« Good Cops Versus Bad Soldiers? | Main | The Plot Against Turkey »
July 12, 2008
The Logic of Islamist Terror
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
Wednesday's bloody shootout at the American Consulate in Istanbul is still not totally solved. No organization claimed the attack, which left three Turkish policemen dead and two injured. But the evidence collected by the Turkish security forces so far makes it reasonable to assume that there was an Islamist motive in the mind of the attackers. Actually three of them died right on the spot, and the fourth one turned out to be a paid driver. So there is no interrogation-based information. But the police found out that one of the dead terrorists had traveled to Iran and Afghanistan. The other's father was arrested in 1999 for links with the shadowy “Turkish Hizbollah,” a Kurdish Islamist terror group. The general impression in the Turkish media is that the attackers were at least ideologically linked with al Qaeda. So, this seems to be a case of “Islamist terror.”
But is that an appropriate term at all?
Islamic Versus Islamist
I think, yes, it is. What I would object to would be an apparently similar but actually quite unalike term: “Islamic terrorism.” The difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist” is crucial, because while one refers to a religion, the other refers to an ideology. While Islam teaches the path to win God's consent by being a righteous believer, Islamism envisions a roadmap to establish a totalitarian political system. And while Islam has existed since the early seventh century, Islamism has been around only since the early 20th century.
To contrast the two — Islam and Islamism — let's see what their judgments would be on terrorism, which I define as deliberate attacks on civilian targets for political purposes.
It is true that Islam has a concept of jihad, which is sometimes translated as “holy war,” but it is not a war without rules. The Koran told Muslims to “Fight in the way of God against those who fight you,” yet it also warned them: “But do not go beyond the limits.” (2:190) These “limits” were explained by Prophet Mohammed in the orders he gave to Muslim armies. "Do not kill the very old, the infant, the child, or the woman," he reportedly said to his soldiers. Abu-Bakr, the prophet's closest companion and successor as the first caliph of Islam, is also on the record for saying: "Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees... You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this."
That's why Muslim jurists of the Middle Ages developed a doctrine of just war, according to which the life of non-combatants was valued and respected. In his book, “Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror,” Bernard Lewis, one of the prominent Western experts on the history of Islamic Middle East, notes the following:
“Fighters in jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements. The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of enemy water supplies. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point — as far as I am aware — do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders.”
But today's militant Islamists — from al Qaeda to Islamic Jihad — openly advocate and practice the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders. Osama Bin Laden repeatedly said that his followers should “kill American and Jews,” without making any distinction between civilians and combatants. That's why al Qaeda terrorists unhesitantly hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. They knew they were killing civilians, but they did not care about the prophet's call for “not to kill women, children, and the aged.” And the gunmen who hit the U.S. Consulate last Wednesday would probably target the diplomatic personnel had they been able to break into the building.
But why is that? Why do today's militant Islamists violate the traditional rules of Islam to maximize their violence?
Hear What Carlos Says
They do this because their motivation comes from politics in the first place, not religion. Bin Laden tried to justify his call for indiscriminate killing by arguing, “American history does not distinguish between civilians and military, and not even women and children. They are the ones who used the bombs against Nagasaki.” This is a political argument, not a religious one. It is about the role of America in the world; not the status of non-Muslims in the Koran. A communist militant could have made the same argument.
It is no accident that there is indeed some ideological connection between Marxism-Leninism and Islamism. And no one proclaimed this as bluntly as Carlos the Jackal, who, from his prison cell, penned recently a book titled “Revolutionary Islam.” This brand of Islam, argued the veteran terrorist, "attacks the ruling classes in order to achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth" and is the only "transnational force capable of standing up to the enslavement of nations."
This is, again, an argument about not God and salvation, but politics and revolution.
The problem is, in other words, Islamism but not Islam. Therefore the fight against terror in the name of Islam has to be focused on two goals: First one is detaching Islam from Islamism. This does not necessarily mean to separate Islam and politics all together, as secularists assume. Islam indeed can influence politics, and that's all welcome as far as this takes place within the framework of democracy. If it is possible to synthesize Islam with totalitarianism as the Islamists do, then it is possible to synthesize it with liberalism as well.
The other goal should be to solve the political problems of the Muslim world — such as the Arab-Israeli conflict — which act as engines of radicalization. The main battle cry of Islamist militants is “Islam is under attack!” And the best antidote to this is to reduce the Muslim's perception of being under attack. The next U.S. president should keep that very much in mind.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at July 12, 2008 6:48 AM
Trial
Posted by: Trial at July 13, 2008 2:42 PM
Dear Mustafa,
There is only one 'Holy' book about warfare and that is the Quran...
'Don't kill women, the children, the disabled"......what about people like me, a Dutch Catholic in Istanbul?
Kindest
hans
Posted by: Hans at July 13, 2008 9:34 PM
Hans,
Actually, the rules of warfare are mostly defined by the Sunna (the religious tradition/jurisprudence for 85% of the world's Muslims), through at least two books which almost have the same value as the Quran itself for the most orthodox among Sunnis.
The Sunna, as is, forbids attacking non-combatants, plain and simple. Mustafa described this pretty well.
If one sticks strictly to the Quran as a source of Islamic rules, rules are less defined, but have general guidelines. Specific examples on where war should be waged are to fight oppression or expell you from your lands/properties. Only self-defense is allowed, and obligation to pursue peace when those issues are solved is explicitely ordered. Agression is very explicitely forbidden too (the verse that Mustafa cites 2:190 uses the verb "la ta'tadu", which is usually translated as "do not go beyond limits" as Mustafa mentions, but actually quite litterally means "do not commit aggressions", whether in Classical Arabic or Modern/Spoken Arabic).
So to sum up, if one thinks Muslims are robots programmed by Quranic verses (or by Sunni hadiths), I'd say you don't have to worry about anything. If you're afraid of the kind of random killings by American psychos in US malls or Muslim ones in Muslim cities, then your religious background isn't going to be much of a factor.
Posted by: Chahine at July 13, 2008 11:29 PM
Mustafa, thank you! Terrorists must be executed as done in China, USA, Iran or Saudi Arabia. No mercy to criminals notwithstanding what ideology they adhere to, be it PKK, Al-Qaeda, People's Mujahedin of Iran, Tamil Tigers, FARC, "Chechen" terror groups, Red Brigades, etc.
@ Hans
1. During an open warfare with an aggressor, Muslims cannot kill "women, the children, the disabled" unless such enemy representatives attack Muslims. It's obvious that only those who fight you can be killed. Period.
2. Two more "holy books about warfare":
"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. ... Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:7,17-18)
"Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:16)
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah." (Samuel 15:3-4)
O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings [infant babies] on the rock! (Psalm 137:8-9)
Peace!
Posted by: Behruz Himo at July 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Behruz! Compliments!
How to make 3 logical fallancies in 11 lines:
a) tu quoque fallancy: to show that other religions might have the same problem of Islam doesn’t solve the issue of violence that Islam is facing
b) Your quotes of the Bible shows that you are an ignorant. You cannot read the Bible (that has 50+ books, each with another stile and “Lesegattung”) like you read the Qur’an. Moreover, you put together several books from the Old Testament, but you treat them all the same! The Qur’an is not chronologic, and is prescriptive (the very opposite from the Bible). You cannot treat for examples poems like history books. But that’s what you are doing (you didn’t pay too much attention during your literature classes did you?)
c) You show again your ignorance by quoting only verses from the Old Testament. You should know that after that…there are the four Gospels. Show please where Jesus calls people to be beheaded, wifes to be stoned and raped…
You make me laugh…”terrorists must be executed in Ksa”? Hahaha…they are the product of their own wahabi-pure-Islamic ideology! You can be get 200 slashes if you go drinking a coffee in a Starbuck in KSA with a (f) work colleague or if you dare praying Buddha Jesus or anyone else with some other that share your faith. Have you ever heard of an “islamist” beeing beheaded over there? Please show me as well where you should care not beeing killed by Christians around the world because they want you to be converted! It seems that you want to show that Muslims are not committing acts of terror around the world and explaining and justifying them by reference to “Christian jihad theology”!
Definetly, logic is not your strongest asset
Posted by: echnaton at July 16, 2008 11:23 AM
PART 1
Some introducing remarks to your post:
“While Islam teaches the path to win God's consent by being a righteous believer, Islamism envisions a roadmap to establish a totalitarian political system.”.. Islam is more than a religion, it is an ideology, a totalitarian system, that controls all aspects of your life.
“And while Islam has existed since the early seventh century, Islamism has been around only since the early 20th century”. Actually not, it has just gained momentum with the discovery of Oil in the M.E. and with the differencial of living standards widening, that exposed how backward Islam societies are (just give a look at the differences between India and Pakistan!)
“It is true that Islam has a concept of jihad, which is sometimes translated as “holy war,”” Actually, it is the only religion that has a well structured concept of “holy war” that derives directly from “the God”, Allah. It is the only religion that has these characteristics. Actually, it is a little more complex: In Islam we have the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The last one, sometimes tells us a different picture. Muhammad often went against the tenets of his faith, and he had to be rebuked several times by Allah himself for not following his orders.
“Bernard Lewis, one of the prominent Western experts on the history of Islamic Middle East”. Bernard Lewis, is not an Islamic scholar, and by telling “— as far as I am aware —” he actually admits himself that he might be a great historian, but that he does lack knowledge of Shari’a and Fiqh. Anyway, it sounds strange thatyou have to take out a Western Scholar while there are thousands of Islamic Scholars specialized on these issues. It suffices to show that he says “At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder”, while it is enough to cite Q 3:151 (Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers (Yusuf Ali)) and 8:012 (I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (Yusuf Ali)). or even Muhammad’s own words ”Bukhari 52:220 “Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’”. And Muhammad saying that who will try to escape martyrium will go directly oto hell: Bukhari 8.76.428 (Allah will not accept excuses if you will after beeing 60 years old)
Osama Bin Laden repeatedly said that his followers should “kill American and Jews,” without making any distinction between civilians and combatants. Actually there is no difference in Islam between civilians and combatants. The division is between Muslims and Unbelievers (it is not “par hasard” that the world is broadly divided into Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb (the house of war). In fact. Paradoxically OBL and the “islamists” stand on firm orthodox Islamic ground. This is why there were pratically no fatwas condamning him, and the few that were issued just spoke about not spilling innocent blood (that is actually the blood of Muslims, bcs Infidels are not innocent by definition)
“their motivation comes from politics in the first place, not religion” …but as actually already explained, politics and religion in Islam are not divided.
Now give a look to these last sentences (the last one is actually the end of the article): THEY ARE VERY REVEILING:
“The problem is, in other words, Islamism but not Islam.”
“The other goal should be to solve the political problems of the Muslim world”. “reduce the Muslim's perception of being under attack. The next U.S. president should keep that very much in mind”
WHAT DOES THIS SHOW?....IT’S ALWAYS OTHER’S FAULT. THE MUSLIMS ARE NEVER RESPONSIBLE OF ANYTHING. EVEN WHILE KILLING OTHER PEOPLE! SIC
Posted by: echnaton at July 16, 2008 11:25 AM
A more in depth analysis of Jihad
http://kiki-e.sosblog.com/The-first-blog-b1/Is-Jihad-just-an-interior-struggle-or-is-it-inherently-violent-b1-p58658.htm
Posted by: echnaton at July 16, 2008 1:46 PM
echnaton,
your ignorance is appalling: when it comes to the Bible you request that we read in context, consider historical circumstances and so on. While you reject a similar approach towards the Holy Qur'an!
Besides, all your arguments about “jihadist” nature of Islam fail to explain the FACT that almost all Muslim countries have religious minorities living there for centuries, why the minorities were not eradicated? Will you say that we did not follow Islam for 1400 years?! Well understanding of Islam by about billion of Muslims is definitely different from that of yours and the wahabbis.
a) "Jesus" says in the New Testament (NT) "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". If I read this out of context, then I would come to Osama Bin Laden's conclusion.
Some say that Jesus MEANT that those who follow him would suffer from a sword (or fire?). Pay attention: sword or fire. Here comes the most interesting fact about "Bible - the word of God" which one is the word of God - King James version, NASB, Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant?! They all differ!
Did any author of NT talk to Jesus or even seen him? No. They collected fairy tales from third persons who heard something about Jesus, peace be upon him. Authors of the NT lived after at least 40 years past Jesus’ death.
There were MANY Gospels prior to 325 (Council of Nicaea) but a pagan (?) Emperor of Rome Constantine I and some bishops (not Jesus definitely!) decided that only Gospels by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John should become canonical.
b) Who is the author of Old Testament, Moses, peace be upon him? False! Ask Israel Finkelstein or Richard Elliott Friedman.
Learn about Jahwist source, Elohist source, Deuteronomist source, Priestly source, Redactor! Jews lost original Old Testament at least twice and then recovered (?).
Or you may be a blind Jewish or Christian fundamentalist (like wahabis among Muslims) who rejects the Documentary hypothesis? If yes, you should go and talk to your friends in Saudi Arabia and mountains of Pakistan!
c) Now, show me any scholarly research doubting that Qur'an is an UNCHANGED book and doubting that the "author" is the Blessed Prophet Muhammad!
Disclaimer: No serious scientist of our days believes that Bible has any legitimacy to be claimed it’s an unchanged word (if any) of those Prophets mentioned in the Bible. Yet, I do no intend to offend practising and faithful Christians and Jews who believe in God and praise Him, the Almighty, day and night. Peace and blessing be with them!
Posted by: Behruz Himo at July 17, 2008 10:08 PM
Behruz
You continue in your logical fallancies...hahahah...thank you for confirming me again and again that you repeat your "madrassa" teaching without thinking ...it will be a pleasure to show to everyone how unlogical and unhistorical your ideas are. Everything you said can be dismissed very easily, moreover, it can be turned against the Qur'an and Islam in even a more evident way. Thnak you for giving me this opportunity!
..I'll come back soon answering all your statements..it's w.e.....for the time beeing I ave more interesting things to do ;-)
Posted by: echnaton at July 19, 2008 9:42 AM
Thank you Mustafa for exercising censorship, although I didn't insult anyone.
At the opposite, I tried to reply item by item to the points brought up by you and Behruz. In fact, it seems that open and constructive dialogue (corroborated by hard facts and not blablabla) is not well received
At least Behruz would have loved to upgrade his knowledge of Islam and Islamism ;-)
If not removed by the redactor of this blog, Behruz, here you have some replies at
http://kiki-e.sosblog.com/index.htm
make reference to the postings of the 23th of July 08, those censured here
Mustafa, God bless you, and try to be more open to dialogue next time
Posted by: echnaton at August 12, 2008 6:36 PM