I. Introduction
An often-discussed topic in the contemporary socio-political discourse is the threat of what is described as Radical Islam to the stability of not only the Middle East region, but those areas populated by weak states throughout the developing world. Naturally, questions that are oriented towards what must be done to maintain the current precarious balance of power need to be entertained and are addressed, at-length. In the course of this essay, I will be addressing four such questions which I have repeatedly encountered in the contemporary discourse on Radical Islam. First, I will address the question of what conditions are necessary to ensure peace between Israel, Hamas, and the rest of the Muslim world. Secondly, the question of how Western nations can avoid instigating any future terrorist threats will be taken into account. Thirdly, I will address the question of why should we engage Muslim terrorist organizations which possess only regional aspirations. Lastly, an answer to the question of what damage has been wrought upon Al Qaeda by the death of Osama bin Laden will be formed.
In the case of these questions, however, it is not my intention to reach an ultimate conclusion which will satisfy the layman. Instead, it is my intention to explain how the very existence and persistence of these questions illustrates the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the pertinent themes in Islamic thought. In other words, many of the questions surrounding Radical Islam and its implications can be pre-empted through education. Therefore, the methodology that I will use in this essay will employ the outlining of a question, followed by the pertinent underlying theme that is need of illumination. To support my arguments, I will draw on recent scholarship and primary sources from the last four decades, as well as pull from the work of those scholars who have been influential during this time period. In doing this, it is my hope that the assumptions which paved the way for the four aforementioned questions will yield to a more comprehensive understanding of Islamic thought. Hopefully, if this comprehensive understanding is taken to heart, the discourse on Radical Islam can be reshaped into a more productive one.
II. What conditions are necessary to ensure peace between Israel, Hamas, and the rest of the Muslim world?
This question displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the position that Radical Islam holds on not only the validity of the Jewish state, but of the place that Jews hold in the world. A key identifier of Radical Islam in recent years has been strong anti-Semitism. In 2002, Egyptians had aired a 41-part television series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the work which was used as a guide for the Holocaust. (Kntzel, 151) As a recurring theme not far-removed from the rote of a broken record, Jews show up in contemporary Muslim terrorist propaganda as well, most often assuming the role of grand orchestrators of international affairs. This is illustrated by an excerpt from the Hamas Charter:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. (Hamas Charter, Article 28)
This strong anti-Semitism is often cited as being the result of changes within the political landscape, immediately preceding WWII and thereafter. The Middle East saw a significant uptake in Jewish immigration during the mid 1930s and this immigration was met with resistance by the Arab population. As an extension of this, the formation of the state of Israel is seen as the focal point of Arab-Israeli tension. Indeed, the usurpation of Arab lands is considered to have always been the plan of the Jews, driving the first wave of immigration and culminating in their coordination of the Peel commission through their agent, Britain. (Kntzel, 29)
Were we to stop here, the question of what conditions are necessary to secure peace between Israel, Hamas, and the rest of the Muslim world could be answered satisfactorily on the grounds of a mutually amicable partition of Israeli-occupied territory. However, the tension between the conflicting sides is more deep-seated than this. The very right of Israel to exist is one which is disregarded. (bin Laden, Why We are Fighting You, 198) And it does not stop there. Jews, themselves, are identified as the age-old enemy of Islam. Sayyid Qutb, an influential thinker in modern Islam, casts the conflict with the Jews as being fourteen centuries-old, the scope of which is global. (Kntzel, 83) Indeed, the basis for this enmity can be found as far back as Chapter 8 of the Quran. This brings us to another key issue that is related to this anti-Semitism. What is popularly described as Radical Islam is, in fact, a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the Muslim religion, grounded strongly in the precepts set forth in the Quran and Hadiths. There is nothing particularly radical about it.
Having posed the question of what conditions are necessary to secure peace between Israel, Hamas, and the Muslim world, we have illuminated the need for a more comprehensive understanding of a key theme which undercuts the question, itself. That theme is the one of a dominant ideology of anti-Semitism which not only hampers the peace process but outlines contradictory terms for which no middle-ground exists. When you desire to continue with your existence, while the opposition denies that you have any such right to exist, negotiations are not a viable option. The Hamas Charter openly recognizes this fact in one of its provisions: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. (Hamas Charter, Article 13)
III. How can Western nations avoid instigating future terrorist threats?
This question is a maddening one. It takes as its premise the notion that the victims of terror bear responsibility for the acts of violence that are visited upon them. When asked, this question most often suggests that the United States brought the attacks of September 11th on itself. This premise is a false one, but there is some reasoning, however unsound, behind it. The leaders of terrorist organizations have a firm grasp of Western rhetoric. Though useless for their recruiting ambitions and internal communication, this rhetoric is invaluable for winning in the international arena, an arena that has been opened to them through news media, coupled with an ever-shrinking world. A perfect example of this is al-Zawahiris appeals to Western notions of human rights and the United States failure to uphold such ideals. (al-Zawahiri, Ayman al-Zawahiri Interview Four Years After 9/11 in The Al Qaeda Reader, 183) This is despite his wholesale rejection of such ideals.
The truth of the matter is that there was no specific policy of the United States which instigated the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Osama bin Laden took as his inspiration the jihadist lectures of Muhammad Qutb and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (Kntzel, 158) A more clear account of the reasoning behind the September 11th attacks orchestrated by Al Qaeda can be found in the letter, Why We Are Fighting You. Osama bin Laden provides a laundry list of grievances which have provided the impetus for Al Qaedas war against the United States. Part of the list is a display of his mastery of Western rhetoric, while part is an inadvertent display of what is the root cause of this enmity. The United States, as a major world power, exists in contradiction to Sharia law. It supports governments which undermine Sharia law, as well as embraces moral corruptness as a permissible way of life. (bin Laden, Why We Are Fighting You, 198) As Cook put it, in Understanding Jihad, Islam mandates that Muslims be in a dominant position throughout the world so as to manifest Gods truth. (Cook, 93) By virtue of its power-position, the United States must be either brought under Sharia law or destroyed.
As mentioned earlier, Azzam strongly influenced the jihadist ideology of Osama bin Laden. It should come as no surprise, then, that bin Ladens sentiments echo Azzams own, regarding the need to endeavor towards a dominant power position on the world stage. In Join the Caravan, Azzam states that if the fighting stops, the Disbelievers dominate. (Azzam, Join the Caravan, 6) This demonstrates Azzams dedication to jihad as the means by which Gods truth will manifest, as well as his faith that the current power configuration of the world is only temporarily out of synchronization with the proper order.
The religious impetus for the waging of jihad could stand on its own as a theme, for the purpose of this essay. However, it ties in with an even broader theme which I will address here. This theme is that of an inherent incompatibility with the West. This inherent incompatibility, like the waging of jihad, is also the result of religious impetus. When writing on the issues of loyalty and enmity, al-Zawahiri offers a window through which to view the fundamental assumptions upon which Muslim thought is organized.
In Islam, human beings are not to be seen as having equal value; there is no intrinsic worth that humans possess. Beyond this, they are not even to be assessed upon the basis of their conduct in relation to you; the matter of belief in Islam is not simply of paramount concern, it is of sole concern in ones dealings with other human beings. He needs to know that he is obligated to befriend a believer-even if he is oppressive and violent towards you, while he must be hostile to the infidel-even if he is liberal and kind to you. (al-Zawahiri, Loyalty and Enmity in The Al Qaeda Reader, 84) The rejection of the notion of equal worth and intrinsic value is the principle issue of contention between Islam and the West, for which there is no point of reconciliation or accommodation. This inherent incompatibility which stems from the basic assumptions imprinted by religion is evidenced by al-Zawahiri in Bitter Harvest. In it, Al-Zawahiri states, outright, that Democracy is not compatible with Islam. (al-Zawahiri, Bitter Harvest, 171)
In addressing the question of how can Western nations avoid instigating future terrorist threats, the necessary premise that the question holds to be true has been debunked. Of greater importance, however, is the bringing to light the rhetorical mechanism at work which could give rise to such an assumption. Furthermore, this process has led to an unearthing of the true impetus for Muslim terrorist attacks, which is rooted in an inherent incompatibility between perceived destinies as well as in fundamental assumptions of human worth.
IV. Why should the United States engage Muslim terrorist organizations which possess only regional aspirations?
This question takes as its premise the notion that the aspirations of Muslim terrorist organizations are only ever regional, mirroring the patterns of expansion which signified the first generation of Muslims. In addition to this, the question fails to take into account the obligation that the United States has in ensuring the interests of its allies as well as in ensuring its own interests, abroad. In an effort to keep from straying into the political science realm, the issue of foreign policy obligation will be foregone. Instead, a historiographical approach should be sufficient to deal with the flawed reasoning upon which this question is founded.
In Milestones, Sayyid Qutb outlines what is taken to be the standard understanding of defense of the homeland of Islam. Essentially, he turns the definition of defense on its head, incorporating the need for preemption so as to secure the core ideology of Islam. (Qutb, Milestones, 82) He then goes on to outline the great mission of Islam:
It is in the very nature of Islam to take initiative in freeing the human beings throughout the earth from servitude to anyone other than Allah; and so it cannot be restricted within any racial or geographical limits, leaving all mankind on the whole earth in evil, in chaos and in servitude to lords other than Allah. (Qutb, Milestones, 84)
This freeing mission of Islam is exercised through the practice of jihad. This is evidenced when Qutb further explains that Islam has the right to remove and destroy impediments, whether systems or circumstances because it is the way of life of God. (Cook, 105) In Knights Under the Prophets Banner, al-Zawahiri offers the clearest depiction of the prevailing jihadist ideology when he makes the statement that We must move the battle to the enemys territory, to burn the hands of those who have set fire to our countries. (al-Zawahiri, Knights Under the Prophets Banner, 202)
Part of this reason for a departure from regional ambition can be gleaned from an assessment of evolutions within the world system. With the advent of transport and communications technology, the world has become a smaller place. The scale and scope of terrorist networks like present-day Al Qaeda provides clear evidence of this. However, there are earlier examples which portend this development as well. In the 1988 letter To the Young Muslims of the United States, Azzam expressed joy at the fervent zeal of American recruits and supporters of jihad in Afghanistan. This denotes an expansive recruiting effort, as well as command and control, which would only grow more sophisticated with time. (Azzam, To the Young Muslims of the United States, 137)
Through an analysis of the question of why should the U.S. engage Muslim terrorist organizations which possess only regional ambitions, it becomes clear that any such regional ambitions are only temporary and limited not by a shortage of resolve, but of logistics. Furthermore, the development of global networks is a process which is under constant innovation. With such innovation, it is only a matter of time before logistical limitations are alleviated. What this has gone on to do is illuminate the theme of global jihadist ambitions as the standard jihadist ideology.
V. What damage has been wrought upon Al Qaeda by the death of Osama bin Laden?
This question departs from the pattern established by the previous three, in that it does not take too great a leap towards any particular conclusion. This is evidenced by the false premises which riddled the previous questions, but that we find lacking here. There is good reason for this, of course. The above question yields itself to analytical license. This will be important in bringing to light the last of my selected themes, for which this essay was designed.
The only real assumption that this question implies is that damage has been done, no matter the scale. Now, this assumption does not lend itself to immediate challenge or acceptance and, therefore, requires a more in-depth analysis of a comparable historic event. The first event which comes to mind is that of the execution of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb is considered to be a martyr, having been put to death for speaking the truth. (Cook, 103) Consequently, bin Laden is similarly blessed with martyrdom. (Hasan al-Banah, 240) The parallel which is important to note is that both Qutb and bin Laden were martyred by despotic states in retribution for their fulfilling a religious obligation. The fact that they were conducting themselves under a religious imperative should come as no surprise, of course, as that is a necessary condition for martyrdom. It is the idea that these enemies of Islam were pursuing their own idea of justice at the time, antithetical to Gods law, which is important to note. In effect, this serves as an opportunity for the recurrence of the trope that the enemies of Al Qaeda are enemies of Allah. So, in light of historic events, the impact of bin Ladens death on Al Qaeda is not likely to be significant. Qutbs words live on long after he has perished and his deeds continue to inspire others. As a result of the comparable circumstances of martyrdom, one can make the case that a similar future is in store for bin Laden.
This analysis cannot stop here, however. There is a theme which needs to be touched upon, having only been alluded to thus far. The prolific employment of the concept of martyrdom in Islam turns out not only to be a valuable tool, but also speaks of an underlying mechanism that is important to understand if one hopes to fully grasp the jihadist ideology of Muslim terrorist groups. The concept is that of redefining victory. Martyrdom is the clearest example of this. The notion that the enemy has only managed to send a jihadist to paradise is an inventive way of dressing-up a loss in manpower. There are other examples, as well, which illustrate this flexibility in defining victory so as to never come up on the short end of the stick. In its characterization of the Afghan-Soviet conflict, Al Qaeda appears to have single-handedly driven out the Soviets from Afghanistan. (bin Laden, The Afghan-Soviet Paradigm in The Al Qaeda Reader, 260-265) Additionally, during the unilateral ceasefire that was declared in the midst of the battle for Fallujah, the insurgents were quick to declare a victory over the Americans. This had the effect of further fueling the benefit that they enjoyed from their successful propaganda campaign; their ranks swelled with new jihadists eager to partake in the victory. (West, 144)
Through what could have turned out to be a brief analysis of future possibilities, our final theme was revealed. The jihadist ideology which prevails in Islam, today, is supported by flexibility in the conceptualization of victory. The implications that this brings to bear on the conduct of jihad are increased morale and ease of recruitment.
VI. Conclusion
In the course of this essay, major themes were pointed out which can enrich the understanding of readers unfamiliar with the topic of jihad. In summary, these are: Pervasive Ant-Semitism, Employment of Western Rhetoric for Western Audiences, Religious Impetus for Jihad, Inherent Incompatibility, Loyalty and Enmity, Global Jihadist Ambition, and the Redefinition of Victory. These themes can serve as the basic tools for discussion, thereby better equipping readers to participate in the discourse.
Upon first reviewing the materials, it is understandable if a reader comes away with a dismal view of the present situation, as it develops. In addressing the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism, the religious impetus for jihad and the inherent incompatibility which follows, as well as the global ambitions of contemporary jihadists, a number of irreconcilable differences existing between Islamists and the non-Muslim world have been identified. Nevertheless, it is this world in which we must operate and it is from this time period that we must progress towards the future.
VII. Afterword
At the outset of this assignment, I initially struggled to develop questions which would enable me to address the most important issues concerning jihad and reform in Islamic history since 1970. Only after considering that the questions we formulate oftentimes identify the limits of our current knowledge, did I seek to compose intentionally inadequate questions. The purpose of this was to better facilitate the unmasking of preselected themes, all the while framing an essay with topical relevance to the ongoing discourse. This methodology proved useful in that it provided me the opportunity to galvanize arguments which I had assumed were adequately well-developed prior to this essays composition.