Sources of Islamic TerrorismSources of Islamic TerrorismSince I have only a textbook knowledge of Islam, I have to rely on other scholars and researchers for any insight into whatever connection there may be between Islam and Islamic terrorism.
While terrorism – even in the form of suicide attacks – is not an Islamicphenomenon by definition, it cannot be ignored that the lion’s share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. This fact has sparked a fundamental debate both in the West
and within the Muslim world regarding the link between these acts and the teachings of Islam. Most Western analysts are hesitant to identifysuch acts with the bona fide teachings of one of the world’s great religions and prefer to view them as a perversion of a religion that is essentiallypeace-loving and tolerant.Modern Islamic terrorism is a natural offshoot of twentieth-century Islamic fundamentalism. The “Islamic Movement” emerged in the Arab world and British-ruled India as a response to the dismal state of Muslim society in those countries: social injustice, rejection of traditional mores, acceptance of foreign domination and culture. It perceives the modern Muslim societies as having strayed from the “straight path” and the solution to all ills in a return to the original mores of Islam. The problems addressed may be social or political: inequality, corruption, and oppression. But in traditional Islam – and certainly in the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist – there is no separation between the political and the religious. Islam is, in essence, both religion and regime and no area of human activity is outside its remit. Be the nature of the problem as it may, “Islam is the solution.”
The underlying element in the radical Islamist worldview is anti-historic and dichotomist: Perfection lies in the ways of the Prophet and the events of his time; therefore, religious innovations, philosophical relativism, and intellectual or political pluralism are anathema. In such a worldview, there can be only two camps: “The House of Islam” – i.e., the Muslim countries and “The House of War” – i.e., countries ruled by any regime but Islam- which are pitted against each other until the final victory of Islam. These concepts are carried to their extreme conclusion by the radicals; however, they have deep roots in mainstream Islam.
While the trigger for “Islamic awakening” was frequently the meeting with the West, Islamic motivated rebellions against colonial powers rarely involved individuals from other Muslim countries or broke out of the confines of the territories over which they were fighting. Until the 1980s, most fundamentalist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood were inward-looking; Western superiority was viewed as the result of Muslims having forsaken the teachings of the Prophet. Therefore, the remedy was, first, “re-Islamization” of Muslim society and restoration of an Islamic government, based on Islamic law. In this context, jihad was aimed mainly against “apostate” Muslim governments and societies, while the historic offensive jihad of the Muslim world against the infidels was put in abeyance (at least until the restoration of the caliphate).
Until the 1980s, attempts to mobilize Muslims all over the world for a jihad in one area of the world (Palestine, Kashmir) were unsuccessful. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a watershed event, as it revived the concept of participation in jihad to evict an “infidel” occupier from a Muslim country as a “personal duty” for every capable Muslim. The basis of this duty derives from the “irreversibility” of Islamic identity both for individual Muslims (thus, capital punishment for “apostates” – e.g., Salman Rushdie) and for Muslim territories. Therefore, any land (Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Spain, etc.) that had once been under the sway of Islamic law may not revert to control by any other law. In such a case, it becomes the “personal duty” of all Muslims in the land to fight a jihad to liberate it. If they do not succeed, it becomes incumbent on any Muslim
to use their collective will to restore that “in order to liberate the land. This requires the mobilization of Muslims for military efforts, by their choice, in other Muslim lands; that is, to defend their collective will, including the sovereignty of the land (including that of all the non“Muslim areas under their control), for the protection of the land and for the security of their self-interest. Thus for each Muslim State, a political decision must be taken by all the states with power over a territory or for what is called the State of Palestine, which includes its citizens (e.g., Arab nations, the United States, etc.). While many states are responsible for the liberation of territory, we think we can apply the logic of Islam to a large number. Most of the states can be considered to be a group of sovereign States or States of Power, or, conversely, groups of different states whose legal systems represent the two, in which case the issue should focus on these two groups. In practice, a State and a People must be identified by a number. The legal system that has been established over time is the legal code of a Muslim State. An individual’s (usually personal) rights of life and property are recognized only by the state. A State retains exclusive jurisdiction over areas with or without a Constitution, through legislation, judicial authority, and by other means. Such a right is valid only in a country where the Constitution and the law of the land are equally respected. An Individual or Government is a state under law, and the Constitution provides for its enforcement, in an appropriate way, through a state constitution. This means that a state or a People can have jurisdiction over its territory even when the law of the land does not apply at all. If an individual or a Government has an obligation to protect other people’s rights, it may not violate any law other than that of the state or of the people’s sovereignty that is to be followed through their legal system. But it cannot do so except in the most limited way. Furthermore, if an individual or a Government loses its rights under a legal system, those rights cannot still be exercised independently of the state. The concept of a State and a People has also been used to distinguish between State of Palestine and a People. A State of Palestine has a large number of legal institutions (e.g., legal institutions of law concerning the political organization of the State, for instance). A People is an individual or political entity which can and should be distinguished from a State or a People by a number. State and People are of equal status. State and People are different entities, and State and People are governed by the laws of different countries. In such a case both States and People govern by the same principle, which explains the relationship between Muslim and State. Thus a Muslim State possesses power over Muslims but also has an independent power over any Muslims it may represent. An Islamist State can neither allow nor guarantee the equality of religion, but must have its power over any Muslim who has a right to practice it (Islamism has its religious code, the Quran and Islamic Law). Muslim citizens of a State can defend individuals. There may reside persons with rights, but no State or State of the World can have the right to enforce individuals’ rights under the laws of any other state of the World. State and Nation are