The Jihadi Elite and the Communist Elite

Like Anne Applebaum, a Washington Post journalist who recently wrote an article about international jihadi elite, I have not read Defne Bayrak’s book, Bin Laden: Che Guevara of the East. And like Applebaum, I could also see what she meant when she said: “Both Osama and Che have claimed to fight in the name of the poor and oppressed, while simultaneously appealing very deeply to the wealthy and disgruntled.”

Bayrak, a Turkish journalist, is the wife of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the suicide bomber who killed eight CIA personnel in Afghanistan two weeks ago. She is proud of being an anti-American and of her husband’s martyrdom. Applebaum categorizes her, together with her husband, the Nigerian would-be bomber of Flight 253, and other jihadists who went to elite schools in Europe as typifying an international jihadi elite: educated, eloquent, have connections across the Islamic world; certainly not “the wretched of the Earth.”

They remind me of the communist elite in the Philippines, sons and daughters of the wealthy class who are products of the country’s premier university, the University of the Philippines, where the best and the brightest get their education. They come to UP innocent and fresh from their Catholic high school education only to come out four years later as idealistic revolutionaries ready to take up arms against the establishment.

What do these elites have in common? Both pursue an other-worldly ideology, an abstract vision of something that requires changing and reforming human nature. Communists dream of a utopian society of total classlessness while jihadists want to build a city of God on earth. Both also consider themselves defenders of the common men. Because of their education, class stature, social background, and, in the case of the international jihadis, a deeper sense of religious piety, they think of themselves as intellectually and morally superior over the rest of us. Hence, they deem it their duty to take up our cause, think for us, and tell us what is good for us. Because they think their intentions for the rest of us are higher and nobler, they are ennobled by what they do. In truth, however, what they do is condescending, patronizing, and self-righteous.

Consider Mr. Mohammad Ali Salih, a Washington-based correspondent for Arabic newspapers and magazines in the Middle East. In today’s Washington Post op-ed piece, “My jihad at the White House,” Salih is in a crusade, holding a one-man demonstration in front of the White House, an act of jihad, he says, but not of terrorism, he quickly points out, because he has felt sadness, anger and frustration over America’s wars on Muslims. Angry at Bush back then and at Obama now for not having the “courage to peacefully engage the Muslim world or to end the injustice the United States inflicts on Muslims in the name of its ‘war on terrorism,’" he enumerates America’s sins:

some [Muslims] continue to resist U.S. occupation of two Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), resent U.S. bombardment of two Muslim countries (Pakistan and Somalia), resent U.S. threats to bombard two Muslim countries (Syria and Iran) and resent U.S. military intervention in another Muslim country (Yemen).

I believe Obama's basic problem with the Muslim world is his inability to understand -- or perhaps his denial -- that the Koran tells Muslims to stand up against injustice, particularly if they are treated unfairly by non-Muslims, which stands out in the form of blatant military occupations.

As to why America launched these attacks in these countries, Mr. Salih did not say. There was also no mention of the atrocities committed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban against their own people. And how does Mr. Salih know what the general Muslim populations think and want? Do they share his notion of injustice by non-Muslims against Muslims? In what sense? From some of my readings, I understand that the locals living in villages and towns of Afghanistan and Iraq would like the US troops to stay.

In reality, these self-appointed messiahs -- jihadists and communists alike -- have only an abstract notion of the “people” they claim to serve. They love the people only from afar and view them only in terms of a collective whole. For if one takes a closer look, the “people” they claim to defend are composed largely of simplistic, impoverished, and undignified ordinary folks and villagers who simply work hard to earn a living. Understanding life and its daily requirements, their common sense understanding of things is dismissed by the elites as unsophisticated. They do not have respect for the common man's ability to think and decide for himself.

This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party, the vanguards of “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the revolution. It is also central in jihadist thinking: it is their duty even to the point of martyrdom to preserve and defend the pure teachings of their religion and wage violence against those who oppose it.

For all their self-righteous indignation, jihadists and communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to their societies. And yet in their abstract, condescending worldview, they cannot see what is wrong with themselves and their message. Wrapped up in their messianic complex and believing in the rightness of their cause, they truly believe that the salvation of mankind lies in their hands.

As for Mr. Salih, I hope that his one-man jihad remains just that – a one-man jihad. For the rest of us toiling masses are too busy eking out a living, providing food and shelter for our families, sending our children to school, taking part in community projects, and, if we’re lucky, finding the time to dream of a better world.