The roots of terror: Islam or Islamism?

The focus of analysis and policy in relation to terrorism needs to shift from religion to politics, argues Meghnad Desai.

The last week in Britain has witnessed reports of yet another alleged terror plot, involving dawn arrests, intense media coverage, and resentment and anger among some British Muslims at the "targeting" of their community.

As another police operation proceeds, and the media once again focus on the "Muslim question", some familiar yet still unanswered questions re-emerge. Why are Muslims "always" in trouble? Is it something to do with the nature of their religion? Is the problem (as Salman Rushdie suggested after the July 2005 bombs in London) that Islam has not had a "reformation"? (Not every religion has had one and Islam has had modernising movements in its recent past, but let that go). To answer these questions and to de-demonise Muslims as a group, it is necessary in my view to distinguish between religion and ideology.

Religion is a private matter - or at least ought to be. Religion provides moral direction to many people, and solace to their troubled psyche when (for example) they are puzzled by accidents of life such as the sudden death of a beloved person. Yet religion is also often present in the public arena. Every religion has been used as a tool of aggression and violence, and to instil hatred of the people of other religions. No religion has a monopoly of virtue, though each will claim the others are worse.

Meghnad Desai is professor of economics and director of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics. He is a Labour party peer in Britain’s upper house of parliament. His books include Marx’s Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism (Verso, 2004) and, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror
(IB Tauris, 2006)

Also by Meghnad Desai in openDemocracy:

"Social Democracy as world panacea? A comment on David Held"
(1 July 2004)

The events of 9/11 and terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Delhi, Sharm-al-Sheikh and elsewhere mark the emergence of al-Qaida as a global terrorist organisation. Al-Qaida is also happy when any bomb-thrower claims to belong to it or when anti-terrorist forces accuse it of yet another act of carnage. But the argument then extends to all Muslims. People assert that Muslims are terrorists or that Islam is an intolerant religion. In the western press there have been long debates about whether Muslims are incapable of living in modern democratic societies, or whether Islam has a problem since it has never had a reformation. Muslims in the western world, and not only there, are viewed with suspicion because of their religion.

I have argued in my book Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror (IB Tauris, 2006) that the roots of this new terrorism are not in religion but in a political ideology which uses religious language - and that its purpose is like any other political ideology: to win power.

The roots of this ideology of "global Islamism" lie in the era of the decline of the Ottoman empire at the end of the great war of 1914-18, and the empire's partition by the British and the French. This partition, codified in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, involved these two rival empires secretly planning to establish control over the Arab territories then under Ottoman rule, even as their foreign offices were promising their Arab "friends" independence. The Balfour declaration followed in 1917, whereby Britain promised a homeland for Jews in a territory which it did not then possess (somewhat like the pope dividing the "new world" between Spain and Portugal).

Osama bin Laden has constructed a story of Muslim decline and victimisation at the hands of what he calls the "crusader" powers. He blames the existence of Israel as well as the troubles in Chechnya, Kashmir, East Timor, Bosnia on the single agency of United States-led imperialism taking over from Britain and France. He objected to the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia as they defile the Hijaz. He appeals to Sunni Muslims all over the world (other branches of Islam are apostate) to avenge this insult by attacking all non-Muslim powers involved in any of these disputes. India in his view is part of the crusader west.

Understand, then deconstruct

Every ideology tells a story about the plight of a people, a nation, a race or even the whole of humankind. It talks of a glorious past, a miserable present for which someone else is responsible and a glorious future if the "someone else" is removed.

In communism, it is the capitalist class whom the working class will remove to usher in socialism and, later, communism.

In national-socialism (Nazism), the story was of a "master race" betrayed and stabbed in the back by an enemy within. Jews had to be eliminated and Europe had to be conquered to usher in the new order where the master race would rule again as it did in Germany's glorious antiquity.

In global Islamism, the villain is the west and it can be eliminated only by a military defeat or else by the conversion of every non-Muslim to Islam. The operating vision of Islam here is not the faith practiced around the world in diverse forms, but Islam as defined by Osama bin Laden: an intolerant, puritanical and fanatical sect holding a monopoly of virtue.

Also in openDemocracy on radical Islamist ideology and practice:

Malise Ruthven, "Cultural schizophrenia"
(27 September 2001)

Murat Belge, "Inside the fundamentalist mind"
(4 October 2001)

Maruf Khwaja, "Terrorism, Islam, reform: thinking the unthinkable"
(28 July 2005)

Ehsan Masood, "The Hizb-ut-Tahrir equation"
(11 August 2005)

Since all human beings - outside those beholden to or self-intoxicated by this creed - want to live, it is essential to defeat this ideology. Terrorism kills innocent bystanders, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But to defeat the ideology requires political steps, while the anti-terrorist squads do their intelligence and police work.

We need to deconstruct the ideology. We begin by pointing out that other countries and regions which were subject to imperialism - China and India, for example - have recovered from their victimhood and emerged strong. Muslims of the middle east can do the same: not by appealing to some false unity to wage a war against the west but via education, investment, good governance and innovation.

We need to say loudly that while Islam has one book and one God, it also has a rich diversity of manifestations around the world. We need to point out that Muslims around the world live in harmony with other people and share the common concerns about leading a happy prosperous life, caring for their children's future and ensuring a safe and healthy old age for their elders.

Faith is a private concern; where it enters the public realm and creates dispute, the resulting problems are resolved more by negotiations and diplomacy around matters of disagreement than by violence or threats of violence.

The way to defeat terrorism conducted in the name of religious belief is to distinguish between religion and ideology. Then you fight the terrorist while leaving the devout alone to pursue her or his faith.

This article is copyright Meghnad Desai and openDemocracy.

Comments

EDT
7 February 2007 - 4:37am
I appreciate that Mr. Desai that he is trying to reorient the direction of middle eastern muslim thinking in a productive, rather than self destructive, direction. his argument that islamism is a political phenomena only goes too far. first, i don't think most western opinion equates extreemism with all muslims. and most understand that all religions have extremist elements and histories. i would certainly have rather lived in medivial spain than europe for its openess. today however, extremism is much more persuasive a problem in the muslim world. too many religious leaders are involved to dismiss it as a political problem. further, those not involved are too hesitant to condemn those who are. i agree with mr. desai that a moderate course is needed that engages as a player in the global field. at this point i think we can drop the imperialism and all that excuse making, not because imperialism didn't exist, but that there's been enough time to turn that around with all the oil wealth in the region. the sad truth is that middle eastern elites have followed dead end paths, leftism, bathist nationalist facism, religious extreemist facism, monarchism. and blaming the existance of israel is also a poor excuse that has been a distraction from moving forward for the region.
ibn_turab
7 February 2007 - 6:51am
Mr. Desai seems to take as self-evident that religion is a private matter, which is why he doesn't question this

assumption, nor consider what the Islamist interpretation of religion is.

I don't see how religion can be *solely* a private matter. For one thing, most (if not all) religions involve group

rituals, which would break the private-public barrier. Also, does this mean that one cannot (or should not) share his

religious beliefs with others, or express his beliefs in non-verbal terms (e.g. dress-sense)?

The reason why secular thinkers designated religion into the private sphere is because of its dependence on faith (in many

interpretations of religion), which does not open religion up for discussion, nor does it allow religion to play a public

(e.g. political) role when its edicts cannot be scientifically assessed or justified.

The Islamist understanding of religion is that it encompasses all areas of life, which certainly includes politics. This is especially the case since politics determines what laws are to be enacted, and who has authority over the people (which, in Islam, is God, the Almighty). Therefore, to distinguish between Islam and politics does not enter into the Islamist equation, or even many moderate interpretations of Islam.

I don't believe that to say Islam should play a political role is the problem, but how Islam is defined is where problems arise. For one thing, I believe individual citizens should be considered the beneficiary of Islam, whereas many Islamists speak of "public" benefit, or even leave out the discussion on who benefits from Islam, since they think it's our divine duty to implement Islamic law, regardless of consequences. The latter interpretation stemming from the theology that God's Will prevails, without acknowledging God's wisdom.

I think the article touched on the surface of the surface, and did not present any substantial content that can change the thinking of the extremists, or help non-extremists do that.

jianghc123
7 February 2007 - 9:38am
I did not arose Chinese to counter China Core Leadership which is a real biggest terrorism organization in the world. But, recently, in order to protect me, my family members and my relatives, I only told those Chinese to ask China Core Leadership to use monitors and radio to blackmail the wisdom of other people because I found that this Leadership's action is harmful to China if I do not give good suggestions to China. Anyway, my statements with the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, India, Australia and other countries of NATO and European Union are effective forever. If there are not other wise people to give good suggestions to China, China's economy will certain collapse in near future and China's politics will collapse after that. I hope that the countries which protect me will continue to protect me according to my statements for the interests of westerners.
agreenwood818
7 February 2007 - 7:36pm
Thanks to Prof. Desai for this informative article. I think it has great value as a means to help non-Muslim readers clarify where the roots of this problem may actually lie. I personally have often thought that the ideology of the Islamist terrorist movement resembles that of a destructive cult, although virtually nothing has been written from that viewpoint. Also, I once heard a presentation where the speaker stated that while interviewing members of terrorist movements as part of her research, she found movement leaders recruiting followers and maintaining discipline on the basis of a religious orthodoxy that they, themselves did not practice. Reading this article, I also found it immensely reassuring to place Islamist terrorist ideology in context with other totalitarian ideologies that are held in place by a mythology of persecution and retribution, notably Nazism.
douglas-jones
9 February 2007 - 5:40am
Well said but how large does the contention rate that for Muslims the state is the Koran?

Are there enough who can think outside this ?

In the West similar dogmatism is powering the new religion and being used for power by others.

But Christianity seems to oblige the west to engage in decent behaviour not colonialism which highlights difference in order to rule and pillage. Are then the remnants of power put in place by colonials or the bitter dispute following a (the) cause rather than any idea that the Koran controlls life directly as the a Christians avered in the middle centuries?

Bradley Gramsc
9 February 2007 - 4:35pm
Terrorism is appalling, but surely the way to fight terrorism has a lot more to do with identifying and addressing the factors that mobilise people to use violence as a means of obtaining political objectives. Killing the innocent is always classed as terrorism when it is carried out by non-state actors, but what about the violence orchestrated by the state to pursue �national� objectives? In the comfort of the west we forget that our quality of life is based upon the structures of debt, trade and plunder imposed on most of the population of the world. This state system imposed by the Europeans and embraced by the US is the root cause of the structural violence, not least the massive inequalities of life chances, which breeds "a culture of violence, of alienation, of humiliation and of religious fundamentalism". Anyone who has read a history of the Middle East must be aware of the way that this region has been subjected to the whims of the Western states foreign policies and legitimised under the term �securing national interests�. These inequalities are perpetuated by the current neoliberal economy, and Mr Desai appears to be restating the principles of Structural Adjustment Programmes, the IMF, World Bank, WTO and Davos by claim that all that needs to stop terrorism is embrace �education, investment, good governance, and innovation�. These principles are responsible for maintaining the structures of debt and trade by calling them �free markets� guided by the invisible hand, whilst preventing access to markets or the political process of international institutions. The iron hand of the military often makes way for the invisible hand and protects vital interests.

Mr Desai asserts that China and India emerged from imperialism and victimhood to stand as strong states. He then asserts that the Muslims of the middle east can do the same. Really? Are we forgetting that China had bloody and violent stage of communism that allowed it to break from the west and had to use the threat of violence during the cold war to emerge as an independent state. China is still an oppressive regime to its people. Both China and India�s political elites have accepted the market principles of the international economy with their membership of the WTO � so how independent are they? Continuing the process of inequality, alienationa and exclusion will only provide fertile ground for violent extremists to attract followers and for their ideology to appear to have truth. Human agency created the conditions for terrorism to breed and be condemned - human agency can change it, but not if we ignore the causes and justifications for terrorism.

xinliang_hu
13 February 2007 - 2:52am
As in China,there are several nations which believe in Islam. though they have different traditions and customs,they can live with Han people together.

I do not think that the conflict between muslims and non-muslims must occur.I have some muslim friends,they have got education and found job in Beijing.they said that they love their religion. Under the help of them,I read Qu'ran.I want get more knowledge of Islam,and advance different nations live together happily.

I agree to Edward Said's Criticism of western world's Orientalism.

Tim P
4 May 2007 - 5:54pm
Desai misses the main motivation behind Al-Qaeda's ideology - the apostate governments in the Middle East. The "Near Enemy" - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan - represents a corruption of Islamic values through its materialistic alliance with the west and a betrayal of the faith. These are Bin Laden's prime targets - by attacking the West, he seeks to divide the peoples and leaders of these countries in turn leading to revolution. Whilst we should never try and appease terrorists, we actually share some of their goals: democratization, human rights and political freedoms are common causes and although this would not dampen the most radical anti-West jihadis it would eliminate grievances that fill their ranks. A progessive withdrawal from Iraq would also help, as our presence only feeds militant Islam. The problem is that the West historically and in the present fears the side effects of democratization: Islamist governments (Algeria), loss of oil supplies or allies against non co-operative states (Saudi Arabia and Jordan have long had this role). These decisions are all political.

http://www.historic-quixotic.blogspot.com/

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options