•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

The following day journalists, writers, columnists, newscasters, academics, members of think-tanks, and politicians announced that this day had been a milestone. The term “milestone” marks the beginning of new things; what was about to begin now? As time passed we understood what they meant. Nothing in America was the same as before. On September 10, 2001 it had been the land of liberty; on September 12 the situation totally changed. Due to the religious identity of the members of Al Qaeda, who were declared to be the perpetrators, the USA, indeed almost the entire world, had become uninhabitable for anyone with the same religious identity. Liberty had been replaced by constraints and accusations. Not only the USA, but indeed the entire world had shrunk for Muslim people.

It is possible to understand the anger of Americans who lost their loved ones in this tragic incident, one in which almost 3,000 people died. It is also possible to understand people insulting Muslim women wearing headscarves and Muslim men in their beards and turbans. Attacks on mosques during this time could even be considered tolerable. However, what is difficult to understand is the long-lasting discrimination against Muslims and the perception of each and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. For the USA, a country with multicultural politics it cannot be reasonable to formalize changing attitudes with legislation. Something was happening to this country, one which had been advocating peace not war, one that had been known as the land of freedom and diversity. However, all this has happened because America was undergoing a period in which wisdom had been abandoned, something noted by many people.

I want to tell you about two of my memories. One of them occurred in 1999. I and several friends were going to the southern region of New Jersey. When we landed at JFK, we had another 2 hours to drive to our destination, if the traffic was light. Because it was time to pray and we would not be able to get to our destination before the time to pray, we decided to pray on the way. We performed ablution in a rest area. We laid our prayer rugs on the ground and we prayed in public, on the grass. We did not notice anyone glaring at us. We did not encounter any quizzical expressions nor were we treated in any disparaging manner. People in the USA would ask Muslims to mention them in their prayers when they came into contact with God. They also used to show us places to pray. But today? Although some claim that attitudes have not changed, Muslims cannot pray without worrying about somebody calling 911. This is not just an empty claim or remote possibility. There have been many examples of this kind of situation.

Another memory is from the USA of 2002. I was at an airport, getting ready to fly to another state. Although I passed through a number of security checkpoints along with other passengers, the security officer pulled me over. This had happened many times after 9/11, but this time I could not resist asking, “Why?” I had become exasperated with such acts of discrimination. I was fed up with being treated like a terrorist and a man to pity under scornful eyes. Angrily I asked “Why me?” I suppose he had undergone training in psychology. He held my arm, smiling, which made me feel comfortable. He showed me my boarding pass and the 3 S on it. He explained that it means extra security check. He said that the computers put these letters there because I have a Muslim name. He also told me that I should not take it personally because the computer program adds this to all names entered into the system. I realized that my name, which I have always been proud of, was now a reason for discrimination. I am sure that this was only because of 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Are such precautions appropriate? Many authorities, in particular, politicians at that time agreed they were necessary. There were some people who did not agree, but their number was less and they could not speak up. 10 years after this horrific incident many people now say that all such actions were inappropriate.

The past stays in the past. It is ridiculous to try to carry yesterday’s issues to today. However should we not learn from the past? I Religion, language, ethnicity, creed, and profession are our secondary identities, coming after being human. These were differences that gave us a sense of belonging. In the same way that capital has no religion, terrorism cannot have any religion. If there is a list of words that cannot go together, “religion and terrorism” takes first place. We can neither relate to religion nor explain by religion what the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the Norwegian terrorist Behring Breivik did. In the same way that we cannot relate what they did to their religious identity as Christian terrorism, we cannot do the same with the events on 9/11 as Islamic terrorism. However, sadly this has not been the case.

All rational Muslims have exclaimed that it is in no way justified to identify Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Many authorities, scholars, politicians, academics, and opinion leaders have also said that this was a grave mistake. Even though a terrorist may have a Muslim identity, you cannot generalize and scrutinize such behavior from an Islamic perspective. On that day the newspapers published full-page condolence messages. Muslim scholars and academics also penned letters that condemned terrorism. This period, as it was one in which wisdom did not exist, prevented people from seeing all this, perhaps because it was Islam being accused and they didn’t really care about it, or because they did not want to change their foreign policy which they based on these attacks, or because they were prejudiced, or because they wanted to ease public opinion. What did happen was that common sense was ignored and people behaved as they wanted to.

Thank God, this lack of wisdom did not last long. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the mood has changed. Not all Muslims are considered to be potential terrorists anymore. People who have Muslim names do not get extra security checks at airports. The terrible slaughter in Norway has made the authorities start to reconsider their policies. Religious and cultural diversity projects and models for living together with peace are being reviewed. Projects that cover all areas of life, such as world brotherhood, coexistence while preserving differences, making the world a place for togetherness, preventing the otherization of other people have all started to take place despite the existence of some people who still see “others” as the enemy. We sincerely hope that those who are for peaceful coexistence will dominate over the second and the world will never experience a new 9/11, Oklahoma, Madrid, London, or Oslo attacks again.

Therefore, holy war can be an element of jihad, but is restrained by strict rules. Many modern interpretations of jihad are not congruent with classical jihad and many physical aggressions by Muslims today cannot be classified as the specific kind of holy war that is legitimized by the Qur’an.

The Prophet Muhammad described jihad as the “apex of lofty Islam.” Jihad literally translates to struggle or striving in English and it is derived from the root Arabic word jahada—to strive, strain, or exert oneself to the utmost. Jihad is a very important duty of Islam; some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islamic faith. Jihad encompasses many types of struggles that Muslims are meant to overcome throughout their daily life in different forms. In the Qur’an, jihad is striving in the name of Allah through four stages: jihad against the soul, jihad against Satan, jihad against disbelievers, and jihad against dissemblers. Jihad against the soul is meant to solidify firm belief within a person while jihad against Satan will create tenacity. For jihad against disbelievers, Muslims are meant to strive by pen, tongue, hand, media, and only if inevitable, with arms. Jihad against disbelievers is not purely peaceful and at times, the use of arms is inevitable in this stage, described in the Qur’an as qital, or fighting.

Contrarily, jihad against dissemblers is by the tongue, through educated arguments and persuasion. Therefore jihad is much more than physical aggression, and far greater emphasis is placed on striving by all other means before war. The most important struggles for Muslims will come from inside themselves, which will be a lifelong jihad of following Allah and living by his way. Jihad should then be described as the striving journey of Muslims to become aware and learn the injunctions of Islam, teach them to others, and make constant practice of them in their life while encouraging others to do the same. It is also the act of calling others to Islam and dealing with any obstacles that may arise from fulfilling this journey. This journey will encompass many obstacles that do not relate to physical violence and emphasize the importance of striving by other means throughout one’s life. Jihad with the tongue is viewed as very important because Muslims are meant to be peaceful in their struggle if possible and it is important to be expressive verbally rather than resorting to violence immediately. However, when words are not sufficient and qital, physical fighting, is necessary within jihad, there are strict guidelines that must be followed in the aggression. Not every war fought by Muslims can be defined as jihad; not every jihad can be generalized as holy war. In order for physical jihad to be legitimate, the opposing side receiving the aggression must be in a state of war against Islam, or a large group of Muslims, or non-Muslims who have had their personal freedoms and civil rights violated. A classical interpretation of jihad from the Qur’an clearly outlines that any physical jihad must be conventional warfare, with ambush fighting and the killing of civilians prohibited. There have been many examples of physical jihad in history that were legitimate in the eyes of the Qur’an, and exemplify the rules that limit aggression, as well as the circumstances necessary for a holy war to be considered jihad.

In Islamic history there are many instances when jihad was a holy war. This can partially be explained by the era. Arabia was engulfed in constant warfare throughout the Prophet Muhammad’s time, and for the centuries of empire rule that followed. Muslim tribes were often provoked by aggression and forced into numerous defensive jihads with their surrounding neighbors. The original physical jihad originated from Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to the city of Yathrib, modern day Medina, in 622. The Prophet and his Muslim followers were met with violent pilfering by the Meccans and Muhammad delivered verses from the Qur’an authorizing the Muslims to fight against the Meccans. The Muslim war with the Meccans began Muhammad’s career as military commander, a title that he had to carry in the remaining years of his life. This jihad follows the rules outlined by the Qur’an because it was in defense of Muslim land that was being physically threatened; it also follows the rules of jihad by keeping the warfare traditional and targeting only those directly involved in the aggression. Muhammad had decided physical jihad was necessary and fought in the name of Islam. But upon returning from battle he said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,” underlining the importance of a believer’s internal struggle against his or her carnal self. While the time demanded physical jihad from the Muslims for their very survival, the significance was placed on the other forms of jihad, most importantly those within the hearts of each Muslim. In addition to Prophet Muhammad’s own view of physical jihad, Muslim scholar Said Nursi supported physical jihad in response to physical aggression but also believed in continuing jihad through the written and spoken word. When he was required to fight, his jihad was with his pen. Nursi highlighted the shift between pre-modern civilization and modern civilization and believes jihad should follow this shift. Pre-modern civilization was plagued by violence and conquests from Islam’s neighbors and required defensive war in response. Modern civilization has seen the rise in science and reason, secularism and materialism, and therefore the most appropriate jihad is one that persuades hearts and minds. Muslims are called to fight a cultural and economic war through ideas and thoughts, not arms.

The battles fought by Muhammad and Nursi are historical examples of jihad as holy war used to protect Islam and guarantee its growth within the world. There is a physical aspect in battle, but the focus on Islamic law as derived from the Qur’an is never ignored in jihad. Jihad includes, but is not encompassed by, legitimate, defensive warfare against aggressive enemies, which contrasts with the modern usage of jihad among a minority of Muslim laymen and mainstream society. Most conflicts engaged in by some Muslims today are a crime under Islamic law, and jihad is defined solely as war, with its other aspects ignored. Today in Muslim-majority countries, and in non-Muslim media and discussion around the world, jihad means war. The usage in Muslim countries can be interpreted as rationalization, that all wars their governments involve themselves in are just, similar to the justification most countries do that any war they are involved in is just.

Though it is debatable whether a war is just and follows Islamic law, the more troubling factor is the shift of the entire meaning of the word jihad. Jihad has evolved from meaning struggle, usually internal, sometimes external by the written or spoken word, to simply being a synonym for war. This semantic evolution has perpetuated misunderstandings of Islam as a violent religion, with war and physical aggression central to its tenets. Jihad has evolved from struggle in classical Islam, with the occasional legitimate war, to representing necessary, continuous physical aggression within modern Islam. This linguistic shift has created a grave misunderstanding of jihad around the world, and its sole definition as holy war in popular culture.

Jihad has come to hold a new meaning with the general population because of the differing interpretations of jihad by classical and modern Muslim scholars. Without background knowledge of jihad’s origins in the Qur’an, most people would believe that jihad is a holy war without rules or guidelines, based on modern scholars and media portrayal. Most laymen are not aware that classical jihad explicitly prohibits aggression towards civilians, and must be limited to conventional war tactics. This misconception of jihad is a result of the rise in world terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims who claim their actions as jihad in the name of Allah and the Qur’an. The misinterpretation of jihad by a small group of Muslims has spread around the world because of globalization and effective media coverage. This misinterpretation has resulted in the current perception. Some modern Muslim scholars and popular figures within Islam who have catalyzed this new definition, refer to jihad as, “war against oppressors, particularly those who oppress Muslims.” Osama bin Laden said in many of his speeches that Americans resemble the medieval Crusaders, with the desire to subjugate the Muslim world in a colonial war. Therefore, bin Laden believed that Muslims are currently fighting a defensive jihad against the West in response to their actions. The West as an enemy is described as similar to the Christian knights of the Crusades who also attacked Muslim civilization. Egyptian Islamist Adb al Salam Faraj called for a new jihad against the subjugation of the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden has expanded on the ideas of a new jihad to legitimize terrorist attacks against the West that result in the death of civilians. In addition to Faraj, the Muslim scholar Maududi’s thesis on the change in Muslim society has also been viewed as spawning the modern interpretation of jihad. Maududi believed that because not all Muslim societies were ruling based on Sharia law, there was a decline in the society as a whole, and the only viable response was to wage a jihad against this dark age. In order to confront the decline of Muslim society and loss of Muslim lands, Sharia law and the doctrine of jihad had to be reinterpreted and applied both internally within Muslim societies as well as externally to the West for its role in seeking Muslim land and fighting against Muslim civilization. Muslim countries have witnessed an internal “jihad” through the removal of leaders classified as un-Islamic based on an unwillingness to impose Sharia law within their nations. This internal “jihad” has taken place historically with the Iranian Revolution’s removal of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, and the overthrow of Sudanese President Jaafar Nimeiry. External “jihad” against foreign occupiers of Muslim lands has taken place many times throughout history, recently in the Afghan fight for independence against Soviet occupation and Palestinian and Lebanese liberation movements against Israeli-occupied territories. Modern “jihad” has become a war with the goals of reshaping Islamic society by ridding it of Western influence and presence, economically and politically.

What has been described as jihad, and then reported by worldwide media, is far removed from classical jihad described in the Qur’an. Terrorist attacks that aim at killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children, are unilaterally condemned under Sharia law. Their fights do not comply with the rules outlining when physical jihad can take place and how it may be fought. It is not wrong for people to believe jihad can be violent, but it is wrong to only hold this belief without an understanding of the other aspects of jihad. Some modern Muslims have provided this misinterpretation and perpetuated the fear that Islam as a violent religion able to wage wars at any time, on any grounds.

Jihad is popularly misunderstood in today’s world as a synonym for holy war. This misunderstanding has been prevalent for decades but has become more widespread because of a handful of terrorist attacks being labeled as jihad against America and Europe by radical Islamists. By examining jihad, as defined by the Qur’an, and analyzing historical accounts of jihad, it becomes clear that jihad can involve physical violence if all the rules outlined by the Qur’an are followed, including only the use of conventional warfare and killing of combatants. The modern interpretation of jihad does not consider the context of the Qur’an or classical Islamic law, and it ignores the other aspects of jihad. Jihad is the internal struggle Muslims face to fight off evil, the striving effort to become a better person, a more pious follower of Islam. Jihad focuses primarily on internal struggles, with external struggles such as warfare being secondary, and only if physical force is necessary and legitimate. It is very unfortunate that the true meaning of jihad has become lost in today’s society. Jihad is one of most admirable and good-natured duties within Islam, from which many could learn from to better themselves and their lives.

References

• Ali, Afroz. Overcoming Misunderstandings: Understanding Jihad http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010.
• Bonner, Michael. Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton, 2006, p. 39.
• Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden, New York, 2005, p. 27.
• Chittick, William and Murata, Sachiko. The Vision of Islam, St. Paul, 1994, p. 21.
• Esposito, John L. “VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.” In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/article/book/islam-9780195157130/islam-9780195157130-chapter-5 accessed 25 May 2010.
• Gerges, Fawaz. The Far Enemy, New York, 2009, p. 43.
• Greenberg, Karen. Al Qaeda Now, New York, 2005, p. 213.
• Kelsay, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam, Boston, 2007, p. 41.
• Muhammad, Noor. “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 3, no.2, 1985, p. 395
• Napoleoni, Loretta. “Modern Jihad: The Islamist Crusade,” SAIS Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, p. 53.
• Tibi, Bassam. Political Islam, World Politics, and Europe. New York, 2008, pp. 41-42.
• Vahide, Sukran. Jihad in the Modern Age: Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Interpretation of Jihad, at http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Bediuzzaman_Said_Nursi_s_Interpretation_of_Jihad_168, accessed 22 May 2010.

A: Involuntary evil thoughts, fancies, or associations of ideas usually are the result of Satan’s interference. Just as a battery has two poles, there are two central points to our hearts. These two poles work like the two poles of a battery; one receives angelic inspirations, while the other is susceptible to the suggestions of Satan.

Satan attacks those believers who are trying to increase their belief and devotion. If such believers are scrupulous and sincere in their feelings, then Satan attacks them from all directions. When dealing with disbelievers, who follow Satan voluntarily in the indulgences of their whims and desires, he whispers to them strange and abnormal ideas. In this way, he encourages their disbelief and learns new ways to struggle against the true religion and to waylay all believers.

Satan attacks us from all directions:

When Satan was cursed by God for his disobedience, Satan asked for respite until the Day of Judgment, also desiring permission to try to lead human beings astray in the meantime. God granted this request, and Satan then replied: Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right and from their left, and you will not find most of them grateful (7:17).

Satan does everything he can to mislead us. As God manifests all of His Names on us in this testing world, we are very complex beings. We have been sent here to be trained and developed into a mirror of God, and in this way to earn eternal happiness. In order to do this, we must train and develop all of our God-given feelings, skills, and abilities. If we do not bring all of these under control (e.g., our intellect, temper, greed, obstinacy, and lust) nor direct them toward lofty goals, but rather allow these feelings to be abused for disagreeable purposes, our present and future life will endangered. This is also true if we do not bring our natural animal desires under control by satisfying them in ways acceptable to God.

Approaching us from our left, Satan employs our animal instincts and faculties to tempt us into sin. When he approaches us from the front, he drives us to despair over the future, he whispers that the Day of Judgment will never come, that whatever religions say about the Hereafter is no more than mere fiction, and that religion belongs to the past and therefore is irrelevant to our present and future. When he comes upon us from behind, he tries to make us deny the Prophethood, the existence of God and His Unity, the Divine Scriptures, angels, and other fundamental matters of belief. Through such whispers and suggestions, Satan tries to sever our connections with religion and steer us toward sin.

Satan cannot use these means to seduce believers who are devout and believing. Rather, he approaches such believers from the right side and encourages them to be ostentatious and proud, to take pride in their virtues and their good deeds. He whispers to them that they are the best of believers, until feelings of conceit and desire for praise take over in the person. When such a point is reached, these believers begin their journey on the road to perdition. For example, if a believer prays the superrogatory prayer at night and then boasts that he/she has done so in the hopes that others will praise him/her, or if a believer begins to take credit for his/her accomplishments and good deeds while criticizing others behind their backs, then such a person has fallen under the influence of Satan. We must do our best to resist Satan when he comes upon us from this direction.

Another of Satan’s ruses is to make trivial things seem important and vice versa. If believers dispute with each other over trivial matters (e.g., using prayer beads when glorifying God after the daily prescribed prayers), ignoring the fact that their children are being dragged along the road of disbelief and materialism, or that their children are drowning in the swamp of immorality, this is an indication that Satan has successfully seduced them.

Satan suggests disagreeable thoughts and desires:

When Satan fails to seduce devout believers he then whispers disagreeable thoughts and desires to them. For example, through the association of ideas, he pushes believers toward developing negative concepts of the Divine Being or of contemplating disbelief or disobedience. When believers dwell on such thoughts, Satan then will pester them until doubt springs up about their beliefs or until they despair of living a virtuous life.

Another ruse Satan employs is to cause good, devout believers to suspect the correctness or validity of their religious acts. For example a believer may ask him/herself: Did I pray correctly? Did I wash my face and hands thoroughly while making my wudu’? Have I washed the correct parts of my body the correct number of times? Believers who are pestered by such involuntary thoughts, whims, and doubts should know that their hearts play no role in these questions. Just like thieves who attempt to rob the wealthy and strong countries that try to control resource-rich countries, so Satan makes a last-ditch attempt to seduce believers by troubling their hearts.

We can compare such an attack to a person who has high tempera-ture. We know that the antibodies that are formed in the blood of an ill person inhibit or destroy harmful bacteria or germs. This is what causes the temperature of the body to rise. Similarly, a heart troubled by Satan’s evil suggestions defends itself by struggling against them. Thus, it is not the heart that generates such thoughts, nor does the heart approve of these thoughts, nor adopt them. A reflection of something unclean is not itself unclean, and it cannot make others unclean. In the same way, thinking about disbelief is not the same thing as actual disbelief.

We might even say that Satan’s evil suggestions are actually of benefit to believers, for they cause us to remain alert, to struggle against our carnal selves and against Satan, and to progress toward ever-higher spiritual ranks.

How to Keep Free of Satanic Suggestions

In fact, the guile of Satan is not great (4:76). It is like a cobweb that appears in your pathit cannot prevent you from progressing, and you should not attach any great importance to it. Satan only suggests or whispers, he dresses up sinful acts as something desirable, presenting them in cheap, shiny paper. Believers must never accept his invitation. When Satan resorts to whispering, we should realize that he is using his least powerful weapon and ignore him. If we pay attention to these distractions, we may be defeated. Like a commander whose fear causes him to hallucinate and dispatch his soldiers to the front, leaving the flanks exposed, believers who listen to Satan weaken their ability to resist not only him, but their carnal selves. In the end, these are the believers who are defeated.

Believers who want to avoid this trap should distance themselves from sins, all of which Satan tries to make attractive. Heedlessness and the neglect of ones worship open the way to Satan’s “arrows”: If anyone withdraws himself (or herself) from remembrance of the All-Merciful, We assign unto him (or her) a devil as a comrade (43:36).

In order to protect ourselves from Satans attacks we should remember the All-Merciful, think about holy and blessed events, and try to live a pious life. If you hear Satan whispering to you, then seek refuge in God. He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. Those who fear God and ward off (evil) when a passing notion from Satan troubles them, they remember, and behold, they see (7:200“1).

The Messenger advised: “If you become angry while standing, sit down; if you are sitting, lie down or stand up and make wudu’.” Once while returning from a military expedition, the Prophet called for a halt in a certain place. His companions were so tired that they slept through the dawn prayer. When everyone awoke, the Prophet said that they should leave immediately, for “Satan rules here”. The Prophet also said that Satan flees when the call to prayer is heard.

Satan also uses indecent thoughts and events to lead believers astray. He torments us by enticing us with illicit pleasures. On such occasions, we must remind ourselves that indulging in any such pleasure will engender remorse and may endanger both our present and future lives. We must never forget that life in this world is no more than a passing toy, a comforting illusion, and that the real or true life is that of the Hereafter. When some Companions hesitated to take part in the summer expedition to Tabuk because of the scorching heat, God warned them: The heat of Hell is much more intense, if they would but understand (9:81).

When Satan whispers evil thoughts, believers should realize that he is at his weakest and that he can be ignored. Dwelling on such thoughts only exaggerates and aggravates our weakness and susceptibilities. We also must avoid being careless and be sure that we do not neglect any aspect of our worship; such oversights attract the attention of Satan. If we remember the All-Merciful, focus on holy and blessed events and live a pious life, then will we be able to resist Satans call.

Unpreparedness played an unquestionable role in this tragedy. Even if American officials had been sufficiently informed in advance about how the attacks would occur and that the targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and other sites, they would never have given the slightest credit to the idea that œAmerican pilots would launch a kamikaze attack from the air. Nor would they have increased all security measures in the area.

Take any strong country, none of which has a direct enemy. One type of enemy probably is not happy with a strong countrys policies. Another enemy would be participating in a counter-activity with a regional motivation. A third enemy would wage a direct attack on the strong country so that it would be top-listed on the global agenda. In addition, it would seek an opportunity to express its criticism to the world. A fourth enemy would organize acts of terror throughout the world in order to realize its short- and long-term political and other goals.

Terrorists aim to scare people, to obstruct the governments authorized arms, and to challenge the federal government in the political and military arenas. However, these reasons are not enough to explain what we are facing today. The modern world confronts more than ordinary internationalterrorism, for the terror we see today is new and has large dimensions. Its operational and philosophical characteristics are now under investigation.

Recently, American society has observed murders committed by students at schools, collective suicides of families, kidnappings, Timothy McVeighs Oklahoma bombing, mail bombs, poisoned letters, and so on. In my opinion, such activities cannot be coincidental and are not very favorable developments in this great country.

This most cruel and violent terrorist activity seems to have been planned to the smallest detail. Also, its perpetrators benefited from the methods of previous attacks: the psychological training of kamikaze pilots, how to hijack airplanes and use them like rockets, obtaining information about the air defense system and target weaknesses, and how the attacks would be directed were all carefully analyzed.

It is impossible to understand this tragic attack completely without a clear assessment of its perpetrators goals. Perhaps the driving motivation could be an emotional factor of punishing America for one of its acts or for being what it is today. This basic assumption was surely a significant incentive.

The perpetrators obviously wanted to create a shocking psychological effect on governmental officials as well as on the entire society, to defeat the opponents active defense power, to display international terrorism as if equipped with vast facilities, and especially to ensure that the American government changes its current policies. Another option also could be a type of adventure-seeking insanity or just a furious mob, both of which have found no place for themselves in this world but nevertheless wanted to draw the worlds attention to themselves.

Russia is very well aware of the existence of some groups that claim to attack for the sake of Islam. However, I see that most Islamic societies do not agree with such self-proclaimed Muslim’s claims that they are representing them. These groups manipulate Islam either slightly or extensively in order to insert themselves within its perfect world, sometimes with various ethnic motivations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, is undoubtedly seeking support from Muslims and portraying himself to the world as a Muslim leader. But has any group ever acknowledged him as such a leader? In addition, I have not yet seen any clear evidence that men linked with Islam are behind the tragic events in New York and Washington.

This might be either a very well-planned campaign or an immediate reaction of the American media, which is very used to accusing all Muslims in the world. I do not perceive Islam as a religion of violence. Although we in Russia suffer in Chechnya and Moscow from bomb attacks, I do not think Islam is the underlying reason behind most of these terrorist activities. We have concrete evidence that bombings and other acts of violence have been committed by Chechens; however, I do not believe that Islam can be blamed for them.

The September 11th tragedy was an act of violence, a type with which we have been familiarized by American movies. It also can be argued that these movies involve scenes that inspire such attacks to be organized. Moreover, time and again America has produced protesting generations, especially at times of crisis like the wars in Korea and Vietnam. We might hear anti-war voices arising from among those Americans who will call attention to America’s responsibility and that this attack was a provocation.

If we can unite our power to this cause, we can move successfully against terrorism. It is also important to locate the only superpower at a more appropriate status, both for the good of itself and for humanity in general.

America is certainly a great nation, and it will overcome this crisis. However, I am concerned with the possibility that its leaders might make things even worse in the rest of the world.

Personally, I think that Americans do not understand and know too much about history. This might be because they are a young nation or because they consist of many different peoples. They do not have outstanding historians. However, the problems of Europe and Asia are always deeply rooted in the past. Unfortunately, I have not yet met any American who is well informed about the reasons of these events and from where they are arising. Americans react immediately, sometimes deprived of the consciousness that history is not only the past but also the future. We must teach history and learn from it.

These terrorist attacks show that the perpetrators share none of the aims of Islam, such as spreading Islam peacefully. You cannot spread Islam to other people by bombing them. Is there anything in Islam which legitimizes this terrorist attack? Certainly not! Jihad is a totally different concept, and can be declared only when Islam has to be defended. But Islam does not have to be defended in America, for Islam is already acknowledged here as one of the three monotheist religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This is not a superficial acknowledgment”6 million Muslims now live in America. Islam is not an imported religion, and this terrorist attack has nothing to do with American Muslims. On the contrary, it was perpetrated by outsiders having political”not religious”motivations.

The goals for which they are striving are not Islamic, but probably are related to the current political goals of certain people who manipulate Islam to legitimize their quest. I do not agree with Samuel Huntingtons well-known œclash of civilizations theory, in which Islam is approached as an enemy to the West and must be destroyed. On the other hand, the media (especially, those who supply the information and constantly oppose Islam) are striving to maintain an artificial adversarial sensitivity against Islam.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlies the clash of civilizations and, in a way, is the primary source of all these events. Mutual terror has been experienced throughout the 54 years of this conflict. Palestinians retaliated with counter-terror campaigns to Israel’s terror at the governmental level. This has affected millions of people not only in terms of religion but also in terms of national-political status. Israel attacks Palestinians not because they are Muslims but because they are Arab Palestinians. The fact that 20 percent of all Palestinians are Christians shows that this is not a religiously driven conflict. Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash are leaders of Palestinian Democratic Public Front and are both Orthodox Christians. They began organizing suicidal attacks before HAMAS was even founded. The foremost significant supporters of Palestinians are Edward

Said and Albert Hourani, who are Protestant Christians and, respectively, prominent figures in literature and history.

The organizational formation of the terrorist group that launched the September 11th attacks deserves serious consideration. It seems that 60 to 70 people were actively involved; 19 of them are dead. But what about those who probably provided logistical support? How did they carry out their role unnoticed? For such an organization, there needs to be a mastermind, and I do not think that Bin Laden is the most likely candidate.

All types of terrorism, regardless of reason, are evil. While protesting terrorism, however, we should not ignore the reasons. America has to delve into the reasons and the roots of these events. It has to cast far-reaching look and search for real reasons, instead of dealing with symptoms. If America uses its power not to exercise sovereignty over others but to create a more peaceful world, this would serve its own interests. In addition, Muslims would benefit the most from it.