Fathali M. MOGHADDAM

Director, Conflict Resolution Program, Department of Government

Professor, Department of Psychology

Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

A man borrowed some money from Nasrudin. The Mulla thought that he would never get it back, but gave the money nevertheless.

Much to his surprise, the loan was promptly repaid. Nasrudin brooded.

Some time later the same man asked for a further sum, saying: “You know my credit is good, I have repaid you in the past.”

“Not this time you scoundrel!” roared Nasrudin. “You deceived me the last time when I thought that you would not return the money. You won't get away with it a second time.

Well before I attended school to begin my formal education, first at elementary school in Tehran and then at boarding school in London, I was informally trained by my family through Sufi tales, such as the one above.¹ One interpretation of this particular tale focuses on how humans sometimes misjudge the actions of others, and proceed to make mistake after mistake through continued misperceptions. Nasrudin began by expecting the borrower not to return his money. When his expectation proved to be incorrect, Nasrudin used this as evidence that the borrower had deceived him, because he had acted against expectations and actually returned the money. The borrower could not be trusted at all: he had proved to be reliable when he was expected to be unreliable.

This very timely edited volume exploring the context and nature of “Suicide Bombers” provides wisdom and insight in an inter-group situation characterized by huge gulfs and misperceptions. The Western media has focused on fundamentalists as the voice of Islam, and helped to shape a warped stereotype of the vast majority of Muslims – who are actually moderate in attitudes.² This volume provides a ‘corrective’, by explaining how de-radicalization programs are being spearheaded by Muslims themselves, and also by exploring the best strategies for understanding and dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism. The chapters reflect the international, interdisciplinary nature of the workshops that served as the launching pad for the project. Mary Sharpe must be commended for the superb way in which she has both managed the workshops and edited this volume.

Underlying the varied discussions in this volume is a historically important but implicit theme: the relationship between the West and Islamic societies of the Near and Middle East. Just as many Westerners have tended to perceive Islamic fundamentalists as the face and voice of Islam, many people in Islamic societies have tended to visualize the West as represented by extremist voices and actions, particularly associated with ‘pro-war, pro-torture’ factions in the administration of President George W. Bush and his allies, notably the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. This volume reflects a more positive trend; it is an indication that researchers can lead societies to accurately pinpoint the nature and role of fundamentalists, and differentiate between destructive elements and the majority who are moderates and seek to achieve constructive, peaceful inter-group relations.

At a deeper level, this volume points to a major challenge that confronts Western societies, and particularly the United States, still the sole ‘superpower’ on the global stage. This challenge is the New Global American Dilemma,³ which arises out of the contradiction existing between Western and particularly American support for, on the one hand, select dictatorships in the Near and Middle East and, on the other hand, freedom and democracy throughout the Near and Middle East. The New Global American Dilemma was not created by President George W. Bush, but his ‘pro-freedom’ rhetoric and ‘pro-dictatorship’ policies (e.g. his continued support for the Saudi regime) brought this dilemma into the spotlight.

The first American dilemma was identified by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987), in his seminal study of race-relations in the United States published under the title of An American Dilemma⁴ (1944). Myrdal correctly pointed out that even after the official end of slavery in the United States there continued to be a monstrous contradiction between the American rhetoric of equality of opportunity and freedom, on the one hand, and the actual mistreatment of African Americans, who continued to suffer discrimination and segregation. This dilemma was eventually resolved through massive reform movements, which came to a climax in the late 1960s and finally resulted in serious movement toward desegregation in America. Of course, the reform movements have been costly and painful, and marked by many deaths along the way, such as the assassination of Martin Luther King (1929–1968). The resolution of the New Global American Dilemma is more doubtful, and involves injuries and deaths on a larger, catastrophic scale.

The rhetoric of freedom, equality, and democracy emanating from the George W. Bush White House, as well as from 10 Downing Street during the premiership of Tony Blair, had a powerful impact on two groups in the Near and Middle East. First, the vast majority of Muslims, and Muslim intellectuals in particular, immediately recognized the basic contradiction between the ‘democracy and freedom’ rhetoric of the West, and the actual practice of continued support for dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan (under the rule of General Parvis Musharaf), Kuwait, and some other countries in the region. The vast majority of Muslims recognize that it is only American-led support that allows dictatorships in the Near and Middle East to crush secular opposition groups, and prevent women and other minorities from gaining greater freedom and equality. A second group influenced by the ‘democracy and freedom’ rhetoric of President George W. Bush and his allies are Islamic Fundamentalists, who are fearful of any change that gives greater freedom to ordinary people, particularly women. As discussed in a number of chapters in this volume, Islamic fundamentalists have generally adopted an ‘anti-progress’ position.

But why, then, do fundamentalists manage to gain sympathy and on some issues even some support from the majority of Muslims, in both Western and non-Western societies? Given the moderate positions of most Muslims, why would they sympathize with fundamentalists at least on some issues? The New Global American Dilemma is at the heart of this question. Four related facts must be kept in mind. First, the U.S. and its allies continue to support dictatorships in the Near and Middle East. Second, dictatorships in the Near and Middle East refuse to allow the growth of secular, democratic opposition groups. Third, this means that the only avenue open for collective activism in the Near and Middle East is the mosque – no dictator has the power to close mosques, although all dictators attempt to control what happens in mosques. Fourth, fundamentalists use the mosque, and religious traditions broadly, to take up positions as the vanguard of opposition to pro-American dictatorships. This is exactly what happened in Iran in the late 1970s, and in Algeria in the 1980s, and in a number of Islamic countries more recently. The threat of fundamentalist groups is real and imminent in Egypt, Pakistan, and some other major Islamic societies.

How will the New Global American Dilemma be resolved? Will the U.S. and its allies drop the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, and unquestioningly continue the practice of supporting dictatorships? Or, will the U.S. and its allies recognize that by actively supporting democracy both in rhetoric and action, the West will gain the backing of the vast majority of Muslims in the fight against fundamentalism and their extremist tactics, including suicide terrorism? This volume makes an important contribution in the context of the broader struggle ahead, to resolve the New Global American Dilemma in favor of freedom and democracy.

Although there is considerable diversity among the chapters, a shared theme is the contextual approach to understanding extremism and suicide terrorism. Rather than become seduced by reductionist explanations, to do with assumed intra-personal characteristics of suicide terrorists, the authors focus on the characteristics of groups and contexts. Moreover, these chapters represent serious efforts to locate the current ‘troubles’ within cultural and historical context, a highly valuable and valiant effort that I believe has had considerable success.

References

[1] P. 102, Shah, I. (1993). The pleasantries of the incredible Mulls Nasrudin. New York: Penguin.

[2] See Esposito, J. L., & Mogahed, D. (2008). Who speaks for Islam? What a billion Muslims really think. Washington, D.C.: Gallup Press.

[3] The idea of the ‘New Global American Dilemma’ was first introduced in Moghaddam, F. M. (2008). How globalization spurs terrorism. Westport, CT.: Praeger Security International.

[4] Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy. (2 vols). New York: Harper and Bothers.