By Anant Mishra
Since 9/11, the global press has exclusively covered all major conflicts, from Syria to Libya, to African Union joint task force against Boko Haram in Africa. Witnessing some of these intense conflicts, we come across many terminologies, frequently used by strategic and security experts, one of most frequently used is “Islamic Fundamentalism”. Islamic Fundamentalism, radical by nature, is violent by decree and poses grave threat to the “peace and security” in the global world today. An ideology which criticises democracy, rule of law, peace and prosperity, first came into limelight during the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Many religious and political thinkers credit Islamic Fundamentalism as “more dangerous and violent” than communism, with the ability to collapse the global order in the 21st century.
Islamic fundamental radicalistic factions have conducted acts of violence against the “government institutions” using terrorising means such as bombing, kidnapping, assassinations and mass ethnic killings. They not only target government institutions or military installations, but also kidnap foreign tourists, diplomats, members of foreign delegations, journalists, any individual with a “media value” which they can utilise to spread their message.
Today, Islamic Fundamentalism has emerged as a global threat. The traditional “ideological” war between the West and Communism has been replaced with a new “religious” warfare between the West and radical Islamic fundamentalists.
In the middle of this “extreme violence” another term security experts prominently use is “jihad”, commonly used by militant factions as a “defence”, justifying their actions while giving a touch of “freedom”. Jihad is usually employed by militant rebel factions to throw off a government established with “foreign” help, a symbol of “self-determination” as stated in the international law. It is important for policy makers and strategic leadership to understand that the “use of words” can be deceiving and the meaning vary for one country to another. So, according to the militant factions, terrorism is a way to attain “true freedom” and can be successful only when the “infidels” or the “non-believers” are eliminated as it is the “will of Allah”. In Arab nations, acts of terrorism are none other than a “violent” form of holy war, or Jihad and terrorists are seen as “liberators” against infidels. Moreover, in other scenarios, terrorism is seen as a “political vendetta”, since it claims the lives of innocent masses just to prove or make a point. In the light of some violent events, many nations did try to justify these acts, in the eyes of international law, it is a criminal offence alone.
With nations “vulnerable” to terror “plague”, it is important to know what the future holds, particularly in the event of massive attraction of “youths” towards Islamic Fundamentalism, and Jihad, coming to new shores and enrolling in “terror factions”. Violent factions spreading in South East Asia today paves a new way for Washington to “reassess” its strategy especially after years of “concentration” in the Middle East. With terror factions strengthening its bases in Asia and Washington’s “focus” in Middle East, the road towards the end of terrorism will be long and the journey for peace will be “violent”.
Understanding the terms
Two of the frequent terms strategic experts use are “Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad”, frequently linked with each other. In an after action report of “one of the gruesome attack on the US”, often considered as the most “violent” militant attack on mankind, the then Bush Administration highlighted the names of some “active terror organizations”, particularly, Al Qaeda, under the then leadership of Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas, along with Hezbollah, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, followed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the then President of Iraq, Saddam Hussain. In an effort to support his campaign “War on Terror”, President Bush Jr. began his “counter-terrorism” operations under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom.
(Not clear??)It is moreover, important for policy makers to understand the reasons behind their inclination towards jihad and their recruitment for militancy irrespective of their religion. In order to do so, policy makers must keep the socio-economic, psychological conditions and theological and historical past into knowledge.
Islamic Fundamentalism: The Origin
The term “fundamentalism”, now used in relation with Islam, appeared first in Christianity. Religion experts link the term fundamentalism to “Anglo-Saxon” era. Protestant Christian fundamentalists held that Bible must be “globally” accepted and interpreted literally. The “grass root” definition of fundamentalism means a Protestant Christian who emphases the “word by word” interpretation of the Bible and implements it in his daily life. If we re-define the term in the context of Islam, fundamentalism would be “strictly observing Islamic fundamentals, literally following the verses of Qur’an.
For those who follow the “literal” definition of fundamentalism, would be known as fundamentalists. When masses discuss Islamic fundamentalism, people often link it to “religious struggle” often equating it to the crusades, linking it to “extremism” and “religious aggression”. Often considered by the masses as radical, extremist, terrorising in nature, masses particularly of the West find it “incompatible” with the “western” concept of democracy. Islamic scholars define religious fundamentalism as a “politico-religious movement” that aims to bring back the “golden era of the Prophet Muhammad and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs”, a time of “pure Islam”. Thus, Islamic fundamentalists frequently propagate/brainwash their message to communities that relish western culture.
Moreover, Islamic Fundamentalists view, America, their allies, particularly Israel, their enemies. According to them, western “socio-political” hegemony, history of colonialism, and western concept of “democracy” are primarily responsible for the decline of Muslim communities.
The Doctrine
The “era” of Islamic Fundamentalism goes back as early as 1920s. Still in its youth, Islamic Fundamentalism was “socially” complicated. It was linked with “western imperialism” and the Western colonization of densely Muslim regions.
The “Western imperial” past continued to haunt Muslim communities, especially the Arabs, the sole imagination of Western domination agitated the “radicals”. Forced to thrive in poverty and backwardness, or western concept of “underdevelopment”, aggression towards the oppressors were growing.
The vacuum that was created in the absence of “leaderless” Muslim communities, gave birth to a “violent” sect, which not only effectively addressed the “backwardness” within Muslims but also triggered a chain reaction which continues to attract and radicalise Muslim youths today. Salafism or Salafiyya, or “return to the ancestors,” was the brain child of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. Similar to all radical fundamentalists movement, it was against the rule of law, and believed in “super national” powers especially the ones blessed with charisma given by Allah), and existence of one god, the messenger Allah.
Hasan al-Banna was the founder of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Mawlana Abu al-Ala Mawdudi established the Islamic Society in India in the year of 1941. They shared extraordinary political understanding even though they were living in two different countries. According to them, Muslims are weak because of their subservience of weak Muslim societies and their ignorance to travel the God’s decided path. Only those Muslims are ignorant who believe in secularism, profess distorted ideology and value more to the West, or other ideologies of East and Marxism. In an effort to bring back the Muslim honour, pride, power, or resurrect past victorious Islamic kingdoms Muslims must return to Islam, and re-implement the laws established by God and rule the state, society or its subjects under the God’s defined laws. Harnessing of Science and Technology should be strictly “Islamic”, in an effort to prevent Western influence.
Sayyid Qutb was one of the prominent figures in Muslim Brotherhood leadership of Egypt and religious experts credit Qutb for founding militant Islam. It is important to note that, there is relatively no difference in political and social ideologies between Qutb and al-Banna, but they vary differently in methods of carrying struggle. Qutb not only denied the existent socio-economic, political order, hegemony of the West, but actively professed “violent” form of struggle to his subjects. He professed the duty of every Muslim to participate in the “holy war”. Declaring an “all-out” war against the “non-believers” was a sacred duty of Muslims. It is also important to understand that, during this time, Muslim communities were facing numerous “hiccups” in socio-political scenarios in the East.
Many Muslim countries in the East, failed to restore their economy and culture after successfully establishing a “sovereign” state. Moreover, the state and the society were in violent confrontation, hanging in the balance between the Western world and industrial take over. Often fuelled by political corruption, social inequalities, the gap between the rich and the poor grew phenomenally wideshattering the dreams of an Islamic resurrection. However, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran resurfaced hope in masses. Even years after its victory, it failed to provide significant stability in Iranian “socio-politics”, as hoped by many. Under the umbrella of “secular and liberal” politics, the West poses a grave threat to “sovereign” nations in the East.
Pressured by a changing “cold-war” order, Muslim countries were forced to choose between East, West or Communism. For radical Islamists, Muslim rulers were “sold” to the Western oppressors or “liberals” in the East and became “victims” of oppressors between the East and the West.
Importantly, the unconditional support of the West to Israel is one of the significant reasons behind the “fall and decline” Arab nations, despite their “inclination” towards the West for support. Hence, the Muslim leaders of today can neither protect nor defend the Muslim interests nor can they reclaim the lost glory of Muslim kingdoms in the region. For radical Islamic fundamentalists, they are left with only one option, overthrow the existing system.
Reasons behind Islamic Fundamentalism
Socio-Economic
The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is credited mainly to widening gap between the rich and the poor. As stated in the Human Development Report of 2001, the income levels of the East phenomenally declined after 1980. The world revenue share of the East was recorded to 2.4% share in the early 1960s, which reached to 1.8% in the beginning of 1980 while falling to an all-time low of 1.3% in the 1990. On the contrary, the richest countries reached over 71.62% in the early 1960s, over 78.3% in 1980s and 83.7% in 1990.
On the domestic front, the rift between the rich and the poor were deep. The rich which were 20% of the population shared over 70%-80% of national income, whereas the poor nations were left with 5%.Moreover, the economic deterioration in the East phenomenally increased in the early 1980s.
The radical Islamic Fundamentalists harnessed this situation to their objective, who radically propagated the messages of Islam and attracted thousands of “unemployed” youths in the name of Allah. Islam became the epicentre of “hope and justice” for people who lost hope in the political system, and for those who lost hope in their lives.
Political Scenario
The East witnessed a rise in Anti-imperialist, anti-opportunist uprising after the end the of World War I, where the uprising was more nationalist in nature than religious. The combined arms of Arab defeat in the hands of Israel during the 1967-Six-day war paved a path for radical Islamic Fundamentalism in the East. The defeat was carried by radical Islamists as a “weakness of liberal Islamic nations” in the East and “western” inclined leadership. The masses failed to interpret the secular agenda of top political leadership rising masses towards their top political leaders. The fall of “once Arab prestige” Gamal Abd el-Nasser especially in for those who viewed him as the “leader of Arab nationalism”who took harsh measures against Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was carefully harnessed by Islamic Fundamentalist.
After the decisive Arab defeat in the 1967 Six-day war, another “boost” for Islamic Fundamentals was the Iranian revolution of 1979which rose Islamic fundamental groups in power. The Islamic revolution in Iran gave the necessary significant boost to radical Islamic Fundamentalist in the region. In the events that unfurled during the Islamic Revolution, Iran became a “contentious challenger” for Washington, particularly after it stormed American Embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats as hostage between November 4, 1979 until January 21, 1981, paving a way for many regional and local fundamentalist groups to rise against the West and rally behind Tehran.
In the wake of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, Khomeini praised the “rise of Allah’s forces against Communist oppressors”. Furling the “Islam” flag, the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan received massive support from Washington and Muslim nations. Many radical Islamic group members, who had joined the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, returned to their “hinterlands” trained as “guerrilla leaders.” This also became a supportive reason behind the rise of Islamic Fundamentalist terror, particularly in and around the Middle East.
The final step behind the “fundamentalist terror” spread in the Middle East resulted during the Gulf War of 1990-91. The decisive defeat of Iraq during the war, shattered the Arabs. This decisive defeat of Arabs was incomparable to the defeat of Palestine in 1948 or in the hands of Israel in the 1967 Six-day war. This gave the “long needed opportunity” for Islamic Fundamentalist to declare all-out war against the “western oppressors” to protect the Pan-Arabism and Islamic integrity. In relation with the pan-Arabism movement and anti-West struggle, Muslims are “wearing the garment” with a radical colour. It will not be incorrect to consider “pan-Arabism movement in the East as a nationalist struggle but with a radical face of Islam.” Hence, many radical Islamic fundamentalist view the result of the Gulf war as “Western ways to dominate the East” solely leaving the duty to “eliminate western hegemony in the Middle East to god’s chosen warriors”. Thus, groups propagating radical Islamic fundamentalism have become more “romantic” in nature, attracting thousands of youths.
The agenda of “Anti-West and Anti-American” has received massive support from radical groups from across the Middle East. Muslims feel that their sacrifice during the “cold war era” went all in vein, as in the struggle of two global powers, America emerged as victorious. According to many experts US turned out to be meritorious. However, the real victors were the Islamic Fundamentalists. The decisive victory against the Soviets have trembled the “hegemony of the West” particularly for the masses in Middle East. Since, the Taliban pose a massive challenge against the Sovietsthey could too challenge the super power, America, too. Today, radical Islamic Fundamentalist not only poses a grave challenge to the world, but to US, in particular.
The Threat
The decisive defeat of the Middle East in the Gulf War struck the heart of every Muslim soul in the region. Although, Islamic Fundamentalist did pose severe challenges to its rise, it does manage to win early victories. Since, most of the Arab states actively supported the West, Islamic Fundamentalists meagrely considered them “puppets of the west”. For them, compromise was out of option. Furthermore, with the signing of Arab-Israeli peace accord, the propaganda theories of Islamic Fundamentalists were worst hit.
The elimination of “Jews from this Earth” was widely publicised in teachings of and propagation theories of Islamic Fundamentalists.
With Arab-Israeli peace accord, many factions within radical Islamic groups too “lightened” their “Anti-Israel” propaganda, especially in the concept of authority and challenges posed by western concept of democracy. The visible change was the “rise of moderate Islamic Fundamentalism”. The second change was introduction of a new faction which supported “legal fundamentalism”. The last was the radical fundamentalism.
It is important to note that, radical Islamic elements waged “aggressive tactics” against political regimes, using kidnapping, assassination, and explosions to send a message. They not only targeted government buildings or bureaucratic machinery, but also assassinated foreign tourists, dignitaries and journalists. Additionally, they targeted schools, hospitals and social institutions in an effort to terrorise the masses.
Furthermore, video-casting their messages, they used social media to their advantage and warned the West of harsh actions. In an effort to fight on external boundaries, they warned the West not to support liberal Muslims, provide any foreign aid or send peacekeepers and aid workers. For masses in the Middle East, Islamic Fundamentalism pose a greater threat since it rejects the concept of “freedom” and condemns “western culture, language, music” on a whole. The destruction caused by radical Islamic fundamental elements continues to pose a grave challenge to the Middle East.
The traditional “Islamic expansion” and theories of the great “Crusades” continues to haunt the west, particularly the image of death and plunder; the clash between the West and the East goes ages. Historically, the resurrection of Islam as a religion and its rise pose a grave threat to the West, religiously, socially and politically; the rapid military expansion in the West threatened Christendom. The historical clashes between ethno-centrism and culture indifference forced masses to raise arms against another religion. Although, a well flourished establishment would hardly affect a declining one. Thus, the threat of Islamic radical extremists is thoroughly limited. Generally, the radical Islamic fundamentalists are scattered over limited regions. They do not have “uniform” propositions nor is it likely for them to unite. They, themselves are in the state of conflict.
It would not be wrong to say that, the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists is a meagre exaggeration. While rulers in the East are in constant demand of funds to counter the Islamic threat, but use the state machinery to oppress the masses simultaneously. On contrary, many policy makers in the West particularly the State Department, are in constant need to identify fresh targets, in an effort to replace the soviets with a new enemy and communism with a new “different ideology” in an effort to benefit their policies.
Introducing the Jihad
Jihad in the verse of Qur’an
While establishing a link between Islam and global war on infidels, the first term that enquires is of “jihad”, also called the “holy war”.
Traditionally, the concept of jihad links to the “tribal war” or “internal conflict among the tribes”, a concept as old as Qur’an. In the light of this reference, for Jihad the Qur’an says:
“And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.” (Surah 2.190)
“Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged…surely God is able to help them…who were expelled from their habitations without right, except that they say ‘Our Lord is God’.” (Surah 22.40)
In the light of above mentioned revelations, stated by Muslims coming from Mecca to Medina, there are many other revelations with respect to jihad in Qur’an. These can be understood depending upon the individual readers ideology, from military perspectives, measures taken for a prisoner at guard, measures during truce with the enemy, measures taken for the “shahids” or martyrs on the battlefield, along with the promises to go to heaven and more.
Theoretically the Qur’an recommends the victor forces to be generous with the enemy and focuses on “defensive warfare” tactics against the “haters”. Since, the “defensive tactics” element is “explicitly” not mentioned in Qur’an, radical elements use the phrase on its own soothing.
Furthermore, the Surah 9.5 says, “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent of their sins, worship and willingly give alms, then let them go away.”
When the rightly chosen Guided Caliph in-charge of governance over Islamic Community after the Prophet passed away, Islam was gripped with “violent domestic truffles”, reason which it spread “aggressively” in all corners of the world. The nature of the wars during this period were not defensive but followed a pattern of “expansionist” jihad, which was fuelled with religious dominance.
Frequently, the wars motivated young Muslim soldiers with additional ownership of war spoils, corruption flourished was rampant. Nonetheless, with Qur’an, explicitly mentioning the “humility and tolerance” even to the “unbelievers” and frequent “diversified” context of the meanings, Islam cannot be termed as a “militant religion”.
Useof Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Jihad
In an effort to understand the pedagogy of warfare in Islam, it is important for policy makers to examine the nature of “modern weaponry” in Islam. Since the use of atomic, bio-chemical warfare is strictly prohibited in Islam, there is no use of deliberation. However, using such dangerous weaponry in battlefield is in defiance of the traditional Islam. The Prophet, who propagated his message of nonviolence and disrespect to others, would naturally do not consent the use of destructive weaponry.
These actions are in direct violation to the traditional concept of Islam. Although, such weapons of mass destruction were not present during the time of the Prophet and his successors, hence use of these weaponries would confront the traditional concept of Islam.
The Prophet rather remains the funder of harmony, school of peace, tranquillity and unity. He, never advocated the use of poison in war to his soldiers, left alone the advance weaponry of today, since poison too carries the same property of killing an individual, irrespective of who the individual is. The Prophet propagated the message of “non-violence” and asked his subjects to observe humility. If a Muslim soldier did something wrong, he had to face severe punishment from the Prophet.
For aforementioned reasons, the Prophet strictly forbade the use of poison in war. Moreover, the word poison here, necessarily does not mean, a poisonous substance, it also any horrible weaponry that harms masses or has the ability to take a life, which has the property to destroy the “god’s creations”. In early wars, fighters used poison, a horrible inhumane weapon that has now been replaced by chemical and biological weaponry.
To conclude, the Prophet, who forbade the use of poison, particularly used by terror elements in October-2001 Anthrax incidents, will never agree to the use of bio-chemical weaponry and any device that has the property to destroy “god’s creation”.
Rise of Terrorism
The relation of terrorism is not first mentioned in Qur’an, but hidden in the stories of Christendom. There are various stories related to terrorism, but the first “terror” act was conducted when “Cain, the eldest son of Adam, stoned his brother, Abel, to death.”
Terrorism, has often been used by political leaders’ to strong arm the masses in an effort to remain in control and in power. After the two World Wars, which bought a paradigm shift in the global order, terrorism has become a “general” definition for the nations of third world countries, which use “crony” words to express their discontent under western imperialism and intends to liberate themselves, followed by notable minority militant factions, such as the PLO, which seeks to establish a nation of their own.
It is important for policy makers to understand that, such interpretations vary from one country to another. In case of the PLO, terrorism is a fight for liberation. Similarly, a terrorist is a hero and a villain at the same time. In Arab nations, terrorism is not just an act of war, it is the beginning of a “holy” war, a “jihad”, and terrorists walking on this path are called “liberators” or “freedom fighters”, a “shahids”. The former head of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, who was globally condemns for being the head of the PLO, a Nobel Laureate is honoured by Arabs as their leader.
In other cases, terrorism is viewed more than just acts of violence, not motivated politically, but an indiscriminate attack that claims the lives of civilians. Furthermore, an act, which even justifies being an incident of terrorism, is a crime since it is a violation in the due process of law. On the contrary, terrorist groups profess the “concept of jihad” as the most appropriate act against the weak when they want their voices to be heard globally. The frequent news of explosions or roadside bombings are an apt example of the “limelight” these militant factions desire, which they then portray it to be a nationalist act against the infidels, an act of patriotism. This further pave the way for radical islamists to identify “jihadists” or “volunteers” for suicide bombs, who are then preached about “romanticism in jihad”, in an effort to terrorise the masses. Taking the history of religious fanatic martyrdom to the mid-twentieth century, the Arabs, use this means to protest against the West, particularly the West and Israel.
Although terrorism retains its activities to minimum places, since 1960s, potentially everyone is vulnerable to terror incidents.
In the beginning, terror factions specifically targeted US embassies and Israeli installations, but they too have become “mechanised” and “tactful” in their strategy, expanding their operational expertise to car bombs and hijacking.
Concluding remarks
To prevent communist expansion in the southern borders of Russia, CIA, MI5, heavily funded Afghan Mujahidin’s. Washington, using its strategic service intelligence groups supported the Mujahidin’s’ war against the Soviets. Washington went too far, even to approve a jihadi war against the Soviets and drove them off the sea. Educating the Afghan Taliban innovative guerrilla tactics followed by new “military hardware”, the Taliban continues to use the same strategic resources shared by the CIA, dipped in the name of terrorism. It is an irony for Washington, since it instigated the use of jihad as a weapon against the Soviets, equipped the Afghan Taliban with weaponry, the same which the Taliban now uses towards the West, particularly the US and its allies.
What the future will be, especially in the light of ISIL, Islamic fundamentalist groups, Boko Haram and resurrection of Abu Sayyaf group in South East Asia,specifically hinges on Washington’s policy on Middle East and South-East Asia. In the light of recent “Arab entanglements” between Qatar, Saudi Arabia led boycott, President Trump continues to remain silent on his policies however, remaining confident of “anti-terror” operations, not “anti-Muslimism”. It is imperative for Washington to assess the scenarios without hampering any more relations with the East, and act before it turns into a “Clash of Civilisations”. Also, it should stop enforcing the “fundamentals of western concept” upon other nations, and respect the culture, the values, particularly the masses of the East.
Moreover, the contentions between Chancellor Angela Markel, President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron remains to be high, relations remain to be sour and issues remains to be “unresolved”. It is important for US to adopt an aggressive development strategy in the Middle East, particularly for the masses and leave its traditional role of “weapons supplier”. This will not only prevent any further war with the West but also be able to refurbish its image in the eyes of the masses, restructuring the image of a “bigger, more responsible player” in the Middle East.
© Copyright 2017 Indian Defence Review
No comments:
Post a Comment