How far do you agree that the growth of religious fundamentalism in the 1970s

to 1990s was the result of Superpower involvement in the Islamic World?

While the involvement of the superpowers, namely the Soviet Union and the United
States, can be said to have accelerated the growth of religious fundamentalism, it
cannot fully explain its wider emergence in the 1970s to 1990s, especially when
religious fundamentalism continued to grow in areas where the superpowers were
relatively uninvolved.

Superpower involvement in the Islamic World empowered fundamentalists with

weapons, capital and training for their use of violence to achieve their goals,
elevating their status as an extremist and thus perceivably more effective alternative.
This contributes significantly to the growth of religious fundamentalism because it
adds to its appeal: on top of financial rewards, fundamentalists are assured that their
cause will be sufficiently supported, by the superpowers, logistically, with sizeable
forces that pose a real threat to your enemy. In some senses, some of the victories
claimed by fundamentalists might not have been possible without superpower
backing. For example, the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan prompted the
United States to back mujahideen, guerilla fighters who fight against non-Muslim
forces such as the Soviets, with financial and military support. When the Soviets
withdrew in 1989, it was viewed as a victory by the mujahideen, an example of how a

resistance effort in the name of Islam and with the use of violence had not just
revolutionary potential but also the potential to overthrow a superpower. While the
visible impact on radical support might not be observable, it is conceivable that
superpower involvement added to the chances of success of the fundamentalists,
that adds to their credibility in comparison with secular alternatives.

Superpower involvement also came in the form of confrontation between the United
States and Soviet Union in the Arab-Israeli conflict, where their militarization of the
sides they took increased tensions and insecurities, while polarising Middle Eastern
conflict. The Soviet Union offered economic and technical assistance, made
extensive arms deals and extended economic aid while the Americans has continued
to provide economic and diplomatic support for Israel. In particular, Americas
absolute and uncompromising support for Israel has cemented antagonism towards
the Western World and promoted the growth of religious fundamentalism as a
response to foreign involvement in the region. De Soto suggests that the Arab-Israeli
conflict has concentrated in the minds of Muslims worldwide the sense that the West
is ...acting only with force and in a biased way against Arabs, promoting a sense of
the Muslim-majority Arabs being under threat. Extremist measures begin to be seen
as necessary to prevent concessions being made to non-Muslims, or letting the
attackers of their umma succeed in their claims. For example, Egyptian President

Anwar Sadats signing of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace treaty triggered Islamic
extremists in Egypt to assassinate him. Hence it can be seen how superpower
involvement has added to the motivation of Muslim fundamentalists, hardening their
anti-Western views and making more urgent their need to protect the Muslim
community, the umma, against these influences.

It is also noteworthy that it is not merely Superpowers involvement per se but the
associations made with the West, more particularly the United States, which made
their involvement have an even greater impact on the growth of fundamentalism.
With modernization had come social and cultural changes that challenged traditional
and religious family values. The liberalist way of life was described by Sayyid Qutb,
an Egyptian leader, as being devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for
relatives except under the force of law and it was seen that building politics based on
religion would eliminate the corruption, mismanagement that was seen as infiltrating
the region due to external influence, be it directly or through globalization.

Besides the superpowers, however, other countries have been involved that have
contributed to the growth of Muslim fundamentalism. For example, Saudi Arabia has
played a key role through its sponsorship and proliferation of its Wahhabi brand of
Islam. Especially in a country with no other forms of education available, Saudi

Arabia funding madrasas and organizing the propagation of its particularly

uncompromising interpretation of Islam has built a generation of revolutionaries
exposed from a young age to deeply conservative views of the religion, thus
cultivating support for the fundamentalists. It may be interesting to note, however,
that Wahhabi Islam, as a form of fundamentalism that challenges the Shia Muslims
interpretation of the religion, how it attempts to undermine one form of Muslim
fundamentalism while it propagates another.

More importantly, however, the growth of religious fundamentalism arose out of a

profound discontentment with secular governments and ideologies to deliver their
promises. Religion, and more specifically, a political system built upon religion, posed
an alternative that seemed to have more potential and that seemed to resonate
better with the masses. Even without significant intervention by foreign forces, the
fundamentalist movements managed to take off, proving the role of superpower
involvement to be mainly the polarization of the population and acceleration of
fundamentalisms growth.

The failure of secular governments and ideologies reinforced a Muslim sense of

inferiority that had prevailed since the embarrassing Arab defeat in 1967, and
Muslims saw a greater need to regain pride lost in a world dominated by Western

secular political and economic systems. Turning to fundamentalism seemed to offer

something better, truer and more hopeful than the inept and bankrupt tyrannies that
ruled them.

For example, Irans reforms from the 1930s to 1960s which had aimed at
industrialization, modernization and the Westernisation of Iran, such as through
voting rights for women, secular schools, and a comprehensive system of
monopolies, had led to the impoverishment of the middle class, oppression of the
intellectuals, unemployment and the discontent of the ulama, the religious teachers.
The fall of GNP from 1975 onwards fell with overspending in the military, which,
together with social problems and the general atmosphere of suppression, led to the
Iranian revolution. This revolution replaced the secular government that had been
seen as selling out to the West with an Islamic government which stressed the rule
of divine law over people, where sovereignty lies not with people but with God. Once
a secular government that had failed was overthrown, as in Iran, and replaced with a
religion-based government that seemed to work, confidence in fundamentalism and it
as a viable alternative grew as well.

The response of secular governments to the challenge of fundamentalists has also

further anchored the growth of fundamentalism. Concessions are seen as weakness,

and suppression led to the loss of legitimacy by the governments. In Algeria where
the Islamic Salvation Front party seemed to have more popular support than the
ruling party, elections that were supposed to be the democratic were cancelled after
the first round. The arrest of thousands of the Islamic Salvation Front party members
only served to escalate violence, with the launch of an armed campaign against the
government and its supporters. While the government continued to brutally clamp
down on opposition, it only continued to lose its legitimacy and allow for the further
radicalization of militants, justifying their actions with Gods support.

On top of that, the general suppression of any dissent can lead to limited avenues for
voicing discontent, such that mosques and Islam become the central means for
mobilization against the government. For example, in Iran where public meetings
were controlled by security services and all political parties except the regimes
Rastakhiz Party was dissolved, the privacy of the mosque allowed for religion to
monopolize the government opposition role.

It is curious, however, how it seems that the failure to develop economic progress
discredited not just the governments, but also the entire secular ideology. A key
explanation for this how dissatisfaction with existing governments did not lead to
the mere replacement by other secular governments but rather led to governments

led by increasingly fundamentalist impulses is the attractiveness of fundamentalism

and religion. On top of being readily comprehensible by both educated and
uneducated Muslims given its Manichean nature, and offering a set of familiar
slogans and symbols effective in gaining support, fundamentalism, or politicized
religion, brings with it divine reward. Divine reward justifies all action, however
extreme, to protect their faith. It allows one to be fearless taking ones own life or
taking thousands of others lives becomes divinely ordained. In other circumstances
and non-religious conflicts continued suppression may eventually stop the growth of
any form of opposition. However, because there is seemingly no limit to what can be
done in the word of God, the uncompromising stance fundamentalism has allows for
its proliferated growth so long as there is something to fight against. In this sense,
the growth of religious fundamentalism was considerably influenced by superpower
involvement, but it is the failure of secular governments and the religious means
employed, the nature of the message and hope that religious fundamentalism
inspires especially in dire circumstances, that has contributed far more significantly to
the growth of religious fundamentalism.