Fit to be Fried

Author’s Note: Throughout this text I have included quotes from Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq, a highly significant writing with regards to the anti-western holy war, originally published by the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization and antecedent of Al-Qaeda in its current form. Its author, Sayyid Qutb, was convicted of treason in Egypt, and executed two years after its publication (Coll, 2005). I include these texts as an illustration of the modern radical Islamist way of thought, in the hopes that some further degree of illumination into their motives may be attained.

“Indeed Islam has the right to take the initiative. Islam is not a heritage of any particular race or country; this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions which limit man’s freedom of choice. It does not attack individuals nor does it force them to accept its beliefs; it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and which curtail human freedom.”
- From “Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq”(Qutb, 1964).

With terrorist activity under close scrutiny by government agencies around the world, it has become more important than ever to recognize the root cause of such actions. Its one thing to squelch the plans of terrorists in action, but identifying the underlying factors that cause terrorism and eliminating them before we suffer more attacks similar to those that occurred on September 11th, 2001 seems an even more proactive solution. Some may argue that responsibility lies with socioeconomic factors such as poverty and oppression for the wave of terrorist activity currently plaguing the world; however, though socioeconomic factors may contribute in some ways, ideology and extremism remain the true roots of modern terrorist motivation. By taking a closer look at the goals, ideology, and prominent members of Al-Qaeda, this case becomes clearly evident.

Before delving into the goals of Al-Qaeda, one must know the facts behind the group’s history. Broader in scope by far than any terrorist group of the previous century, Al-Qaeda has raised terrorism from a tactic of rebellion and protest to a truly fearsome weapon with which to challenge all opposing ideals. It first saw life in 1987, as a concept created by radical militant Abdullah Azzam, for the Islamist journal Al-Jihad. Azzam went on to found the Mujahidin with Osama Bin Laden as a response to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. After their success against the Soviets, Bin Laden and Azzam were eager to find a new, worthy cause on which to focus their followers. In 1988, Azzam published his eight guidelines for training Al-Qaeda (“The Foundation”, or “Base”) Upon returning to their homelands, the warriors that had come from other nations to aid in the holy war alongside the Mujahidin brought with them the ideologies of Azzam, powered by the will of Bin Laden, and so became the international network of independent cells that would make up Al-Qaeda. The network utilized secrecy to mask it’s existence, committing relatively minor attacks against U.S. interests overseas, and is believed to have backed the failed, first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. Until September 11th, 2001, when terrorists linked to Al Qaeda hijacked aircraft, and utilized them to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, (as well as partially destroying the Pentagon building in Washington D.C.), the world at large was not completely aware of the group (Gunaratna, 2002).

The goals of Al-Qaeda include “The “creation of societies founded on the strictest Islamic principles” (Gunaratna, 2002). In his 1964 book Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq, Sayyid Qutb stated “If Islam is again to play the role of the leader of mankind, then it is necessary that the Muslim community be restored to its original form. It is necessary to revive that Muslim community which is buried under the debris of the man-made traditions of several generations, and which is crushed under the weight of those false laws and customs which are not even remotely related to the Islamic teachings, and which, in spite of all this, calls itself the ‘world of Islam.’”(Qutb, 1964). Osama Bin Laden has expanded on this goal in his attempts to re-establish the Caliphate and unite all Arab peoples under one Muslim power structure. Another of their goals is to drive out western influence including American citizens and soldiers from all Islamic nations. This goal exposes the xenophobic nature of Bin Laden and his followers, and may stem from Bin Laden’s bitterness over the Saudis choice to ask the US for aid after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, rather than his own forces. Bin Laden believed the US had no business setting foot in the Middle East, and has harbored a grudge against America and all westerners ever since.
Also among the aims espoused by Al-Qaeda, the destruction of the nation of Israel, is widely believed a smokescreen to encourage potential recruits, rather than an actual goal. Al-Qaeda’s direct activity against Israel has been negligible, and instead, the group has in the past focused its efforts on America and her allies.
Less a formal group than a collective of like-minded individual cells, Al-Qaeda’s main strength lies it’s ability to adapt itself to new causes and goals in order to survive. It is this adaptability that has allowed Al-Qaeda to gain support from the most unlikely of sources. Evidence shows that Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim group, has been cooperating with Hezbollah, a Shi’ite organization, shocking due to the blood-feud that has existed between the Sunni and Shi’ite factions of Islam for centuries. Al-Qaeda has even found support among several white-supremacist movements, as well as Marxist organizations in South America, for their stance and actions against the government of the United States (Stern, 2003).
As before when Bin Laden shifted the groups stated goals to include Palestinian liberation, Al-Qaeda has also striven to boost the morale of disenfranchised Muslims the world over – by violently attacking perceived enemies of Islam (Stern, 2003). This is evident in Bin Ladens’ latest videotaped message, in which he called for more violence against the United States, yet offered an ambiguous cease-fire. Though seemingly ludicrous to those in the west, Bin Laden has, in the minds of Islamic viewers, made a correlation with himself and other great Arab leaders of the past. Most notable of the leaders Bin Laden has associated himself with is Saladin, who gave a similar offer to the Crusaders when his homeland was threatened. By setting himself up in the same league as these heroes of the Arab world, Bin Laden has gained even more inspirational power than before; despite the fifty-million dollar bounty on his head that has forced him into a life of seclusion (USA Today, 2006).

“And it is life from God for the martyrs: “Do not consider those as dead who were killed in the way of God; they are living and find sustenance from their Sustainer. They enjoy what God has given them from His bounty, and are glad for those who are left behind (on earth) and have not reached there yet, that they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. They are jubilant at the favor from God and His bounty; indeed, God does not destroy the reward of the Believers”

- From “Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq”(Qutb, 1964).

Taking it’s ideology from extremist interpretations of Islamic scripture, Al-Qaeda seeks to drive western influence from the Middle-east and establish a new Caliphate, a unified nation of Arab states under one ruler, The Caliph, with laws derived from the strictest interpretations of Shariah (Islamic Law). Al-Qaeda’s motivation goes beyond mere religious ideology, however, and stretches deep into the collective Arab sub-conscious. Middle-Eastern civilization sprang from an honor culture that still thrives in many Islamic nations; after their successful campaign against the Russians in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden wanted to take the Mujahidin to Iraq to fight Saddam Hussein upon his invasion of Kuwait, and felt insulted when the Saudi Government chose to ask the UN (and the United States) for aid. Bin-Laden also believed US presence in Saudi Arabia blasphemous, and so began his war against western influences around the globe. Al-Qaeda sees themselves as warriors of God, and their motivation deeply rooted in Islamic scripture, twisted into a doctrine of hate and violence by charismatic ideologues.

In order to deal yet another blow to the theory that socioeconomic factors make up the root causes of terrorism, we turn to investigate the backgrounds of some of the groups more prominent members. The group’s leader, Osama Bin Laden (AKA, “The Sheikh”), was born to Yemeni immigrant parents in Saudi Arabia in 1957, the seventeenth of fifty-two children. Bin Laden’s father, Muhammed Bin Laden, founded the Saudi Bin Laden Group, a construction company that had won substantial contracts to renovate the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The group gained much respect from the Saudi royal family, and Muhammed himself was well-liked by Faisal ibn Abdul Azziz, the Saudi King. Ironically, Muhammed Bin Laden had always discouraged his children from political and religious interests; after his death in 1968, Osama became the only member of his family to disrespect this wish.
Bin Ladens boyhood classmates from the Al Thagher Model School in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, describe him as an “honorable student” who looked after fellow students belongings to safeguard them from thieves and practical jokers. There, Bin Laden first received a taste for holy war, from the after-school lessons taught by the schools’ Syrian gym teacher, a man who may have been linked, or at least strongly influenced by the ideals of the Muslim Brotherhood. At first, the group resembled something like a Bible study, with memorization of Koranic verses and other such religious activities, but soon lessons took on overtones of violence. Though some students opted to distance themselves from the group at this point, Bin Laden remained. It was soon after this point that Bin Laden and his compatriots overtly began to take on the look and way of thought of an Islamic militant (Coll, 2005).
While attending University, Bin Laden studied Islamic history and law under Muhammed Qutb, brother of Sayyid Qutb, author of Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq (“Milestones along the way” or “Milestones”, as published in the U.S.). In 1978, he journeyed to Pakistan to prepare for a holy war against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, and rose to power as one of the seven principle leaders of the Mujahidin, backed by a coalition formed by the CIA. In Afghanistan, Bin Laden would meet the man who would influence his thinking for the next ten years; Abdullah Azzam.
Abdullah Azzam’s life and ultimate fate had much to do with the current courses of action taken by Al-Qaeda, and make him a figure worthy of a closer look as well. A former leader of the radical militant group Hamas and Al-Qaeda’s ideological father, Azzam met Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and working with Bin Laden formed the Mujahidin to combat the Soviet presence in that country, and the Maktab al-Khidmat (or MAK), a group which served to fund and recruit new members for the Mujahidin, as well as care for jihadis who had come from abroad.
Although agreeing with Bin Laden that the Mujahidin and MAK could be put to good use after the ouster of the Soviets, Azzam did not believe that Al-Qaeda should train in the use of terrorist tactics, citing examples from his time in Egypt as demonstrating the futility of such actions. Azzam, who had a Bachelor’s degree in Islamic Law (Shariah), also cited Koranic scripture which warned against attacking children and non-combatant women. Azzam also believed that the MAK should concentrate its efforts in Afghanistan where he thought they could do the most good. This did not fit in with Bin Laden’ dream of a new international Caliphate, and in 1989, assassins using a remote-controlled bomb murdered Azzam and his two sons while on their way to prayer services, thus leaving the way open for Bin Laden to turn al-Qaeda to his own ends (Gunaratna, 2002).
Another prominent figure that bears close study is Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Ayman Al-Zawahiri (AKA, Dr. Muez) grew up in Maadi, a secton of Cairo favored by the wealthy and well educated, and came from quite an impressive lineage. His relatives include a former head of Cairo University, a former religious leader at the world’s most influential Arab school, Al Ahazar, and Abdul Azzam. Those who knew him as a youth as “polite, composed, well-read, and even funny” (Lacayo , 2001). Zawahiri first met with arrest in Egypt at the age of fifteen, and earned a three year sentence for his part in the Muslim Brotherhood’s assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1966 (Perry, 2004) Though implicated as one of the top conspirators out of hundreds of defendants (Zawahiri was number 113), Egyptian police were unable to find sufficient evidence to convict Zawahiri on anything more than weapons possession (Lacayo, 2001).
Zawahiri went on to join his relation Azzam and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, joining his group, al-Jihad, with their own forces to fight the Soviets. Zawahiri later became Bin Laden’s closest advisor and personal physician, and has been described as being to Bin Laden “…like the brain is to the body” (Lacayo, 2001). Zawahiri’s goals have always been more political rather than religious, and Bin Laden’s shift towards a worldwide jihad has been widely attributed to his influence.
In a 1999 trial of a group charged with terrorist attacks against the Mubarak regime in Egypt, Zawahiri acquired a death sentence in absentia (Lacayo, 2001), and many believe that Zawahiri had a large part in the orchestration of the September 11th attacks on New York City and Washington DC (Perry, 2004).

Upon close examination of the goals, ideologies, and members of Al-Qaeda, it’s clear that socioeconomic factors have little to do with the current state of terrorist activity. Instead, we see a loose-knit group run by like-minded ideological demagogues under the auspices of religion. Said leaders cannot be considered poor and disenfranchised, instead, for the most part, they have wealth, education, and an extreme bitterness over a supposed blow dealt to the pride and dignity of Arab and Islamic peoples of the world.
Since religion inter-twines with the daily lives of nearly every resident of the Middle East, it makes perfect sense that Al-Qaeda’s leaders use it to control the minds and wills of those sympathetic to their cause. Promises of martyrdom and religious purity have enabled Al-Qaeda to whip up a clandestine coalition of people who believe more than anything that they do the right thing, not only for their own people, but for the entire world. Such motives seem to carry hate and frustration in their wake, and any outside criticism of the differences between Al-Qaeda’s actions and the teachings of the Quaran tends to cause more trouble than it alleviates. Likewise, trying to force those sympathetic to the terrorists to think and feel differently would not only constitute a breach in our own ethics, but would equally result in disaster. Finding a new way to deal with this new enemy remains the only course of action available. Perhaps even as we meet the terrorists on the battlefield, we can change the hearts and minds of those the terrorists would recruit; as Jesus taught in the Bible “…bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…” (Matthew 5:44); Perhaps by consistently and earnestly pursuing the trust and goodwill of all the people of the Middle East through aid and other acts of friendship, we can win over those that currently would like nothing better than to see us dead.

References
Coll, S. (2005). Young Osama. The New Yorker, 81(40), 48-61.

Gunaratna, R. (2002). Inside al Qaeda : global network of terror. New York: New York Columbia University Press.

Lacayo, R., Gibson H., Macleod S., and Radwan, A. (2001). Public enemy no. 2. TIME, 158(21), 77-80.

Matthew 5:44-Hollman Bible Publishers. The Holy Bible; Authorized King James Version. Crown Reference ed. Nashville, TN: 1985.

Perry, G. (2004). The History of Egypt: Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Qutb, S. (1964). Ma’alim fi-l-tariq (“Milestones”). Revised ed. Burr Ridge, IL: American Trust Publications.

Stern, J. (2003). The Protean Enemy. Foreign Affairs, 82(4), 27-40.

To Muslim ears, bin Laden’s words carry different meaning. (2006). USA Today, 9- . Retrieved Jan 29, 2006, from MasterFILE Premier database. http://libsys.uah.edu:3052/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&an=J0E096454634706

On September 11th, 2001, the World Trade Center’s twin towers were the target of a vicious attack that ended with thousands of live ruined, and a country crying out for retribution. Vengeance was required, blood for blood. Our nation’s very honor was at stake, after all, no enemy had dared such a strike on US soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and never had the weapons used to wage an attack of this sort seemed so cowardly: hijacked, passenger-filled aircraft. An attack on unarmed men, women, and children, using their own countrymen and women as living bombs: in or eyes, there could be no more heinous act short of outright genocide. The men and women of New York’s Police and Fire Departments became national heroes that day, held in high esteem, and given every honor possible for their valiant rescue efforts. However, on the other side of the world, those responsible for orchestrating the attacks and those sympathetic to their cause revered their own heroes, the hijackers themselves. Al-Queda had scored a victorious blow against the great Satan, and had gained honor in the eyes of its followers. How, it may be asked, is it possible for one nation to view this act as cowardly and heinous, while others view the events with feelings of pride and honor? What causes a country to revere the murderers of thousands of innocents? When closely examined, honor is seen to have many more facets than the majority of us have been led to believe.

It is said that there is no honor amongst thieves, but in truth, it is largely because of underworld culture that honor even evolved as a concept. Criminals carrying large amounts of contraband and/or cash could hardly bring up a complaint with the local constabulary if any of it were stolen. Likewise, cultures of honor arose out of the shepherds of the English and Scottish border country, the Bedouins, even America’s old west, Though geographically diverse and, in some cases, of differing languages, similarities did exist – these cultures were largely rural and/or nomadic; the presence of law was either absent altogether, or spread too thinly. (Wikipedia) Without the law to guarantee safety of life, land, and property, an honor-culture developed to fill the void. In an honor-culture, swift vengeance is demanded for any infraction upon one’s honor, (read: stolen property, insults, infidelity, accidental injury, or as was the case with John Wesley Harding, having a bunkmate that snored too loud); an infraction that goes unanswered results in dishonor and shame. Since, in most of these honor-cultures, women were viewed in a manner akin to property, honor came to be recognized in a fundamentally different way for men and women. For men, bravery was revered, as a strong, valiant man could be seen as a great protector. For a woman, her chastity was often seen as her only source of honor. Even today, so called “honor-killings” persist in some honor-cultures (such as they did under Taliban rule in Afghanistan) as vengeance for infidelity in women, many times even if the woman’s only infidelity was being a rape-victim. Is this the same honor that exists in our own “Genteel South”, where it’s considered unthinkable to even strike a lady? The answer is both yes and no, for honor is indeed what you make of it. It is a compulsion to do what’s right, or at least, to be viewed as someone who does what’s right. Just who determines what is right is different for each individual. The persons whose opinions matter most to an individual are most likely to form that person’s sense of honor. To use a somewhat fanciful metaphor to illustrate, in the Marvel Comics series “Earth X”, the race of Asgardians (who the Norse viewed as gods), were actually shape-shifting aliens whose appearance was altered by the opinions of those who they came in contact with. An old, Norse storyteller who viewed them to be gods was the first person they encountered upon reaching Earth, and so it was they became the Norse deities of legend. In much the same way, our view of honor, ourselves, and the world around us, is shaped by our environment, and the individuals we look up to most. The so-called “honor-system” employed by universities and even our Nation’s military calls for individuals to inform the authorities of any rule infractions by their peers, yet calls for such informants frequently go unheeded; said individuals often value the respect of their peers over the administratively-imposed “honor-system”, and refuse to become a “rat”. Similar behaviors are found within nearly all Police departments, and within the FBI itself, but are most well-known within the world of organized crime. (Bowman) The Italian Mafia called it “Omerta”, literally, silence. This “code of silence” applies not only to avoid punishment but also as a measure to “save face”. In the recent war in Iraq, the Iraqi Minister of information denied on television that US troops had broken down Baghdad’s defenses, even when they could clearly be seen in the background, over-running the city. Though it seemed humorous to us, it would have been considered a great dishonor for him to admit such a defeat, by the Arab/Islamic honor-culture he lived in.

One might ask, “What do gangsters and comic-books have to do with the perpetrators of the most egregious crimes in our Nation’s history?” There has long been a strong feeling of resentment towards the United States and her allies within the majority of the Arab/Islamic denizens of the middle-east. Though it stems from the formation of a Hebrew nation-state in the form of Israel, religion is less a motivator than it is a convenient backdrop. They feel that their honor was attacked, and those primal feelings regarding their Palestinian kin’s lost property have resulted in a myriad of terrorist attacks around the world; in their eyes, these are acts of vengeance. The honor-culture is so deeply entrenched within the collective Arab psyche that a Jihaad, or holy-war, can be used as an interchangeable term for “international vendetta”. In their honor-based culture, suicide bombers receive honor because they believe they are righting a wrong, and there is no such thing as collateral damage. We in the west, on the other hand, are brought up to believe that all life is viewed a sacrosanct, and the loss of any life is something most of us wish to avoid, at all costs. If this sort of honor-culture is difficult for those of us in the west to understand, it is even more difficult for their culture to understand ours. In the wake of other terrorist bombings in the recent past, Osama bin Ladin gloated via videotape over the perceived cowardice he saw in the US withdrawals from Beirut, Somalia, Rwanda, and Yemen. He called America a “paper tiger”, a seemingly fearsome beast that will fold with the slightest pressure. He was goading us, even expecting a violent response, and when he did not get it, was even more convinced of our dishonor. He saw our desire to avoid conflict and our compassion, our unwillingness to kill, as weakness. If it can be said without seeming sympathetic to terrorists, he may have even been right.

There is a theory that states that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually had prior knowledge of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor, yet allowed it to happen all the same, in order to shake America out of its’ isolationist slumber and get it involved in the war against the Axis Powers in World War II. Roosevelt knew, the theory goes, that without American involvement in the war, America’s allies, and eventually the entire world, would come under the oppressive rule of the Axis Powers. Without an attack on our Nation’s soil, however (that age-old gut-connection to property, again) the American public would never back US involvement in the war. Bound by his sense of honor, Roosevelt did what had to be done, and allowed the Japanese forces to decimate one of our own bases. (Stinnet) Whether or not the story is true, it is with an eerie sense of deja-vu that we can look at the September 11th attacks. Like the Japanese, (who revived their samurai code of “Bushido” to justify kamikaze raids), Al-Queda is very big on honor, and as before, we found comfort in isolation until we were hit way too close to home, rather, right inside its’ very doors. The attacks struck a chord within the American peoples’ hearts; our honor had been impugned, and vengeance, blood-simple and violent vengeance, was called for against our enemies.

Sources:
WikiPedia: The free encyclopedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor

Whatever happened to Honor?- James Bowman, Bradley Lecture, American Enterprise Institute. June 10th, 2002 (transcribed for http://www.jamesbowman.net)

Earth X- Krueger, Ross & Leon, Marvel Comics Group, April 1999-June 2000

Day of Deceit – The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor- Robert Stinnett, Free Press, 1999