The Evolving Face of Islamic Terrorism

The recent London murder of a British soldier, Lee Rigby, is a testament to the shifting face of Islamic terrorism. From the centrally planned terror economics of the pre and post 9/11 period, it has now evolved into the independently operated cells that it is today, no doubt because the relentless pursuit of drone warfare against elements of al-Qaeda's corporate structure as well as its organizational offhshoots has rendered them on the run 24/7.

Some pundits would question the propriety of labeling the murder of Rigby as an "act of terror" in the sense that terror is most often defined as an activity employed to coerce governments to do a certain act. As seen by the widely circulating videos of the attacker immediately after Rigby's murder, it is clear and apparent in no uncertain terms that indeed the act was to compel the U.K. government to cease and desist in its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in that sense it was a terror attack and a terrorist activity. Organizationally however, terrorism is usually understood to be an activity by two or more men plotting to murder innocent civilians for the purpose of compelling a government from performing or ceasing to perform a certain or group of activities that the said government would not otherwise do. Without a doubt, the act was an act of terror and the lone murderer is nothing but a terrorist. Period.

An article written by Frida Ghitis published on Time.com caught my attention in that she asserted that "Some will rush to blame Muslims or Islam for what happened, but it's important to be clear and not to mince words. Islam is not the enemy. Muslims are not the enemy. Terrorism is not the enemy."

Ghitis also adds: "The enemy is the radical Islamist ideology that justifies any atrocity committed for political motives. The enemies are the people who promote this dogma and encourage others to engage in actions that offend and assault our humanity - and theirs."

Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, the Dutch former parliamentarian, author, speaker and renowned critic of Islam once said that Islam is a religion with not only a religious goal but also a social, political and cultural drive. Indeed, the history of Islam is a history of the convergence of its socio-religious-political and cultural influence in the lands it has conquered. Sharia is its socio-political side, the Koran is its religious foundation and Arabic is its cultural driving force. That is why Islamic scholars and religious schools would always teach the Koran, and read it, in its Arabic form only.

If we look therefore at the history of Islam since its founding in the 7th century, we will see that Islam is a militant religion by heart. It has always insisted on conquering non-Muslim lands and subjugating it under Sharia law. The Prophet Mohammad is a testament to Islams radical nature when he conducted at least six (6) major military operations in his lifetime, all by the way were successful. The spread of Islam from the Arabian peninsula was achieved by military conquest and not merely by the persuasive powers of its proselytizers.

Ghitis therefore is wrong to say that the problem is not Islam - Islam is the problem, at least its fundamentals are. As described earlier, Islam is a religion that does not only have a religious pursuit, it has socio-political and cultural drives too. Western writers would always insist that Islam is not the enemy, despite evidence to the contrary, they want to believe that Islam really is a religion of peace. It is not, and never was. Unless this is clear to western power brokers, then solutions cannot be defined because the problem is not properly identified.

Ghitis also asserts that the "problem is the radical Islamist ideology" when in fact the problem is the fundamentals of Islam. Islam has no radical Islamist ideology, it is a radical ideology. It's fundamentals are radical. There is no such thing as a mild Islam, only a non-practiced Islam. President Mohammad Morsy once stated in a television interview conducted by CNN that "there is no such a thing as an Islamic democracy." And unfortunately, he is right. To observe the Islamic faith is to be radical - because its tenets as expressed in the Koran are radical fundamentally.

The solution therefore is not to undermine "Islamic radicalism." There is no such thing in my opinion. The so-called Islamic radicals are really practicing the Islamic faith as its is written in the Koran - open in its interpretation in many cases nevertheless but certain in others such as the subjugation of women, murder of homosexuals and the conversion of infidels into its fold. The best antidote to the rise of Islamic terror is therefore the promotion of secular values, ideas, and principles in Islamic countries. Secularization is the best hope to combat Islamic terrorism, not compartmentalizing Islamic terrorism as different from Islam. This is easier said than done, Islam is notorious for its resistance to secular values and ideas. Even in Turkey, probably the  most secular and progressive of Islamic countries, legislation had to be enacted to force women not to wear the veil - and by extension, tame the radical nature of Islamic ideology.

Unless creative solutions are made available regarding the best manner of secularizing Islamic societies, then we will have to live with a militantly Islamic world in the next half a century, or even more. Unless of course an internal reformation occurs in Islamic societies regarding its militant nature reminiscent of the renaissance in Europe during the 16th to the 17th centuries that opened up the rigidity of Catholicism, the world will be in for a long, really long fight that can be comparable the 100 Years War between Catholicism and Protestantism in Europe in the last 1000 years.