In their new book, Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy, coauthors Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg explore a largely unexamined phenomenon – the “deeply ingrained anxiety” some Westerners, and especially Americans, experience when considering Islam and Muslim cultures. Peter Gottschalk, professor of religion at Wesleyan University in Connecticut and the author of Beyond Hindu and Muslim, says that in times of crisis, such as the 1979 Iranian hostage situation or the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the long-simmering resentments and suspicions “inherited along with a European Christian heritage, manifest themselves.” Professor Gottschalk and his former student Gabriel Greenberg explore those anxieties through the political cartoon, the print medium with the most immediate impact.
In prejudices such as racism, sexism, and more recently Islamophobia, Peter Gottschalk says there are historical conditions that enable certain groups to feel an antagonism toward another group that seem to “justify” that antagonism. Speaking with host Judith Latham of VOA News Now’s Press Conference USA, he explains that such attitudes form a “constantly reaffirming, re-substantiating perspective.” Gabriel Greenberg notes, for example, that from the time of the Crusades, Islam was experienced by surrounding cultures as a “competitor.” Some of the things many non-Muslim Americans today tend to associate with Islam are characteristics that are “negatively valued” Professor Gottschalk says, such as terrorism, the oppression of women, and associations with “Arabs” or the Middle East.
Muslims in several countries hold up banners, protesting against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspape two years ago
In the case of the political cartoon, it simultaneously amuses one group with its stereotypical presentation and simultaneously offends another. For example, two years ago Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammed appeared in several European newspapers and deeply upset Muslim readers, bringing about a very public outcry. Gabriel Greenberg says political cartoons seem to have greater emotional impact than do newspaper editorials. In the process of stereotyping, Peter Gottschalk says, the cartoon takes the “presumed qualities of a whole people and broadcasts them by use of a single image” – for example, the “violence of Muslim men.” An effective antidote to that kind of belief, the authors point out, is first-hand experience – going to school with, or working with, people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds.
Professor Gottschalk and Mr. Greenberg say it is also important for leaders to use “less general and more nuanced language.” Instead of talking about “the Muslim world,” which comprises more than a billion people spread across the globe, one could be more specific and talk about certain people in country X. By contrast, in the United States, which is a majority “Christian country,” there is whole spectrum of views about the intersection of “Christianity” with personal faith, social identity, or political positions on various public issues. Similarly, Professor Gottschalk explains, there are a variety of movements within Islam that may be “authoritarian, revival, or reform” in nature. And that, he says, is quite different from what some people call “Islamofacism,” which tends to lump together the Taliban, terrorism, and the politics of a democratic country such as Turkey, thereby creating a “monolithic enemy.” Gabriel Greenberg notes that the media have a responsibility to inform people and to create “mutual understanding” rather than to spread fear of the “other.” So what individuals and groups need to cultivate instead is a sense of a “common humanity” rather than a contest of “us against them.”
For full audio of the program Press Conference USA click here..
A fat golden crescent on a dark blue background with the enigmatic caption �Aimez-vous l'Orient?� (Do you love the Orient?) invites visitors to the newest exhibition at the Ottoman Bank Museum titled �Consuming the Orient.�
The exhibition poster's minimalist treatment of the oriental crescent symbol is in many ways the opposite of what is on display in the exhibition itself, which shows the Western view of the East as reflected in popular consumer products of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Large, colorful advertisement posters, cartoons, product wrappings and postcards are united in their depiction of �the Orient� in Western consumer culture.
The exhibition focuses on the Orient as a commodity, an object for consumption. Consumption is broadly conceived, represented by objects ranging from tourism artifacts and products claiming to be typically Oriental � like coffee and carpets � to dreams and imagination, represented by cartoons and movie posters on display.
The exhibition's curator Edhem Eldem, history professor at Boğaziçi University, responds to the flexible notion of what forms the �Orient,� which is, after all, a construct of Western culture, science, art and politics. Eldem has chosen to focus on an Arabian-Islamic Orient, whose geographical area stretches from Turkey to the Maghreb (meaning the West, but here the term refers to North African countries except Egypt) along the Mediterranean basin.
The exhibition's visual backbone is 53 impressive posters from the Abderrahman Slaoui Foundation of Casablanca. �I know there is a danger that the posters dominate the other objects in the exhibition,� said Eldem. Considering the artistic innovation and beauty of many of them, however, this is surely not to the disadvantage of the show.
The objects are arranged around four recurrent, thematic motifs in the Western view of the East: First, the notion of exoticism, a tendency to show the Orient as foreign and strange. The cliché of palm trees and camels in the desert as typically Oriental is encountered here in its most obvious fashion. Travel guides and tourist handbooks are also guilty of appealing to exoticism, depicting a world �out there� in what attempts to be dry, objective language, inviting tourists to venture into the unknown.
Stereotypes of Oriental people are the focus of the second motif. The appeal of the unknown Orient was not confined to landscapes and monumental sights, it also included curiosity about people living in the East. This ethnographic twist, as Eldem termed it, resulted in clichés about the idleness of �the Turk� or the backwardness of �the Arab.� Yet Eldem continuously stresses that Orientalism is not as simple and easily condemnable as it seems. For example, in the French comic strip �Bécassine chez les Turcs,� Germans are ultimately the bad characters and Ottomans are depicted much more favorably.
The third theme represented in the exhibition is eroticism, a Western interest in Eastern sexuality that ranges from curiosity to condemnation. The most classical expression of European erotic fascination with the Orient is the harem, full of beautiful, idle women at the ready disposal of their master, an image reproduced in countless novels, cartoons and movies. From a different perspective, these fantasies of Oriental polygamy went hand in hand with the general image of oriental homosexuality.
Historicism is the fourth theme; this construction of history and the present depicted the East as the background for Western history through references to biblical sites or Roman remains. In the hands of historicism's supporters, history became especially useful as a tool to justify colonial claims. Italy could thus claim �historical� rights to rule in northern Africa since it saw itself as the modern continuation of the Roman Empire.
The exhibition's last section, which focuses on Orientalism in Turkey by Turks themselves, is what makes the exhibition so extraordinary and controversial. In response to Orientalist attitudes, demeaning attitudes from the West, the Ottomans of the early 19th century, in their quest for Westernization, started adopting the very same notions they had tried to reject and projected them onto the people who were the �real Orientals� in their eyes: The uneducated masses, Kurds and especially Arabs. This tendency gained momentum with the establishment of the Republic, which tried to sever all connections with an unwanted �Oriental� Ottoman past in order to finally become part of the admired West.
While projecting Orientalist notions onto others in attempts to become Western, items of Turkish popular culture tell the story of what Eldem called �self-Orientalization.� The film posters and popular book covers on display reveal an Ottoman revival in Turkey since the 1980s. An Oriental past is being accepted and actively promoted, ironically using exactly those clichés the West had produced and Ottoman elites had once revolted against. Thus the erotic belly dancer and the wild, untamed Ottoman soldier reappear as main characters in popular Turkish movies of the late 20th century.
Little text accompanies the artifacts on display. Instead, the posters and objects speak for themselves, allowing the viewer to come to his or her own understanding of what it means to consume the East. Letting the objects speak for themselves also encourages an appreciation for their artistic value apart from the default �Orientalist condemnation,� which too often becomes just a form of political correctness. The artists were products of their time and therefore naturally imbued with Orientalist notions, and Eldem wanted to show the �innocent side� of Orientalism, which is too often forgotten. Rather than being active producers of an Orientalist and thus disfiguring, subduing discourse, the objects of Western consumer culture were merely reproducing a system already in place. This is doubtless a controversial point linked to normative notions of guilt and liability. In how far can we condemn advertisers for reproducing � often unconsciously � clichés of a mystical, exotic Orient? Should cartoons with humoristic depictions of �the Oriental� still be reprinted today?
Eldem is well aware that his exhibition raises these delicate questions. Yet rather than trying to give standard answers, he aims to show the manifold, even contradictory sides of Orientalism. And thus the minimalist golden crescent of the exhibition poster stands exactly for these aesthetic and naive sides of Orientalism, which lie at the heart of �Consuming the Orient.�
�Consuming the Orient � Doğuyu Tüketmek�
Ottoman Bank Museum, Voyvoda Caddesi 35/37, Karaköy
The exhibition runs through March 2. Open every day from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The Arab-American community complains that we see few representations of Arab men here besides the terrorists or thugs who have become the default villains in action movies and military-style television series like "24." But images of Arab women are nonexistent — they’re either wrapped in robes or not there at all. So it will please that special-interest group now that there’s an Arab chick flick in the theater, with gorgeous, sympathetic Arab women who have issues with romance and identity that any woman can relate to. That should make them happy, shouldn’t it? We’ll see.
The Lebanese selection for best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars, "Caramel" is a charming romantic comedy with a sharp edge that manages to present a pointed critique of the place women fill in the Arab world, even in an emancipated and modern society such as Lebanon. The women in the film — all stunningly beautiful and none of them professional actresses — have to navigate a culture that tries to keep them in their place and under control in a thousand ways.
Set in Beirut, the movie focuses on a group of women of different ages who frequent a ramshackle beauty parlor. The owner, Layale, played by the film’s young director and screenwriter Nadine Labaki, is having an affair with a married man. Layale is a Christian, like most of the characters, but of course that doesn’t affect the fact that she’s desperately in love with Rabih. An unseen charmer, he pulls up in front of the shop — presumably when he has a free hour — and honks for her to come out.
Scenes from ‘Caramel,’ directed by Natine Labaki. Photos courtesy of Roadside Attractions.
Her friend and fellow hairdresser Nisrine rolls her eyes when Layale goes running out, but with a sense of understanding rather than disapproval. Nisrine has her own problems. A Muslim, she’s engaged to be married, but her fiancé doesn’t’ know that she isn’t a virgin. Nisrine carefully rolls down her sleeves and buttons her blouse over her tight camisole when she and her boyfriend visit his family, and we understand everything about a woman’s role in a Lebanese Muslim household from that scene. The women literally fight over who can do more to serve the men at the table. The scene is funny and good-natured, but it makes its point.
Rima is the other woman who works in the shop, and she’s a different type altogether. Dressed in loose jeans rather than the tight, revealing clothes of the other young women, Rima is clearly a lesbian, although it’s uncertain if she knows. Sneaking glances at pretty girls on the bus, she seems uncomfortable in her own body. When an unfamiliar woman comes into the shop for a shampoo, Rima is powerfully smitten.
Several other women have major roles in the film as well, and their stories are told with the same warmth and genuineness as the women in the salon. Although there is absolutely no feminist rhetoric in "Caramel," there is a powerful sense of sisterhood, of the emotional bonds that form between women wherever they may live — in a Arab country with its long history of oppression, in America where a woman can earn women’s votes by showing a little of what’s behind the mask, and in Israel, a country that’s both modern and Middle Eastern in its attitude toward women.
The title of the film refers to the method of hair removal popular in Lebanon. Instead of wax, Layale cooks up caramel, cools it slightly, and then uses it to remove body hair. Offering a special on this sugar waxing, she lures her lover’s wife to the salon, just so she can see her competition. Rather than being creepy, this scene underscores the poignant situation of the two women, desperately trying to please the man they both love. The need of all the women in "Caramel" to please the men in their lives — most of whom are sensitive and well-meaning — is what gives the film its affecting quality. For these women, life without marriage or love is unthinkable, and they’ll go to any lengths — trickery, deceit, surgery — to keep themselves desirable and acceptable to men. Their only power is in their bodies, and that’s why the beauty salon becomes the symbol of their oppression as well as their strength.
Kiefer Sutherland launched a manhunt for them on 24. Arnold Schwarzenegger hijacked a fighter jet to gun them down in True Lies. And Bruce Willis declared martial law to capture them in The Siege.
These are Hollywood’s reel bad Arabs, most often bracketed into the stereotypical role of gun-toting terrorists on screen. In fact, comedian Maz Jobrani happened to play one such evildoer on 24, who steals a nuclear warhead to embark on a spree of death and mayhem in downtown Los Angeles.
“But I was a terrorist with a conscience,” Iranian-born Jobrani tells Emirates Business. “When my character spots schoolchildren in the playground, he has a change of heart. And then two seconds later he gets shot, thanks to his good deed of the day.”
Jobrani, along with Ahmed Ahmed and Aron Kader, make up the trio of Axis of Evil – a name appropriated from United States President George Bush’s famous speech on the axis of evil nations – Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
With this group, the three comedians aim to bridge the cultural gap between Arab and Western cultures through humour. The trio have just finished their first stand-up comedy tour of the Middle East in partnership with Showtime Arabia, with performances in Dubai, Cairo, Amman and Beirut. Highlights of their regional tour are now being showcased on Showcomedy every Friday, offering plenty of behind-the-scenes action.
Combining humour and politics, the trio have attempted to address misconceptions about the Middle East and its international image and help cultures understand each other better. For Ahmed, Kader and Jobrani, comedy is the best way to break down existing barriers and achieve their objectives, with a few laughs along the way.
Egyptian-born Ahmed says: “Living in the United States as an Arab, you are prone to living with some form of prejudice, but post September 11, things just got worse.”
Ahmed talks of being detained at domestic airports across the US over the years. He says: “I was even arrested once, at Las Vegas airport, the day before President Bush was re-elected. I discovered later that more than 10,000 Muslims were thrown in jail around the time on suspicion.”
But he still manages to find some humour in the situation, saying: “At the time, I was arrested by a black cop and a white cop, and while they were taking me away in handcuffs, the black cop whispered in my ear, ‘Now you know what it feels like to be a black man in the 1960s’.”
He eventually ended up in a downtown holding cell for nearly 17 hours with “thugs and gang bangers” he says.
“After 12 hours in the holding cell, a Mexican gang member with tattoos and a shaved head walked up to me and said, ‘Hey amigo… so you locked up here coz you Arab?’ I said ‘yeah’. ‘They thought u a terrorist amigo?’, I said ‘yeah’. ‘Then blow this place up and get us outta here’. That’s when I finally started laughing,” he says.
Palestinian-born Kader’s experiences may not be as colourful, but he does say as a comedian, making Muslims laugh at themselves works well in their favour.
“When we perform in comedy clubs across the US, it’s great to see our Muslim audiences appreciate our brand of humour. And the added bonus is the American audience present in the crowd realise that all Arabs are really not like Osama bin Laden; we too have a sense of humour,” he says.
Funny bone
Emirates Business caught up with Maz Jobrani, Ahmed Ahmed and Aron Kader, the threesome from Axis of Evil, to talk humour and politics.
MAZ JOBRANI
BEST STAGE LINE: There isn’t one that stands out. When performing, you come up with a gag that’s so funny you start laughing yourself.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS WAR ON TERROR: It is very frustrating to see a man who is ignorant about the world as the president of our country. When his administration was trying to sell the war in Iraq to the American people, I recall Bush saying they were going to welcome us with flowers, and I thought: does he believe this? Furthermore, isn’t there anybody who says, ‘now here’s a counterpoint: what if they don’t accept us with flowers?’
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A COMEDIAN: A big part of what we’re trying to do with our American audiences is for them to leave thinking: “Hey, that guy was Iranian, and he was funny; they’re all not bad.”
IF YOU CAME FACE TO FACE WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN YOU'D SAY: ‘There you are! I’ve been looking for you’.
AHMED AHMED
BEST STAGE LINE: People love my Arab jokes. One of my more popular ones is: Do you know how I catch an air marshal on the plane? He’s the guy reading the People magazine upside down and looking at me.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS WAR ON TERROR: He reminds me of the guy in high school who walks around beating his chest, but inside is a wimp.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A COMEDIAN: I started doing comedy years before 9/11. I tell people, if you can laugh at yourself, then come to my shows. Otherwise don’t waste your money. I’m not a political activist or a statesman nor am I running for office. My agenda is to make people laugh.
WORST CRITICISM RECEIVED: When I first started doing comedy, my father said, ‘Ahmed, what is this Hollywood bull? Are you in a cult?’ After he saw me on TV, baba turned around and said, ‘Ah, my son Ahmed. He gets his humour from me’.
IF YOU CAME FACE TO FACE WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN YOU'D SAY: Why are you so mad at America?
ARON KADER
BEST STAGE LINE: It’s more of a pick-up line: Excuse me, I’ve noticed you but it’s not working out between us. Maybe we can be friends. I’ll fax you my number if you give me yours.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS WAR ON TERROR: After the Hurricane Katrina disaster my Republican friend heard me bad-mouthing Bush and responded: ‘Bush just made a couple of mistakes’. I snapped back and said, ‘A couple of mistakes… President Clinton with a blue dress was a mistake’. There’s a mistake like I’m choking on a pretzel, and then there’s a mistake like ‘oops, I’m torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay’. But Bush has given so much to the comedy world.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A COMEDIAN: My first responsibility is to make people laugh.
IF YOU CAME FACE TO FACE WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN YOU'D SAY: Well, it all depends on how tall he really is... [laughs]. We have this joke that he’s probably hiding somewhere in the US, sitting at a Yankees game. But if I do ever meet him, I want to ask him if he really does have kidney problems. How does a guy like that survive in such wilderness where he pitches a tent and hooks up to a dialysis machine? What outdoors survival guide did he read?
H.E. Khalifa Al Mazrouei, Chairman and Managing Director for the Abu Dhabi Airports Company, talks about the new Etihad terminal as well as growth in traffic and infrastructure - Dubai Eye, 17 Jan 08
Blair Hagkull, Managing Director, MENA for Jones Lang LaSalle, advises that apart from Western London, the DIFC will command the highest rental prices in the world in 2008 - Dubai Eye, 17 Jan 08
Wael Al Sayegh, Director of Alghaf Publishers and Consultants, talks about the past week in the UAE - a week that saw a visit by US president George W. Bush, and disruption due to 'extreme' weather conditions and the resulting floods - Dubai Eye, 18 Jan 08
Loading...
POLL
Will a decreased perception of risk make the GCC attractive to global real estate investors?
Exhaustive coverage of the future of the dollar peg as Middle East countries - torn between a sliding dollar and rising inflation - continue to debate alternatives.
Terrorism, climate change to figure in Manmohan-Brown talks
Sandeep Dikshit
NEW DELHI: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will arrive here on Sunday to coordinate the approach of the two countries on reforms of multilateral institutions providing aid to African countries, climate change and terrorism.
“We want to bring out two themes — to work with India in third countries and talk in detail with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about reforms in the international system. The visit will also give Mr. Brown an opportunity to explain Britain’s philosophy of development,” British High Commissioner Richard Stagg said on Friday.
Recalling that both countries had resolved to work closely on terrorism issues, the High Commissioner said they would discuss “practical areas” for collaboration. Subjects could include exchanging experiences on keeping the rail transport functioning (Mumbai suburban rail and London metro) after terrorist strikes and ensuring the possibility of a terrorist attack on multinational sporting events is kept to the minimum.
On his maiden visit to the country after taking over as Prime Minister in June last year, Mr. Brown is expected to utilise his two-day stay to discuss the situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Mr. Stagg said Britain felt that effective steps had not been taken to make the Myanmar government more inclusive and both Prime Ministers would discuss the implications of the lack of progress and ways to address it.
Entrepreneurship conference
On Sunday, Mr. Brown will also address an entrepreneurship conference which will discuss some practical issues facing businessmen. This will be followed by a private dinner with Dr. Singh, with formal talks to take place the next day.
Also on Monday, Mr. Brown will deliver a speech with the focus on an altered international framework and making international governance both representative and effective to reflect the changed realities of the world. He will also be conferred an honorary degree by the Delhi University. A joint press conference with Dr. Singh has also been planned.
The move comes after the Home Secretary's first official speech on radicalisation, in which she repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic" to describe the activities of Muslim extremists.
advertisement
At one point Mrs Smith said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.
"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."
Conservative MP Philip Davies complained that the Home Office appeared to be spending too much time discussing what to call terrorism as opposed to actually fighting it.
"Whenever anyone refers to Islamic terrorism, they are not saying all Muslims are terrorists," he said.
"Everybody knows what people mean is terrorists doing it in the name of Islam, misguidedly.
"If the Government spent less time worrying about this, and more time worrying about things such as having effective border controls, we would be getting somewhere."
The criticism comes as ministers reportedly move to drop the term "war on terror" and refer to jihadis as "criminals" in an attempt to stop glorifying acts of terrorism.
The Home Office has denied that any words or phrases have been banned.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
BOOK REVIEW A fresh look at terrorism's roots Leaderless Jihad by Marc Sageman
Reviewed by David Isenberg
When considering solutions to really important problems it is useful to step back and ask what if everything we know is wrong.
The question, of course, is not asked nearly enough. Questions that are complex and difficult often require solutions that are equally difficult and complex. Sometimes they require us to shake off our preconceived blinders and think in entirely new ways,
Take, for example, the issue of terrorism. To look at a document BOOK REVIEW A fresh look at terrorism's roots Leaderless Jihad by Marc Sageman
Reviewed by David Isenberg
When considering solutions to really important problems it is useful to step back and ask what if everything we know is wrong.
The question, of course, is not asked nearly enough. Questions that are complex and difficult often require solutions that are equally difficult and complex. Sometimes they require us to shake off our preconceived blinders and think in entirely new ways,
Take, for example, the issue of terrorism. To look at a document
like the White House's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism is to read statements like this:
The terrorism we confront today springs from: Political alienation; grievances that can be blamed on others; subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation; and an ideology that justifies murder.
But what if that is wrong? What if all the platitudes and cliches about why people turn to terror, such as George W Bush administration claims that global Islamic terrorists hate democracy and freedom, are based on myths and sound bites, signifying nothing? What if most of the terror experts are guilty of the same sin that the intelligence agencies were accused of in regard to the reason the US invaded Iraq, ie, cherry picking the evidence?
If that is the problem then the answer is this book.
Marc Sageman is a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychiatry and ethnopolitical conflict, and a former Foreign Service Officer who worked closely with Islamic fundamentalists during the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s and gained an intimate understanding of their networks. His 2004 book Understanding Terror Networks gave the first social explanation of the global wave of activity.
Now, in his new book, Leaderless Jihad, we have a book that chooses to boldly go where few books on terrorism have gone before; namely to use scientific method to study terrorism.
In so doing he chooses not to focus on individuals and their backgrounds, or "root" (micro and macro approaches respectively) causes, to explain how the Muslims who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks and those like them are radicalized to become terrorists. Sageman takes the common sense view that you can't defeat an enemy until you know them and understand what drives them. Instead, by using ordinary social science methods he studies how people in groups influence each other to become terrorists.
By building his own evidence-based, independently checked database of over 500 terrorists he has been able to see what various members of al-Qaeda had in common. He finds that are "part of a violent Islamist born-again social movement".
And this social movement, similar to the Russian anarchists of the late 19th century, is actually motivated by idealism. Sageman's data show that they are generally idealistic young people seeking glory fighting for justice and fairness.
This runs counter to the Bush administration counter-terrorist strategy, which is framed in terms of promoting democracy and freedom; a concept that that is readily grasped by the American domestic audience.
But these are not terms with which Middle Eastern Muslims identify. To them democracy means leaders who win elections with almost 100% of the vote. And if a Salafi Islamist party does win an election, as was the case with the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria in 1992 or Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2006, the election results are canceled or the world shuns the victor.
Thus, those who eventually become terrorists see Western-style democracy as a harmful "domination of man over man", undermining their theocratic utopia (Salaf). In their view that was the only time world history that a fair and just community existed. The Salafis, like other religious fundamentalists, see the Muslim decline over the past centuries as evidence that they have strayed from the righteous path.
Among Sageman's most useful points is his description of al-Qaeda both as a social movement and an ideology. The most important thing the United States can do, in countering global Islamic terrorism, is to avoid the mistakes of the early Cold War era when policymakers assumed that communism was one global monolithic movement. It wasn't and neither is al-Qaeda. Even before September 11 it had evolved beyond the group that had first formed in the aftermath of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and it has evolved several times since, and will continue to do so. Increasingly, to paraphrase, the old cliche about politics, all terrorism is local.
Sageman also does an excellent job of debunking the conventional wisdom as to how people become terrorists, ie, that they are brainwashed when they are immature children or teenagers, that they lack family obligations, act out of sexual frustration, that there is something intrinsically wrong with them (the "bad seed" school of thought).
Sageman finds that one of the greatest motivators for joining an Islamic terrorist social movement is the one that is most easily understood; relationships with friends and kin. In other words, there is no to-down recruitment into al-Qaeda. Rather, the movement forms through the spontaneous self-organization of informal, trusted friends.
On a positive note, despite much right-wing fear-mongering, Sageman finds that there are far fewer homegrown Islamic terrorists in the United States than in other regions, like Europe. He attributes this to the fact that the Muslim community in the United States is far less radicalized, due to America's greater acceptance of immigrants, as a part of its integrationist, religiously tolerant, "American Dream", "melting pot" mythology. In short, inclusion, as opposed to exclusion, pays dividends.
In conclusion, Sageman finds that as Islamic terrorism has evolved it has increasingly degraded, out of necessity due to its own lack of appeal, into a "leaderless jihad". To the extent it still has an agenda, it is set by general guidelines found on the Internet, which allows it to maintain a facade of unity. Without the Internet it would dissipate into a political vacuum.
In truth, Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the existence of the United States. No amount of ominous predictions of al-Qaeda acquiring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons will change that.
According to Sageman, the only thing that can keep al-Qaeda from fading into the dust heap of history is if the United States "transforms its fight against global Islamic terrorism into a war against Islam, which would mobilize all Muslims against the United States".
Thus, the answer to the Islamic threat is the same one proffered by George Kennan with respect to the Soviet Union; containment. The goal is to accelerate the process of internal decay already taking place within al-Qaeda and its copycat cells.
Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century by Marc Sageman. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 2007) . ISBN-10: 0812240650. Price US$24.95, 176 pages.
David Isenberg is an analyst in national and international security affairs, sento@earthlink.net. He is also a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and a US Navy veteran. The views expressed are his own.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
n so doing he chooses not to focus on individuals and their backgrounds, or "root" (micro and macro approaches respectively) causes, to explain how the Muslims who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks and those like them are radicalized to become terrorists. Sageman takes the common sense view that you can't defeat an enemy until you know them and understand what drives them. Instead, by using ordinary social science methods he studies how people in groups influence each other to become terrorists. 
