Mohamed Ibn Guadi is an Islamologist at Strasbourg University and a researcher in Semitic Philology. He is a contributor to Figaro, Le Point and other journals. He is the Director of the Islamology Program at the French Center of Middle East Studies (AFEMO) in Toulouse. He is currently preparing a book on Islam and the West.


RM: Is Islam growing more radical or moderate overall? Where is it the most worrisome?

MIG: That's a good question, Ryan. Today, most people think that radical Islam is growing to the detriment of the "real" Islam. Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Is it a religion of war? Neither. As a matter a fact, this is a puzzle. Osama Bin Laden is a good Muslim. I mean, what they say about the West is consistent with Islamic history. It's true that moderate Muslims represent Islam but we have to keep in mind that Osama, Mullah Omar and others represent Islam as well.


RM: But do you think that the religion of Islam as a whole is growing more radical, or more peaceful ?

MIG: Islam is growing more original which means that Islam is returning to its foundations. Islam is in a decisive time that it will determine its future. The growing of democracy in the Arab world could change the Arab minds but not Islam.

RM: How did radical Islam originate? Is it true the Soviet Union played a key role in creating radical Islam in the first place?

MIG: Radical Islam is not an ex nihilo creation. The so-called "radical Muslims" draw their sources in 14 centuries of Islamic history as well as hadiths and Muhammad the Prophet's life that must be an example for Muslims. The Jihad is theologically correct. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that the ones who are very critical of their Arab country are also Muslims. Ibn Khaldoun, maybe the greatest historian in Arab history, was very critical towards Muslims.

Arabs have always sought allies according to the circumstances. During the 40's it was the Nazis, during the Cold War it was the Soviet Union. They (Arabs) adopted some ideologies from their allies. But neither Nazism nor the Soviet Union played a key role in the expansion of radical Islam.


RM: What do you believe is causing the radicalization of the Islamic world?

MIG: The feeling that all the problems comes from the West. But, this is not the only cause. The only thing that saved the Arabs in the 20th century is secular nationalism. After the Six Days War, the Arabs saw this nationalism trifling. The one source the Arabs met in their history was the Islamic State. This is the only one political organization they have experienced. Secular nationalism came from Europe by Arab intellectuals who wanted to gather Arab Christians and Muslims under the Arab nation.


RM: What countries do you believe are actively helping the growth of radical Islam?

MIG: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan (within the ISI).


RM: How come world opinion tends to be anti-American, especially in respect to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

MIG: As for Western opinion, there are many ways to explain that. I think that if the westerners are anti-American, it means that words like freedom, democracy, and freedom of speech and so on have no signification for them. If they are so anti-American this is because this ideology uses simple words to understand. But, there is also a hate of themselves from Westerners. And some Muslims have understood it. In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television on 14 February 2003, Osama Bin Laden said: "The interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against the crusaders." After the bomb attack in Spain (14 March 2004), these words seemed almost prophetic.

In the case of Arab world, the anti-Americanism is also a way for some governments to save their regime. Unfortunately, they don't worry about Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, the Arab World became very silent. The UN has never condemned this invasion. At the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conferences in Islamabad, on 27 January 1980, Libya gave a very harsh condemnation... of the United States.


RM: How come we don't see more action by the moderates in the Islamic world?

MIG: Because their actions will be interpreted as support for the West. There is no culture of peace in our countries. If you want to see more action from moderates it has to be from true pacifism in a healthy Arab society. How can we hope for such action when the journalists, singers and television don't stop saying that Jews are murderers of children and lead all the governments in the world?

But, in the Arab world, you can be a very "moderate" Muslim if you're anti-American and anti-Israeli in other ways. That's why some Arabs atheists are approved by militant Muslims because they are anti-Semitic.


RM: Is there a community of moderate Muslims in the Middle East that can help fight anti-Americanism?

MIG: They needn't fight anti-Americanism because they are fighting it by their way of life. Many of them appreciate the American movies or fashion. Even in Lebanon, several activists of Hamas go to MacDonald's to eat.


RM: How will the growing Islamic community in Europe affect European policy? Has it already?

MIG: Well, it does affect policy but not as seriously as you think. For example, France had had an "Arab Policy" before the war in Iraq. In 1967, after the Six Days War, France refused to support Israel. The French media and the army were very pro-Israel in that period. A very short period, granted. However, most of the Muslims in France don't vote.


RM: Do you believe that stability and democracy in Iraq is possible?

MIG: I'm not worried about Iraq's stability. Let's talk about it in ten or fifteen years. I'm sure that the Iraqi people will not thank Europe. Now, the Iraqi people are very angry with some Arab countries for their opposition to the overthrow the Saddam regime. That's why I've said to you previously that it is possible that what we saw in the former Soviet republics may occur again because some Arabs don't want to live in oppression anymore.

RM: What in your opinion needs to be done to stop the growth of radical Islam?

MIGL: First of all, I think that Westerners have to accept that some people in the Islamic world don't want democracy. Then, they also have to accept that terrorists attack due to the love of life and freedom in the West. If the Colombian FARC, the Irish Republican Army, and others, want to kill people, they don't strike a single embassy in Moscow, Paris, Sidney, or even in Washington. The Islamic militant will strike all these capitals because they feel that they are at war with the values of the West. Their claim is first of all religious and then political. Islamic militants would rather have more dead than alive. I think the Westerners should grant them their wishes.

The Middle East is the only region that is poisoning Muslims and Westerners next. The best way to stop the bleeding is to bring democracy into this part of the world, even by force. But, democracy is not perfect, it evolves and gets better. Over time, the democracy gets stronger and better. It will happen as we saw in the former Soviet republics. The Arabs will win their independence. Not independence from the West but from their Arab leaders. I really think that the intervention in Iraq was good. It's a way to accelerate history. Most of the Iranian diplomats I met would like for the United States intervene against Tehran like they've done in Baghdad. But, they know that the Iran situation is different as well.


RM: The people of Iran are supposedly very eager to oust the radicals. Why is there less radicalism here, despite the government being the most radical of all?

MIG: Because there is in Iran, unlike the Arab countries, a real movement of peace and social reform, despite having a radical government. The Shiite society has much experience, through its history, and the criticism of themselves. The Iranians really thought that the Islamic Revolution would change their country. But that was not the case. Secondly, the Iranian Shiites are not as obsessed in their anti-Semitism and anti-American as the Sunni Muslims. Despite the warnings of the government, the Iranian people are expressed their sympathy for the victims of 9/11/01.

In the Arab world and even in some western countries, there was that jubilation over 9/11/01. I think that Iran could give help teach democracy to the Arab world. Iran is a non-Arab country that became an Islamic state. And now this is a non-Arab and possibly an ex-Islamic state in the future, which could become an example of democracy in the Middle East. It's quite likely that the first president of an Iranian democratic country be a woman.


RM: How likely is it that there will be anti-terror and pro-freedom leaders in Palestine to challenge Arafat, Hamas and the rest? Is the plan for a Palestinian state likely to succeed anytime soon?

MIG: Like in the Arab world, there are some leaders in the Autonomous Territories to challenge Arafat and even the Hamas. These leaders are not especially pro-Israeli but they could be more conciliatory. Arafat is not eternal. When he dies, there will be an opportunity to re-educate the people.

The plan for a Palestinian state is very difficult. No Arab will accept a patch of land such that Autonomous Territories. Some Muslims want all the land. I don't think we're on the way for a Palestinian State. If Palestinians want a real state, it already exists: This is Jordan. It is the only viable state for the Palestinians. But, at the same time, Arab Palestinians cannot give up the Temple Mount which is called the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It doesn't means that Autonomous Territories couldn't be a real state. But it will be not enough for the Muslims.


RM: You wrote in the last answer that Jordan is only the only viable Palestinian state. Why do you believe this?

MIG: Because 75% of its people are Palestinians or originate from the British mandate of Palestine. The Jordanian nationality doesn't exists.


RM: You also said a state in the Autonomous Territories wouldn't be enough for the Muslims. Why is that?

MIG: Because Arabs from the beginning have wanted all the land. They don't consider the Jews to have a historical background in this place. The Temple Mount situation is a strong example.