Introduction
In the last two decades, many groups have used their religion to justify, rationalize, and defend illegal violence, particularly in the case of terrorism. This phenomenon has been named the holy terror and contemporary studies have increasingly focused on Islamic religion as a cause of the terrorism the religious terrorists being branded usually as radical Muslims. However, it is also argued that until the nineteenth century religion provided the only justification for terrorism. And, it has to be understood that Christians and Jews too have used religion to justify and legitimate aggression, warfare, violence, and terrorism. In fact, this is true for major religions all over the world, from Japan to United States, including Europe, India, and the Middle East. (Al-Khattar, 2003, pp. 25)
Nevertheless, it cannot be overlooked that Islamic extremism in recent times has been pervasive as well as easily franchised, and has also proved to be extremely difficult to extinguish. The new Islamic discourse produced by Islamic awakening (sahwa Islamiyya) since the 1970s, has influenced and been influenced by a new Jihad, which has coalesced and evolved since the mid-1980s and 1990s. The new Jihad, in turn, qualitatively has affected the capabilities of extremist leaders and the behavior of combatants. In addition to increasing popularity, Islamist groups have become more and more emboldened by their continuous victories in Iran in 1979, Lebanon in 1983, Afghanistan in 1989, and Somalia in 1994, where they succeeded in evicting the Imperialist powers. These Islamist groups have further strengthened their powers since 1990s. (Zuhur, 2005, pp. 9 Koh, 2006, pp. 8-9)
In the present times, the large number of terrorist attacks committed in or emanating from Middle East has further given rise to speculation that there is an intimate connection between Islam and violence. These suspicions are not limited to the time-honored Western prejudices against Islam. Many Muslims themselves have come to believe that there is some truth to this claim. The seemingly intractable conflicts between various Muslim states, the conflict of factions within Lebanon itself, the conflict between Palestinians and Israel, and the most infamous incident of all the attacks of September 11, 2001 all seem to corroborate the judgment that Islam is a religion of violence. The fact that the governments of Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria either maintain terrorist organizations as instruments of their foreign policy or provide support to, and avail themselves of, the services of terrorist groups serves to confirm this suspicion. (Duran, published in Howard, 1992, pp. 47)
Nevertheless, to hold Islam responsible for the surge of Middle Eastern terrorism would be a mistake. The way a number of Middle Eastern regimes use terrorism as a means of achieving their political ends, does not differ substantially from that of totalitarian regimes in other parts of the world such as North Africa. (Duran, published in Howard, 1992, pp. 48) The purpose of the present paper is to understand the causes of present day terrorism originating from the Middle East, including an analysis of how Islamic religion is being interpreted, creating religious intolerance and militancy in various parts of this region in short the misrepresentation of a religion that essentially enunciates pacifist ethics.
Terrorism
The term terrorism, is probably the most known among every person in the civilized world, in recent times. It has become almost a daily explanation for many violent events happening around the world. The events of September 11th in New York and the resulting horror and damage to life and property, as well as its after-effects, have assigned terrorism to the list of planetary emergencies. However, so far no comprehensive or universally accepted definition of terrorism exists. Given the diversity of terrorist groups, the forging of an exclusive definition seems out of reach. The groups differ in their religion, their targets and even their tactics. They also differ in size and structure and are committed to engaging in different levels of violence. While some operate secretly, others seek the support of different governments or factions within governments. (Mehr, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 18-19)
Generally terrorism can be characterized as an act that is associated with violence, is premeditated by a group or an individual connected with a group, is addressed to public, intends to instill fear in the public, and is aimed at changing the political, social andor economic status quo in a non-conventional manner. Victims of a terrorist attack are usually incidental to the terrorists objective, though assassinations of a political or a law-enforcement figure with the view of exhibiting the vulnerability of the regime is an exception to this rule. An act of terrorism can be motivated by one of several factors. Terrorist groups have diverse ideological backgrounds communist, socialist, religious radicals, religious fundamentalist, NaziFascist, anti-autocratic and nationalistic with de-colonizing or separatist aspirations. (Mehr, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 20-21)
The culture of terrorism stems from national, historical and religious culture of the people. It is shaped by prevailing socio-economic and political conditions, the innovative characteristics, ambitions and aspirations of the terrorist group leaders. It is indigenous, even through the terrorist group invariably adopts parts of culture of other terrorist groups. This is particularly true of ideological and religious terrorist groups. In the present day world, the number of incidences involving religious terrorism throughout the world is increasing. This may in part due to the religious radicals emphasis on the differences between believers and heretics. (Mehr, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 21-22)
Origins of Religious Terrorism
Terrorism in the name of religion has become the predominant model for political violence in the modern world, but this concept isnt a new one. With the turmoil and conflict based in the Middle East and attacks against the United States at home and abroad, religiously based organizations using terrorism have been in the spotlight. Religion and terrorism share a very long history. In fact religious justifications for violence are among the oldest ones in the world. Religion is one important source of group identity that can provide for unity in a community. Misrepresentations of a region, its religion and people have persisted for centuries. Prior to the nineteenth century, religious justifications for terrorism were the most frequent. Further, religious wars and crusades have been among the most devastating and costly conflicts in history. Loss of life in these kinds of conflicts often was higher, because those believing in a different religion could be killed with impunity from any religious sanctions whereas members of the same religion would be better treated in a war situation. In some religious wars, the clear intent was to eliminate the other religious group. Conquest or conversions were not seen as real options. (Lutz Lutz, 2004, pp. 64)
Interestingly, many words in the English language describing terrorism and violence also have religious etymology. For instance, the word zealot dates to a Jewish sect in 66-73 AD the word assassin comes from an Islamic terrorist group that existed between 1090 and 1272 AD and the term thug derives its origins from an Indian religious group in the seventh century. In fact the medieval Christian doctrine of tyrannicide might also be considered a form of religiously sanctioned terrorism. However, the first half of the twentieth century comprised of major wars that had nothing to do with religious terrorism, but with ethnic and nationalist separatist, or ideologically-motivated terrorism, where people belonging to different religions joined together to fight a cause that had nothing to do with religion. This served to wipe out the memories of terrorism having an origin in religion, from the minds of the people. (Hoffman, 2006, pp. 83-84)
The problem of religious-based terrorism surfaced again, some two decades back, and now more than half of the well-known terrorist organizations use religion as the major motive for their acts. That is to say, while none of the internationalist terrorist groups active in 1960s could be classified as religious, by 1980 the modern religious terrorist group had begun to emerge, and by 1992 the number of these groups had dramatically increased from 2 to 12. The violent religious terrorist activity has increased sharply since the 1980s and it has become one of the dominant forms of terror, surpassing the number of the traditional politicalseparatistMarxist-Leninist groups. (Fernandez, 2004, pp. 12)
Religious extremism is a central attribute of the New Terrorism. It has become a binding ideology for many extremists, in part because it provides an uncomplicated sense of purpose and a clear world view. Religious terrorism has increased in its frequency, scale of violence, as well as global reach. At the same time, there has been a relative decline in secular non-religious terrorism. Nevertheless, religious terrorism is not easy to define despite the unfortunate tendency of the modern Western Civilization to confuse the term with Islamist terrorism exclusively. This type of terrorism originates from countless national, cultural, and historical contexts. Unlike secular terrorism, which usually has an inherent though fringe rationality, religious terrorism is often an expression of unquestioned faith in a supernatural purpose. It is therefore very much contingent on trends within specific religion, historical experiences of ethno-national groups, and the unique political environments of nations. As basis for terrorism, religious faith has been applied in different ways, depending on the cultural and political environment of each terrorist movement. In some environments, religion is the primary motive for terrorist behavior. In other contexts, it is a secondary motive that is part of an overarching cultural identity for politically violent movements. (Sutalan, 2008, pp. 17 Martin, 2006, pp. 183, 185)
The easiest method to distinguish religious terrorism from other types of terrorism is that in the former case, the group makes use of and requires scripture or a clerical authority to justify, sanction, and approve of the violence they employ. Religious terrorists differ from traditional ideological terrorists in that the former are willing to sacrifice to obtain their objective. Religious terrorists are more prone to use indiscriminate violence. Hence, religious terrorism tends to be more lethal than secular terrorism because of the radically different value systems, mechanisms of legitimization and justification as well as the concepts of morality. For the religious terrorist, violence assumes a transcendental dimension. Executed in the fulfillment of some divinely-ordained command, it is devoid of the moral constrains that bind other terrorists actions. Whereas secular terrorist generally consider indiscriminate violence immoral and counterproductive, religious terrorists regard such violence not only as morally justified, but as a necessary expedient for the attainment of their goal. Thus religion serves as a legitimizing force conveyed by sacred text or imparted via clerical authorities claiming to speak for the divine. (Smelser, 2007, pp. 107-108)
As a primary motive, religion is at the very core of an extremists groups political, social, and revolutionary agenda. Within this context, the religious belief system is the driving force behind their behavior. Example of this profile are found in the Middle East and elsewhere among jihadi Islamic fundamentalists, in India among Hindu extremists, and in the United States among violent Christian anti-abortionists. (Martin, 2006, pp. 183, 185) The upsurge in religious terrorism since 1980s can in part be attributed to the widespread belief that the groups respective religions lie at a vital historical point. This stems from increased globalization, and the perceived erosion of traditional values, along with widespread economic and political upheaval and inequality, leading to heightened feelings of fragility, instability and uncertainty. Terrorists feel the need to preserve their religious identity, but also believe that there is the opportunity to fundamentally alter their future. Religion is hence a refuge, familiar, and reflecting constant values, in an age of change. Religious zealots usually consider violence as the only way to overthrow a reviled secular government and attain religious redemption. The growth of religious terrorism worldwide appears to account for the increased severity of attacks since 1991. Religious extremists in fact prepared for a major crisis at the millennium because they believed that the year 2000 signaled the beginning of the worlds end. (Cameron, 2000, pp. 78)
Causes of Terrorism in the 19th, 20th and 21st century
Terrorism emerged in the last third of the 19th century as a systematically employed asymmetrical tactic of political violence. It took no single form instead it was used by organizations of many political orientations in the name of many goals formulated in accordance with their various ideologies. In contrast to late 18th century state terrorism in France, the terrorism of the mid to late 19th century had been characterized by a self-prescribed morality and by highly abstract political ideals in that it argued for discriminate attacks against only those individuals responsible for the accused offense. During this period, terrorism was employed by socio-revolutionary groups such as the Russian revolutionary narodniki or European and North American anarchists, as well as national liberation movements in the Balkans, India, Ireland and Poland. late 19th century anarchists justified their violent anti-state actions in criticizing the general failure of state itself to obey its rules, legislations and legal obligations, and its owns self-proclaimed morality and values. (Stepanova, 2008, pp. 35 Gardner, 2007, pp. 64)
A more general change in social attitudes towards violence came about with the concepts of total war and the advent of World War I. Terrorism then developed into the more cynical indiscriminate forms of modern 20th century terrorism based upon futuristic, hyper-rational, hyper utopian visions, as discussed in terms of totalitarian terrorism. The latter likewise involved self-sacrifice for the greater cause, whether secular or religious, where of the political left or right. (Gardner, 2007, pp. 64) In both the 19th and 20th centuries, most anti-colonial national liberation movements employed armed violence at some stage and in more than one form. Mahatma Gandhis movements, which managed to achieve its goal of independence for India through non-violent means was a rare exception. Late 19th and early 20th century terrorism was also tied to the great wave of globalization and integration that marked the period from 1870 to 1914. In the mid-20th century, both prior to World War II and in the first post-war decades, terrorism was widely employed by anti-colonial and other national liberation movements in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia. At that stage, several national liberation and nationalist groups that combined terrorist means with other violent tactics managed to achieve all or most of their declared goals. (Stepanova, 2008, pp. 35-36)
In the early 21st century, radical ethno-nationalism, and especially ethno-separatism has retained its importance as one of the most widespread ideologies of groups employing terrorist means. However, it has gradually yielded primarily to religious, especially Islamist extremism. Religious extremism has more and more often served as an ideological basis for terrorist groups active in more localized settings and, above all, for the emerging transnational violent Islamist movement. (Stepanova, 2008, pp. 38) The late 1960s and 1970s were characterized by the rise of secular ethno-nationalist separatist and left-wing terrorist groups. In contrast, the early 1980s saw the dramatic emergence of religiously motivated terrorism, more precisely involving extreme Islamist movements. The event triggering this change was the success of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. It was a great surprise to the world that a theocratic state should emerge in the secularized international political arena. The international community had by this time taken secularism for granted. However, the Iranian Revolution seemed to turn the wheels of history backwards. Following the success in Iran, the modern Islamist terrorist groups have aimed at exporting the Islamic revolution all over the world, especially in the Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. Violent Islamism has at times served as a counterbalance and an alternative to nationalism, as in case of the Islamist Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and at other times, it has been employed in combination with radical ethno-separatism, for instance in Kashmir or Chechnya. (Koh, 2006, pp. 5-6)
Origins of modern-day Islamic Terrorism
Present day Islamic terrorism too has similar ideologies as discussed above. Islamic extremists see themselves as involved in a total war against the enemies of faith. Islamic radicals think that the present societies are illegitimates since Gods injunctions have been forgotten and violated. In this context, they believe that it is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad in order to bring about an Islamic revolution by transforming society. Islamic terrorists see themselves as alien to a world that has lost its sense. (Pinto, 2004, pp. 23) Islamic fundamentalism in one form of another had always been present, just as in Christianity and Judaism there had been fundamentalism all along. However, terrorism in the Muslim and Arab world did not play a significant role during the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century. To be more precise, Muslim and Arabic terrorism was a localized phenomenon. It did exist but it was not predominant, nor did it essentially differ in its motivation and outlook from other forms of terrorism. But towards the end of the twentieth century Arabic terrorism became the most prominent component of world terrorism. (Laqueur, 2004, pp. 31)
The origins of modern-day Islamic terrorism were in the emergence of the revivalist movements promoting a return to fundamentalist Islam, and those of its protagonists who wanted to impose their aims by force. Such movements appeared in several countries in the Arabian Peninsula it took the form of Wahhabism, the teaching spread by an eighteenth century sect that was little noticed at the time. On the Indian subcontinent, terrorism was connected with the desire to strengthen the identity of Muslim minority vis-a-vis the Hindu majority the founders of Pakistan had been secular politicians but on the fringes of their movement, religious extremists were active. As time went by, they became more prominent. But the heartland of Islamic fundamentalism in modern times was Egypt, even though Salafism (its local name) never gained a politically strong leading position. The term Salafi simply means early Islamic, referring to those who lived in the first centuries after Muhammad. In religious terms it means opposition to reform and the purification of Islam from alien elements. Islam preached that one should adhere very closely to the Koran that Allah was the only true Lord, and that one should believe in the uniqueness of Prophet Muhammad i.e. tenets common to every Muslim. What was really new was the conviction of the Salafis that they were Islam, not just one of the several factions that state and society should be based on the principles of the religious law, the Sharia, and not on secular law and that this aim could be achieved most likely by violence. Another thing that was new was the strong emphasis on jihad. Many fundamentalists also believed in the necessity to reestablish the Khalifah the unity of political and religious rule, which had vanished with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after the World War I. These basic beliefs were bound to collide with the existing order in the Muslim world and also with nationalism and the national states that had developed over time. (Laqueur, 2004, pp. 30-31)
As mentioned earlier, most of the recent focus on Muslims originated with the revolution in Iran, and the later collapse of the Soviet Union. The Islamic revolution in Iran (Shia) inspired many Islamic groups and organizations around the world. In Lebanon, for example, Hezbollah, (Party of God and classified as a terrorist organization in the West) with a Shiite component, was established with the full support of Iran, which later committed several terrorist acts in Lebanon and elsewhere. Its members show a striking willingness to die for the sake of God, and are guaranteed a place in Paradise if they die while they are in Jihad most often translated as holy war. Sunni Muslim organizations also performed terrorist acts. The Islamic Resistance Movement best known as Hamas, is another Islamic organization, which has been listed in most countries, especially in the West, as one of the most dangerous organizations because of its suicidal acts in Israel. This organization is associated with the Sunni sect of Islam. (Al-Khattar, 2003, pp. 32) in fact five of the seven states that have been branded by the U.S. government as sponsors of international terrorism Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria are Muslim states (the other two being Cuba and North Korea). Further, of the 33 major international terrorist groups described in the State Department 2001 report on global terrorism, more than half are based in Middle East and North Africa. (Pinto, 2004, pp. 21)
Many analysts have repeatedly pointed out that modern Islamic societies are extremely intolerant, and more importantly extremely violent. The bloodiest war since the 2nd World War has been between two Islamic counties Iran and Iraq and the bloodiest terrorist campaign took place in Algeria, between government forces and Muslim militants. However, the post World War has multitudes of genocides where millions of soldiers were killed in Cambodia, Vietnam and Burundi that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam statistics that are frequently discounted by many Western analysts of modern times to support their claims of violence, which is an important component of the anger of the educated and learned Muslims worldwide against Western scholars.
The misunderstood and misused word Jihad
To most of the modern day world populace, especially those not belonging to Islamic religion, the word Jihad has become synonymous with acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of religion, because their religion has given them permission to do so. This extremely distorted meaning of a word shows how the religion is misrepresented to suit the nefarious purposes of certain sects to suit their own purposes. The deduction of meaning made by the non-Islamic populace is finds its basis not only in pop-culture terrorist movies, but also the regular speeches made by the leaders of various Islamic terrorist organizations, about their right to kill whoever they think is against the will of god. Needless to say all such interpretations of the word are incorrect.
The word Jihad is Arabic in origin, and means to strive, to exert oneself, or to struggle. The word has a basic connotation of an endeavor towards a praiseworthy aim. In a religious context it may express a struggle against ones evil inclinations or convert unbelievers for the same of Islam and the umma i.e. trying to covert unbelievers or working for the moral betterment of Islamic society. (Peters, 2005, pp. 1-3) Concerned Muslims are keen to point out that the effort in Jihad essentially means a moral effort. There is the greater effort and the lesser effort. The greater Jihad is to fight against ones evil inclinations, against immorality and sloth, and, most of all selfishness. It is struggle to purify oneself and to be a better part of the society a person on whom everyone can rely for help. The smaller Jihad is often known as the Jihad of the sword nowadays often equivalent to the English word crusade. The smaller Jihad was initially a defensive way to protect the interests of the Muslim society. The word in this context has been interpreted fairly liberally to allow for preemptive attacks. Hence, there has always been much discussion as to whether a particular war was a jihad or not. In order to declare a war a Jihad, proof is needed that the opponent does harm to religion interestingly it need not be Muslim religion. Further, Muslims as just as much called upon to rise in arms and defend their cousins-in-faith, ironically the Jewish religion. (Martin, 2006, pp. 187-188)
Jihad can be waged for several reasons the most misinterpreted of which is the expansionist jihad that is undertaken in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. Such a jihad needs a legitimate caliph to organize the struggle, which at least according to Shiite theory had been illegal after the Occultation of last Imam in 873. (Peters, 2005, pp. 4-5) The defensive jihad on the other hand against attacks is still a possibility. In any case what remains uncontested is that jihad must be a state affair, authorized by the caliph. That is to say, it is not the right of individuals. Jihad, while becomes unavoidable individual duty under some circumstances, nevertheless, it has to be always under the orders of a caliph or if the region where the person is attacked by the enemy. Individual jihad can however be peaceful where people are involved in social word, educating people, striving to improve their spiritual life etc. i.e. the greater jihad. Further, it must be remembered at the jihad of sword in erstwhile times was confined to the battlefield, the common people were not affected by it an impossible feat in modern times. (Howard, 1992, pp. 48)
Despite of all these clear guidelines, there are about a dozen major terrorist movements in the present day that misuse the word jihad. Some of them even bear a name that includes the words jihad or mujahidin, a mujahid being a person who carries out jihad. The earliest such organization was the al-jihad in Egypt, where jihad stood for holy war. The al-jihad movement in Egypt explicitly stated that Muslims have the obligation to make war against all infidels (another misused and misinterpreted term) i.e. non-Muslim and lax Muslims alike. This is based on the idea that jihad had to be waged to establish Islamic world order not justified at any place under Koran or Hadith. Koran itself states that political power is no ones monopoly and that no individual can be in a position of dominance forever. (Howard, 1992, pp. 49 Peters, 2005, pp. 7)
There is however some basis to the historical interpretation of Islam which condones jihad of the sword a view held by many in the Muslim world. Islam has a history of the sword. The remarkable military exploits of the forbears of modern Islam were often responses to attacks on the nascent community of Islam. But these were military campaigns, as mentioned above, not defensive ones attacking innocent people. There lies the divergence between the explicit tenets of Islam and the popular understanding of Islam among many of its largely illiterate followers. (Howard, 1992, pp. 50) Jihad in its modern conception among terrorists has no sense of liberation as used to be the case, either when a country was conquered or an infidel was dethroned. The stakes now do not include pushing aware the invaders of Muslim areas or conquering new territory, but they concert the global terror for the moment chiefly against Americans and their allies, though certainly not limited to them. The actions that resulted in the 911 events were irrational to the extent that they are pursued against an anonymous enemy without a social project that outlines how society is to be changed in order to promote faith. It targeted innocents and hence the idea deviates far from the notions of the just war, both within the Occidental mind and within the classical mind, as it is clearly stated in Islam that jihad saves those who are not in combat and disapproves of what is called fatk or killing by treason or premeditation. (Lane Redissi, 2009, pp. 30)
Regardless of all these rational explanations and viewpoints and the condemnation from many Muslim ulema regarding the 911 attacks, several radical scholars both condoned and justified the jihad, chief of them being Saudi Sheikh Hamid bin Abdullah al-Shuyabi who on September 17 2001, even introduced a fatwa to this effect. The fatwa gave justifications that the attack was called for and that killing of innocents was allowed, and that many of those killed cannot be regarded as innocents (America being a democracy, a government of people, so everyone in the country is an infidel as they have majority vote for decisions) a staggeringly nonsensical viewpoint that shows the state of mind of religious zealots. The fatwa ended with a call on all Muslims to support the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because they have offered shelter and assistance to the mujahidin i.e. al-Qaeda. (Peters, 2005, pp. 179) Again, to a rational mind, all these justifications would be the ravings of a fanatic who either doesnt understand or deliberately misunderstands the tenets laid down by wise men of the past. But, it cannot be denied that being in a position of power, such views are being held by a large group of people waiting in wings to perpetrate extreme violence in an already tumultuous world.
Terrorism in the Middle East
In 1993 an influential American academic declared that Islam and West are on a collision course. Islam is a triple threat political, civilizational and demographic. (Edward Hinchcliffe, 2008, pp. 49) Muslims are usually portrayed in western media as an aggressive civilization with its locus in the Middle East and it is usually argued that Muslim fanatics would ensure that the region became synonymous with conflict in a battle with the West for global command. However, the terrorist events in East Timor, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria between Muslims and Christian in Pakistan between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam, and in China where Tibetan monks have been subject to acts of violence, show that religious terrorism is not a phenomenon peculiar to Middle East, and in particular Arab-Israeli conflict. The complexity of the situation in the region is especially higher, considering that the conflicts are not solely religious but religious plays a inextricable part, making the potential resolution of the problem extremely unlikely or at the very least very difficult. In addition, Middle Eastern terrorism is not a fairly recent phenomenon, as is usually assumed. The differences between the warring Muslims and Jews have been the basis of years of social and political warfare. The modern origins of the Middle Eastern terrorism can be traced to the end of the Second World War and especially the creation of the state of Israel. (Edward Hinchcliffe, 2008, pp. 49-51)
For the Jews of Israel and Zionists, self-revelation that Israel is the Promised Land to which the Israelis should return after slavery and opposition is of crucial importance. Orthodox Jews therefore maintain that all of Palestine and Jerusalem belongs to them. After initially migrating to the Promised Land, Zionist Jews resorted to terrorism to reclaim and establish their own state. In 1939, the Jewish terrorist group Irgun began an attack on public gathering places, British administrative buildings and law enforcement officers in Palestine. In 1944 and 1949, the Israeli terrorist group LEHI (Fighters for Freedom of Israel) assassinated a minister of British administration as well as the UN mediator. On the other hand, Muslims who had lived in that geographical area since the time of Salaholdin Ayoubi, consider it a land belonging to the Uma i.e. the Islamic community. In addition, they also believe that followers of other religion in the Zone of Islam should remain subordinate to Muslims. Palestinians, after being displaced from their homes in the twentieth century, began a movement to oppose the existence of Israel. Terrorism was seen as a legitimate means to reclaim the lost land. During this period, Palestinians organized numerous groups, some of which were terrorists. 1970s saw the terrorist use new means such as plane-hijacking which was followed in 1980s by a wave of suicidal car-bombings. The uncompromising attitude on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians has further led to volatile situation in the state rendering the peace attempts completely useless. (Mehr, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 22-23)
The problem in the Middle East is that here Islam and the role of Muslim population in the conflicts of the region are perceived from a variety of standpoints rather than just one. Further, it must also be made clear that the conflict involving Islamists those Muslims who are politically active is not always manifested through violence. Opponents of Islamist activism, such as the secular Bathist state in Syria, have often been responsible for perpetrating the violence, the conflict and the worst atrocities. For instance, in 1982, the Syrian authorities massacred 10,000 members of the Muslim brotherhood a Sunni Muslim reformist organization that engaged in welfare and educational activities in the town of Hama following a civil protest against the Bathist authorities. In Lebanon, subject to fifteen years of civil war, occupation by Israel and a military presence by Syria, the breadth and diversity of Islamist activities are wide. There are followers of Islamist preachers and activists in both Sunni and Shia, who believe that change within the system is the best way to achieve their goals. In Iraq, under the regime of Saddam Hussein, thousands of Shiite Muslims were persecuted and murdered by the Bathist leader of the secular state. In post-war Iraq, countless Islamists are engaged in jihad that has turned into a civil war as well as an anti-occupation insurgency. Yet for the majority of Muslims, there is no role for violence as a dominant motif of Islamic resistance, as interpreted according to religious law, to foreign occupation or insurgence. (Edward Hinchcliffe, 2008, pp. 51-54)
In Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Kuwait and even Israel, Islamist could be identified in each context in many guises. It is certainly tie that conflict and associated violence came to dominate relations between Islamists and the state, however the number of occasions where Islamists formed organizations or movements especially for violent purposes are not as many as has been popularly perceived in the West. Middle East area studies allow for the possibility that Islams and Islamisms various interpretations are determined by social, political, and economic factors. According to this approach, the reasons why most extreme variant of Islamism opts for violent methods should not primarily or exclusively be sought on the percepts of the Islamic religion. There are no better cases to illustrate this controversy than Hamas and Hezbollah, both considered archetypical purveyors of religious terrorism.(Edward Hinchcliffe, 2008, pp. 55)
The debate over whether Hamas should be described as a terrorist entity is ongoing. The US placed Hamas on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1997, Israel consistently and exclusively represents Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the European Union also placed the movement on the list of terrorist organizations in 2003. Hamas and its representatives, on the other hand, describe themselves as a legitimate armed resistance movement struggling for Palestinian liberation. They justify the use of terrorist methods such as suicide bombings saying that first of all countering the power of a powerful state such as Israel would require terrorist means which is further justified as Israel too targets civilians for attacks. In addition, as all Israelis have to serve in the army, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants a key issue in terrorism dissolves altogether. The controversy over whether Hamas is a terrorist entity is highly relevant to the debate on religion and terrorism. Most analysts are forced to agree that Hamass use of terrorist methods falls within its wider use of guerilla tactics. Apart from its association with violence, Hamas is a social movement and a political party which won a clear majority in national legislative elections in January 2006, and which as displayed the ability to pragmatically adapt its ideology and goals to political circumstance. (Dalacoura, published in Jackson, Smyth and Gunning, 2009, pp. 128-129)
The example of Hezbollah too is a useful illustration of the controversy on religion and terrorism. Although since 1990s, Hezbollahs complicity in terrorist acts has been a matter of dispute, the movement can be firmly linked to terrorist attacks in the early 1980s, in particular against US and French peacekeepers in October 19803 in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1992 and 1994 and to the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. The controversial question of targeting civilians in the conflict with Israel is also relevant to Hezbollahs characterization. In justifying its acts and even its very existence, Hezbollah uses a religious discourse which is closely linked to the Shia Islamism emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But alongside that, it claims that it has been conducting a war of liberation against Israels occupation of South Lebanon since mod-1980s and depicts its violence as part of guerilla warfare with the aim of resisting occupation similar to that of Hamas. Furthermore, placing Hezbollah in its local context brings into picture its multiple roles provider of welfare and charity political party and protector of Shia interests within Lebanons inter-sectarian system. (Dalacoura, published in Jackson, Smyth and Gunning, 2009, pp. 129-130)
Ideology and violence in the Middle East
The impact of oil on the Islamic countries of the Middle East was paradoxical. Oil provided unprecedented wealth and that wealth could fund economic development, but it was always dependent progress dependent on the goodwill and the skilled workers of the West. Oil could restore Muslim pride, but it simultaneously also showed just how backward they had become since it could only be turned into wealth by the cooperation from the West the primary source of humiliation. With hindsight, the impossibility of trying to do it in one generation what had taken centuries in the west becomes all too obvious. Since the Shah of Iran (the place where it all started) did not approve of higher education in his country, he spent millions having people trained abroad, many of who did not come back. Hence, he was forced to spend further money on importing foreigners as he thought they were here only for money and could hardly plot against him. Oil wealth, in short promised great material prosperity and delivered it to some, but it did so in ways that undermined the socially significant parts of the traditional economy, in particular the small tradesmen and craftsmen of the bazaar. For from liberating Iran, oil increased its dependence on the West further distorting the economy. The failure of centrally directed development in Iran was more spectacular than in Egypt, but it amounted to the same thing statism had failed and Shah responded to this by increasing the repression in the state. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and later led to the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, because Saddam Hussein Feared the Shiite Muslims in his country would also seek to revolt along with the Shiite revolutionaries in Iran. The western-backed monarchy was hence thrown by Islamic fundamentalists, led by an exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, as it was seen as corrupt and repressive. (Bruce, 2008, pp. 49-50 Wilcox, 2004, pp. 33-34)
Fundamentalist terrorist in the Middle East can be described in several ways. From a political point of view, they are dogmatic and repressive. From a psychological point of view, they border on insanity. Culturally, they may be perceived as backward and reactionary. From a sociological point of view, their agenda is determined by the state, the colonial power against which they are fighting, the political model they have borrowed, and their stance against liberal Muslims in their society. However, these descriptions, while often true, do not explain an entire groups resolution to commit violent acts. (Tallatoff, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 26) when convictions and motives acted upon by the perpetrators of the September 11 were examined by Bohleber, ideologicalreligious factor was seen as a crucial component because it appears as the operative force behind the combination of narcissistic ideal condition and terrorist mass murder. Bohleber further found surprising similarities between ethnocentric German nationalism and radical nationalism after World War I. Some common traits include the same ubiquitous unconscious fantasies, such as care fantasies and sibling rivalry, purity and the idea of the other, visions of unity and fantasies of fusion.
The problem lies in the fact that in autocratic societies and dictatorial regimes, there is no room for disagreement and opposition dissenting voices are violently extinguished. The opposition is always forced t work clandestinely, hide activities, and attract attention though planned outbursts, a process that results in internal decay. This process happens quickly if the opposition is suppressed harshly and left without any hope for freedom of expression. The rise of fundamentalism is the product of these conditions in numerous countries in the Middle East. Such movements often arise after western-supported coups. In Middle Eastern countries where there is some room for oppositional political activities opposition has grown the least. In addition, fundamentalist also oppose what they perceive as the Imperialist opposition. They blame the West for the economic and technological backwardness of their own societies and the western support of repressive regimes in the region. They also condemn United States unconditional support for Israeli actions and over the last decade the treatment of Iraqi people. These issues are not without any basis, and are debated vigorously by both United States and the rest of the world also. Fundamentalists treatment of these topics is distinct from the other debates because they use these issues to promote a fictional universal ideology that is extremely incompatible with the real aspirations of the people in their societies. (Tallatoff, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 27-28)
The Iranian Revolution showed that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with class division and that all social groups embrace this ideology, given the right circumstances. While a historical analysis of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is definitely important, it does not take into consideration the very modern concerns of Islamic fundamentalists, such as the issues of state, women, and the West. Many scholars trace the relations between Islam and modernity to two contemporary western ideologies liberal capitalism and soviet Marxism. The liberal Islam can be seen as a response to western influence, while the fundamentalist Islam can be seen as a response to Marxism. The former uses liberal rationality and discursive arguments, and the latter resemble the Soviet Marxist polemical style. Like Marxists, fundamentalists are concerned with ideology, the rational sciences, and a response to the production of knowledge and sciences. This position is most obvious in the debates between Muslim fundamentalists and modernists over Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic fundamentalists reject the notion of significant or swift social evolution and portray the west as solely an aggressive, exploitative, and materialistic force. They promote Islam as a state ideology that stands diametrically opposed to development though liberal capitalism. (Tallatoff, published in Ragaini, 2003, pp. 29-30)
Causes of Extremism in the Middle East
Extremism has spread across most countries in the Middle East. It is true that religious extremism is the most conspicuous form, but other forms of extremism are also emerging in the region secular extremism as practiced by the government and the military elite in Turkey racism against minorities, such as Kurds and ethnic Iranians in Iraq and schismatic extremism, as experienced by Shiite Muslims in some Gulf countries. Since mod-1970s Islamic groups have become deeply involved in the internal political arena and gained popular support in a defective political and economic environment. In addition, the external political inadequacy of the existing political regimes has resulted in their being undermined. As the existing political regimes are unable to respond to successfully to the problem of daily political realities, these organizations have become a political alternative for the frustrated majority. Thus, Islamic groups, through the use of religious rhetoric have become increasingly popular and pose a real challenge to the governments in the region. Due to the undemocratic nature of most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries, clashes between the two parties (the Islamic groups and the governments) have swept away the possibility of any other political alternative. Consequently, violence and terrorism have arisen as outlets for political views. (Mohammad, published in Bjorgo, 2005, pp. 109-110)
In addition, the Islamic groups have offered an acceptable explanation of military and political defeats by utilizing irrefutable religious principles. Islamic movements were able to employ verses from Koran to interpret reality and deliver answers to critical questions such as how it was that Israel could defeat Muslims despite being heavily outranked in terms of population and natural resources. At the same time, the Islamic groups have boosted their credibility with the public through successful armed confrontation against two of the worlds most sophisticated military machines the Red Army of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the Israeli forces in Lebanon. By combining alternative interpretations of political realities from the Koran, with the military victories against Israel and the Soviet Union, Islamic movements have generated not just more support for their socio-political ideology, but also increasing patronage for their tactical methods, including the use of violence as a means of liberation from both internal pressures and external constraints. (Mohammad, published in Bjorgo, 2005, pp. 110-111)
Israeli defeat of the Arabs in 1967 and the burning of the Holy Mosque in 1969 were both events that were seen to have occurred under and, by implication, as a result of a secular government. By contrast, the defeat of both the Russians in Afghanistan and the Israelis in south Lebanon was seen as a direct result of the power of the emerging Islamic movements. The effects of these historical movements on the Arab psyche cannot be overestimated. On the one hand, they served to generate a uniquely honest self-critique of the deficiencies, and subsequent defeats, that secularism and nationalism had brought to bear on the Arab nation. And, on the other hand, they indicated a viable alternative route along the path of Islamic ideology. Therefore, Islam has been operationalized as an episodic discourse to discourse to diagnose and treat the political, economic, and social defects of the Middle East. (Mohammad, published in Bjorgo, 2005, pp. 111)
Conclusion
If there is one area which has spawned both a greater incidence and lethality of international terrorism in the last thirty years, it is the Middle East. Indeed, if ones conception of the Middle East also includes Algeria and Turkey the focal point of some of the most egregious and violent terrorist onslaught in the last two years it is clear that the Middle East is the most dangerous source of terrorist action, accounting for over 30 percent of all terrorist incidents internationally over the last decade. Ironically, the Middle East peace process (between Israel and Palestine) increased both the operational capacity and the motivation of terrorist movements. Israel openly flaunted agreements and continued to build Jewish settlements in the disputed West bank. Because of all these issues hatred of Israel and the governments supporting it, gripped parts of the Arab world, particularly among a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement sparked by clerical calls for jihad. The stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, as well as expanding Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories, also fed the anger that fueled massive terrorist attacks. (Boyer, Clark, Hawley, Kett, and Reiser, 2009, pp. 731)
Nevertheless the general opinions in United States regarding both Middle East and Islam are extremely narrow and biased. The notion Arab has often become synonym for Islamic fundamentalism in contemporary western culture, from movies to news to social theory. Post September 11, the war on Iraq, and the conflict in Palestine have all aided in linking Islamic fundamentalism with terrorism. Islamic fundamentalist is often conflated with Islam and with Middle East in general a stance that has generated significant critiques. However, it cannot be denied that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism challenges nearly every government in the Middle East and has been the source of much strife in the region as well as terrorism around the world. The surge of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the most important challenges facing the Middle East. Leaders of this movement reject modern that is to say western influences and want their governments to enforce Islamic law, or Sharia a form of rule where all aspects of life and nation are governed based on strict interpretations of the Koran.
Hence, no development in the Middle East in the past two decades is more important or significant that the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. Also, nowhere is religious nationalism more evident than in the Middle East. Islamic nationalism perhaps the most visible form of religious nationalism combines fundamentalist religious orthodoxy with contemporary political institutions. Presently, the major dilemma for most countries in the Middle East is how to best maintain Islamic heritage and traditions in a modern, global world that offers many alternatives or variations to an economic lifestyle.
