R. Zgryziewicz, Theoretical Model of Violent Extremism

RSIS Commentary, 2019

ISIS may have suffered battlefield reverses, but in some respects – not least ideologically – it is resilient. Analysts, academics and security officials should resist the impulse to call time on the study of these types of issues – this mistake has been made before.

Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 2019

Purpose: The aim of the study is to investigate extremism as a complex inter-branch concept which complicates law enforcement practice. Methodology: This is an analytic-dialectical research whose data are obtained through the analysis of historical, legal and sociological texts and data. Main Findings: When defining extremism in the basic law of anti-extremist legislation, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the phenomenon, the concept of which should be formulated, is manifested in different spheres of social and political life. In conclusion, extremism creates an ideological basis for terrorism, but the acts of terrorism go beyond the concept of extremism. Applications: This article can be used by regional schools, cultural organizations and universities. Novelty/Originality: In this study, correlation between the phenomena of terrorism and extremism has been studied on the basis of definition for terrorist act given in part 1 of article 205 of the criminal code of the R...

Siyasat Arabiya, 2015

To describe something as a form of extremism, whether it is an idea, opinion, behavior, taste, or temperament, means—if we adhere to its literal meaning as a qualifier and a state—an idea or behavior taken to its utmost limit. Extremism is the affirmation of one aspect of a composite phenomenon at the expense of its others. The active subject to which the word is appended, can apply to an individual or a group, which can be ‘extreme’ in its violence or its non-violence, in its intolerance or its tolerance, in its moderation or centrism. This last juxtaposition reveals the sterility of the word, even as a term of art, let alone as a useful concept for the analysis of social phenomena. In our time, not a day passes without seeing or hearing the words ‘extremism’ or ‘extremists.’ Whether used to describe political positions and opinions, or styles and methods of political action, at every point it connotes stereotypes and a host of pre-conceptions, half-truths, and assumptions concerning groups of people branded as extreme. By the same token, violent acts these days tend to be deemed acts of “terrorism” if those who carry them out are characterized as extremists. In turn, ‘extremist’ might almost be a definition for terrorism: in this era terrorism as an act of violence is undertaken by extremists, even if it is directed against soldiers or occupying forces. Indeed, the very same act (killing of civilians, destruction of property with the intent to terrorize) is not considered terrorism if it is perpetrated by individuals who are not labeled as extremist, or without ties to so-called extremist groups. This process of labeling and association has numerous ramifications. One particularly significant outcome is that it becomes difficult to brand states as extremist. By definition states are not extremist, rather it is the state that applies the term to others. In this sense, terrorism is a political act of violence undertaken by an extremist person or group; the extremist then is not a state, inferring it is not possible for a state to be terrorist. In the past, extremism was applied to the right in the phrase “the extreme right” during the interwar period amid the rise of fascism, Nazism, and other nationalist movements, and to the “extreme left” in the 1960s and 1970s, and to national movements against colonialism viewed as extremist in comparison with those who cooperated with colonial forces (termed moderates). Today, however, ‘extremist’ evokes mostly the image of Jihadi Islamists, even if the term is not used in specific conjunction with Islam. This begs the questions: Can the word extremism be useful in understanding those labeled as such? Is it an analytical concept? Does it lend itself to understanding their practices either in essence or in nature? Or is the term a relative category that doesn’t explain much? Definitions and Usages of ‘Extremism’ Today the concept of extremism is set against that of moderation, centrism, or the mainstream. This categorization places the phenomenon outside any social or political consensus, and outside what is understood as socially or politically acceptable. Indeed, it is set at the furthest reach of acceptability. Are there elements in common between ‘extremists’ in general, which might make this term a concept of use for categorizing the ideas of groups or political movements (their aims and methods)? Or is it a word, or even a term, in a shaky relationship with its concept? Is it, perhaps, the expression of a negative stance adopted by those in power so as to exclude other groups? History has proven this latter position untenable. From the struggle against racism by the civil rights movement in America and the African National Congress in South Africa; to the fight against occupation by the PLO, African liberation movements, and the Vietcong; to the struggle against dictatorship and oppression in general, with groups like Nicaragua’s Sandinistas; all these once marginalized groups were at a time considered extremist. Extremists were once labeled as such simply by virtue of their violent methods of political action (particularly the targeting of civilians). Refusing to use the term whenever civilians were targeted by air bombardment or other means by states that adopt liberal democratic systems, however, meant that the term lost part of its meaning: violent methods could no longer on their own constitute extremism. Indeed, extreme violence such as killing civilians and terrorizing the innocent—are extremist or terrorist. When states used these tactics in Vietnam, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Chechnya, as part of a plan to terrorize or as a response to operations undertaken resistance movements, these tactics were publically sanctioned. Instead, extremism is now used to describe political groups and the nature of the conflict that these groups (be they organizations, movements, parties) are engaged in—in particular conflicts with a state actor. This is also problematic. Saint Augustine, in his 5th century The City of God, uses a dialogue between Alexander the Great and a pirate as an allegory to draw a comparison between someone who occupies and plunders lands and is called an emperor, because he does so with a large fleet, and someone who raids other ships using a small ship, and is called a pirate.[1] Augustine goes on in the section to stress the similarity between kings and robbers in two respects: not only are kingdoms without justice like gangs of robbers, but so too are robbers themselves like little kingdoms, since they are bound together by a pact, led by a ruler, and the spoils are distributed according to certain rules. For entities to become kingdoms therefore, does not necessarily mean that they have dispensed with the greed that bound them into gangs. In fact moral rule is the exception, but rule means that impunity is granted[2], which is what turns robbers into kingdoms. After setting out this similarity, Augustine goes on to detail the story of the pirate and Alexander: “For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ‘The same as you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who do it with a great fleet are styled emperor.’”[3] It is the state, able to bomb from the air that categorizes others as terrorist and extremist. Excluded from the semantic field of extremism (and its artifact, terrorism), then, are the armies that carry out large-scale destruction and mass killings of civilians on the pretext that they are not targeting civilians, but rather the enemy living amongst civilians (who are used as human shields). It is only extremists and terrorists who can be said simply to target civilians. In fact, states that bomb civilian centers today are aware of the presence of these civilians, making their death an inevitability, and not simply a possibility. This necessarily weakens the force of the argument that civilians are not being targeted. More tellingly, it has been shown that random bombing employed by state actors is usually “targeted,” since it is also intended as a response to ‘extremist’ operations targeting civilians with the objective of punishing what is termed the “social incubator” for the group. The very idea of making a group, its members, or its constituency “pay” a price for membership is to terrorize (the literal definition of terrorism). Instilling terror is the intended act, and as such civilians are the targets, meaning states engage in acts of terrorism, and exhibit extreme behavior. In contrast, there are political forces and individuals who support an idea that is considered extremist, but they do not employ violent means in their political activity. For example, some Salafi movements hold what are considered extreme ideas compared to a more mainstream Islam on the purely intellectual level. However, their methods are non-violent. The same is the case for most Communists nowadays, who do not use methods deemed extremist. These initial definitions, however, are all relativist. Is it possible to go beyond this relativism when dealing with extremism and develop mechanisms that take into account the location, interests, and historical context of those who make this categorization?

This article aims to demonstrate how radicalisation, violent-extremism and terrorism are terms often used interchangeably – terms that do not have the same meaning and are generally poorly defined. It will reveal, as with other terminologies pertaining to this area of interest, how violent-extremism has no universally accepted definition, and remains tainted with ambiguity. Arguably, the term is predominantly used as a social label in discussions on terrorism and other forms of extreme violence – particularly applied to those who have a distorted interpretation of religious ideology to justify the use of violence to achieve specific socio-political aims. To provide a better understanding of violent-extremism, its root causes and its prevention, a proposal of an accurate depiction of its meaning and clarification on the context of its use are paramount. This article will provide a brief introduction to the terms radicalisation, violent-extremism and terrorism; and will present various ways they have been defined in existing academic literature and policy documents. It will further explain the delineation between the three terms; and propose a practical definition for the term violent-extremism to enhance our ability as a community to apply appropriate measures to prevent escalation of root-cause issues that potentially lead to violent action.

Islam and Civilisational Renewal, 2015

A conceptual characterisation of extremism at the outset is followed by an outline of its principal indicators and types, such as the fanatic pursuit of one particular view. The extremist tends to be self-righteous, power-hungry, willing to inflict harm and hardship on others, and also inclined to conflate the order of values. Then follows an exposition of the varieties of extremism and a review also of the Islamic sources concerning them. There are references in this connection to Arab Spring, ISIS, Boko Haram and Charlie Hebdo, and then a review of expert opinion, policy scenarios and responses to extremism and terror. The article concludes with a set of actionable recommendations. Meaning and Scope of Extremism Extremism is usually self-evident and easily identifiable for the most part, but it may require further scrutiny in technical and contextualised situations. Killing another person is an extreme behaviour, yet if it is done in the context of self-defence that repels an overwhelming and instantaneous attack on one's life, it would not be considered extreme. This contextualised and relative aspect of extremism also becomes evident by reference to strong political currents and sets of circumstances with the results, for instance, that one person's extremism becomes another person's moderation, and the freedom fighter of one becomes the terrorist of another and so forth. Gay marriage gains legal recognition under one set of values and is considered an abomination in another. This would suggest the need for one to know moderation and normality, and the source of authority and values they refer to in order to be able to identify when they are violated by extremist behaviour. Extremist behaviour in technical subjects would not be self-evident to a lay person, and would need specialised input to enable a credible assessment. Extremism is usually definitive and deliberate, yet it can also be due to ignorance and error of judgment, especially in technical matters that require specialised know-how. 1

extremism is the ideology derived from western , check it out !

2020

There are two terms <em>extremism</em> and <em>radicalism</em>, which are nowadays often being interchangeably used in everyday life as well as in the scientific literature. This is not a surprise in an age dominated by the populist <em>Zeitgeist</em> in which a dualist understanding prevails over in conceptualizing and understanding social, economic and political phenomena. Scientific thinking is not also free from this myopic and reductionist inclination. Recent evidence suggests that, beyond the realm of scientific investigations, policy makers, journalists and the general public also use these terms quite flexibly and interchangeably to label various social and psychological phenomena. For instance, research suggests that individuals tend to attribute psychological pathologies to perpetrators of violent actions to deny them any similarity with themselves and protect their distinctiveness. Such processes may explain the popularity of the term &...

ikiu.ac.ir, 2018

Aligned with aggression, extremism displays a unique paradigm of political behavior in the international system which is unique in its kind. The use of this paradigm helps extremists cause change through the spread of horror and affect their audiences to promote their own political motivations. The target population of the extremist groups involves political leaders, mangers, military, economic activists and the public in the crowded centers. The tendency towards extremist attitudes and the use of naked violence has increased in different societies in the recent decade, the phenomenon that prior to this was considered specific to underdeveloped and third world countries is increasing in developed countries and radical groups easily add to their members. So the present article is seeking to answer this question: what are the internal reasons and grounds for the formation of extremism? The answer to this question involves different factors such as long-term social and political conflicts, poverty, unemployment, lack of education, ideological dictations, coercion, experience of political violence by the government or supported groups and group punishment policy that lead to the creation of groups such as Army of God in the US, Kach and Kahane Chai in Israel, and Aleph in Japan. The aim is to recognize these factors so that proper courses of action can be taken to fight against the roots and foundations of extremism and create a world free from violence.

Dragoman Journal of Translation Studies, 2020

This article deals with the issue of extremism, on which much research has been written in the East and West, and in Islamic and Western thought as well. The various aspects, dimensions and manifestations of this concept have been analyzed and studied. It has been brought to my attention that researchers usually focus on the real and political dimension in approaching this phenomenon without contemplating the early stages that precede the emergence of extremism in reality, especially at the level of psychological and cognitive awareness, then the level of language and discourse. There, extremism arises in the form of feelings, emotions, and reactions before it is translated into concrete behaviors and practices. This article has been limited to the field of language and discourse, where something like a battle of concepts, symbols and signs occurs. Usually it is marked by semantic ambiguity, incorrect interpretation, and ideological use. Therefore, the terms fundamentalism, radicalism and extremism, which are often used with the same connotation despite the visible difference between them, are investigated. The correct meaning of the term extremism has been defined at the lexical and theological level, which reveals its incompatibility with the tolerant and moderate spirit of Islam. This meaning is almost absent in some Western media and intellectual discourse, where concepts such as fundamentalism, orthodoxy, radicalism and extremism are confused. Also, extremism is seldom presented as an unacceptable practice in Islam that is rejected by the Qur'an, Sunnah, the consensus of scholars and Islamic culture.