Second Lecture delivered at “Islam and the West,” Lifelong Learning Seminar, Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan
Muhammad founded a monarchic regime and an imperial state upon a prophetic religious doctrine. Authority remained personal, as in all of the ‘ancient’ and ‘medieval’ regimes, with the subject’s allegiance owed first to God, then to the Prophet/Monarch. Had the ‘modern’ or scientific-administrative state existed in the seventh century, Muhammad would have condemned it as a sort of idol. Although a person, Allah differs from the God of the Bible in that he is first and foremost not a spirit but a will. This inclines Islam away from viewing reason as authoritative, as in the Christian emphasis on God as Logos or Word.
With time and schisms, traditional Muslims often contented themselves with less-than-strict caliphs who ruled over societies in which clerics had influence but did not necessarily exercise direct political rule. For the men scholars now call Islamists, political activity to enforce the Sha’ria comes back to the center, as it had been under Muhammad himself. But Islamists face a problem Muhammad never saw: rather than the tribes of ancient Arabia, or the surrounding loosely-confederated empires, Islamists operate in societies in which centralized rule intrudes more into everyday activities than it ever did in ancient and medieval empires. To push against such rule in the hands of infidels and heretics, Islamist engage civil-social organizing, electoral politics, and/or guerilla warfare and terrorism. This is why scholars often call Islamism “political Islam,” even if Islamists themselves, thinking of their enterprise as a return to Muhammad’s practice, regard such a phrase as redundant. Given the Islamic emphasis on God as a supreme Will rather than as a supreme Word, or a reasoning God with whom one may speak, and even argue (as the prophets of Israel did), political Islam tends not to be really political in Aristotle’s strict sense. For it, rule doesn’t involve give-and-take or consent but is more a matter of command and obedience.
The more radical Islamists, the ones who use war as a means of gaining power, are not simply throwbacks to Muhammad, no matter what they may claim. In the modern world, terror or fear was designed first as an instrument of modern state building, as seen most clearly in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who invokes the terrors of civil war to justify the counter-terror exercised over factions by the modern state, the “mighty Leviathan.” Marxism-Leninism (which, as we’ve seen, influenced some of the Islamists) deployed statist terror as an instrument of remaking human nature. (The so-to-speak classical argument for this may be found in Leon Trotsky’s book, Marxism and Revolution, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were the most notable practitioners of it among Marxists, and Lenin and Stalin were imitated by the tyrants of the right, particularly Hitler).
Terrorism developed as a revolutionary tactic under conditions of modern statism, as a way of fighting the fear-inspiring mighty Leviathan. This is the most dramatic of the distinctively modern dimensions of Islamism. You will not find homicide-suicides in the Koran, although you will find militants and martyrs. Islamism thus entwines Islamic ideas with modern ones, Muhammad with Machiavelli. In the case of homicide-suicide terrorism, the synthesis has produced an action that neither of its forebears commended.
In the first lecture I mentioned that Islamism also reflects the egalitarianism of modernity. The social equality that Tocqueville describes yields republican regimes or despotic ones. Under Islam, with its less-than-firm commitment to reason, despotism has been the more frequent outcome. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the elimination of the caliphate by the statist-nationalist modernizer, Mustafa Kemal. That same breakup also saw the advance of modern, statist empires—Britain, France—in the Middle East. Both indigenous and foreign rulers in the Middle East thus deliberately depoliticized their societies—again, in Aristotle’s sense of ‘the political’; this left such civil-social organizing as was permitted to the Islamists, who have had the Koran-inspired courage to organize themselves against tyrannical rule and to deliver the social services the corrupt and incompetent statists have failed to provide. That is, the secular nationalists who wrested rule from Western imperialists after World War II squandered the political capital they had built up in that struggle by their very despotism and also by copying the Soviet model of economic development, a model that failed to compete effectively in the world market anywhere it was tried.
The decline of local aristocracies in the face of the onslaught of modern statism brought a vast democratization of Islam. This is a circumstance likely to produce ‘self-made’ religions or variations of religions, designed to appeal to popular passions. Under the Islamic regime-ethos, voluntary martyrdom results in no pain at death and promises great rewards in Paradise. Further, because one’s birth, life, and death are all predetermined by Allah, civilians (including children) killed in terrorist attacks were destined to die, anyway, so there is no moral harm in doing God’s will. So, for example, in one jihadist publication, women are instructed to understand that “The blood of our husbands and the body parts of our children are our sacrificial offering.” When the Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the use of children as human mine-sweepers during the war with Iraq, he described this as a “divine blessing” to them. It is easy to see how such an approach might destabilize modern states that are new, despotic, corrupt, and incompetent. And so it has. Given the fact that Islam is a form of universalism or inter-nationalism, a democratized and hyper-fanatical form of Islam will appeal to many—especially many young men—who resent their local nation-state and thirst for glory.
Another feature of modernity is the valorization of commerce and industry as indispensable elements of the human conquest of nature. As modern commerce and industry developed, the use of oil to fuel large and powerful machines was discovered, famously empowering those peoples on lands with oil reserves underneath them. We recall the sharp increase in oil prices resulting from the embargo imposed by the Arab oil cartel in the mid-1970s. Revenues often went to support Muslim clerics, who were regarded by the monarchies as social counterweights to the communists—who, during the Cold War, enjoyed more formidable international support than local clerics could expect. Further, urbanization brought peasants into the cities, where they kept their allegiance to the clerics but also came physically closer to the centers of state authority. The same held true for the influx of students into the universities; even then-fashionable Marxism could not appeal to students recently removed from the countryside to the degree that radical Islamism could do, especially since Islamism incorporated Marxist motifs into a larger theological framework familiar to the students. Re-Islamization of Middle Eastern societies proceeded ‘from below,’ forming strong networks of persons in but not of the modern state.
To put it in ‘regime’ terms, then, Islamists amount to a new would-be ruling body or set of rulers on the geopolitical scene, one that represents its members as being of the ‘old regime’ of Muhammad. For the past few decades, the most notorious Islamist radical group has been al-Qaeda, founded by Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden’s story is now familiar. Born in 1957, he was a member of the generation of Arabs who would question nationalist secularism. His Wahhabist upbringing would have led him to question it, anyway. But he would eventually diagnose and reject the Saudi version of Wahhabism on ‘Qutbian’ grounds. As a member of a prominent, but not royal, Saudi family, he was near enough to see, but distant enough to reject, royal family decadence.
He formulated a regime-centered policy to combat that decadence. As early as 1996 he called upon his fellow Saudis to “change the regime” of Saudi Arabia, which he regarded as a mere agent of the United States. The Saudi regime has “imposed on the people a life that does not appeal to the free believer”—a life insufficiently Islamic. Indeed, after World War I, the Saudis had allied themselves with the British in bringing down the last caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. The United States replaced Great Britain as the Saudi regime’s principal Western ally after the Second World War, and Bin Laden characterized America as “unjust, criminal, and tyrannical” on four grounds: it “stole our oil”; it “executed” 600,000 Iraqi children with its embargo following the first Gulf War; it supports Israel; it subordinates itself to Jews, the arch-tyrants of the modern world. Jews, and therefore the Americans they control, are servants of Satan. Americans did not cause the Soviet Union to fall; God did, and to claim otherwise is blasphemy. Bin Laden denied that the United States assisted the mujahedin in Afghanistan. In addition to being evil, the United States is contemptible; it is “weaker than the picture it wants to draw in people’s minds.” Not only the American government but the American people themselves are contemptible, “a lowly people ho do not understand the meaning of principles,” a “debauched” people—”the cowards of this age.” Economic relations might be permissible with such a rabble, insofar as those relations serve Islam. But in occupying the Arabian peninsula Americans have declared war “against God, his prophet, and the Muslims.” The only valid Islamic answer is jihad. “May God show them his wrath and give them what they deserve.”
Despite its many vices and weaknesses, America remains the most powerful country of the age. How to fight it? For this, bin Laden had no state of his own, and even if he had, what state could stand against the United States? he needed an organization that could torment the godless superpower without presenting a target America could destroy. In his war on Israel, Palestinian leader Yasr Arafat had developed the policy of intifada, a low-level form of combat employing guerilla fighting and terrorism, needing no established state organization. Arafat himself had seen the success of guerilla warfare against the United States in Vietnam. Bin Laden in effect decided to take an Islamified intifada worldwide, and aim it at America.
The first experiment was in Afganistan, against the Soviets, who were then the more immediate threat. “Al-Qaeda” means “The Base,” and Afghanistan proved such a necessary territorial launching pad for jihad. There, bin Laden developed an international cadre of jihadis, young men who had severed their social ties at home and replaced them with the strong bonds that form among warriors. After the war, the bin Laden segment of the mujahedin did two things. In Afghanistan, they allied with the Taliban, Islamists backed by Pakistan. The Pak prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, had allied herself with one of the Pakistani Islamist parties in the hope of splitting the movement and co-opting it; she sent aid to the Taliban, hoping to secure Pakistan’s western flank, and so to be able to concentrate her attentions on Pakistan’s perennially tense relations with India. With both Pakistani and Arab-Islamist backing, the Taliban founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996.
The Taliban solution to the problem of modern statism turned out to be very simple; they had no modern state at all, no impersonal, centralized bureaucracy. They simply enforced moral codes, collected tolls, and fought the remnants of their local enemies. They had no universalist ambitions. Meanwhile, bin Laden and his organization (along with several other jihadi groups) enjoyed a safe haven for their worldwide operations, aiming most immediately at the expulsion of the United States from Arabia, and at the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, with the ultimate aim of effecting the triumph of Islam throughout the world—God willing.
The core of al-Qaeda was small, consisting of fewer than 200 operatives, tightly controlled by bin Laden. But its network was and remains vast; al-Qaeda-trained jihadis have fanned out into about 80 countries around the world in what capitalists might call a franchise operation. Among other things, this meant that even if bin Laden and his core group were destroyed, the franchise or cells would live on, having been trained to act independently to subvert their local regimes by terror. In other words, al-Qaeda operates in the opposite manner from the centralized, modern state.
The expulsion of Israeli troops from Lebanon by Hezbollah in the 1990s provided a small but important test case for this strategy. The leader of Islamic Jihad, an al-Qaeda affiliate, drew the lesson: “Our jihad has exposed the enemy’s weakness, confusion, and hysteria. It has become clear that the enemy can be defeated, for if a small faithful group was able to instill all this horror and panic in the enemy through confronting it in Palestine and southern Lebanon, what will happen when the nation confronts it with all its potential? Martyrdom actions will escalate in the face of all pressures [and is] a realistic option for confronting the unequal balance of power. If we are unable to effect a balance of power now, we can achieve a balance of horror.” Insofar as such “martyrdoms” destroy innocents, the Islamist strategy seems in-Islamic. However, the regime of democracy solves this problem for al-Qaeda partisans, at least in their war against the Western republics. If the people are sovereign, then no one is innocent.
In a limited way, bin Laden’s achievement was impressive, if vile. This is a brilliant and ruthless way to attempt to destroy modern statism, much more formidable than the tactics of the various ‘anti-globalization’ groups on the Left who have been reduced to breaking shop windows and chanting at G-8 summits before getting swept away with tear gas and propelled water. Radical Islamists have focused precisely on the institutional structure of the modern world. The modern state justifies its existence primarily by providing security and, in the commercial republics, an orderly framework for liberty. The Marxist project—overthrowing the ‘bourgeois state’ and replacing it with “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” leading to the elimination of all states worldwide and the advent of Communism—has failed, and he anarchist or radical libertarian projects obviously partake of utopianism as well A network of terrorists, however, effectively amounts to a non-governmental organization, an NGO, with guns, or an international drug cartel with ideas—indeed, with religious ideas and religious laws.
Such an organization can ‘network’ on the civil-social level, under the state’s law-enforcement radar screen. From there, it can do in a systematic way what anarchist bomb-throwers did, well, anarchically, and therefore impotently: delegitimize statism. Hence bin Laden’s appeal to American mothers in his 1997 CNN interview: “To the mothers of soldiers of American troops… I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government’s policy and to the American president.” To replace the modern state, bin Laden intended to found a stateless ummah under the regime of the prophet Muhammad, ruling through clerics who invoke the prophet’s name. It is as if the Christian ecclesia or assembly had moved to substitute canon law for civil law wherever Christianity went. To put it again in regime terms, a clerical aristocracy will arise out of modern social egalitarianism in order to rule the world, out of a worldwide network, already in place.
It is worth noting that the egalitarianism of the modern project—the systematic attack on aristocratic classes, very often at the service of statist centralization—is no more consistently maintained in radical Islamism than it was in fascism or communism. Fascism quite explicitly proposed a new aristocracy to replace the by-then-decadent ‘old regime’ aristocracies of Europe. For its part, Communism proposed a supposedly temporary neo-aristocracy that the Communists called the ‘revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat.’ Intellectually armed with Karl Marx’s self-described ‘scientific socialism,’ the revolutionary vanguard would lead the proletariat first to victory over the capitalist bourgeoisie, and then on to a classless and stateless society.
On this topic in Islamist thought, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Ayman al-Zawahiri proves particularly instructive. Zawahiri is a former surgeon in the Eghyptian army and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since the age of fourteen; he took over the leadership of al-Qaeda after the death of bin Laden. His book is entitled Knights Under the Prophetic Banner, published in 2001. In Zawahiri’s model, radical Islamism replaces the racial/national warfare of fascism and the class war of Communism with religious warfare or jihad. Sounding very much like an Islamicized Marxist, Zawahiri calls for a reconstitution of the relations between the “elites” and the “masses.” The elites must lead the masses in jihad, in a “scientific, confrontational, rational” manner, as he puts it. Elites must take care first to mobilize broad support among the masses before undertaking violent jihad; otherwise, they will be overmatched by the states. “The jihadist movement must move toward the masses, defend their honor, prevent injustice, and guide them along the path leading to victory.” It is up to the elites to guide the masses, to set strategy for them. Perhaps even more than Lenin, Mao appears to have been a sort of model for Islamists—Mao, with his emphasis on guerilla warfare and his famous contention that America was nothing more than “a paper tiger.” This makes sense, inasmuch as Mao appealed much more to ‘Third World’ sensibilities than any Russian Marxist could do.
With this correct relationship between elites and masses, leaders and followers, solidly in place, jihad can proceed with a series of terrorist and guerilla operations, operations that can turn modernity against itself. Known in contemporary military circles a ‘asymmetrical warfare,’ terrorism and guerilla war apply violent force to the key, weak pressure points of the modern state. Thus disrupted, the state will collapse, despite its vast logistical superiority. As mentioned earlier, the result will be the rule of the ummah, the body of Islamic believers, the final worldwide politeuma or ruling body established by Allah. This body might be loosely organized under a worldwide empire or caliphate, but it would not be modern-statist. Thus will Islam accomplish, with the energy of religious fervor, what communists could only dream of, and failed to do. But, then, the historical progress toward communism was seen as a merely human process, whereas the worldwide jihad has Allah on its side. Jihad has the highest of moral and religious purposes, according to the late Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian-Arab theologian and founding member of al-Qaeda: Jihad “can purify souls and elevate them above reality.” Not that this will be easy. “Islamic society needs to be born, but birth takes place in pain and suffering.”
The American war in Iraq saw another instance of this strategy. In this case, the existing state having been removed not by jihadists but by the hated Americans, the jihadists have sought to prevent the founding of a new state, particularly a new state on socially democratic, commercial-republican regime lines. A democratic-republican state would be especially dangerous to their cause, inasmuch as such a regime might make Islamist vanguardism a matter of the ballot instead of the bullet and the bomb. Apart from the recent experience of Turkey, actual rule by Islamists has proven unpalatable wherever it has been tried; no less an authority than Zawahiri himself has decried the establishment of commercial republicanism in Iraq and vows to prevent it. In Zawahiri’s view, ‘democracy’ is a religion—an alternative, false religion in which human judgment and sovereignty and law override Allah’s judgment, sovereignty, and law. Democracy gives authority to “man’s desires, whatever they may be,” “replac[ing] God absolutely.” The worldwide struggle of Islam therefore must aim finally at Satan’s tool, the worldwide movement toward democracy. Which regime will prevail on the earth?
The strengths of the al-Qaeda strategy are noteworthy, but its limitations are considerable. In the days following the September 11 attack, I wondered aloud, “Where’s the follow-up?” Although this made some people around me a bit nervous, and I suppose I could have been more sensitive and considerate, it was clear then, and has become even clearer since then, that while a worldwide terrorist organization can disrupt its enemies, it cannot quickly seize and hold political power on a wide scale. It will remain a physical threat to states for a long time, but it is unlikely to destroy any but the weakest of them. Indeed, bin Laden tended to talk very much like a child of the television and Internet age, extolling the 9/11 attack for its symbolic meaning more than for any material effect it inflicted.
And then there was the problem of the counterattack. The U. S. war against the Taliban proved far more effective than bin Laden likely expected it to be. He probably thought of the United States as another Soviet Union, soon to be bogged down and cut to pieces by his mujahedin. The problem with that analysis—shared, you will recall, by the many exceedingly foolish commentators who popped up on television chat shows and op-ed pages—is very simple. Notwithstanding bin Laden’s silly lie about American victory in the Cold War, the mujahedin who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan could use supplies from America, principally Stinger missiles. Against the United States, however, the mujahedin had no reliable suppliers of first-rate weaponry. What is more, the United States of 2002 could not be compared to the Soviet Union of the 1980s—politically, militarily, or technologically. The Taliban and bin Laden had no idea what they were in for. As a result, both were driven back, and most of the key al-Qaeda senior and mid-level members were arrested or killed.
Second, the CIA Counterterrorism Center developed a plan called the Worldwide Attack Matrix. Using intelligence seized in the Afghan war, they tracked down the rosters of terrorist trainees, and tracked those trainees back to their host countries. Sharing intelligence with other states—few of which had any reason to want their own regimes destabilized by fanatics—the CIA helped to stop a planned series of attacks on U. S. military sites, businesses, and diplomatic offices in Singapore and elsewhere. All told, the modern state continues to deploy impressive resources of its own. Indeed, one of the main assets al-Qaeda continues to enjoy is willing or unwilling shelter lent to them by certain modern states themselves, where terrorists can be confident they will not be attacked, lest the host state’s sovereignty be violated. This fact has not gone unnoticed in Washington: hence the Bush Administration’s strategy of “regime change.” Although that strategy itself soon fell into disfavor, it intimidated a number of otherwise anti-American regimes into cooperation with the United States, long enough to tighten security in many countries around the world.
What, then, has the internationalist Islamist movement been thinking since the 2011 death of bin Laden and the degradation of the original core of al-Qaeda? Under the not-very-dynamic leadership of Zawahiri, al-Qaeda has often been reduced to urging its local franchises and even lone-wolf sympathizers to mount their own terrorist attacks. None of the franchises has been able to expand its power beyond their own regions, most of which are remote from world capitals. Low-intensity warfare, especially in Islamic countries, is about the most al-Qaeda can do. Meanwhile, within the jihadi movement itself, al-Qaeda has been challenged by a breakaway organization, the ‘Islamic State,’ which has proved more violent and radical in its methods than the parent organization itself. I shall save discussion of ISIS for the final lecture in this series, on Syria.
The main danger that jihadi organizations pose to the United States and the other commercial republics today continues to be their power to distract those regimes from much more powerful rivals, China and Russia. They, too, are prepared for a long conflict with the West, and they are much better equipped to wage it.
Primary source readings
Yonah Alexander and Michael S. Swetam: Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001. Contains an appendix of documents by and about bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli, eds.: Al Qaeda in Its Own Words. Pascale Ghazaleh translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Recent Comments