UNDERSTANDING ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM

By Lieutenant Commander David G. Kibble, British Naval Reserve

Islam is mentioned almost daily on television and in newspapers because of Muslim involvement in the Bosnian conflict. Islamic fundamentalism is also receiving a lot of attention. From a media perspective, rarely a week goes by without some report involving Middle East Muslim fundamentalists. One lasting image the Western world has of fundamentalist Islam is the hostage crisis in Iran, when bearded militants blasted the United States as the "Great Satan" and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was revered as the Islamic revolution's spiritual leader, while President Ronald Reagan and other Western leaders were denounced. On numerous occasions, Reagan's effigy was hung and burned in public, and the American flag was set on fire outside the US embassy in Tehran.

In 1979, Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran and established an Islamic republic. Khomeini declared from the holy city of Qom: "I will devote the remaining one or two years of my life to reshaping Iran in the image of Muhammad . . . by the purge of every vestige of Western culture from the land. We will amend the newspapers. We will amend the radio, the television, the cinema--all of these should follow the Islamic pattern. . . . What the nation wants is an Islamic republic. Not just a republic, not a democratic republic, not a democratic Islamic republic. Just an Islamic republic. Do not use the word 'democratic.' That is Western and we do not want it."[1]

So the militant image was born as thousands of devoted young martyrs followed a religious leader into an intolerant theocracy. These throngs went willingly to the front against Iraq to sacrifice themselves in the name of Islam for their ayatollah. They all swore a simple oath entitling them to wear the crimson headband identifying them as volunteers for martyrdom: "In the name of Allah the Avenger, and in the name of the Imam Khomeini, I swear on the Holy Book to perform my sacred duty as a Child of the Imam and Soldier of Islam in this Holy War to restore to this world the Light of Divine Justice."[2]

A more recent image of Islamic fundamentalism is one of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere angrily burning Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses. The public saw intolerance, fanaticism, hysteria and violence. They failed to understand the Muslim perspective. For Muslims, publishing a book considered to be blasphemous was intolerable and was an affront to their beliefs and personal and corporate identity.

A more recent Islamic fundamentalist image is Palestinian demonstrations against the Middle East peace process. What the West forgets is that Israel continues to defy UN authority by occupying the West Bank. The Islamic fundamentalists object to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) deal with Israel, which they see as acknowledging the Israeli occupation. Islamic militants believe the West Bank belongs to them- -a belief upheld by the UN

In 1994, Egyptian Islamic fundamentalists made headlines with terrorist attacks on tourist areas around Cairo. Many tourists were killed or injured; Information Minister Safwat Sherif's car was fired upon; and a deputy police chief was killed and an interior minister was wounded in a motorcade bomb blast.

The resulting Islamic fundamentalist picture is hardly appealing-- fanatical, violent, intolerant, restrictive and anti-Western. Such characteristics almost ensure that any positive Islamic elements are neither seen nor heard. It is always an event's negative aspects that get the most media attention.

Understanding Fundamentalist Islam

Islam is not a monolithic whole. It is as diverse as the countries that compose the Middle East itself, as depicted in the map on page 41. Islam is divided into various groups, each with its own interpretation of the Muslim holy book--the Quran--and the prophet Muhammad's sayings and deeds. One Islam division is between the modernists and revivalists. Modernist Muslims interpret their faith in terms of modem knowledge. They tend to accept Western scientific ideas--such as evolution-- as well as the political ideal of democracy and women's emancipation. They interpret the Quran and Muslim tradition to accommodate their ideas. On the other hand, revivalists reject Western ideas and call for restoring traditional Islamic ideas. They believe in literal creation, accept the Quran as Allah's actual writings which should be followed as such, and press for an Islamic state based upon Sharia--Muslim law derived from the Quran and Muhammad's teachings. Revivalists are sometimes called fundamentalists because they wish to return to their faith's original tenets. Some suggest the term fundamentalist is misleading because it has Protestant overtones and is equated with political activism or militancy.[3] Fundamentalism, in its militant Islamic sense, is just one variant of revivalism. Revivalism may also be a "quietist" type, which retains traditional religious beliefs but espouses a less politically active stance.

One can categorize various Muslin "types" based on where they stand on each of three axes. The first axis is religious. At one end is the modernist Muslim, who interprets the Quran based on modem knowledge. At the other end is the revivalist, who wishes to return to the fundamentals of faith and be guided by the Quran's literal interpretation and Muhammad' s teachings alone.

Next is the evangelical axis. At one end is the Muslim who believes his faith is a purely private affair, while at the other is the Muslim who believes Allah wants the whole world to become a Muslim state or series of states. The last axis is political. At one end is the nonactivist or quietist, while at the other is the Muslim who embraces terrorism as legitimate political action.

In religious axis terms, revivalists have increased in strength and number over recent years. Mosque attendance is up in many Muslim countries, religious media programs have proliferated, emphasis on traditional values and dress codes has increased and Islamic educational and welfare institutions have grown in number. While the Western media tends to suggest that revivalism manifests itself only as Islamic politically active fundamentalism, a closer look reveals Islamic revivalism contributes much in education and welfare for the needy.

Welfare services among West Bank Palestinians have increased as revivalist Islam has grown. In Kafr Bara, revivalist leader Mayor Sheikh Kamal Rayan has developed a modem water distribution system; established a regular electricity supply; added four classrooms and toilet facilities to the village school; built a soccer field; paved alleyways and roads; built a cultural center; and set up a medical clinic that is open six days a week. Similar developments have occurred in other Palestinian villages under revivalist leaders who see social action as part of their religious duties outlined in the Quran.[4] "Show kindness to both [your] parents and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, the neighbor who is related [to you] as well as the neighbor who is a stranger, and your companion by your side and the wayfarer, and anyone under your control."[5]

Islamic fundamentalism, as described by Western media, is only one aspect of Islamic revivalism, whose adherents would often decry terrorist acts as most Roman Catholics in Ulster reject the Irish Republican Army's (IRA's) atrocities.

What then are the reasons for the Muslim revivalist movement's increasing popularity? One is Israel's defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967. Many Muslims believe Allah allowed their defeat to demonstrate how far they had strayed from Islam's true path. Second, Muslims moving to urban areas found themselves confronted with 20th-century Western ideas and commercialism, which led to a sense of not belonging. This led them to turn to Islam's familiar roots. Additionally, many Middle Eastern rulers have legitimized themselves through Islam. Conversely, Islam has become a means by which opposition may be felt and expressed.

Fundamentalist Islam recognizes diversity, especially between Muslims on the modernist-revivalist religious axis and the quietist-activist political axis. Fundamentalist portrayal has concentrated on those who are revivalists in religious temperament and political activists. In reality, many revivalist Muslims are quietists, who long for a society run according to Sharia and preach a return to traditional Muslim values. Revivalists seek to end what they see as the West's corrupting influence and preach political responsibility. The middle class in particular has accepted the revivalist outlook and implemented Islamic social welfare principles. For every revivalist Muslim who makes pronouncements such as, "The Quran commands: 'Wage war until all disobedience (of divine law) is wiped out!' . . . Once we have won the war (against Iraq) we shall turn to other wars. . . . The Quran commands: 'War unto victory,'" there are others who make more quietist-revivalist demands.[6] "We are for peaceful change in society. Mainly, our aim is to educate people, to wain people how to live their lives well in relation to religion."[7]

Understanding Revivalism

Islamic revivalism is here to stay and continues to gain footholds and influence in all societal classes throughout the Middle East. Revivalism is becoming the catalyst for many Muslims to return to traditional Islamic roots and disavow Western influence. In addition to the reasons already discussed for Islam's growing popularity, there are two others Western nations should heed: political oppression and corruption in some Middle Eastern areas and the feeling of continued Western manipulation of the region.

Author Gerald Butt suggests three major ways in which oppression and corruption occur in Middle East countries: prestige control, manipulation of the mind and repression. For example, Egyptian business law gives the prime minister authority to appoint the heads and senior officials of privatized companies. Company policy, therefore, is subservient to government policy. In many Arab countries, it is hard for an individual to succeed in business unless he has the existing bureaucracy's active cooperation to cut through red tape. Historian Said Aburish cites an Arabian province emir who demanded a payment of $3 million from a Swedish building contractor's agents because the company was doing good business in "his territory."[8]

Second, there is mind manipulation. Arab education is often deficient because it relies on rote learning and memorizing rather than critical thought process development. Throughout the Arab world, government controls the mass media--people see and hear only what the government wants them to. Arabs often hear about major events taking place on their doorstep from the Arabic language services of the British Broadcasting Corporation, Voice of America or Radio Monte Carlo.

Third, Middle Eastern rulers and governments often exercise what could be considered an unhealthy influence over the legal system, administrative procedures and security forces. Aburish cataloged several instances of justice "miscarriages" in the Saudi Majlis--the weekly royal courts held by the local minister.[9]

Aburish looks at much in Saudi Arabia that raises questions about the Saudi monarchy's future. The ruling house of Saud is seen to be leathering its own nest rather than ruling the country for the people' s benefit. There are few democratic procedures except for a consultative council limited to discussing minor items as directed by the Saudi king. In addition, the country has been running up a budget deficit for 12 years. In 1994, the debt was calculated at approximately $60 billion.[10]

Saudi Arabia's defense expenditures are estimated at 36 percent of the country's income. Unhappy with this and the fact that only 30 percent of the population attends school and the government has neglected to solve the water shortage problem, the country's previously loyal and conservative religious council has issued an appeal for reform. The appeal, with 500 religious sheikhs' signatures, deplores the corruption in the country and the lack of freedom. Increasingly, such revivalist groups are leading the call for change.

The West continues to deal with the Middle East in a way which is seen by many Arabs to be a manipulative and self-serving manner.[11] During the Iran-Iraq War, the United States supported and encouraged the Iraqis. Declassified documents show that in 1982, in addition to giving Iraq top secret intelligence information, Washington removed Iraq from its list of terrorist-supporting countries. In 1990, with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States changed its tune. Having previously denied knowing Iraq was involved in terrorism, Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger described Iraq as "a country which repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[12] Before the Kuwait invasion, the US State Department ignored Bureau of Human Rights' findings indicating Iraq had consistently and grossly violated human rights and used chemical weapons against the Kurds.[13]

In 1992, New York-based Middle East Watch, a watchdog organization, pointed out that while the United States publicly demanded democratic reform in Cuba, Iraq, Kenya and elsewhere, it had "remained mute toward one of the most singularly undemocratic nations in the world, its longtime ally, Saudi Arabia. . . . Although the United States, by virtue of a long and intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia, has been in a position to help effect an improvement in its dismal human rights record, the US has rarely criticized Saudi violations."[14]

Other Middle Eastern nations could be similarly criticized for their human rights records. Bahrainis who do not support the emir's policies risk harsh penalties. Prisoners are subjected to torture and ill treatment, passports are confiscated and Bahrainis living abroad have had their return home blocked. Again, Western nations have not been forward in demanding reform implementation.

The West appears to selectively support Middle Eastern nations out of self-interest, particularly in terms of oil and defense contracts, while condemning other countries for poor human rights records. Palestinians resent the West for supporting the recent PLO-Israeli peace deal, which they feel denies them their entitlements under UN Security Council resolutions. It is alleged that while some UN resolutions were conveniently forgotten, those condemning the Iraqi invasion were widely publicized and enforced because it suited the West. Western policy is often not about human rights issues at all, but about economic self-interests.

Against this backdrop, it is obvious why many Middle Easterners want reform and the elimination of autocracy and oppression. They want a free press and institutions unfettered by red tape and domination by members of ruling families. Revivalist Islamic groups in many countries are taking the lead in demanding reform and an end to corruption. They are taking the lead because the Quran and Muhammad's teachings demand reform. Muslims find it difficult to follow Muhammad's preaching to ". . . not squander [money] extravagantly" when their rulers spend extravagantly.[15] Islam demands social justice and fair wealth distribution.

Precisely what Islam demands beyond Sharia implementation is open to interpretation and debate. Some revivalist groups follow the Khomeini line, denouncing democracy and monarchy, claiming both are antithetical to Allah's rule. Others argue that once Sharia is implemented, there is room for democracy within Islamic law through the Muslim principle of Ijma. Ijma is a religious leader consensus outlining who may decide courses of action within the tenets set forth in the Quran and Muhammad' s teachings.[16] Many other revivalist differences of opinion exist. Some support terrorism, but many do not.

Differences of opinion are widespread among Palestinian revivalists concerning the Arab-Israeli issue. Some revivalists, including Sheikh Abdallah, advocate a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. However, he urges his followers to operate within the law to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the Hamas movement is committed to Jihad, believing Palestine is a holy, non-negotiable endowment. Therefore, all negotiations, peaceful settlements, political bargaining and conferences are rejected. Israelis liken revivalist movements within their country to a patchwork quilt--made up of many different groups with differing ideas and no united front.

Despite opinion differences, it is the Islamic revivalist movement that provides much impetus for reform in many Middle East areas. If the revivalists' demands are right and just, the West should begin to have more constructive dialogue with these groups.

The Future

Many Middle East countries' futures are uncertain. Iran has already taken one path of revivalist Islamic revolution and is developing its own independent political program. Some groups within the country, however, are pursuing an activist role by funding various terrorist organizations, including the IRA.

In 1991, Algeria held its first general elections, giving an unprecedented victory to the Islamic Salvation Front, an Islamic revivalist party. However, the Algerian army pressured the president to resign, replacing him with a temporary seven-member high executive council led by Defense Minister General Khaled Nazzar. Democracy was aborted when it put Islamic revivalists into power. Algeria's Islamic revivalists are currently waging a virtual guerrilla war against the establishment. The Christmas Eve hijacking of an Air France airliner by the Armed Islamic Group was such an action. The country's future is uncertain and it is not entirely clear how much support the terrorists have among the general population, nor is it clear if these calls for Islamic reform are genuine.

The social and economic problems facing President Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian government only add to Islamic revivalism's appeal. Only time will tell whether Islamic politics' popular appeal will peacefully or forcibly bring an Islamic regime to power.

What would happen if Islamic revivalist groups seized power in Saudi Arabia? Would 1950s Eisenhower Doctrine guaranteeing the country's security from both internal and external threats call for US troops to restore Saudi role? Current Western attitudes might support this possibility, but would such action be right and just and serve the West's short-term interests?[17] This question and others like it must be considered in the not-too-distant future.

The current political regimes in power in Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are subject to open criticism and attack from popular revivalist groups that could possibly win democratic elections if they were held. Iran would be delighted to see "brother" Islamic groups in power in these countries and would certainly encourage them to follow policies similar to their own. Suggestions have been made that Iran has been funding Islamic activist groups in some Middle East countries in an attempt to destabilize them. The Central Intelligence Agency has reported its concern that Iran may possess nuclear weapons by the year 2000 and has threatened to give a nuclear device to terrorist groups supporting the revivalist ideal.

Understanding Islamic revivalism is vital in dealing with a 21st-century Middle East. The terrorist "end" of Islamic revivalism must be rejected, but many Muslims are turning back to their faith to attempt to move away from unjust, oppressive regimes. My argument is this: Any policy which allows Middle East governments to remain corrupt and oppressive, does nothing to exert a positive influence on human rights and does little to remove such regimes, is poor policy. Consequently, if we established some form of dialogue with these Islamic groups, their view of Westerners might change. As Middle East governments attempt to transition to democracy, Western encouragement toward such progress- -political freedom--should remain high on our collective agendas.

Alarmist scenarios depicting the West being deprived of oil by an Iranian-dominated Middle East and held to economic ransom are certainly possible but not necessarily probable. Author Geoffrey Till suggests Iranian fundamentalism is actually more likely to divide rather than unite Arab nations. He argues that the "patchwork" nature of Islamic revivalist groups will render their evolution into a single entity unlikely. On the other hand, he suggests that Islamic revivalism of a politically active type "will continue and may remain the highest motivating factor for extreme terrorist movements."[18]

If we develop better relationships with Islamic groups now, then such scenarios will become less likely. We might have to eventually forego lucrative defense contracts, such as the massive British Yamama 2 contract with Saudi Arabia, but if that is the price we must pay for promoting human rights, justice and democratic reform, so be it.[19]

In the much longer term, I do not believe time will permit a political system to continue when it is grounded in Middle Age beliefs and practices. Revivalist Islam will not flourish forever as it does now. Further exposure to Western ideals and modernity will eventually mean that some Islamic revivalistic beliefs will change the way Muslims worship Allah.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense or any other government office or agency. --Editor

NOTES

1. John Laffin, The Dagger of Islam (London: Sphere, 1979), 125.

2. Amir Taheri, Holy Terror (London: Hutchinson, 1987), 113.

3. John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992), 7-8.

4. Raphael Israeli, Muslim Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Brasseys [United Kingdom], Inc., 1993), 121. Israeli notes that more and more new revivalist leaders are stressing the need for social action rather than conformity of religious belief.

5. Quran, Woman, 4:36.

6. Taheri, 20.

7. Gerald Butt, A Rock and a Hard Place: The Origins of Arab--Western Conflict in the Middle East (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), 269.

8. Said K. Aburish, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud (London: Bloomsbury, 1994), 83.

9. Ibid., 85-86.

10. Ibid., 303.

11. The(London) Sunday Times (7 August 1994), 17. Similar criticism could, of course, be leveled at Saudi Arabia. Afraid of the democractic movements in neighboring countries, the Saudis have supported the Hadramout separatist movement in Yemen. A recent report indicated that Saudi Arabia hired MiG--29 fighters flown by Russian air force pilots to fight in the Yemen civil war.

12. The Washington Post (8 June 1992).

13. The Guardian (8 June 1992).

14. "Middle East Watch," Empty Reform: Saudi Arabia's New Basic Laws, edited by the Middle East Watch staff (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1992).

15. Quran, The Night Journey, 17:26-27.

16. A. R. I. Doi, Sharia: The Islamic Law, (London: Ta Ha, 1984), 17. Ijma must itself be informed by the process of Shura (consultation of the people). "On this basis, consultation among Muslims is an important pillar of the beautiful and elaborate building of the Islamic way of life. To do any collective work without prior mutual consultation is not only a way of the ignorant but is also a clear defiance of the regulation laid down by Allah."

17. The(London) Sunday Times (28 August 1994),17. It has been suggested that by granting political asylum to Mohammed Khilewi, Arabian first secretary to the UN, the United States has sent the House of Saud a warning that the nature of its political support may be changing. Khilewi asked for asylum, claiming human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and corruption by the house of Saud.

18. E A. Khavari, Oil and Islam: The Ticking Bomb (Malibu: Roundtable, 1990); and Geoffrey Till "The State of the World in 2010," The (British) Naval Review (Volume 81, 1993), 301.

19. Aburish, 201-8. The Yamama 2 contract is valued at $60 to $150 billion, providing orders for British Aerospace, Westland Helicopters, GEC, Vospers, Plessey, Rolls Royce and other British firms. Aburish questions whether Saudi Arabia actually needs so much defense equipment and whether it will be able to use it.

Lieutenant Commander David G. Kibble is a British Naval Reservist with Her Majesty' s Ship (HMS) Sherwood, Nottingham. He also is a deputy head teacher at Huntington School, York, England. He received a bachelor's of divinity degree from Edinburgh University, Scotland, and completed an exchange program with the US Naval Reserve in 1991. He has held a variety of command and staff positions, to include commander of the Royal Naval Reserve training school in Leeds, which provides training for reservists in the communications, medical and naval control of shipping branches. He and a US Naval Reserve officer published an article in British Naval Review magazine that discussed naval control of shipping lessons learned during the Gulf War.

****** Military Review is published by Military Review and is not copyrighted.

Copyright 1995 by Military Review. Text may not be copied without the express written permission of Military Review.