Individually Muslims may show splendid qualities. Many of them become brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. In the world there is a retrograde large force. Far from being moribund, the cult of Mohammed is a faith that is militant and proselytizing... the modern European civilization could fall, as the civilization of ancient Rome has collapsed". (Winston Churchill)

A recent sociological thesis pointed out that raising of Jihad and birthing of a number of Islamic Associations across the world is, more or less, due to the desire to re-draw their lifestyle following the scriptures, which have been eliminated by the day-to-day political authority management.

In this sense a picture of immorality drives the sentence of the existing legislative bodies, which lack of Islamic virtues. However, based on our perspective, this interpretation fails, not considering the historical momentum and geopolitical circumstances in which, the militancy has the aim to restore a number of super-principles to re-create a new Islamic golden age.

The instruments for realizing this project are varied and according to the Islamic view, raising terror, as a major pressure element against the secularized societies, is conceptually the most rational weapon. In a certain sense it seems that usage of fear recalls, in the western Countries, the French Revolutionaries political mission but in a reverse mode.

The Islamic task is opposing an organic idea against the State coming from French Revolution "moral Principles".
The word "Terrorism" is used to avoid a link to a specific religious and political community and, at the same time, to understand the roots of consensus the same community might given to the actions perpetrated by terrorists. In our opinion there's nothing wrong to define the actual "Islamic Terrorism", as major supported scheme across the world.

Moreover there is also a geo-political difference between terrorism types: the "Basque Terrorism" is localized in a certain place in the world, while "Islamic Terrorism" does not provide any geographical localization and it looks more like a global action against a specific civilization. In addition we should consider those Countries that are listed as sponsor of terrorism, which are facilitating a sort of a proxy war to establish particular conditions for gaining potential area of influence.

The militancy is then more like an imperial global campaign to attach a specific establishment where militants feel themselves actors which write the history again, redefining the overall political blueprint as well as emphasizing the idea of defense against the western nihilism. The strategy has proven to be symmetrical in the militant attacks, with control and military organization that was based on the use of common means of communication, rather than sophisticated.

Another feature is related to the origin of the militants, which, excluding the Intifada Suhadas, are generally from families that have allowed their studies at colleges and universities abroad. Osama Bin Laden, for example, has a degree in Management and Economics at King Abdul Aziz University, and is extremely well integrated in the Saudi family establishment. His choice of moving out following a simple lifestyle, rather than maintain comfortable one, has earned him the trust and the approval of potential militants. In a hierarchy, therefore we have: Fundamentalists, Sympathizers, Militants and Terrorists. These roles can be interchangeable.

The battle against the West, considered being vicious and corrupted, is a path of high moral value and religious duty. The West of the revolutionary principles should discover the idea of an organic unity that is able to re-unite a civilization under the siege of hate preachers.