Infidels Shiver in the Stench of Belief

by Eric Martin

Britain's MI5 recently conducted an extensive review of hundreds of case studies in order to attempt to create a profile of would-be terrorists (via Calpundit 2.0, not to be confused with the 3.0 model).  While MI5 was unable to establish a holistic profile, they were able to dispel certain myths and shoot down other would-be indicators of a propensity to engage in terrorist acts.  One such counterintuitive conclusion is as follows:

....[The British terrorirsts] are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they "mad and bad". [...]

The security service also plays down the importance of radical extremist clerics, saying their influence in radicalising British terrorists has moved into the background in recent years.

....Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

These findings are entirely consistent with the scholarship of Marc Sageman, especially as expressed in his most recent work, Leaderless Jihad [highly, highly recommended].  According to Sageman's more comprehensive analysis of available case studies (he does not limit his review to Britain for example), the ignorance of Islam, and lack of formal religious training, are prevalent traits found in many who populate the latest wave of terrorists. 

While it's popular mythology to imagine radical Imams presiding over maddrassas where they indoctrinate pupils with violent messages, as students nod along in a trance-like brainwashed stupor.  Reality, however, does not comport with the sensational script.  As Sageman points out, only about 10% of the sample attended radical maddrassas (and much of that 10% attended one particular maddrassa in Indonesia whose unique characteristics made it every bit the outlier).  On the contrary, receiving formal, religious training tends to innoculate students from pursuing terrorism or other radical-tinged violence (a conclusion reached by the MI5 study as well).

Further, many of the latest wave of terrorists don't read or speak Arabic, and fewer still (even those with the requisite language skills) actually read the Koran.  In fact, one of the methods that jailers use to rehabilitate captured terrorists is to provide them with copies of the Koran itself - which often leads to realizations of past wrongdoing as informed by Islamic scripture.

While Kevin Drum laments the lack of an actionable profile with which to use in order to better focus intelligence/law enforcement assets, the conclusions reached by MI5 and Sageman are not exactly useless.  At the very least, these findings suggest that, as much as possible, we should seek to remove the religious component from the discussion ("Islamofascism"), and de-escalate the perceived clash of civilizations (um, stop invading Muslim countries if at all possible).  Sageman provides more detailed recommendations in his books, but David Ignatius provides a decent summary:

The heart of Sageman's message is that we have been scaring ourselves into exaggerating the terrorism threat -- and then by our unwise actions in Iraq making the problem worse. He attacks head-on the central thesis of the Bush administration, echoed increasingly by Republican presidential candidate John McCain, that, as McCain's Web site puts it, the United States is facing "a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists" spawned by al-Qaeda. [...]

Sageman's harshest judgment is that the United States is making the terrorism problem worse by its actions in Iraq. "Since 2003, the war in Iraq has without question fueled the process of radicalization worldwide, including the U.S. The data are crystal clear," he writes. We have taken a fire that would otherwise burn itself out and poured gasoline on it.

The third wave of terrorism is inherently self-limiting, Sageman continues. As soon as the amorphous groups gather and train, they make themselves vulnerable to arrest. "As the threat from al-Qaeda is self-limiting, so is its appeal, and global Islamist terrorism will probably disappear for internal reasons -- if the United States has the sense to allow it to continue on its course and fade away."

Sageman's policy advice is to "take the glory and thrill out of terrorism." Jettison the rhetoric about Muslim extremism -- these leaderless jihadists are barely Muslims. Stop holding news conferences to announce the latest triumphs in the "global war on terror," which only glamorize the struggle. And reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq, which fuels the Muslim world's sense of moral outrage.

That, or, you know, put our foot down for another 100 Years.  And then move on to Iran.  Or Syria.  Or both!  They hate us for our freedom!

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Meanwhile, political reconciliation in Iraq is going fabulously.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, that should play well in predominately Sunni Muslim world. The whirlwind hasn't even begun to return home on this yet.

[Sebastian]

"While Kevin Drum laments the lack of an actionable profile with which to use in order to better focus intelligence/law enforcement assets, the conclusions reached by MI5 and Sageman are not exactly useless. At the very least, these findings suggest that, as much as possible, we should seek to remove the religious component from the discussion ("Islamofascism"), and de-escalate the perceived clash of civilizations (um, stop invading Muslim countries if at all possible). "

Maybe, mabye not. This is a study including lots of ineffective terrorists and would be terrorists.

It concludes "The MI5 authors stress that the most pressing current threat is from Islamist extremist groups who justify the use of violence "in defence of Islam", but that there are also violent extremists involved in non-Islamist movements."

Which is pretty much in line with the common understanding of the topic--there are lots of terrorists and people interested in terrorism, but the most dangerous and effective ones at the moment tend to be Islamist.

[Eric Martin]

The most effective ones, the putative Islamist terrorists, tend to have a very shallow understanding, and little knowledge, of Islam. They did not attend madrasssas.

Your comment changes the conclusions above very little.

[cleek]

That, or, you know, put our foot down for another 100 Years.

tell my mom i'll be 100 years late, for that.

[Eric Martin]

For clarification:

Why would we want to puff up a disorderly group that is perverting a religion by granting them the religious mantle? Thus pushing the fringe perverters together with billions of people that do not necessarily sympathize with them? It's as if our policies were designed to increase that level of sympathy.

[Eric Martin]

Cleek wins!

Well done. That's a two-fer

[cleek]

i'm a runner, i'm a winner

[Eric Martin]

Don't go getting cocky on me kid...

[Gary Farber]

As a former POW, I'm offended at Cleek's, a non-POW, winning.

[fostert]

When I was visiting Turkey a few years ago, I met a Salafi scholar from Syria, and we had a long conversation (6 hours). In many ways, he was as extremist as any Muslim can be. He was 30 years old and had never kissed a girl and thought it would be evil to do so outside of marriage, for example. He brought up the issue of terrorism, and I immediately responded that the second Surah of the Quran explicitly forbids such acts. He looked at me and smiled. "You really have read your Quran, haven't you?" And then he went on: "No man who has understood the Quran would ever commit terrorism. Allah forbids it, and Allah will punish terrorists severely. But you know that already" That was very refreshing to hear. Religion really isn't the problem, it is the misuse of religion that is the problem. If you truly live by the Quran, you will live a righteous life. And the same goes for all the other religious texts. Too bad they're all ignored by many people. And sadly, they are ignored the most by those with the most influence.

[...now I try to be amused]

I'm not surprised. Fundamentalism has always been more about personal hangups than about religion. The same could have been written about anti-abortion terrorists.

[john miller]

Where's BOB when you need him?

"Defending" Islam does not require an understanding of Islam. In fact, what the study points out ids that you are probably going to have more success recruiting the violent prone from the religiously ignorant.

Of course, in our country, "defending" Christianity, although not as violent in its approach, usually recruits from the same class.

[Sebastian]

"The most effective ones, the putative Islamist terrorists, tend to have a very shallow understanding, and little knowledge, of Islam."

Is this your understanding from somewhere else, or from this study? Because that isn't what this study says at all. And it isn't what "Leaderless Jihad" really shows either. Leaderless Jihad suggests that many of the immigrant terrorists come to a deep appreciation of Islam later in life.

Which is rather different than suggesting that they aren't particularly Islamic or that they don't understand Islam.

If you only want to make the point that we shouldn't blame all of Islam, great. But if you are trying to make the point that at the moment the more dangerous and effective terrorists aren't Islamic, you're just flat wrong, and the sources you cite don't support you.

[felix culpa]

Sageman's policy advice is to "take the glory and thrill out of terrorism."

But..but...but..(POW!)..that would take the glory and the thrill out of fighting terrorism. Where’s the fun, the pride and honor (POW!) in that?
We are all rich wiseass fighter pilots (POW!) now.

[Eric Martin]

"Leaderless Jihad" really shows either. Leaderless Jihad suggests that many of the immigrant terrorists come to a deep appreciation of Islam later in life.

Which is rather different than suggesting that they aren't particularly Islamic or that they don't understand Islam.

No it doesn't. Re-read. They never come to a "deep appreciation." They come to deep appreciation of a phony version of Islam. That's something quite different. At least, that's what Sageman discusses.

If you only want to make the point that we shouldn't blame all of Islam, great. But if you are trying to make the point that at the moment the more dangerous and effective terrorists aren't Islamic, you're just flat wrong, and the sources you cite don't support you.

The point I am trying to make is that Islam doesn't turn people toward this type of activity. Quite the opposite. An actual study of Islam innoculates against. The terrorists that Sageman discusses turn to a perverted version of Islam as passed on by novices, hacks and charlatans. It's their lack of knowledge of actual Islam that allows them to be duped into believing in the validity of the perverted version.

Those that have studied actual Islam from actual scholars and theologians are able to dismiss the violence preachers for what they are: false prophets.

[Eric Martin]

I mean jeez Sebastian, from the study:

The British terrorirsts] are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices.

Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices.

Are you arguing that the above doesn't say what it says? That they aren't actually novices? That they practice regularly? That they do not lack religious literacy?

If so, argue against it with citations and such, because simply claiming that these sentences - written in plain English - don't mean what they clearly mean isn't overly persuasive.

[Eric Martin]

From Ignatius' piece on Sageman:

Many of this third wave don't speak Arabic or read the Koran. Very few (13 percent of Sageman's sample) have attended radical madrassas. Nearly all join the movement because they know or are related to someone who's already in it. Those detained on terrorism charges are getting younger: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20. They are disaffected, homicidal kids -- closer to urban gang members than to motivated Muslim fanatics.

?

[Charles S]

I read Kevin Drum to be saying exactly the opposite of lamenting that this study didn't provide for convenient profiling.

If MI5 had identified a decent profile (or a set of profiles), that would have led inevitably to targeting of often innocent communities. But the lack of a profile will almost inevitably lead to authorities spreading an ever-wider surveillance net.

So Kevin seems to be lamenting that no profile means more panopticon, while considering it fortunate that no profile means less profiling (and the inevitable wrongful suspicion and prosecution).

[magistra]

Meanwhile, MI5 (UK counter-espionage) think that Islamists are less of an immediate threat to the UK than Irish republican extremists:

"MI5 is currently devoting much of its hi-tech spying resources on only 80 republican activists.

The threat to power-sharing and the new policing regime is so severe that 60% more time is spent eavesdropping on republican terror groups than on all the phone taps and secret technical operations against suspected al-Qaida cells in the UK."

[Eric Martin]

So Kevin seems to be lamenting that no profile means more panopticon, while considering it fortunate that no profile means less profiling (and the inevitable wrongful suspicion and prosecution).

That is a fair point. I was perhaps too hard on Mssr. Drum. But he knows I love him ;)

[Debra]

It would be far more interesting to look at the age and sex of the recruits. I'm guessing that the age group correlates highly with the male under 35 (even 30) age bracket. The same group that pays the highest premiums for auto insurance.
Perhaps our bland, dumbed down and increasingly risk-free globalized "enlightenment" culture has reached the end of its tether, and these disaffected people are showing us that the human species is in urgent need of ideals to believe in, if not to die for ?
If man does not live by bread alone, he certainly dies a spiritual death as a result of advanced cynicism...

[Eric Martin]

Debra:

Those detained on terrorism charges are getting younger: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20.

[Debra]

Eric :
I don't see how your comment contradicts mine.
I'm guessing that the age group that is the most affected is the adolescent age group, with a predominance of young men, up to 30.
Adolescence poses acute existential problems (like, what am I on earth for ? What's the meaning of my life) at the same time as the individual is confronted with momentous changes in his/her feelings, and bodily perceptions.
But, since our "culture" is increasingly leaving us hanging on such existential questions, radical actions of all sorts will touch more and more disaffected people, not just the young.