“Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?” Anon.

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate Most Merciful

It seems that the desire for violence and murder, either by the so-called “Jihadists” or by the “Superpowers” of this world has become the most prominent phenomena of the 21st century. As we waved goodbye to the second millennia, we were welcomed to the new époque by disastrous events in the United States. What followed was even more dismal; the massacres of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to the “Jihadist” activity. The “war on terror”, as it has come to be known, responded to terrorism with much of the same; more terror.

The reasons behind this madness—and yes, there are reasons to this madness—can be summed up in two short justifications. First, the dominance of realpolitik in contemporary international relations, and second—consequently—the desire of supremacy and the infinite will to acquire hegemony.


Realpolitik and the Inside/Outside theory

Scholars have often presented various theories of human behaviour; within the context of International Relations (IR), idealism and realism represent two polar opposites. Whereas the former holds optimistic views vis-à-vis human nature and its behaviour, the latter insists that humans are greedy and brutish; the “state of nature” is one of anarchy and chaos.

‘Offensive Realism’ goes one step further; it—amongst other theories—distinguishes between the “inside” and the “outside”. According to the offensive realist perspective, a powerful state enjoys relative harmony and rule of law in the “inside”—i.e. the state-citizen relationship is a civil one, where the state provides security and protects the freedom and well-being of its citizens and in turn the citizens obey the laws and are active members of society—the “outside” however, is an arena of anarchy and chaos.

The state, in its relationship with “non-insiders” cannot uphold the same values and principals that it does with its citizens. In other words, the rule of law and the respect of freedoms that exists in the “inside” is absent in the “outside”. Consequently, insiders form a profound sense of community; members are citizens and the state of nature is that of respect, tolerance and liberty from tyranny.

So far, it is not clear how this “inside/outside” theory is linked to the issue in question. Allow me to elaborate this theory further and add a new assumption that maybe of benefit to us in comprehending the reasons for the on-going wave of violence.

The aforementioned theory is rightly applicable to Western states; one only need to observe the so-called “double standards” that are aplenty. Why is a life of one Westerner—an insider—valued more than that of a non-Westerner—an outsider? Does the death of 3,000 insiders justify the death of 600,000 outsiders?

The reality is that we in the West do not regard “death” as an independent occurrence, whose death is of great importance; the death of one’s neighbour will cause more sadness than the death of a fellow countryman whom I have no relations with, and the death of an Iraqi/Afghan/Palestinian infant/child/woman/old man will matter even less to me. Not because I am cruel or lack any sense of morality, but because I care more about my fellow insiders than I do about anyone else.

If this is how life—the most precious of gifts—is viewed, then there is no reason to mention further issues.

This is the dilemma; the inside in the eyes of a Muslim is not merely his/her own state, or the larger Union of states, it is the entire Muslim Umma. The sense of a greater Umma does not exist within a Western mentality, indeed, there exists greater Unions—i.e. the European Union—but the formation of such groupings is driven by economic incentives rather than profound emotional ties that exist across the Muslim Umma.

However, the “inside/outside” theory applies inversely in the Muslim realm. The sense of an Umma may be strong, yet the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens is that of brutality and tyranny. The state is weak and thus relies on “outsiders” to prolong its existence and acquire legitimacy, in doing so, the “inside/outside” divide is reversed—the former is a state of chaos where the rule of law is absent and the latter is characterised through respect and adoration.

A Muslim state that does not respect its members and is full of awe for outsiders and a Western state that deals with its citizens favourably and disregards the rights and freedoms of outsiders; a potent situation indeed. This is further exacerbated as a result of the “supremacist” mentality that is prominent amongst both Westerners and Islamists alike, the following chapter of this essay will shed light on this issue.