Please subscribe

The following is intended as a work in progress to provide a very briefdiscussion of issues involving radical Islamism. Naturally, it is tooshort to make all points, deal with all aspects, and cover all details.I plan to expand it in future to include possible solutions.

By Barry Rubin

A young American named Ramy Zamzam, arrested in Pakistan for trying tofight alongside the Taliban, responded in an interview with theAssociated Press: "We are not terrorists. We are jihadists, and jihadis not terrorism."

What he says is well worth bearing in mind in order to understand thegreat conflict of our era. First and foremost, Jihadism or radicalIslamism is far more than mere terrorism. It is a revolutionarymovement in every sense of the word. It seeks to overthrow existingregimes and replace them with governments that will transform societyinto a nightmarishly repressive system.

And so one might put it this way: Revolutionary Islamism is the mainstrategic problem in the world today. Terrorism is the main tacticalproblem.

What is Islamism?

Radical Islamism is the doctrine that each Muslim majoritycountry—politics, economy, society—should be ruled by a totalitariandictatorship guided by the given movement’s definition of proper Islam.What Marxism was to Communism, and fascism to Nazism, Jihadism is toIslamism.

In some cases, Islamists have a wider ambition to transform the entireworld, starting with Europe. While this may seem ridiculous to mostWesterners, it does not seem so to the Islamists who hold that view.

Only a minority of Muslims is Islamist but that sector has grownsharply over the last twenty years and seems to be on the increasestill. Muslims are also among the greatest opponents of politicalIslamism, and often its victims. Among those rejecting it areconservative traditionalist Muslims and Arab (or other types of)nationalists, along with a very small group which can be called liberalreformist.

Three places have been under radical Islamist rule so far: Iran and theGaza Strip, as well as, temporarily, Afghanistan. An Islamist groupusing democratic tactics has gained control of the government inTurkey, where it is pursuing a step-by-step attempt to transform thatcountry which may or may not succeed. Radical Islamist movements havebeen active in well over 60 countries ranging from Australia andIndonesia in the east to Morocco in the west, and even in Europe andNorth America.

The fact that radical Islamism relates to a religion, Islam, is veryimportant (see below) but should not blind observers to the fact thatthis is basically a political movement and not—at least in the modernWestern sense—a theological one.

Of course, Islamism is rooted in Islam but a strong opposition toIslamism—a standpoint shared by many Muslims who may motivated by atraditional view of Islam, ethnic or nation-state nationalism, or adifferent radical ideology (Arab nationalism most likely)—is in no wayan expression of bigotry against a religion.
Similarly, the idea that opposition to Islamism is in some way “racist”is absurd since no “race” is involved. Just as opponents of Communism(capitalist, imperialist) and fascism (Jews, Bolsheviks) could bediscredited by calling them names, the same is done with those whooppose Islamism.

Very roughly, Islamism is parallel to Communism and fascism asrevolutionary mass movements. Analogies should not be carried too farbut are useful in understanding certain basic points.

There are a wide variety of Islamist groups. A small but energeticinternational grouping of local organizations called al-Qaida; MuslimBrotherhood branches, Hamas, and Hizballah are the best known. Invirtually every Muslim majority country and throughout Western Europethere are such organizations working very hard to gain state power.

What is the relationship of Islamism to Islam?

Islamism grows out of Islam and its advocates easily find widelyaccepted and very basic Islamic principles that justify their worldview and behavior. But Islamism is an interpretation of Islam and notthe only one possible. Indeed, for centuries there have been differentinterpretations.

To argue that Islamism is the inevitable or “correct” interpretation ofIslam is as silly as it is to argue that it is some external, hereticalideology which has “hijacked” Islam. A rough parallel can be made withthe relationship between Communism and either liberal or democraticsocialism, and of fascism compared to conservatism or nationalism.

What Islam “means” can only be interpreted in practice by Muslims in aprocess of debate and struggle. We will see what happens in the decadesto come. For outsiders to claim that Islam is “really” a religion ofpeace or “really” inevitably aggressive is meaningless. And, yes, nomatter how powerful a religious text seems to be worded, followers ofthat religion can always find ways to ignore or reinterpret those texts.

Just as the Islamists can base their case on original Islamic texts,their Muslim opponents can argue from centuries of practice as well astheir own interpretations. The reason that the Islamists (who wereearlier called “fundamentalists” for precisely this reason) have to goback to the seventh century texts—though of course there are later onesthey use that support their case—is that the intervening years did notfollow their precepts. Indeed, that is precisely their complaint.

What eventually emerged is what I call conservative traditionalistIslam which subordinated itself to the rulers. It was no longer arevolutionary doctrine. A key point in this approach was the argumentthat as long as the ruler was a believing Muslim he should be obeyed.In addition, it was a powerfully held stance that no Muslim could judgeand condemn as heretical the believes or behavior of other Muslims.Islamism had to combat these and other tenets of conservativetraditionalist Islam.

To summarize in one sentence: we should be absolutely honest in showinghow the most sacred texts of Islam appear to validate revolutionaryIslamists but we should understand that a struggle is going on amongMuslims in which different interpretations are contending. WhileIslamism is not the only possible interpretation of Islam, its approachis certainly shaped and justified by basic Islamic texts. UnlessMuslims and especially qualified clerics reinterpret these tenets,Islamism will continue to have a strong advantage in competing withconservative traditional Islam while liberal reformism will remain atiny, powerless viewpoint.

It is not that Islam has been hijacked, rather different forces are fighting over control of the steering wheel.

State sponsorship and nation-state ambitions

It is also, even when not so visibly state-sponsored, often aninstrument of specific states, most notably Iran and Syria. Trying tospread Islamist revolution has been a major goal since the takeover ofIran itself and fits closely with Iranian great power ambitions. Notall leaders have pursued this with equal vigor but it is a highpriority of the current rulers. A wide variety of organizations frombarely disguised front groups to powerful Islamist organizations inIraq, Lebanon, and among the Palestinians are used for this purpose.Most recently this pattern has been extended to Yemen. Some are pureassets, others client groups with a measure of independence.

While itself not an Islamist regime, Syria has understandablycalculated that the Islamist side serves its interests very well. Thus,idea that Syria can easily be pulled away from its alliance with Iranand backing for Islamist groups like Hamas and Hizballah is a fantasy.

It is quite true that al-Qaida has shown that Islamist groups don’thave to be state-backed but the fact is that many of them still areable to operate because there is a regime behind them.

Tactics and strategies

Like Communist movements in the past, Islamist movements use a widevariety of strategies and tactics. The use of a non-violent tactic—likeparticipation in elections—does not indicate that the group has ceasedto be revolutionary. Actually, it is tough pressure by the regime thatmight force the Islamist leadership to postpone revolutionary activityto the distant future (Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood), repress italtogether (Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood), or get it tied up in electoralknots (Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood).

On the other hand, it is no accident that the most militant Islamistgroups have flourished where government is weakest: Hizballah, Hamas,and the Iraqi insurgents.

As for terrorism, that is a strategy and tactic which appeals to thesemovements for very specific reasons. These include the followingpoints. While the Islamists claim they are only conducting a “defensivejihad”—since there is no caliph, offensive jihad isn’t supposed tohappen—they are actually conducting offensive revolution.

The ideas that America is being attacked because Jihadists dislike itsfreedom or that it is being targeted because of its policies are bothpartly true. But precisely the same point could be made aboutCommunism, Nazism, and Japanese imperialism. The problem of Americanculture and freedom, however, does not relate to what goes on in theUnited States but the fear that this model will spread inevitably totheir own societies.

The complaint about U.S. policy is related to the fact that America isseen as a protector of the regimes the Islamists want to overthrow. Themotive here is not that these regimes are tyrannical but that they arenot Islamist. Lebanon and Turkey, the most democratic states in theMuslim-majority Middle East, have especially strong Islamist movements.

Another reason for targeting the United States or others in the West isthat killing infidels is popular among the Islamists’ constituency as asign of power to defeat the stronger West. The alternative is to focusterrorist attacks on the local governments. But killing fellow Muslimsis less popular and the governments strike back with ferociousrepression, while they are more likely to tolerate movements that onlyattack non-Muslims at home or abroad.

Why is terrorism used?

--It expresses the total and dehumanizing hatred Islamists have toward their enemies.

--It shows their disinterest in any compromise since the use of terrorism will dissuade their enemies from making deals.

--They believe that intimidation works and the history of terrorism shows they are not wrong in doing so.

--Terror, at least against non-Muslims, generally pleases their constituency and thus strengthens their base of support.

--This tactic fits with certain Islamic beliefs and texts whilewell-known clerics do not condemn terrorism, at least againstnon-Muslims, strongly, explicitly, and consistently.

It is tempting to say that terrorism is a tactic of last resort whenrepressive regimes permit no other route. But in most—though notall—cases, terrorism is used against the less tyrannical societies fora simple reason: the really repressive ones quickly kill theterrorists.

Conclusion

Neither more democracy nor more prosperity provides simple solutions tothis challenge by Islamism. Many Islamist leaders and cadre come fromwell-off families. They are driven by ideological, cultural, andreligious factors just as left-wing students in the West seek utopiantransformations of society. Equally, they are not driven by antagonismto tyranny since their goal is to establish a new, worse tyranny. Boththe Nazis and Communists came to power by overthrowing democraticregimes, in part through elections. With Islamism’s strength, theproblem is not the lack of democracy by the rulers but the lack of astrong democratic movement to compete with it.

The Islamist movements will only be defeated by the destruction ofviolent groups as well as a widespread perception among Muslims thatthey either cannot take power or are a disaster as rulers.

Better government and higher living standards in their own countrieswould help to some extent in some countries. Aside from notoverestimating this factor, it should be added that the West has no wayto make these things happen, by overthrowing and replacing regimes (asIraq and Afghanistan show), by changing its own policies, or bypressuring the incumbent regimes to change.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of InternationalAffairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader(seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle forDemocracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria(Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.