In recent times, France has witnessed a series of attacks carried out by individuals not linked to established terrorist organizations or militant groups. These occurrences have become more frequent than those orchestrated by larger entities. This trend has worrisome implications, as identifying the adversary becomes challenging, allowing anyone to launch random assaults. This concept aligns with Foucault’s notion of power at the micro level, where the enemy resides within an individual’s psyche. The objective of these attacks extends beyond merely causing harm; it aims to instill terror. Notably, recent incidents in schools and churches symbolize an assault on Western values. The Muslim world perceives the ideals of liberal democracies as a threat, exemplified by the reactions to a speech by the French president on October 2nd, which intended to advocate Western liberal ideals but was viewed as menacing by the Muslim world. This perception stems from the belief that liberal democracy undermines core Islamic values, leading to an environment where radical Islam suppresses free speech and the coexistence of other religions.
The aftermath of these attacks offers insights into the conflict and the potential for future propagation. The Muslim world crafts a narrative that divides the world into two opposing ideologies, positioning the dominant ideology as their adversary. By endorsing these attacks, Muslim leaders not only lend legitimacy to such acts but also serve as inspiration for others. These attacks serve as a diversion from the internal challenges within Muslim-majority countries, highlighting the complex interplay between survival and the need to divert attention by using the West as a scapegoat. While leaders from France and other global powers have condemned these attacks, leaders in Muslim-majority countries like Turkey and Pakistan have indirectly supported the assailants by criticizing Western leaders, thus reinforcing the notion of an adversarial relationship.
When the West reinforces its commitment to liberal ideals and free speech, the Muslim world reacts by issuing statements that unite Muslims worldwide. This support for heinous acts serves a dual purpose: legitimizing the attacks and encouraging a wave of individuals capable of carrying out random assaults. While the West attempts to reform Islam, the Muslim world perceives such efforts, as well as Western democracy, as existential threats. The path to reform must be led by Muslim leaders themselves, focusing on educating their communities about the values of the countries they reside in.
To address the underlying issues, it is essential to discern whether the attacks stem solely from radical Islamic ideology or if they are rooted in perceived inequalities faced by Muslims in their host countries. The catalyst may not solely be radical ideology; historical inequities among migrants and minorities, compounded by a backdrop of colonialism, could play a role. The perception that the West is an enemy provides fertile ground for radicalization. The solution involves tackling discrimination against minorities and the active involvement of Muslim leaders in Western countries to impart the values of their adopted lands. Evidence suggests that lasting change of negative social norms requires an internal community effort rather than external imposition.
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians in Western nations, leaders in the Muslim world react by defending radical Islam and expressing solidarity with the attackers. This us-versus-them mentality prevails despite the legality of individual actions. Curiously, these same countries remain silent on the treatment of Muslims in nations like China, where economic interests take precedence over individual freedoms. Additionally, when conflicts arise within the Muslim community, there is a lack of solidarity or financial assistance from other Muslim countries towards those in need. This highlights the contrasting tolerance for in-group conflicts versus a lack of tolerance for out-group conflicts.
[2] Bicchieri, Cristina, and Annalisa Marini. “Female genital mutilation: Fundamentals, social expectations and change.” (2015).
