Historical Roots of Terrorism: From Ancient Groups to Modern Jihad

Introduction: Terrorism Across the Ages

From nomadic tribes wreaking havoc on each other to the Zealots of Judea and the original Assassins, terrorism has been a part of human political strategy since the origin of the species. Whether it reflects the innate bellicosity of human beings or simply reveals the effects of class or religious conflict, terrorism is an unfortunate part of life — even daily life for some people. Advanced weaponry and communications technology have made terrorism more widespread, more sinister, and far deadlier than ever before, but terrorism itself is nothing new. The first recorded use of the word "terrorism" occurred during the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror ("Early History of Terrorism," n.d.).

Yet terrorism precedes the Reign of Terror by millennia. Many terrorist groups — like the Zealots and the Assassins of the past, or Al Qaeda and ISIL today — have some kind of religious ideology wrapped up in their politics, but religion is not a necessary feature of terrorism. In fact, Robespierre did not invoke religion to defend the strategic use of violence during the Reign of Terror. Likewise, anarchists and Bolshevists periodically used terrorist techniques without resorting to religious justifications. Thus, the strategic objectives and patterns of behavior evident in historical examples of terrorism set the stage for contemporary versions of terrorism, even though the tools, technologies, means, and methodologies have changed.

Defining Terrorism and Its Common Features

To understand the connection between historical and modern forms of terrorism, it may be helpful to define terms. Unfortunately, defining terrorism is practically impossible given its diversity and shifting nature. As Laqueur (2007) puts it, there are "more than a hundred definitions" of terrorism, none wholly satisfactory because "there have been many terrorisms, greatly differing in time and space, in motivation, and in manifestations and aims" (Laqueur, 2007).

Some common features of terrorism include a sense of unity among perpetrator groups and an identification of a shared enemy. That enemy may be symbolic, just as the sense of unity itself is often symbolic. After all, the unity that terrorist groups promote does not depend on "nationhood" in the modern sense or even on shared religious goals. That unity does not even require a perceived foreign invader, although foreign invasions have often provoked terrorist responses, as they did with the Zealots. Religion can and sometimes does provide the impression of unity on the part of the terrorist group and its supporters, but more important historically in the rhetoric of terrorist groups has been the theme of "liberation." For the Zealots, the goal was to use terrorism to attack Roman officials in order to liberate Jewish lands from Roman rule. The Islamic State (ISIL) uses similar terminology in their charter: "We are a comprehensive Islamic front working to liberate the land and people [of Syria] and to build, through organizational work, a civilized Islamic society in Syria" ("Charter of the Syrian Islamic Front," 2013).

Historical Patterns: Zealots, Assassins, and Revolutionary Terror

The Assassins likewise valued the ideal of liberation and targeted internal enemies, just as modern Muslim jihadist groups frequently target perceived Muslim enemies. For instance, the leader of the terrorist group al-Jihad, which assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981, believed "the fight against the 'near enemy' — local, Muslim regimes — was more important than the fight against the 'far enemy' — external, non-Muslim threats" ("A History of Modern Jihadism," 2014). The modern jihad movements, such as that of Al Qaeda, trace their origins to the Assassins, the original Muslim jihad group who fought for the unity of Shiite believers against the perceived injustices of the Sunnis among them.

Domestic terrorism in the United States has revealed similar tendencies toward targeting the "near enemy," as seen in the anti-government sentiments of Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building. "I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government," wrote McVeigh (2001) in a letter. McVeigh's statement bears a strong resemblance to Robespierre's, as both used terrorism to attack the "enemies of liberty," as Robespierre (1784) put it. McVeigh (2001) did not seek to found his own nation; he simply believed that the American government needed a "retaliatory strike," and that terrorism "served more purposes than other options." McVeigh's language reflects the Assassin rhetoric of centuries earlier: "But for Hasan-i Sabbah, acts of terror were a legitimate means of self-defense precisely because they focused on high-ranking enemy military, political, and religious leaders who had taken hostile actions against the Ismaili community" (Gray, 2010).