Newspaper Articles

Islam, a religion of peace, hijacked by the violent children of Sayyid Qutb – by Fouad Ajami

Islam’s Nowhere Men
Millions like Faisal Shahzad are unsettled by a modern world they can neither master nor reject.


‘A Muslim has no nationality except his belief,” the intellectual godfather of the Islamists, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, wrote decades ago. Qutb’s “children” are everywhere now; they carry the nationalities of foreign lands and plot against them. The Pakistani born Faisal Shahzad is a devotee of Sayyid Qutb’s doctrine, and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was another.

Qutb was executed by the secular dictatorship of Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966. But his thoughts and legacy endure. Globalization, the shaking up of continents, the ease of travel, and the doors for immigration flung wide open by Western liberal societies have given Qutb’s worldview greater power and relevance. What can we make of a young man like Shahzad working for Elizabeth Arden, receiving that all-American degree, the MBA, jogging in the evening in Bridgeport, then plotting mass mayhem in Times Square?

The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires and the failures of the Islamic world but brought the ruin with them. They mock national borders and identities. A parliamentary report issued by Britain’s House of Commons on the London Underground bombings of July 7, 2005 lays bare this menace and the challenge it poses to a system of open borders and modern citizenship.

The four men who pulled off those brutal attacks, the report noted, “were apparently well integrated into British society.” Three of them were second generation Britons born in West Yorkshire. The oldest, a 30-year-old father of a 14-month-old infant, “appeared to others as a role model to young people.” One of the four, 22 years of age, was a boy of some privilege; he owned a red Mercedes given to him by his father and was given to fashionable hairstyles and designer clothing. This young man played cricket on the eve of the bombings. The next day, the day of the terror, a surveillance camera filmed him in a store. “He buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera, and leaves.” Two of the four, rather like Faisal Shahzad, had spent time in Pakistan before they pulled off their deed.

JER: Times Square Terror
The Journal Editorial Report takes a closer look at the failed bomb attempt in Times Square: What can we learn from the UK? Video courtesy of Fox News.

View Full Image

Ryan Inzana
A year after the London terror, hitherto tranquil Canada had its own encounter with the new Islamism. A ring of radical Islamists were charged with plotting to attack targets in southern Ontario with fertilizer bombs. A school-bus driver was one of the leaders of these would-be jihadists. A report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service unintentionally echoed the British House of Commons findings. “These individuals are part of Western society, and their ‘Canadianness’ makes detection more difficult. Increasingly, we are learning of more and more extremists that are homegrown. The implications of this shift are profound.”

And indeed they are, but how can “Canadianness” withstand the call of the faith and the obligation of jihad? I think of one Egyptian Islamist in London, a man by the name of Yasser Sirri, who gave the matter away some six years ago: “The whole Arab world was dangerous for me. I went to London,” he observed.

In Egypt, three sentences had been rendered against him: one condemned him to 25 years of hard labor, the second to 15 years, and the third to death for plotting to assassinate a prime minister. Sirri had fled Egypt to Yemen, then to the Sudan. But it was better and easier in bilad al-kufar, the lands of unbelief. There is wealth in the West and there are the liberties afforded by an open society.

In an earlier age—I speak here autobiographically, and not of some vanished world long ago but of the 1960s when I made my way to the United States—the world was altogether different. Mass migration from the Islamic world had not begun. The immigrants who turned up in Western lands were few, and they were keen to put the old lands, and their feuds and attachments, behind them. Islam was then a religion of Afro-Asia; it had not yet put down roots in Western Europe and the New World. Air travel was costly and infrequent.

The new lands, too, made their own claims, and the dominant ideology was one of assimilation. The national borders were real, and reflected deep civilizational differences. It was easy to tell where “the East” ended and Western lands began. Postmodernist ideas had not made their appearance. Western guilt had not become an article of faith in the West itself.

Nowadays the Islamic faith is portable. It is carried by itinerant preachers and imams who transmit its teachings to all corners of the world, and from the safety and plenty of the West they often agitate against the very economic and moral order that sustains them. Satellite television plays its part in this new agitation, and the Islam of the tele-preachers is invariably one of damnation and fire. From tranquil, banal places (Dubai and Qatar), satellite television offers an incendiary version of the faith to younger immigrants unsettled by a modern civilization they can neither master nor reject.

And home, the Old Country, is never far. Pakistani authorities say Faisal Shahzad made 13 visits to Pakistan in the last seven years. This would have been unthinkable three or four decades earlier. Shahzad lived on the seam between the Old Country and the New. The path of citizenship he took gave him the precious gift of an American passport but made no demands on him.

From Pakistan comes a profile of Shahzad’s father, a man of high military rank, and of property and standing: He was “a man of modern thinking and of the modern age,” it was said of him in his ancestral village of Mohib Banda in recent days. That arc from a secular father to a radicalized son is, in many ways, the arc of Pakistan since its birth as a nation-state six decades ago. The secular parents and the radicalized children is also a tale of Islam, that broken pact with modernity, the mothers who fought to shed the veil and the daughters who now wish to wear the burqa in Paris and Milan.

In its beginnings, the Pakistan of Faisal Shahzad’s parents was animated by the modern ideals of its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In that vision, Pakistan was to be a state for the Muslims of the subcontinent, but not an Islamic state in the way it ordered its political and cultural life. The bureaucratic and military elites who dominated the state, and defined its culture, were a worldly breed. The British Raj had been their formative culture.

But the world of Pakistan was recast in the 1980s under a zealous and stern military leader, Zia ul-Haq. Zia offered Pakistan Islamization and despotism. He had ridden the jihad in Afghanistan next door to supreme power; he brought the mullahs into the political world, and they, in turn, brought the militants with them.


This was the Pakistan in which young Faisal Shahzad was formed; the world of his parents was irretrievable. The maxim that Pakistan is governed by a trinity—Allah, army, America—gives away this confusion: The young man who would do his best to secure an American education before succumbing to the call of the jihad is a man in the grip of a deep schizophrenia. The overcrowded cities of Islam—from Karachi and Casablanca to Cairo—and those cities in Europe and North America where the Islamic diaspora is now present in force have untold multitudes of men like Faisal Shahzad.

This is a long twilight war, the struggle against radical Islamism. We can’t wish it away. No strategy of winning “hearts and minds,” no great outreach, will bring this struggle to an end. America can’t conciliate these furies. These men of nowhere—Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born renegade cleric Anwar Awlaki now holed up in Yemen and their likes—are a deadly breed of combatants in this new kind of war. Modernity both attracts and unsettles them. America is at once the object of their dreams and the scapegoat onto which they project their deepest malignancies.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift” (Free Press, 2007).

Source: Wall Street Journal

About the author



Click here to post a comment
  • Mr. Ajami and Bernard Lewis were the two main experts who advised Bush administration on Iraq War. This article, somehow, gives the impression that Ajami wants the West to review multicultarism and acceptance of cultral relativism.

  • When the minority holds all of us hostage

    By Salman Masood
    May 08, 2010

    The writer is an Islamabad-based journalist whose reports frequently appear in The New York Times. (
    Printer Friendly
    Comments (6)

    Is Faisal Shahzad an aberration or representative of a pervasive trend amongst young Muslims, especially Pakistanis, to resort to violence for whatever political or religious grievances they nurture against the west?

    On the face of it, Faisal Shahzad does not fit the classic profile of a terrorist. Being the son of a retired air vicemarshal of the Pakistan Air Force, he must have enjoyed all the perks and privileges children of armed forces officials are used to. He wasn’t book smart – as his initial study records show – but he did eventually manage to get an MBA. He married a Pakistani-American and has two children. Many in Pakistan would have easily swapped their lives with his. What went wrong?

    Did the American dream turn into such a ghastly nightmare that he was left with no other option but to park the explosives laden vehicle in Manhattan? News reports suggest that over the past couple of years, Faisal had run into financial troubles. There were some insinuations that he drifted towards religion and extremism as his financial worries mounted. But this would be a rather simplistic way to solve the puzzle behind Faisal Shahzad that has baffled the minds of Americans and Pakistanis alike.

    Not much has come out of Faisal’s link with the jihadi network that spawns Pakistan. In the days to come, a great deal of effort will be vested in tracking down the road that led Faisal Shahzad to extremism. The family will be put under the microscope and scrutinised to ascertain why their offspring went wayward. Initial telltale signs suggest that the tribal region of Waziristan will figure high on the radar. Faisal Shahzad has apparently confessed to acting on his own and The Express Tribune reported that the Pakistani Taliban have also denied any knowledge of him.

    The knee-jerk reaction by ultra-nationalists and terror apologists, who have already started to cast doubts over this grim episode as yet another conspiracy to sully the image of Pakistan, will not help to salvage the damage. An effort to dismiss a Pakistani connection by stressing that Faisal Shahzad was a naturalised American citizen and had minimal links with the homeland would be equally erroneous. He travelled to Pakistan at least half a dozen times in the last eight years.

    Pakistanis need to think loud and hard as to why an extremist attitude has become so deeply entrenched in the national psyche. Religious intolerance and xenophobia has become a disheartening staple of national life and discourse. It is easy for anyone having the smallest of proclivities towards extremism to end up with militant networks. Feigning ignorance or denying the existence of poisonous radical incubators in Pakistan is naïve. One hopes that the likes of Faisal Shahzad are a minority. But even that is not a consolation. This minority is holding everyone hostage.