Why Muslim Rebel

In the book “Why Muslims Rebel: Chapter five, Ideology and Anti-civilian Violence, the author Mohammed M. Hafez argues that patterns of anti-civilian violence are often a product of anti-system ideological frames that develop under condition of repression and within the context of exclusive mobilization structures.” Anti-system frames facilitate what social psychological call “moral disengagement, “which deactivates self sanctioning norms against brutality and values anti-civilian violence a permissible indeed legitimate, mode of contention (Bandura 1998, 1999; Bandura et. al. 1996, 2001) (Hafez 155 ,156). In this chapter Hafez explains ethical justification of violence, advantageous comparison and displacement of responsibility.

By examining the way various Islamic groups justify their actions or violence against civilians. He starts with an explanation of ideological frames, “ideological frames refer to the conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of the world and themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action (McAdam et al 1996;6) (Hafez 156). Hafez writes, “Abortion is murder…[this] is an example of an ideological frame [that would be] used by antiabortion activists in the United States to motivate protest against abortion clinics. Such framing accentuate the perceived nefariousness of abortion and suggests the need for need sanctions against it” (Hunt et al 1994) (Hafez 156).

It is my understanding that in some ideological frames they are derived from either a group or individuals’ personal feelings about the states political system and their belief that things are corrupt in some manner. As a result neither side would be able to come to an agreement that would be beneficial to both sides. Hafez poses the question “how do anti-system frames contribute to violence against civilians?” he replies “ they do so through a gradual process of deactivating self inhibitory moral codes against murder and mayhem. Clandestine high risk activities, especially violence, require a great deal of justification and motivation” (Hafez 152). My understanding of the question and answer would be that various Islamic groups have to find legality in their actions or acts of violence by placing the guilt elsewhere. By doing so, they find some fault, best pertaining to something political social or religiously to make it justifiable in their mind. Hafez writes that” violent groups consciously employ what Bandura (1998;161-4) terms mechanisms of “moral disengagement” to legitimate and motivate violent repertoires of contentions (Hafez 157).

Many Muslims have turned against the West because they feel anyone who is non-Muslim is against Islam. Hafez writes, “both the Jama’a and Jihad groups [have] portrayed their struggles as a fight against an international conspiracy led by the combined forces of Zionist, communist, and Crusades who are out to destroy Islam” (Hafez 177). The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has the same attitude and feels the some as the Jama’a and Jihad groups. From the readings, it’s my understanding these groups look at secularism, nationalism, as