The rise of homegrown jihadists such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, condemned to death for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing, has caught counter-terrorism analysts off guard.
“What’s puzzling is that Tsarnaev was hardly an observant Muslim” said Peter Bergen, CNN’s national security analyst. In fact, Tsarnaev’s tweets had almost nothing to say about the practice of Islam and were typical for a 19-year-old American student interested in “sex, girls, marijuana and alcohol.”
So how did Tsarnaev become a jihadist? Because he was radicalized in the United States, the usual factors used to explain jihadist behavior — poverty, illiteracy, discrimination — do not seem to apply. The answer lies instead in the method developed by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance Islam in the West.
The Muslim Brotherhood traces its roots back to Sayyid Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, a late-19th century Islamic scholar. Al-Afghani originated three key ideas. The first is pan-Islamism, which encourages Muslims to set aside their disputes and unite. The second encourages Muslims to return to the original ideas of Islam as taught in the authentic Islamic sources. The third admonishes Muslims to take whatever actions necessary, including eliminating apostate leaders, to overcome obstacles that might impede the movement.
While living in Paris in the 1880s, al-Afghani and his student, Muhammad Abduh, founded the newspaper al-Urwah al-Wuthqa to advance their radical movement. In 1928 Muhammad Abduh’s student, Hasan al-Banah, gave the movement its official name — al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin — the Muslim Brotherhood.
After nearly a century, the Muslim Brotherhood has firmly established itself as an Islamic movement whose tactics and methods can challenge Western societies without initiating direct confrontation with them. And while almost all jihadi groups can trace their origins, directly or indirectly, to the Muslim Brotherhood, many Westerners believe it to be a movement of moderates.
Tsarnaev’s radicalization was a product of Al-Afghani’s efforts to revive Islam by teaching from the authentic Islamic sources. Radicalization is nothing more than the belief that the traditional interpretation of the Islamic sources is the true interpretation. The traditional interpretation flows from the literal language of the sources, so just teaching the sources is sufficient to ensure that young Muslims come to accept the traditional interpretation.
This method is powerful because it creates a heart commitment to Islam and encourages young Muslims to measure their personal worth by the expectations of the Islamic community. Having a heart commitment is not the same as being observant. Therefore, it is not surprising that someone who has a heart commitment but isn’t observant would rush to engage in jihad.
The mistake many counter-terrorism analysts make is to classify Muslims into only two groups, moderates and extremists. They seem to ignore the fact that there is a third group called reformists. Reformists believe the traditional interpretation of the Islamic sources is problematic because it encourages people to wage jihad and support the establishment of sharia. Lumping reformists in with moderates gives legitimacy to moderates who support the traditional interpretation.
It is crucial to support those who truly seek reform in Islam. While reformists admit that teaching the traditional interpretation places young Muslims on the path to radicalization, moderates generally don’t.
Condemning acts of violence is not sufficient; moderate Muslims must also reject and denounce the sources of those acts and declare them unacceptable.
Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran and is the author of two books on Islam. Maria Sliwa is an adjunct professor of Journalism at Columbia University Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
