Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Woodmonkey · 03-18-2006, 18:57

Quote:

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Quote:

Explaining the distrust of Muslims and fear of Islam on the rise since 9/11 and offering ideas how Muslims might change these perceptions

"Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers." I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.

That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

Until his would-be murderous rampage, Taheri-azar, a philosophy and psychology major, had an apparently normal existence and promising future. In high school, he had been student council president and a member of the National Honor Society. A number of UNC students told the Los Angeles Times that he "was a serious student, shy but friendly." One fellow student, Brian Copeland, "was impressed with his knowledge of classical Western thought, adding "He was kind and gentle, rather than aggressive and violent." The university chancellor, James Moeser, called him a good student, if "totally a loner, introverted and into himself."

In fact, no one who knew him said a bad word about him, which is important, for it signals that he is not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person. Which raises the obvious question: why would a regular person try to kill a random assortment of students? Taheri-azar's post-arrest remarks offer some clues.

He told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world."
He explained to a detective that "people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States['] turn to be killed."
He said he acted to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."
He portrayed his actions as "an eye for an eye."
A police affidavit notes that "Taheri-azar repeatedly said that the United States Government had been killing his people across the sea and that he decided to attack."
He told a judge, "I'm thankful you're here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah."

In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn. It's not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the 9/11 hijackers, the London transport bombers, and Maher Hawash, the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mohammed Ali Alayed, the Saudi living in Houston fits, the pattern because he stabbed and murdered Ariel Sellouk, a Jewish man who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since 9/11.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the "new antisemitism," or "Islamophobia" is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of "Germanophobia" or anti-Communists of "Russophobia." Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of "infidels."

Click here
for the source of this article

dreadpirateroberts · 03-18-2006, 21:51

right on

Snowden · 03-18-2006, 22:45

Jihad is a requirement of Islam. How it's done is often very quiet and mild, but of course, we're seeing the other side of that coin in recent happenings. This is the beginning, I'm afraid - I hope not, but I really think we'll see more and more of this type of personal jihad here and in Britain, especially.

Woodmonkey · 03-18-2006, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowden

Jihad is a requirement of Islam. How it's done is often very quiet and mild, but of course, we're seeing the other side of that coin in recent happenings. This is the beginning, I'm afraid - I hope not, but I really think we'll see more and more of this type of personal jihad here and in Britain, especially.

It wasn't that the jihad was quiet, but that the Islamics were friendly and not hostile, gave no sign at all and then suddenly, without warning, killed people because they were Americans in retaliation for imagined slights. What a group! You can't even believe their gestures of friendship because they might be the one to flip and and start killing.

RFC Rudel · 03-20-2006, 03:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

imagined slights.

????????

mmmmm do you really think that the EEUU has only help arabs in the last 50 years.

do I need to tell you about your super ally israel, the forced goverments changes in iran, the support you give to sadam.

soy to wake you up but the US foring policies are 70% to blame for the corrent terrorist situations. the other 30% is islam Jihad.

Snowden · 03-20-2006, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFC Rudel

????????

mmmmm do you really think that the EEUU has only help arabs in the last 50 years.

do I need to tell you about your super ally israel, the forced goverments changes in iran, the support you give to sadam.

soy to wake you up but the US foring policies are 70% to blame for the corrent terrorist situations. the other 30% is islam Jihad.

Rudel, granted that our foreign policy is not always good, the fact remains - if you take time to study Islam - that the one vital reason that Islam exists is to rule the world. The word Islam means submission; they want peace, yes. But on their terms only. And those terms are that all the world submit to Islam - Shari'a and all. It would not matter what our foreign policy was or is - that is the reason Islam exists and this is another step towards making it happen. This is important to them, especially so to those fanatics who are the so-called "insurgency" in Iraq and elsewhere today.

Think of this, Rudel - what foreign policy of the U.S. would make the people in the Pacific Rim bomb Bali, where Americans seldom go and Australians go frequently? We do have other allies; why pick on those who are so far away and have little influence on Europe or the Mid East?

Think of Nigeria, the Sudan - where does U.S. foreign policy influence such places? And China - again, China means to beat us out and become the economic giant of the 21st Century - surely a common enemy with Islam against us, if that were the reason for all this?

The Philippines - we no longer hold them in any bondage to our policy, although once you could have said so. Besides, the only people in the Philippines who are being massacred by the Muslims there are the Christians. This isn't even a particularly Christian nation any more. What foreign policy do we have to cause Christians to be targeted in the Philippines?

No - you are at the same time oversimplifying what is going on and making it more complicated. A neat trick - almost unheard of. But if all you can see is that our foreign policy is not good, and you blame all the world's ills on that, then you are doubly blinded. We are not the whole world; we may influence some things in all the world, but this war has been going on for 1400 or so years, and this country is not even that old. Until WWII, we were successful at being isolationists - so if you want to say our policy is the problem in all the world, please tell me what it was the set Hitler to try and conquer the world then?

It won't work, Rudel. You cannot blame the aims of the crazies on the U.S. - foreign policy problems or not.