Islam, Fanaticism and Violence
Tomas Hu-Douts
(Investigator 96, 2004 May)
Religious
motivated violence seems to be on the increase of which September 11
and other recent terrorist atrocities are but a few tragic examples.
Why is it that violence in the name of religion occurs? The reasons are
many and in this article I shall give a very general outline of the
major factors, concentrating on those associated with Muslim
fundamentalism as this is of most concern at the present time.
The
historical record shows that many of the major religions have passed
through phases of extremism at some point in their history
(Christianity with its Crusades, pogroms, and witch hunts is an example
that comes readily to mind). I think the answer to why can be found in
the social milieu of the times.
During the early Middle Ages Islamic civilization was the richest and
most advanced culture of the time, and perhaps reached its highest
point during the 9th century. Unfortunately, the glories of Islam were
slowly eclipsed by European civilization, and gradually stagnated and
declined. The major factors that contributed to this fall are as
follows:
• Invasion by the Turkmen nomads in the 11th century.
• The Crusades in the 12th century.
• European exploration in the 16th century.
• Failing economy and social immobility.
• Subjugation by European imperialism in the 19th century.
In
order to understand Islamic fundamentalism we need to examine the
societies where it is prevalent. We find that the majority are
oppressive regimes where little individual freedom exists, especially
the freedom to question institutions, powerful individuals and beliefs.
This kind of oppression inevitably leads to a sense of frustration in
many — they know society could be better, but are constantly confronted
by the fact that it is not. This sense of frustration, as we shall see,
can be harnessed for evil as well as good.
The
fact that Muslim societies have not become democracies is partially the
fault of the ruling elites of those societies themselves. (I could be
wrong, but I am yet to be convinced that the interference of Western
powers is SOLELY responsible for Middle-Eastern dictatorships). Human
nature, being what it is, means that people are often reluctant to
accept personal responsibility for their problems, and often seek a
scapegoat on which they can blame their failures. The West in general
and America in particular serve this purpose admirably.
Islamic
fundamentalism can be seen, in part, as a reaction to Western
ascendancy—in trying to account for the lost glories of Islamic
civilization, many see the failure in terms of having departed from the
Prophet's ideas (by embracing aspects of the West), and seek to return
to a 'pure' form of Islam which they claim has all the answers to
social, economic and political problems affecting Muslim society.
The
country that seems to be spawning fanatical versions of Islam (apart
from Iran) is Saudi Arabia, where Wahabism is the state religion. The
proponents of Wahabism transformed most of the Arabian Peninsula into a
theocracy through conquest. It is a rigid and deeply intolerant version
of Islam that preaches denegation of all other faiths:
Saudi
textbooks have been laced with passages that not only extol the
supremacy of Islam but also denigrate non-believers. An eighth-grade
book states that Allah cursed Jews and Christians and turned some of
them into apes and pigs. Ninth-graders learn that Judgment Day will not
come "Until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them." A chapter for a
10th-grade class warns Muslims against befriending non-Muslims, saying,
"It is compulsory far the Muslims to be loyal to each other and to
consider infidels their enemy." (After 9/11 The Saudis: Friend or Foe?
Time, September 15, 2003, page 32)
Raised
on such a diet of hatred it should come as no surprise that fifteen of
the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of this country. In addition Saudi
Arabia exports this intolerant version of Islam by funding extremist
religious schools in other Western and non-Western nations.
A
Western scapegoat can be very useful to the religious and political
elite (which cynically use Islam for their own ends) whose power and
prestige would be eroded by democratic reforms. Our society is largely
secular thanks to the efforts of Freethinkers and Rationalists who
challenged religious beliefs and the authority of the Church and State.
Consequently,
it is in the interests of dictatorships to promote (either overtly or
covertly) the idea that "America is the Great Satan" as a means of
distraction. For if a large percentage of the population can be kept
busy hating the West then their energy will be spent on this futile
exercise rather than on pressuring their own governments to initiate
reforms. In addition, there is nothing like a hated enemy to promote a
sense of unity and superiority that can also be harnessed by those who
hold the reigns of power.
In
spite of the above factors, the vast majority of Muslims do not appear
to be bloodthirsty fanatics hungering for the destruction of the West.
Therefore,
the question now arises of why certain individuals are influenced by
these factors and become involved with organisations that promote
violence in the name of religion (usually used as a justification for
political ambitions).
One
possible reason might be that some individuals are unable to find a
constructive purpose to their lives, viewing their existence as
worthless and meaningless. In order to escape this sense of meaningless
they become imbued with the desire to merge themselves with some
greater purpose that transcends their limited and ineffectual
existence. The idea of a Holy War against the West that gives them the
justification to vent their anger appears, for some, to fulfil this
need.
But
why, specifically, does the Idea of a holy war arise? (Jihad, actually
means “struggle", but not necessarily an armed struggle). Part of the
reason may be due to feelings of doubt and insecurity.
There
are many religions in the world and if a particular faith claims that
it alone is true then its adherents must explain the fact that other
faiths, philosophies and ways of life exist, and may, in fact, be the
TRUE PATH, or at least better than their own. One way of coping with
this possibility is to denigrate beliefs and cultures other than one’s
own. However, this may be considered insufficient by some—these other
beliefs and ways of life must also be eliminated. By being victorious
over them the believer gains the increased sense of security he
needs—the enemy lost because they were wrong, misguided or just plain
evil.
If
fundamentalism gains the ascendancy then it can only harm those
societies who are toying with the idea, because it is the antithesis of
the very things that advance civilization, for Fundamentalists of all
persuasions are intolerant of:
• Individualism, liberty of personal choice and plurality of thought.
• Free debate and inquiry.
• Anything perceived as contrary to their faith.
• Open societies.
• Non—violence.
What
then of the future? Will Muslim fundamentalism increase its influence?
Unfortunately, the answer may be yes. In going to war against Iraq, the
Coalition may have sown the seeds of further hatred. Many Muslims would
be deeply disturbed by the (largely) American occupation and feel a
sense of humiliation at the conquest of their country.
In my
opinion the Coalition probably acted with the best of motives, however,
the path to Hell (metaphorically speaking) is often paved with good
intentions. Indeed, democracy imposed by force may be seen by some as
just another form of tyranny. If this proves to be the case, then
Western ideas and values will continue to be rejected by many.
Whatever
form of government is eventually established in Iraq stands a good
chance of being perceived by the fundamentalists as a puppet of the
West. Consequently, they will attempt to destabilize the country. Given
the fact that it will be a fledgling democracy with no solid history of
democratic institutions, there is a good chance they will succeed.
Consequently, we could be facing the prospect of a civil war or
revolution within a few years of a Coalition withdrawal. Hopefully,
history will prove me wrong.
In the
long term how will the situation resolve itself? As I have neither the
gift of prophecy nor psychic powers it is impossible for me to know.
However, I feel confident in saying this: If Islamic societies are to
change for the better, then this change must wrought by indigenous
reformers if it is to be embraced by the majority of Muslims.
References
Hoffer, E. The True Believer, Mentor Books, New York, 1960
Schechterman, B. Religious Fanaticism as a Factor in Political Violence
http://members.tripod.com/-MECRA/page6.html
Islamic Fundamentalism
http://humanists.net/wasm/Islamic%20Fundamentalism.htm
Alter 9/11 The Saudis: Friend or Foe? Time, September 15, 2003.