Culture Clash: Investigating the Nexus Between Western-Muslim Ideological Dissonance and Islamist Terrorism[1]

 

By William P. Bloss

 

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of The Citadel Foundation in the completion of this study. Views expressed herein are those solely of the author.

 

 

 

Abstract

            In recent years the disharmony between Western and Muslim religious, political, and social ideologies has risen.  These widening differences have contributed, in part, to Islamist militancy, global acts of terrorism, and Western counter-terrorism campaigns. This paper examines the principal elements of the two ideological perspectives. It analyzes the relationship between the oppositional points of view, escalating conflicts between Western and Muslim concerns, and transnational terrorism.  As demonizing rhetoric, propagandizing, and state and group violence increase, ideological disaccord is strategically used to promote and justify the actions of Islamist terrorists and Western nation counter-terrorism responses.

Introduction

            A survey of the evolution of civilizations reveals the emergence of numerous distinct cultures dating from pre-modern to the post-modern era. Some have been cemented through the creation of great empires while others have grown out of a collection of religious, ethnic, linguistic, political, or historical influences (Esposito, 1999). Over the centuries cultural differences have led to disharmony and ranged to a level of enmity which results in warfare. 

            This paper examines the nexus between Western and Islamist ideological dissonance and jihadist terrorism. It argues that Islamist’s justify their terrorist behavior based on a disdain for Western ideological characteristics such as secularism, individualism, capitalism, market populism, and modernism.  In response to their opposition to the Western ideals, and its ideological marginalization of religion, Islamists have demonized Western societies and launched a religious war against them. This analysis concludes that the characteristics of the two ideologies are inherently and substantively oppositional thereby enabling Islamists to use the discord as justification for committing terrorism acts.

Western Presence in the Middle East

Following WWII many of the Western European powers decolonized territories under their control.  Many of these holdings had been their possessions for centuries while others they acquired as a result of treaties in the aftermath of WWI. Among the areas occupied were portions of historic Muslim lands of the Middle East.  Under the mandates of the League of Nations, France and Great Britain divided up the former Ottoman Empire taking control over Muslim states and territories across the region. In the Middle East these included Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and Palestine (Harik, 2003, p. 29). During WWII Persia was occupied by allied forces and Great Britain placed a Western-friendly leader Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in power. In 1948, the new state of Israel was created in the former Palestine by the United Nations with support of the U.S. and the U.K. These events not only brought Westerners and Muslims in close proximity but the establishment of Israel was viewed by many Arab governments and Muslims as an illegitimate appropriation of native Palestinian lands and subjugation of its people.

During the Cold War the superpowers postured for control, or at the least, influence over countries around the world. They focused special attention on weakened states or those with strategic significance. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were actively involved in arming states and groups across the Middle East to deny the other’s ally from achieving a military advantage. Yet, their meddling not only contributed to the power struggle among themselves but it dangerously militarized Muslim conflicts. Notably, the Iran-Iraq, Israel-Arab, and Soviet-Afghan wars were exacerbated by the infusion of arms into the conflicts by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. At the same time, Islamization was well underway in the Middle East. Both U.S. support for Israel and Western influence in the Middle East provided the impetus for the increasing radicalization of Islamic factions across the Muslim world (see Norton, 2007).  In addition to Western influence, regional politics have been shaped by Islamic cultures in the Middle East.

Conceptualizing Culture Conflict

            Islam has played a critical role in creating a cultural identity for many groups. In fact, where diverse nationality groups coalesce, being Muslim can transcend national identity (Cherribi, 2003). And yet, being Muslim is not one dimensional since there are two principal branches — Sunni and Shii — and several sects represented within Islam (Esposito, 1998).  Each has its own traditions and theological interpretations which can differentiate religious practice and ritual. In site of these differences, Islam is a cultural religion which provides guidance for followers. As an example,  Kazemzadeh (1998) uses the “Islamic exceptionalism” paradigm to describe the comprehensive nature of Islam where the faith influences or dictates proper conduct in every aspect of public, private, and religious life.

            Scholars have debated the impact of cultural differences from a variety of perspectives. As an example, criminologist Thorsten Sellin explained that “culture conflict occurs when the rules expressed in the criminal law clash with the demands of group conduct norms” (Seigel, 1998, p. 182).  

In the context of terrorism, much of the current discourse centers on the origin of conflict inside or outside of cultures. Huntington (1996) described his theory of conflict based on eight modern cultural paradigms and their relationships with other cultures.  As with others, Huntington argues that religion is a principal component of any cultural construct. His thesis suggests that the likelihood of violence and conflict is considerably higher where divergent civilizations are in close proximity with one another.  More specifically, he considers the principal opponents in the modern world to be Christianity and Islam. Huntington (1996, p. 209) states “The twentieth-century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared with the continuing and deeply conflicted relation between Islam and Christianity.”   A suitable case study of Huntington’s argument is the Balkan region where Western, Slavic-Orthodox, and Islamic cultures exist side by side. White (2007, p. 58) claims that Christian (Western) and Islamic civilization groups are the most likely to be engaged in conflicts in relation to modern terrorism.

Although Huntington’s typology provides an appropriate framework to examine the relationship between Western and Islamic interests, not all scholars support the contention that civilizations are distinguished principally by religion. Esposito (1999) insists that the formation of a culture is subject to ethnic, geo-political, social, and historical influences. Moreover, he argues that the world of Islam is not a single culture or civilization but is characterized by significant cultural and nationality diversity. Others suggest that the clash of civilizations involving Islam is between radical and moderate factions within the religion (Pipes, 2003).

Socio-political Causes of Western-Islamic Discord

            Ideological differences between a “Western” and “Islamic” perspective of the world abound. Li (2002, p.403) suggests that the most common method of West-Islamic analysis is to dichotomize using “contrasting images…[such as] modernity versus tradition, progress versus backwardness, religion versus secularism, etc.”  This is an appropriate heuristic method to use here inasmuch as Westernism and Islamism are perceived by radical Islamists as distinctly oppositional. Among the modes of analysis is also to view the Western construct as consisting of several parallel tracks consistent with a secularist separation of religion and other aspects of public and private life. Conversely, the Islamist model is known by a religious doctrinal hegemony where Islamic societies commingle value, family, faith, legal, and political beliefs and practices. This baseline distinction is important to the analysis.

Elements of the Western Ideology

Being “Western” has several inherent elements that act to define the concept and ideological construct. These manifest themselves through ideology, culture, value construct, and economic and political systems.  The essential elements of Western ideology are secularism, capitalism, market populism, and modernity. 

Secularism

One of the key aspects of the Western ideology is secularization. Dating back to the Protestant reformation movement, Western socio-political systems eschewed commingling of church and state. Western societies embrace secular values (e.g., economic rationality, liberal democracy, individualism) as necessary components of their ideology. Hence, religious and political “separation” is a cornerstone of secularism. Separation is an essential ingredient in secularism. It is manifested in the increasing centrality and primacy of self in Western ideology.  In what Li (2002, p. 409) refers to as “expressive individualism,” self-driven societies and personal decision making are significant components in the Western cultural construct.

Several social, political, and religious influences led to the entrenchment of secularism in the Western ideology. Among those, the antithetical role of Christian reformations should not be overlooked in the development of secularism, individualism, and capitalism. First, Kurth (1998) posits that “Protestant deformation,” that is a modification of the dogma and hierarchical structure of Middle Age Christianity, became pivotal in the Western ideology inventions of secularism and capitalism. Both of which are integral precursors to Western industrialization, modernization, and globalization.  Second, unlike Islamic societies, Westerners consider religion a matter of personal preference. A religious or spiritual facet of life is not obligatory in the Western perspective.  Again, the decision to ascribe to a religious faith is an individualistic secularized activity. In the case of Christianity, active participation in the faith has been declining in North America and Western Europe.  Thus, individualism and socio-political forces have led to the desegregation and marginalization of religion in Western social, economic, and political systems. 

Interestingly, religious reformations, paradigmatic shifts in thought, industrialization, and individualism movements in Europe all contributed to the formation of Western capitalism and secularism (Kuhn, 1970). Huntington (1996) argues that although the West developed numerous political ideologies, they have not developed any organized religions. Conversely, the birthplace of Islam is geopolitically situated in the region where each of the Abrahamic religions evolved (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Capitalism and Free Market Populism

            Another precursor of Western ideology is the pursuit of capitalism and free market populism (Li, 2002). They advocate capitalism and democratization which are based on a market populism elevating the ideals of free markets, and its progeny individualism, expectation of civil right, freedom guarantee, and self determination, to the level of deification (Cox, 1999).  Many of the effects of market populism such as materialism, consumerism, and objectification of wealth have become a quasi-religion for many Westerners (Frank, 2001). An overarching freedom ideal has led to many of the effects of self-determination and individualization in Western societies. Contrary to many other cultures or “civilizations,” the dominant Western focus is self-centric emphasizing the importance of the individual over the interests of the collective society. Whereas many Asian societies emphasize the primacy of the collectivity or community, Western cultural, political, legal, and liberal democratic systems center on the power of the individual.

Effects of Modernization

            Modernity is another pillar of progressive and advanced Western societies.  Modernization manifests itself through globalization effects such as technology, electronic communication, urbanization, mobility, cultural diversification, and other facets.  The technology revolution, whose effects have not only shaped but accelerated modernization, closely comports with Western ideologies as well as commercial, financial and political systems. Moreover, technology and information systems have become harbingers and integral components of modernism. Economic and trade globalization is marked by a techno-economic interdependence that positions information as the most valuable commodity (Friedman, 2005).

Due to rapid electronic communications, exposure to cross-cultural artifacts and values has become commonplace in the modern world. Either through mobility and migration or global communications, the distance between people and their cultures has dramatically shrunk (Shelley, 2005). As such, modern societies have become more culturally diverse than ever before. Close proximity between cultures within Western societies, due to intra-community contact or virtual enculturation through electronic communications, has become routine in modern Western societies.

Although modernization has provided many positive benefits for Western societies, it has also contributed to a marginalization of religion and increased deviance. Shelley (1981) argues that modernization has facilitated the evolution of crime due to the effects industrialization and urbanization.  Specifically, she insists that the modernity created an environment conducive to the reduction in social and family controls needed to inhibit deviance and crime. Others posit that globalization effects (e.g., technology, migration, social and economic structure) also contribute to the proliferation of transnational crime and terrorism (Bloss, 2006, p. 34; Andreas, 2002).  Together, creating unwanted conditions which modernization Islamic critics argue erodes positive social controls and societal civility (see generally Stern, 2003).

Collectively, these pillars characterize the traits of the Western ideology. It depicts societies whose focus is on individualism and economic populism while marginalizing the influence of religion on state and public functions. Ideologically, it paints a picture that is in stark contrast to an Islamic fundamentalist view of a righteous society.

Elements of the Islamist Ideology

The tenets of the Western ideology are generally repugnant to Islamic religious ideologues (Esposito, 2002).  Just as the Western ideology contains certain characteristics, Islamism is typified by a particular Muslim perspective. Although Islamists can emanate from several branches or sects of Islam (i.e., Sunni, Shii, Wahabi, Salafist), their radicalized view of the Islamic world and its relationships with others profoundly shape their outlook. Specifically, “Islamist” here describes a Muslim who advocates social or political change through holy jihad — waging religious war against their adversaries using principally acts of terrorism to achieve their objective (Stern, 2003).  Modern Islamist and jihadist revivalists developed their “civilisational-cultural awakening” and inspiration from the influential writings of radical Muslim philosophers and scholars (Tibi, 2007).

Islamist Ideological Roots

            Early polemics by the 13th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who advocated the “oneness with God” and return to a fundamental Islam and the 18th century Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab who argued for a purification of Islam laid the philosophical foundation for Islamists. Later, in 1928 the Society of Muslim Brothers was founded in Cairo by Hasan al-Banna. The Brotherhood established the Salafist movement and an environment conducive to the cultivation of radical Islamist ideologies. It promoted “imposing a totalitarian Islamic government throughout the world” (Tibi, 2007, p. 39).

However, the Brotherhood’s most influential disciple was Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) (Palmer and Palmer, 2004).  Qutb’s firebrand writings called for the outright rejection of the West and destruction of corrupt Muslim governments. His agenda urged Muslims to return to a sacred form of Islam including a call to arms to wage a cosmic religious battle against the forces of darkness (i.e., West and corrupt Muslim governments) and to destroy heretics and infidels alike. Qutb considered the universal imposition of shari’a Islamic law as a solution for heretical secularism and corruption. 

Qutb’s writings continue to be an inspiration for modern Islamists and provide a blueprint for jihad to be viewed as the “sixth pillar” of Islam.  In fact, Tibi (2007, p. 39) described Qutb as “a pioneer of Islamism [who] continues to be its most influential ideologue across the globe.”  Qutb’s impact remains evident in many corners of the Islamist community. As an example, the Saudi founder of Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden was inspired by Qutb’s philosophy while studying as a college student and his jihadist ideology is attributable in part to that influence (Oliver, 2002).

Jihadism

It’s important to explicate the Muslim concept of jihad. Esposito (2002) argues that jihad is one of the most central features of Islam. To Muslims, jihad denotes the “struggle” one faces throughout their life course. One is continually faced with personal and interpersonal conflicts which range from internal faith struggles to warfare.  Some scholars consider holy jihad as a distinguishing feature of Islamists, differentiating them from Islamic terrorists motivated strictly by secular political ideals (Stern, 2003; Esposito, 2003; Hoffman, 1995).  Their signature tactic is the use of terrorism and political violence as a means of achieving their religious objective.

Jihadist Characteristics

Hoffman’s (1995) typology of jihadists contains several characteristics he argues separates deified terrorists from other types.

·        A dichotomized world view divided between good and evil

·        A dichotomized outcome of conversion to Islam or death

·        Killing adversaries becomes a sacramental act since they embody evil

·        Sacred ideology where jihadists speak for God

·        No social or political constraints since the mission is divine

·        Non-utilitarian and focused on their benefit

·        Important to demonize their enemy

Similarly, Juergensmeyer (2000) explains that religious terrorists rigidly view their conflict as a cosmic struggle between good and evil. As God’s warriors, the terrorists seek to purify the world of corrupted governments and nonbelievers. Their stance is nonnegotiable inasmuch as their adversary is evil and there is an urgent need to vanquish their foe. A perceived finality leads religious terrorists to sacrifice themselves as martyrs to triumphant in God’s holy war against evil. Thus, in their view the conflict is divinely supported, just, righteous, and all for the sake of good.

            Another characteristic of jihadists is the apocalyptic thinking found amongst some who promote Islamic holy war. White (2001) insists that combining an eschatological element to the jihadist mindset significantly amplifies the threat they pose.

Jihadist Justification

            Both Islamic history and Jihadist perspective are dominated by dichotomies. In Islamic history, the two principal branches of Islam are separated by a conflict between majority Sunnis and minority Shia. Aside from the differences in theological interpretation, their relationship has been characterized by centuries of enmity and armed conflict (Momen, 1987). Though jihadists can come from both branches, terrorist group ideology is found to divide along party lines. As an example, the justification used by the militant Shi’ite group Hezbollah differs from the predominantly Sunni perspective of Al-Qaeda (Norton, 2007; Harik, 2004; Hoffman, 2004).

A clear demarcation between good and evil is central to jihadist reasoning.  In their interpretation, “good” is characterized by a rigid fundamentalist perspective of Islamic belief and practice. Tibi (2007, p. 37) characterizes Jihadist Islamism as a religious totalitarianism stating “the phenomenon of Islamism combines a totalising movement and the ideology of political religion.”  Conversely, “bad” is defined by Islamists as nonbelievers who fail to yield to call for submission to Allah’s will by converting to Islam. In jihadist parlance those who reject religious conversion Islam are “infidels.”  More specifically, jihadists have politically and inaccurately modified the Muslim concept of “kafir” — an atheist — to be synonymous with nonbeliever (Esposito, 1998).

As Hoffman (1995) noted, demonizing the enemy is a facet of the jihadist mentality. Using a heuristic model to explain the terrorist mind-set, Borum (2003) posits that the development of an extremist ideology involves a four-stage process. In the first “context” stage the terrorist cites some undesirable event or condition (i.e., social or economic deprivation) claiming “it’s not right.” The second “comparison” stage consists of an allegation that the deprivation created an inequality that is “not fair.” Third, during the “attribution” stage the extremist blames the perpetrator by professing “it’s your fault.” In the final fourth “reaction” stage, the ideologue demonizes their enemy declaring “you’re evil” in an effort to focus their resentment on the chosen enemy.

Islamists demonize and target their near and far enemies (Laqueur, 2004). He argues that jihadists and Islamists consider the near governments of Muslim nations, that are corrupt, secular, or subject to Western hegemony or influence, to be adversaries. Their failure to install a fundamentalist Islamic leadership and establish shari’a legal systems aligns them with Western infidels. Islamists also target the Western nation far enemy. Typically, blaming them for abuses perpetrated against Muslims and Muslim countries. Moreover, Islamists accuse Western governments of working to destroy Islam (Laqueur, 2004). When taken together, Islamists vilify and target a wide range of adversaries under the aegis of global purification.

Opposition to Western Ideals

            The ideological relationship between the Western and Islamist perspectives is oppositional at the most basic level. Islamist and Western ideologies clash point to counterpoint on each essential tenet of their perspectives.  First, Islamism is predicated on a God-centric viewpoint. As noted, Western ideology is not only secular but fiercely individualistic. This model has relegated religion to a secondary position in society. Islamists consider Western marginalization of religion as Godless and atheistic. Second, Islamists view Western societies as plagued by idolatrous worship of materialism, moral depravity, and sinfulness (Esposito, 1999). Third, Western societies embrace and support many forms of modernization. For Islamists, Western modernity symbolizes the rejection of asceticism, chastity, morality, and righteous fundamentalism. Fourth and perhaps more importantly, Western societies have rebuffed Islamist efforts to compel conversion to fundamentalist Islam and therefore have chosen the path of evil and unrighteousness. Finally, Islamists claim that Western Christian nations seek to destroy Islam (Stern, 2003).  In sum, to Islamists the elements and practices of Western ideologies and societies represent the sacrilege of infidels. These differences act to provide the necessary justification and rationale for Islamists to view jihad as a solution.

Explanations for Western-Islamist Conflict

            Several factors contribute to the enmity between Western and Islamist ideologies. Islamic revivalist justification for holy jihad is framed in the context of historical, cultural, and political events.  Inspired by Islamic writers, clerics, and ideologues calling for religiously-based purification, Islamists have chosen jihadism as a preferred means to achieve that objective (Hoffman, 1995). A prerequisite of war is the designation of an adversary. Through ideological processes or sacred myths, Islamists have attributed Western ideologies and societies as the cause of evil and corruption (Borum, 2003; Stern, 2003). They have demonized the West and accused their ideologies and societies of propagating evil and corruption. Their solution is to wage a religious cosmic war against the evil West with the view of purifying the world by establishing Islamic caliphates which implement shari’a law.  Tibi (2007, p. 36) characterizes this rigid Islamist political model as a “totalitarian movement combined with a political religion.”

            Huntington (1996) insists that Islamic societies are the only ones in history to neither reconcile nor recover from the demise of their empire (632-1258 AD). Furthermore, Islamist discontent is fueled by the defeat of the Ottomans and occupation of the Holy Land. For Islamists, an ever present reminder of infidel desecration of historic Muslim lands is the 1948 creation of the state of Israel and its continuing subjugation of the Palestinian people (Harik, 2004). Hence, from the Christian Crusades to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamists cite ample evidence of the transgressions of Western infidels against Muslims and their lands.

            Islamism claims to be a deified cause which emanates from a religious-centric ideology. Western societies are staunchly secular and many have marginalized or excluded religion in their cultures, ideologies, and political systems. To Islamists, secularism signifies a refusal to submit to God’s will, which is obligatory for faithful Muslims. This profanation cannot remain unpunished and Islamists claim a duty to vindicate God by prosecuting a holy war against evil infidels (Juergensmeyer, 2000; Stern, 2003).

Lastly, most of the elements of Western ideologies and their manifestations through societal practices are viewed as offensive from an Islamist perspective of righteousness.  Western influences around the world have corrupted people and governments and spread irreverence and evil. Therefore, Islamists blame the West and Western-influenced governments for the lack of piety and degradation in the Muslim world.  In the same vein, Western “cultural triumphalism,” whereby the Western societies view their ideology of secularism, capitalism, individualism, and modernity to be more valid and superior to the Islamic religious hegemony and rejection of modernization, is considered a form of ethnocentrism that contributes to Western-Islamist conflict (Li, 2002, p. 404-405).

Islamists and jihadists have drawn from history, philosophy, politics, and cultures to devise provocation and justification to wage a holy war against the West and its ideologies. Through politicization and radicalization of Islamic principles, Islamists have carefully orchestrated a religious-political conflict between themselves and the West. They have demonized the West as the epitome of evil and blame them for Muslim marginalization, deprivation, and corruption.

Conclusion

            Huntington (1996) explained cultural conflict as a clash of “civilizations.”  Though some scholars criticized his Islamic and Western paradigms as culturally one dimensional and simplistic, the model provided a framework for analyzing cultural discord (Esposito, 1999; Pipes, 2003).  This paper’s principal thesis argues that the dissonance between radical Islamists and Western societies stems from a dispute among ideologies not cultures. Islamist terrorists represent a militant and extremist perspective drawn from an ultra-fundamentalist viewpoint. Inspired by writers advocating purification, holy jihad was proffered as a solution to the decline in Muslim power and position in the world. Modern Islamist terrorists have devised a totalitarian form of politicized Islam to supplant non-fundamentalist governments and legal systems in the world. Through political violence and acts of terrorism Islamists seek to convert or destroy all nonbelievers accusing them of being the source of evil in the Muslim world and beyond.

            Since religion is the fulcrum of their cause, Islamist ideology demonizes Western ideologies as playing a causal role for the moral impurity and religious marginalization that befalls societies. Islamists specifically cite the Western ideological components of secularism, individualism, capitalism, market populism, and modernism as the root causes of degradation and irreverence.  The ideological formulae between Islamist and Western are diametrically opposite and fundamentally different.

            Given the framework of Islamist jihad, no peaceful compromise is possible. Islamists have launched a dichotomous nonnegotiable cosmic war between evil (i.e., Western ideology) and good (i.e., radical Islamic fundamentalism). The eschatological nature of the Islamist and jihadist design bespeaks of finality and fatalism. As such, they pose a profound threat to civil societies around the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Their apocalyptic Islamist campaign is doomed to failure and will not change the forces of modernization influencing many parts of the world (Laqueur, 2004). In fact, Islamist ideology, policy, and terrorism will endanger facets of the Muslim ummah by culturally, economically, and politically increasing its marginalization and segregation in a diverse modern world.

            Islamist terrorists present a significant challenge for governments working to advance human rights, self-determination, individual freedom, and stable societies. Yet, they must continue to seek solutions and dedicate resources to ameliorating the social, economic, and political conditions that create an environment where extremism can flourish. It’s incumbent on policy makers, analysts, and scholars to continue dissecting radical Islamism in an effort to better understand ways to combat the threat and to strive to improve the quality of life for all people.

           

 

 

References

Andreas, Peter (2002). “Transnational Crime and Economic Globalization” in Mats

            Berdal and Maria Serrano (Eds.) Transnational Organized Crime and

            International Security: Business as Usual?, pp. 37-52, Boulder, CO: Lynne

            Rienner.

Bloss, William (2006). “Transforming Transnational Crime” in William Bloss (Ed.)

            Transnational Crime and Terrorism in a Global Context, pp. 33-40, New York:

            McGraw-Hill.

Borum, Randy (2003). “Understanding the Terrorist Mind-Set,” FBI Law Enforcement

            Bulletin, 7: 7-10.

Cherribi, Oussama (2003). “The Growing Islamization of Europe” in John Esposito and

            Francois Burgat (Eds.) Modernizing Europe: Religion in the Public Sphere in the

            Middle East and Europe, pp. 193-214, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

            Press.

Cox, Harvey (1999). “The Market is God,” The Atlantic Monthly, 283:3.

Esposito, John (1998). Islam, the straight path, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University

            Press.

___________ (1999). The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Frank, Thomas (2001). One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market  Populism,

 and the End of Economic Democracy, New York: Anchor Books.

Freidman, Thomas (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First

 Century, New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Harik, Judith. (2004). Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Hoffman, Bruce (1995). “Holy Terror: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a

            Religious Imperative,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 18: 271-284.

_____________ (2004). “The Changing Face of Al Qaeda and the Global War on

            Terrorism,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 27: 549-560.

Huntington, Samuel (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World

            Order. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Juergensmeyer, Mark (2000). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious

            Violence, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kazemzadeh, Masoud (1998). “Teaching the Politics of Islamic Fundamentalism,” PS:

 Political Science & Politics (March).

Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago: University                 of Chicago Press.

Kurth, James (1998). “The Protestant Deformation and American Foreign Policy,” Orbis

            42:2.

Laqueur, Walter (2004). “The Terrorism to Come,” Policy Review, 8:49-64.

Li, Xing (2002). “Dichotomies and Paradoxes: The West and Islam,” Global Society,

            16:4, 401-418.

Momen, Moojan (1987). An Introduction to Shi’i Islam. New Haven: Yale University

            Press.

Norton, Augustus (2007). Hezbollah: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

            University Press.

Oliver, Haneef (2002). The Wahabbi Myth: Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the

 Fictitious Link with bin Laden, Birmingham, UK: Salafi Publications.

Palmer, Monte and Princess Palmer (2004). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and

            America’s War on Terror, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Pipes, Daniel. (2003). Militant Islam Reaches America, New York: Norton.

Shelley, Louise (1981). Crime and Modernization: The Impact of Industrialization and        Urbanization on Crime, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

____________ (2005). “The Globalization of Crime” in Mangai Natarajan (Ed.)

            Introduction to International Criminal Justice, pp. 3-10, Boston, MA: McGraw-

            Hill.

Siegel, Larry (1998). Criminology, Sixth Edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Stern, Jessica. (2003). Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New

            York: Harper Collins.

Tibi, Bassam (2007). “The Totalitarianism of Jihadist Islamism and its Challenge to

            Europe and to Islam,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8:1, 35-54.

White, Jonathon (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security, Fifth Edition, Belmont, CA:

            Wadsworth.

_____________ (2001). “Political Eschatology: A Theology of Anti-Government

            Extremism,” American Behavioral Scientist, 44: 937-956.


[1] This paper is being presented on behalf of the author by Dr. Thomas Gilly. The author gratefully acknowledges his assistance. Please direct any inquiries to Dr. William P. Bloss, The Citadel, 171 Moultrie Street Charleston, SC 29409 USA.