- The Observer,
- Sunday November 18, 2001
The (politically incorrect) answer to the first question is 'yes and no'. There is plenty in the Islamic religion which can be drawn upon to justify violent terrorist activity and Islamic fundamentalists have done so on many occasions in the twentieth century if not before. The concept of jihad, or holy war; the division of the world into the 'domain of Islam' and the 'domain of war'; contempt towards unbelievers; an urge to spread the message universally - all these ideas exist in Islam and can be marshalled in favour of an extreme interpretation of it.
In history too the association between Islam and violence can be frequently observed. The Algerian civil war, which has raged since 1991/92 between extreme Islamist groups and the military, has been unimaginably savage. The decades-old war of the Arab-Muslim Sudanese North with the Christian and animist South has been ugly. In Egypt extreme Islamist groups have perpetrated terrorist acts against tourists and Coptic and Muslim Egyptians in their uprising against the regime of Hosni Mubarak from 1992 to 1997. The conduct of the now infamous Taliban has, of course, now become common knowledge throughout the world.
But on the other hand Islam has been interpreted quite differently. War against infidels is only one of many meanings of jihad. Coexistence and toleration between Muslims and non-Muslims has been the norm in history as much as conflict between them. In recent Middle Eastern history secular states or movements have been as violent as religious ones and often more so, for example in Iraq and Syria. With regard to the just war principles of going to war and conduct in warfare, more specifically, we can observe an overlap between Islamic principles and international norms. This is because Muslims are also part of and have to engage with the reality of contemporary international relations.
In the first place, and despite the tensions between Islam and nationalism (the former enjoining obedience to Allah and recognising the sovereignty of God only, the latter deriving its legitimacy from popular sovereignty) defending Islam has been in reality enmeshed with defence of the homeland.
During the Iran - Iraq war of 1980 - 88 the leadership of the Islamic Republic made frequent connections between the two. It also used international law to argue that Saddam Hussein had been the aggressor against Iran, which indeed he was, and that he had to be condemned as such by the international community. The Islamist movements Hamas and Hizbullah are indeed Islamist organisations and they are waging war for religion, as they see it. But they have also at the same time been concerned with the liberation of their national homelands, Palestine and Lebanon respectively.
With regard to conduct in warfare, we can also observe overlaps between Islamist principles and international norms. Hamas and Hizbullah make convoluted attempts to describe the employment of terrorist tactics against Israelis civilians as self-defence. The sheikh of Al Azhar, Egypt's leading Islamic authority and one of the most important such authorities in the world, proclaimed in May 2001 that a man who carries out a suicide attack against civilians is not considered a martyr. He was discussing the question of Palestinian attacks in Israel.
Even bin Laden himself, in his first video shown by Al Jezeera television after September 11th, mentioned the crime of the nuclear bombing by the USA of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thereby implicitly acknowledging the principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. His later claim that he kills the West's innocents because it kills Muslim innocents goes against the Islamic principle that no-one should be made to suffer for the misconduct of others.
We can conclude that Islamic principles can both encourage and discourage violence and terrorist activity. The answer to the second question, therefore, 'how we can most fruitfully think about political Islam and how we can adequately respond to it?' must be sought not in the ideas and principles of the Islamic religion but in the politics of the Middle East and the Muslim world more generally.
Western leaders have emphasised time and again that this is not a war against Islam. But, to be heard and believed, and therefore have some positive influence on the internal debate on Islam and violence, they have to put their money where their mouth is. The Palestinian issue and secondly, but equally importantly, the Iraqi issue will need to be resolved for any progress to be made in relations between the West and the Muslim world.
The current crisis has strengthened pan-Muslim concern for the transnational Islamic causes celebres and this can indeed create the illusion that this is a confrontation between the West and Islam. The US must therefore both put pressure on Israel to reverse its current policies and have the courage to abandon its vendetta with Saddam Hussein and accept the failure of its Iraqi policy.
Katerina Dalacoura is Lecturer in International Relations at the London School of Economics, and author of Islam, Liberalism and Human Rights: Implications for International Relations (IB Tauris)
