Since Sept.
11, 2001 European Muslims have been seen as a potential base for a radical,
anti-Western ideology founded on a crude misinterpretation of Islam that
delights in killing innocents under the banner of "Jihad."
The attack in London on July 7 was just one episode in the chain of violence
perpetrated by this death cult.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of the
13 million or more Muslims living in Europe are law-abiding citizens who
abhor this barbarism in the name of their faith. Yet, there is a
considerable minority that sympathizes with terrorism. In a previous poll
taken in the UK, supporters of bin Laden among Muslims numbered 13 percent.
I was personally shocked, two years ago at a seminar I gave in London, to
meet two modern-looking Muslim youngsters who saw bin Laden as the "Mahdi"
-- the awaited redeemer of Islam.
What is the problem here? Some in the West think the problem is Islam
itself. They are mistaken. The truth is that the radicalization of young
European Muslims is the outcome of many social, political and historical
factors that have led to the misinterpretation of Islam.
Strangers in a Strange Land
Unlike Muslims in the United States, who
largely belong to the middle class, most European Muslims are economically
disadvantaged, poorly integrated and tend to cluster in closed communities.
They are predominantly post-World War II immigrants who arrived as manual
laborers. They migrated from poor countries and were among the poorest even
in their native societies. Turkish workers in Germany, for example, came
from the least-developed areas of Turkey and experienced an enormous
cultural shock when faced with a highly modernized, secular German society.
The resulting deep cultural isolation is even stronger among many Pakistanis
and Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom, North Africans in France and Spain,
and Muslims from the Middle East throughout Europe. This cultural and
linguistic isolation is further deepened by racial differences.
Many immigrants tend to accept this
separation. Older people try to maintain their traditional lifestyles in a
foreign land. Many of their children adopt Western ways, but even they live
with a peculiar sense of double alienation: neither the lands of their
fathers nor the new countries of residence seem a true home to them. They
are, as the French political scientist Oliver Roy says, "culturally
uprooted."
Lack of Modern Interpretation of Islam
Another reason for this sense of
homelessness is that these young European Muslims lack an interpretation of
Islam that would be compatible with modern life. Many of them find a middle
ground between Islamic traditions and Western lifestyles, but since those
attempts do not have a doctrinal basis, they create a sense of guilt in
people living at cultural crossroads. This guilt leads some of them to
embrace the most radical interpretations -- or rather, misinterpretations --
of Islam peddled by itinerant imams from Saudi-funded madrassas. Most of the
9/11 conspirators in Europe were such born-again "neo-fundamentalists," to
use a term introduced by Roy. Similarly, the terrorists who attacked London
on 7/7 turned out to be such "modern youngsters."
Roy emphasizes the difference between
neo-fundamentalism and what is usually called "traditional" Islam. He points
out that neo-fundamentalism (or Jihadism) is based on political slogans, not
theological arguments, and defies many established Islamic laws. Traditional
Islam, for example, is very outspoken on the need to assure the safety of
non-combatants in warfare. Acts of terror against civilians are a clear
violation of this principle.
Other scholars have also noted the
discrepancy between Jihadism and traditional Islam. Daniel Pipes, an expert
on the issue, says: "Traditional Islam seeks to teach human beings how to
live in accord with God's will; militant Islam aspires to create a new
order."
The Root Causes of Radicalism
Why the sudden appeal of Islamic
neo-fundamentalism to some young Muslims? Three general answers are usually
offered. The first one points to the widespread poverty and desolation of
Muslims living in Europe and the Islamic world in general. That claim,
however, requires some explanation because it has also been noted that most
radicals and terrorists do not come from among the ignorant poor but from
educated and prosperous classes. Yet the plight of the Islamic masses is an
important factor in the ideological makeup of militant Islamism. Just as
leftist intellectuals, who often came from bourgeois families, fought
capitalism in the name of the "proletariat," well-off and educated Islamist
militants believe they sacrifice themselves for the sake of the
impoverished, oppressed umma, the worldwide Muslim community.
It should be noted that the creators of
modern Jihadism -- people like Sayyid Qutb, Ali Shariati and Mawdudi -- were
very much influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Like the communists, who believe
in a global conspiracy of capitalist imperialists aided by native
compradors, Jihadists think that the Islamic world's poverty and weakness
are the result of a great conspiracy of the West and their local agents.
According to this line of reasoning, to redeem the Islamic world one needs
to strike at "the oppressors" rather than work to raise education levels,
productivity or health standards in Muslim societies.
This quasi-Marxist worldview of the
Jihadists might explain why their ideology appeals to die-hard communists
like Carlos the Jackal.
A second source of Islamic radicalism is
old and recent political mistakes made by the West. The most obvious root
causes of anti-Western feelings are the English and French colonial past and
the American backing of Middle Eastern dictatorships during the Cold War.
The Palestinian tragedy is another major issue that will not be resolved
unless there is a workable two-state solution.
The third explanation of the origins of
Islamic militancy has to do with the cultural gap between traditionalist
Islam and the modern world. The pre-modern lifestyle practiced by many
Islamist traditionalists -- and often seen by them as the essence of their
faith -- creates a perception of an inherent clash between Islam and
modernity. The traditionalists themselves may be free of pro-terrorist
sentiments, but Jihadists use this alleged incompatibility to fashion
themselves as the vanguard in the Islamic struggle.
What is to be
Done?
The above suggests three important tasks
for Muslim leaders and intellectuals in the immediate future:
First, de-legitimize the political ideology
of militant Islamism by exposing its departures from the true teachings of
Islam; refute its underlying conspiracy theories, its quasi-Marxist
blueprint, and its misuse of traditional Islamic sources.
Second, help the Western powers formulate
better policies to overcome centuries of distrust and antagonism.
Third, construct a new interpretation of
Islam that will help Muslims break free from medieval traditions and develop
modern attitudes compatible with the Islamic faith and morality.
This is necessary because some traditional
Islamic concepts do not correspond to modern realities. Take, for example,
the much-disputed concept of the division of the world into the "House of
Islam" and the "House of War" formulated by Muslim jurists in the early
centuries of Islam. At that time the world was ruled by empires that imposed
their own faith on all subjects. A Muslim could not safely practice and
proselytize Islam in foreign lands.
Yet times have changed. Today Muslims are
free to practice and proselytize their faith throughout the world --
especially in liberal Western democracies. They should embrace such open
societies and present their faith by their own good example, by living Islam
in the modern world and in peace with other creeds.
This is what reason demands. Moreover, it
is what the Koran demands: The differences between people, says the Koran,
were not created for conflict but for letting them know each other. (49:13)
Mr. Akyol is a courageous voice of moderation
and reason concerning Jihadist terrorism. In
addition to his writings (see his English Web
site at:
http://www.thewhitepath.com/), he has
participated in illuminating dialogues with
scholars who have been quite critical of Islam,
e.g., Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or. This spirit of
honest, candid dialogue is vital to the peaceful
resolution of conflicts and tensions. One of
these dialogues concerned
“The Pope and Islam”; the other,
“Convert or Die,” addressed the forced
conversion of two Western journalists. (The
URLs, in case the links don’t work for you are,
respectively:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25789
and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24999)