Discouraging Pointless Extremism

• West as a problem
• Probable manifestos
• Evaluation
• Increasing understanding
• Islam's Crisis

Overview

Radical Islamists are currently causing worldwide disturbances. They appear to believe that current problems can be solved if they gain power through violently destabilizing existing governments.

For example Islamist extremists appear to believe that Muslim societies' problems are the result of centuries of Western oppression. This seems a misguided though convenient view, because:

• Western societies originally gained strength from various internal characteristics (mainly related to economic institutions and the methods used for problem solving) and the disadvantage that some others suffer has been largely the result of a lack of those characteristics (or of other ways to achieve similar outcomes);
• claiming victim-hood is convenient because it rationalizes shirking the hard physical and intellectual work that countries in East and South Asia have had to do to improve their status.

Problems which have their origin in history can be overcome by those with creative spirit, but only made worse by those whose spirit is destructive.

The best way to discourage extremists may be to seriously seek out the currently-secret ideas their 'spiritual leaders' have about solutions – and have those solutions subjected to detailed assessment of their practicality by a ‘jury of their peers’ after inputs to those peers by reputable experts reflecting many different shades of opinion.

It has reasonably been pointed out that theological assumptions can not be disproved by theological argument. However Islamist extremists' ideas seem to have mainly political, economic and (perhaps even) scientific implications which could be evaluated.

If the radicals' ideas have merit, they can be more widely advocated. There are, after all, many ways of achieving constructive changes through presenting people with attractive ideas.

However if they do not have merit - and they are being disruptive for no justifiable reason - then the 'peers' will be likely to be able to discredit (pointless) extremists with their potential supporters.  The author suspects their ideas lack merit because they embody features (eg social enforcement of moral legalism and cosmological interpretations to rationalize social rigidity) that may well be largely responsible for the historical difficulties that Muslim-dominated societies have experienced because they inhibit the change and learning that prosperity requires.

Traditional Muslims have good reason to participate in a process to evaluate the ideology of Islamist extremists, as the latter have challenged their authority and implied that extremism is needed to 'take seriously' the claim that Islam (being a religion which deals with all aspects of life) is thus a suitable basis for effective government.

However the extremists may have precipitated a crisis for Islam, because the need now to critically evaluate the extremists' proposed 'solutions' could cause cracks to emerge in the whole world-view that has been built around Islam. That world view apparently suggests that natural and social systems should be 'scientifically' studied as symbols of the Divine - a dysfunctional assumption that has given Islamic scholars great authority over all aspects of life in Muslim societies. However, because of the need to publicly evaluate the ideology of extremists, traditional authority is now likely to be put at risk by intense exposure to alternative critical understandings.

This ultimately may be of great benefit to Muslim communities by liberating them from centuries of intellectual bondage.

The West Poses Real Problems for Islamic Societies

There is undoubted concern in Islamic societies about the nature and influence of the Western societies.

For centuries expanding Western influence seems to have been resented as that of inferior upstarts because:

• some Islamic societies had previously been more advanced than those in Europe [1]; and
• the West rediscovered 'Greek learning' which provided the basis for its profitable advances in science and technology from Islamic scholars (see Islam and the West, and About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science). 

Furthermore there are modern sources of resentment that are at least partly justified including:

• pressures to which Islamic societies have been unable to respond effectively, partly because of Western support for regimes which provided poor local economic leadership;
• the resulting differences in material affluence amongst societies;
• the side-effect of some covert Cold War operations;
• ongoing conflict surrounding the UN-supported re-creation of the state of Israel;
• innocent victims of retaliation against past attacks;
• imbalances in the level of suffering experienced by Western peoples and others, and double standards in valuing their interests;
• the immorality that can arise in liberal societies when individuals drift away from their ethical moorings.

These issues are considered further in Risks in a Clash with Islamist Extremists. 

Some of the above issues (and a few others) were were suggested in a 2004 Rand Corporation study of the emergence of Islamist extremism.

Muslim World after 9/11 drew attention to: failed political and economic models in the Middle East; structural anti-Westernism (ie blaming others for those domestic failures); decentralized religious authority in Sunni Islam which allows irresponsibility; resurgence of Islam; Arabization of the non-Arab Muslim world; external funding of religious fundamentalism; convergence of Islamism and tribalism; growth of radical networks; emergence of mass media; Palestinian-Israeli / Kashmir conflicts; Iranian revolution; Afghan war; 1991 Gulf War; global war on terrorism; and Iraq war [1]

It has been suggested that  there is widespread agreement in Muslim communities that solutions are required to the problems their societies face and also that the solutions being proposed by Islamist extremists are not viable.

Many in the Middle East are opposed to the US, but equally do not want to be aligned with Osama bin Laden. Intellectual credibility in the Arab world requires adopting an anti-US viewpoint - and this at times obstructs sensible thinking. This arises from four sources: Cold War attitudes; failure of secular regimes in the Middle East; Palestine problem; and uneasiness about globalization. As anachronism from Cold War, Leftist values are seen as more humane than market economics; and USSR is still seen to have been (despite evidence to the contrary) an opponent of imperialism). Arabs view all-powerful states as good, so long as they are just. Most problems in Arab world appear to require state intervention - and historically states have been strong. This is why reform of Arab states is preferred to decentralization of power - with some desire for the liberal values that drove European modernization. However post-colonial secular regimes did not reform or democratize, and the US is held to be responsible.  The Arab intellectual elite thus moved to socialist models. Since 1967, Palestine has been the major problem - and it has been believed that the Oslo process has not legitimized Palestinian statehood. Since outbreak of Intifada, Arab reactions have been mainly emotional (with justification) because of unbalanced casualties and action by Israel's leadership. Concern about globalization (for which there is no agreed Arab position) is based on failure of Arab states to modernize - so that globalization is seen to mean US hegemony. The advantages of globalization to Arabs are overlooked (Young M. 'Arabs, Anger, and America', ReasonOnline, 29/10/01)

The delighted reaction in Kabul to its liberation from the Taliban (women shedding their burquas, men shaving their beards, bicycle races, playing Afghan music) shows that it was stupid to generalize about Muslim opinion. There was a theory, based on Huntington's crude 'clash of civilizations' thesis that bin Laden was representative of the majority of Muslims. Yet Muslims persistently vote for moderates (eg in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey). Bin Laden and the Taliban have a twisted and non-traditional version of Islam which could never be tested with the Muslim masses in an election. In the Philippines recently an extremist governor staged a bloody revolution (because his term was coming to an end, and he could never have won an election). On losing and fleeing the Muslim Malaysia - he was extradited back to the Philippines - which should not have happened under Huntington's thesis. The most convincing evidence for compatibility of Islam and the West is that many Muslims live successfully in the West - which makes the recent proposal to limit Muslim migration to Australia stupid (Sheridan G. 'Islam isn't the foe in this clash', Australian, 29/11/01)

Moreover there appears to be disagreement / conflict [1, 2, 3, 4] between Muslims who support traditional authorities and the 10-15% [1, 2] of Muslims who reportedly support the extremists.

On the other hand, one observer has suggested that the Arabic media implies that Islamist extremists have wide support, not because of the appeal of their ideology, but because they are prepared to resist external 'oppression' [1].

This document will consider what is known of the motivations and goals of extremists which suggests that reservations about Islamist 'solutions' are well justified.

Speculations about Extremists' Manifestos

An assumption: the following comments are based on the assumption that terrorism is practiced for what those involved see as a worthwhile cause. There is however another view that the only 'cause' of terrorism is that Western governments have encouraged it by their responses (and that some have at times supported it for their own purposes) [1]

There is another view (apparently held at high levels in the US administration) that terrorists have nothing beyond a commitment to violence - so that there is no point in evaluating their ideology

There appear to be several levels to the motivations and goals of Islamist extremists. Superficially their intent is simply to perpetuate violence. However deeper motivations appear to be the result of:

• unresolved conflict in the Middle East;
• cultural and religious dislocation; and
• perceptions of (economic) injustice;

Violence

At times it appears that the only goal of Islamist extremists is to perpetuate violence and suffering [1].

Osama bin Laden hailed the Bali attack and threatened the US and its allies. Fear, massacres, destruction, exile, orphanhood and widowhood would not just be 'our' lot while 'you' alone have security, stability and joy [1]

One published document suggested that the motive for the Bali bombing in October 2002 was purely revenge for perceived global programs of 'Muslim cleansing' [1]

Al Qaeda has been seen to be uninterested in gaining concessions - and only interested in destruction [1]

Middle East Conflicts

It is also reported that moderate Muslims in SE Asia argue that the Israel / Palestinian situation and other security issues in the Middle East are the fundamental issues [1]. Malaysia's Prime Minister has furthermore suggested that terrorism (which he regarded as counter-productive to the interests of Muslims) was forced on Muslims to obtain revenge for oppression because they lacked other means to defend themselves [1]. He also suggested that Jews control the world by proxy [1, 2].

In this respect, Edward Said's influence on Middle Eastern studies is significant because it presented a Palestinian view of Western society. His core point seemed to be that the conclusions which the West formed about other societies both rationalized and enabled the exercise of imperial power. He has been seen to have invented an intellectual rationale for 'Muslim rage' - though his goal was the creation of secular democracies in the Arab world.

An anonymous analysis (which some claim was authored by a CIA analyst who spent several years studying Al Qaeda) ascribed Osama bin Laden's motivations to nothing more than concern about the effect of US foreign policy in the Middle East [1]. However there seem likely to be far deeper issues at stake - eg see comments on globalization's challenges to traditional authority and on modernisation.

Campaigning against Israel was one of the issues through which bin Laden sought to garner support [1]

As noted above, support for Islamists can be seen to be linked solely to a new-found willingness to take action in relation to conflicts such as those between Israel and Palestinians.

Cultural and religious dislocation

Moreover it has been suggested [1, 2, 3] that extremist Islamists in Indonesia:

• claim that there is a US and Jewish conspiracy to destroy Islam and dominate the world; 
• subscribe to a doctrine that originated with the Muslim brotherhood in the Middle East in the 1950s that only pure Islam can overcome the damaging contradictions of a technocratic economy and autocratic governments;
• implement their agenda through a rule-based and illiberal schema that is organized through what resembles 'mafia' networks of terror franchises. 

Sayyid Qutb, who developed the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, received a Western education and [1]:

• argued that most Muslims have reverted to godless ignorance;
• advocated sharia law as a complete way of life - not just as sacred law. - and violent jihad to remove godless false Muslims and the Western / non-Islamic world;
• regarded the West as a 'rubbish heap' which hated Islam and planned to demolish the structure of Muslim society;
• argued that the West realised that it had no healthy values for guiding mankind;
• claimed that Jewry was seeking to control the whole world;
•  wanted the whole world to submit to Islam - because (as a faith of fair play, balance and humanity) it should rightly do so;
• advocated offensive jihad - to topple governments - involving pure resistance led by a vanguard of true believers that hides itself from corrupting forces to establish a true Islamic society

Analysts have suggested that Islamist extremism first originated in the dislocation of traditional cultures by Western-dominated globalization. 

The attacks against West must be considered in the context of the long term 'revolt' against the West - whose initial concerns with independence have been met, but which now primarily involves cultural issues [1].

In the case of Islamist extremists, religion seems certain to be a major motivation.  The core concept in Islam involves submission to God - and religious devotees of many faiths have concerns about the tendency of Western secular society to remove God and religion from centre stage [1].

 Most involved in JI regarded religion as their most important value [1]

Extremists have been seen to be acting on behalf of their understanding of Islam - an interpretation which is supported by 10-15% of Muslims [1]

Osama bin Laden reportedly described the conflict as fundamentally religious (in response to constant massacres of Muslims) between the people of the East who are Muslims or supporters of Muslims, and the People of the West who are the crusaders. [MORE]

Comment: It is ironic that Islamist extremists claim to be in conflict with Christianity when the centre of gravity of Christianity has moved from Western nations to those of the South (Lester T. 'The rush hour of the gods',  Financial Review,  8/2/02 - see also [1]). It is furthermore, the author's understanding that the percentage of active Christians in both China and Indonesia (conservatively 9%) now exceeds that in 'crusader' Australia (about 6%)

Attacks against non-conformists (especially Christians) within Muslim dominated countries have been ongoing for decades [1], and one estimate suggested that they result in about 250,000 deaths annually.

Osama bin Laden was seen to have presented himself as a holy man - to underline the fundamentally religious character of his program [1]

Extremists have been suggested to represent a faction which has deep roots in Islamic history. This faction (a) abhors history and has no notion of progress or moral development - and regards the era of the Prophet as  perfect (b) treats any contrary view as apostasy - which results in violence and (c)  is aggressively self-righteous and insists on imposing its view on others. It is a successor to the Kharjites (who murdered the last of the 'right guided' Caliphs, declared history at an end and that God would rule in future). Similar ideas have been the basis of Wahabbism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Everything is seen as sacred, nothing as secular and retribution is their divine duty. This leads to a form of fascism, as exhibited by the Taliban [1] 

Suicide bombers in both the Middle East and SE Asia are primarily from the more affluent middle classes motivated by a religious conviction that they are engaged on a 'higher' calling [1].  

With globalization in the 1990s the 'lure' of the modern world to Muslims populations (as well as reported religious conversions by significant numbers of people [1]) may have led to fears for Islam's future, if the West (and Christianity) were not defined as 'enemies'. 

At one level the challenge posed by globalization is the attraction of consumer goods and entertainment and the difficulty of enjoying these in societies governed by Islamic religious law.  One observer also suggested that the threat which Western liberalism posed to men's mastery over women might be a significant motivation [1].

However another motivation may have involved a loss of intellectual discipline over Muslim societies by Islamic scholars that would inevitably accompany the spread of modern ideas through globalization (see comments on Islamic Science which highlights the fact that, contrary to Western traditions, natural and social systems are expected to be understood as symbols of Divine Will, and thus only able to be properly interpreted by Muslim scholars).

Border clashes and 'liberation' are also seen as threats to Islam leading Muslim politics to be dominated by concepts of 'resistance' [1].

Islamic radicalism and its obsession with capture of political power and the Islamisation of society is a 20^th century phenomenon. The philosophical origins of modern Islamic radicalism go back centuries - and its rise in the middle east corresponds with anti-colonial movements. But globalization, since 1989, has become more of an existential challenge to Muslim societies than colonization ever was (threatening the essence of their cultures, traditions and value systems) This has led to a huge backlash in underdeveloped and some developing societies - with massive political implications. Aspiring, educated and proud Muslim youth are increasingly alienated from globalization - dismissing it as a Western ploy to undermine their identity and heritage. They are disillusioned with their leaders for not putting up a defense against this cultural onslaught. [MORE]

Perhaps Islam (and the status of its traditional scholarly leaders) were seen to be secure as long as the West was safely 'foreign and hostile' (eg colonial powers), but economic, political and cultural globalization was seen by some to transform it into a threatening cultural alternative. 

If this is so, it is also worth considering whether Islamist extremists may be collaborating with others who historically have actively resisted Western dislocation of traditional authority structures in their societies.

Justice

Also Osama bin Laden reportedly rationalizes attacking Jews and 'Crusaders' because 'Muslims everywhere are in difficulties because of the US and Israel' [1]. Also moral defence of the September 11 attack in America has been offered on the grounds that  'the two towers ....  really represented the American economy ....  that was stealing the treasure of weak nations' [1]. Greed leading to unjust economic outcomes, and rigged political processes were described as common feature of the US and middle eastern Arab regimes [1].

Indonesian religious schools reportedly teach students that attacking others is justified by: war in Iraq; Israel's suppression of Palestinians; prejudice against Indonesia because it is the largest Muslim nation; exploitation of Indonesia's resources; and the killing of Muslims everywhere [1].

However, while there is great emphasis on the ways in which Muslims have suffered, there is no mention of the reasons for such suffering [1]

These motivations appear to be driving long term efforts to:

• modernize Islam; and
• create Islamic States under Shari'a Law

Modernizing Islam?

Islamist extremists may well not be traditional 'fundamentalists' who oppose modernization and seek to retreat from the world, but rather a faction whose goal is to change / modernize Islam on the basis of their studies of sciences and in Western universities, in the hope that this would allow Muslims to become relevant and successful in the modern world - and who are merely using traditional / fundamentalist Islamic rhetoric as a means to recruit Muslim supporters and mislead others.

For example, it has reasonably reliably suggested that the leadership of Al Qaida all have degrees from Western universities. Leadership of extremists in SE Asia typically involves engineers and doctors (ie those with a modern scientific education). Planning for the 9/11 events took place in the West (eg in Germany). A traditional Islamic scholar wrote at length about his perceptions of collaboration between extremists and Muslims in Western societies who posed as moderates.

Non-traditional Roots

Terrorist movements in the middle-east arose from the economic failures of post-colonial nationalist regimes. Political Islam does not come from traditional Islam. It is a recent ideology which has arisen as nationalism has failed  [MORE]

Many people appeared to become terrorists during periods they spend in the West. [1]

Hibz ut Tahrir, a radical global political party who goal (like that of Al Qaeda, involves establishing a Caliphate (theocratic dictatorship based in Sharia law) reflects a combination of the political technology of 20th century totalitarianism and 7th-8th century Islam and is believed to have its HQ in London [1]

While some Islamist terrorists are poor simple people, poverty and lack of education is not the root of terrorism. Most: are not  ignorant, destitute or disenfranchised; have received a secular education; have normal jobs; regarded religion as their most important value; and were bonded by secrecy over the true nature of jihad. [1]

Islamist terrorists tend to be well educated specialists in medicine, engineering or computer science - who might have provided Middle East with a much needed Middle class [1]

Islamists have been suggested to have been drawn to 'hard' science faculties in universities in the Middle East.

Al Qaida's Ideology?

Islamist ideology emerged with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s who saw the need to modernize Islam - eg by accepting aspects of science that were not contradicted by the Koran (in contrast to a mainstream Muslim rejection of all aspects of modernity).   Many Islamists (especially those in SE Asia) are civil engineers or in medicine. Islamism is not only at home in Muslim countries, but in Mosques in the West. Sunni Muslims, traditionally seen as moderate, now include some extremists. All senior personnel in organizations like al Qaeda could  pass as westerners, and have qualifications from Western universities [1, and note also 2].

It is also noted that (a) Osama bin Laden has been described  as an extremist Wahhabi (a Sunni fundamentalist sect) [1] and (b) Palazzi implied that the extremists were opponents of traditional Sunnis and draw upon European ideas about a scientific revolution  [1]

[The latter author also suggests (with unknown credibility) that the often despotic governments of various Muslim countries - who current Islamist terrorist movements are apparently trying to displace - have themselves been supporters of the same radical Islamist (rather than traditional Islamic) ideologies - and that this accounts for the absence of peace in many of those countries] 

The West confronts not traditional Islam but a Westernized version of Islam - transformed into a totalitarian political ideology. Although it draws upon Islamic sources and overlaps some strains of Muslim belief, the ideology of Al-Qaeda is more like Nazism, another synthetic pagan religion, than traditional Islam (Spengler 'Know your enemy', Courier Mail, 13/10/01)

It has been suggested that al Qaeda emerged from the combination of two separate strands of Islamic thought (a) the ultra strict Salafist / Wahhabi school; and the more political thinking of the Muslim brotherhood. Wahhabism originated in Saudi Arabia where Wahhab agreed to glorify tribal raids on neighbours as jihad if Wahhabism was made state religion and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood (a version of political Islam that emerged in Egypt in 1920s - but lost support there and shifted to Saudi Arabia. It joined with Palestinians who were concerned with the PLOs secular nationalism and also took control of Saudi intellectual life. The religious awakening of many young radicals then followed - like the Iranian revolutionaries who combined Shiite rhetoric with Third World anti-imperialism. In Afghanistan in the 1980s, jihad went global. A bin Laden associate argued for more scientific, confrontational and rational leadership. Palestine is a mobilizing cause - while Western western populations are seen as valid targets as they would only respect brute force. [1]

Most terrorism before 911 was localised. However al-Qaeda is global in its reach. Burke (Al Qaeda: casting Shadow of Terror) shows that it is elusive and always changing. It resembles the anti-globalisation movement - a coalition of competing groups with different goals. Another view is of a venture capital firm responding to projects from various entrepreneurs. It consists of 100 core individuals and a mutating network of networks amongst radical Islam. A problem in understanding it comes from crude concepts of modernity. Discussion about al-Qaeda is very contemporary - drawing especially on Leninism. It has been widely adopted as a symbol of dissent. These hyper-modern qualities have been missed because its apocalyptic brand of religion runs counter to modern myth of secularization. Western analysts treat secularization as an integral component of modernity - a product of the spread of science which is unstoppable. However the decline of religion in Western countries is an anomaly. Religion is central to evolution of al Qaeda. Western analysts believe that secular societies of the West will spread throughout the Islamic world - but Iraq shows this to be unlikely. By demolishing the Soviet style state Hussein created, the prospect of an Iranian theocracy has increased. In much of the middle east theocracy and democracy go together. Al-Qaed is different in that it makes use of global networks of institutions - such as informal banking. It exploits the militancy of a universal religion. Hundreds of thousands of young men log onto jihadi web-sits every day - a reminder of the power of religion which western secular society does not understand ('Unraveling al Qaeda: another case of Western imperialism', FR, 19-20/7/03)

Violent fundamentalist Islamism (or the type that drives al-Qaida) is similar to some 20th century ideologies. It does not represent mainstream Muslims - most of whom are moderate and law abiding. Bin Laden stands in the line of Lenin, Hitler and Pol Pot - as crafting a radical, utopian and ultra-modern ideology. It does not reflect medieval Islam, but is a response to modernization. Communism wanted to produce hyper-modernism through centralized state control. Nazism was even more like violent, extremist Islamism - because it was outraged by cosmopolitanism (unregulated human mixing) and wanted to create a utopia of racial purity. All there ideologies defined themselves in relation to modernization and did not attempt to create traditional society. Just as Kymer Rouge leadership were educated in France, al-Qaida terrorists have been educated in the West. The defining feature of ideology is that it offers key to understanding the universe. An ideology is a closed intellectual system which contrary evidence can not penetrate. The key to ideological commitment is emotional intensity not rational thought. In the West, extreme leftism is the ideology that has won most support. Ideology is closely aligned with conspiracy theories - because these are needed to explain why the world does not look like the ideologue's description. There is now a de-facto alliance between the extreme left and al-Qaida extremists on the nature of the West. Noam Cholmsky and John Pilger (who provide Leftist denunciation of their own societies) provide Islamists with much of their interpretative narrative of West. Islamist activists believe CIA was responsible for Bali bombing - because the have been fed a diet of conspiracy theories by people like Pilger / Chomsky. (Sheridan G., 'Left delivers ammunition to fanatics', A, 5/12/03)

A willingness to embrace change and a separation from community life appears to be a significant difference from traditional Islam. Al Qaeda reportedly also has alliances with organized crime groups [1].

It appears likely that behind the terrorists are others who, like earlier extremists in history, have 'modern' manifestos that they fervently believe would be a better way to run the world and which motivate their efforts [1, 2]. For example, there may be a perception that the moral law of Islam would be a way to civilize science and save humanity as a whole from technological materialism [1].

There seem to be little-known parallels between the philosophy of Islamic science and the challenges of modernity as understood by those who have undergraduate science degrees (eg see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science). 'Islam is the answer' is the rallying cry in the Middle East - but this is almost certainly only seen to be so by insiders because of perceptions of 'Islamic' concepts about science that do not follow from the teachings of Islam as a religion - but seem to be the product of the attempts by Arabic scholars to build a rational cosmology around Islam that was consistent with earlier Arabic world-views.

On the other hand, some observers perceive Islamism as a medieval force, that is primarily reactionary, seldom creates and appears chronically disorganised and prone to internal division and distrust [1].

It seems important to clarify whether Islamist extremists represent a 'medieval' or a 'modernizing' (often-Western-educated) faction because an incorrect assumption could make it (a) impossible to identify who is likely to be dangerous and (b) easy to further alienate others and drive them to the extremists' cause.  It can be noted that Daniel Pearl, for example, was famously murdered after reportedly making contact in Pakistan with friends he had made at a British university.

The expressed ideology of radical Islamists in Britain appears strongly focused on geo-political issues, and to be little concerned with theology - a situation which supports the assumption that this reflects a modernizing / Westernized version of Islam rather than traditional 'fundamentalists' whose main focus would be the Koran.

If the above indicators are valid, then the ideology of Islamist extremists would presumably include views similar to those expressed  by Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir concerning the need for Muslims to study both religion and science [1].

In any case, as scholars are traditionally accorded highest status within Islam (see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science), it is reasonable to assume that the leadership amongst Islamist extremists will be scholars.

Creating Islamic States and Introducing Shari'a Law

The goal of Islamist extremism seems to be political control of the Middle East - by wresting power from the autocratic rulers and traditional religious authorities who forced the well-educated classes to hide or flee to the West.

Attacks on the West seem to be primarily motivated by a desire by the 'well-educated' to trigger Western responses in the Middle East that would motivate peoples in that region to rally to the cause. This goal appears to be accepted by experts as a frequent motivation for terrorism word-wide.

While the language of Islamic fundamentalism is used to motivate followers, political power appears to be what motivates their leaders.

The driving force behind Islamist terrorism has been described as:

• a network of radical Islamists (who are both contemptuous of Western societies and fearful of their encroachment on the faith and obedience of Muslim communities) and that the goal is to establish a pan-Islamic state [1];
• a desire to establish theocratic regimes in all Muslim countries, and to weaken / destroy the US and its allies as world powers [1];
• a desire to drive Western governments out of the Middle East and establish Islamic states [1];
• creating Taliban style regimes worldwide; return to Muslim rule of all lands ever under Muslim rule (eg southern Spain); and destruction of Western democratic societies [1];
• a radical remake of the Muslim faith. For bin Laden, attacking the US and allies is merely to provoke a backlash to wake Muslims to their predicament, and so purge the faith of alien elements. Promoting a clash of civilizations is merely stage one. More difficult part is: to convince fellow Muslims to reject modern world, including democracy; and to topple their own governments. Political destination is creation of pan-Islamic Caliphate. This goal would require eliminating impurities such as Shi-ism, Sufism etc. Saafist version of Islam would be applied in detailed, prescriptive form [1]
• absolutist and totalitarian. As the world belongs to Allah, it must be ruled under Allah's Law. Thus: clash of civilizations must continue until Islam triumphs; all foreigners must leave Muslim lands (or lands that have ever been Muslim) - including Spain; all moderate Muslim Governments must be replaced by fundamentalist governments that observe strict shariah law as part of worldwide caliphate that unites Muslim world; and the West should convert to their brand of Islam [1].
• establishment of a Muslim world dominated by Islamic law [1]

• establishment of Islamic super-state. This would involve creating a Caliphate - by expelling US forces from Iraq; establishing an emirate in Baghdad and then spreading jihad to neighbouring secular states [1]

• overthrow of moderate Muslim governments; liquidation of Israel; removing US influence from Middle East; and strategic eclipse of West. Bin Laden suggested that after 911 world was divided between faithful and infidels - so every Muslim should take up arms. Al Qaida stated that it would target Jews and Christians - to let anyone who fights God know that the lands of the infidel will be turned into hell, as they have done to Muslim lands.  Bin Laden assumes that the West is corrupt, decadent and will give up [1];
• shattering the stability of certain regimes. Al Qaeda's priority is a battle inside the Muslim world.  Moderate Muslim governments (eg Turkey / Indonesia) are terrorists' first targets. There is a long term target of destroying the West - but the immediate goal is to get the US out of the Muslim world and to destroy the governments now ruling there. [1]

It has been suggested that a core belief of organized Islamist extremists is that there is no possibility of common ground with others, and that all must be destroyed [1]

Al-Qaeda had its genesis in Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. In 1979, bin Laden transferred his Saudi-based business to Afghanistan, and recruited 10,000 fighters from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt. After 10 years (and US support) the Russians left. Some veterans sought to replace Western-influenced, infidel governments and joined extremist groups. The Afghanistan training camps continued to operate. Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia but was expelled for 'irresponsible behaviour' in 1994. He moved to Sudan and established training camps, until required to leave in 1996. In 1998 bin Laden announced the formation of an Islamic World Front for Struggle against Jews and Crusaders. This was justified on the grounds that Muslims everywhere were seen to be struggling because of the US and Israel. Muslims were called upon to wage holy war against them not only to rid themselves of unpopular regimes but to protect the faith. He argued that the US was vulnerable, and could be defeated as USSR had been. In 1998 he issued a fawah demanding that all US forces be removed from the Gulf region. There is debate about what al-Qaeda wants to achieve - apparently to be the leading force in driving the Muslim world to adopt sharia rules. Governments that do not follow these rules would be expelled, the influence of Muslim world expanded and deprivations of others guarded against. Al-Qaeda is both an organization and a network. From Afghanistan it provided both doctrine and the planning of operations; provided financial and logistic support; recruited foot-soldiers and trained them; researched new weapons. It was becoming the nerve centre for an orchestrated international terror campaign. But it also had a network - involving Sunni extremists who were prepared to cooperate. Since the fall of the Taliban it has become decentralized. Al-Qaeda has sought to create long term conflict with the West - so as to separate pro-Western governments; to capitalize on anti-Western resentment due to US attitudes to Israel-Palestine problem and sense of economic inequality and exploitation. Small and large scale attacks are likely to continue. It has lost its base in Afghanistan, but enjoys widespread support in the Middle East - where it is seen as the only group able to attack the US (Hartley J 'Genesis of terror', CM, 19/10/02)

Al Qaida had its genesis in Afghanistan in closing stages of Cold war - but it grew to become significant when it expanded (with the support of Western liberals) through Islamisation of conflict in Bosnia. [1]

Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden is required reading for understanding Al Qaida's objectives. It mainly focuses on tendency of Saud House to put big business before Islam - but has been construed to be about Palestine (perhaps because Islamic world supports Palestinian cause). Bin Laden suggested that Western attempts to isolate Hamas mean that West is at war with Islam. He does not want a free Palestine, but rather one under sharia law.  Hamas has distanced itself from Bin Laden's statement - but they have some things in common (eg abolition of Israel, and creation of great Islamic state) [1]

Al Qaida presents a 'single narrative' for Muslims everywhere, that the Muslims experience worldwide is the story of Western and Zionist persecution of Muslims. Any grievance, real or imagined, is included [1]

Not all Islamists (ie those who would favour the creation of states under Islamic law) are extremists.

However both moderate and extremist Islamists appear to be advocating the adoption of the Shari'a, the sacred law of Islam, as national law in Muslim countries perhaps as the only way for Islam to survive the pressure of modernization and globalization [1, 2].

In particular the spiritual leader of Jemmaah Islamiyah in Indonesia reportedly sees the US as determined to destroy Islam as its main cultural enemy following the fall of communism and also wants Islam to regulate the world's people, and believes that Muslims and non-Muslims will only feel safe under Islamic law [1].

On the other hand:

• Islamist extremists seem to be a minority faction within Islam seeking (by provoking Western responses in Muslim nations) to gain political dominance in the Muslim world - and to purge Islamic factions who disagree with their strict legalistic interpretation [1]; 
• many other Muslims argue that: Islam was never meant to be a system of government [1]; and power would cause Muslims to lose their trust in Islam [1]

Moreover one observer suggested that Islamism would have no appeal to non-Muslims as a governing ideology (and only be seen as relevant in this way by 10-15% of Muslims) [1]

Alternately however, as noted above, Islamism may not be gaining political support in the Middle East for the 'solution' that it purports to offer to the Muslim world, but rather because Islamists are taking a leading role in resisting what is popularly seen as external 'oppression'.

Al Qaida reportedly presents a 'single narrative', that the Muslims experience worldwide is the story of Western and Zionist persecution of Muslims. Any grievance, real or imagined, is included [1].

It would thus seem desirable to evaluate carefully:

• the cause of Muslim nations' struggles. Are they due to external oppression? Or are they due (as the present author suspects) to unevaluated weaknesses in the global economic order, and in attitudes and institutions (that, for example, inhibit the rate of change needed for economic prosperity and constitute a form of internal oppression)?
• whether an effective system of political economy or superior social and environmental outcomes would be likely to result from adoption of the Shari'a;
• whether modernity is genuinely incompatible with traditional religious discourse.

If external oppression is not the main source of problems over the past few centuries (an assumption that seems widespread in the Muslim world), and if the adoption of Islamist political and economic prescriptions would not actually work in practice, then Muslim peoples would be well advised to look elsewhere for leadership.

Problems in Extremists' Presumed Manifestos?

There are reasons to suspect that extremists' ideologies could be weak. For example:

• Islamists have been suggested to be attracted to the 'hard' sciences - an attraction that presumably follows from the parallels between the strict determinism of the natural laws of physics and Islam's traditional desire for social enforcement of simple rules of behaviour. However developing an effective economy requires knowledge derived from social sciences that deal with systems that do not behave in accordance with similar simple laws, and this is an area that has not been explored;
• Palazzi's claims imply that extremists' manifesto's (like Hitler's Mein Kampf) may be the product of 'academic' ideologies reflecting the perspective of people who lack engagement with those dealing with practical affairs. If so, it is probable that their proposals would not actually stand up to informed critical review. 
• Also, some of the more esoteric paths to determining 'truth' that are envisaged within Islamic science appear to give rise to risks that (at least occasionally) the delusions of apparently 'noble leaders' will gain uncritical acceptance.

One US observer has suggested that extremist's ideologies reflect the limited information available within relatively closed Muslim communities

"In my research on this issue, I believe there are several contributing factors which give rise to the growing development extremism and its accompanying distorted ideology. A lot of this can be attributed to the closed societies, as compared to those societies in Western countries, which limit exposure to a free press, etc. A lot of these countries control and limit the internet content available. There are even compartmentalized and closed societies within segregated Muslim communities within Western countries. It is the influence of country of origin, culture, custom, and religion. Until these populations have the ability and opportunity to change their minds, develop their own educated opinions without fear of reprisal, whether by family, tribe or government, their hearts will not follow. What is difficult in the fight we are in to defeat terrorism and its underlying ideology, is that there are so many different factions of extremism and sorted ideologies, as they relate to the radicalized Muslim groups, that curing one sector will not necessarily effect change in the other, so to speak. Until some of these concepts are allowed to change, improvement of the Muslim societies will not change. They essentially know no other way or method to improve their way of life.

This is why it is truly a global undertaking trying to discourage the Diaspora populations from engaging in extremist activities to further their agendas. Ultimately, Islamic extremism was allowed to brew and fester without a lot of attention paid by the Western countries until 9/11, and as such we are behind in the game and still playing catch up with figuring out how this underworld developed, change their “spots” and operate" (Shannen Rossmiller, 7-seas, 18/12/05)

Extremists appear to subscribe to the convenient theory that centuries of oppressive practices by Western elites are the sole / primary cause of the disadvantage that many Muslim societies experience.

Such ideas are developed by conspiracy theorists in Western societies who typically seem to be pure 'idealists' who lack practical involvement in (and thus realistic information about) political and economic practices - and these assumptions seem to be accepted and amplified in Islamic societies.   In particular the interpretation which extreme Leftists place on Western societies has been seen as the basis on which the West is understood by Islamist extremists [1],

Conspiracies?

A separate discussion of Conspiracy Theories generally suggests that:

• there are legitimate grounds for concern about the current global political and economic order. However these problems have complex causes, and conspiracy theorists seek overly simplistic causes (ie fiendish plots by all-powerful and infallible elites);
• though there are undoubtedly some real conspiracies, there is a general lack of credibility in many 'grand' conspiracy theories;
• the problem may arise because conspiracy theorists adopt a simplistic / 'idealist' view and are not interested in (or apparently capable of) considering practical ways to solve presenting problems - even though the latter would also create an institutional environment that would inhibit any real conspiracies that exist;
• the development of conspiracy theories is an inefficient and ineffective method of promoting constructive change.

The apparent contamination of Islamist ideologies by conspiracy theories is a major obstacle to the development of realistic proposals for a solution to problems in the Middle East or elsewhere because (even if everything in those theories were true) a credible proposal can only be defined by being in favour of something, not by being against somebody.

Moreover some fundamental explanations of long-term disadvantage appear to relate to unevaluated and unrecognized side effects of:

• prevailing business practices and economic wisdom which undermine the effectiveness of local economic leadership especially in regions with rich resources; and
• the enforcement of moral legalism through family, community and (at times) state institutions that seems closely related to the broader world-view that scholars have elaborated around Islam (perhaps as a result of features of pre-Islamic Arabic thought). Features of this world-view include, for example:
  • the denial of the possibility / desirability of 'free will'  tends to lead Muslim societies to political authoritarianism and economic weakness;
  • the assumed unity of nature and the Divine means that (a) it is difficult to understand the world - because it is viewed as a manifestation of God's will and (b) economic weakness must be viewed as either a judgment of God or the work of evil foreigners - an assumption that makes conspiracy theories inevitable.

It seems likely that there could be ways in which a democratic capitalist global framework could be enhanced to give all a reasonable prospect of success (see Defusing a Clash?). However such reforms will not be achieved on the basis of conspiracy theories that blame scapegoats.

Moreover, Muslim countries might best reduce their problems by exploring institutions and arrangements that allow ongoing economic change to be faster. Strict enforcement of a single set of moral principles (eg through social pressure) encourages a fairly uniform way of life amongst a people which, while promoting harmony, inhibits change.  Adoption of the Shari'a as the basis for a government and law might compound existing weaknesses by seeking to judge changing and complex economic systems by relatively unchanging religious principles that can only relevantly be applied to individuals.

The significance of economic change is explored in Towards A Comparative Study on Development Policies: Indonesia and Australia. 

A basic obstacle to economic change in Islamic countries generally may be what seems to be a core assumption of traditional Arabic thought (which both influenced and reflects the world-view constructed around Islam); namely that an absence of free will is both natural and desirable. This seems likely to result in social relationships that are relatively rigid and in people's behaviour that may be closely prescribed by legalistic principles.

Furthermore:

• if attempts are made to apply religious principles to the political and economic management of a society, problems seem likely because:
  • simple and immutable religious principles can never allow the complexity of rapidly changing human social and economic systems to be effectively analyzed or understood (and trying to use them to do so inevitably requires a distortion / corruption of the religious principles);
  • economic and political change may comes under the jurisdiction of religious authorities, rather than those with more specialized knowledge and skills;
• problems may also be generated indirectly if governments adopt an authoritarian stance in order to prevent what they see as economically dysfunctional populist factions gaining power [1]. 

Complex word-games can arise when political issues have to be judged in terms of religious criteria (eg consider the argument that the intrinsic evil of democracy might be a religious duty for Muslims because it is necessary to allow them to undertake their other religious duties).

Techniques for achieving change under Islamic traditions have apparently been devised - on the basis of local customs, the public interest and necessity (see Islamic Banking). Other techniques Islam recognizes for achieving change (according to one observer) involve: learning from those one works with; and war. 

Overall such methods still seem too slow and / or unsatisfactory.

The introduction of Western-style business schools in the Middle East [1] might provide a path to developing the region's ability to achieve economic change - as change management is in some ways the essence of effective business.

There have been experiments with both the adoption of sharia law (in Iran) and the rejection of sharia law (in Turkey) from which lessons can be drawn [1].

It can be noted that the Islamist revolution in Iran has reportedly reduced per capita incomes to 1/3 of what they were previously [1]. Other media sources have also suggested a substantial increase in social inequality and injustice.

And unfortunately the apparent idealistic hope that Islam might contribute to general human advancement by imposing a moral order on the modern science and technology that underpins economic materialism also seems likely to be in vain.

An account of the ideology of Islamism [1] suggests that it could involve recognition of scientific trends. Moreover it appears that the development of radical Islamism has been led by those who have undergraduate science degrees (especially engineers and doctors).

It may well be that the core of new attempts to combine modernity with Islam could be the perception that developments in Western science tend in diverse ways to support traditional assumptions in Islamic science which is based on the assumed unity of Nature and the Divine.

Mainstream science, for example, now gives recognition to the limits to rationality and to the importance of systems which have been foundational in Islamic science. Other assumptions in Islamic science find varying levels of modern endorsement from (for example):

• environmentalists concerned about damage to the environment due to the utilitarian use of knowledge to exert a degree of control over nature;
• New Agers who perceive all things as 'One';
• scientists who question the reality of free will.

However the assumption embedded in Islamic science of the total unity of Nature and Divine Will (which amounts to a view that God 'micro-manages' reality) seems like a much less plausible view of Divine creation than others that can be suggested (eg because: such a process would be inefficient; natural systems are highly differentiated which suggests that autonomous response by quasi-individual elements is the model for creation; and embedded causal relationships (eg natural laws) explain almost all behaviours).

Moreover that assumption has adverse practical implications because it promotes the notion that the only goal of acquiring knowledge is to understand God rather than also to understand a largely-autonomous nature. The result of this can be (if a suggested alternative hypothesis about a process of Divine creation is correct):

• resistance to changes which emerge in the process of Divine creation - and thus actions which involve anything but true submission to God;
• great difficulty in seeing nature as it actually is;
• an inability to apply knowledge of nature gained through empirical science;
• a risk, at least occasionally, of blindly acting on delusionary 'insights' by leaders who fail in seeking esoteric paths to knowledge;
• an inability to deal with change which is central to a societies' material prosperity (see Competing Civilizations);
• ineffective attempts to apply simple invariable moral laws (which are suitable for individuals) to the government of complex and constantly changing social and economic systems.

The irony of the situation is that traditional Islam may have been resisting modernity quite unnecessarily. A plausible case can be made that fundamentalists (of many faiths) have been so busy fearing modernity (and thus limiting their prospects and losing intellectual credibility) that they have failed to note that modernity now may NOT be inconsistent with religious discourse.

The historical difficulties Muslim societies have faced could be be due to the fact that Islamic scholars, who have the highest levels of understanding, have at times interpreted Islam as requiring them to violently suppress further advances in knowledge.  Moreover, as noted above, it may have been the risk that globalization would allow alternative ideas to bypass censorship by Islamic scholars that has now motivated extremists to direct attacks against Western societies that have been the drivers of globalization.

While it has reasonably been argued that theological assumptions can never be dis-proven by theological arguments [1], current Islamist proposals have significant political, economic and science implications whose likely practical effectiveness could be evaluated.

It may well be that the present author's understanding of these complex issues is misguided - and that careful examination taking account of all expert opinions would show that moderate Islamists' proposals would provide for effective political, economic, social, administrative, legal and scientific arrangements (noting that quite significant changes to current mainstream arrangements may well be required to deal with prevailing global challenges). 

But, if this is not the case then moderate Islamists could only advocate (say) adoption of the Shari'a on the basis that this is required by Allah to protect Islam - and be left with the problem of showing traditional Muslims (and others) why Allah would want them to adopt an ineffective system of political economy (etc) and abandon any aspirations of achieving equality with relatively more prosperous East Asian and Western societies.

In any case, those who hope to effect change through violence seem likely to have nothing to contribute because:

• this can only divert attention from (and prevent solutions being found to) the very difficult global challenges mentioned above;
• there can be no moral basis for any cause (whether Islamist or other) which practices violence without even giving victims the opportunity to understand and express a view about that cause;
  • Al-Qaeda has been using the internet to promote terrorism. One site offered a 45 page rationale for martyrdom operations (kamikaze terrorism) - that explained that killing infidels inevitably involved innocent casualties because it was impossible to kill them separately (Higgins A etal 'Terrorism's tangled web', FR, 12/11/02)
  • others have sought to argue that no one should be considered to be innocent and thus all should be liable to attack
• cruelty inevitably alienates common people (insiders as well as those in the wider world) from the cause in which it is practiced;
• extremist Islamist ideologies (see Radical Islamism vs Traditional Islam) are most unlikely to offer viable economic or political models (despite their pseudo-modern elements) because of their totalitarian character. In particular over-riding the signals that customers give to business with religious or political ideologies is a formula for commercial and economic failure. Likewise, the deployment of (supposed) 'scientific rationalism' in the pursuit of social and political affairs is a formula for terror like that of the French Revolution or Nazism;
• even the Islamist political ideal of submission to God, rather than to man, would be likely to be intrinsically self-defeating if sought through any political process.  George Orwell's classic fable, Animal Farm, referred to the way in which political power corrupted the Communist idealists who controlled revolution - and it would presumably be naive to hope for any different outcome from Islamist idealists;

Increasing Understanding of Islamists' 'Solutions'

The practical relevance of moderate or radical Islamists' political manifestos could be made more obvious to potential supporters if moderate Islamists gain some measure of political legitimacy so that they have to justify or implement their proposals in a practical sense.

It is noteworthy that gaining some political legitimacy exposed the lack of practical substance in the policies of One Nation in Australia (which was a radically-conservative political movement mainly reflecting the concerns of those left behind by economic change - a characteristic which appears to have much in common with Islamist extremists).

Austrian right wing extremist politicians suffered huge electoral losses to moderates. The chancellor vindicated his strategy (for which he had been criticized and ostracized across Europe) of forming a coalition with anti-immigration hardliners. The later fell apart when forced to help run the country rather than making populist demands from the comfort of opposition. (Wilson P. 'Austrian moderate conquers far right', A, 26/11/02)

There is conflict in Iran between those who wish to modernize and engage the modern world and conservative authorities who believe that Islam has all the answers. Everyone seems angry about something - economic mismanagement, lack of opportunity, slow reform, lack of fun. Corruption is growing. Traffic is gridlocked. A transition to democracy is possible (Elliot T., 'In the shadows of the Ayotollahs, FR, 7-8/12/02).

In Palestine Hamas arguably gained power because it had done more for people in a practical sense than the Palestinian Authority and while its agenda includes destruction of Israel, it may be forced to adopt a more pragmatic approach which is less oriented to terrorism [1]

Islamists appear to have gained legitimacy in Pakistan [1]; and Turkey - under a currently secular constitution [1]. Moreover a democratically minded Islamist party appears to have emerged in Indonesia, apparently having concluded that revolution is not an effective way to gain power [1]. Islamists could on demographic grounds reasonably be predicted to gain power in Iraq under the (more-or-less) democratic political process that has been established following the US-led invasion [1, 2]. Radical Islamists gained power democratically in Palestine [1] and have done well in elections in Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon  - under a slogan of 'Islam is the solution' [1].

As well as evaluating the practicality of Islamists' proposals (ie whether Islam can actually be 'the answer' politically, economically, socially, administratively and legally), it would also be useful to make clear to traditional Muslims and outsiders whether the ideology of Islamists (who seem to be seeking a broader acceptance for Islam on the basis of integrating Islamic ideas with their understanding of modernity, science and engineering) is based on good science.

It has been suggested that the unwillingness / inability of the Muslim majority to challenge the extremists is a problem.

Is Islam inherently violent? There is a great deal of violence currently associated with it - but this does not imply inherent violence. The majority of Muslims are peaceful, but violence against almost all other civilizations demands attention. Its cause is the sense that Islam has lost its rightful place of dominance that it enjoyed 500 years ago. A recent UN report spoke of the Arab failure to modernize. Wahid, former Indonesian president and leader of largest Muslim society in the world, traces Islamic radicalism not just to a failure of self-respect and identity but to a failure of Muslim leadership. Terrorists speak in the name of Islam, while the peaceful majority do not have the courage to challenge them. Until the majority speak, Islam's borders will remain bloody (Krauthhammer C. 'Its time to hear from the real voice of Islam', FR, 9/12/02).

However when violence is used to promote naive political goals (or when there are no competent civil institutions able to inform a community about the practical political and economic implications of policy), policy weaknesses may not be able to be popularly understood.  

The risk in debating public policy: An Egyptian writer who questioned the accuracy of prevailing assumptions about the first four Caliphs of Islam (on which Islamists' ideals for an Islamic state are apparently based) was said to have been assassinated a few years ago with the endorsement of Muslim authorities [1].

It has been suggested that the human disciplines (such as philosophy, sociology, psychology and comparative religion) are sometimes seen as infringements on divine sovereignty and the root of all problems in Islamic societies [1].

It has been said that it is possible to be murdered for criticizing Wahhabism, and that most of those murdered by extremists have been Muslims (often leading scholars) [1].

Extremists frequently attack Muslims who disagree with their interpretations [1] 

[Another (unconfirmed emailed) story asserted that a man was sentenced to death in Iran for disputing a clerical interpretation of the Koran]

If Islamists' theoretical 'solutions' cannot gain any political legitimacy because of extremists and if efforts to expose their manifestos to critical review seemed likely to be too dangerous in Muslim dominated countries, a country such as Australia could commission domestic grass roots Islamic organizations to suggest how Australians can best aid Muslim dominated countries generally. This would necessarily involve those grass roots organizations: considering ALL options (including those advocated by Islamists); seeking comments on those proposals from experts; and drawing conclusions from a valid Islamic viewpoint.

For example, suppose a team were established in Australia, comprising both traditional and Islamist Muslim leaders, to develop proposals for aiding Islamic countries. To maintain credibility it would be necessary for the Islamist radicals to contribute by developing a detailed argument in favour of their practical policy proposals for Islamic countries and this manifesto would then be accessible to others for critical assessment.

Any party who was not willing to have such matters analyzed and debated would clearly lose credibility.

Even though there are believed to be numbers of individuals committed to the extremists' cause in Australia [1], Muslims involved in such a team should be relatively safe.

Muslim religious leaders (including those in Australia) must have a strong motivation to evaluate extremists' ideology (eg because the extremists have challenged traditional authorities).

As indicated above, many extremists seem to be outsiders to traditional Islam who have been educated in the West and believe because of what they have learned from study of modern ideas that Islamic law offers a better solution to the world's problems than Western political and economic traditions that have been being globalized. This conclusion involves both (a) nominal support for traditional Islam and (b) rejection of traditional Islam - because it is primarily derived from modern Western ideas rather than Islamic teaching. Moreover there are some indications that the 'true nature of the jihad' is deliberately being kept secret. 

Similarly it seems that the primary interest of Islamist radicals is in geo-political rather than religious issues, and yet they are claiming religious authority for their political proposals.

Abdal Hakin Murad (a prominent UK scholar) has argued that mainline Muslims need to challenge Wahhabism because the latter disparages and attacks qualified Muslim authorities - and that the latter are the only ones able to find the right 'medicine' to defeat extremists [1].

The Islamic Councils of Australia published Message to all Extremists of the World in 2002 which attacked terrorists and other extremists, their aggression and the dishonest use of religion [1]

Some Muslim radicals claim there is evidence in the Quran and Hadeeth that Muhammad advocated and personally practiced violence to advance his religion, and rejected peaceful discussion as an alternative [1]

Muslims in Australia are under pressure to manage potential radicals in view of public concerns about potential terrorist attacks [1], as a result of which it was suggested that Muslim leaders should meet to consider ways to deal with terrorism [1].

Sheikh Shaker El-Sayed (Secretary-General, Muslim American Society) has argued that terrorism is inconsistent with Islam, and that Muslims should do everything possible to oppose it [1]

Disagreements amongst those advocating Islamist regimes have reportedly emerged about whether extreme violence is constructive [1, 2] because of the need to gain popular support  [1]

A 'struggle for the soul of Islam' has been perceived by Ziauddin Sardar [1]. He also suggested that extremists represent a faction which has deep roots in Islamic history, which could not be combated by a 'war against terror' but must be dealt with (as was done several times before) by debate drawing upon the rationalist and humanist threads in Islamic tradition [1] 

The war against terror has been suggested to: have its source in religious fundamentalism and in a perversion of Islam, and create a crisis at the heart of Islam  Jihadists have expanded into Europe because Muslim population provides cover, and Europe is becoming part of a civil war in the Islamic world. Australia is also a target. [1]

The core problem has been described as a 'war within Islam' [1]

Australia has 330,000 Muslims, most of whom are law abiding - but no one can be sure they will stay that way. Only Islam can reform itself, but at present moderates are losing to Saudi financed fundamentalists. [1]

Individual Muslims are unlikely to be able to properly judge the complex ideology of extremists without expert advice (eg that ideology seems to involve a combination of Islamic traditions and modern ideas as well as political proposals for the establishment of a Caliphate as an alternative to autocratic secular governments in the Middle East (and also to the democratic alternative advocated by the US and its allies).

It is not only those who are devoted to violence, who are putting forward ideas that require careful evaluation. For example:

• radical political proposals in Hizb-ut-Tahrir's manifesto appears similar to those advanced by Al Qaida;
• other radical ideas, apparently just short of declaring holy war, have been circulated by persons claiming no connection with those who resort to terrorism (eg see No Dialogue: Only Da'wa).

Moreover some Muslim clerics have placed the credibility of Islam generally at risk by preaching hatred of the West and urging followers to resist peace and support insurgents in Arabic, while making public statements that denounce terrorism [1].

It has been argued that an attack on Australia (as some extremists seemed to be planning) would not be legitimate jihad from an Islamic perspective because the concept originated in 7^th century to be used in self defense. It is only valid in face of overt oppression or foreign occupation - and Muslims can't be said to be oppressed in Australia [1]

Prominent Muslim leaders argue that, while there are few extremists in Australia and they have little support, they need to be defeated with ideas [1, 2]

It was also argued that moderate Muslims need to get out and create a more positive alternative for young people than extremism [1]

Muslim religious leaders must also have a motivation to evaluate extremists' ideologies because their communities will necessarily remain the subject of intense suspicion [1] so long as there is a risk that extremists might emerge from them and perhaps even use weapons of mass destruction [1] in terrorist attacks .

Moreover some political leaders have argued that Muslims might achieve more by political and economic advancement.

• Dr Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Muslim dominated Malaysia, suggested to a conference of Islamic leaders in October 2003 that the cause of fighting Jews (who were seen as the ultimate manipulators of Western societies) would be better advanced by using political, economic and democratic forces rather than violence.  
  • [Comment: This proposal seems likely to be far more effective than allowing extremists to always present Islam as 'the problem' - though the risk in basing policy on conspiracy theories and ethnic prejudice is that one can raise up tyranny]

• Dr Mahathir also suggested that study of science as well as religion would be of considerable benefit in advancing the position of Muslim societies [1] [a view which appears to be a moderate version of the ideology of Islamist extremists if the assumption that they are a modernizing faction within Islam is correct].

• Dr Surin, a respected Muslim leader from Thailand, reportedly proposed an arrangement for promoting democracy in the Middle East by encouraging centers in Australian universities to attract Muslim students of science, technology and Islamic studies [1]. However this idea seems to need refinement.

Refinement: the problem with modernity which Muslim communities seem to have is not to relate Islam to science and technology (and in fact this combination seems to encourage the radical Islamist ideology). Rather the key issue seems to be to relate Islam to the social sciences. Overall it might be more useful to attract Muslim students of Islamic studies and social sciences.

Centers along the lines Dr Surin (reportedly) suggested might merely turn into recruiting grounds for extremists - though it seems from other sources [1] that this would be unlikely to be his intent as he has a long history of involvement in the development of social and political relationships.

There are numerous other attempts that have been made to identify the causes of, and remedies for, underdevelopment in the Muslim world which could provide a framework for evaluation of the ideology of Islamist extremists.

Western leaders should have motivations to support such an initiative also, because, as difficulties in Iraq have shown, security forces are not an effective way of dealing with problems that have ideological roots.

However the US government, which has sought to take the global lead in countering Islamist extremism, does not appear to have focused on evaluation of the ideologies involved. A late 2005 report showed that in countering Islamist extremism its agencies focused on  counterintelligence, counterterrorism, traditional diplomacy, force protection, public diplomacy, and economic and humanitarian assistance [1]. It seems to be assumed that extremists' ideology is patently stupid and would not be accepted by anyone but ignorant religious fanatics - which seems a poor basis for effective communication with educated people who do believe that ideology to be rational and reasonable.

• Censorship?
• Isolationism?

The Crisis Facing Islam

Islamist extremists may well have created a crisis for Islam as a whole, which could significantly erode its influence because they have:

• sought through violence to advance the claim that the religion of Islam can be a viable framework for a practical modern system of government;
• developed an ideology about this largely behind closed doors (which may deliberately be being kept secret). That ideology apparently incorporates a combination of traditional (coercive) strands of Islamic thought and modern ideas;
• challenged traditional authorities and implied that those who 'take their religion seriously' need to support through militant action the oft-stated claim that Islam deals with all aspects of life and could be a viable framework for government;

This constitutes a potential threat to Islam as a whole because:

• while mainstream Islam may be inconsistent with terrorism [1, 2, 3], it is clear that this does not apply to all of Islam. For example, even though many scholars may interpret Islam as advocating freedom of religion and oppose coercion, it is the minority who do not have this view who both make it hard for Muslim dominated communities to develop and pose a threat to outsiders (and to Muslims who disagree with them);
• traditional Islam has been said to contains some elements that would support extremists' views - and to need substantial modernization [1, 2]. For example a Muslim dissident argued that [1]:
  • while imams teach that Muslims are subject to hate and discrimination, there is innate anti-Semitism in Islam;
  • despite Western influences, Muslims have mainly been harmed by other Muslims;
  • Saudi Arabia seeks to colonize the Muslim world with its viewpoints;
  • fatwas against extremism have only started recently;
  • while the ideal of Islam is wonderful (as the ideal of communism is), the reality is not as good as the ideal (as shown by poor human rights record for women and minorities):
• unless and until Islam as a religion dissociates itself from Islamism as a political system, Islam's credibility as a religion will be hostage not only to the violence some Islamists perpetrate but to the effectiveness of governments that they establish (or seek to establish) in Islam's name. As noted above Islamists have gained (or are likely to) gain political power in some places thus requiring the shift from revolutionary rhetoric to practical performance which frequently discredits revolutionaries.  Moreover the concept of Islamist government seems to retain features which are likely to have contributed to the historic difficulties experienced by many Muslin societies over the past 500 years (eg a socially-coercive approach to ensuring right individual behaviour);
• young Muslims (who tend to feel alienated in Western societies) are at risk of being recruited into terrorist campaigns, which many Muslims believe are incompatible with true Islam [1];
• the ideology of Islamist extremists who can motivate some young men to become terrorists can not be suppressed by censorship, as some have suggested [1]. Censorship can only ensure that it remains underground while preventing critical evaluation (see also below);
• as the agenda of the Islamist extremists is primarily political (ie to establish Islam as a system of government), it will not really be possible for traditional Muslim authorities to rebut extremists' ideology on purely religious grounds (eg based on Islam's rationalist and humanist traditions, as one observer suggested [1]);
• extremist Islamists have been suggested to comprise an alliance between militants and apparent moderates under a leadership often educated in Western universities. Thus:
  • traditional Muslim religious authorities (ie those with properly authenticated credentials) may not be as well informed as some extremists about the non-religious (ie political, economic, scientific) issues that would need to be the focus of any evaluation of the extremists' ideology. For example:
    • suggestions by Dr Mahathir that the study of science as well as religion would be of great benefit in advancing the position of Muslim societies [1] - an idea seems to be part of the ideology of Islamist extremists - would not go far enough for reasons suggested in Combating Terrorism with Civil Liberties;
  • the creation by mainstream Muslim religious authorities of a system of mutual recognition which is hoped to enable the teachings of self appointed scholars to be suppressed [1], may thus not actually prove sufficient;
  • there is some risk that the interpretation of the extremist's ideology offered to the Muslim world as a whole could be biased towards that of idealistic but impractical Western-educated Islamist extremists - if the process is not open so that all points of view are able to be put forward;
• it could well be very hard for traditional Muslim authorities to convincingly evaluate the practical (ie political and economic) implications of the extremists' ideology because of the assumption, which has been said to be central to Islam's metaphysical science, that nature and society can best or only be studied as symbols of Divine will;

Because of the intolerable security threat the extremists pose, which will put all Muslim communities under pressure, and the (Western-educated?) extremists' challenge to traditional religious authorities, the latter dubious metaphysical assumption is likely to be have to be defended under the critical case of the entire world and will probably be discredited.

Thus the main long term effect of the extremists' actions could be to erode the foundations of the intellectual authority which Islamic scholars have traditionally exerted over Muslim communities, and (perhaps) to thus liberate Muslim communities from centuries of intellectual bondage.

Censorship is not the Answer

In August 2005, a summit conference involving selected Muslim leaders and government in Australia considered options to eliminate the risk of domestic terrorism.

The Prime Minister wanted a strong message sent to Muslims that terror had no place in Islam, while the Opposition leader suggested that respect for Australian values in teaching at Islamic schools would be the key to ensuring that Australia is free of terrorism risks [1].

Proposals emerging from the summit [1] included:

• challenges by Muslim leaders to the small segment of their community who advocate violence [1, 2];
• weeding out out radical imams (teachers) [1], and preventing others from entering the country;
• review of teaching in Islamic schools to promote compatibility with Australian values [1];
• registering imams [1] and setting standards on who could be a Muslim cleric [1, 2]; and
• establishing Australian institutions for training imams [1, 2, 3].

A committee was established to advise government [1], and those invited to the summit agreed to communicate with radicals who have not been invited [1].

Unfortunately, many of the proposals emerging from the summit appeared to be an attempt by those who participated to avoid the issue by imposing censorship on Islamic teachings.

In particular the government was unwilling to communicate with radicals. And those invited to the summit seemed nervous about discussing bin Laden, and to prefer not to think about him [1].

It can be noted that Islamic scholars traditionally seek endorsement by the (preferably Islamic) ruler to ensure their authority [1].

The summit did not discover a practical way to resolve the crisis facing Islam, or eliminate the resulting risks that extremists pose to others. 

Censorship (which is the method China is trying to use to contain democracy and Falon Gong) simply doesn't work. Moreover the major means for dissemination of radical ideas is now the Internet, and in practice the Internet can't be censored.

Furthermore Australia's Muslim community clearly perceived that the summit's proposals contained practical problems:

• delegates said there were some radicals they could not control [1];
• invitees were not seen to be representative of Muslim Australia, and there is in fact no homogeneous, coherent Muslim community [1];
• Muslim Australia feels alienated because of negative impressions created by the Tampa incident, mandatory detention, ASIO raids, anti-terror legislation, and wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. For Muslims to assist in the fight against terrorism, government needs to demonstrate that it is with them [1];
• Islamic groups that were not invited denounced violence against civilians but argued that Australia's role in Iraq and the war against terror had created problems and is the primary source of resentment. [1 ]
• an Australian imam academy was seen as a flawed concept that would create an underground movement of clerics.  It was contrary to Islam to register imams. Moreover imams would normally be trained by the world's most highly qualified Islamic religious scholars - and creating anything like this in Australia would require huge resources. [1];
• a two-layered Muslim community could develop, one of which had government endorsement [1]
• Islamic schools and teachers, who believe they are already doing a good job, were angry about the proposal  [1]
• proposals endorsed at summit will be hard to implement and regulate. It would be hard to draw up a register of clerics. There need to be selection criteria - and who would set these? What does one do with imams who do not qualify - especially if they have a lot of supporters. [1]

Another complexity in the summit's proposals is that there is no general agreement on Australia's values, and thus it is difficult to insist that they should be taught in Islamic schools (see The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools).

Moreover it must be anything but easy to reconcile Australian values with Islamic education, because values can not be justified separately from the world-view from which they were derived [1], and that which has been built around Islam (see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science) is radically different to the world views of Western societies. 

In October 2005 Muslim leaders again urged censorship by suggesting that government prevent radical Islamic groups from broadcasting propaganda [1]. Subsequently proposals to constrain preaching by extremists were proposed including control over who could preach [1, 2] and deportation of  clerics who preach violence [1]  though others suggested that restrictive measures would only deal with a small part of the problem, and that preaching should be free - providing it is compatible with laws [1]

In the development of anti-terrorism legislation provisions were included to (a) allow authorities to control the movement of terrorist suspects and (b) tighten anti-sedition laws so as to make it illegal to publish material that advocates hate or violence. These provisions were criticized for restricting civil liberties [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and potentially alienating all Muslims in Australia [1]. However concern was also expressed that the censorship those laws implied could:

• be counterproductive because the war on terror is a much a contest of ideas as it is about policing, intelligence gathering and military might - and radical ideas need to be understood to defeat them [1]
• make it legally risky to undertake the research needed to defeat terrorism [1, 2]; and
• force extremists underground and thus eliminate the ability of Australia's civil society to identify and condemn them  [1]

Censorship also risks weakening Australia generally because, where political debate is not exposed to all shades of opinion (including the 'crazies'), it is very easy for leaders to get out of touch with reality or with the community - as demonstrated by the poor policies and political instability that have at times accompanied the politicisation of public administration.

The potential reduction on civil liberties would also perhaps be counter-productive, because making what would in effect be a culturally-informed case for civil liberties in Muslim dominated societies could well be central to eliminating the risks of terrorism by Islamist extremists.

Isolationism is Also Inadequate

Various proposals have emerged for reducing the risk of terrorism by promoting effective integration of Muslims into Australian society eg

• establishing a moderate / balanced Muslim community with sound understanding of Islam led by home-grown imams who value both the faith and the country [1];
• a centre was set up at University of Western Australia to increase  cross-cultural understanding, and promote moderate Muslim views [1];
• Griffith University created a unit with a view to increasing Australians' understanding of Islam, and enabling Islamic scholars to look at their own community in the expectation that a more informed public opinion will promote pluralism and reduce the sense of exclusion that Muslims often feel [1].

While integration is a useful goal, such proposals are little more than an attempt to contain extremist ideologies by censorship.

The Muslim world is like a house in which a 'fire' (Islamist extremism) has started in the kitchen, and could spread rapidly. To save the people in that house it is not enough to sit in the 'granny flat' out back dampening out occasional sparks. Rather it is necessary either to get the people out of the house or to go into the kitchen with a fire extinguisher.

Thus a better solution would be that suggested above - ie identification and practical analysis of the 'solutions' to global / regional problems which Islamist extremists use to justify and motivate terrorism.

This should both discourage extremism and help free Muslim-dominated societies from the intellectual bondage that they seem to have suffered for centuries.