Then why do some Muslims undertake 'suicide bombing' acts in the name of Islam? The causes are many and form part of a set of complex political and social circumstances. Firstly, it should be pointed out that these acts are not exemplary of an average Muslim's behaviour. They are localised to a few regions on the globe and are only a recent phenomenon in Muslim history.

Muslims in general are offended when they are classified as fundamentalists. The term was coined by Western sources to define an extreme response given by a group of people to a rapidly changing world. For the lack of a better word, it is used in line with an extreme form of behaviour displayed by some Muslims.

Although we are led to believe that fundamentalist aberrations are confined to the Islamic circle, it is not the case. Fundamentalism is an extreme form of religious response to secularism and it can be seen in many religious traditions. Karen Armstrong says:

Fundamentalism is a global fact and has surfaced in every major faith in response to the problems of our modernity. There is fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist Hinduism, fundamentalist Buddhism, fundamentalist Sikhism are even fundamentalist Confucianism. This type of faith surfaced in the Christian world in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century.^[25]

One example is the famous Scopes Trial in 1925 Tennessee, where Protestant Christians violently opposed the teaching of evolution theory in schools. According to Karen Armstrong, the fundamentalist phenomenon has two common chracteristics irrespective of where it comes from.

1. It expresses a deep disappointment with the negative outcomes of the modern life. Fundamentalism becomes the 'litmus test' to indicate a polarisation between those who enjoy the life brought about by secularism and those who dred its existence. Secularism here means to confine religion to the sphere of personal life and remove it from society and as an extension of politics.

2. There is a real feeling of fear that the secular establishment is out there to wipe out the respective religion. Engaging their survival instincts, fundamentalists feel that they are cornered and there is no where to go except fighting their way out.

Certainly in the case of the Muslim experience, the fight for survival has been real. Muslims remember that Britain, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Russia were the major European powers responsible for the complete collapse of their civilisation and loss of their freedom as a result of the European colonisation of the Muslim world in the 19^th and the first half of the 20^th centuries.

Muslims also observed that once Muslim countries gained their independence, dominant world powers installed leaders with whom they could work in spite of the wishes of the masses. The perception is that the rule of corrupt dictatorships, oppressive secular regimes or military elites was sustained by Western support in order to exploit the rich natural resources of the Muslim world. Muslims also see that atheism and its Western materialistic philosophy not only attacked Christianity but Islam as well. On top of this, the establishment of the State of Israel by Britain at the expense of the majority indigenous Palestinian Muslim population came as the final indignity in the heartland of the Muslim world.

Furthermore, the Western ideals of democracy, self-rule and human rights are seen as hypocritical double standards. Muslims find it hard to understand how the swift action against Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait occurred in 1991 while at the same time the world had watched Serbs massacre Bosnian Muslims for three years. Muslims ask in bewilderment and suspicion why US imposed sanctions against Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons, but did not do the same to Israel and India.

These external factors give the real impression that the very survival of Muslims and Islam is in danger. This root cause coupled with the frustration of people who endure poverty and lack of education and equal opportunity in an increasingly global world have made Muslims very angry towards the governments of the Western powers. As we have seen in recent times, this anger developed into rage, which inevitably manifests itself in violence by people who have a tendency towards extremism. Unfortunately, human psychology means that people cannot be persuaded by rational or even religious arguments to end a destructive behaviour in a state of anger unless the source of anger is removed.

Endangerment can be signaled not just by an outright physical threat but also, as is more often the case, by a symbolic threat to self-esteem or dignity: being treated unjustly or rudely, being insulted or demeaned, being frustrated in pursuing an important goal Anger builds on anger; the emotional brain heats up. By then rage, unhampered by reason, easily erupts in violence. At this point people are unforgiving and beyond being reasoned with; their thoughts revolve around revenge and reprisal, oblivious to what the consequences may be.^[26]

Another important element in explaining the dichotomy between Islam and the behaviour of some Muslims isthe psychological concept of 'cognitive dissidence'. Cognitive dissidence describes a condition in which a person simultaneously holds two conflicting views about him or herself. Since we define ourselves as rational beings, this situation is unsustainable and so we tend to rationalise in order to resolve the conflict in our mind. When we rationalise, we change our perception of reality to suit our actions. After all, it is easier to change our perceptions than our actions. In this way we feel good about ourselves even though our action may be wrong. How many of us keep on smoking knowing that it is really harmful?

The same thing happens for a Muslim who knows that he is not supposed to kill civilians in acts of violence but feels compelled to do so out of desperation and a feeling of anger for the injustices done to him, his relatives or other Muslims elsewhere in the world. In this dichotomy, he unwittingly distorts his understanding of certain verses of the Qur'an in order to justify his actions. A Muslim does not come to the conclusion that he should resort to violence after reading the Qur'an or examining the life of the Prophet Muhammad, but rather he feels compelled to resort to violence due to the adverse circumstances he is in and then justifies his actions by the Qur'an.

It is customary to rally support for the cause of any organisation. The use of Islamic rhetoric and argument lends an apparent legitimacy to a cause. This is similar to the behaviour we saw when Nazis used Christian references to justify hostility towards Jews. American slave owners often justified the practice of slavery by saying they were Christianising the black Africans. Similar rationalising is seen in India when Hindu fundamentalists justify their violence against Muslims by saying they are bringing them back to their former true religion of Hinduism.

I should stress that while the majority of Muslims are not satisfied with the status of the Muslim world, they do not see the solution in violence. There is a growing tendency within the Muslim world to examine itself and come up with feasible non-violent methods of social activism and to engage in an intellectual struggle rather than a physical one.

[25] Armstrong, Karen, Islam a Short History, 2001, p 140.
[26] Goleman, Daniel, "Emotional Intelligence", Bloomsbury, 1996, pp 60-62