Background
The city of Bengaluru recently woke up to the news of a bomb blast in a very well known restaurant. Subsequent reports suggested that the improvised explosive device was planted by a person claiming allegiance to and inspired by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. A terror attack is, to be clear, a crime. I have my reasons as to why I don’t think it serves the cause of counter terrorism, to attribute it to a larger conspiracy by an entire civilization. But that’s for another day and time. Currently, though I wish to address the issue of the political correctness or the lack of it, in branding the perpetrators of the Rameshwaram Café blast as “Islamic Terrorists” or the merits of divesting religion from the crime.
The basis for the label of “Islamic Terrorist”
The study of terrorism or terrorist organisations, either for academic purpose or for purposes of counter terrorism, necessarily involves an effort to understand, amongst other things, who are the leaders, how are they procuring their weapons, what are their tactics and lastly, what motivates the members of the terrorist organisations. A clinical endeavor to understand terrorism, would reveal that Islamic terrorism is relatively new in the scheme of history. Be it the Jewish zealots of the Roman Era, the Basque separatists of Europe, the Red Brigades of Italy, the Jewish Resistance during the time of British governed Palestine, the Naxal movement in India, the ULFA in the North East- insurgency movements are not new and they come in all shapes, size, form and manner. Whether or not they are branded as terrorists involves a complex set of parameters. But what one can universally agree upon is that any armed movement that is tolerant to or intends to harm civilians or spread terror amongst non combatants, can safely be branded as a terrorist organization. That would render no distinction between a Hitler and a Bin Laden, for their sense of racial superiority and love for violence and the appetite for inflicting injustice and lastly the acumen to justify their crimes by falling back on political philosophy, renders them brothers separated by time.
The study of counter-terrorism is thus, also the study of the ideological motivations of terrorist organisations. In behavioral sciences, there is a term known as “feedback filter”, which refers to, amongst other things, the reasons or the circumstances one cites to justify the crime. Understanding this feedback[i] filter is also critical to understanding how the criminal thinks and behaves and thus the optimal means of fighting him. In the context of terrorism also, the feedback filter is critical. For example, the Basque Separatists in Spain wanted independence from Spain and thus were motivated by the sense of a Basque homeland. Hence, the term “Basque Terrorists”. The IRA similarly was motivated by a desire to break free from England and assert a sense of Irish identity and hence the term ‘Irish Separatists’. The Naxal movement in India is driven by communist philosophy and hence the term ‘Red Terrorists’. Any effort to protect civilian populations and assert national security against terrorists, necessarily must fight the battle on multiple fronts, propaganda and information being one of them. In the day and age of hybrid warfare, this is a reality and thus, identifying the precise contours of a terrorist’s motivation is key to neutralizing the ideological inspiration before a terrorist act.
In that endeavour, the study of the fight against an ISIS or an Al-Qaeda or a Lashkar-e-Toiba, must necessarily investigate and understand what motivates them. That question will inevitably and in all likelihood find, that the members of these organizations ultimately find justification for their heinous actions in certain philosophies of their faith, i.e., Islam. No doubt their interpretation of Islam is controversial, but it is an interpretation and it is what drives them. The label of “Islamic Terrorism” may thus serve a limited function of describing the motivation of the terrorist organization.
Why the term “Islamic Terrorist” is inadequate?
In that limited sense, the label “Islamic Terrorism” is not inaccurate and should therefore not be controversial. Islamic Terrorism is also formidable for the reason that its perpetrators are well motivated, well networked and have either the active backing of conventional states such as Pakistan (through the Directorate S of the ISI) or the indirect backing of other nations that do not do enough to cut funding and the feeding of propaganda. A classic example, ironically is Great Britain, which has a history of backing Islamic Extremism going back to World War 1 when it used militant Islam as a weapon against Turkey. It also did not do enough to put down Mohammad Amin Al-Huessini whose genocidal rant against jewish inhabitants of British governed Palestine, earned him the friendship of Hitler.
However, while the term “Islamic Terrorism” is not inaccurate, this label is also inadequate in describing the complete set of geopolitical, historic and cultural factors that sustains the ISIS and Al-Qaedas of the world. I explain this with the help of two illustrations
- Hamas and Al-Qaeda are both branded as terrorist organisations, but they are vastly different in terms of their structure, tactics and motivations. While Islam is probably an underlining sub-text to their activities, there is also a reason, beyond just Islam, that causes them to be different organisations and not collaborate. For example, though the Al-Qaeda cites the Palestinian cause as one of its goals, under Abū Muṣʻab Zarqāwī’s leadership, it indulged in indiscriminate killing of Shias in Iraq and thus earned the enmity of Iran. Al-Qaeda also envisions a global Islamic state. Hamas on the other hand doesn’t believe in a global Islamic state and conversion of the world to Islam. It’s slated purpose is Palestine. Though comprised of Sunnis, it collaborates with Shia Iran and Hezbollah. They are both capable of being labelled as “Islamic” Terrorist Organisations, but they are so much more than that and using that as a term would give us an inadequate understanding of who they are, why they exist, why they survive and why they are supported by the actors that support them. Such an incorrect understanding could fundamentally derail counter terrorism strategies.
- ISIS is another example. When the ISIS movement started, the west, with its over simplistic views, probably did not even recognize the distinction between an ISIS or an Al Nusra movement. Nor did it realise that the release of the followers of Abū Muṣʻab Zarqāwi, a particularly brutal (now deceased) Al-Qaeda Commander by Assad, in response to perceived US support to the Arab Spring revolution against him, would be the origins of ISIS. Thus when ISIS emerged, in all likelihood, Israel and the USA were watching and waiting, instead of branding them as terrorists, hoping that they would overthrow Assad. Yet, ISIS’ contempt for Israel and the USA and their propaganda against them, is well known. If the US had caught the precise character of the Al Nusra/ISIS front against Assad, chances are that American made weapons wouldnt fall into the hands of the ISIS terrorists whose atrocities in Iraq are well known[ii].
- The geopolitics that enables an ISIS or Hezbollah to survive and thrive is far more complex than mere religion, for it also doesn’t explain why an ISIS and its predecessor, Al Qaeda (headed by Al Marqawi) attacked Shia establishments in Iraq, whereas Hezbollah, a Shia militia, rises for the defense of a Sunni Hamas. This raises the need for a nuance in the understanding of these terrorist organisations, which would be impossible if one were to simply go by the label of “Islamic Terrorism”.
The Historic and Cultural Background of Militant Islam
To understand the background of these actors in the conflict in the middle east, one must study, fully and holistically and not on a piece meal basis, the history of Islam and Islamic Extremism. Such a study, particularly, of the times of the Mongol invasions and the Crusades, would reveal that Militant Islam was a reaction and a defense to the other movements of religious terrorism that suddenly put the entire Muslim world to threat[iii]. Lets not forget the large scale genocide of muslims during the crusader conquest of Jerusalem[iv]. Militant Islam emerged as a necessity to bring together a divided world of Muslims, consisting of Fatimids, Nizaris, Ismailis, Turks, Arabs and many other factions, to fight under a common banner against the European invasions and atrocities in the Levant, inspired, funded and blessed by the Catholic Church. Militant Islam wasn’t born out of a thirst for conquest and conversion. However, as a tool to achieve homogeneity and unity, it hasn’t succeeded entirely.
The merits of going beyond “Islamic Terrorism” as a label
This doesn’t in anyway mitigate or justify Islamic Terrorism, but it does provide to the cause of counter-terrorism, the information and data necessary to contextualize the words of historic muslim scholars cited by terrorists, counter propaganda and lay bare, the fallacies and untenable nature of the lies and the hate that the Bin Ladens of the world spread in order to earn foot soldiers for their cause. This is critical to counter terrorist propaganda. Rather than citing the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights to argue for the right of religious freedom with muslims falling under the influence of ISIS, we would be more effective if we referred instead to the words of the acclaimed Islamic Scholar, Ibn Taymiyya. He, according to Reza Aslan (the author of several books on Islam and religion), argued that the idea of killing nonbelievers who refused to convert to Islam—the foundation of the classical doctrine of jihad—not only defied the example of Prophet Muhammad but also violated one of the most important principles in the Quran: that “there can be no compulsion in religion” (2:256)[v].
No doubt, these tenets of the Quran have not been followed by several muslim leaders when they undertook invasions in the past. The onslaught of Islamic invasions and its impact on the Hindu temples of India and the Hindu way of life of invading muslims is well documented. In all fairness, these invaders also took inspiration from sources of Islamic law to justify their crimes. But this wakes us up to the fact that there is an Islam that for example, condemns the destruction of Hindus and Hindu way of life by the Muslim Invaders and there is a version of Islam, twisted as it may be, that mandates it.
Thus for the Non-Islamic world, there fundamentally exists two questions or options- 1) Is it a winning strategy to insult, humiliate and constantly attack the entire religion of Islam and its followers and force them to stop believing or existing or 2) Or does a smart strategy dictate that we encourage, respect and acknowledge a version of Islam that is inclusive, pluralistic and consistent with democratic values, extol the virtues of this version of Islam, encourage and fund the spread of its values in order convince the followers of Islam to turn to a version that is compassionate and humane? Bear in mind that we must choose one of the options at least, as we ultimately need a strategy for information warfare to achieve a victory against “Islamic Terrorists”.
To stereotype or not to Stereotype?
The 1st option is a call for genocide and conflict and complete subjugation, a goal that military history will tell us, is unachievable, morally reprehensible and legally untenable under international law. The latter option on the other hand is, difficult and challenging, but ultimately more likely achievable. More importantly the means of achieving the 2nd option, will not rob us of the soul and the values we are fighting to defend against the Al-Qaedas of the world. Which option we choose, will reflect our intelligence as a civilised world. But more importantly, what choice we make, says more about our character than the character of the “Islamic” Terrorists who we are fighting today.
i. See “Sexual Homicide, Patterns and Motives” by Dr. Ann Burgess, John Douglas and Robert Ressler
ii. “Black Flags Rise of ISIS” by Joby Warrick
iii. Saladin’s use of propaganda to unite divided factions of Muslim Armies against invading “Franks”, was perhaps one of the first of many instances of Jihadism becoming the foundation of the defense of Muslim Lands. For more information, see “Saladin: The Life, the Legend and the Islamic Empire”
iv. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land” by Thomas Asbridge
v. Reza Aslan in fact further argues that on this point the Quran is adamant by quoting the following verses which state that “The truth is from your Lord,” and it says; “believe it if you like, or do not” (18:29). He further supports his argument in the following words “The Quran also asks rhetorically, “Can you compel people to believe against their will?” (10:100). Obviously not; the Quran therefore commands believers to say to those who do not believe, “To you your religion; to me mine” (109:6).
See Aslan, Reza. No God But God . Random House. Kindle Edition.
ashokgv.wordpress.com 