(Note: there are some brief reading assignments found farther on down this page.)
Here is a way to sort out some of what we have been seeing and talking about in the last few classes:
Some committed Muslims (both Sunni and Shi'ite) are fundamentalists and some are not. Almost all Muslims are either traditionalists or fundamentalists. These two outlooks shade into one another. The more fundamentalist outlook is the one that aggressively fights back against aspects of modernity in order to regain the lost influence and vitality of the Islamic world. Often there is talk of returning to the glories of the Golden Age of Islam. However, Islamic fundamentalists are not all alike. Some are much more radical and committed to the use of violent jihad against the perceived enemies of Islam than are others. Some are much more committed to trying to achieve their goals through nonviolent jihad. (Remember, jihad is simply a struggle against evil, against anything not in line with the will of God. According to Muhammad, the highest form of jihad occurs within an individual who is struggling against evil inside himself.) So, we will divide the Islamic fundamentalists into radical and moderate. This is not like the difference between separatist and activist, since just about all Islamic fundamentalists appear to be activists.
Currently, the main hallmark of the fundamentalists is their desire to fight back against secularism, social inequality, and the evils of modern forms of immorality (especially what they perceive to be modern threats to the family) by rejecting the post-colonial secular governments in Muslim regions, and by establishing in their place Islamic states wherever Muslims are in the strong majority. They believe (as far as I can see) that in this way they can return Muslim society to its former glory -- back to the Golden Age of 1000 years ago when Islamic culture was pre-eminent in the civilized world. Lack of commitment to Islam is identified as the root source of the current state of disarray and economic malaise in Muslim countries, and it is assumed that if Muslim countries were to return to hard-core Islam, through the establishment of Islamic states, God (Allah) will be with them and their problems will be solved.
They identify the main causes of current problems to be Western intrusiveness into their cultures (through the media and commerce), Western domination of their economies (through multi-national corporations, such as oil companies, and the World Bank), and Western political domination through the UN and military might. Moreover, many of them remember that their own countries were forced into existence as nation-states by the process of Western colonization. It is perhaps then not surprising that included in the ideal of an Islamic state is the rejection of Western-style secular government. However, there is also suspicion of absolute monarchy (where the king perhaps takes the place of the Quran). (This is why there will be trouble over Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, governed by a royal family that is notorious for its lavish Western lifestyle, completely out of sync with Islamic tradition.)
Exactly what shape an Islamic state may take is open for debate. (Iran is the most prominent example of the experiment, and Afghanistan under the Taliban was another example. The Sudan is yet another, but no one seems to be paying any attention to the Sudan). The fundamentalists assume that there is some clear notion of sharia law that will govern when a country becomes an Islamic state, even though it is apparent that there are varying ideas from country to country about what exactly the sharia law requires. (For example, in Iran there is no talk of stoning women adulterers, but in tribal regions of Pakistan where the Taliban hang out it has been done, and in northern Nigeria it has been promoted but not actually carried out.) Despite these variations, though, the main idea is that an Islamic state is to be some sort of theocracy -- ruled by God through the agency of human beings, following the Quran as a basic guide. (See the earlier reading on the difference between a secular and a religiously-based government for a general discussion of forms of government. )
Some fundamentalist Muslims support the use of violence in the present climate, and some do not. For example, some prominent Egyptian fundamentalists wish to establish a strict Islamic state in Egypt through non-violent use of the political process, and do not approve of the violence used by the radicals. Those who support the use of violence claim that only violence will work, and is commanded by, or at least supported by, Allah. Those who support violence in recent years have often supported the particular form of violence we call "terrorism". That is, the deliberate targeting of civilians who are seen as part of the support structure of the "enemy", for political purposes. However, the use of violence in the current climate is seen as defensive. That is, the perception of the radicals is that their people and way of life are under severe attack by the forces of evil (often especially identified with the US), and that violence directed against the attackers is therefore defensive.
Since the violence-approving Muslims are of current great interest to many students, we need to explore that aspect of Islamic fundamentalism specifically, even though moderate Muslims, traditionalist Muslims, and even fundamentalist Muslims who are not radicals very much wish to be distinguished from their violent, radical cousins. Often, these groups of non-radicals will express sympathetic understanding toward the radical's concerns (such as Western domination of their economies, or the injustice and corruption of their governments) that brought about radicalization of their fellow Muslims, but at the same time they express the view that the specific acts of violence such as the attacks on the World Trade Center have no genuine Islamic justification, and are therefore sinful.
So, what do the radicals themselves say about the Islamic justification for being violent in pursuit of the goal of establishing pure Islamic states throughout the Muslim world? Given his prominence in the radical segment of Islam, bin Laden is an obvious choice of radical spokesperson today. Some critics would say that he is not sincere -- that he is on a power trip, and is merely hypocritically using Islamic language to push Muslim buttons. For our purposes, it really does not matter whether we can look into the heart of bin Laden to test his sincerity. His radical fundamentalist message obviously resonates with thousands of Muslims. We can thus use his own presentation of that message as a representation of current radical fundamentalist Islamic thought, whether or not bin Laden is sincere.
So, we will look at his own explanations of his actions.
1
Read a collection of bin Laden remarks put together by the PBS Frontline news editors. Click here to connect to this page in the Frontline Web site. The first quotes on the site are a little hard to understand without a knowledge of certain historical events, but just keep going anyway. You'll get the main ideas by the end.
2
Think about the connections between this and the instructions to the hijakers you already have read.
3
As an exercise in conceptual connections between radical Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, take the quiz linked below. This quiz requires a bit of explanation. The person putting up this quiz (Sarah Ovenall) has noticed that there is similarity in some important aspects of the worldviews of bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. This is not to imply that the Christians are advocating violent attacks on the US. Rather, it is to suggest that the Christian Right and bin Laden have some of the same points of view on world affairs and the state of US culture. Some students in class have already noticed some similarities between mainstream Muslim concerns and the concerns of the Christian Right. This quiz extends that point to the radical Muslims, such as bin Laden. (Pat Robertson, we have noted, is not a pure example of a Christian fundamentalist, since he is better described as a socially conservative pentecostal. But, close enough. He surely is part of the Christian Right.)
Here is the quiz. Try it! Keep track of your score.