There is a consensus among Muslims that Prophet Mohamed left no interpretation to the Quran. Over centuries, Muslim scholars in different parts of the world tried to interpret the Holy Book. So, we have a divine text and manmade interpretations that differ from a scholar to another depending on each one’s political, social and economic environment and his personal understanding and experience. Throughout the long process of manmade interpretation of the Holy Book, many sayings and traditions were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet in order to support one or the other understanding to the Quranic text. Aggressive or extreme interpretations of many verses were obviously made by some of those scholars who were persecuted or lived under occupation.

The most famous godfather of modern extremism is Ibn Taymeyah. He was born in 1263 C.E. during Mongols’ invasion, which spread terror in the Muslim world. It was the second invasion to the Muslim world just a few years after the defeat of crusaders. He grew up in a society full of hatred to Eastern and Western invaders who were defeated by religiously mobilized Islamic armies. The triumph of Muslims over Mongols in the battle of Ain Jalut in particular had its great impact on Ibn Taymeyah. Coincidently, Ain Jalut took place in September 1260 C.E. Almost all the main Islamic schools of theology rejected Ibn Taymeyah’s extreme views and consequently he was convicted to imprisonment several times in many places, the first in Cairo and the last in Damascus, where he died in jail in 1328 C.E. after being denied pen and papers to write. You may see many similarities between Ibn Taymeyah’s experience and that of the present Muslim generation such as foreign invasions by Eastern and Western forces, occupation, persecution, jail, battles etc. If my memory hasn’t failed me, Ibn Taymeyah was quoted and referred to as Al-Shaikh Al-Rabbani (the holy or divine Sheikh) in the first videotape about Al-Qaeda released by the Americans. The English translation, however, mentioned him as a person who is still alive. CIA may be still looking for him.       

Extreme interpretations made by such scholars scattered over periods of Arabs’ history after Islam, representing individual views. In the 20^th century, however, a very thin but very rich minority of Muslims adopted these interpretations, made them state faith and ideology and spread them among world Muslims. Ibn Taymeyah is the undisputed authority in what is presently known as Wahhabism, the radical small movement brought to power by the British after the Turkish governor of Egypt Mohamed Ali had crushed it.

Between 1971 and 1980 the US-backed Sadat of Egypt encouraged extremist groups and interpretations in order to counter the influence of the Soviet-backed remnants of Nasir’s socialism at home and in the Arab world. Radical Islam replaced Pan Arabism. 

By the end of the 70's, revolution in Iran coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USA, Europe and Arab regimes encouraged extremist groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere and extended to them all military, diplomatic, financial, ideological and logistic support for two main purposes: the first, to deflect the attention of world Muslims from the anti-American Iranian understanding of Islam and the second, to defeat the Soviets without suffering any American casualties. Sponsored by petrodollars, all aggressive interpretations of Islam were republished and abundantly distributed in the Muslim world accompanied by a vigorous publicity campaign assuring Muslims that this is the only right path and correct understanding of Islam. Other interpretations disappeared. Religious and cultural tolerance was eroded. With the globalization of these interpretations, Muslims found the extreme petro-ideology and literature everywhere and in different languages over the last 30 years. The USA, Europe and Arab allies are thus equal partners in reviving Islamic extremism and “jihadising” Muslim societies, particularly Arab, when this served their political interests. However, literature alone couldn’t have worked without a great appetite for it among the frustrated Arab citizens living under totalitarian regimes and virtual occupation for half a century. Extreme interpretations provided them with a fascinating religion-based utopia.

 

To understand the present Islamic extremism, let us look at its features.

One of the most striking features is that it comes mainly from Arabs.  No terrorists participated in September attacks from, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Iran, India or Africa where majority of world Muslim population lives. On the other hand, Islamic extremism in non-Arab countries is under great influence of Arab extremist groups and petro-ideology. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines and Indonesia are but a few examples. 

The second feature is that it is not related to poverty and illiteracy rather it reflects the neglected chronic grievances of Arab intellectuals including those living in rich states.

The third is that it is generated, exported and demonstrated by citizens of Western backed states, which reflects the failure of American and European policies towards peoples of the region.

The fourth is that Palestine has always been one of its main causes.

 

The conclusion is that it is basically an Arab political phenomenon in all its local and international dimensions, roots, causes, forms and aims.

It is not a religion. It is not Islam. It is a political problem to which the West and its Arab allies are the largest contributors. It may be better defined as a “political agenda seeking justification in religion” similar in this to Zionism and the BJP agenda in India. Why the West didn’t denounce similar agendas based on other religions than Islam? Why is the West so nervous about fundamentalism only if it is based on Islamic religion? Why only supporters of political Islam are denied access to power by all means while similar activists from other religions are not? The West must answer these questions to common Muslims who call this attitude double standard that intensifies hatred among Muslims against West in general. The same double standard is seen in the international arena in conflicts involving Muslims. It is a chronic sense of injustice and discrimination that is being expressed violently. The collapse of Soviet Union made the phenomenon only more prominent.

 

It would be great injustice to blame Islam for “Binladenism” or any other form of politically motivated extremism perpetrated by Muslims. Would it be fair to blame Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism for the massacres carried out by Christians, Jews or Hindus in Japan, Vietnam, Africa, Europe, Palestine, India and many other parts of the world for political reasons?  

If we agree on the aforementioned definition of the phenomenon, the cause can be identified. Arab citizens may be the only human beings today intimidated, terrorized, brutally tortured and denied all their fundamental rights by the Western-backed lifelong rulers who must be disappointed by failure of human cloning research which they could have used to stay in power forever. Most of today’s known Arab terrorists would have been peaceful citizens, writers or political parties’ activists hadn’t they been brutally subjected to the worst unimaginable forms of physical torture. Terrorist regimes produce terrorist citizens. A virtually dead person can be easily converted to a suicide bomber. 

Having known the cause, the remedy can be easily found. It is solely real democratization. Measures like war, freezing of bank accounts, new strict laws etc; are futile. “Binladenism” is a manifestation. It may be the worst so far but there can still be even worse if a solid, radical and courageous democratization plan is not chalked out and seriously implemented. A physician can crush a kidney stone using the latest laser technology but he certainly cannot prevent the same kidney from producing more stones. Terrorism is a manifestation of a certain ideology and refuting this ideology is the duty of brave learned Muslim scholars. This battle is very important and also requires support, real democracy and full protection of human rights.

In a real democratic system, Islamists, who now win large public sympathy, may come to power by ballots not bullets. There should be no fear of that. People must see them failing in running the state affairs before voting them out and rejecting their utopia. Separating state from religion requires first allowing religion to run the state. 

 

Implications for EU security and foreign policy:

By identifying itself with US policy after September, Europe has provided the potential terrorists with a new territory for their operations. Hatred against US policy will be widened to include the West in general. Foolish statements of some European figures contribute to this end. Attacks on the French tanker in Yemen and Bali nightclubs in Indonesia last October may be understood in this context. Economically, Muslim investors will turn back to their countries or to safer places than Europe, saving accounts will decrease and trade volume with Muslim world may shrink as a result of the new measures introduced by the EU to appease the US. World economic reports have already registered many initiatives and trends in this regard. Europe is at a crossroad: either to follow Bush’s religio-political adventurism, promote the globalization of terror and develop the present political phenomenon to a real and wider clash in which religions and cultures may be used or to tell Mr. Bush “NO” in a clear voice and choose for itself a sensibly well-defined road. Unfortunately, Europe has no choice as long as it remains dependent on US in defense and security.

 

Suggestions:

1- The EU should face the realities. It has to choose to either continue wasting its resources on unrepresentative old rotten regimes or to help the nations of the region to develop, prosper and live like their European human brethren enjoying freedoms and human rights without fear of prison, torture or extra judiciary killing. There can be no development under repression. The first option undermines the EU’s credibility and basic foundation as a defender of democracy and human rights. If the second choice is not on the agenda, it would be better for the EU to spend these resources on European problems such as unemployment, social security etc.

2- Another reality is the total failure of the Barcelona process, especially its political chapter. This failure should be admitted, analyzed and if possible corrected. In fact, the EU should have designed a standard treaty for the region based on the spirit of Copenhagen criteria and made the strong adherence to it a prerequisite for any kind of financial, trade or development assistance before signing any association agreement.

3- European countries, individually or collectively, should listen to Muslim scholars who tend to understand the roots of the problem. Unfortunately, no serious initiatives in this direction have been taken so far.

4- The EU can render the greatest service to humanity by engaging extremist groups in a dialogue that aims at exchanging views, listening to their grievances and trying to address their problems. This will be difficult at the beginning but it will be extremely helpful in many ways. Falling between two extremes: Israeli controlled US policy and angry Muslims, Europe can independently play the most important role in moderating extremist groups in the Muslim world through a skillful and serious dialogue. They are the unlistened part of the civil society in every Muslim country. If this is to be done, Belgium can be a successful candidate to initiate the dialogue because of its image in Arab world especially during the present crisis in the Middle East. 

5- A unit of experts on Islamic extremism may be established to help EU foreign policy makers in monitoring and analyzing trends and causes of religious extremism in the Muslim and Arab world and present a periodical report to EU competent authorities for specific measures. Muslim experts who tend to know this subject better should also be consulted or if possible included in the team. 

6- Finally, the EU should adopt an independent policy from the US on issues and conflicts involving Muslims in general and Arab region in particular including Palestine and Kashmir. The whole EU foreign policy towards the Islamic and Arab world must be reshaped on new lines though it may sound impossible at present, giving the conflicting national policies within the EU and Europe’s dependence on the US in defense and security.