Special Briefing: Jihad: Who's joining, and why?

Al Qaeda is against democracy as most in the West would understand it. What it wants is the replacement of existing authoritarian regimes with religious states. These would impose a rigid view of the Koran on citizens. In Al Qaeda's view, Western democratic ideas stand in the way of God's will on earth. Al Qaeda ideologue Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the self-proclaimed mastermind of Al Qaeda in Iraq - have attacked democracy as a "trick" to deny Muslims the full flowering of Islam.

In his most recent videotaped statement on June 17, Zawahiri lashed out at Egypt's democracy protestors for playing an American game. It was an attack on the nation's secular democracy and reform movements such as Kifaya. Analysts also saw it as a thrust at Islamist groups like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which favors Islamic law and says it is committed to democratic institutions. To Zawahiri, such groups can only thwart the utopian vision of a vast Islamic state.

The Islamist extremists whose rage the world is feeling today are primarily Sunni Muslims. In Iraq, which was ruled and dominated by a Sunni minority since the British created the country in the early 20th century, Sunni extremists are already targeting the ruling Shiite majority. Those extremists see the Shiites as impure and have no compunction about targeting Shiite civilians. For some scholars of Islam, the US, in replacing a Sunni regime with a Shiite-dominated one, faces unforeseen challenges as the shift in power is worked out. Some see wider dangers as its neighbors jockey for influence: What happens if turmoil in the new Iraq leads to an open confrontation between a Shiite-dominated Iran and the Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia?

Experts also see trouble for the US if its eventual withdrawal from Iraq opens the door to a Shiite-led cleansing of Sunni Muslims - the much-discussed "civil war" that some Iraqis, including former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, say has already began.

"It could be very dangerous if the US pulled out entirely," says Martha Crenshaw, a terrorism expert at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. "The jihadists would say that is what the US wanted all along, the extermination of the Sunnis in Iraq.... It could mean huge new problems for the US."

Contrary to the complaints of critics, mainstream Muslim clerics have taken steps to combat terrorism. American Muslim leaders have quickly condemned attacks, and have established programs, notably with the FBI, to assist in rooting out extremism.

Such commitments have been amplified since the London bombings. Last week, Muslim scholars in the US and Canada issued a fatwa, or judicial ruling, condemning terrorism and declaring violence against civilians - including suicide bombings - impermissible in Islam. Islamic scholars in Britain have taken similar steps. However, many experts worry that this focus on mainstream clerics is missing the mark, since the radicalized young often do not listen to religious leaders they see as Westernized.

At the same time, debate grows about whether more needs to be done. Some experts argue that jihadist violence can be ended only through opposition from within Islam. So far, such opposition hasn't stopped attacks.

The reason, some argue, is a chicken-and-egg scenario: The climate within Islam might change if Western policy changes. The establishment of a Palestinian state and the departure of US troops from Iraq could leave extremists with fewer arguments that resonate with Muslims.

Thus, both Islam and the West face pressure to change their ways. But both sides confront risks of appearing weak in the process. An apparent retreat by the US and its allies could embolden jihadists. Similarly, mainstream Islamic clerics could lose credibility if a fatwa appears to have come in response to Western demands.

Page: 1 | 2