
Is Your Muslim Doctor the Enemy?How terrorist groups target middle-class Muslims.
Posted Monday, July 23, 2007, at 11:53 AM ETThis article appears in conjunction with a special weeklong series on Islam published by On Faith, the Washington Post's religion blog. To read more, visit On Faith.
It's no accident that the suspects in the recent suicide-bombing attempts in the United Kingdom were doctors. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups want you to think your Muslim doctor or dentist or lawyer is the enemy—and so that's how they're recruiting. Terrorism, we are learning, is more than heinous murder and guerrilla theater. It is a type of macabre magic intended to create the illusion of enemies everywhere. In traditional, territorial war, the enemy is obvious, and the mission is clear: Kill the guys with red helmets, capture that hill. In asymmetrical, ideological war, it is hard to tell friend from foe.
Which is why you don't need an actual army to win an asymmetrical war. All you need to do is play a game of smoke and mirrors about "us" and "them." This is the age-old tactic put to particularly effective use by al-Qaida, which wants us vs. them to be the West vs. Muslims. To that end, one of its goals has been to convince the world's 1.3 billion Muslims that the West is their inherent and inevitable enemy and to join a violent campaign against it. Osama Bin Laden made this clear in his much-quoted 1998 statement: "(To) kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible. …" This fatwa went nowhere. There are tens of millions of Muslims who live in North America, Europe, and Australia, all with ample opportunity to strangle their neighbors, shoot up a McDonald's, or blow up a bus. Only a tiny handful have tried.
So, al-Qaida turned to a strategy of staging dramatic attacks under the assumption that Muslims around the world were so angry at the West that once they saw a "strong horse" (in Osama Bin Laden's words) stand up to the paper tiger, they would join the global jihad. But this approach also failed miserably. The truth is, most Muslims who live in the West like it here. An April 2007 Gallup poll found that 74 percent of Muslims in London stated they felt "loyalty to Britain," compared with 45 percent of non-Muslims. A May 2007 Pew survey found that Muslim Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in America. The Pew report concluded that Muslims in America were "largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world." This more than anything else, I imagine, galls Bin Laden and his cohorts.
Since al-Qaida cannot convince a majority of Muslims to go to war with the West, it is using Plan B: Create the illusion that all Muslims are part of this army and hope to incite suspicion, insults, and attacks directed at Muslims and Islam. A leaked 2005 memo from 10 Downing Street states that al-Qaida "recruiters" intentionally target educated, middle-class Britons, typically at university campuses. They seek candidates who come from liberal or nonreligious Muslim backgrounds, people who are so seamlessly a part of British society that the reaction to their participation in a terror plot provokes universal disbelief. That was certainly the case with both Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two members of the July 7, 2005, London Tube bombing. Khan was a well-respected teacher in Leeds whose wife was an advocate for women's rights. As a child, he wore cowboy boots and insisted on being called "Sid," signs of his fascination with all things American. Tanweer was a sports fanatic, sang along to Elvis Presley songs, and drove around town in his father's red Mercedes. The headline in the New York Times said, "Suspects' Neighbors Say There Was No Hint of Evil."
Other terrorist groups have shown that poor, uneducated people—even children—are perfectly capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. So, why go to the trouble of recruiting doctors and teachers? Because middle-class professional terrorists play a trick on people's psychology. The instinct of "I can't believe that a doctor would do this" quickly morphs into, "You can't trust any of those Muslims." For some people, this provokes open season on Muslims. Mosques are torched, Muslim kids are beaten up at school, women in headscarves are harassed, the Prophet Mohammed is depicted in a despicable manner.
None of these affronts even comes close to the evil of terrorism, but each allows al-Qaida to entrench its definition of us and them. "See," they say to Muslims, pointing to the Danish cartoons and the broken windows of mosques, "the West hates Islam and seeks to destroy Muslims. Your only choice is to fight them." Some Muslims buy that line.
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons











Remarks from the Fray:
I suppose that it doesn't help our cause to have idiots assaulting Muslims for looking like terrorists, or to have idiot cartoonists make deliberately offensive cartoons about the prophet, but really do you think those are the major issues on the minds of Muslims considering conversion to terrorism? Probably they are only icing on the cake.
The wonderful thing about Patel's commentary is that it allows us ordinary citizens to make peace with the Muslims. As long as we treat Arab and Muslim individuals with respect, so long as we don't physically assault the citizens of our countries than any further terrorism on their part must need be evidence of pure insanity and evil.
Unfortunately Muslim anger at the west is not limited to controversy over whether a Muslim girl can wear a head-scarf in grammar school, but also whether marines in Haditha should be given the opportunity to rape and murder 14 year old Iraqi girls and their families. Now I know someone is going to say that "that doesn't represent all marines" and I know this, but it was only able to happen because we are there and we are only there because George W's intelligence was "mistaken" something he has admitted, but which he hasn't done anything to rectify.
In short this is another one of those articles which purports to get "in the minds" of terrorists and their recruits, but only barely grazes the target. If we are to demonstrate to Muslims that we are not targeting them then we must do more than not assault them in our neighborhoods we should try not to assault them abroad.
--Beaujoe
(To reply, click here.)
The author is probably right that Al Qaida leaders appreciate the psychological effect of recruiting doctors to be terrorists, but I suspect that the recruiters have a more practical reason for choosing doctors. Because doctors' services are in high demand, they are able to immigrate to western countries much faster than, say, a taxi driver. In conducting a terrorist operation in a foregn country, getting your operatives where they need to be at the time you need them is paramount. Al Qaida leaders might want any number of types of persons to plant the bomb, but their choices were limited to those who could get a work visa.
--JeffMcQuary
(To reply, click here.)
It's despicable to elide 'harassing women with head scarfs', 'beating up children', and drawing a cartoon in the same light. These things are not alike in any way. One is public speech, a necessary and good part of our marketplace of ideas. The other is personal harassment, which should never be tolerated under any circumstances.
I know the author wants to pretend that these acts are of a kind. They're not. And until he (and, I suppose, the Muslim extremists) understand this, there can't be true peace. Peace will not come by eliminating differences and shutting people up. It can only come by setting ground rules of what is acceptable in a society.
I can say whatever I want about your God, anyone's God, and I demand to feel safe doing it. You can say whatever you want about my God, and you should demand to feel safe while doing it. Those are the rules, and they are absolute. I'd move heaven and earth to stop anyone, however good intentioned, from pretending that beating up a person and drawing a cartoon are along the same spectrum. They're not.
--Sickday
(To reply, click here.)
(7/26)