It has become a commonplace for anyone recommending that governments talk to terrorist organisations to be branded an apologist for these extremists groups.

The operating principle all around the world has been to shut any avenues for talks with extremist groups and to meet their unofficial acts of violence with official acts of violence. Then inevitably violence begets more violence.

It is now quite obvious that the threat of terrorism has become a dominant feature of modern life, despite the anger and angst with which the war against terror has been executed.

The post-9/11 years have seen a spike in the number of people radicalised enough to volunteer to kill scores of people and die in the process — almost always for religious reasons.

Exponents of terrorist ideals present the religious “reasons” for their heinous actions, quoting holy writ to justify themselves. The terrorist thus comes across as a man or woman willing to at once pray and kill. This is a rather incongruous combination.

The incompatibility of praying and killing makes one wonder whether in fact those waging war against terrorism really understand the mind of the terrorist. Wouldn’t be better to understand the terrorist before responding to his violence with more violence?

No, some would argue. There is no need to know the mind of the enemy; just destroy him. According to the conventional way of dealing with terrorism, the terrorist has no reason for his actions as such.

He may provide what would appear as reasons, such as the occupation by US forces in Kabul or Kenyan or Ugandan forces in Somalia, the loathing of Western education in Nigeria, but mostly these look like excuses for going on senseless and wanton killing sprees. To talk with terrorists is thus to dignify their actions and their demands, so the thinking goes.

But refusal to talk as a method of counterterrorism has failed if the continuation of acts of terrorism since 9/11 are anything to go by.

The US-led attack in Afghanistan against the Taliban extremists was premised on the notion that you do not talk to terrorists, you pulverise them. But after 13 wasted years, it would seem, the United States has realised it may be prudent to talk to the terrorists after all, and they are talking to the Taliban.

Meanwhile, terrorism has been on inexplicable ascendancy lately in some parts of Africa. The spectre of attacks by fundamentalist groups such Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and Al Shaabab casts a dark shadow on normalcy on the continent.

Terrorism, in fact, now dictates how we enter office and commercial buildings, how we board planes or public commuter vehicles, how we build walls around territorial frontiers, and how we enter parking lots, how we organise sporting events, how we admit visitors in places of worship, etcetera.

We are dominated by the fear of terrorism, eating that fear, sleeping that fear, walking that fear. Nobody will believe you if you say the good old days, the days before 9/11, were not good days.

I recently attended the general assembly of the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (Codesria), in Dakar, Senegal.

Formed more than 40 years ago, the Dakar-based body has been spearheading academic research and intellectual development on the African continent.

This year’s general assembly focused on the future of Africa and tackled a whole range of issues the continent grapples, with including terrorism and radicalisation of the youth.

As a solution to the problem of terrorism, prominent political scientist Prof Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia and Makerere Universities, recommended that governments consider holding talks with terror groups such as Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram.

He argued that refusal to engage these groups in negotiations only serves to further embitter and embolden them. Prof Mamdani said this during a panel discussion on the connection between fundamentalism, terrorism, and radicalisation of youth chaired by former Kenyan Cabinet minister Prof Anyong Nyong’o.

Prof Ousmane Kane of Harvard underscored the increasing importance of religion to Africans, noting that research shows that 21st century Africans often spend more time and money on religious activity than those of the previous century.

Prof Kane shared his recent research, which indicated that more than 98 per cent of Africans considered religion the most important thing in their lives, with Senegal taking the lead in levels of religiosity.

Prof Jibril Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development (Nigeria) stated that the rise of religion and by extension fundamentalism is down to the failure of the postcolonial state in Africa and the commodification of religious practice.

Religion is good business in Africa, shown by the fact that Nigeria has seven of the 10 richest religious leaders in the world. However, the scholars noted that despite the heightened level of religiosity, crime has also increased tremendously.

Religion and terrorism, to my mind have now become inextricably bound up together. Clearly certain interpretations or misinterpretations of religious scripts have justified and fuelled radicalisation and terrorism.

By the same token, there is room for an efficacious religious de-radicalisation process as a counterterrorism strategy. The movement led by Muslim clerics and scholars in Kenya, Building Resilience Against Violent Extremism (BRAVE) is a case in point, sending, as it does, the message via the media that killing non-believers is not a jihad but murder and they quote the Koran.

But admittedly, detoxing the minds of individuals and groups convinced that there is a heavenly reward for maiming and killing is an arduous and uncertain process. It will require listening to what the terrorist says and what he does not say because the door has been shut on him. It will require listening to the silences.

Ken Walibora is the Kiswahili quality manager at Nation Media Group. E-mail: [email protected]