| Exploring the Roots of Terrorism (From Summer 2002) An Interview with James Wasserman by Griselda Steiner  As our sense of invulnerability went up in flames on 9/11, Americans have been trying to fathom the history and current circumstances that led to these unimaginable events. While the 20th century witnessed many reversals of national rivalry after World War II, the 21st is laying bare a culture clash that is over a thousand years old.James Wasserman's most recent book, The Templars and the Assassins—The Militia of Heaven, a fascinating study of two medieval Islamic sects, has already been translated into four languages and promises to become a modern classic on the subject of the holy warrior. Written and published before the recent attacks, the book illuminates our current dilemma because of the similarities between the modern terrorists and the medieval Islamic warriors Wasserman studied. The result of more than seven years of research, the book displays a profound grasp of both societies and their great conflict. The Templars and the Assassins chronicles the Christian brotherhood, the Knights Templar, prominent during the 200 years of the Crusades (1095–1292), and the Assassins, an esoteric faction of Islam vying for power in the Middle East and Persia at the same time. The first section deals with the history of Islam, giving us the necessary background. In the beginning, after the death of the Prophet, two branches emerged, each believing in different rights of succession. The Sunnis alleged that Muhammad had chosen as his successor, or Caliph (prince of the faithful), his father-in-law, Abu Bakr. The Shiites believed the Sunnis were abandoning the true teachings in their efforts to build an Islamic empire, and that leadership should be derived through bloodline. They chose Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, as their leader. In 765, Shiism gave birth to another faction—the Ismailis, whose imams (priests or spiritual masters) developed a following in relative secrecy and created a body of intellectual theological teachings. They organized a teaching network, the dawa, in which the imam's representative, or da (summoner), passed along the sect's wisdom. A further schism in 1094 led to the emergence of the Nizari Ismailis, popularly known as the Assassins. The mystic and political visionary Hasan-i-Sabah was leader of the Nizaris until his death in 1124. His rise to power was marked by an ironic mixture of astute spiritual leadership and trickery, betrayal and assassination. We are grateful that Mr. Wasserman has agreed to share the fruits of his continuing research with Organica readers. Griselda Steiner: What motivated you to write the book? For most of my adult life, I have been a member of a society that claims access to the teachings shared by the Templars and the Assassins, and I have long been captivated by their history. I am also interested in secret societies in general, both those of a spiritual nature and those whose goals are political. Other books I have published on mystical themes are Art and Symbols of the Occult (Inner Traditions) and The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Chronicle Books). The first edition of The Templars and the Assassins came off press on May 15, 2001. During the summer, I began work on its sequel, entitled The Divine Warrior. However, the horrific events of September 11th created a great deal of psychic tension in me because the methods and organizational structure employed by the terrorists against America were reminiscent of those I discussed in my book. GS: Can you be more specific? What militant techniques did the Assassins use that were similar to those of modern terrorists? Like the Assassins, the 9/11 hijackers wormed their way into the society they would attack. They blended into American culture, speaking English, using credit cards and remaining clean-shaven. The semi-autonomous structure of the terrorist cells was also reminiscent of the Assassins. The objective of their missions and operational plans of cells were known only to the leaders, who could not identify other cells. This design safeguarded their larger strategic objectives in the event of betrayal or discovery. GS: What differences do you see between the medieval Assassins and the modern terrorists? The political activities of the medieval Assassins were directed against individual policy makers. Those who follow the spiritual path share a basic respect for human life common to initiates of all traditions. I propose that Hasan-i-Sabah and his successors were living examples of this. In fact, I praise them in my book as pursuing a more humane approach to political ascendancy by targeting and assassinating opposing leaders. When the Mongols invaded Islam in the mid-13th century, they demonstrated indiscriminate ferocity, slaughtering tens of thousands. Hasan-i-Sabah, on the other hand, appears to have murdered some 50 opponents in his 35-year career. Hasan, like the early Greek scientist Archimedes ("Give me a lever and I shall move the world"), understood the physics of carefully applied force achieving maximum results. Modern Muslim terrorists lack the discipline and dignity demonstrated by the Assassins of yore. Osama bin Laden and his network, which hopefully will be dismantled, have no respect for human life or concern for spiritual consequences of random murder. There has been a romantic identification by many with bin Laden as a modern-day Robin Hood, a rebel with a cause hunted by the power structure of the New World Order. Bin Laden expressed his admiration for the Taliban state as approaching his ideal Muslim political structure. Although the apparent humility of a government that refers to itself as "students" (the literal meaning of taliban) may seem worthy, we are not speaking of intellectuals pursuing knowledge. They were taught to accept the world as flat because it was pronounced by one of their mullahs as recently as the 1960s. GS: You state in your book that in gaining political power, "The intention of assassination was to create maximum intimidation and a psychological pattern of chronic fear and anticipation among Nizari enemies." The goal of today's terrorist appears the same. Look at the response to the 9/11 bombings. A terrified American public is willingly accepting the shackles of the police state—warrantless searches, video surveillance, armed troops performing police functions and the promotion of national identity cards. These are precisely the demoralizing restrictions bin Laden and his cohorts hoped to impose on America. GS: What do you believe motivates today's terrorist's hatred against the West? Today's conflict has been going on for well over 5000 years. The continuous stream of hatred of the West expressed by extremists includes constant references to the Crusades. Bin Laden's umbrella organization, founded in 1998, is known as the World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In addition to gazing back to the time of the Prophet, the extremist Muslims have not advanced further than their worldview in the 12th century. To maintain this kind of hostility through the centuries is pathological. While uncounted trillions of dollars have flown into the coffers of the oil-producing lands, the extremists scream colonial oppression. Yet, their greatest grievance is against fellow Muslims. Some Middle Eastern Islamic states are ruled by corrupt oligarchies. The rulers of many Muslim countries that became independent of Western colonial rulership after World War II embraced failed political systems such as socialism in their attempt to modernize. This created central economic planning and bloated bureaucracies that maintained poverty and reliance on the Soviet empire. More recently, the disparity between the ruling classes and masses has motivated governments like the Saudi to encourage the spread of extremism. The purpose of their support is twofold. One is as a form of hush money to mitigate against anti-government rhetoric. The second is a practical program to export domestic troublemakers. Muslim governments are often hard-pressed to crack down on violence, afraid to be perceived as enemies of Islam. Finally, the use of the terrorist groups by states seeking to avoid international consequences is an effective ruse by which they pursue agendas. Thus states like Iran, Libya, Syria and Iraq gladly employ the type of plausible deniability provided by someone like bin Laden. GS: How would you define militant Islam today? Militant Islam is equal parts a revolutionary political movement and fundamentalist religious revivalism. It transcends the boundaries of state. Language barriers and national identities recede before the unity of religious belief and sense of the destined mission of Islam. The movement burst into world attention on September 5, 1972, when Black September murdered Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics. However, this action, taken under Arafat's Marxist PLO banner, was secular and atheistic at its core. It was a political protest against the Israeli state. The Iranian revolution in 1979 heralded the emergence of the fundamentalist Muslim state and the proclamation of religious Jihad against the unbeliever and infidel. Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shiite leader of Iran (Persia), must be seen in some measure as a successor to Hasan-i-Sabah. He was able to organize a band of powerless, stateless, religious rebels into a group capable of overtaking one of the most powerful military machines of the Middle East that had the "full support" of the West. Khomeini also accomplished something that Hasan did not—the union of fundamentalist Shiites with fundamentalist Sunnis. When the modern Islamic Terrorist Network was born, in large part directed from Tehran, a thousand-year-old dream was realized. GS: In Islam, the lines between religion, politics and militancy are finely or never drawn. What inherent concepts led to this? In the history of Islam as related in my book, particularly tracing the Sunni/Shiite split, we see that the Muslim faith is susceptible to schism and political tension. The reason is nearly equal doses of politics and religion that are its essential teaching.  Ideally, Islamic society is a theocracy. The mullah, sheikh or imam is considered by the faithful as the most competent person to interpret Muslim religious doctrine, offer spiritual counseling and provide political leadership. While Islam's monotheistic predecessors, Judaism and Christianity, both had theocratic yearnings, Western culture's respect for individuality mitigated against the establishment of a state run by clergy. On the other hand, Islam has an Oriental collectivism at its core that encourages the idea that religious purity is an aspect of state responsibility. The most convenient excuse for Islamic violence is generally U.S. support for Israel. However, the roots of fundamentalist Sunni hatred extend considerably further back in time. The Salafiyya (community of True Believers) look back to the first three generations of Muslims for their inspiration. They believe they are the chosen of Islam, the one true community who will not be cast into Hell. They further believe that as Islam is the religion of Allah, it is the proper religion for every human being. Among those accepted as representatives of the Salafiiyyah is Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahab (1703–1792), who preached a return to the ways of the Prophet. His source of inspiration was theologian Ibn Taymiyah (1263–1328) of the 9th century Hanbali School of Islamic law. Wahab's message of fundamentalist reform was embraced by Muhammad ibn Saud, who conquered Mecca in 1806. His descendants established and now rule modern Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalist Wahabism remains the state religion of Saudi Arabia and its radical mullahs are being exported to mosques throughout the United States and Europe. GS: Do you believe the West has a chance to eradicate dangerous Muslim extremism? The goal of Muslim extremists is world domination through the establishment of a world government in which Islamic principles are the law of every land. This presents an intriguing contrast to the proposed tyranny of the secular, internationalist movement that seeks to bind the "world community" into a global government that I believe is equally pernicious. If Americans seek to remain a free people, we will refuse both sets of chains. The tools we need to defeat the Islamists involve a return to our roots as a nation and as human beings. We are dealing with an enemy who is primitive, not one with whom we can negotiate. We cannot be polite; that is interpreted by this enemy as weakness. I believe the terrorists' greatest mistake was to assume that President Bush's policies would be a continuation of his predecessor's. We need to embrace the virtues of patriotism, militarism and decisiveness, as well as the common sense requirements of self-defense and national self-interest. On the other hand, I think an outreach to Muslim people is in order. I happen to agree that the Iranian government should be considered part of an "axis of evil." However, there are many Iranian people who seek freedoms offered by the West. We made a terrible mistake in Afghanistan by successfully using their men as proxy fighters against the Soviets at the end of the Cold War and then abandoning them. I firmly believe that our uniquely Western concepts such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" offer a far better political model that will triumph in the world of ideas—if we are brave enough to continue to live by them. Griselda Steiner is a freelance writer and dramatist living in Manhattan. Her major work is dedicated to supporting feminine spirituality. Photo Caption: James Wasserman's The Templars and the Assassins—The Militia of Heaven (Inner Traditions, 2001) chronicles Islam's thousand-year-old culture clash. Similarities between medieval and modern terrorists have made the book, published months before the 9/11 attacks, more timely. Photo: Illia Tulloch |
