Radicalism is not an Islamic terminology. This term was first introduced by Charles James Fox who declared radical reforms in 1797. Radicalism is often defined as a school of thought that seeks social and political change or renewal by violent or drastic and revolutionary means. Based on this definition, radicalism does not have a gender, right or wrong considering that social change occurs naturally every time, either gradually or drastically [39], [40] .

If the expected change is believed by the whole community as a good change, then in this case radicalism should not be viewed negatively. In fact, according to Roberts and Bradley, the vision proposed by a charismatic leader often involves radical changes, and these changes may be more acceptable to the public during a crisis. Charismatic leaders may also be more motivated to propose their vision for radical change during times of crisis when they are more likely to be accepted and these changes may be more acceptable to the public during crises [41], [42].

Viewed from a religious perspective, radicalism is a religious understanding that refers to very basic religious foundations. Viewed from this aspect, every religion has a radical character because it has basic principles that must be believed by every adherent [43], [44] .

Politically, the term radicalism was initially only identified with any person or movement that uses violence to achieve goals. As stated by Mark, what is meant by radicalism is a movement that has an old-fashioned view and often uses violence in teaching their beliefs. They like to commit acts of terror, meaning to frighten or cause fear. Unfortunately, the violence that is widely associated with Islamic figures and movements cannot be separated from the external role of the Muslims themselves. On a macro level, acts of terrorism and radicalism do not arise purely from the womb of Islam but are the result of Western social engineering driven by the United States. Besides that, the old-fashioned term that the West attaches to Muslims who adhere to Islamic teachings is a form of Western contempt for Islam [45].

Recently, the meaning of radicalism has shifted. Radicalism is not only related to violent means used to achieve goals but also pinned on people or groups who aspire to implement Islamic law even if they are not pursued using violence. Because of this, those who oppose the idea of an Islamic-based state categorize any organization that has the goal of implementing Islamic law, they call it radical. Even from a theoretical perspective, radicalism has nothing to do with violence and is not related to any particular religious group. If it's just a philosophical level and understanding, of course, it doesn't matter because it doesn't cause damage [46] .

According to Gusti, the phenomenon of the spread of radicalism in Indonesia can be seen from a socio-political and economic perspective. In social and political analysis, radicalism is thought to arise due to circumstances and objective conditions. First, the lack of justice and freedom strengthened the dominant system of political and financial power. The allegation is that the development of radicalism is due to the strengthening of injustice and lack of freedom in politics and the economy. Second, the emergence of radicalism due to the gap in inequality in the public eye raises concerns about the future which can lead to fanaticism or loss of expectations of what will exist in the future [47].

Sociologically, radicalism is not an exclusive movement. Because the ideology that its critics call radical wants to be known or famous and wants to get support from many people. Even though being known or being famous is not the goal but is the result of their interaction with the community. Some of the characteristics of radicalism, as stated by Reny, are as follows [48], [49]:

Anyone who looks at the issue of radicalism clearly can easily conclude that the narrative of radicalism has two objectives, namely: first, an attempt to cover up the failure of the authorities in reducing poverty, corruption, and various other socio-political problems. At the same time pressing those who are critical of power. In a discussion entitled 'Indonesia Belongs to Us or Whose?', member of the DPR, Fadli Zon said that the issue of radicalism became a scapegoat to cover up his failure to manage the country. Indonesia is experiencing a condition that has made the peace it aspires to more difficult because there are efforts to create a stigma among existing groups. Religious groups want to be opposed to Pancasila. Another DPR member, Hanafi Rais, also expressed the same thing. According to him, the issue of radicalism is suspected as an attempt to cover up declining or stagnant economic growth. The issue of radicalism can divide ukhuwah and brotherhood. Therefore, LIPI observer, Siti Zuhra, believes that the nation's problem is not radicalism but very serious socio-economic inequality [50] .

Second, the target issue of radicalism is Islam and Muslims as a form of effort to marginalize political Islam. Because Islamic political aspirations, which are rivals of secular democratic politics, continue to move to make people aware of the urgency of Islamic politics. According to Ubaedillah, the tendency to use Islam as a political symbol among Muslim activists at the beginning of the New Order era became a cause for suspicion from the authorities which resulted in the exclusion of Islam from the national political arena. Even in the current era, this suspicion continues to be fostered and guarded [51].

This is addressed by the policy of making mosques the target of anti-Islam policies. They plan to map mosques on the grounds of preventing radicalism. The head of the BNPT admitted that he had received information about several mosques in DKI Jakarta that were suspected of being exposed to radicalism for a long time. The agency even asked the Ministry of Religion to oversee the mosques [52].

Previously, the authorities also spoke diligently about the importance of religious moderation, which is certainly not far from the intention to fight radicalism. All narratives of radicalism pinned on Muslims are clearly politically charged, most likely for two purposes: first, to kill political Islamic thought. Secondly, covering up the country's big problems which are precisely caused by the abuse of authority by the authorities. Because of this, in the national symposium on the three pillars of da'wah at the Indonesian Islamic University it was concluded that the issue of radicalism that has been blowing in Indonesia so far has more political content than issues of substance. When viewed from the debates carried out by many parties, the definition of radicalism is not clear [53].

Some Western researchers tend to accuse the roots of radicalism in Islam as originating from the sources of Islamic teachings themselves, namely the texts of the Qur'an and hadith. For this reason, they twist many verses of the Koran and hadith to justify their opinion so that it is accepted by the academic community. However, often the term terrorism which has a Western image of Islam raises the notion that radicalism seems to always be synonymous with Islam, which in the end radical movements outside of Islam are not widely known by the public. Therefore, it is important for Muslims that what they are fighting for is true but it will be counterproductive if carried out with terror. Sometimes, the small mistakes of Muslims become a problem when they are caught and propagated by Islamophobic groups. Even though theoretically accusations of radicalism and terrorism are not only directed at Muslims, this bad stigma is a big and planned project to lead world opinion to oppress Muslims [54].

Apart from that, in terms of terminology and these limitations, it appears that the term radicalism is deliberately biased so that it can be interpreted by the 'mandate of power'. Its generic and sociological meaning. Thus, it can easily be used as a tool to beat anyone critical of power [55] .

Under the pretext of preventing radicalism, various parties then campaigned for religious moderation, namely moderate religious understanding. Moderates are often opposed to radicals. These two terms are not scientific terms but tend to be political terms. Nevertheless, according to Taufiq, even though the term "moderate Islam" does not have a precise definition in Islam, it seems actualized to create a polite Islam and understand other groups without destroying the core values of Islam. The two terms, radical and moderate, are classifications of Muslims that lead to the political goal of splitting bamboo, apart from diverting the issue as explained earlier [56] .

These two terms have specific political aims and objectives. The reason is, that being moderate is a religious understanding (Islam) that suits Western tastes; by Western secular values (separating religion from life). On the other hand, radical is a religious (Islamic) ideology that is attached to Islamic groups that are anti-Western values and politics and require the application of Islamic sharia comprehensively in all aspects of life. It is this group of Muslims who have a strong stance in rejecting secularism. An ideology that was actually declared heretical by the MUI but still maintained by the authorities [57] .

A study conducted by Margareta, Nina Terlan, and Erik Meinema, saw that there was a kind of conditioning of public perceptions of radicals and moderates. According to an analysis by a political scientist from Uganda, Mahmood Mamdani, post-9/11 Islamic discourse was split into two poles, namely 'Good Muslims', namely those who are willing to accept differences and in other words conform to the interests of America's security foreign policy. The opponents of good Muslims are bad Muslims, namely those who are grouped with radicals, anti-Western, anti-US, and their allies and want to restore Islam in the current world political order [58] .

Thus, since the bombing of the WTC Building on September 11, 2001, the US has used the issue of terrorism as part of its global scenario to weaken Islam and Muslims. To that end, the researchers then suggested several choices of steps for AS. One of them is promoting the network of "moderate Islam" to counter the ideas of "radical Islam". As revealed Thierry Meyssan, a French journalist in his analysis concluded that the WTC 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Muslims but by insiders in America themselves. These kinds of patterns seem to be used by the parties in power to play up the issue of terrorism [59], [60] .

Because of this massive campaign and stigmatization, western news agencies, as well as many mass media in Muslim countries, are now used to using the terms 'fundamentalist Islam', and 'moderate Islam'. Moderate Islam is considered an attempt to adopt modern (western) and up-to-date values. Even though the terms 'modernism, moderate and fundamentalism were raised by Western academics in the context of religious history in their society, namely Christianity.

Moreover, in the 2006 RAND Corporation document entitled, "Building Moderate Muslim Networks" it is stated that the highest US victory can only be achieved when Islamic ideology continues to be badly imaged in the eyes of the majority of the population where they live. One of them is by labelling "radical", and "fundamentalist". ”, “extremists”, etc. In his book, Thierry Meyssan states that the RAND Corporation is the most important privately owned strategic research centre and military organization in the world with an annual budget of $ 160 million [61], [62].

Former US President George W Bush once called Islamic ideology "the ideology of extremists". However, George Soros said that the Bush administration was an extremist government. According to him, the US invasion of Iraq is evidence of the presence of extremists in the Bush administration [63] .

Even so, Bush's statement was supported by his colleague, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who called Islamic ideology "the ideology of Satan". He stated this in his speech at the British Labor Party National Policy Conference (2005). Blair then explained the characteristics of "satanic ideology", namely: (1) Rejecting Israel's legitimacy; (2) Having the thought that sharia is the basis of Islamic law; (3) Muslims must become one unit under the auspices of the Khilafah; (4) Not adopting liberal values from the West [64], [65] .

Western thinkers call radicalism by various terms. Esposito calls it the term Islamic revivalism or Islamic revivalism. Adam Schward calls it militant Islam. Karen Armstrong calls it fundamentalist Islam. Meanwhile, Azyumardi Azra called it radicalism. As a result, the issue of radicalism is a global issue. This issue is a continuation of the issue of terrorism which has failed to achieve the goals of Western countries. According to Zakiyudin Baidhawy, the theme of Islam and terrorism cannot be separated from the stereotypes and biases deliberately constructed by Western academics and religious leaders regarding Islam or Islamophobia. Pope Benedict XVI made a controversial speech on September 12, 2006, at the University of Regensburg. He views Middle Eastern Islam as a force of extreme violence as opposed to the West which embraces peace as a result of the Enlightenment era [66]- [69] .

Evidence that terrorism and radicalism are Western fabrications was uncovered after the emergence of various acts of terrorism and radicalism that have appeared in the US and Europe recently where the perpetrators are extreme right groups who have hatred of Islam. So far, the West has turned a blind eye to the real perpetrators, who are none other than their community. This narrative of the war against terrorism, radicalism, and extremism with the target of fighting Islam and Muslims is also continuously campaigned by Muslim rulers, including in this country. They continuously campaign hatred against Islam (islamophobia) and Muslims [70] .