"Sudden Jihad Syndrome"

While looking through the archives at the well-known conservative writer Daniel Pipes' website, I came across one of his more famous articles, in which he coins the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," which, he claims, motivates normal Muslims to quickly turn to violent, extremist Islam. This "syndrome" is characterized by a sudden change in which peaceful, law-abiding, reasonable Muslims spontaneously become inspired to perpetrate acts of horrific violence -- in short, they become terrorists overnight.

In support of this idea, Pipes cites descriptions of many 9/11 hijackers, as well as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the college student in North Carolina who went on a rampage with his SUV, injuring 9 people. In all these cases, neighbors and friends described the future terrorists as reasonable, quiet, and peaceful. Building on these descriptions, Pipes claims that it is often virtually impossible to distinguish between normal, moderate Muslims and violent extremist Muslims, since the latter usually appear as wolves in sheeps' clothing.

While Pipes' phrase is certainly catchy and seems at first glance to offer an insight into the nature of terrorism, upon further consideration one is left with the question: what exactly is his point? What would Pipes expect these people to act like, if they were not peaceful and quiet? Does he think they would parade around shouting "Death to America!," have a record of prior terrorist acts, or be notoriously irrational and violent to their friends and neighbors? Almost everyone in the world would be described by friends and neighbors in exactly the same terms -- can you imagine describing any of your friends as violent, irrational, or dangerous? There is nothing in this "theory" that is unique to Islam or even terrorism -- virtually every serial killer and other perpetrator of large-scale violence has been described similarly, as quiet and peaceful up to their discovery as sociopaths.

What this phrase and idea does do, however, is brand all Muslims as potentially violent terrorists. In Pipes' words: "It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims." If Pipes' idea is therefore essentially empty except for its function as an excuse for discrimination against Muslims, then either Pipes' has expended substantial energy stating the obvious -- that violent sociopaths are often not seen as such until they commit a violent act -- or all his phrasing and psychological theorizing is there solely to justify the preconceived notion that Muslims are to be viewed as dangerous.

Rather than seeking to justify prejudice against Muslims, it would be more rational to draw from these stories the lesson that terrorism appears in the most unlikely places, among the most unlikely people. The idea that all Muslims are to be viewed with suspicion unavoidably results in discrimination against those seen as most "obviously Muslim," such as dark-skinned Arabs and other West Asian people. Oddly enough, the real lesson of these stories suggests that those most likely to be viewed as suspicious by Pipes and his ilk may not be the most likely suspects. The appearance of countless "home-grown" terrorist cells -- made up of "local-looking" types rather than "foreigners" -- throughout Europe and North America supports this conclusion, and shows that the simple prejudice proposed by Pipes is often not only ineffective, but counterproductive.

Even if the prejudice resulting from these ideas were constrained strictly to one's religion, the "Muslims are suspect" idea is plainly unhelpful. As we saw with the 9/11 hijackers and countless other terrorists, those most likely to commit terrorist acts are those who go out of their way to act as if they were not Muslim. Terrorists are very simply not stupid enough to act the part of the stereotypical radical Arab Muslim. Judging from real experience with terrorists, drinking, sexual exploits, and drug use would serve as better indicators of terrorist potential than Muslim piety.

Concluding Pipes' article is yet another plainly ridiculous conservative talking point which is encountered endlessly in political discussion. While Westerners can help by viewing Muslims with suspicion, Pipes says, Muslims can do their part "...by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of 'infidels.'" Despite the undeniable mass of evidence to the contrary, Pipes and numerous others continue to imply, through statements such as this, that Muslims have not developed a responsible, non-violent Islam that rejects radicalism and subordination of "infidels." In reality, on display for all who care to see, is the obvious truth that the vast majority of Muslims practice and preach exactly this kind of Islam, while explicitly rejecting violent extremism. Pipes and his ideological brethren are, for some reason, hell-bent on denying this truth and insisting that Muslims as a whole are responsible for the violence of a tiny minority of apostates. The only end this can possibly serve is to further demonize Muslims, a goal that seems to be somewhat of a recurring theme in Pipes' work.