Is Islamic Fundamentalism A Product Of ‘Blowback’?

Is Islamic Fundamentalism the Problem?

On the morning of September 11 2001 the world awoke to the news of simultaneous attacks in the United States, now referred to as the 9/11 attacks, and the ugly face of Islamic extremism. The attacks caused the deaths of 3062 innocent victims of various nationalities, from Japanese to American. The United Nations Security Council immediately condemned the attacks as “a threat to international peace and security” in its Resolution 1368 dated September 12, 2001. Despite the condemnation, further attacks were made in the following five years in Bali, London and Madrid to name a few, all committed by terrorist cells loosely connected to Al-Qaeda, an Islamic extremist group which operates as a network comprising of both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad. What was the cause of this antagonism towards the west? Was it a product of ‘blowback’ towards the West’s foreign policies? First of all, what is Islamic Fundementalism?

American historian Ira Lapidus calls Islamic fundamentalism "an umbrella designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacific, some violent." Lapidus differentiates between mainstream Islamists and Fundamentalists, saying a fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a "more original Islam," while the Islamist is pursuing a political agenda.

However, the term Islamic fundamentalism has often been criticized. A leading historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, said that:

“The use of this term is established and must be accepted, but it remains unfortunate and can be misleading. "Fundamentalist" is a Christian term. It seems to have come into use in the early years of this century, and denotes certain Protestant churches and organizations, more particularly those that maintain the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible. In this they oppose the liberal and modernist theologians, who tend to a more critical, historical view of Scripture. Among Muslim theologians there is as yet no such liberal or modernist approach to the Qur'an, and all Muslims, in their attitude to the text of the Qur'an, are in principle at least fundamentalists. Where the so-called Muslim fundamentalists differ from other Muslims and indeed from Christian fundamentalists is in their scholasticism and their legalism. They base themselves not only on the Qur'an, but also on the Traditions of the Prophet, and on the corpus of transmitted theological and legal learning.”

John Esposito, professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University Washington D.C. , also attacked the term for its association "with political activism, extremism, fanaticism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism," saying "I prefer to speak of Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism." Saying that, at least one Muslim academic has defended the use of the phrase, Sadik J. al-Azm, a Syrian philosopher. After surveying the doctrines of the new Islamic movements, al-Azm found that they are:

"an immediate return to Islamic ‘basics' and ‘fundamentals.' .... It seems to me quite reasonable that calling these Islamic movements ‘Fundamentalist' (and in the strong sense of the term) is adequate, accurate, and correct."

Saying that, perhaps it is still inaccurate to associate Islamic fundamentalism with terrorism ergo seeing it as the result, or blowback, of any one nations’ international policies since the fundamentals of Islam, as with all major world religions, are that of peace, brotherhood, love and equality and not of hate and intolerance. In his essay entitled “Extremism: Causes and Cures”, Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri the founder of Minhaj ul Qur, an International organisation whose stated aim is the establishment of unity and understanding between communities wrote that Islam:

“…does not allow aggression, oppression and barbarism in any case. Therefore any terrorist act what so ever, is against the basic precepts of Islam. In spite of the explicit teachings of Islam, most of its concepts and dictates are misunderstood and misinterpreted in the Muslim world in general and the western world in particular, due to which a distorted picture of Islam is appearing in the minds of the people. The situation becomes even more grave (sic) when the people, ignorant of the Islamic tenets, fall prey to these misinterpreted concepts. This is detrimental to the ideological identity of Islam and causes countless social problems for the Muslims living in the West.”

However, it would be fair to state that a minority of these fundamentalists are extreme in their outlook, rhetoric and methods to extent that they view acts of terrorism as an acceptable means to push forward their agendas. They are however, not representative of the entire community as a whole, neither moderates nor fundamentalist. For example, using Lapidus’ definition that an Islamic Fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a "more original Islam”, one would have to count the Mawlawi Order as a fundamentalist sect and it would be erroneous to associate the order with Islamic Extremism as they attempt to find the “Original Islam” through dance. They are also known as the Whirling Dervishes due to their famous practice of whirling as a form of dhikr (remembrance of God). So the question is not whether Islamic Fundamentalism is a product of ‘blowback’ but rather if terrorism spawned from Islamic Extremism is a ‘blowback’ to policies put in place by the West, the answer is yes it is, but it is only part of the reason.

The Underlying Causes for Extremism and the Terrorism it Creates

During the fourth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) it was declared that it would requires a comprehensive approach by the international community and “should duly take into account the root causes” in order to the fight terrorism. The underlying causes are not simple but numerous and are combined in complex ways leading up to violent action such as chronic conflicts in the case of the problems in the Middle East, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This represents a convergence of opinion on what are the causes of terrorism, Islamic Extremism in particular. How ever, this convergence in opinion does not reflect in action, as most counter-terrorism efforts do not address the underlying causes an example of which would be America’s “War on Terror” in Iraq where the US unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign state on the premise that by doing so it would subdue Islamic Extremism by denying them access to potential “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

Regardless off the opinion of its causes, there is a curiously lack of information as to the causes of the 9/11 and subsequent attacks, as the terrorists have not did not voice any specific reasons why they attacked or even what their demands were after successful attacks. The search for root causes was simply unsuccessful with the exception of Osama bin Laden’s audio-video tapes. This information vacuum has made it ever more difficult to identify the underlying causes of their attacks that we have to make assumptions on what the underlying causes of are. Nonetheless, these causes seem strong enough to enable terrorist group leaders to recruit people into their networks and motivate them to give up their lives in the case of suicidal attacks, such as 9/11 attacks. Otherwise, why would privileged young men of Arab descent plot to kill themselves while causing the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

In February 1999, Osama bin Laden responded to an interview by John Miller of Esquire and during the interview he said that the Americans accused the Palestinians of being terrorists yet at the same time killed children in protecting Israel. He also said this has forced him to use similar means. Post 9/11, in a statement he released on al-Jazeera TV on December 27, 2001 he further condemned American support for Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, as seen. In November 13, 2002, in an audio tape that was recovered by the media he reportedly condemned the United States for their Israeli-Palestinian policy, and said that events such as 9/11, the operations on Germans in Tunisia, the explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, on the French in Karachi, the operations against US Marines in Failaka, Kuwait and on Australians and Britons during the Bali Bombings and the hostage taking in Moscow were the response of Muslims to defend their religion. He warned that citizens of US allies would also be targets. Steve Smith, however, asserts that Osama bin Laden is using the plight of Palestinians as an ex post facto justification for the attacks and his targets have been the conservative rulers of the Middle East including his home state, Saudi Arabia, and the United States for its support of the Saudi regime. Smith further argues that:

“..the reasons for the attacks were twofold; one was to show the world that the United States is vulnerable to attack, and the other was to produce a radicalization of Muslim opinion.”

The Osama bin Laden’s tapes have more or less corroborated some of the suggested underlying causes of Islamic Extremism. Amongst the numerous causes suggested, American foreign policy, especially its policy on the Israel-Palestine issue, the war in Iraq and its continued occupation, and the US’ military presence in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the US-led anti-terrorism campaign, or “War on Terror”, is said to have provoked much of the anti-Americanist sentiment in the Islamic world, as it provides the extremists with further proof that the actual war is on Islam itself. Conversely, some argue that extremists harbour a blind hatred towards modernity and view the United States as a symbol of modernisation, thus a source of their suffering. It’s in this papers opinion that this would be over-simplifying the matter.

Poverty has often been cited as being the root cause of terrorism but this is one of the most heavily contested potential causes as many point at the fact that Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire, and the 9/11 hijackers were far from being members of the dispossessed. They were middle class, and in some cases upper class, were well educated, spoke English and came from Egypt and the wealthy Persian Gulf states. This is a puzzle as even though most terrorists are recruited from the poor and deprived there have been many who came from the wealthier and educated. So rather than poverty per se, the widening gap between the haves and have-nots partly due to globalization may have fuelled a greater sense of inequality. Under the advent of globalization, some benefited greatly, whilst others have suffered more. The latter have felt left out and disenfranchised. Perhaps 9/11 hijackers participation in that atrocity; can be explained by them feeling a sense of responsibility towards the have-nots. Ironically, it is because of globalization that terrorists have access to resources, communication and information, which was out of their reach in previous decades. So perhaps poverty is not the sole cause for terrorism, but it is one of the causes. Grievances based on poverty suffered by themselves or suffering seen in others has definitely led some to be recruited into terrorist groups.

With poverty comes lack of access to education and this can been seen as a cofactor in making young people more susceptible to being initiated into terrorist groups. Terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiya frequently offer opportunities for low cost education through the mosques and madrassas that they have influence in and this provides them with an ample supply of young, willing recruits that are fully indoctrinated in their beliefs. In regards to poverty and lack of education, efforts have to be made to reduce this sense of inequality by providing more opportunities for education and by providing a decent standard of living through a new Marshall Plan.

Religion, religious extremism or fanaticism particularly Islamic has often been cited as one of the underlying causes. Osama bin Laden’s a quote from one of the audiotapes attested to him seems to qualify this statement;

“we pray to God to aid us that His religion might triumph and we pursue the jihad unto death so as to merit His mercy”.

In a public survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations entitled, “Worldviews 2008”, 42% of Americans polled responded that Islamic fundamentalism is a critical threat to US vital interests. It can be said that religious extremism is an important mean for terrorist organizations to justify their actions and to motivate their attacks; Islam has often been labelled as the religion of terrorists as a result Osama’s actions leading to the 9/11 attacks and Hamas’ practice of suicide bombing. Furthermore the misappropriation of “jihad” has led many to take further suicidal actions. “Jihad” is Arabic for what can be variously translated as "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context. In the West, the word is generally understood to mean "holy war," and the terms are given, inaccurately, exclusively military connotations. The Quran does call for "jihad" as a military struggle on behalf of Islam but the Quran also refers to “jihad” as an internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort. Thus making sure your well read or exercising regularly also qualifies as a “jihad”. In essence, the word has been misappropriated by Osama and his ilk to further their own narrow worldview and to justify their organisations actions.

Professor Mehmet Bayrakdar, Dean of the Department of Islamic Philosophy, Faculty of Religion, Ankara University in Turkey said that it has become customary for the western media to label any violence or terror as “Islamic terrorism” regardless of whether its perpetrators are Muslim or not which represents prejudiced Islamophobia. As mentioned earlier in this essay, Bayrakdar argues that the word Islam itself means peace and the word Muslim is he who practices peace by believing in as-Salam, the Being who is the source of peace and concord and who assures a peaceful existence to all beings. Bayrakdar explains that terrorists “..misuse Islamic concepts” and one should “..distinguish between extremists and moderates among Muslims and refrain from naively labelling Islam a terrorist religion.” Moreover, it seems 9/11 has brought the infamous theory of the clash of civilizations back to public discourse, absent since 1996 when Huntington wrote the famous piece. The 9/11 attacks, however, was not due to inter-civilization confrontation as argued by many. Yamazaki Masakazu, for example, argued that it does not represent a clash of civilizations because there is a variety of Islam in the world. NATO, which is deemed to be a part of Western civilization, sided with Muslims in Kosovo rather than Serbia is a Christian culture.

Incompetent and undemocratic governments do not always cause terrorism. As distasteful a human being as Saddam was, under his regime, Iraq was never the hotbed of terrorism that it was perceived to be. It was only after the collapse of his government and during the ensuing post-war chaos did it become what it is today. It is in an atmosphere of failed or weak governance that can terrorist organisations can take root. When a sense of injustice and inequality, be it poverty, access to politics, resources or other grievances, cannot be resolved through proper channels of governance, people may be more prone to seek violent resolutions out of desperation, and this includes terrorism. Furthermore the quality of the environment itself can also be deemed as a root cause for terrorism. Environmental stresses – especially shortages of cropland and fresh water – that have crippled farming in the countryside and forced immense numbers of people into squalid urban slums which makes them easy fodder for fanatics.

Conclusion

Although it is difficult to identify the underlying causes of violent terrorism, it has to be seen as a representation of desperation over some grievance that has not been addressed and could not be resolved by other peaceful means. After the 9/11 attacks, what we have witnessed is a rise in more organized and massive terrorists’ attacks by people willing to sacrifice their own lives. This presupposes more organized principles than the emotions of hatred, jealousy, isolation and a sense of deprivation. One can almost extract a common thread of a sense of injustice and inequality of those who are not on the good side of poverty, governance, globalization, governance, conflicts etc. They must have reached such a level of desperation that it compelled them to believe that resorting to violence was the only way to find a resolution. Leaders of terrorist groups have been able to exploit this sense of injustice and inequality among people, especially young people, to recruit and to motivate them to conduct terrorist attacks. However, the leaders may have their own targets and goals to achieve.

All this may sound like the revolutionaries of the French Revolution who took up arms for their cause, but it is different due to the global scope and multitudes of underlying causes. In the French Revolution the group aimed at killing their king and replacing a corrupt and unjust government with one more intoned with the people. However, the assassination of a president or the destruction of a nation would not calm their grievances and all the other causes of terrorism in the 21st Century. Islamic Extremism and the terrorism is a blowback, it is a reaction to the environment that these people are forced to live in and cope with. It is a reaction to what they perceive as intolerance to them and their way of living compounded by the feeling of disenfranchisement from the rest of the world caused by being left behind in poverty whilst the rest profits from being more interconnected. This rage, is being channelled by unscrupulous individuals to further their own political, economical and social goals through acts of violence and terror. Acts of war and aggression would no more solve this problem as it is akin to trying to put out a fire by throwing wood at it. In order to resolve this problem, we would have to quell sense of injustice and inequality by somehow diminishing the gap between the rich and poor, reducing poverty and increasing access to education in the problem areas of the undeveloped world for by doing that you would have successfully removed from organisations such as Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyaa’s access to new recruits. Terrorism and Extremism is a reaction, and people react only if they feel they have been acted on.

Sources:

1. Akiko Fukushima, “Understanding and Addressing The Underlying Causes of International Terrorism.” National Institute for Research Advancement, York University, Canada.

2. John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 8.

3. Sadik J. al-Azm, "Islamic Fundamentalism Reconsidered: A Critical Outline of Problems, Ideas and Approaches," South Asia Bulletin, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 1 and 2 (1993), pp. 95-7.

4. Minhaj ul Qur Website, http://www.minhaj.org/org/index.php?contents=text&tid=427&lang=en

5. Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and German Marshall Fund of the United States, Worldviews 2008, The report is available at http://www.worldviews.org/index.html

6. Nicole Gnesotto, “Terrorism and Enlargement: A Clash of Dynamics,” Institute for Security Studies Newsletter, No.3/4, September 2002.

7. http://foi.Missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/rootcauses.html

8. “Identifying Root Causes of Terrorism: Our Efforts Paying Off,” New Straits Times, September 24, 2002.

9. John Miller, “Saudi Born Militant Osama bin Laden al-Qaida,” Esquire, February 1999, Volume 131, Issue 2.

10. “Text of the Tape Broadcast on al-Jazeera,” The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, November 13, 2002.

11. Steve Smith, “Why Was the Attack Ordered,” in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne eds., Unanswered Questions in Worlds in Collision, Palgrave, 2002, p.54.

12. Gwynne Dyer, “Islamic Fundamentalists Fear of Modernization is real motivation,” The Japan Times, October 6, 2001.

13. Statement of Azyumardi Azra at a Conference on Dialogue of Civilization at United Nations University, September 20, 2002.

14. Mehmet Bayrakdar, “Islam as a Religion and World-view of Peace and Dialogue,” Speech at a Conference on Dialogue of Civilization: Post 9/11 and Islam, held at United Nations University, September 20, 2002.

15. Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilization?” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.