WEAKNESSES IN THE NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT’s TERRORISM REPORT

by Silas

INTRODUCTION

In August of 2007 the New York Police Department released an in-depth report called "RADICALIZATION IN THE WEST: THE HOMEGROWN THREAT" which focused on the radicalization of Muslims in the West. (The report is found here.) It is the result of their expert’s analysis of data collected from a variety of worldwide sources. It states that "radicalized’ Muslims living in the West, either born there, or somewhat assimilated into Western culture, constitute a significant threat.

The report is some 90 pages long. In trying to do it justice and understand it thoroughly I’ve read through it several times. I believe that before praising or criticizing another’s work one should understand the author’s perspective and be as impartial as possible to the points being made before judging them.

The report has strengths and weaknesses which reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its authors. In turn it influences the ability of the men and women who are on the frontlines of fighting homegrown Islamic terrorism: the police, intelligence agencies, and good citizens.

From the report’s strengths I’ve learned new and important aspects about the formation of Muslim terror cells. Conversely, the report’s weaknesses fail those it intends to serve. Those weaknesses are the focus of this article.

In short, the report omits or marginalizes significant factors related to the Muslim terrorists’ motivation, it glosses over other relevant issues, and often only states the obvious. It makes significant contributions but as a whole it is incomplete. Additionally, the report lacks homogeneity; there are contradictory statements on the "Islam" of the terrorists. It was as if several people wrote separate sections and the main authors cobbled them together as best they could, or the authors failed to understand their subject and could not make up their minds. The report’s conclusion left me with the impression that the authors ran out of time, money, or energy, and rushed to finish. Perhaps they were working against an arbitrary bureaucratic deadline. In any event it is evident that when writing about Islamic ideology the authors were out of their element and did not understand the subject.

I’ll briefly mention what I consider to be the report’s strengths, but focus on the report’s significant weaknesses, examining what it says and fails to say. What the report fails to mention, or underplays, is as important as what it emphasizes and brings to light.

THE REPORT’S STRENGTHS

Below are what I consider to be the report’s strengths. These themes are found throughout the report and are oft repeated depending on the specific cases or situations.

1) The report states that most of the Muslim terrorists are normal, everyday guys:

2) The report states that individual Muslims initially move into radicalization process independently

3) The report states that Western Muslims who get involved with terror are not connected to al-Qaeda, but rather that they are motivated by their own religious convictions.

4) Its greatest strength is that it details the progression and formation of a Western Muslim terrorism.

5) The report details that Western Muslims chose terrorism, not because of their suffering, but because of their faith and identity.

COMMENT

I’m encouraged and appreciative that they detailed the above. Given the significant weaknesses of Western culture, and bureaucracy that affect law enforcement, I appreciated seeing those statements because they provide accurate perspectives on the motivations of the Muslim terrorists. The Muslims who chose terrorism are normal everyday Muslims. They are students, computer programmers, engineers, doctors, clerks, etc. It is not al-Qaeda behind these Muslims it is their faith. Islamic terrorism isn’t an al-Qaeda thing it is a Muslim thing. As they become more dedicated they begin to study Islam’s teachings in greater detail. They become aware of Islam’s commands to violence, (Sura 9:5 for example). Further, these Muslims choose terrorism, not because of their suffering or oppression, nor because their homeland was occupied, but rather because of their faith. Note that this observation undercut’s Robert Pape’s myopic work, and further discredits the 9/11 Commission’s report.

THE REPORT’S GOALS

This report should be judged, at a minimum, against its own stated goals. These goals are found in the preface, page 2:

THE REPORT’S WEAKNESSES

I found three major weaknesses in the report. I’ll list them briefly and then go into more depth.

1) The report portrays the Islam of the terrorists as erroneous, spurious, or distorted. Throughout the report various adjectives are used to describe the Islam of the terrorists and color their Islam as non-normal. It becomes comical as the authors toil to make their distinctions.

[Note: the authors get it right once. Pages 16 and 17 depict the terrorists’ Islam accurately. However, these points are obscured and outweighed by its numerous contrary comments.]

FAILURE #1

Let’s examine how the report’s authors whitewash the terrorists’ Islam. Below are several examples that I’ve underlined, bolded, and italicized, that depict the effort to present the terrorists’ Islam as twisted. I’ve added a comment on one quote.

Note that traditional clothing and wearing a beard are evidence of a radical! How many Muslims in the world wear traditional clothing and beards?! Were the authors aware that the Hadith instruct Muslims to grow beards, and that Allah’s favorite color for clothes is white?

There are many more examples to use. The authors’ weakness is demonstrated by their effort to distinguish between the terrorists’ Islam, and what they consider to be real Islam. Look at the adjectives the authors use to describe the Islam of the terrorists: "extremist", "radical", "militant", "minority". Over and over again the authors go to lengths to portray the terrorists’ Islam as a perversion of true Islam. By colorizing the terrorists’ Islam, the report suggests that the terrorists’ Islam is not true and authentic Islam. However, the terrorists claim that their Islam is a much more pure and accurate form of Islam than what is practiced by a majority of the world’s Muslims, that their Islam is Muhammad’s Islam. If you want to know who is right, compare the actions and teachings of the terrorists against those who claim that Islam is a peaceful religion.

The failure of the authors to identify the terrorists’ Islam accurately causes them to fail Goal #2. It fails "to provide a thorough understanding of the kind of threat we face."

There is no excuse for this error. Many other writers have identified the terrorists’ Islam as authentic, or at least a viable form of Islam. Below are several examples.

1. How to Cope with Global Jihad
   By Ariel Cohen

   In this, they violate the most famous dictum of Sun Tzu, the Chinese strategic genius of 2,500 years ago: "If you know yourself and understand your opponent you will never put your victory in jeopardy in any conflict."
   …
   The broad support that al Qaeda jihadis and radical Islamist militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah enjoy in the Muslim world and in the global Muslim diaspora, as well as among non-Muslim anti-American political forces around the world demonstrates that describing the global Islamic insurgency as a fringe or minority phenomenon is unrealistic and self-defeating. (Source)

2. World War IV?
   By William F. Buckley
   September 06, 2007

   Add to the above "a huge number of committed cadres. If Islamists constitute 10 percent to 15 percent of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 million to 200 million persons, or a far greater total than all the fascists and communists, combined, who ever lived.
   ...
   Those critics who insist that it is only a small war-party faction of the Islamists that we have to fear might have been asked a generation ago if it was not merely a small number of Germans and Russians we were properly exercised about. Sixty million people were dead after that misreckoning. (Source)

3. A book review by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

   THE SUICIDE OF REASON
   Radical Islam’s Threat to the Enlightenment. By Lee Harris.

   "Harris does not regard Islamic fanaticism as a deviancy or a madness that affects a few Muslims and terrifies many. Instead he argues that fanaticism is the basic principle in Islam. "The Muslims are, from an early age, indoctrinated into a shaming code that demands a fanatical rejection of anything that threatens to subvert the supremacy of Islam," he writes." (Source)

The NYPD’s report shows that the report’s authors have been deceived a la Sun Tzu, (and Muhammad). They do not know their enemy, and thus they cannot be assured of victory.

FAILURE #2

This ties into Failure #1. The authors failed to account for the foundational theological texts of Islam. Is the Islam of the terrorists a perverted Islam or is it in accordance with the fundamental teaching of Islam? The authors say that the terrorists’ Islam is "extreme", "radical", "a minority interpretation", etc. How do the authors know that it is extreme, etc? What Islamic theological texts can they use to support their argument? Should the report’s authors make inaccurate, unsupported statements on the main motivation of the Muslim terrorists?

If you study Islamic history and theology you’ll note that the terrorists are often doing exactly what Muhammad did. Below are two examples of Muhammad’s actions.

#1) Muhammad asked his men to murder a mother of five children: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/asma.htm

#2) Muhammad had a man tortured in order to obtain money: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/kinana.htm

And here are two Islamic theological text references that support the terrorists’ actions:

#1) From the Quran, chapter 9 verse 5.

You can read a thorough analysis of this verse, including its context and application, here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

#2) From the Sahih Hadith of Muslim, book 1, #33, Muhammad said:

You can read some discussion on this hadith here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm

I’ve shown briefly that Muhammad and the early Muslims practiced and taught aggressive violence against non-Muslims. It is primarily Muslims in the West, (with a few exceptions), who are teaching that Islam is not to be violent. However, those that say that Islam is not intrinsically violent have no supporting theological material to stand upon. This is the same point Robert Spencer makes.

I could go on ad-nauseam quoting from many sources and references. However, that is not this article’s point. Read the linked articles if you want to have a deeper understanding.

If the authors were honest, and if they did their homework, they could not arrive at any other conclusion that violence is integral to Islam, and what many of the terrorists do is exactly what Muhammad did, and taught his followers to do. It is exactly what the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs did – those that knew Muhammad best.

These failures lead to troubling questions. Were the authors instructed not to criticize Islam? Was their work edited by a Muslim? How does this type of failure occur by trained people who are being paid to investigate this subject? The authors ate the bread of ignorance when writing about Islam’s ideology.

FAILURE #3

One of the report’s goals was to

We’re dealing with primary, fundamental, basic, Islamic theology here. It’s not that complicated. Either get it right and address it, or get out of the game. If you cannot confront this theology you’re going to end up with only a diagnosis and no cure.

TWO POINTS THAT THE REPORT MISSED

1) SIGNS OF RADICALIZATION

The authors mentions clear signs of progression into radicalization but they missed a significant indicator of Islamic fundamentalism: women wearing the head covering (hijab). Islam is a religion of power and domination and its women must be obedient to its men and faith. In general, in Western societies if you see a woman wearing the head covering you should understand that the Islam the men around her practice is fundamentalist.

Muslim men who expect or coerce their women into wearing the hijab are already primed to become violent. The Report notes that once the radicalization process starts, the progression to violence occurs quickly:

This should not surprise anyone familiar with Islam. Once a person is a committed Muslim the call to violence can be heard quickly. Muslim men who insist that their women wear the hijab have already completed the initial stages of "radicalization". These Muslim males may not desire to become violent, but the theological groundwork for that violence has been already laid, and can be triggered quickly.

I know that many independent Western women who have converted to Islam willingly, wear the hijab boldly; no one controls them. I also know that many Muslim females around the world wear the head covering out of a simple cultural habit. However, in general, in the West, the hijab signifies that a Muslim woman is influenced by or is directly under a fundamentalist male’s control. When Muslim females in the West stop wearing the hijab they are often harassed and pressured by these Muslim males to wear it again. In the Mideast, if they stop wearing it, their treatment is much rougher.

2) SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME

It would be beneficial to the overall effort in confronting Islamic terrorism to use and build upon the strengths and efforts done by others involved in this battle, including Dr. Pipes.

THE BIG ISSUE: CONFRONTING THE ISLAMISTS’ IDEOLOGY

I noted earlier that the report failed to offer any solutions. But how can you confront the ideology of the Muslim terrorist? Do you think that telling him about democracy and apple pie will be enough to get him to change his beliefs about God’s commands, the purpose of life, and the eternal consequences of heaven or hell? Of course not! The report noted many of the recent terrorists came from middle class backgrounds. They had money, and materialism, and civil rights, and that was not enough to persuade them from their mission, their Allah-given purpose. In their minds, Allah’s commands and eternal consequences outweigh the pleasures of life.

You’ve got to challenge their theology and ideology. You’ve got to show him the errors of Islam. You’ve got to show him a better way, a way that offers truth, life, and love. It must eclipse the deceptive poison of Islam. The article below notes that the root war is an ideological war:

This is a battle of ideologies. But understand that many Muslims, like Christians, do not buy into atheism’s secular solutions of nihilism, carnality, materialism, and meaningless existence. Muslims, like Christians, know that life does have meaning and purpose. They do believe in a Creator God. They don’t believe, as atheists believe, that humans are nothing but random electrified dung. I’ve known Muslims who left Islam and became atheists by default. They commented that as atheists they felt an emptiness, a lack of completion. Life held no real purpose, no real meaning.

By God’s grace I’ve been used to influence a number of Muslims to leave Islam and see the beauty of Christ. The root of the problem is the theology of Islam, i.e. Islam, i.e. Muhammad himself. The best cure is Christ. Jesus is superior to Muhammad. In Christ there is wholeness, and there is purpose. Jesus said, "I have come that they might have life and have life more abundantly." Muslims need to see the poison in their faith contrasted with the truth, love, and life, of Christ.

Now, I do not expect the NYPD to proclaim the Gospel. But I expected them to contribute something to confront the terrorists’ theology. They failed.

VARIOUS SOLUTIONS PROPOSED

Others have also noted that this is also an ideological war and have posited various cures, solutions, or alternatives to the poison of Islam.

1) An Islamic scholar’s work that addresses the issue of violence and Muslims living in the West has been presented to the European Parliament. It requests that Muslim clerics living in the West issue "fatwas" prohibiting violence against non-Muslims, respects cultures and traditions that are not Islamic, respects women, and allows for Muslims to convert to other faiths. (http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/muslim_charter.htm)

2) Daniel Pipes proclaims that "moderate Islam is the solution". Pipes is saying that Islam needs to be modernized, and re-interpreted, leaving aside the commands to violence.

3) Another similar alternative offered by ex-Muslim is referenced below.

4) Robert Spencer has a five point plan:

5) Even liberal websites have addressed this issue:

There are solutions that do confront the ideology of radical Islam, real Islam. And they all can have a positive affect.

CURRENT AND FUTURE OUTLOOKS

As a whole, the world has done well since 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist actions in Europe and Russia. The Muslims can claim a round 1 victory, but the West can claim rounds 2 and 3. But this fight is a 15 rounder and the Muslims are in it for the long haul. I’m not so sure about the West. We’re in round 4 and the world is losing ground. Most politicians and major news media still cower with respect to Islam. Their "speaking truth to power" amounts to calling President Bush names. As Scott Adams admitted they are scared to death of saying anything critical of Islam.

In Europe Muslims are strengthening their territorial claims on portions of the largest cities and have informally established "no-go" zones for non-Muslims.

In America you’ll find Muslims in the highest branches of American intelligence aiding and abetting Muslim terrorists. Here are two examples:

1) http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2QzNWYxZThlOTQ4YTBmYzYyNmUzOTQ4MmUzM2M5NDc

2) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58798

The Mideast has been a mixed bag. Some Muslim nations are turning against al-Qaeda and related extremists, in part due to OBL’s murdering of fellow Muslims. But other nations are embracing Islamic fundamentalism, like Gaza and Lebanon. Hezbollah has bragging rights about defeating the Israeli military and now they’re the de-facto rulers over Lebanon.

While much of the Western public has begun to wake up to the danger many are still asleep. It will take more 9/11 type incidents for them to fully awake. Muslim terrorist will spend years preparing one operation which will cost them their lives but take the lives of thousands. The agencies that exist to defend their respective countries have a good track record where they should have a stellar one. Al-Qaeda’s weakening, or demise, does not mean the end of Islamic terrorism. Real Islam is a power and it will motivate its followers to do the works of Muhammad. The future outlook will be determined by the actions of the next few years. Either the war on terror will be pursued thoroughly and aggressively or a 2^nd wave of Islamic terrorism, worse than 9/11 will occur. At this point the West’s actions are not strong enough. I know the Muslim mind well, and they are in it for the long haul.