Understanding the Root Causes       

of Radicalization, ISIS, and  

the Attack on Charlie Hebdo

anticlerical, provocative (and sometimes sophmoric) approaches to all religious traditions--had in recent years focused increasingly, almost relentlessly, on bigoted depictions of the Prophet Mohamed. In an unprecedented forum on the root causes of radicalization with the rise of ISIS and in the wake of Charlie Hebdo, CSID sought to go beyond accusations, condemnations, and misunderstanding on all sides, including Islamophobic rhetoric, to explore the religious, societal and geopolitical dynamics underlying events in France, in Europe, in Muslim majority countries, and globally. One goal was to move beyond the superficial binary of "Muslim radicals" against free speech.

The CSID Founding President Dr. Radwan Masmoudi welcomed the audience, reminding them that in an interconnected global village, what happens in one country affects everyone. He condemned the current violence and terrorism, which are crimes against humanity and against all faiths. Islam teaches that even in times of war, civilians and innocent people must be protected. While it is important to condemn violence and terrorism clearly, strongly, and unequivocally, condemnation is not enough. We must understand and remove its roots causes. While Muslims were offended by cartoons mocking the Prophet, those images do not justify assassinating civilians and journalists. The terrorist and criminal acts are much more offensive to Islam than the cartoons they claim justify violence. Perpetrators of those violent acts are neither Islamic nor Islamist, and calling them so helps them hide their despicable acts in the cloak of defending faith. Muslim scholars from Indonesia to Morocco have issued thousands of statements to clarify that these actions are contrary to the teachings and principles of Islam. The overwhelming majority of both Muslims and Islamists are peaceful and believe in democracy and participate in the political processes in their countries.

The principle cause of this violence and extremism in Masmoudi's view is the existence of corrupt, ruthless regimes and dictatorships in the majority of Muslim countries. These regimes fail to provide their citizens with basic necessities,  decency or dignity. Millions of young people risk losing hope in peaceful, democratic change because of the nature of these regimes. Half of the population in the Arab world is under 26 years of age. An increasing portion of those losing hope are joining groups such as Al Qaida, ISIS, Ansar Sharia, Boko Haram, and others, and there is a risk many more will do so. Supporting human rights and democracy and giving young people a voice in determining their future is not a luxury we can avoid or neglect. Freedom and democracy are the best cure and antidote for rising violence and extremism. Masmoudi called on the U.S. and Europe to denounce all forms of oppression, corruption, or dictatorship committed in the name of Islam or of secularism. He called for new measures to stem the tide of discrimination, racism, alienation, isolation, and frustration experienced by Arab and Muslim youth in European and other western countries. He also called for an end to the civil war in Syria, which has already caused over several hundred thousand deaths there and rendered the country a factory and hub for global terrorism, through the implementation of a no fly zone. He called for an end to Western acquiescence to the regime in Egypt and full-throttled support for democracy, freedom, and dignity through the Arab and Muslim world. Finally, he called for a new moderate Islamic narrative for the 21st century from credible, independent Muslim scholars to combat radical Salafism and Wahabism.

National Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Nihad Awad lamented that recent weeks have been tough for American Muslims like the period after 9/11.  The conversation has focused too much on Islam and Muslims and not enough on true causes of radicalization. American Muslims, especially the young, are tired of the constant call for condemnation and apologies for terrorism when Christian and Jewish leaders are never called on to do the same when violence is perpetrated in their name by terrorists like Anders Breivik, who had a 1500-page manifesto citing Christian beliefs and Christian identity, or in the case of anti-abortion violence framed as Christian duty. Young American Muslims are tired of hearing that they are suspect not for whatever they do but because of their faith. They are tired of so much effort spent on countering radicalization and violent extremism in Muslim communities when statistically speaking violent acts are much more likely to come from rightwing groups. Why is this the case? Because the media devotes inordinately greater amounts of airtime to stories involving Muslims, furthering negative impressions about Islam among the citizenry, even though as noted in an op-ed by Karen Armstrog that there is nothing more violent about Islam in its texts or in its history than Christianity. 

On free speech, Awad was unequivocal. The Prophet Mohamed was ridiculed and mocked and called a liar and a sorcerer. He called on his followers when faced with mockery to be patience; ignorance should be met with peace. Freedom, in fact, is the "foundation of Islamic belief." Chapter 2, Verse 256 of the Koran says "Let there be no compulsion in religion." Muslims have the freedom to express themselves, to believe in God, even not to believe in God; that is their right. As for root causes, most people who are radicalized are radicalized over the internet, not by imams and not by sermons. The government does not have control over this, nor do parents; it is uncontrolled "white space." Extremists cite real grievances regarding Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, oppression, repression, and lack of democracy. These are not valid justifications for extremist violence because there are none.

Dalia Mogahed is Director of Research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, former Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim 

Studies and author of Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. She warned against a tendency to conflate the debate around terrorism with the debate around free speech. Terrorism cannot be excused or explained by the cartoons or any other provocation, but can be explained as violent acts of provocation. The target in the case of Charlie Hebdo was Europe's remaining "sacred" symbols, in this case liberty and freedom of speech. The goal was to ignite a war on cultural and religious lines. Terrorists hope they will be portrayed widely as representing Muslims, which creates new spaces for their rhetoric. Their goal is not to reassert the place of Muslims in French society, but to have their acts conflated with the entire Muslim community and so that they can be anointed their representatives by the press and pundits. 

The U.S. has more free speech than any country in the world (and significantly more than France), but the society has decided nonetheless that certain things cannot be said, not because they are illegal but because they are immoral. We rightly cringe at racist depictions, and we have decided as a society not to depict people in certain ways, again not for legal reasons. She said she was offended by the Charlie cartoons not as a Muslim, but as an American, because they reminded her of Jim Crow era depictions of African Americans. France, she said, needs to hurry up and join with the moral indignation that bigoted cartoons increasingly provoke in most societies. Finally, the main issue at hand in the recent U.S. Islamophobic backlash is fear. Fear of foreign influence, manufactured fear of other religions, all of which lead to efforts to pass state laws against sharia, which is in no way a threat to American jurisprudence. Later in the event, Mogahed made that point that the terrorists are not hijacking Islam, they are hijacking Muslim grievances, justifying illegal acts by associating them with widely shared common causes among young people. The worst thing that can happen is to allow extremists to hijack these grievances.

Imam Talib Shareef is the President and 4th Imam of the Nation's Mosque, the historic Masjid Muhammad in Washington DC, and long served as a leading and groundbreaking U.S. military chaplain. He expressed condolences to the families of the victims   of terrorism and read his statement (in America's oldest Muslim newspaper) adding, "Without free press, there would be no Muslim journal in America." In the statement, he said that the attack in France was an attack on humanity and on free speech globally. Such criminal acts are not condoned by Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of the "beautiful faith communities." He said that not everyone who picks up a gun in defense of religion is an authority on religion.  He emphasized that the Prophet responded to verbal and physical attacks with "prayers, kindness, mercy, and forgiveness."

He said that the "deep" roots of radicalization go back to the Crusades and colonialism, and that there were also more modern causes, such as the Palestinian situation. He said that the decline of Islamic civilization in the Middle East since the Golden Age had caused negative psychic repercussions in  Muslim communities. Shockingly low literacy rates in many countries in modern times complicates matters, along with corruption and despotism. He singled out Saudi Arabian intolerance toward minority religions as a cause of generalized religious intolerance and of the mentality that led to 9/11. Some terrorists and criminals are motivated by desperation; others by provocation; and still others by lack of loving attention within families. He said that people who know little about Islam were falling in with criminal terrorists in part because of their attraction to beautiful but misappropriated religious language.

James Le Sueur, Professor of History at Univeristy of Nebraska Lincoln and a leading French historian, filmmaker, and author of several books including  

Uncivil War: Intellectuals and Identity Politics, 

noted that France has a long history of flux,  

strife, discord, and debates over free speech and laicité, or secularism. Modern identity politics was complicating matters further. Since its revolution, France has had 17 constitutions, five republics, two emperors (with empires), and a number of restorations. The present Fifth Republic had come to power through a coup détat in 1958, and its new constitution's Article 1 began with the issue of laicité. Growing out of a long French tradition of anticlericalism, laicité was articulated for the first time in 1989 in the context of the debate over the wearing of the veil.