need for consensus must be a more intrinsic part of the constitutional process.

An upper chamber like the U.S. Senate functioning alongside (and in some executive aspects-above) the Iraqi General Assembly may be just what’s needed. With a Senate comprised of nine districts — three in the Shiite South, three in the Sunni triangle, and three in the Kurdish North — and having two senators representing each district, no religious or ethnic group could dominate. With at least ten senators needed to pass any law, the various groups would be forced to work together. This would induce the Sunnis to stay politically engaged in a meaningful way. The Shiites would be assured in knowing that they would still control a plurality of the General Assembly. The Kurds would maintain much of the autonomy they have now while gradually playing a more active and participatory role in Iraq’s internal affairs.

Although we’re long past the point where we can simply redraw the Iraqi constitution, it’s a happy coincidence that Iraq already has a second legislative body that can fulfill the role of ‘senate.’ The Council of Union was created to pay bills with the rest of its powers providently left open for future consideration. It is this body that (with some deft behind the scenes diplomatic wrangling) could tacitly be finessed into to the necessary role just ahead of the quirky amendment process.

The situation in Syria, however, is much more complex. But the possibility of achieving a workable consensus among the Syrians is not as far-fetched as it may first appear. In Damascus and other parts of the country, people on opposite ends of this conflict still conduct necessary business, socially interact, and argue freely about the situation. Some have even switched sides a few times.

The current crisis in Syria began-after all-as part of the greater Arab Spring less than five years ago in which the vast majority of people were yearning for some type of change. The country has been ruled by one family for over 40 years. Bashar al-Assad took over from his father, Hafez, in 2000. The elder Assad had controlled Syria capriciously and with an iron fist since 1971. Even a significant number of people from Assad’s own religious sect, the Alawites, were eager for a respite from the stifling, soul-sucking cronyism that inevitably results from having a long-time leader.

It was only Assad’s extended family, designated business interests, and favored inner circle that wanted a rigid maintenance of the status quo. Assad’s violent reaction to what were at first peaceful, civil demonstrations has turned a proudly secular society into one increasingly revolving around a sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and Assad’s minority Alawites. The other minorities such as the Christians, the Druze, the Kurds, and the more mainstream Shiites, have all grudgingly cast their lot with the toxic Assad regime because they rightly feel that they will the victims of an inevitable bloodbath of retribution if it falls.

Every reflective person sooner or later faces certain questions: What is the purpose of my life? How do I find a moral compass so I can tell right from wrong? What should I do day by day to feel fulfillment and deep joy?[/quote]
Right.
And we can not of sure of any answer provided by people like us for we are fallible.
Only God is infallible and we must look for answers from Him only.
This brings us to theology.
Out of all theologies ony Islamic theology is viable for it is most plausible, comprehensive and robust.
But we are open to discussion in case any one is interested in clarification.
Of course the choice depends upon people.


As you said in the beginning people naturally search for answers to these fundamental questions.
This happens because God gave this nature to man.
Because He had that purpose behind our life.
And He also gave the solution - Islam.
[quote]Mostly the idea is to use a community of conversation as a way to get somewhere: to revive old vocabularies, modernize old moral traditions, come up with new schools and labels so that people have more concrete building blocks and handholds as they try to figure out what life is all about.

That triple threat is an unlikely alliance of liberal secularists, authoritarian nationalists, and conservative cultural religionists with mutual interests to limit human rights and religious freedom narratives at the U.N. and regional associations. They will increasingly limit religious freedom in the days to come, particularly that of Christians.