|
Also
on this page
“Political Islam” and Its Justification of Terrorism.
An
Anatomy of a Terrorist’s Mind
Analysis and Comments
By Jacob Thomas
There is no dearth
of articles in newspapers, news magazines, and learned
journals that deal with the growing problem of global
terrorism. Needless to say, after 9/11/2001 and 7/7/2005, our world
has become a scary place. We would like to know why so
many men, and even some women, engage in such
destructive acts that cost them their lives as well as
the lives of countless innocent people.
Specifically, I
would like to ask: why is the Muslim world in turmoil,
and why have most of the killer-terrorists of today,
whether residents of Dar-al-Islam, or of the Western
world, continue to commit such hideous acts? Lately,
some general answers have been offered by such
well-known experts as Bernard Lewis. You may like to
consult his book, “What Went Wrong?
Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response.” (It was published by Oxford University Press in 2002).
However, if we want
to know what drives some Muslims to engage in terrorist
acts, and what goes on in their minds as they prepare to
perpetrate their crimes, we should listen to what some
Arab Muslim writers are saying. This is very important
since all discussions of this subject that go on in
foreign languages have very little impact on the ever
growing Arab and Muslim masses. As I glance daily at the
content of some Arabic newspapers on the web, my
attention was drawn to an eye-catching title that
appeared on August 10, in the London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat.
It read: “Tashrih al-‘Aql
al-Irhabi” or “An Anatomy of
a Terrorist’s Mind.”
Having read it over
several times, I could not help but admire the honesty
and boldness of the author who chose to deal with this
difficult topic. I wish more such writings would appear
in the dailies of the Arab world, from Kuwait to
Casablanca. I plan to give a brief analysis of the
article and then add a few of my own comments.
The author began to
deal with this disturbing phenomenon by referring to
some recent terrorist attacks that were still in the
minds of his readers. He wanted them to realize that
these acts of mass and indiscriminate murder have a
ripple effect that impacts the entire world. He is
trying to draw to the attention of his readers in the
Arab World that acts of terror, perpetrated by Muslims,
end up by giving a very bad impression of Islam:
“Every time a
terrorist attack occurs, we are faced with several
questions. They don’t seem to change, even after the
suicide attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, following the
terrorist bombings in London, or the abduction and
murder of the Egyptian ambassador, Dr. Ihab al-Sharif,
in Baghdad. Unless and until the Arab mind faces up to
these questions and deals with them, the current
situation dominated by such topics as terrorism, Islam,
and Muslims, will add to strained international
relations, and will continue to be extremely
unsettling.
“Why do some
people engage in suicide attacks, killing themselves and
countless human beings? The question remains very
perplexing, especially when the killer makes no specific
demands on society or the state. All we Arabs get is a
list of general grievances, such as calling people
apostates, or pro-Jewish, or pro-Christian! So we will
never know what is required of us in order to satisfy
their demands and convince them that the rest of us are
[true] believers; or in what way we should conduct our
international relations in order to win their approval!”
It is interesting to
note that the writer is deploring an almost pathological
condition that affects not only the terrorists, but many
within Islam. He refers to the habit of regarding any
conciliatory move toward the other (i.e. the non-Muslim)
as out of the question. So all who would initiate such
an action must be considered “as [being]
apostates, or pro-Jewish, or pro-Christian.” He
goes on to explode any lame excuse that would attempt to
give a rational answer to terrorist acts:
“Thus far, all
the answers we have received boil down to the following:
‘we face angry young men who point the finger to
occupied Palestine where the Israelis commit atrocities
against the Palestinians. They are angry because America
occupies Iraq, and their anger has grown into a rage
after the revelations of the mistreatment of Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and the insults that have been
hurled at Arabs and Muslims in Guantanamo.’ The list of
grievances keeps on growing and stretches all the way
back to the days of Western colonialism, as well as to
the present situation in Afghanistan, the Philippines,
and Chechnya.”
Our writer goes on
to show that such excuses are unconvincing:
“These answers
remain unconvincing. For example, why don’t all angry
Muslims, (numbering more than a billion,) engage in
killing [others?] Why don’t others as well, who number
by the billions, and who have gone through similar
experiences (as Arabs and Muslims) throughout their own
history, engage in acts of terrorism?!”
Not only are such
lame answers unconvincing, but they are actually very
dangerous. So, he proceeds to expound his thesis and
demonstrates the absurdity of the line of reasoning
offered by those who have pointed to the ‘grievances’ as
grounds or motives for terrorism.
“Actually, such
answers that we have mentioned reveal that any attempt
to explain ‘the motives’ for these acts of terrorism end
up providing excuses for such crimes. This is so because
in order to deal rationally with these motives or root
causes that legitimize their fury, one would have to ask
such simple questions: ‘what was the relation of the
people who were in Sharm el-Sheikh, or London, or
Riyadh, or Cairo, with what was going on in Palestine or
Iraq? It is certain that none of the [Egyptian] workers
or [Arab and European] tourists at Hotel Ghazala [in
Sharm el-Sheikh} had ever worked at Abu Ghraib prison!
[So why did they become the target for terrorists?]
“Thus to approach
our problem by searching for the ‘motives’ of terrorism
may give comfort to those who want to glorify terrorism
by showing that terrorists are actually engaged in the
defense of the Umma. [We are told that] while their
means are rather disturbing and quite improper,
nevertheless their motives are noble. Others who are
sympathetic to terrorism want us to stop doing anything
about this phenomenon, or dealing with it by asking such
questions. They claim that terrorism is linked to the
policies of the United States and Israel, so we can do
nothing but fight them. And should we decide not to
fight the US and Israel, we would then deserve the
terrorists’ curse.
“Anyhow, the
theory of ‘motives’ or ‘root causes’ does not solve our
problem with terrorism, or our duty to protect people
from getting killed; a responsibility that is based on
all revealed and unrevealed laws. Our question retains
its urgency regarding the psychological, emotional, and
rational condition of a specific person who undergoes
such a radical change of mind. His transformation makes
a normal person an abnormal one, ready to kill himself
with tens or even hundreds of other human beings. One of
the first changes that takes place in the mind of a
would-be terrorist is an absolute belief that nowadays,
Muslims the world over, are in a state of siege. They
are besieged by Westerners, and Indians, and Buddhists,
and Christians, and Jews, and Russians, and Serbs.
Furthermore, he claims that the [rest] of the world is
unconcerned about the tragedies that have befallen the
household of Islam; and if there are signs for concern
for the needs of Muslims, they have come too late. Thus
his feeling of utter loneliness and of being the target
of some oppressive global forces, form the terrorist’s
state of mind. It makes him feel as an outsider
vis-à-vis a humanity that has neither recognized nor
accepted him.”
The author points at
this stage in his article, to a lack of an accurate and
objective view of modern history, especially the history
of European colonialism since the beginning of the 16th
century.
“This state of
'alienation’ is followed by a powerful conviction that
the Muslim world has become the ‘victim’ of imperialism.
[The terrorist] imagines that colonialism had simply
targeted the Household of Islam and has not touched
other lands. It is as if partitions [of lands or
countries] occurred only in Muslim parts of the world,
and nowhere else. Most likely, the terrorist knows
nothing about the atomic bombs that were dropped on
Japan, or the spread of opium in China, or the partition
of India, or of the Soviet Union, and all of Europe. He
certainly has no knowledge about the leveling of the
German city of Dresden in WWII, or the killing of
300,000 people in Nanking [during the Japanese
occupation of China.]
“Such a lonely
and alienated individual is ready to take the next step,
that of killing. So he engages in his murderous
activities based on the hope of a coming salvation. This
[strong feeling] is coupled with a firm belief in his
own spiritual, moral, and intellectual superiority over
a corrupt, oppressive, and dissolute world. [However]
this outlook reveals a wrong reading of Islamic history
as well as [of a sound] religious knowledge.
Furthermore, his warped view of reality transforms our
man [who is suffering] from a state of utter humiliation
into a ‘superman.’ He dreams of the possibility of
changing the whole world, by upsetting its sinful
values. And this will be achieved when a small group
succeeds in terrorising the enemy and scaring [those
within the Muslim community] that have gone astray. This
lonely person [believes] he is carrying the right
message to mankind by his supreme sacrifice that ends in
mass killings. By resorting to terrorism, he does not
only change history by putting it on the right course,
but points out the way for the mujahideen to reach
Paradise. Thus a suicide bomber leaves behind him an
alien world, and [goes to a place of bliss] that no eye
has ever seen, nor ear has ever heard of, nor entered
into the mind of man. If this is the right answer [to
the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism,] what is then the
solution?”
I have seldom seen
such a candid analysis for the inner mind of a would-be
terrorist. And to have that appear in print as well as
in the web edition of a newspaper that is read by a good
many people throughout the Arab world is a hopeful
occurrence. The author’s words as quoted above need no
further comments, except one, and a very important point
I would like to make. I trust that I have not
misunderstood him when he wrote, rather early in his
article:
“These answers
remain unconvincing. For example, why don’t all angry
Muslims, (numbering more than a billion,) engage in
killing [others?] Why don’t others as well, who number
by the billions, and who have gone through similar
experiences (as Arabs and Muslims) throughout their own
history, don’t engage in acts of terrorism?!”
I read, and re-read
his words in the original Arabic, and could not avoid
the strong feeling that our author implies that all
Muslims today are angry, one billion of them! Not only
they are angry, but billions of others are equally
angry! He did not specify who the objects of the anger
of billions were, but one cannot escape the feeling that
he was pointing to the West. Specifically, he had in
mind European colonialism that began in earnest soon
after the discovery of the New World, and reached its
zenith during the 19th and early 20th
centuries. Indeed, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and
Spain did colonize most of the Muslim world. Other
civilizations rooted in their own religious traditions,
entered the European imperialist orbit. All that is now
a thing of the past. European colonialism, with the
exception of the French presence in Algeria, did not
attempt to overwhelm the colonial lands with mass
movements of Western settlers. The French experiment in
Algeria ended after a bitter war with the nationals, and
all of the Europeans settlers had to resettle in France.
In contrast with
European colonialism, Arab-Islamic conquests had in most
cases, a certain finality about them and makes them
unique in the history of mankind. The very fact that
historians, on the whole, seldom mention this topic is
noteworthy. In Arab historiography, their conquests in
the Middle East, in East Asia, in North Africa, and in
Europe, are called “futuhat,” literally,
openings! Indeed a strange word to use, when it entailed
a massive movement of Arab tribes, and their settlement
in the conquered lands, turning the native populations
instantly into “strangers” in their own homelands! In
some parts of the conquered lands, such as in Persia,
almost the entire population, while retaining their
language, adopted the faith of their conquerors. In
other areas such as Egypt, Syria, and North Africa, over
the years, the majority of the native population
gradually adopted Islam, leaving some native Jewish and
Christian communities still attached to their faith, but
no longer able to use their Hebrew and Aramaic. They all
became Arabized.
I would love to find
just one Arab writer who would acknowledge the fact that
Arabs and Muslims did engage in imperialistic ventures.
But I am still waiting for that confession.
Earlier in my
article, I mentioned Bernard Lewis’ book, “What Went
Wrong?” I could now answer the question he posed by
saying that Muslims are not yet reconciled to the fall
of their last empire in 1918. Six years later, a
Muslim-born Turkish leader, Mustapha Kemal Ataturk
abolished the Caliphate, and caused the Muslim world to
lose its “center of gravity.” Just as the British, the
French, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, have
adjusted to the end of their empires, so Muslims must
realize that in our globalized world where we have all
become interdependent, all efforts for the restoration
of an Islamic Caliphate are nothing but utopian dreams.
In the meantime, I
would like to mention two authors whose books shed a
great light on the impact of Arab-Islamic imperialism on
the conquered peoples. One is Bat Ye’or.
Her books offer some
valuable information about the plight of those nationals
whose lands were overrun by the Arab-Islamic armies
beginning with the 7th century. I mention two
of her works: “The Decline of Eastern Christianity
under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude”
published in 1996 by Associated University Presses,
Cranbury, N.J. 08512 And “Islam and
Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide”
published by the same presses in 2002.
The other author is
V. S. Naipaul who wrote “Beyond Belief: Islamic
Excursions Among the Converted People.”
(Published by Random House, New York, in 1998.) Naipaul
is a British author, born in Trinidad of Indian
immigrant ancestry, and has authored another book on
Islam entitled “Among the Believers.” The present
work is its sequel. Here is a very relevant quotation
from Naipaul’s Prologue to his latest book:
“Islam is in its
origin an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a
Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of
conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands.
A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in
Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of
history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether
he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The
convert has to turn away from everything that is his.
The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after
a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away
has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies
about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the
converted countries there is an element of neurosis and
nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the
boil.”
Muslim intellectuals
must face up to the fact that there was such a thing as
an Arab-Islamic imperialism, and that it was uniquely
different from other types of colonial regimes. Until
that happens, there can be no peaceful co-existence
between Islam and the rest of the world.
~~~~~
“Political Islam” and Its Justification of Terrorism
By Jacob Thomas
There is a great
deal of soul searching among Arab writers and
intellectuals as they face the grim results of Islamic
terrorism. The menace has become global as it threatens
the peace and stability of Muslim and non-Muslim
countries. As I glance regularly at the headlines of
Arabic newspapers available on the Internet, I notice
that the topic of terrorism receives a good deal of
attention.
In a 25 August issue
of Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a London based
Arabic newspaper, a regular columnist, Saleh al-Qallab
dealt with this subject by asking: “Is ‘Political
Islam’ involved in terrorism through its justification
of its crimes?” The very title of the article
intimates that not only Jihadists, but those who justify
their acts, or remain silent about them, are equally
involved in terrorism.
What prompted the
writer to ask this question was the attack on American
Navy ships that were docked in the Jordanian port of
Aqaba on Friday, 19 August 2005. He commented on the
background of this very disturbing event, but pointed to
the politics and policies of a political party in
Jordan, and its support of Islamist terrorists:
“It is quite
instructive to notice the attitude of the Islamic
Action Front [of Jordan] with respect to the
terrorist attack on Aqaba. This organization happens to
be the other face of Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen
[Muslim Brotherhood], and represents ‘Political
Islam,’ in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and the
entire globe, through the cells and groups that
gravitate in its orbit.
“The
Islamic
Action Front, a recognized political party in
Jordan, issued its communiqué even before the blood of
the Jordanian soldier that was killed in the attack had
dried. It claimed that the United States was responsible
for the attack, because of the presence of its navy at
the port of Aqaba.
“Furthermore, the
Islamic Action Front refrained from
condemning this crime and those who had planned and
executed it, blaming also the Jordanian Government ‘for
offering help and facilities to the Americans, and its
support of their invading forces [in Iraq]. The
responsibility for the attack in Aqaba rests equally
with the Zionist enemy that occupies the blessed land
[of Palestine] and the American warships.’”
These are very bold
words coming from a regular contributor to this online
Arabic paper.
He went on to show a
direct link between the terrorist acts and those behind
them who work hard at justifying them:
“The position of this political party [Islamic
Action Front] is in harmony with its previous
standing vis-à-vis terrorism beyond Jordan,
including violence, murder, and mayhem in Algeria
[committed since the early 1990s by the Islamic
Salvation Front], Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco,
Yemen, and in other lands impacted by terrorism.
“It is a well-known
fact that groups and organizations that are committed to
‘Political Islam’ throughout the world, do
offer a logistical-ideological support for the various
terrorist organizations. This has been going on ever
since they resorted to violence in Egypt during the
early 1980s, followed by such actions in Algeria, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia, and Morocco.
Organizations advocating ‘Political Islam’
have been justifying terrorism by placing the
responsibility for violence on the ‘Great Satan,’
or ‘The Arrogance [of the West].’ And they
have persisted in refraining, directly or indirectly,
from condemning any terrorist acts.”
Writing before the
shocking events in Dammam, in eastern Saudi Arabia,
early in September 2005, when a group of Jihadists
barricaded themselves in an apartment block, and were
eventually killed by Saudi police, he referred to the
seeds of Islamism with these very revealing words:
“In Saudi Arabia,
for example, those associated with ‘Political
Islam,’ whether bearded or clean-shaven; place
the responsibility for terrorism on the American
presence on Saudi soil, even after it has ended! Then
they proceed to blame the Saudi authorities for the
spread of terrorism because of its openness to currents
of liberalism, and to democracy in its Western version.”
Long before 9/11 and
the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in the
early 1990s, a terrible war has been going on in Algeria
waged by Front Islamique du Salut (Islamic
Salvation Front) against the government. Our columnist
reminded his readers, that North Africa has been
suffering from this plague for a long time:
“As for Algeria, the
justification for terrorism is based on the claim that
the Algerian authorities had deviated from the Right Path
[Islamic Orthodoxy,] and thus society
itself had fallen into a state of unbelief. Therefore,
the blood that was being shed in Algeria [by the
insurgents of FIS] would eventually lead to the rise of
a truly Islamic regime.”
From North Africa,
the columnist returned to the Middle East, and began
with Egypt, the birthplace of the ideology of Islamic
terrorism, and of the Muslim Brotherhood that practiced
it:
“In Egypt,
justification for Irhab [terrorism] was
already there: [it is enough to mention] the Camp
David Accord, or Peace with Israel. Thus, groups
sympathetic to ‘Political Islam’ found no
reason to condemn terrorist acts since they were
directed against those much-hated treaties [that
normalized relations between Egypt and Israel.] Thus,
terrorist acts were carried under an Islamic banner,
even though their victims were [quite often] innocent
people, or women, or children, as witnessed recently at
Sharm el-Sheikh, Luxor, and Cairo!”
Mr. Al-Qallab
proceeded to deal with the measures that must be taken
by all responsible governments, referring specifically
to those Arab states which tolerate the activities of
organizations that provide logistical and ideological
support for Islamist terrorists.
“Now that terrorism
has taken deep roots in the region [Middle East], it is
necessary to deprive it of this logistical-ideological
support, before we deprive it of financial and military
aid. It is necessary for all governments that have been
impacted by acts of terrorism to make a common front
vis-à-vis those organizations associated with ‘Political Islam.’ This must be achieved both
through dialogue with such organizations, and by passing
strict laws that explicitly prohibit any justification
of terrorism. To provide pretexts for acts of terrorism
is tantamount to approving them.”
Mr. Al-Qallab went
on to comment on the activities of the advocates of
‘Political Islam’ and ended his op-ed column
by stating:
“It is not
surprising at all that parties associated with ‘Political Islam’ engage in opportunistic and
pragmatic political activities under the banner of
Islam. However, had they been truly honest, they ought
to be defending the Islamic religion by unmasking those
terrorist organizations that have given Islam an ugly
face. In the final analysis, and regardless of the many
names that terrorist groups use, they have only one
goal, to kill for the sake of killing, and to commit
crime for the sake of crime.
“By embarking on the
justification of acts of terrorism, and by offering
terrorists a logistical-ideological support, groups and
parties advocating Political Islam place
themselves within the circle of Irhab; and
betray the great Islamic mission which they claim to be
their own!”
The openness of this
columnist is very salutary and must be commended.
However, he, as well as many other Muslim writers, sees
no connection between the sacred texts of Islam (Qur’an,
Hadith, and the Life of the Prophet) and the phenomenon
of Islamic terrorism during the last 1400 years. What a
pity!
|
