The NYT reports today that Radical Islamic theorist Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi is being dissed by younger jihadists who accuse him of being soft. His solution? Invoking the publications of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, which name him as a dangerous and influential jihadi theorist.
Apparently, invoking the reports of western terrorist experts is a common way to get some street cred among the jihadist crowd. al-Maqdisi, however, complains that his western critics understand him better than his supposed followers.
“I am surprised at the low level of their thinking,” Mr. Maqdisi wrote of his critics, “and how the enemies of religion read and understand us better than they do.”
But seriously speaking, al-Maqdisi's complaint is easy to understand. It's easier for an academic or theorist to understand the implications of what another theorist is saying than for the "common man" - i.e. someone who joins a group or an ideology, most often out of instinct and without thinking about it. Indeed, I can sympathize with al-Maqdisi's frustrations. Most people who support torture, for example, or a lack of protection to minority rights, have not thought out how such practices impact upon a democratic system of government, corrupting it and making it less stable. And chances are they won't think about it either - it takes work to think.
Anyway, read the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/world/middleeast/30jihad.html