Inspector Clousseau to the rescue of the West

Marisol, a contributor at Jihad Watch, says: “Spying and willful blindness do not mix.” The willful blindness is that of U.S. intelligence agencies whose mission is to investigate radical Islamic organizations, but whose ideology, she says, is that “there is nothing problematic about Islam’s core texts and teachings.” So, as shown in an unintentinally hilarious article she links, these experts keep scratching their heads wondering what strange and so-far undiscovered set of economic, historical, cultural, psychological, sexual, psycho-sexual, psycho-historical, sexual-econo-cultural factors could it be that brings Muslims to believe in … the core teachings of Islam.

Such is the origin of the non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism. I thought they had stopped multiplying. But in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre a bunch more have appeared.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

The underlying thinking of the intelligence experts revealed in the NPR article seems to be like this:

“Human beings are by nature good and compassionate. Islamic extremism is bad, mean, and violent. Therefore Islamic extremism is not natural. There’s no reason for it to exist. If radical imams exist, it’s because of some psychological or cultural disorder, or some social oppression. The same disorder or oppression—whatever it is—attracts young Muslims to these radical imams. So our job is to find out what are the psycho-cultural-political factors that make young Muslims vulnerable to radicalization. Then, once we figure it out, we will develop anti-radicalization intervention strategies and use them on Western Muslim communities.”

The thinking of these experts is technocratic. Identify the problem, then cure it by social engineering.

But since the “problem” they’re identifying and think they can cure is that Islam is Islam, and that Muslims believe in Islam, their social engineering approach is insane.

Also, since, as we learned yesterday, Robert Spencer is a welcome speaker in the U.S. Defense establishment, WHY does this insanely delusional thinking still prevail there? Perhaps someone could ask Spencer this.

MBS writes:

This is from an article by Raymond Ibrahim at Pajamas Media:

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims—such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and “observant Muslim who prayed daily,” who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons—he was “picked on,” he was “mentally unbalanced”—the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 18, 2009 05:03 PM | Send