A Critical Review of Radical Pathways: Understanding Muslim Radicalization in Indonesia

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

Wright has a special way of explaining things. When reading this book, a reader need not have a background knowledge on terrorism, Wright crafts the book in such a way that it consists of a ten page list of the main characters, fifty pages of notes, a list of interviews held, a bibliography and a clear bibliography for those who would love research the topic more. He also

The report looks at the rise of Islamist militancy and the JI network, and discusses terrorism in the

Islamic terrorist groups, in Indonesia, have weakened the countries democracy by infusing fear on the non-Muslim communities. Bali a tourist city where the government is very tolerant with non-Muslim behavior was bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a terrorist group, on October 12, 2002. The bombings in Bali sent a clear message, to its citizens, that any behavior that went against Islamic

The definition of ''radicalization'' continues to be subject to much debates and controversy. Many have put forward their own understandings, providing different challenges in conceptualizing this term. As mentioned at the introduction, the term ''radicalization'' has many meanings and while it may not have an accepted definition some critics have voiced their concerns that the idea of radicalization could be used to ''criminalize protest, dishonor any form of radical thinking and label political disagreement as potentially dangerous'' (Neumann, 2008: 3). While it is an established concept, defining radicalization poses challenges of perception, ideology and religion.

The notion that we are in a “new” era of terrorism is a concept frequently discussed by many scholars. Despite the term being coined in the 1990s, it has quickly gained significance after 9/11. This ‘New’ era is presumably characterized by many factors such as(Duyvesteyn,2010,p443); religious fanaticism rather than the political motivations of traditional Right Wing Dissident Terrorists(RWDT’s); the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians; shift to the use of loosely organised networks as opposed to RWDT’s vertically organized hierarchical structure; tendency of ‘new’ terrorists to operate along transnational lines; and the potential of Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD’s), with the intention to distribute maximum destruction. However, this concept has been challenged by the fact that traditional RWDT’s have conducted indiscriminate acts of violence; as well as there being evidence of ‘New’ terrorists not being purely religiously oriented. This suggests that there are several ideological similarities that ‘new’ terrorism may share with traditional RWDT. Despite this there are also inconsistencies with its characteristics, such as the lack of WMD’s in the tactics of ‘New’ terrorists. Sceptics argue that this terrorism may not necessarily be ‘new’ but rejuvenated and could potentially be ‘artificial’(Kurtulus,2011,p479). Spencer (Kurtulus, p479) captures the possibility of ‘New’ terrorism being used profoundly at a time of peril and heightened concerns (9/11) in order to

in countries of interest has bred malcontent. The recent spread of ISIS through its social media presence has furthered the spread of fundamentalist ideologies and beliefs. My objective in this paper is to discuss the animosity between the East and West with respect to Islam in the modern world. Through the lens of a religion scholar, I seek to explore the formation of fundamentalist Islamic groups,

Terrorism centred on religious motives and aims adopt features that engender them to be more susceptible to committing severe acts of violence when compared with secular terrorist actors. Unlike secular groups, religious terrorist’ quests to attain the divine is often not bound by a region or state, they often seek global dominance and wish for their violent acts to coerce political goings transnationally and achieve mass violence on an international scale(?). Justification through contorted interpretations of scripture enable them to dismiss laws and universal norms that restrict them from committing gross violations of human rights that sometime bound secular actors. Often, they can attain the divine through acts such as suicide, glorifying despicable acts and labelling it as divine or holy. Reducing their perceived injustice to a war where it is good vs. evil enables them to dehumanise their broad interpretation of legitimate targets, often employing derogatory language to reduce the innocence of their victims mentally. Religious terrorists are also guilty of placing the consequences of their actions in gods hands. To demonstrate these different structures, this essay will contrast the secular group, AFLKJ, and Aum Shinrikyo – a terrorist group dominated by religious dogma(?) in an effort to portray that religious terrorist groups are inherently more violent.

Situated in the current literature on terrorism, the “four waves” of international terrorism was coined by David Rapoport. He describes waves as “a cycle of activity in a given time period,” one that is “characterized by expansion and contraction phases,” and its chief feature is its international character, where the activities in the several afflicted countries are “driven by a common predominant energy that shapes the participating groups’ characteristics and mutual relationships.” Having traced through history the direction of modern terrorism dating as far back as 1880, Rapaport lists four distinct waves of terrorism: anarchism, anti-colonialism, communism/socialism, and religious fundamentalism; the names of which reflecting

In his autobiography ‘Radical’, Maajid Nawaz, a former member of the radical Islamist organization, Hizb al-Tahrir (HT), outlines the differences between Islam, Islamism, and Jihadism, three different concepts that are key in understanding radical groups within the Muslim world. Firstly, Nawaz defines Islam quite simply; it is a religion, defined similarly to all other faiths. Islamism, on the other hand, is defined as “the desire to impose Islam over society as law”. It is an ideological thought that seeks to develop a coherent political system that can house all schisms within Islam. Finally, jihadism is a militant strand of Islamism that is “the merger of literalist religion with Islamist politics” (Nawaz, 13). One can make the argument that Islamism and jihadism, while obviously they do not promote the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, come from the same source; religion.

The affair between the Islamic race and the rest of the world is a complicated one. Preached by the stubborn and paranoid, an unjustified generalization has been forced upon all practitioners of the Islamic faith. Following tragedies inflicted by radicalists, some have taken it upon themselves to label each and every muslim, “terrorists” considered to be too dangerous to live among other people. Innocent men and women have fled from the

October 12, 2002 would become a decisive turning point for foreign and domestic politics in Indonesia. On that day, the lives of over two hundred and two people were claimed after three bombs were denoted simultaneously in Bali and one in Sulawesi. This act of violence was to become the most devastating act of terrorism on Indonesian soil. The Bali bombing can be viewed as the most devastating act of terrorism not only because the bombing was the first attack against the country, but also because the attack itself can be viewed within the typical framework of the ~{!.~}revolt against the West~{!/~} as Bellamy (2005) has argued.

Many people think terrorism and islamic militancy is a product of long-lasting religious traditions in the islamic world. However, when delving deeper into the origins of this radical violence related to islam, and the middle east, it becomes apparent it is connected to many different global and political factors that have led to it’s significance on the world-stage. The question arises, why is Islam so directly connected to violence? This can be due to the lack of knowledge, it is essential to recognize the need for a more accurate understanding of Islam. In order to make sense of the jihad, for instance, it is helpful to know more about Islamic understandings of God, revelation, and the religious and social requirements for the faithful. Events which may have had individuals questioning acts of terrorism are events such as, 9/11, the attacks in France and the drone strikes. Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism causes terrorism, it isn 't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious nationalism does not cause terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. Moreover there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon; it is a specific kind of political and global violence committed

Well known peace activist Mhatma Gandhi once preached, “Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak.” Ghandi dedicated his life to independence for each and every person on Earth. We live in a world where countries’ biggest fear is the threat of terrorism. To many, terrorism may only seem to be stories in the history books, but in reality in today’s world terrorism is a heightened menace. Terrorism, when defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, means any activities that “involve of violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to effect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” (Federal Bureau of Investigation). While some attacks are far more infamous than others, there have been countless terror attacks on the United States of America alone. Not to mention surrounding countries, territories, etc. all over the world. Terrorism rears its ugly head in all different sizes and I believe all measures should be taken to stop this despicable act. Throughout research, I’ve discovered many factors relevant to the history, current, and future threat of terrorism, along with the different perspective groups of the functionalists, conflict theorists, and symbolic interactionists.