Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism and Islamic Terrorism

 By Wu Wei

Introduction

This purpose of this paper is to distinguish between Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic terrorists; arguing based on historical and current scholarships, that the two phenomena are defacto interrelated, but different in political nature. I argue that the rise of the radical political Islam – Islamic terrorism, is a direct consequence of political oppression on grassroots based Islamic fundamentalists; which is a natural outcome from declining societies, cultures and nations that are looking for an alternative organic solution to failed Westernization. Therefore, today’s Islamic fundamentalism needs to be understood in relation to a declining and humiliated Islamic sphere vis-à-vis Western hegemony. If an historical comparison can be used, the Islamists of today are the Islamic version of Chinese White Lotus and Boxers.

To explain my understanding, I assert that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism at a global scale and its resentment against the West has three fundamental layers, including an unbalanced social political mutation, culture rivalry, and personal as well as community pride. Furthermore, I argue that political Islam is not innately evil, and it is inaccurate to claim that all fundamentalists embrace political Islam. The use of violence can be found in any religion at any moment of history; however, Islamic terrorism has its own fundamental particularity, which policy makers and scholars have failed to address so far. This paper also warns against the over use of the term terrorism, “for using terrorism as a synonym for terrible will increase the terrorism threat, giving terrorism experts more work, but it will do so at the cost of rendeing the term terrorism analytically useless by making it too genetic.”[1] In addition, based upon former Secretary of State Shultz’s argument, I explain why all violence against the state is not immoral, a fundamental distinction between rebellion and terrorism exist and should be remembered: If one can vote, yet adopt violence against authority is different then one cannot vote.

Finally, I conclude that the ultimate cause for rising Islamic terrorism is the despotic authoritarian rulers of the Muslim world, who use the West and particularly the United States as a scapegoat for their failed governance.  

What is the fundamentalism, and why the rise of Islamic fundamentalism?

In general, all fundamentalisms embrace orthodox religious teachings, a strict adherence to ancient rituals, and a total self submission to the higher power. Furthermore, it has other characteristics; for instance, have exclusive truth on a sacred text; views non-believers as immoral, an apocalyptic view of the world, and nostalgically seeking to restore a glorious past. Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Islamic fundamentalisms more or less follow this pattern. Today’s fundamentalisms for instance, explain social problems by blaming social changes and calling for a return to an idealized religion based community. The most commonly hold idea by religious fundamentalists would be, moral decadence is caused by modernity and a secular social system. As a result, contemporary Islamic fundamentalists, from Nigeria to Azerbaijan, incline towards aggressive, politicized and “purified” versions of Islamic theology – such as Sharia, arguing that the root of mounting social problems in Islamic societies lies in a lack of religious fidelity, corrupting “secular” elites, ceding to Western manipulation, and the absence of a strong universal Islamic community.

There is no single easy explanation for the rise of global Islamic fundamentalism; according to today’s mainstream argument, major factors including failed political economic reform, high unemployment among rising youth generation, dependency to the West, absence of a modernizing religious ideology, cultural isolation, religious fanaticism and resentment vis-à-vis the West. Yet, it is certainly wrong to consider all Islamist movements around the world as dangerous as Islamic terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiyah; At individual level, Islamic fundamentalists around the world are not all endorsing force; fundamentalists in Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey can be used to justify such claim; for instance, a poll conducted in Pakistan shows that only few percentage of Pakistanis fundamentalists endorse the use of violence.

At the organizational level, groups that are politically radical are not all considering the use of force to achieve their objectives. Hizb ut – Tahrir al – Islami (The Party of Islamic Liberation) for instance, is an international radical Islamist movement, with has probably between 15-20,000 just in Central Asia,[2] The group radically calls for overthrow of all governments throughout the Muslim world and establishment of Caliphate ruling Islamic state under pure Sharia; however, it opposes publicly the use of violence at any circumstance. Another example, Tablighi Jamaat (Group that Propagates the Faith), is one of the most widespread and conservative Islamic movement in the world; however, though it embrace orthodoxy Islam, the group is apolitical and nonviolent.

Few distinctions have been made between fundamentalists and terrorists. The lack of understanding on Islam and Islam fundamentalists opened opportunity to Christian – Protestant fundamentalists, who publicly spread the idea that Muslims and Islam are anti - West, anti – American and embrace violence by tradition. To put everything into one basket is narrow minded and dangerous; and repercussions of such understanding about the second largest religion would be extremely damaging to inter culture relations. Culture, history and religious factors must be taken into consideration before any policy is made in regard to the radical Islamist phenomenon. Just like in the field of medicine, it is necessary to understand the specificity of illness and treat it accordingly. To better understand ascendant Islamic fundamentalism world wide, its peculiarity could be elucidated by three major factors. 

I. Unbalanced Social Political Mutation

The first cause for Islamic fundamentalism is modernity without political and religious reform. In the Islamic world, politics is directly involved with religion; the traditional Islamic theology, just as Catholicism, refused any forms of change. Yet, in the case of Christianity, the occurrence of reformation and its religious wars had made the old Europe open to new ideas and things that eventually created the modern Capitalism and liberal democracy. The same Islamic societal system, then considered advanced, which had made the Arabian Peninsula prosperous has become, however, today a natural barrier to the internal reformation of the Islamic sphere.

As mentioned above, all religious fundamentalists detest modernity; theoretically, such antagonistic view is certainly justified. The danger of modernity since the late 19^th Century has been suggested by philosophers and sociologists. This stream of thought, such as the Frankfurt School, was very troubled by the negative side of industrialization, urbanization and other outcomes of modernity. Its view is that the market oriented social system dehumanizes people, strives for shallow materialism, denies morality and menaces human civilization.

Culturally, modernity embraces the concept of individuality; however, it can be viewed as contradictory to traditional Islamic values which worship the notion of umma – the community. This has created a dialectic dilemma. The globalization of capital, secularization, and cultural transformation, along with human migration has promoted social progress as well as crises. But above all, it menaces the age old kinship and extended family system, which is the backbone of any traditional society. The experience of transition from a traditional to a modern industrial society in the West showed it is both laborious and fruitful. However, due to complex social political reasons, particularly at the political and religious leadership level, the Islamic world has been reluctant to mutate in face of changes, crises and challenges.

From an historical point of view, in the face of challenge and threat, typically from actual or imagined competing classes or ideologies and challenges at cultural, institutional and personal levels, groups become more rigid and xenophobic. Take the dark side of modern Chinese history as an example, when it was invaded by the imperialists, the country went further inward and conservative, indigenous White Lotus and Boxer sectarian movement rose subsequently to resist against foreign influences; therefore, facing imposing modernity and challenges, yet reluctant to mutate at the leadership level, the radical Islamist movements such as al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah have become the Islamic version of White Lotus and Boxers.

II. Culture Rivalry

The second cause for rising Islamic fundamentalism has to be understood from an historical aspect, based on the long time rivalry between the Orient and the Occident, between the Islamic world and Christendom. During the first apogee of the Islamic culture, Islamic societies were strong, prosper, advance and open to all knowledge and diverse cultures, making Arab scholars affluent in all existing academic domains.[3] The Islamic sphere was also an extremely tolerant where ‘People of the Book’ – Christens and Jews were tolerated and were active participants in all aspect of society from government to scholarship. As a result, the mighty armies along with the trade camels of Sultans could spread the superiority of Islamic culture, and its more advanced social hierarchy system from the Atlantic coast through the southern Mediterranean, and North Africa to the Middle East, Southeast Asia and parts of China. Though respectful towards “People of the Book”, the historical defeat of Arab kingdom in Spain by Catholic fanatics fallowed by the Spanish Inquisition has embedded Arab Muslim the sense of adversary, distrustful and nemesis against Christian Europeans. 

The second apogee of Islamic culture came with the defeat of the Byzantine Empire and rise of the Ottoman Turkish Empire under Sultan Suleiman I in the 16^th century, an Empire which would eventually assume control over much of the Arabic world, Southern Europe and Western Asia. In comparison with the Christendom of that epoch, the Turkish lead Islamic sphere was truly hegemony; for it had superiority in politics, economy, military and science.

However, History shows to us that civilizations grow, prosper, stagnate, fail to meet challenges, and surpass by other ascendant civilizations. The final end for Islamic culture superiority come when economically, the capitalist system triumphed in Europe; shifting the center of European economy from the Mediterranean sea to the Atlantic ocean, trade between Europe and the New Continent was ascendant where the Arab merchant could only play a row material supplier role – to sell African slaves to European slave traders; and politically, the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during the Great War ultimately opened the door of Islamic world to ravenous European imperialists.

The end for Islamic hegemony vis-à-vis of Christendom could be summarized by economic stagnation, military defeats and an age old political system. Islamic sphere retreated to orthodoxy consequently. Meanwhile, the British and French Empires conquered the Arabian Peninsula and much of the rest of Islamic sphere. Europe, once backward became world center, making the former triumphant Islamic world a subordinate in the peripheral areas. Radical Islamists such as Osama bin Laden, have used this episode of history to legitimate his cowardice terrorist movement against the Jews and Crusaders; the argument being that in order to reestablish the once grand triumphant Islamic world, to save tortured people throughout the land of Islam, from Eastern Turkistan to Andalusia, to be free from the dominating Western empire, [4]Muslim people shall unconditionally return to ancient orthodoxy Islamic teaching – thus to embrace the Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, bin Laden’s existence only tell to today’s Islamic fundamentalists that they have every reason to win the battle against foreigners again; after the Mongol’s conquered Baghdad in 1258, the conquerors themselves converted to Islam, and Islamic power flourished in Turkey and India after being defeated in the Arabian peninsular. As Hosain Haqqani rightly points out, “even the defeat of Muslims has a place in God’s scheme for Islam’ eventual supremacy in the world.” [5]

III. Personal and Community Pride

The final explanation for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism lies in Muslim people’s collective and personal dignity as well as pride. After the end of WWII, the once powerful, grand Islamic world became fragmented, neo-colonial and peripheral. Newly independent states with Islam ties, just as lots other developing countries embraced the backward USSR’s authoritarian system politically, and Import Substituting Industrialization (ISI) economically. Later proven destructive, the interested switched to a more Westernized semi free market oriented capitalism. Nowadays, nations such as Egypt have a growing population, a failing social infrastructural system and high unemployment rate; because of economic inequality generated by neo-liberal globalization and oppressive autocratic governments, citizens with no possible channels to express one’s discontent find compensatory comfort in Mosques and Islamic teaching in which they saw the relief, the sense of solidarity and the glorious past of victorious people who overcame countless difficulties.  

The rise of Islamic religious fundamentalism as a social phenomenon is consistent with Western scholars such as Marx, Durkheim and Weber’s arguments about religion, which advanced religion as an expression of social suffering, it is the opium of people that make suffering tolerable, it provides emotional fulfillment, create hope, and sense of community belonging. If their arguments are valid, we can certainly assert that the Islamic fundamentalism phenomenon is a natural outcome of declining societies, cultures and nations within the Islamic sphere that are looking for an alternative organic solution to “secular” Westernization, a experience so far proven over all disastrous. If grassroots movement is considered essential to promote and to protect civil liberty as well as citizens’ interests in modern liberal democracies, the rise of Islamist movement can be argued as being an indigenous grassroots dissent movement of the Islamic world demanding social political changes.

In sum, theoretically speaking, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism tendency can be argued; therefore, as a reaction to aggressive aspects of an unsupervised modernity, the shallowness of market economy, unpopular despotic rule, nostalgia for a glorious past and cry for social changes. In terms of cause and effect, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has created a paradigm shift in international relations in the new century. As former Secretary of State George Shultz argued during the Reagan years, terrorism is a form of political violence, and there is a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists because democracies, which allowed for peaceful change, were not the legitimate target of political violence, while totalitarian states, which did not, were.[6]  The unwillingness to change in totalitarian states legitimized the use of terror, as a few fundamentalists embraced terrorist methods. This has become a dilemma because burdens of national interests and international relations have narrow down available remedies to the American administration on how effectively to deal with the problem.   

Understanding Islamic Terror Groups

We often argue that it is not in the true spirit of Islam to kill, and the Islamists who advocate the use of force are not true Muslims but demagogues. This is not entirely an accurate way to deal with the problem, but purposely to ignore the historical and religious aspects of modern Islamic terrorism. Historically, the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam that originated in the Holy Land killed each other in God’s names. Though they teach kindness, charity and mercy toward others; yet, in God’s name, there are numbers of justification to kill, especially when a religious authority become political. It argued that just punishment shall be exercised upon enemies, criminals, and those who violated religious and moral code. As a result, scientists, unbelievers, pagans, homosexuals, witches and criminals were killed because of religion fanaticism and social conservatism.

As mentioned in the introduction, the use of violence can be traced in any religion, but today’s Islamic terrorism certainly has its own particularities as well. September 11 attack occurred precisely because the West, in the past, has failed to deal with specific issues of the Islamic world; almost two years past, has the West done better? Let us first examine the past and current policy failures before entering in detail about the Islamic terrorism. 

First of all, the West has failed in terms of political vision and prevention. Terrorism could be viewed as cancer cells; it is spreading around if not threaded promptly at the point; because the West, after the collapse of the Berlin wall, has failed to address the underdevelopment, Israeli – Palestinian and the problem of “secular”, theocratic and monarchic totalitarianism in the Muslim world, terrorism, as a extreme consequence of failed governance, propagated in the Muslim world.

Secondly, by making generalization on terrorists, to view them all as the same – evil doers, the media and policy makers are leading the public opinion into a wrong path, because different terrorists advocating different causes. Traditional actors of terror could be identified as, criminal terrorist, state sponsored terrorist, religious terrorist, and political terrorist. They could be viewed as criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and other may be viewed as bandits, religious fanatics and enemy agents; their traditional tactics are kidnapping, assassination, and bombing, which are after all common in wars. However, though tactics of terror may differ, the objective is the same. As David Tucker points out, they want to get publicity for their causes, and demonstrate to the mass that the power structure is weak.[7]

Finally, the Bush administration is repeating the mistake of the past - selling off others in order to receive short term benefice. After the September 11, we are facing a new phenomenon, known as the Islamic international terrorism, which is calling Jihad against the Christians, the Jews and those who collaborate with them, making even tougher for American policy makers to distinguish who is an Islamic terrorist and who is not. The urgency has created a dilemma for American foreign policy making on the war against terrorism; because the administration needs cooperation from countries that face the same problem; however, of different nature. For instance, are the Chechen rebel Islamic terrorists because of incredible atrocity they have committed and de facto use Islam as a dogma?  If so, would the Russian federal government be called as a state terrorist because of the same war crime its troops inflict upon Chechens rebel and civilian alike? Recently, a Chinese Uighurs separatist group has been classified by the US State Department as a terrorist organization – according to Chinese government’s argument. Yet so far, no researchers have demonstrated any concrete prove about terrorist activity related to this particular Uighur dissident group. The true matter of fact is that the Bush administration has failed to balance between short term interests and long term interests, by selling off US human rights policy on countries such as Russia and China, which has an historical record on human rights violation, particularly against Muslim minorities, the Bush administration believes that the latter will cooperate with the US authority on Islamic terrorists who are targeting the US. However, the Bush administration forget that political Islamic movements in China and Russia is a consequence of oppression, not of anti – American resentment. US policy makers must realize that it is wrong to consider for the purpose of advocating US national interest, human rights violations – oppression against Muslim people could be ignored, and call on all anti – government Islamic groups, armed or not, Islamic terrorists.

However, to make the issue even more complicate, as we are living in a complex and interdependent world, the international Islamic terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda or the Jemaah Islamiyah are more or less connected at various degrees with each other and with other regional Islamic militant as well as non – violent groups, making them a de facto Islamist Terrorist Networks. As a result, in order to make accurate policy decision toward the increasing threatening international Islamic terrorist networks, one solution is to classify armed radical Islamists into three layers, understand their objective and find treatments.

On the top layer, it is al Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiyah international terrorist organizations. They represent a new form of Islamic terrorism, as first of all, ideologically, their doctrines are both political as well as religiously motivated.

Secondly, they are willing to collaborate with all others Islamic organizations that share their world view, Shia – Sunni alike. And finally, in terms of organization, they are cross-national modern networks, operating at a global scale through regional satellite cells, diverse Islamic political parties and organizations. Al Qaeda for instance, is a pan – Islamic network linking key Islamist groups around the globe, it has confirmed presence in seventy six countries, that includes Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. Jemaah Islamiyah is a pan – Asian network extending from Malaysia to Japan in the north and to Australia in the south.[8]

At the international level, al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah are organized as any other multinational groups, they are Top to Bottom oriented groups with international as well as regional secrete offices, representatives and ambitions. Recent major terror acts they have committed including the killing of Daniel Pearl, bombing of French engineers’ bus in Pakistan, bombing of French oil tanker in the Golf, bombing of a night club in Bali, Indonesia, and bombing of Westerners’ residential complex in Saudi Arabia. To predict enemy’s movement, one needs to know his objective. The question about true political objective al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah remain unclear. However, what we know is that they are not merely Islamic religious fundamentalists but also international political organizations, making them dependant of human as well as material resources from their regional cells; therefore, cutting off its resources should be considered as priority.  

The second layer consists of religious militant/terrorist groups at the national and regional level; it is the most critical element among the three categories. For one, although different in backgrounds, the members of the second layer advocate the use of force to achieve a political purpose and use Islamic teaching as a moral as well as culture justification. On the other words, they are Islamic fanatics who see the use of terror as justified in their path of Jihad. In addition, they serve to the groups at the International level as regional cell, providing both valuable human and material resources.

As Islamic religious terrorists, they have different mind set. They view the commitment to violence as a necessity and justified because he/she is engaged in Jihad; therefore, any activities has sacred purpose, and violence represents in such circumstance a religious necessity. The actors of the second layer including the Laskar Jihad in Indonesia, Group Islamic Army (GIA) of Algeria, Abu Sayyaf group - the leading terrorist organization in the Philippines, Palestinian Hezbollah, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) which want to establish an Islamic regime, and Malaysian Kumpulan Mujahedeen Malaysia (KMM). The specificity of this category is that they have becoming more complex than scholars and policy makers previously thought - some rebel groups operating in a political or religious vacuum. Considering the radical Pilipino Abu Sayyaf group and the Group Islamic Army of Algeria, both group use bombings, kidnappings, and mass murder to weaken countries’ social political stability, and its’ main economic revenue – the tourism industry. The initial solution in both countries was military elimination, so far proven unsuccessful and even more damaging to countries’ image and tourism industry. This is worrisome, because the resilience and fanaticism of the GIA and Abu Sayyaf members show that the use of force has failed to resolve the issue or to minimize the damage. In one instance, when hostages were taken by Abu Sayyaf, the Pilipino President Arroyo said to the group that “it’s good for you to release all your hostages because if not, bullets will rain on you,” Abu Sayyaf leadership replied, “We are ready to die fighting. This is suicide.”[9] Later, an American hostage, Guillermo Sobero’s beheaded body was found, allegedly as an Independence Day Gift to President Gloria Arroyo.[10]

With hardly any local support and international sympathy, the GIA and Abu Sayyaf survived endless government assaults; in lieu of negotiating or lower the profile, they continuously terrorize the local population and governments. In addition to their fanaticism, groups of the second layer provide de facto the breading ground for volunteers for international terrorist groups. Indeed, many Islamic terrorists in the West were trained at local camps, and many leaders and members of regional groups have been veterans of Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya, with close ties between themselves and with Osama bin Laden.

The third category is composed by secessionist insurgency groups that actively seeking Muslim communities’ interests in largely non – Muslim countries. These groups claim fight for homeland or regional autonomy, view themselves not as politically motivated terrorist, but rather guerrillas. Examples include the Moro people of the Philippines represented by the Moro National Liberation (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Uighur separatists of China who call for creation of Eastern Turkistan, Chechens of Russia, and the Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO) of Thailand.[11] This category represents a far more complex case given historical, ethnical and political specificity; for instance, Muslim people of the Mindanao – Philippines, the Moros suffered historically religious, economic and ethnic discriminations;[12] whereas the Uighurs of China are facing a culture extermination policy from an authoritarian communist regime. Their political orientations differ as well. Most of them, such as in the case of Uighurs, do not have anti-American orientation and looking at the West and the US for help; or such as the MNLF, signed peace treaty and has become legitimate moderate Islam based political party, or in no way is a Islamist movement per se such as the PULO, or in the case of MILF, has clear tie will al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. [13]

All the above groups either endorse the use of violence or had used violence to achieve political objectives. The use of violence is a crucial criterion for terrorism; however, again, distinction exists. The French revolution created the notion of liberty, fraternity and equality; the American Revolution brought to the world individual freedoms and rights to self determination. Through violent revolution, the French and Americans overthrew tyrannical rule and enlightened the world; therefore, this use of violence, in our view, is justified. If the Declaration of Independence justified the use of force because of tyrannical rule, why are other fights against tyrants not, but call terrorism.

To clarify on such controversial topic, we must insist that violence against noncombatants for political reasons is terrorism, event for someone who resists tyrannical rules; if one can enjoys political as well as social freedoms yet chose violence against authority, this is too, terrorism. Violence against noncombatants and authorities that are representative of people is not legitimate political violence.

Why the Oppression against Islamists from Secular Totalitarian Rulers is the Leading Cause for Islamic Terrorism

The so called “secular” leadership undeniably bears the ultimate responsibility for the increase of radical Islamic belief among Muslim people. It is important for commentators to be objective in their assessments; facing Islamic religious terrorists, scholars and statesmen alike must question first of all what is the preeminent cause for their radical thinking, and why their ability to draw support and legitimacy among Muslim people?

The reality is, facing a failed social political system, people turn to religion for comfort. However, some Islamic fundamentalists hold dubious political ambitions, they want to be seen thru the use of violence, with an agenda of establishing their popularity, attracting media attention, building legitimacy, and gathering financial contributions. The leader of al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, is undoubtedly the best case in point; because of failed leadership and bad governance in Muslim countries, Muslim people interpret Bin Laden’s terrorist activities as a voice crying out their own long suppressed anger. As a result, we should ask, is the tendency for violence a result of devotion to Jihad or a lacking channel for the political voice of desperate helpless Muslim people who seek recognition and attention?

Dictatorship: Poverty and a Denied Future

“Between Chaos and injustice, I choose injustice,” said Houphouët Boigny of Côte d'Ivoire; a popular phase and concept of governance that become a common excuse for despotism as well as nepotism. From a political perspective, good governance requires both the “hard power” as well as “soft power.” The so called “hard power” generally has been referred as one’s economic and military power; whereas the “soft power” includes social, moral and culture power. Without an adequate development on both powers, achieve good governance is seldom. During the Post Colonial time, Westernization did not yield its promised results in states within Islamic sphere; modernity has failed for a variety of causes including the orthodox teaching, the underdevelopment inherent in colonialism, the lack of education of the populace, but most importantly, it is the foreign backed “secular” totalitarian dictators.

Although Muslim totalitarian rulers, both “secular” and religious in the past as to the present, such as Mubarak of Egypt, Suharto of Indonesia, House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, or Siad Barre of Somalia enjoyed limited or quasi to non popular support, they were backed by the United States and the Western liberal democracies at different degrees, however.[14] This was unmoral, but justified then by the Cold War strategy of Containment event though the consequence of backlash was rise by different scholars and statesmen. All these countries are now major nests of Islamic fundamentalists. In the case of Saudi Arabia for instance, Wahhabism, a severely Puritanical form of Islam was embraced by the Monarchy to legitimate the Saudi Kingdom as the guardians of the holy cities of Mecca and Media, in addition to maintain its imperial claim on oil wealth - in accordance to US strategy interests. In nowadays, Saudi Kingdom is a major exporter of radical Islamism as well as oil to the Western liberal democracies.

History of revolution tells us that facing tyrants, people join rebellion. Most partisan of rebellion are not dogmatic oriented, but rather pragmatic and interests seeking. For instance, soldiers of the American, Russian and Chinese revolutions were colonists, urban workers and farmers who facing totalitarian dictatorships, with “no voice”, took arms to defend their personal freedom, economic equality and property rights. Same concept applies to Muslim people, especially the youth, who facing “secular” dictators, with no other political parties to join, with no opportunity to express dissatisfaction, with no perspective for future, join fundamentalist groups.

Socio – economic circumstances are important for understanding why people embrace physical violence and religious radicalization; nevertheless, pointing poverty as the main cause, an argument of today’s mainstream, is too simplistic. Indeed, facing impoverishment, humiliations, powerlessness and injustice, moderate Muslim people find compensatory comfort in religion; however, those young Muslim who received an education saw future is dark - blocked by the corrupted incompetent totalitarian government, preferred more radical solutions for change. A circumstance explains why so many educated young Muslims embrace radicalism and become armed terrorists.

Once again, it is evident that there is no simple answer to why people become politically and religiously radical; but we as humans are goal oriented creatures; when the political authority bears the most responsibility for social political failures, and it prohibits any form of change, and unwilling to cede political power, the conventional wisdom - patience and obedience become futile, the use violence is the final choice for removal; a circumstance which gives bin Laden and other radicals an opportunity for manipulation. Therefore, on the top of all causes for the increase of Islamic fundamentalism as well as terrorist activities around the world, it is those authoritarian oligarchy rulers who should take accountable for.

Case Study, Central Asia – Uzbekistan

In the newly created Central Asian nations for instance, Central Asian states including – Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan banned religious based parties in their constitutions.[15] Such a decision not only drastically marginalized the role of Islam in indigenous Central Asian societies, but also causing backlash against the ruling authorities – coincidently under the control of few. In the Uzbekistan case for example, the constitution states that members of religious groups cannot run for the office of president and the establishment of religious political parties is similarly banned. But this decision – tacit form of political repression against Islamic militant groups, in fact only helped them to become active and popular social forces, partly because the prohibition has given to Islamic militant groups a certain mystical embodiment, in addition to the lack of alternative political opposition and expression of discontent, such image has attracted plenty disillusioned youth. According to Sharif Himatzade, a member of Tajikistan’s parliament and the head of the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP), “Tajiks and others are joining the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) extremists because the regimes don’t change their attitudes towards such Islamic movements. If there was a legal constitutional way in Uzbekistan for Namangani to play a political role he would take part in politics and the would be no need for such military action.”[16]

After independence, the two leading opposition groups, Birlik (Unity) and Erk (Freedom) in Uzbekistan were banned, and their leaders went into exile abroad. Under pressure, President Karimov allowed to create two new parties, the Adolat (Justice) Social Democratic Party and the National Revival Democratic Party, but only be outlawed later. However, President Karimov’s oppressive policy only created more turmoil for the country and insecurity for his power.

The famous IMU leader Jummaboi Khojaev, alias Juma Namangani reportedly being killed by American booms in Afghanistan but his legacy remains. Namangani served as a Soviet paratrooper in Afghanistan in 1987, fought in Tajisk civil war after the collapse of the Soviet Union, co - founded Adolat – an Islamic group, and subsequently expelled and hunted by Uzbek president Islam Karimov for fearing Namangani’s popularity and power. He subsequently fled to northern Afghanistan where he formed the IMU.[17] IMU previous to September 11 was a regional rebellions force that causing devastation to all Central Asians governments from economic development to social stability. The IMU embraces radical Islam, and draw human support from all horizons. A local farmer revealed that “Every day there were lines of people coming to see him – Arabs, Chechens, Uighurs, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and Central Asians from every nationality – they all want to join him and do jihad in Central Asia.”[18] Although much of IMU forces were wipe out during recent Afghanistan war in 2001 because IMU supported both the Taliban and al Qaeda, we can presume that it will inevitably reemerge in that region once the Central Asia is out of Washington’s agenda.   

The case of IMU is not unique. Similarly, if the Uighur people of Xinjiang, China could truly enjoy political, religious and as well culture autonomy, no Uighurs – historically being moderate Muslim, would go to Pakistan and Afghanistan to join Jihad. If election in Algeria, where the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won the popular vote, was not nullified by militaries which also have ties with fundamentalist, the Group Islamic Army (GIA) would not emerge as the successor of FIS, and continuously committing terrorist atrocities; if Mubarak of Egypt would allow more personal freedom to Egyptians, if autocrat monarchies of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates embraced less religious fanaticism but more person liberty and political decency, things in the Muslim world would be better today.  

In sum, it is precisely the despot rulers, “secular” or monarchy rulers alike, who are practicing nepotism, despotism, and claiming to be the solely capable of preventing the country turn to Islam fundamentalism have created real hardcore fundamentalism and terrorists. Therefore, if dissent is tolerated in the Muslim world, radical Islamism would surely loss ground to political organized moderate Islamism such as in the case of Turkey. Until the issues of political reform is carried out, until channels for political manifestation are open to all, Islamists will have no other choices but to use Islam as legitimacy in their vigorous struggle against despotism. 

Conclusion and Recommendations

A war on terrorism is unlikely to end global terrorism, nor Islamic terrorism. The full scale American military campaign against a terrorist regime - Afghanistan’s Taliban proved the superiority of the American army. Yet the inability to totally erase Taliban and al Qaeda elements including bin Laden and Mullah Omar, in that region of the world proves the difficulties of using a conventional army to combat a guerilla force. More importantly, it shows the inadequacy of dealing with movements that have complex indigenous as well as international roots by military means. The politics of force, using state military and police networks to nail down terrorist groups is not the best solution; the positive side for the United States is that al Qaeda is on the run, and it has created a sense of security inside of the United Sates. However, with the increasing budget for police and military force along with more training and international military aid, in addition to the loss of civil liberties and fear for creating of a quasi police state, one needs to question the merit of a purely military response in a long term cost and benefit basis. The examples of Vietnam, Ireland, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Philippines, and Palestine tell us that a policy based on the use of force by the State against indigenous social forces cannot resolve the problem but creates violent resistance. Since the beginning of War on Terrorism, terror attacks have not diminished worldwide.

To solve the problem of terrorism requires addressing its roots: not only, as the mainstream argues, underdevelopment, education of youth, inequality between the North and the South, but also dictatorships sponsored by the West, exploitative neo-liberal globalization, urgency on Islam’s reformation, and finally to face the reality of Muslim people’s need for respect and to end of a hundred year old political and economic domination by the Christendom. To win the war, the US must learn from history, win people’s heart and overcome the burden of history. For the Islamic fundamentalists, according to Husain Haqqani, have every reason to believe that history will repeat itself; because the defeat of Muslims has a place in God’s scheme for Islam’s eventual supremacy in the world.[19]

Islam too, needs its reformation, and more transparent, representative system shall be implemented in countries within the Islamic sphere. Some claim that countries with Islamic heritage cannot become democracies. This is a narrow minded and biased thinking. Islam shares historical and spiritual root with Judaism and Christianity; therefore, if countries with Jewish and Christian heritage can enjoy democracy, there is no reason to believe countries with Islamic heritage cannot. As a result, ultimately in order to end resentment toward America, the US must face the problem of political oppression engaged in by Muslim countries’ dictators vis-à-vis of grassroots semi – religious, semi – political movements, because the US has become a scapegoat for authoritarian rulers. Indigenous Islamic groups enjoy substantial support and defacto influential, they are not all necessarily Islamic fundamentalists, but rather moderate; so if democratic election based on universal suffrage would occur in countries such as Egypt, the chance for emerging indigenous parties with religious ties to gain a majority is high, and the country can, therefore, move forward toward responsible governance because the government has legitimacy and popular support. The cases in Turkey and Mali prove the accuracy of this political prediction; both are Muslim countries, had authoritarian regimes but are democracies now. Thus, the true front of war in Islamic terrorism lays on who will prevail between moderate and militant version of political Islam.

As far as the US is concerned, it too, must change its short term, short vision oriented policy. For too long, the US supported corrupted oligarchs in the Islamic world hoping only in exchange that they will assure the flow of oil to America, making no war to Israel or vote on US sponsored resolution at the United Nations. For example, the US has strongly supported the House of Saud, which sponsored conservative and militant Islam. That Cold War policy is no longer viable; for it is creating dangerous consequences which are menacing American national security and its international leadership. For too many people around the world, and particularly in the Muslim world, American support to oppressive regimes has been viewed as the cause of their humiliation and suffering. Indeed, Islamists found grounding sources among despairing people, although we shall note that violent Islamist groups are endorsed by a proportionally small number of people, and advocates of terrorist tactic are even smaller, but they cause potentially devastating social, economic and political consequences to the region and the world.

Finally, according to Sun Tzu, to win a battle, one must know both himself and his enemy. We used to believe that the post Cold War America is the mighty country never precedent in history, but September 11, conducted by a tiny group of 19 people with a half million US dollar budget proved how vulnerable the US is. Two year after, how safer is America? According to the former Special Assistant to the President for Combating Terrorism, Rand Beers, “The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure, … The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded.”[20] How about the Islamic terrorist; “Revenge, rather than willingness to compromise or submit to the victors, is the traditional response of theologically inclined Muslims to the defeat of Muslim armies. And for the Islamists, this battle has no front line and is not limited to a few years, or even decades. They think in terms of conflict spread over generations.”[21]

Facing true facts, and in the interest of avoiding inter cultural conflict, if the United State and the West continuous to understate nonmilitary factors of Islamic terrorism mentioned above, and continuously be short term political interests oriented, it is unlikely that the war on terrorism will prevail, and another September 11 to happen, as some commentators argued, is just a question of time.

| Africa | Home | Free Email | Contact |

This site is produced and maintained by Empereur. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
 

Copyright © 2000-03  Empereur.com  Tous droits réservés.