"I see a future of conflict. If there is an Islamic resurgence, I want to see blood spilled out."

These were the words of Asef Hussein, a political sociologist at the Moslem Institute of London, who spoke at the University early last month about Iran and its Islamic revolution. He then went on to say, "Most Americans don't realize . . . they usually end up backing dictators that oppress the people."

Evidently bloodshed and the oppression of people are separate categories in Mr. Hussein's mind.

What is the Islamic revolutionary movement, and where did ideas like Hussein's come from?

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and renowned expert on foreign relations George F. Kennan wrote in 1985 of "the grim phenomenon of a rise in several parts of the world of a fanatical and wildly destructive religious fundamentalism, and . . . the terrorism to which that sort of fundamentalism so often resorts."

This grim phenomenon -- the rise of revolutionary Islamic fundamentalism -- saw its first victory in 1970, when Muammar Qadhafi's revolutionary government of Libya introduced Qadhafi's twisted mix of Islamic theology and law with nationalism and socialism as government policy.

The next victory was the 1979 revolution in Iran which brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Khomeini, known in Iran as the "viceroy of God on earth," shut down universities, instituted total censorship of non-Islamic printed and broadcasted matter, sent thousands fleeing into exile and made playing cards or chess and drinking alcohol, among other things, crimes against the state.

According to Amnesty International --which Khomeini calls a "satanic organization" -- at least 3,800 people were executed in Iran between February 1979 and December 1981, including children. Executions continue, and since 1981 it has been a crime there to use "pen and speech" against the state.

This intolerance and disregard for human life has manifested itself again quite clearly in the death threats made by the Ayatollah against author Salman Rushdie. And in Libya, under the policy of "physical liquidation" of opponents, the situation is much the same.

Revolutionary Islamic fundamentalism may have appeared much stronger in the early '80s than it does now. Iraq and other Arab countries saw fundamentalist uprisings, which were brutally crushed.

Iran was winning the war against Iraq, and it appeared that Islamic government might come to that country, which has a majority of Shiites, the Moslem group which also dominates Iran (as opposed to Sunnis, who make up most of the rest of the Arab world).

Shiites were fighting Sunnis in the many-sided Lebanese civil war. And Pakistan had been taken over by Zia ul-Haq, a dictator who used Islamic fundamentalism as a tool of oppression in his land.

At first glance, the situation seems different now. Iran and Iraq have ceased fighting. Libya is (or seems) internationally isolated, having lost a war with its neighbor Chad. Pakistan's Zia is dead, succeeded by the moderate and democratically-elected Benazir Bhutto. And in Lebanon, the Shiites have agreed -- at least for now -- to a ceasefire.

But the situation is not necessarily as improved as it may appear, and is in urgent need of the United States' careful attention.

Just before the Rushdie controversy began, Iran had been trying to make itself appear more moderate. A broad amnesty for political prisoners had been declared. But all that has now been shown to be a farce.

Pakistan now is in possession of nuclear weapons technology, and given the unstable situation on its Afghan border and the huge number of Afghan refugees, the danger of a threat to Bhutto must not be minimized. A revolutionary Islamic government there in control of nuclear arms could prove a dangerous threat to India, also a nuclear power.

The Lebanese ceasefire is good -- for now. But two factors may topple the whole fragile structure -- the new situation in Afghanistan and lax Western trade regulations.

-- Afghanistan: In arming the opposition to the intolerable Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the United States may have created a monster just as bad. The mujahedin, which has fought the Soviet troops for a decade, is dominated by Moslem fundamentalists, and the bloody conflict which is bound to begin in that country will probably lead to their rise to power.

The proof that a revolutionary army of Moslem fundamentalists can defeat a world superpower could have untold effects on the confidence of fundamentalists throughout the Arab world, and could lead to renewed conflict -- in Lebanon, in Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan, teeming with Afghani refugees, and throughout the Arab world.

--Trade: The New York Times reported Jan. 29 that West Germans had also sold Pakistan gas which can be used in the production of nuclear weapons. The next day the Times reported, according to the U.S. government, American and West German companies had sold chemicals which can be used in the production of poison gas to Iran.

An international furor has been caused by purchases Libya has made from West Germans which enable it to manufacture poison gas, and investigations are being made into the possibility that a West German company has helped Libya develop midair refueling capacity for its aircraft.

A new problem lurks over the horizon: Late last month, one day after the State Department released a statement that Libya continues to support world terrorism through foreign surrogates, President Reagan announced that trade restrictions on Libya would be modified to allow U.S. oil companies to resume operations there -- a move which oil companies with assets frozen in Libya had been pressing for since last year.

If major turmoil and terror is to be avoided in the Arab world, the West must cease to supply extremists with weapons technology and pay less attention to the supposed threat of Gorbachev's reformed Soviet Union and more attention to the threat of fanatical Holy Wars.