|
Cult and Terrorism
Abstract: In this speech I will argue; first there is
a difference between Terrorism as an isolated violent act committed by
an individual, not related to any terrorist group, or as one of many
different activities or tactics of a popular or political organisation
from one hand with a Terrorist organisation on the other hand. Then I
will argue that any terrorist organisation either is a destructive cult
or to survive has no option but eventually to change into one. Finally I
define a destructive cult and conclude by explaining that facing a
terrorist organisation is completely different from facing the problem
of terrorism and violence and if we are serious to get rid of this ugly
phenomena we have to understand destructive cults and through that
understanding face terrorist organisations.
Terrorism:
Terrorism in my view is a social disease like any other,
such as murder, rubbery, rape or theft; cause to its existence not only
lies in social problems such as poverty or unemployment, but injustice
in any form and shape. It has been with us since beginning of
civilization and unfortunately will remain with us as long as there is
any kind of injustice in any society.
It disgusts us to remember it, to think about it, and
even more, if anyone tries to understand it and find the logic behind
it.
Like any other disease; for terrorism, we either can
fight symptoms, prescribing a very strong pain killer that can harm
healthy part of organism as well; or we can try to understand it, to
find the cause of it and seek to find a real and long lasting solution
for that.
Unfortunately as usual governments have a habit of going
for the former one and only when they are forced by public opinion and
demands will go for the latter one. This is why most of government’s
policies toward terrorism are aiming to face terrorists, rather than
cause of terrorism.
Well my talk today is not about terrorism in general but
terrorist organisations in particular and their metamorphosis into
destructive cults.
Organised crime versus isolated crime:
Importance of doctrine or cause for an isolated crime
versus organised crime:
When a crime changes into an organised crime; not only it
will mature and will intensify but its nature and its attributes will
alter as well, sometimes into even opposite of its original form. For
example if poverty and unemployment are the main causes of theft and
rubbery; therefore facing poverty and unemployment might diminish or at
least lessen those kind of crimes; in organised crime, although still
existence of these problems helps new mafias to recruit new members, but
facing poverty or unemployment can not resolve the problem of organised
crime, as now its strength depends to its leader and sophistication of
its organisation and not original causes of its existence. Well I am
sure most of you have seen the movie ‘The God Father’ and have enjoyed
it and there is no need for me to elaborate more on this point. What I
conclude is that, although cause for an isolated crime is the main
reason for its existence and resolving it will diminish or at least will
lessen it; in organised crime, cause will loose its importance and will
not play the same decisive rule in existence or none existence of the
organisation.
Back to terrorism; let me give you an example: Although
MEK that I was member of born with an ideology based on Islam and
Marxism and recruit with anti Imperialism and anti Zionism and social
justice slogans; and later after the revolution, when I along tens of
thousands more students of schools and universities joined it, used any
ills, any injustice or lack of freedom that existed in Iran, to recruit;
but after it changed into a terrorist organisation and then into a
destructive cult, its survival, its internal strength had nothing to do
with either of causes of its existence, its original slogans, or what
was happening in Islamic world or in Iran. To survive and to fulfil the
leader’s dreams, contrary to their nationalistic slogans; during
Iran-Iraq war, they collaborated with Sadam Hussein and hand in hand
with Iraqi army they fought with Iran. Sadam’s generous assistance to
MEK; financial help, free land to build their bases in, sophisticated
armament etc; didn’t mean that MEK will be loyal to their host, when
they saw American army, they announced their readiness to help Americans
and fight along side of new victorious army[i].
All said it
doesn’t mean that MEK now is going to be loyal toward American; because
cults are not loyal to any partner or friend, ideology, policy, slogan,
agreement but only those that help their survival and their goal’s
advancement.
As matter of fact for me as for almost all members, after
MEK’s ideological revolution (the name they gave to their brain washing
techniques[ii]),
Iran and Islam where not important any more; or at least not nearly as
important as the existence and success of the organisation and its
leader. Then in a letter to the leader I explained this change in myself
and other members by admitting that if they ask us to choose between
happiness and success of Iranian and Muslims in one hand and victory of
our leader any where around the world even if he becomes president of
Zimbabwe, we all will choose the latter one. Of course then our logic
was based on this assumption that if our leader finds a foothold
anywhere in the world, soon he can expand his influence and can save the
whole world and change the history. Yes MEK was and still is using any
ills that might exist in Iran to recruit, for propaganda purposes and
for legitimisation of its existence, but for its members what is
happening in Iran or as matter of fact in the whole world outside, is
not slightly as important as their internal relations, their absolute
loyalty and obedience toward the leader.
In case of Al-Qaeda, I can claim the same thing. If the
misery and hardship of Palestinians, the existing injustice against them
and unconditional support of the United States for actions of Israel is
one of the main causes of dissatisfaction of Muslims toward west in
general and the United States in particular and as a result this is one
of the main effective tools of recruitment by terrorist organisations;
still in an imaginary situation, if this problem can be resolved, in my
view we might be able to stop Al-Qaeda to recruit more, but we can not
claim victory over the organisation. As the only way destructive cults
such as MEK or Al-Qaeda can for good leave violence behind, is either
due to their victory over the whole world or their total annihilation.
Cult of personality of Hitler is an example that the world has not
forgotten yet.
Terrorist organisations to survive have no alternative
but to change into a destructive cult:
I will call an organization a terrorist organization if
its only tactic, or at least its main tactic, for
reaching its goal is an act of terrorism. According to this definition,
I will not call any government or popular political organizations, even
if they use terrorism to deal with their enemies, terrorists because
they are dealing with other problems of the society as well; terrorism
is not their sole tactic or the pillar of their actions in dealing with
their daily problems and objectives.
In a paper recently published by Cultic Studies Review[iii];
I argued: ‘If the organization’s sole or main tactic is terrorism,
sooner or later it must begin changing the morality of its members
because it cannot match the morality of the society from which they have
come. The organization must either change the member’s morality and
belief system or accept factions within and defections from the group on
a large scale.’ Therefore soon or late, to hold on to their members, to
keep them away from emotional and moral influence of family, friends and
society, Terrorist organisations have no choice but to isolate their
members at least psychologically and if they can physically from wider
society and start the process of mind manipulation of members under
different name and pretext. This is the path toward changing completely
into a destructive cult.
As an example of how morality and rule of conduct of a
terrorist organisation contradicts the society’s customs, culture, faith
and ideology, I can mention suicide operations of MEK that started on
summer 1981, for example the killing of Ayatollah Madani, a religious
representative of Khomeini in Tabriz,[iv]
and another suicide operation, the killing of Ayatollah Dastghayb, a
religious representative of Khomeini, in Shiraz.[v]
By the way, if I am not mistaken, these are either the first or among
the first suicide operations of Muslims in modern times.[vi]
Another significance of this operation at Shiraz was that, for the first
time, a female operative and not a male had performed a terrorism act in
a Muslim country. Other significant aspects of these operations that
were totally against morals of the society, included:
·
Breaking the
taboo of suicide. Muslims, like Christians, believe suicide is a great
sin, and the one who commits it is worthy of going to hell.
·
Breaking the
principal related to taking no action in public places. Other innocent
people were among the deaths.[vii]
·
The fact that
many suicide bombers killed their victims during Friday sermons, where
the Mosque and any place in which people pray traditionally are
considered as sanctuaries. According to the religious rulings, even
churches and synagogues are safe from violence.
·
The fact that
they killed a member of the clergy, an Ayatollah, an old noncombatant
person—again, along with women and children, all prohibited by Islamic
law and principles.[viii]
As you can see, when your tactic and strategy changes to
solely terrorism, you cannot be bound by popular morals and tradition,
or rules of conduct of any faith or culture. Ironically, although I can
not disagree more with many of statements of President Bush and Mr.
Blair, still I have to say that I agree totally with them in claiming
that Terrorist organisations (but not all those who use terrorism as one
of many of their tactics) are against our way of living, our democracy
and our freedom. Although I have to add that terrorist organisations as
well as almost all destructive cults not only are against Western values
but they are against morals and values of all modern, civilized
societies, to be Eastern or Western doesn’t make any difference. Of
course they benefit fully from advancement of science or any existence
of freedom and democracy or any avenue open to them in different
societies to recruit and to advertise themselves, as Al-Qaeda and MEK
benefit fully from modern technology such as Internet, Mobile phones, …
for propaganda purposes. They might even go as far as introducing
themselves as champion of modern values including democracy, freedom or
equality, as MEK does. But when it comes to their internal relations,
they easily show their real colour and how much do they hate these
values. And if God forbid they reach to power using the same democracy
as Hitler did, they will create kind of dictatorship and atrocity unseen
in any civilization.
When a group due to bypassing people’s moral and values,
loses the support of wider society, its members and organizational
supporters become more important.[ix]
Then the organization faces this dilemma: What should it do with the
morality and beliefs of its members and supporters? After all, they are,
or were, ordinary individuals from the same society, bound by the same
code of morality and beliefs, and responsible at least in front of their
family and friends.
The answer for any organization at this point of
transition is obvious: “Change them or lose them.”’[x]
To change morality, set of beliefs, character and
personality of members; terrorist organisations have no alternative but
to start the process of mind manipulation of the members. Either they
can do that, which in this case they will have all essential elements of
being a destructive cult or they can’t and they will faction, face major
defections, and eventually have no choice but to change their tactics
and therefore transform themselves from a terrorist organisations into
something else, perhaps a political one such as IRA in Ireland or
disintegrate completely like Pykar; a Marxist organisation, an offshoot
of MEK that could not change into a cult and eventually had to publicly
announce its dissolution.
Terrorist organisations versus destructive cults, which
one is worse?
Yes in my view Terrorist organisations have no choice but
to change into a destructive cult, but will they change into something
better, more acceptable or worse? Which one is worse to be? A terrorist
organisation or a destructive cult? In my view a destructive cult;
because of two main reasons:
1-
when an organisation changes into a destructive cult, it is not
any more abided by any norm, morality or rule. Its doctrine and rule of
conducts can change easily at any minute to serve two essential goals of
the cult; survival and materialization of leader’s childish dream.
Therefore even if a cult forced to leave violence as its main tactic
behind, as MEK disarmed by American forces had to do so[xi];
still they can switch back to terrorism at any time they can and they
need to. In contrast, organisations of any type, even terrorist ones
(before changing into a cult) are loyal to set of idea and principles or
at least aims and objectives, as for example IRA’s goal was to unite
Ireland, therefore in some extent they are predictable, reachable,
dialog-able and perhaps even it is possible to influence their policies
and change them into more peaceful and democratic type of groupings.
2-
The second reason why I think it is more difficult to face
destructive cults rather than any other type of organisations is due to
change of character of members of destructive cults. One of the slogans
of MEK’s leaders was that we have to change into an ant, learn from ant
to be selfless and act instinctively as our leader wishes so without any
doubt or question. If MEK’s leaders openly and bluntly were mentioning
and demanding this ancient desire of all tyrants from their members; it
doesn’t mean that those who don’t mention it don’t pave their way to
achieve it. In my view this is the goal and objective of all destructive
cults and this is why it is too difficult to face these groups.
It is very difficult for us in wider society with normal
life to understand a suicide bomber In London, Madrid or New York; as it
was difficult for tenth century Iranian people, Western Crusaders and
rulers of that time to understand suicide actions of cult of Assassins.
Then their rationalization for Assassin’s actions was that they have
been narcotised by perhaps Hashish where their given name comes from.
And these days I am hearing from some experts that suicide bombers kill
themselves to go to paradise for perhaps beautiful Hories. In my view
both are wrong; perhaps assassins were using some sort of narcotics or
some modern suicide bombers think they can satisfy their sexual desires
more after death than while they are alive but the main reason is that
members of destructive cults change; they gradually loose their
selfhood; their individuality, their instinct for self preservation and
even self production; they loose their personal character, principles,
and even emotions; and instead of all that, they become absolute loyal
and obedient follower of the leader. And in my view this is why it is
too difficult to face them and stop them. They will become like one of
those shape-shifter characters of some fiction movies. One minute they
are smiling, kind, happy person and minutes later they can change into
an angry, violent and merciless individual, able to harm anybody and
kill even innocent children. They are not predictable and recognizable.
They don’t have set of believes that we can understand them as a basis
for discussion and perhaps negotiation. They don’t have personal desire
and weakness that can be used to change them. They seek pain, hardship,
and even death therefore they can not be threatened as they welcome to
be a ‘victim of the wider society’s atrocities and Martyr for the leader
and his slogans. Therefore none of conventional method of dealing with
criminals is useful in facing members of destructive cults. Later I will
try to explain my answer to this problem.
Terrorism - resurrection of an ancient feature of
destructive cults
Above I argued; all Terrorist organisations to survive as
‘Terrorism’ pillar of their strategy or their only or main activity have
no choice but to change into a destructive cult. But opposite is not
always true. Not all destructive cults are a terrorist organisation.
While destructive cults are not necessarily terrorists;
still terrorism is not new feature of them. Perhaps the oldest one
recorded in history are Zealots who fought against Romans in 48 AD[xii].
Zealots perhaps were also pioneer of mass suicide action. When Eleazar
Their leader found out that there is no way that he can win, asked all
members to kill themselves. Centuries later we could see repeat of their
action in Waco and Jones Town. Another example or perhaps one of the
long lasting terrorist cults was Thuggee; Thuggee stranglers preyed upon
India until finally suppressed in the mid nineteenth century by the
British.[xiii]
But perhaps the most famous Terrorist cult, ancestor of
MEK and Al-Qaeda are Assassins[xiv],
who gave us the word Assassination[xv].
As MEK and Al-Qaeda that start recruiting with anti American slogans,
Assassins recruited their members with excuse of occupation of Iran
first by Arabs and then by Turks in tenth century AD.
While they used nationalistic slogans for recruiting, as
a cult they soon showed that nothing is important for them but the
survival and progress of the cult. As MEK to survive and progress,
collaborated with the enemies of Iran such as Sadam Hussein of Iraq;
Assassins too, to survive and progress they were prepared to work along
side any body including working with Arabs against Turks; with crusaders
even ‘god-less’ Mongols against Arab Muslims and then easily change side
again for cause of the cult and not people or country or faith[xvi].
As other cults their doctrine, in this case Islam was as
important for them as it was useful to recruit, and when it wasn’t, they
could change it in any way they wished[xvii].
To change their members into a killing machine, again the
same as MEK and Al-Qaeda they used only two concepts of Islam; Jihad and
Martyrdom with their twisted interpretation and ignoring Islamic rules
of conduct[xviii].
The same as MEK and Al-Qaeda they showed they have no respect for human
life and to pursue their goals they killed any body on their way,
anywhere, even old religious men[xix]
during pray time in a mosque[xx].
As MEK and perhaps Al-Qaeda and all other destructive
cults; to brainwash their members and to alter them from an individual
into a killing machine; following leader’s order instinctively, without
slightest question or doubt; they had to have full control over
sexuality of their members. While MEK or David Koresh ordered all
members to divorce their spouses and forget about sex for life and after
life; Assassins used to castrate their young suicide killers.
How do I define destructive cults?
At this point I would like briefly explain how do I
define destructive cults:
Destructive cults according to my definition have four
essential ingredients or elements:
1-charismatic leader:
Unlike some experts who define cults and categorise them
according to their ideology or doctrine, my definition of cults starts
with its leader, rather than its doctrine. This is the leader with his
childish ego and Narcissist character, who cannot fulfil his unrealistic
needs and materialise his gigantic ambitions in the real world that
creates his toy-like mini-world in psychological or physical isolation
of members from the wider society within a destructive cult. In my view
cult leaders are completely different from ordinary political leader
because of their attributes such as: Charisma and charm, narcissism or
childlike ego, their superiority complex, their need for worshippers and
their loneliness.
This is the leader, who to attract and recruit disciples,
needs to have a cause, a doctrine or an ideology. Cause or doctrine for
a cult leader is a mean and not the aim or objective. He or she chooses
his or her doctrine according to the public beliefs, needs, injustices,
existing ills of the society, or groaning of the pool that he wants to
fish from. Their objective is to find worshippers, toys of their dream
childish world, to create that world and unite their internal ego with
the external one. What they choose as ‘cause’ or ‘doctrine’ is not
important and no cult leader feels obliged to be loyal toward his
primary messages or objectives.
2-Black and white doctrine, objective or cause:
Unlike some expert explaining doctrine or ideology of
destructive cults, I will not name or define them according to their
superficial and if I may say hypocritical common factors with popular
beliefs such as Christianity, Islam or even ideologies such as
Nationalism or Marxism[xxi].
Therefore according to my definition of destructive
cults, what they choose to call their doctrine, however they define it,
and no matter how loyal they seem to be toward it, or how steadfastly
they seem to observe the faith’s ethics, are not as important as the
common factors of doctrine in all destructive cults. Attributes such as
believing in the world of black and white; their exclusiveness; (versus
inclusiveness of other social groupings; who might have some dogma but
their members and followers are free to do anything even though there
are guidelines to observation of a few things; even dogmas of most
extreme religion’s followers are limited and can be numbered while
destructive cults have dogma on everything except perhaps a very few
aspects of life. In other words all aspects of life of a destructive
cult’s member are decided by the leader. The member has no freedom of
choice on anything beyond a few very limited aspects of their lives.
Other common factors in their doctrines are:
Their stealth and deception or belief in the idea that the end
justifies the means.
3-Totalistic organisation
While the organisation is not even as important as
doctrine of the cult and not certainly as important as method of mind
manipulation that cult leaders use to change their disciples from who
they are into their ideal worshipper, and though they can easily due to
size and circumstances change the shape of their organisation, still we
can see some similarities between different destructive cult’s
organisations. Similarities such as that all are totalitarian, therefore
there is no room for democracy, serious questions or doubt or criticism
toward the leader and his or her orders; Ironic discipline; Hard work;
autonomy from wider society; secrecy and surveillance; membership for
life or closed exit doors. In case of Al-Qaeda; although it has changed
into some sort of franchise, still in every little cell of Al-Qaeda
franchise we can find this common elements of the organisation of
destructive cults.
4-Mind manipulation
Cult leaders, in order to build their childish world and
to satisfy their tendency toward ‘all or nothing’, have no choice but to
isolate themselves and their little world psychologically and physically
(if they can) and find ways to change free men and women recruited from
the wider society into toy like objects of their dream world. These
kinds of gurus have no choice but to use some sort of method of mind
manipulation if they are to keep their toy like disciples in a very
narrow and absolute line, without any question, any doubt, any restraint
or contradiction, any private or personal belief, principle, desire,
hope, dream or thought and even emotion and feeling; to change them so
they can be flexible enough for their game or their play.
Whenever we talk about mind manipulation, suddenly we
face two extremes; on the one hand those who deny the existence of any
such methods; and on the opposite side those who call simple influence
techniques of recruiting ‘brainwashing’; they call members of any cults,
even non-destructive ones ‘Zombies’ or ‘machines’. I personally don’t
believe that there is any method in existence that can totally
brainwash a person, overcoming the effects of gene or early education by
parents and society that shape the core character and personality of a
person. That being said, I have seen changes of my own personality and
hundreds if not thousands of other members of MEK through the use of
different methods of mind manipulation; therefore I am a strong believer
in the existence of methods that can change character, personality, the
system of beliefs and the perception of selfhood, in a person. These
methods can push a person out of the driving seat of his or her own will
into passenger seat, and force a surrender to the leader, almost
completely. As I mentioned, I don’t believe that a person can change
into, for example, a ‘Zombie’ or a ‘machine’, but at the same time I
have to say that comparing those who use these kinds of words in
describing cult members with those who deny the existence of mind
manipulation methods, the former view in my opinion are much closer to
the reality than the latter. Yes, I believe real, loyal, obedient
members of destructive cults are much closer to an ‘ant’ that Rajavi
wanted us to be, or a ‘Zombie’ or a ‘machine’ than the free men and
women that we see in a wider society, even in a dictatorship, despite
all the constraints that might exist on their free will.
To explain mind manipulation I have divided it into three
different categories or phases. Firstly, use of rational and influence
techniques for changing new recruit’s beliefs, as well as a tool for
recruitment. After changing recruit’s beliefs, the cult leader’s main
task will be how to stabilise or freeze new beliefs, and how to
neutralise the new recruit’s tendency to return to his previous system
of beliefs due to the pressure of his personality and his feelings
toward his old way of life, family and friends. This is achieved mainly
via isolation and change of behaviour that I call mind control. Next, in
order to fulfil his desire to change free men and women into fully
transformer-like toys that can be bent and shaped as he wishes, a
destructive cult leader has to change the disciple’s individual
personality into the collective cult-personality; this is carried out
mainly by the use of emotion that I call brainwashing[xxii].
Facing Terrorist cults is different from facing
terrorism:
As I explained, when a terrorist organisation changes
into a destructive cult; its original doctrine, ideology or cause is not
nearly as important as it was for members when they were recruited, this
is the main difference between individual terrorists, or organisations
that use terrorism as one of many of their tactics in one hand and
Terrorist organisations on the other hand. Two decisive elements for
survival of destructive cults are: 1- the leader and 2- the system of
mind manipulation. Therefore while in one hand to deal with individual
terrorists and other type of organisation we can reason, educate, deal
and even negotiate, in short use all political and rational means to
persuade them to leave violence and terrorism as one of their tactics
behind and use political means to pursue their goals; on the other hand
in dealing with destructive cults including terrorist organisations use
of these means are in vain.
Again while in former ones we have to recognize their
commitment to their doctrine or goal and use it as a strong and decisive
base for education, reasoning, showing the contradictions, and even
negotiation; in latter ones the biggest mistake is to recognize them for
example as Muslim,Christian Nationalist or Marxist, especially publicly
and even worse to accept them as NRM or new spokespersons of those
faith, ideologies or even causes. Unfortunately this was the biggest
mistake of Western politician, media and even some academics and
intellectuals after 9-11 who recognized Al-Qaeda as Muslim and worse
those who labelled them as Islamist or even some who equalled their
propaganda and their actions with Islam. I strongly believe that these
people with calling Terrorist organisations, Muslim and not a
destructive cult have advocated and helped them, in a way that they
couldn’t even dream of it. They could gain sympathy of many Muslims who
were unhappy with for example policies of west toward Israel-Palestinian
conflict; Osma became the second most named of new born boys in Arab
countries, and Al-Qaeda recruited as many young unsatisfied, confused
Muslims as they didn’t know how to educate, organize and use them. I
hope one day at least those who equalled Al-Qaeda with Islam realise
what have they done and how they have changed into biggest advocates of
terrorist organisations and hopefully are forced at least to apologize
from hundred of thousands of victims of recent terrorism around the
world.
To face terrorist organisations we have to research,
learn and understand their strong points, the most important of all to
understand how they manipulate mind of their disciples and neutralize
them. In my view the most important elements of their mind manipulations
are 1-psycological and perhaps physical isolation of new recruits from
wider society. And 2-use of strong emotion of Muslims in general and
young Muslims in particular toward what is happening in the Islamic
world.
1-
Psychological isolation: In above mentioned paper[xxiii]I
have tried to show how destructive cults in general and Terrorist cults
in particular create phobia, paranoia, hate and disgust toward outside
world and in this way psychologically isolate their new recruits from
wider society and dehumanise or sub-humanise none members. Unfortunately
again after 9/11 Western governments, and media not only didn’t try to
neutralize this elements but on the contrary to satisfy public opinion
that they are dealing with the problem, in a way, they even greatly
helped Terrorist Organisations in isolating their members from wider
society. To face these elements we have to understand, realise, and
recognize that within any members of a destructive cut, there is a dying
individual thirsty of a little encouragement, kindness, understanding,
and helping hand to survive and to save itself. Let me give you two
examples of my own. When after being awake for more than 24 hours, I was
travelling from Paris to Washington; in the plane an old lady sitting
beside me when saw how tired I am, showed a little kindness and
understanding toward me and for example kept my lunch for me till I woke
up. Another example when I injured myself by falling from a step,
because of my back problem, a friend who was not a member of MEK helped
me and cared about my wound. You can not imagine these two little
genuine understanding and kindness how much helped me in breaking the
idea of that we as members of MEK are above all and helped me to
neutralize the idea of dehumanisation or sub-humanisation of outsiders
in my mind. Imprisoning, insulting, beating, water-boarding, torturing,
members of destructive cults, will weaken those dying individual and
will strengthen his or her cultic or collective personality, making him
more steadfast in whatever he or she is doing. Perhaps for the safety of
general public we can not avoid random stop and search policy, perhaps
we have to arrest and imprison some even by mistake, but these are not
as important or as damaging as what do we do after stopping or arresting
a potential recruit of a destructive cult. If we educate public in
general and the police and the politician and the media in particular
that members of destructive cults are victims and not criminals, in need
of psychological help and not punishment, then we can face this problem
without creating new victims and martyrs for destructive cults to
recruit and brainwash their members even more.
Emotion: Yes in the west we might not be able to do much
about Muslim’s feelings and if I may say Human feelings toward what is
happening around the world, injustices, discriminations and atrocities.
We cannot stop our media to show these news and if we do as sometimes
our media does, in my view we make the biggest mistake of all as not
only we acknowledge terrorist organisation’s arguments, but we ignore
our own values and discredit ourselves as free, democratic and fair
society; as a result we encourage not only potential young recruits of
terrorist cults toward alternative information sources, but we will push
them even more toward being educated and attracted toward violent means
of facing their emotions. In my view we have to be at least advocate of
our own values, our liberty, our democracy, our freedom, and our
fairness. We have to diminish any need for alternative terrorist or
cultic source of information by giving first hand real news of
injustices ourselves. We have to understand, and recognize emotion of
people especially young Muslims toward injustices, discriminations, and
atrocities then educate them, show them, and facilitate them toward
alternative means for directing their emotions. Recently I saw a
documentary in Channel Four under title of ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’[xxiv];
in this documentary producer and presenter of the program while in my
view had some right and just and correct point of view, unfortunately at
the same time was trying to ‘reveal’ and ‘discredit’ those who are
trying to find their voice in British parliament by arguing that they
are trying to infiltrate or influence Labour party or introduce their
own candidate for parliamentary election. Well I hope I am wrong and
discrediting actions of those who seek to find a political avenue as an
answer to cry of these young people, was not the intention of producers
of that program as I believe this is exactly what we have to do,
encouraging and showing young Muslims how can they direct their emotion,
their feel of responsibility, their need of doing something against
injustice toward peaceful and political means and prove to them that
this can work and is the right path toward
[i] In
RAND report; Pages 10 and 11; it has been stated: ‘The MEK
insisted that it dispatched a letter to DOS (U.S. Department of
State) in February 2003 declaring its intention to be a neutral
party during the impending invasion of Iraq and stating that it
would not fire on coalition forces, even in self-defence.
It also claimed to have offered to fight on behalf of the
coalition. (RAND;
National Defense Research Institute; is a non-profit research
organisation providing objective analysis and effective solution
that address the challenges facing the public and private
sectors around the world. Its report; titled: 'The Mujahedin-e
Khalq in Iraq; A Policy Conundrum 2009' was sponsored by Office
of the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. The
full report can be found in:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG871/;)
[ii] To
learn more about MEK and their ideological revolution you can
refer to either
MASOUD; Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel; Published by SAQI Book;
2004. The unedited version of my memoirs also can be found on my
website:
http://www.banisadr.info/mylifestory.htm Or you can read
‘The Iranian Mojahedin’ published by Yale University press New
Haven and London – 1989 written by Ervand
Abrahamian; professor of history at Baruch College, City
University of New York.
[x]
Terrorist Organizations Are Cults’; Masoud Banisadr; Cultic
Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, PP: 164, 165
[xi] In
RAND report we read: ‘After the 2003
invasion of Iraq by United States and United Kingdom and
overthrow of Sadam Hussein’s regime; MEK was forced to surrender
all its weapons. Since then the MEK claims that it formally
rejected the use of violence. ‘Although there is limited
documentary proof of this decision in either English or Farsi.’
(RAND
report 2009: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG871/; The
Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq; P: 66) In the same report we read
also that MEK’s leaders when ever they felt their relation with
Americans is in good shape, they asked for return of their arms.
[xii]
Zealots: ‘Beginning in 48 AD, the Zealots carried out terrorist
campaigns to force insurrection against the Romans in Judea.
These campaigns included the use of sicarii (dagger-men), who
would infiltrate Roman-controlled cities and stab Jewish
collaborators or Roman legionnaires with a sica, kidnap the
staff of the Temple Guard for ransom, or poison their enemies.
The Zealots' justification for their killing of other Jews was
that their acts demonstrated the consequences of the immorality
of collaborating with the Roman invaders, and exposed the fact
that the Romans could not protect their Jewish collaborators.’ (Rex
A. Hudson, 'The Sociology and psychology of Terrorism: Who
Becomes a Terrorist and why?' Report prepared under an
Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division,
Washington DC: Government Printing Office, Library of Congress
September 1999, 14. Cited from Mia Bloom; 'Dying to Kill; The
Allure of Suicide terror'; Columbia University Press/ New York;
2007; P: 8) ‘Zealots saw themselves as revolutionary
catalysts who moved men by force of their audacious action,
exploiting mass expectations that a cataclysmic messianic
deliverance was imminent. To generate a mass uprising, they
escalated the struggle by shock tactics to manipulate fear,
outrage, sympathy and guilt. Sometimes these emotional affects
were provoked by terrorist atrocities which went beyond the
consensual norms governing violence; at other times, they were
produced by provoking the enemy into committing atrocities
against his will (David
C. Rapoport, University of California, Los Angeles; 'Fear and
Trembling,' Terrorism in three religious traditions. The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep. 1984)
page 670 Cited from Mia Bloom; 'Dying to Kill; The Allure of
Suicide terror'; Columbia University Press/ New York; 2007; PP:
9, 10.) Zealots and the Sicarii had designed their
actions to deliberately provoke a massive uprising. 'Consecutive
atrocities narrowed the prospects for a political, or mutually
agreeable, solution serving to destroy the credibility of
moderates on both sides while steadily expanding the conflict,
which enlisted new participants.’ (David
C. Rapoport, University of California, Los Angeles; 'Fear and
Trembling,' Terrorism in three religious traditions. The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep. 1984)
page 672 Cited from Mia Bloom; 'Dying to Kill; The Allure of
Suicide terror'; Columbia University Press/ New York; 2007; PP:
9, 10.) ‘Zealot leaders even burned the food supply of
their own forces during Jerusalem's long siege as a show of
religious dedication and in an attempt to force God's hand to
act against the Romans. God would have no choice but to
intervene to preserve his adherents. Divine intervention was not
forthcoming and many of Jerusalem's residents starved to death.
Josephus' position was that the Zealots' tactics were to blame
for all the calamities that befell the Jewish people including
their exile, expulsion, the massacres of Jewish communities in
Egypt and Cyprus, and the destruction of the Second Temple.
Finally, Josephus blamed the mass suicide at Masada on Zealot
intransigence. When Roman general Flavius Silva decided to
attack Masada at the end of 72 AD, there were 960 insurgents and
refugees in the fortress including men, women, and children.
Silva surrounded the mountain with the tenth Roman legion plus
auxiliaries. Once the fortress' fall was inevitable the
following year, Eleazar, the leader of the zealots, persuaded
Masada's defenders to engage in an act of mass suicide. (Two
women and their five children survived to describe the events by
hiding in a cave.) The Zealots on Masada preferred to die by
their own hand rather than be captured by their Roman enemies. (Josephus,
The Jewish war, volume 7, 252 - 404; Paul Johnson, A history of
the Jews -New York; Harper and Row, 1987- , 139-140; David
Rapoport, personal correspondence with the author, April 8,
2004. – Cited from Mia Bloom; 'Dying to Kill; The Allure of
Suicide terror'; Columbia University Press/ New York; 2007;P:
10, 11)
[xiii]
for more on Indian cults see Lung, Haha and Christopher B.
Prowant. Black Science: Ancient and Modern Techniques of Ninja
Mind Manipulation. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 2001
[xiv]
‘"Assassin" (Hashishins) cult founded in Persia in 1090 by
Hassan ibn Sabbah ("The old Man of the Mountain") . From his
impregnable "Eagle's Nest" (Alamut) castle hidden in the
mountains of Persia, Hassan loosed wave after wave of suicidal
agents -spies and assassins - upon the world. Hassan’s assassin
cult was the template for all secret societies, spy net works,
and terrorist groups that followed - down to the present day.
This was the original al Qaeda! In his time, Hassan used every
conceivable tactic, torture, and tool, from magic to murder,
hashish and harlots, to dazzle and dirk enemy and initiate alike
into doing his bidding. For Hassan and his assassins, the end
justified the means. The means are terror and treachery and the
end was power. Master shape shifters, whenever expedient, the
Assassins made unholy covenants with heathen Hindus and allied
themselves with infidel Christian crusaders against their Muslim
brethren. For Hassan, and the Assassin Grandmasters who
continued his lethal legacy, Islam was but a convenient
black curtain behind which to hide. Hassan's assassins
ruled by subterfuge and slaughter for over two centuries, until
invading Mongols broke the cult's back in Persia in 1273. …
After the destruction of their Persian HQ, the Assassins
continued to survive and thrive from India to Syria, spawning
"spin-off" groups and imitators, some as far -flung as Europe.’(Dr.
Haha Lung; Mind Control; The Ancient Art of Psychological
Warfare'; Citadel Press Kensington; 2006; P:194)
[xv] ‘ by
the 13 century, the word Assassin, in variant forms, had already
passed into European usage in this general sense of hired
professional murderer. The Florentine chronicler Giovanni
Villani, who died in 1348, tells how the lord of Lucca sent 'his
assassins' (i suoi assassini) to Pisa to kill a troublesome
enemy there. Even earlier, Dante, in a passing reference in the
19th canto of the Inferno, speaks of 'the treacherous assassin'
(lo perfido assassin); his fourteenth-century commentator
Francesco da Buti, explaining a term which for some readers at
the time may still have been strange and obscure, remarks: 'Assassino
e' colui che uccide altrui per danari' - An assassin is one who
kills others for money. Since then 'assassin' has become a
common noun in most European languages. It means a murderer,
more particularly one who kills by stealth or treachery, whose
victim is a public figure and whose motive is fanaticism or
greed. It was not always so. The word first appears in the
chronicles of the Crusades, as the name of a strange group of
Muslim sectaries in the Levant, led by a mysterious figure known
as the Old Man of the Mountain, and abhorrent, by their beliefs
and practices, to good Christians and Muslims alike. ... ‘ (Bernard
Lewis; The Assassins; A Radical Sect in Islam; Poenix
publication; 2003; P: 2)
‘Marco Polo, who passed through Persia in 1273.
Speaking of the Assassins chief; Polo wrote: 'He had caused a
certain valley between two mountains to be enclosed, and had
turned it into a garden, the largest and most beautiful that
ever was seen … flowing freely with wine and milk and honey and
water; and numbers of ladies and the most beautiful damsels in
the world, who could play on all manner of instruments and sung
most sweetly, and danced in a manner that it was charming to
behold, For the Old Man desired to make his people believe that
this was actually Paradise .... So when the Old Man would have
any Prince slain,' Polo continues, 'he would say to such a
youth: Go thou and slay so and so; and when thou returnest, my
Angels shall bear thee into Paradise. And Should' st thou die
nevertheless even so, I will send my Angels to carry thee back
into Paradise. ... ‘And in this manner the Old One got his
people to murder any one whom he desired to get rid of. (Philip
K. Hitti 'The Assassins,' in George Andrews and Simon Vinkenoog
-eds.-, The Book of Grass: An Anthology on Indian Hemp -London:
Peter Owen, 1967-) Cited from: Mia Bloom; 'Dying to Kill; The
Allure of Suicide terror'; Columbia University Press/ New York;
2007; PP: 5, 6)
[xvi]
‘Over the years, the Order of Assassins had, at one time or
another, made pacts and treaties with (or at least had been
accused of making pacts with ) rival Muslims, opportunistic
crusaders, and godless Mongols. … In 1174 Sinan leader of
Aleppine Assassins proposed an alliance between Christian King
Amalric I of Jerusalem and the Assassins against Nur ed - Din
Muslim Egyptian ruler. The Assassins would provide intelligence
on Nur ed-Din's forces , as well as Assassins sappers should
Amalric need them. In addition, Sinan would train a select cadre
of Amalric's own troops in the tactics and techniques of the
Assassins. To sweeten the pot, Sinan hinted that his branch of
the Assassins sect might convert to Christianity en masse.
Knowing the Assassins were fierce and fearless fighters and had
the best intelligence network in Syria, Amalric agreed to the
alliance.’ (Dr. Haha Lung; Assassin; The deadly art of the cult
of the Assassins; Citadel Press; 1997; PP: 37,40)
[xvii]
‘Hassan II removed Islamic ritual obligations from the Assassins
sect, even to the point of permitting the consumption of
alcohol’ (Dr.
Haha Lung; Assassin; The deadly art of the cult of the
Assassins; Citadel Press; 1997; P: 36)
[xviii]
To know more about how this organisations are using these
concepts and how far their interpretation is different with what
Islam says you can see my speech on this issue ‘The
Use of the Philosophy of Martyrdom within Religious Cults for
Acts of Terrorism’ at:
http://www.banisadr.info/LSpeech050507.htm
[xix] In
Islam there is no profession as holly men or priests, instead
those who are expert in the religion call themselves as ‘Olama’
(knowledgeable people) or ‘Fagieh’, those who know rules of
conduct within Islam and can judge (Qadi).
[xx]
Assassins broke few Islamic rules of conducts including not
killing an un-combatant and unarmed old man, especially during
pray time and in a Mosque that was considered as centaury as
other places of worshiping; by killing of Ubbayd Allah al Khatib,
a Qadi (Judge) of Isfahan, during the Friday prayers in the
mosque of Hamadan. Also Qadi (Judge) of Nishapur who was
murdered during the celebrations at the end of Ramadan. (Bernard
Lewis; The Assassins; A Radical Sect in Islam; Poenix
publication; 2003; P:57)
[xxi]
This is why I totally disagree with those who call destructive
cults NRM (New Religious Movement), in my view The main
difference between two is that a destructive cult from beginning
to end is leader based whereas in a religion or a faith,
or even an ideology, though its followers might at first rely
more on the teacher, ideologue or messenger of that faith, idea
or religion, in the end they relate to ideas rather than
leaders. For them the important factor that takes precedence
over all else are ideas such as the uniqueness of God, the
existence or non-existence of God, Resurrection, Socialism or
Capitalism, believing in transmigration or metempsychosis,
struggling for social justice and an egalitarian society. They
have dogma, but their dogma is idea-based rather than
leader-based. On the opposite, destructive cult’s dogma and
their fundamental principles are leader based rather than idea
based. They can change all their principles, ideas, and
fundamentals but cannot change two, therefore the real
principles that their followers have to adhere to, till death,
are 1-survival of the cult and 2- loyalty and obedience toward
the leader of the cult.
While destructive cults might have some
similarities with idea based groupings, as indeed all existing
phenomena have some similarities, though cults might be offshoot
of an ideology or as matter of fact eventually change into a NRM,
still as long as they have characteristics of destructive cults,
in my view they should be called as such, and of course when
they change, their categorization can change accordingly. In
Farsi we say not any sphere shape object is an apple; flower of
apple because it can change into apple is not apple and apple
pie because it has been made or has ingredient of apple is not
apple too.
[xxiii]
Terrorist Organizations Are Cults’; Masoud Banisadr; Cultic
Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, PP:
PAGE 9
[xxiv]
Dispatches; ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’; Channel four TV of UK;
first of March 2010.
|