We are at war with “Islamic terrorists.” But how many of us really know what that means?

     It is clear that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network have been at war with us for a decade, going back to the gulf war (Bergen, 2001; Bodansky, 2001). Their intentions have become chillingly clear following the unspeakably barbaric and murderous acts that they perpetrated on us on September 11, 2001. It is also likely that this war could last quite a long time, and perhaps involve us in conflict in and with many other nations. Thus we seem to be facing a threat as serious as we faced in World War II.

     The nature of this war is fundamentally psychological. This is not stated to minimize the tremendous death and destruction that has taken place, nor the fact that we are in combat in Afghanistan at the time that I am writing this. Rather, this is stated to highlight the fact that the aim of the terrorists is to create crippling fear and psychological debilitation in the populace in order to force the U.S. to get out of all Muslim lands.

     The psychological impact has been very significant. We all felt and still feel to some extent the shock and grief that came in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on 9/11. We are beginning to experience the worst of the trauma responses to the attacks, which occur months after the traumatic event. In addition there are fears resulting from the escalating spate of anthrax incidents and the growing specter of biological and chemical terrorism. We also have the copycats, hoax perpetrators, and domestic terrorists, who have increased their activities (e.g, the mailing to family planning clinics of suspicious, but thankfully not anthrax infected, envelopes) . In addition to these very serious threats, the daily fabric of our life is being disrupted. As some have said, the terrorists are putting sand into the gears of every day life. U.S. citizens now have to cope with increased difficulties and disruptions in air travel, postal deliveries, building evacuations, and the like. Clearly, the psychological toll of this war is likely to considerable.

     The APA Board of Directors Subcommittee on Psychology’s Response to Terrorism is looking at what psychologists can contribute to the efforts to address both the threat as well as the impact of terrorism, and thus be a key element of the response. I have written about the Subcommittee’s plans elsewhere (Levant, 2001).

     Like some readers of this column, I have recently tried to inform myself about the situation we are in, reading books on the Islamic world (Naipual, 1981), bin Laden and the al-Qaeda (Bergen, 2001; Bodansky, 2001), and the Taliban (Rashid, 2000). Although my knowledge of these matters is still quite limited (based as it is on popular books and news and magazine articles), there are some observations that are worth making, if only to put them forth as hypotheses for further investigation.

     One other caveat: In this column I am writing specifically about the al-Qaeda terrorist network and other like-minded groups and individuals, which constitute a specific segment of Islamic society, a segment which I later define using the term “Islamist”. My comments thus should not be taken as a reflection on Islamic culture as a whole, which I understand to quite diverse.

Some Observations About The Terrorists

Is This A Religious War?

     Sullivan (2001) suggests that, despite our strategically wise protestations to the contrary, this is a religious war. It is not a war of Islam vs. Christianity and Judaism, but rather “it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity” (p. 45). He is referring to a particular kind of fundamentalism, one that is committed to an Islamic worldview dating back to the 7th century. The followers of Islamic fundamentalism are not unlike the “true believers” described by Eric Hoffer. For example, bin Laden stated that “Our call is the call of Islam that was revealed to Muhammed” and that this is a religious war against “unbelief and unbelievers” (Sullivan 2001, p. 45).

Religion and Politics

     Islamic fundamentalism has been termed by some “radical militant Islamism” (Bodansky (2001, p. x). This term highlights the fusion of politics and religion that characterizes Islamic fundamentalism. This fusion is evident in bin Laden’s goal (in addition to forcing the West out of all Islamic Countries) to topple most current Islamic regimes (particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whom he considers “apostates”), and to replace them with theocracies such as existed in Iran under Ayatollah Khamanei or Afghanistan under the Taliban. This is clearly one major point of the culture clash between Islamism and the West, in that our civilization is based on the separation of church and state.

Islamism and Science

     Another one major point of the culture clash between Islamism and the West concerns science. Islamism is anti-science. Iranian scholar Hoveyda argues that Islamic civilization has essentially been frozen in the 12th century as a result of the confrontation with Christianity that began with the crusades (cited in Bodansky, 2001). I am not sure how accurate or appropriate such sweeping generalizations are. However it does seem clear that contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is anti-science. Bodansky (2001, p. xi, emphasis added) noted that the Islamist subscribes to the principal that “The Koran contains all the truth required in order to guide the believer in this world and open for him the gates of paradise”. From the Islamist perspective, the Sharia or Islamic law, based on the teachings of the Koran and related sacred writings, cannot be changed, only reinterpreted. Thus Islamism is a worldview in which the text of the Koran and its interpretations drive daily living and where there is no spirit of free inquiry nor of empiricism. Nobel prize winner V.S. Naipaul (1981, p. 46) in his book, Among the Believers, captures the essence of the Islamist worldview in his description of the course of study at the University of Qom in Iran under Khamanei’s rule: “…there was Arabic itself; there was grammar in all its branches; there was logic and rhetoric; there was jurisprudence…; there was Islamic philosophy; there were the Islamic sciences – biographies, geneologies, ‘correlations,’ traditions about the Prophet and his close companions.” This “science” curriculum clearly reflects a worldview in which knowledge can only be garnered from religious, as contrasted with empirical, study. A Paradox

     Despite the Islamist rejection of science and technology, bin Laden and the al-Qaeda make heavy use of contemporary technology such as satellite phones, laptop computers and fax machines. Atta and his collaborators learned to fly jet planes and somewhere in the world terrorists are probably hard at work making biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. In addition, many members of the leadership of al-Qaeda have received Western educations in science and technology, unlike either the uneducated Palestinian suicide bomber, or earlier terrorist groups whose members’ education was in Islamic law. So what gives? Bergen (2001), a CNN Journalist who interviewed bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan, stated that “This grafting of entirely modern sensibilities and techniques to the most radical interpretation of holy war is the hallmark of bin Laden’s network” (p. 28). While this comment describes the paradox, it does not explain it. Nor can I explain it. How do the al-Qaeda rationalize using modern technology while condemning the culture that produces it? Islamism and Women

     In the quote on the Koran above, I emphasized the word “him” to underscore the patriarchal and misogynistic character of Islamism. This is perhaps viewed in its most visible and unapologetic form in the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, in which women were essentially banned from public life. Rashid (2000, p. 105) describes a religious edict that was issued in 1997: “‘Stylish dress and decoration of women in hospitals is forbidden. Women are duty-bound to walk calmly and refrain from hitting their shoes on the ground, which makes noises’, the edict read. How the zealots could even see women’s make-up or their shoes, considering that all women were now garbed in the head to toe burkha was mystifying.”

     Islamist misogyny goes way beyond the highly visible tactics of the Taliban to include the brutality of some Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Kashmir “that specialize in throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women” (Ehrenreich, 2001, November 4), as well as the practice of “female circumcision” (a euphemism at best for such brutal practices as clitorectomy and infibulation) that is widespread in some parts of the Muslim world (Glazov, 2001, October 18).

     Ehrenreich (2001, November 4), rejects the idea that the rampant misogyny is simply a result of the Islamist rejection of the West and modernity. She speculates that it might also have roots in globalization: “Western Industry has displaced traditional crafts – female as well as male – and large-scale multinational controlled agriculture has downgraded the independent farmer to the status of hired hand. From West Africa to Southeast Asia these trends have resulted in massive male displacement, and frequently unemployment.” Hence she sees it as part of a world- wide masculinity crisis (Levant, 1997).

Islamism and Sexual Freedom

     Islamists reject Western notions of sexual freedom as “sick” (Naipual, 1981). Yet there remains an interesting fascination with sexuality, as reflected perhaps most enigmatically in Mohamed Atta’s spending his last night alive, before crashing a plane into the World Trade Center the next day, at a strip-joint. Why would a soon-to-be martyr, who believed that he would, upon his imminent death, become shaheed and immediately ascend to paradise, to be greeted there by 70 doe-eyed virgins and given non-ebriating wine, want to commit what appears on the face of it to be a huge violation of his religious principles? Was he trying to fortify his resolve to commit such a heinous act by convincing himself that the West was indeed sick? Or was he greatly ambivalent about his own sexuality, which he was required by Islamic law to suppress?

     Perhaps herein lies an explanation for some aspects of the misogyny. We know from research on male batterers (Levant, 1995) that some of them form narcissistic self-object relationships (Kohout, 1971) with their victims, and explain the beatings they administered by saying that they “lost control of themselves”. This explanation doesn’t bear up when they are interviewed and cannot answer questions such as: Why did they stop the beating when they did? Why didn’t they break bones, or send the victim to the hospital, or even kill her? Clearly there was some self-control. What these batterers really mean when they say they lost self-control is that they feared they were losing control over their victims, whom they have incorporated into their sense of self as a result of their narcissistic way of forming relationships.

     Could it be that a similar process is at work in the Islamist treatment of women? That is, do Islamist men take no responsibility for the control of their sexual urges but instead impute that to women, whom they regard as great temptresses? Perhaps something like this is at work, but there is also a larger factor, which is, simply speaking, male power. This is seen in the Islamist requirement to control sexuality outside of marriage, but yet permit men to have multiple marriages.

The Islamist Reaction to the West

     Immediately after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crashing of a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania, Palistinians were shown on TV dancing in the streets for joy. Commentators asked: “Why do they hate us so much”. I am not sure that the question is framed correctly, for the Islamist reaction to the West is surely more complex than simple hatred. For example, Sullivan (2001, p. 47) observes: “If you take your belief from books written more than a thousand years ago, and you believe in these texts literally, then the appearance of the modern world must truly terrify. If you believe that women should be consigned to polygamous, concealed servitude, than Manhattan must appear as Gomorrah. If you believe that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death…, then a world of same sex marriages is surely Sodom. It is not a big step to argue that such centers of evil should destroyed or undermined, as bin Laden does….”

     As always, I welcome your thoughts on this column. You can most easily contact me via email: (new address): levant@uakron.edu

References

Ajami, F. (2001, November 16). What the Muslim world is watching. New York Times Magazine, pp. 48-53, 76, 78.
Begley, S. (2001, November, 19). Energy: Can we live without Saudi Oil? Newsweek, 42-43.
Bergen, P.L. (2001). Holy war, Inc. New York: Free Press.
Bodansky, Y. (2001).Bib Laden: The man who declared war on America. New York: Forum
Ehrenreich, B. (2001, November 4). Veiled threat. Los Angeles Times
Glazov, J. (2001, October 18). Islam’s hatred of the clitoris. Front Page Magazine.
Kohout, H. (1971). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Levant, R. (1995). Male violence against female partners: Roots in male socialization and development. Speilberger, C., & Sarason, I. (eds.). Stress and Emotion: Vol 15. (pp. 91-100). Washington, D.C., Taylor, & Francis.
Levant, R. (1997). The masculinity crisis. Journal of Men's Studies, 5(3), 221-231.
Levant, R. (2001, Fall). APA Board of Directors Subcommittee on Psychology’s Response to Terrorism. Independent Practititioner (in press).
Naipaul, V. S. ( 1981). Among the believers: An Islamic journey. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rashid, A. (2000). Taliban: Miltant islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sullivan, A. (2001, October 7). This is a religious war. New York Times Magazine, pp.44-47
Zakeria, F. (2001, October 15). The culture of Islamic hate. Newsweek, pp. 22-40.

Biographical Sketch

Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D., A.B.P.P., is Recording Secretary of the American Psychological Association. He was the Chair of the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP) from 1993-95, a member of the Board of Directors of Division 29 (1991-94), a member of the APA Board of Directors (1995-97), and APA Recording Secretary (1998-2000). He is Dean, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Back to articles and columns listing