Islam Dismantled

by Sujit Das

  Up to this point we have seen the evil seeds of greed, hatred, envy, and discord grow from deep within the hearts of many prominent Muslims. Following Uthman’s murder, confusion began to spread in the Islamic community, and the search was on for a new leader. Eventually, in Medina, Ali was recognized as the Caliph. But Aisha, Muhammad’s most beloved wife, moved against Ali. She gave a passionate speech in Mecca, heating the desert blood within the Muslims’ hearts. She cried for justice and vengeance (Tabari: XVI.41, 43, 51, 53). Implicitly, she implicated Ali in Uthman’s murder, and the people knew that fighting for justice would be fighting Ali. Finally, Ali marched towards Basra and Aisha and her followers gathered their full strength to meet him. Soon a violent battle started and neither side yielded much ground. Men from both sides were fierce, brave warriors. They did not fear death that day and fought like lions. In Islamic history this battle is known as “Battle of Camel”. The various accounts of the casualty count were very high.

  Those killed at the Battle of the Camel numbered 10,000, half from Ali’s followers, and half from Aisha’s. It was said that in the first battle 5000 Basrans were killed and a further 5000 in the second battle [there was a pause in the battle], totaling 10,000 Basran fatalities and 5,000 Kufans . (Tabari: XVI.164).

  In the battle of camel, two prominent Muslims Talha and Zubayr died, both of them were most beloved of Muhammad’s companions. However, more bloodshed lay in store for Ali. The long underlying conflict between Muhammad and Abu Sufyan re-appeared and the bitterness revived. Ali and Mu’awiyah (Abu Sufyan’s son) played the opposing roles. Mu’awiyah, the governor of Syria, was a kinsman of Uthman, the murdered Caliph. He wanted the murderers brought to justice. Seeing that war was inevitable, Ali gathered his forces and Mu’awiyah raised the entire country of Syria against Ali and gave order “In that case, Oh Abu Abdallah, prepare the men!” (Tabari: XVII.2). In the history of Islam, this battle is known as “Battle of Siffin”, which continued for a long time. It was actually a series of day by day battles. Ali tried to negotiate with Mu’awiyah to end the battle but he received much humiliation. In this battle, one notable person Ubaydallah, the son of Caliph Omar was murdered (Tabari: XVII.63). After Ali’s humiliation, Mu’awiyah turned to Egypt where Muhammad b. Abi Bakr (Uthman’s murderer, Abu Bakr’s son) was appointed as governor. Soon he was captured and murdered.

  Slowly Mu’awiyah gained in power. By seeing Ali in a miserable condition, his hand-picked governors, his own relatives and friends rebelled against him (Tabari: XVII.210, 211). Eventually Ali was murdered. By hearing the news about Ali’s death, Aisha rejoiced.

  And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveler happy to return home. (Tabari: XVII.224).

  After Mu’awiyah died, his son Yazid claimed the Caliphate. But Ali’s son and Muhammad’s grandson Husayn opposed Yazid and likewise claimed the Caliphate. This again led to war. At this point Yazid was very powerful. Husayn encountered Yazid’s force near Karbala with about forty-five horsemen and less than one hundred foot soldiers. In the battle, Husayn was captured and beheaded, and his severed head was sent to Yazid (Tabari: XIX.167, 176).

  I cannot see any type of brotherhood amongst the leading Muslims; instead I can see war, hatred, envy, lies, deceit, bitterness and massive bloodshed in the lust for power. Also, there were wholesale slaughtering, cruel brutalities and bitter oppression and absolutely no spiritual fruit worth mentioning. Allah could have prevented this long, painful conflict just by giving Muhammad a revelation about the succession. Why did not He? He issued revelations on far less important matters. And what should we say about the Qur’anic verse 8.63 now? – “ And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise ”.

  Instead of spiritually building them up, Muhammad’s narcissistic force had poisoned them, ruined them and completely destroyed them. Little by little, Muhammad’s narcissistic poison worked in the spiritual bloodstream of those Muslims which dishonored and demonized them. They would have been better if they did not have sold their soul to their Narcissist Prophet.

  It was just a dark Shakespearean tragedy unfolded in front of us. Hatred, envy, and bitterness, were rooted in the hearts of the leaders of the Islamic community. Some foresaw civil war down the road even before the death of Muhammad. The seeds of narcissistic wickedness ran deep within the hearts and minds of those, the best Muslims, from the beginning. All the seven deadly sins (shamelessness, magical thinking, arrogance, envy, entitlement, exploitation and bad boundaries) of a Narcissist were prominently present in them because they came in direct contact with Muhammad more often than others. Muhammad’s narcissism infected them and changed them completely. Even the sons of the Caliphs were striving to kill one another. The greed and lust for power was so strong that even Muhammad’s wives could not come out from this.

  Where is the root of all these negative qualities that poisoned them? If we make a careful study of Muhammad’s biography, we will not fail to see that all these evils originated from Muhammad. The greed, last for power, hatred, envy, lies, deceit, bitterness, shamelessness, exploitation, bloodshed – practically all the evil actions were the trademarks of Muhammad. He left a legacy that manufactured many clones of Muhammad, e.g., Bakr, Ali, Omar, Uthman, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Ahmadinejad, Khomeini, etc. A poisonous tree produces poisonous fruits. A mass-murderer cannot preach Gandhian nonviolence.

  In every community, there are good and bad people. The tragedy is, Islam’s poison strengthens the wicked side of a good man and subdues his moral faculty. Each of the prominent players of early stage of Islam shed the blood of tens of thousands of Muslims only to secure what they thought they were entitled for. But at the end they got nothing and most of them died miserably like stray dogs on the streets.

  Chapter 7: Psychology of Islamic Terrorism

  7.1: Introduction

  “Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.”

  Black Sabbath War Pigs Song

  Terrorism has surely existed since before the dawn of recorded history. Human nature has not changed. People become terrorists in different ways, in different roles, and for different reasons. Perceived injustice, need for identity, need for belonging, religious indoctrination and mental illness are common vulnerabilities among potential terrorists. Though there is no particular “terrorist personality” or any accurate psychological profile of the terrorist, research shows that childhood abuse and trauma, and themes of perceived injustice and humiliation often are prominent in terrorist biographies. However this theory does not really help to explain the root causes of Islamic terrorism.

  There is one common point amongst all the terrorist groups. They provide a set of beliefs that justify and mandate their destructive actions. No one wants to kill innocent people or destroy property for nothing. They believe in their cause which they regard as absolute, and they behave in such a way that are serving a meaningful cause, either by promoting the cause or by destroying those who oppose it (the question of point of view – one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter – public glorification of terrorism under the mask of selflessness). Though terrorism is among the gravest of threats the world is facing today, little research and analysis has been conducted on terrorist psychology. Many important factors (e.g., analyses of incident-related behaviors) are neglected. Apart from a drive for truth, political psychological theory advises that the better a target group understands the roots of the terrorist mindset, the better that group may develop policies to effectively manage the risk (Clayton et. al, 1998, pp. 277-311). Despite the compelling need for such an understanding, many theoretical and practical impediments have delayed, and perhaps even derailed, the objective scientific psychological study of terrorism (Reich, 1998, pp. 261-79). Concerned governments spend in billions to protect their citizens but their efforts often lack a theoretical – let alone observation, experiment or experie
nce based foundation for understanding terrorists and their violent acts.

  First of all, the case studies and “inside information” of a terrorist group are not always readily available. These are very difficult to obtain even for intelligence bureau without having a spy or paid police informer within a terrorist group. Thus, the analysis of the groups and their leaders often remain incomplete. Secondly, researchers have little, if any, direct access to terrorists, even imprisoned ones. Occasionally, if a researcher has gained special access to a terrorist group for interviews and discussions, etc, usually he has to do it at the cost of compromising the credibility of his research. Even if he obtains permission to interview a captured terrorist, such an interview would be of limited value. Most terrorists would be reluctant to reveal their group’s operational secrets to their interrogators, let alone to journalists or academic researchers, whom they are likely to view as representatives of the “system” or perhaps even as intelligence agents in disguise. Even if terrorists agree to be interviewed in such circumstances, they will not be honest in answering questions. Terrorism research may involve expensive and inconvenient travel to politically unstable regions, is potentially dangerous, and raises ethical issues that may challenge institutional review boards. Lastly; it is a matter of safety for the researcher himself, because he could face retaliation. These issues may explain why journalists, rather than academics, have published a substantial proportion of the available literature reporting behavioral observations of terrorists.

  All these drawbacks are serious challenges to terrorism research. It also affects every level of the government, which starts from policy level decisions (how a state should respond to terrorism) to individual-level decisions. Although all types of terrorism are equally condemnable, in this chapter our basic aim is rather modest. We do not anticipate identifying or discovering or analyzing the explanation for all terrorism. Rather we will focus only on the analysis of Islamic terrorism.

  7.2: Frequently Asked Question: Does Islamic Ideology Promote

  Terrorism?

  One of the greatest concerns of all civilized cultures is the alarming incidence of Islamic terrorism in today’s world. Wherever terrorist and subversive activities take place, one is sure to find the presence of Muslims. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, attention has shifted to the psychology of Islamic terrorism. There is a dearth of published literature describing psychological studies of Muslim extremists. A stereotyped question is always asked – what exactly is it that makes Muslims so viciously engaged in violent crimes against the rest of humanity? Why are all terrorist activities that target innocent non-Muslims always abetted by Muslim terrorists? This stereotyped question becomes more pressing everyday and it is often responded by a readymade answer that the fault lies with only a handful of misguided Muslims who are not adhering to Islamic principles and hence indulge in terrorism. Some critics, who are knowledgeable about the Islamic ideology, tell us that Islam by its very nature and through its essential principles openly supports, encourages and propagates terrorism of the worst kind. Therefore the Islamic terrorist is in fact the most devout Muslim because he is following exactly what Islam teaches through the Qur’an.

  I do not deny that Islamic ideology plays a crucial role in a Muslim terrorist’s target selection, and the Qur’an functions as the central terrorist manual that urges them to slaughter, rape, torture, pillage, mutilate and molest all the non-Muslims. No doubt, Qur’an supplies them with an initial motive for action and provides a prism through which they view events and the actions of the non-Muslims; but are the Qur’an and other Islamic scriptures alone responsible for growing Islamic terrorism incidents?

  I seriously doubt.

  In this world there is no shortage of destruction-oriented ideologies. All the religious doctrines have some violent preaching in them. But, all of us, except Muslims, have learned to separate those from our day-to-day thinking, and because of this, all the religions coexist peacefully other than only Islam. Therefore it is not the destructive ideology alone which is responsible for promoting terrorism. Israeli psychology professor Ariel Merari is one of the few people to have collected systematic, empirical data on a significant sample of Muslim suicide bombers. He examined the backgrounds of every modern era (since 1983) suicide bomber in the Middle East, and concluded (cited Schmid, 2011, p. 136),

  “In itself, the ideology is not enough to convince a person to engage in terrorism”.

  Islamic ideology may help inform an understanding of terrorist behavior of the Muslims, but unfortunately, it does not explain everything. The non-Muslim nations need to know the answer so that a public policy can be planned accordingly.

  7.2.1: Better Answers through Better Questions

  All the destruction-oriented ideologies generally are based on a set of shared beliefs that explain and justify a set of agreed upon behavioral rules. For Muslim terrorists, the confirmed beliefs of Islam provides them the moral and political vision that inspires their violence, shapes the way in which they see the world, and defines how they judge the actions of people and the society.

  If we just say that the ideology controls actions (which may apparently be true), we are oversimplifying the problem. What we fail to understand is – why or how this control occurs. There is something which helps to regulate and determine a Muslim terrorist’s behavior. We want to know what the strength of this behavioral control is. It is not just the appeal of the rhetoric that determines whether violent mandates will be followed but definitely something else – a mysterious dark force which makes a sane person insane. This dark force destroys all the human qualities and fills up the mind with unjustified hate for the non-Muslims. For a better understanding, we need to take a suitable approach to Islamic terrorism analysis.

  There are various approaches to terrorism analysis, as example, the multicausal approach, the environmental approach, the organizational approach, the role of media approach and the psychological approach (Hudson, 1999, p. 15). Out of all these, our only concern is the psychological approach. A detailed examination of other approaches is outside the scope of this book.

  7.3: The Psychological approach: An analysis of sociologically-based

  Explanations of Islamic Terrorism

  “While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him”.

  Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881)

  [Note: “Sociologically-based explanations” is the more appropriate term of the phrase “root causes”]

  The Muslim terrorist mindset can best be understood through psychological approach. But it would be helpful first to examine whether and how psychology and other behavioral sciences have sought to explain violent behavior more generally.

  The first generation of psychological research on terrorism commenced from late-1960s to the mid-1980s. The term “research” is used loosely because virtually none of the professional literature was based on any practical studies. Rather, the writings that were produced during those days were based largely on assumptions, theoretical formulations and Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Freud (Strachey & Gay, 1961, p. 8) assumed, “ One has, I think, to reckon with the fact that there are present in all men destructive, and therefore antisocial and anti-cultural trends, and that in a great number of people, these are strong enough to determine their behavior in human society ”.

  During 1969, Feuer put forward his famous “conflict of generations” theory, which was largely based on Freudian interpretation of terrorism as a psychological reaction of sons against fathers (Crenshaw, 1986, pp. 390-1). The idea that terrorism is rooted in childhood abuse (often unconscious squeal) is a relatively common theme, and is still held by some contemporary analysts. However, many early psychologists also attempted to understand and explain terrorism from a different angle. Within a psychodynamic framework, they focused on the trait of narcissism as a defining and driving factor of terrorism. In the next few pages of this chapter, we
will try to understand Islamic terrorism through narcissism.

  7.3.1: Narcissism as the Driving Force of Terrorism

  The possible linkage between narcissism and terrorism was first advanced by Gustave Morf (1970) in his ground-breaking work, Terror in Quebec - case studies of the FLQ. Morf conducted clinical examinations with prisoners held as members of the Front for the Liberation of Quebec (FLQ) and reported that these individuals exhibited narcissistic traits, wishing to put themselves at the center of the universe, but did not fulfill the criteria for a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. He further concluded that a “permissive society” was responsible for their narcissism. Morf’s hypothesis was immensely popular and soon many researchers took deep interest in his work; e.g., Lasch (1979), Crayton (1983), a combined work by Haynal, Molnar and Puymege (1983), Post (1984, 1986, 1990), and Pearlstein (1991) (cited McCormick, 2003, pp. 473-507). Their collective valuable works helped us to develop our understanding on the co-relation between narcissism and terrorist behavior. The common basic argument is that terrorist behavior is rooted in a personality defect that produced a damaged sense of self. According to Risto Fried (1982), the target or victim is treated as a “discardable object,” which psychoanalyst and famous political scientist Richard Pearlstein cited as evidence that terrorism is a “spectacularly vivid example of narcissistic object manipulation.” The essence of pathological narcissism is an overvaluing of self and a devaluing of others. It is not difficult to see how one might observe these traits among terrorists.