April 24th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

As a species we are very good at denying the truth.

When reality is ugly, or simply too unpleasant to countenance we deny it; often vocally railing against it. Very few now deny the truth of the crimes of the Nazis during WW2 but the denial of the crimes of Islam from its inception to today continues to occur almost universally in western society.

Denial of the reality of Islam, its purposes and foundational doctrine of cruelty, hatred, misogyny, and universal perpetual warfare against unbelievers has brought more than several countries in Europe to the breaking point.

Again, and again we see the violence and cruelty of Islam; we hear the language of hate and intolerance from Muslim leaders and yet we continue to deny the ugly truth of what Islam truly is about. This ability to deny unpallatable truths and our societal ignorance of Islam and its doctrine is the foundation of our failure to respond to the existential threat that Islam represents.

Two recent cases of tragic lovers illustrate denial; denial of individuals to face ugly truths, and denial of Islam to accept any behavior that is outside the doctrine, outside the collective construct of what is acceptable to Islam in life.

In Islam pleasure can only be understood in the way that Mohammed and the doctrine of Islam approve, anything outside this context of absolute control by Islam of its adherents, or those trapped within its borders, is strictly verboten. Time and again, we see that the penalty for human individualism, human questing for freedom and love and happiness outside of Islam is death.

Islam is about a collective reality and has nothing whatever to do with the concept of “the individual” except in so far as the individual conforms to the doctrine and fits into the collective. This is a form of mind-control and a brutality of the spirit that can only be understood in a totalitarian context.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology built upon the denial of the human spirit and the better part of our souls; it is the denial of the individual. Can there be a more contrasting philosophy to democracy and inclusiveness and tolerance than this?

The great historian and analyst of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville understood this to be so when he wrote in a letter to Arthur de Gobineau, 10/22/1843, “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. (source).”

The nature of Islam is clear and cannot be disputed, it is described in detail in the doctrine of Islam – the Koran, Sira, and Hadiths; the violent history of Islam originates directly from the doctrine.

“In fact, an appropriate and statistically acceptable characterization is that Islamic doctrines overwhelmingly preaches dislike, hatred and conquest of unbelievers and that this material constitutes the majority of the content in the Koran.”

The goals of Islam are the same as they have ever been - the complete Islamization of the world and destruction of every religion, culture, and government that is not Islamic; this is indisputable. Because we are not taught the history of Islam, and because we are in the main ignorant of it we cannot respond intelligently nor defend ourselves from this existential threat that is Islam (which is seen clearly in the doctrine and in Islamic history).

Islam is at war with all unbelievers everywhere and forever, this is jihad. Unbelievers are called kafirs in Islamic doctrine and in Muslim speech today. But through ignorance and the failure of our leaders to acknowledge the truth of Islam, and teach their people, “Kafirs are in absolute denial that a history of political Islam even exists. (source)“ 

The majority of Americans do not know history, and cannot therefor place any current events of Islamic violence and cruelty into an understandable and rational context. In many ways, as a society, we are personally outside of the flow of history, though history does not care.

“Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives… The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…”
William Eaton — U. S. Consul to Tunis (1764-1811)

Our leaders and our population continues to deny the truth of Islam, just as we as individuals in our own personal lives shut away the truth and create bubbles of palatable illusion into which we retreat when truth is just too ugly to accept. “‘Denial can be a very intoxicating state,’ said criminal profiler John Kelly.”

The doctrine of Islam encourages and demands a level of cruelty, institutionalized and society- wide, through its concepts of sharia law and jihad that westerners can barely comprehend and accept. The doctrine cannot be more clear: “61 percent of the Koran talks ills of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation, but only 2.6 percent of it talks about the overall good of humanity.” Two similar cases of tragedy illustrate denial in a way that is difficult to …deny.

Ongoing investigations into the so-called “Craigslist Killer” in the Boston area appear to show a young man with an apparently bright future but a predilection to murder and brutality. An unlikely suspect, a 22-year old male medical school student has been arrested for the murder and assault in the case. Police authorities have found a gun in his apartment, which they now say is the murder weapon; they have found articles of clothing belonging to the victims in his apartment, and have tracked his internet use and connected it definitively to at least one victim. The evidence is mounting, and is overwhelming. In addition, surveillance photos from the crime scenes appear to show a man who looks remarkably like the arrested man.

But this picture, this reality of a man who is a predator and a killer is entirely contrasted with how his fiance and most of those who knew him (but not all) understood his character to be. The fiance in fact is now publicly defending the suspect, stating to the press that “he couldn’t hurt a fly”.

There is a great deal of interest in this case and in the denial of the fiance to accept the ugly reality of her boyfriend, the man she was to marry in August. This is an illustrative case; denial of the fiance is roundly criticized. The deluded woman is attacked across the internet. Most people condemn her foolishness and lack of insight in refusing to accept the obvious truth that her fiance is a fiend, a predator, and killer. There is sympathy, too, but mainly astounded disbelief that someone could be so attached to an idea and simply refuse to give it up when reality proves that the idea is false. This is classic denial. “‘People fall in love and want to see what they want to see. It’s a fool’s paradise,’ said family therapist Charles Foster of Cambridge.”

There is little sympathy for those who speak the truth about the history of Islam, the doctrine of Islam, the dangers of Sharia, and the cruelty of this ideology that has killed millions over the course of the centuries. Why? Because the majority of Americans, forgiving, multicultural, tolerant, and ignorant of history and Islamic doctrine live in a “fool’s paradise”.

As we face a growing threat from Islam across the west, those few brave enough to speak the truth are attacked as hatemongers and racists and bigots because the West is in denial about Islam. Worse, those who discuss the history and doctrine of Islam are criticized by the deniers as ignorant, while the ignorant deniers take the high moral ground of knowledge and scholarship – a false “scholarship” based upon ignorance.

We have been warned about the denial of knowledge and learning; about the embrace of ignorance by Huxley, Orwell, and many other authors and philosophers. We have seen in history where denial of truth and the embrace of ignorance leads- it leads to Nuremberg rallies and Sobibor and Treblinka.

One could ask if “ignorance is bliss” why aren’t more people happy? Ignorance is the embrace of a lie. Lies do not bring happiness; the fiance of the Craigslist killer in Boston will tell you.

This denial will see the destruction of our countries, our religions, our cultures over time. Denial is demise, destruction.

Islam also embraces denial but in a very different way. Islam’s denial is the foundation of its ideology, the denial of the individual; denial of the truth of Islam by the West is the denial of our own independence and individuality which is the mission of Islam. We know this because this is what the doctrine says, this is what Mohammed says, this is what the followers of Islam say across the world. If these ugly and unpopular truths are denied perhaps they will go away. Perhaps the poor deluded fiance whose betrothed is a killer can will reality away with her active denial of the truth; perhaps she can will the past to return when everything seemed alright and the future was still before her rosy and bright? Her denial has placed herself outside the flow of reality, but reality does not care.

Islam is very interested in denial although it is characterized as freedom. “Islam” means “submission”, all Muslims (one who “submits”) must submit to Allah and to the doctrine of Islam.  Submission is the opposite of freedom. Freedom through submission is a popular concept in cults, and in totalitarian states and in cultures that believe all cultures are of equal value, merit, and importance (like ours). For those who submit, or who are born into submission to Islam, attempted escape or non-compliance with the rules of Islam can have dire consequences.

Submission is encouraged and required, denial of submission is a death sentence. Two young people in Afghanistan unlucky enough to live in a Taliban-controlled area found this out recently. For every kafir, this is an instructive case. For every denier of the truth of Islam this is an impossible case because what it means is that the truth of Islam is very unpleasant and very dangerous, it is a truth that must be denied, again and again and again by those who hate the truth.

Islam is not known for its tolerance, forgiveness, or acceptance of others. Intolerance is at the core of Islam and its all-ecompassing ideology of control. Leaving Islam, leaving the collective, or disobeying the rules of Sharia are particularly serious matters.

“The consensus among Muslim scholars for a long time — for 14 centuries — was that those who leave the faith should be killed,” said terrorism expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

Gartenstein-Ross has studied Islamic law extensively. He says those who convert out of Islam–especially Christians–lead a lonely and dangerous existence.

He said, “And even today, the view that apostates from Islam should not be killed — that people should be free to convert to another religion — is very much a minority view.”

Within the Islamic world there are at least 14 states that make it illegal to convert out of Islam. In at least eight of those states, it is punishable by death.(source)

Even at America’s supposedly “finest university” the horrific, intolerant idea that leaving Islam is a justifiable death sentence can be found, and only last week! The Islamic Chaplain at Harvard supports this concept. Why? Because it is in the doctrine, and since the doctrine is perfect and absolute he is doing what he is supposed to do as a practicing Muslim- submit to the doctrine of Allah and Mohammed. (”It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars.”-Ibn Warraq)

“In a private e-mail to a student last week, Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.(source)”

Early in April it was reported that a young couple was executed by a Taliban Sharia court in Afghanistan for attempting to elope. Some reports stated the young woman’s age at 14. “Officials said they were shot by a firing squad outside the mosque in Lokhi, the village where they had lived.”(source, UPI)

The Guardian (UK) states, “Officials from the south-western province of Nimroz say Gul Pecha, in her late teens, and her boyfriend Abdul Aziz, 21, were shot by a firing squad outside a mosque in their home village of Lokhi on Monday.” The execution of these young people is the action of a Sharia court, “who held them for four days in Lokhi’s mosque before putting them on trial” (The Globe UK). This case is illustrative of the cruelty of Islam, the denial of individual freedoms and the savagery of Sharia law. (This case is covered extensively in international media, one could not make up such things.)

It is important not to dimiss this horror as the action of extremists.

The Taliban is comprised of Pakistanis and Afghanis who are considered the true “Mujahideen” or “holy warriors of Allah” because they have established a purely Islamic state which rigidly conforms to the “pious Muslim ideals” which were outlined and set down by Prophet Mohammed. (source)

Islam is about control, a deep, pervasive, obsessive control of all Muslims everywhere, and the desire to control all non-believers. This is a political ideology, a unified brutal way of life. This is totalitarianism.

“…for all its pretensions about ideology and doctrine, militant Islam is first and foremost about power. It is totalitarianism, not ideology. It is the Communism of this era.” (source)

Throughout history there have been totalitarian movements, cruel and harsh systems of total control. Nothing comes close to the all-encompassing desire for control of Islam.

The Greek historian Thucydides, writing about the calamitous war that had destroyed his own world, made an important observation about the causes of historical events: Even though circumstances may change, human nature remains the same…(source)

H.L. Mencken the great American journalist, editor, and iconoclast once said about the Puritans, that Puritanism was “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” The desire for control of others and the capability to deny truth are two of the more unfortunate components of human nature. In Islam, doctrinally acceptable “happiness” is the only acceptable form. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini proved the point; no fun of any kind is allowed.

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun or joy in whatever is serious.

 

Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, radio sermon, 1979. (source)

The murder of the young couple by the Taliban occured because two young people wanted to find happiness outside of Islam. Hugh Fitzgerald laid out the truth of Islam in a superb article in Jihad Watch recently.

Islam is the most regulating of all faiths. It’s a Total Belief-System. It tells its adherents what to do, and does not suggest but rather offers a complete list of what is Prohibited, and what is Commanded. It does not offer room for possible autonomous moral judgment, for at every step one is discouraged from one’s own questioning, is told to be “a slave of Allah” and to realize that whatever Allah wills must not be questioned.”

Fitzgerald shows clearly that Islam is so attractive to so many because adherents are never required to make moral choices, they are all made already. Islam is the perfect cult.

The mistake that the two unfortunate lovers in Afghanistan made is that they thought that they had some leeway to make decisions for themselves. They did not. They thought that they could make moral and ethical decisions about their own lives themselves; they were wrong. In Islam, there is no room for such things. Anything that is contrary to Islam is offensive to Islam, and must be quashed.

“One submits, one never questions, one never has an occasion to exercise moral sense. And far from being a faith that allows for individual autonomy, Islam is a collectivist faith. One’s sole duty is to Islam. In Islam, it is perhaps most accurate to say that neither Allah nor even Muhammad, that exemplary Perfect Man, is being worshipped, but rather Islam itself. Yes, in Islam one worships….Islam.” (Fitzgerald)

Denial is a very popular philosophy in America in 2009. Its greatest proponents are our political and religious leaders, our uninformed scholars, and the rapidly failing establishment media.

Denial of Islam is taught in the public schools and called “history” or “politics” or “international relations”. The doctrine of Islam is not taught, nor is the history of jihad.

When it comes to Islam and understanding it we are in complete denial as a society. Bill Warner in a March, 2009 interview described this embrace of ignorance as the “NewState”.

The Newstate prohibits the study of political Islam in the Universities. The role of Islam in the history of slavery, the dhimmi (unbelievers living under Islamic rule) history, and the annihilation of kafir (unbeliever) civilizations is forbidden. The curriculum of the Universities only includes small samples from the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his traditions).

Even after 9/11, Beslan, Mumbai, London, Paris, Madrid, Khobar Towers, Kenya, and daily events around the world (here, here, here) that illustrate the implementation of Islamic doctrine and the true nature of the so-called “religion of peace” we sustain our denial.

As a culture we are the characters in history who say “It is not so”, when the survivors of a critical battle return home to warn their countrymen to rise and defend their homes, their country and their lives. Our denial empowers an existentially destructive ideology.

“In July 1942, he, his first wife and their 12 year old daughter lived in the Warsaw Ghetto. ‘I knew what was happening,’ he said.  ‘Many people knew, but most of them wanted to pretend they didn’t.  I knew for certain because, only ten days before, I was finally taken (August 27, 1942), a young man called Friedmann came back from Treblinka hidden under rags. His escape had been carefully arranged so as to have somebody come back to bring us the truth; to warn us. But nobody believed him. It was perfectly extraordinary. But I did.’” (Another source tells how this young man besought the ghetto elders to believe him and how finally they said he was overwrought and needed a rest which they would arrange for him in the ghetto clinic…).” (Sereny, Into That Darkness, p.257, Vintage Books/Random House (1974, 1st Random House edition, 1983))

As we embrace this false peace between Islam and our society (and the West), and lies of a false history and fake present we step aside from the flow of history and are passed by.

Our strongest desire is that Islam is not what its detractors say it is; that the doctrine cannot be real; that Muslims want to assimilate; that Islam is a friend to America. These are the foundations of our denial as a society, the falsehoods that we so desperately want to be true.

We are in denial, none of it is true.

April 9th, 2009 by admin

Several days ago Bill Warner, one of the leading analysts and scholars of political Islam and Islamic doctrine posted an analysis of the “Bush Doctrine of Islam”. Mr. Warner suggested strongly, and laid out the case, that former President Bush’s assertion that Islam is the “religion of peace” hijacked by “extremists” is the foundation of the left’s and the dhimmi’s failure to understand the reality of the cruelty and fundamental hatred of America and freedom that lies at the core of the doctrine of Islam.

Our wide-ranging lack of knowledge of Islamic doctrine, our inability as a culture and society to come to terms with the fact that Islam is fundamentally opposed to everything that Americans hold most dear is at the root of the advance of Islam in America. Mr. Warner calls out the media and academics for towing this entirely false line based upon ignorance and wishful thinking. Academics are essentially anti-intellectual in their defense of political Islam and their often harsh criticism of those who attempt to discuss the doctrine of Koran, Suna, and Hadith and the oppressive “legal system” of Islam, sharia.

The article elicited the following response from a former FBI special agent and now current professor. Apparently, he wanted to show Mr. Warner and his readers that not all professors are self-destructive dhimmis and apologists for political Islam. The author presents a fascinating and important socialogical study of jihadists and how they are created. The article convincingly details how 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants to the West have become jihadist killers. These are the people that immigration theorists considered to be the foundations of assimilation for the future. The theories are wrong, because the theorists did not know Islamic doctrine.

This is a frightening look at how otherwise pleasant and apparently settled Muslims can be brought readily into their doctrine, and taught that to bring about the perfect world of Dar al-Islam it is perfectly acceptable and beneficial to kill unbelievers. The comparison with SS true-believers is not at all out of context. There is a sense of “cult” in the way that otherwise pleasant people are turned to killers. This is the most dangerous, yet fastest growing cult on this planet. This article posted courtesy of Mr. Warner at politicalislam.com. (Note: Daniel Pipes, another noted scholar of Islam and terrorism has identified this apparently sudden shift from pleasant immigrant to jihadist as “sudden jihad syndrome“.)

Intro from Bill Warner: A reader responded to my charge that university professors are dhimmis. He maintains that not all professors are apologists and sent me this well-done article using a sociological basis of analysis. This is the type of work that reflects both knowledge of doctrine and critical reasoning.

The Sociology of Jihad, How Rational People Commit Atrocities
John Andrews

The Salafists believe that only Jihad can reestablish a true Muslim state that will abolish all injustice from the earth and bring people out of the servitude to others and into the servitude of God. It is the duty of Islam to destroy all political systems which prevent people from freely choosing it and experiencing universal freedom (56). The sword (Jihad) must clear the way for the preaching and destroy those elements which limit mankind to living in a world of evil and chaos (62). This sword would be carried by a restored Caliphate based on the traditions of the Prophet. The Caliphate would be a leader the masses could trust, understand and follow. He would provide a simple message well suited to Muslims, not well schooled in traditional Muslim teachings. This message is liberating the Umma from its external enemies, the infidels and Jews (al-Zawahiri, 2001: part 11).

It is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of the Salafist. Most of these individuals, approximately 80 percent, went to secular schools as children. Over 60 percent had some form of college, many attending in the West, and most were trained in the sciences, not philosophy or religion. However, a majority considered themselves religious as children; 73 percent were married and most had children. The majority were from overprotected families with doting parents and stable households. They did not suffer from any major mental disorders. If they had antisocial personalities, they would have been weeded out because of their inability to work well in an organization and their lack of dedication, perseverance and ability to sacrifice for the cause. The 9/11 hijackers are perfect examples. They were not hostile, violent or macho throughout their yearlong stay in the U.S. However, when the moment came they killed enthusiastically. They were able to do so because of their social networking and group morality, which was developed over years. These individuals were not predisposed to do harm individually, but did not hesitate to perform monstrous acts collectively (Sageman 2004: 74-82).

This original group joined the Jihad in their mid-twenties in a country where they had not grown up. Although they were, for the most part, religious as children, they became considerably more devout immediately before joining the Jihad (92). The subsequent group of Salafists were second- or third-generation Muslims living in the West. Many of these individuals felt excluded from the society they grew up in, had no discipline in their lives, and pursued petty crimes, drank and took part in drug use. They grew up with little or no religious training (100-101). We will go into greater detail later on this second group, but for now it is important to note a similarity between both groups prior to joining the Jihad. They felt alienated in their current society. This was true for the first group who had immigrated to another country and the second group who felt alienated in the country of their birth. They both sought a cause that would give them emotional relief, social community and spiritual comfort (97). They eventually drifted towards like-minded local individuals.

The original group sought out the mosque in the foreign country where people from their homeland were. These prospective converts may initially have had strong reservations about the group’s doctrines, but began developing strong ties of friendship with members of the group. There they began to form networks of friendships that solidified over a period of time. Sub groups were formed within the mosque where the intensity of their beliefs spiraled upward in an apparent game of one-upmanship. They found rules and structure that went beyond religion and became psychological and personal (108-109). They became embedded in a socially disembedded network, which, because of its lack of anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between good and evil (151). Instead of a top-down process of recruitment, it became a bottom-up process of young people volunteering to join the organization. They joined as a group, not as individuals. The East African embassy bombings and the Lackawanna Six involved individuals were close friends prior to joining the Jihad. Most of these relationships go back to childhood or are familial in nature, including in-laws and spouses. The crucial element is that social bonds predated formal recruitment into the Jihad. (110-113)

This process is rarely a fully conscious one. These sub-groups do not start out as terrorist groups. They evolve in that direction as their mutual relationships deepen, in a spiral of greater loyalty, mutual devotion, self-sacrifice and intimacy. They begin to believe that their actions are taken on behalf of God. Although outsiders focus on their willingness to kill, the insiders focus on their willingness to die. Their awareness of their own readiness to transcend their own self- interest fosters a special view of themselves and others like them that increases the value of friendship within the group and diminishes outside relationships. These feelings may compete with, and even be stronger than, those of love.

Ziad Jarrah’s fiancé testified about her progressive loss of her fiance’s love to the Hamburg terrorist cell which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The loss of love to this type of friendship demonstrates its powerful bond. Positive emotions motivate people to carry out horrific acts more easily than negative emotions. Killing in defense of family, friends or country is acceptable and encouraged. Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators carried out their horrendous actions out of in-group love rather than out-of-group hate (155-157). As was previously stated, the Jihad strives in the cause of God to abolish all injustice from the earth in order to bring people to the worship of God alone and to bring them out of servitude to others-to abolish those oppressive political systems, which prevented people from freely choosing Islam.

Islam is one of the most communal of all religions, with many orchestrated, shared rituals. Salafi Islam is very strict in its code of conduct and prescribes dress, diet and conduct. The elegance and simplicity of its interpretations attract many who seek a single solution devoid of ambiguity. Salafi Islam uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. It promotes a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society. The specific uniform consists of beards, shirts falling down to the knees, and baggy pants with a cloth cap. They also carry worry beads. Women cover their hair, avoid bright colors, and, in some instances, wear the burqa, which is head-to-toe covering. They have simple answers to complicated problems, and they divide the world into good Islam and bad non-Islam (116).

There is another subtle factor that makes Islam attractive. Traditional masculine roles are well preserved in Islam. Western men find it difficult to express their “manhood” in increasingly neutered societies. Islam possesses what are seen as masculine virtues from the seventh century when men walked the earth, sword in hand, accepting no insult, and conquering infidel neighbors. In comparison to Christianity, which states “turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you,” Islam comports more closely with man’s primordial lusts for war, booty and women (Ibrahim, 2006).

People will often seek a new religious or social affiliation after some significant change disrupts their old social networks, e.g., a new country, imprisonment, and alienation from friends and family. There is a period of social isolation in which the existing social and emotional ties are called into question and loosened until finally there is a total negation of everything that existed before (Sageman 2004:116). The religious revivalist organization possesses superior attractiveness over a secular political group. The Salafist emphasizes brotherhood, mutual sharing and spiritual support, which becomes the functional equivalent of an extended family.

New adherents progressively accept the new faith because it makes sense in their new interpretation of the world and their role in it. This learning process involves intense social interaction and introspection. The adherents distance themselves from their original network of friends and family or are rejected by them because of their new, highly visible behavior. The mastering of their friends’ beliefs comes after a long period of intense day-to-day interaction with them. In many cases they begin living an isolated lifestyle, which intensifies the social bonds of the members. This leads to a spiral of further isolation from the outside world, the development of a collective identity, and total commitment to the group. Muslims may engage in the Jihad because they share certain norms, values and worldviews which are shaped under the guidance of a Salafi imam preaching the benefits of the global Jihad. Social interactions at these mosques build and reinforce ideological commitments to the Jihad, which these new friends further encourage (117-121).

This social jihadism has worked with second- or third-generation Muslims and new immigrants as well. This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that radical Islam was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants and their children would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. Many of these individuals believe their European society is against them. They are growing up in a world of high unemployment and lack of integration in their homeland. Some begin drinking, doing drugs, becoming members of youth gangs and engaging in crimes with no moral compass or goal in life. They then become introduced to an individual who talks to them about the world, their place in it, and the religion of their ancestors. They are provided with audio and videotapes of preachers who advocate a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasizes the culture’s past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

Soon they are meeting with like-minded contemporaries, getting rid of jeans, t-shirts, drugs and alcohol and wearing the white gowns, skullcaps and beards. They become indoctrinated into political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair Umma. There is no separation of church and politics. Life centers on the mosque not just for religious instruction, but for everything. Society should be founded on Islam, and all those who are different are held in contempt. Inside the mosque talk isn’t of integration, but rather how to protect oneself from harmful European society. Those members of the mosque who do not agree with this political Islam are shunned or forced out. The group dynamics change alienated young men into terrorists.

Basically, these individuals, with the help of their friends, recruit themselves. They do not necessarily attend terrorist camps or have experience on the battlefields (Johnson and Carreyrou: 2005). Their source of knowledge and indoctrination comes from the Internet. The Internet both appeals to and fosters disembeddedness. On the one hand, it appeals to isolated individuals by easing their loneliness through connections to people sharing some commonality. On the other hand, it leads them to spend more time with this virtual community at the expense of interaction with the immediate social environment. The chat rooms are egalitarian and appeal to those with limited theological background. It is a perfect compliment to the elegant simplicity and clarity of Salafism. The virtual community is not tied to any nation but to the abstract concept of the mythical umma of Salafism. This community is just, egalitarian, full of opportunity, unified in Islam, purged of national peculiarities, and devoid of corruption. It is the ideal world that Jihad strives for (Sageman, 2004: 161-163).

“He is a great guy, one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. He is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a great family. He is a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you. He was a normal guy always laughing. We went partridge hunting together. He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood.” These are all quotes from people who knew individuals convicted of killing hundreds of people in suicide attacks or conspiring to provide money, recruits and equipment to the international Jihad.

Were they really decent fellows? They would never commit a murder or crime of any kind for personal gain or self-interest. Their ideology convinced them that the murders were committed for a good purpose. They were committed for the sake of a societal vision of building a good and just world. They are not unlike the SS during the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler told a group of SS leaders:
“Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet-apart from a few exceptions which are examples of human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written … ”

These people are not raving maniacs. We must go beyond calling them terrorists and examine their ideology. They do not perform these acts in a vacuum. They are building a society and will use any means to achieve it. They do so not because they are sociopaths who hate people, but because they are true believers who want to save people. And so we are continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS (Spenser, 2007).

REFERENCES
Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. (2001) “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner.” Serialized in eleven parts in Al-Sharqal-Awsat (London) December 2.

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2006) “Islam’s Appeal or Boys Will Be Boys.” www. victorhanson.com. September 19.
Johnson, Ian and Carreyrou, John. (2005) “In France, Political Islam Preaches Intolerance, Challenge to Secularism.” Wall Street Journal, July 11.

Qutb, Sayyid. “Milestones.” N.D.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mother Mosque Foundation.
Sageman, Mark. (2004) “Understanding Terror Networks.” University of Pennsylvania Press, Philedelphia.

Spenser, Robert. (2007) “Why’s a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?”. www.FrontPageMagazine.com. April 18. 8