Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 56
Table 2: Differences Between Aum and Al Qaeda
Aum Shinrikyo Al Qaeda
Manufactured/synthetic belief
system
Utilized pre-existing cultural
and religious frames
Used chemical/biological
weapons
Achieved an effect similar to
a WMD
Concentrated on WMD
despite failures
Abandoned WMD &adopted
a modified approach of
proven tactics in a highly
effective way
Attacked from within Attacked from afar
Reacted to pending strike Planned offensive strike in
detail
Remained in country of origin
primarily
Comprised of members from
an exiled community (Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, etc.)
Relied on internal technical
knowledge &expertise for
WMD programs
Relied on networked strategy
to achieve effect
Sought to mine &
manufacture fissile material
Sought external support for
nuclear weapon
Ran for political office and
lost
Demands on revamping the
political system and secular
construct
With regards to weapons of mass destruction, the most telling similarity is the desire and
financial resources to pursue chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. Both
organizations believed that violence can achieve political change and both believed in the
possibility that terrorism was an effective means to that end. However, as we compare the
differences between both organizations, Crenshaw‘s distinction between instrumental and
organizational approaches becomes quite apparent.
While Aum expressed political change as its ultimate desire, its decision-making reflected
more of an organizational survivalist construct in achieving its ends. Unlike al Qaeda, Aum
became focused on using a weapon of terror to achieve its objectives. This obsessive
fixation continues despite numerous experimental attempts and failures. Aum‘s leaders
appeared almost unconstrained by their own ego and driven to validate the organization‘s
extensive investment in research and equipment by using chemical weapons. In contrast,
al Qaeda abandoned its effort after repeated attempts failed to achieve desired outcomes,
leading the group to modify known capabilities, bombing and hijacking, so as to improve
their chances of success. In keeping with a more instrumental approach, al Qaeda has
maintained its focus on accomplishing its operational objectives while altering the specific
tactical means of doing so. Although al Qaeda had the wealth, resources, and contacts
necessary for a WMD venture, its leaders decided to pursue other alternatives to achieve
the desired effect. However, both examples show that, despite wealth and connections,
problems still exist in pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
Also noteworthy are the different ways in which each organization framed its cause. Al
Qaeda leveraged existing sentiments and feelings shared by a large majority of the Muslim
world. The leadership within al Qaeda capitalized upon widely shared beliefs that the
Muslim world‘s problems stem from the continuing influence of the West in Islamic affairs.
Al Qaeda‘s message has a broad appeal because it resonates with existing cultural,
religious, and societal beliefs, which were hijacked to advance ideological objectives. In
contrast, Aum‘s belief core is wholly manufactured, i.e., synthetic in its origins. First, while
Asahara dabbled in the practices of Hinduism, his syncretistic belief structure was pieced
Table 2: Differences Between Aum and Al Qaeda
Aum Shinrikyo Al Qaeda
Manufactured/synthetic belief
system
Utilized pre-existing cultural
and religious frames
Used chemical/biological
weapons
Achieved an effect similar to
a WMD
Concentrated on WMD
despite failures
Abandoned WMD &adopted
a modified approach of
proven tactics in a highly
effective way
Attacked from within Attacked from afar
Reacted to pending strike Planned offensive strike in
detail
Remained in country of origin
primarily
Comprised of members from
an exiled community (Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, etc.)
Relied on internal technical
knowledge &expertise for
WMD programs
Relied on networked strategy
to achieve effect
Sought to mine &
manufacture fissile material
Sought external support for
nuclear weapon
Ran for political office and
lost
Demands on revamping the
political system and secular
construct
With regards to weapons of mass destruction, the most telling similarity is the desire and
financial resources to pursue chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. Both
organizations believed that violence can achieve political change and both believed in the
possibility that terrorism was an effective means to that end. However, as we compare the
differences between both organizations, Crenshaw‘s distinction between instrumental and
organizational approaches becomes quite apparent.
While Aum expressed political change as its ultimate desire, its decision-making reflected
more of an organizational survivalist construct in achieving its ends. Unlike al Qaeda, Aum
became focused on using a weapon of terror to achieve its objectives. This obsessive
fixation continues despite numerous experimental attempts and failures. Aum‘s leaders
appeared almost unconstrained by their own ego and driven to validate the organization‘s
extensive investment in research and equipment by using chemical weapons. In contrast,
al Qaeda abandoned its effort after repeated attempts failed to achieve desired outcomes,
leading the group to modify known capabilities, bombing and hijacking, so as to improve
their chances of success. In keeping with a more instrumental approach, al Qaeda has
maintained its focus on accomplishing its operational objectives while altering the specific
tactical means of doing so. Although al Qaeda had the wealth, resources, and contacts
necessary for a WMD venture, its leaders decided to pursue other alternatives to achieve
the desired effect. However, both examples show that, despite wealth and connections,
problems still exist in pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
Also noteworthy are the different ways in which each organization framed its cause. Al
Qaeda leveraged existing sentiments and feelings shared by a large majority of the Muslim
world. The leadership within al Qaeda capitalized upon widely shared beliefs that the
Muslim world‘s problems stem from the continuing influence of the West in Islamic affairs.
Al Qaeda‘s message has a broad appeal because it resonates with existing cultural,
religious, and societal beliefs, which were hijacked to advance ideological objectives. In
contrast, Aum‘s belief core is wholly manufactured, i.e., synthetic in its origins. First, while
Asahara dabbled in the practices of Hinduism, his syncretistic belief structure was pieced
