The FBI manual for Islam

[iSok]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/07/Cultural-Interviewing-Interrogation-PowerPoint1.pdf

I was really shocked when I read this.....

[Recusant]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/07/Cultural-Interviewing-Interrogation-PowerPoint1.pdf

I was really shocked when I read this.....

What is it that shocked you, iSok?  Inaccuracies? Generalizations? Stereotypes? This is a print-out of a power point presentation, which means that for each page, the presenter will presumably be giving a more in-depth lecture which covers the issues for each page.

[Tank]

I just read the whole thing and found nothing shocking in it whatsoever. Is it factually incorrect? Is it unintentionally derogatory?

ISoK I'd love to read your opinion on this slide.

[DeterminedJuliet]

It seems a bit reductionist, but I didn't see anything too horrible, either.

[xSilverPhinx]

I also didn't see anything that I would consider shocking, but it does touch on one of the most important points which is cultural difference and how maybe a muslim will be shocked by what's there while a non muslim may not. Looked just like basic extremely summarised facts to me. If it hadn't been an FBI report would it have been shocking?

[Medusa]

Did you all know almost every human being in the world is a Jihadist.
I am.
You are.
They are.


Anyways the bit about spoken word as music is true. My boyfriend has a youtube page about Islam and he posts videos of them doing the call for prayer etc. And it does indeed sound like music. It's quite beautiful.

[iSok]

I just read the whole thing and found nothing shocking in it whatsoever. Is it factually incorrect? Is it unintentionally derogatory?

ISoK I'd love to read your opinion on this slide.

I dont know, maybe it's my interpretation of the slides.
But they are not really professional and seem to be written for hillbillies from Louisiana with mental problems...

The overal thought of the slide comes like: 'Suspect Muslims, they might be closet terrorists ready to kill us infidels.'
I find the recommended reading section very worrying.
For example the books about Robert Spencer (who I find a charlatan who is out on making money).
Even the Ex-Muslims of Brittain (who will grab every chance to criticize Islam have marked him as a liar).

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17131.0

Walid Shoebat is a classical example of how liars are hired to give speeches on Islam while they can make money out of it (taxmoney).
His exposure is rather embrassing.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJN00dBhZVk
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Tzz51VYXg&feature=relmfu


As for Arabic, yes I find it a beautiful language and I'm studying it currently.
My native language is Pashto, I also speak Dutch and have a bit of understanding of English.
But all these languages are nothing compared to the beauty of Arabic.

It's like a web of words, the Qur'an uses the word 'Nafs' for the 'Self'.
And at first it doesn't mean anything. But there's a whole network of words from the same root as the 'Nafs' which make the attributes of the Nafs clear.

I find the rythmic tones of the Qur'an or the Call to prayer very moving.
A lot of Muslims do not understand Arabic but they find the tone of the Qur'an incredibly majestic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAvlimEYEpQ

The Qur'an asks to be recited slowly in rythmic tones.

(73:1) O you the (sleeping) enwrapped one!
(73:2) Stand up in Prayer by night, all but a small part of it;
(73:3) half of it, or reduce it a little;
(73:4) or add to it a little; and recite the Qur'an slowly and distinctly.
(73:5) Behold, We shall cast upon you a Weighty Word.
(73:6) Surely getting up at night is the best means of subduing the self and is more suitable for uprightness in speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jivNz_i9QTU
(5:40 is a good example)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEnqBUdIGc4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK-mxZC1GFk&feature=related
My favourite reciter.

[Whitney]

If someone is in a position to where they are needing to be interrogated they are already suspected of doing something bad.  Taken in that context...the slides were intended to give interrogators the info they need to effectively extract information from people who fit a given profile.  I bet they have similar slide presentations for other cultures as well.

If it were a slide show about how to decide when to arrest someone then it would be offensive to not only Middle Easterners but also Americans who value equal rights.

If there is anything truly offensive in that slide show it is among the numerous pages of it which were not released...

[Medusa]

I'm dying to hear the speech on the Ancient Mayan spinning pyramid legend.

[Recusant]

I just read the whole thing and found nothing shocking in it whatsoever. Is it factually incorrect? Is it unintentionally derogatory?

ISoK I'd love to read your opinion on this slide.

I dont know, maybe it's my interpretation of the slides.
But they are not really professional and seem to be written for hillbillies from Louisiana with mental problems...

The slides essentially comprise headlines of the content of the lecture, and therefore cannot be expected to convey much nuance.  Whether there were any nuances explored in the actual content, we don't know, but there is little question that there was a more in-depth look at the topics than could be expressed in the power-point images.

1.  This is (United States law enforcement) government work, and I regret to break it to you that you're expecting too much when you complain about the lack of professional quality.

2.  In the US, there are people from many different backgrounds who work in law enforcement, including the FBI. It isn't any surprise to me that the headlines of the lecture may seem to be written with the lowest common denominator in mind.

3.  I can barely read the title, but I think I see

"Investigative Interviewing in the
Religious Extremist Culture"

This indicates that the people being discussed in the presentation are being considered as religious extremists (you know as well as I do that such people exist). As such, they are being interrogated most likely in the course of an investigation into possible terrorism. It doesn't appear to me that this lecture was about the Muslim population of the US in general, but was intended to give background on religious extremist Muslims.

4.  A considerable number of the pages of the presentation have been redacted. We might speculate on what was on those pages, but we don't know anything about what they contained.

The overal thought of the slide comes like: 'Suspect Muslims, they might be closet terrorists ready to kill us infidels.'

The Muslims who the FBI are interrogating might very well be terrorists, whether you like that idea or not, iSok, and you can bet that the FBI don't want their agents to ever forget that. Even if they aren't terrorists, the people being interrogated might be associated with terrorists, and even be providing support for them. It is in this context that the information presented would properly be viewed, in my opinion.  Again, from the title, it is clear that this presentation is not about Muslims in the US in general.

I find the recommended reading section very worrying.
For example the books about Robert Spencer (who I find a charlatan who is out on making money).
Even the Ex-Muslims of Brittain (who will grab every chance to criticize Islam have marked him as a liar).

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17131.0

You skip over The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai, which the The New Yorker magazine called "A sympathetic wide-ranging study." Then there are the the two Robert Spencer books, and then a translation of the Quran.  The Spencer books may be propaganda, but they are bracketed by what seem to me to be reasonable sources.

Bottom row: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam, about which the Amazon.com review says, "Readers have much to glean from this comprehensive and balanced guidebook--primarily that Islam is a prayerful, peace-loving religion that has been misused in the name of terror, just as Hitler and other extremists have misused Christianity throughout history."

Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands (The Bestselling Guide to Doing Business in More than 60 Countries), which as the title might suggest, is a primer on international business etiquette intended to help business people understand other cultures and avoid gaffes.

Milestones is a book written by an Islamist, and it seems to me that it would be helpful in understanding the Islamist mindset.

Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel again might be seen as propaganda, but this is a man who, according to what I've read, grew up Muslim and converted to Christianity. He might be able to provide some insights, even though his opinions would reflect his status as an "apostate."

So out of eight books, three are of dubious value.  Again, this is US law enforcement, which you will not find me leaping to defend. However, I think you will admit there are plenty of books propounding a less than complimentary attitude toward Islam that were not included, while the five reasonable-sounding books were.

Walid Shoebat is a classical example of how liars are hired to give speeches on Islam while they can make money out of it (taxmoney).
His exposure is rather embrassing.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJN00dBhZVk
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Tzz51VYXg&feature=relmfu

I don't know why you brought Walid Shoebat into the conversation.  I don't recall his name being mentioned anywhere in the PDF.

[Tank]

I just read the whole thing and found nothing shocking in it whatsoever. Is it factually incorrect? Is it unintentionally derogatory?

ISoK I'd love to read your opinion on this slide.

I dont know, maybe it's my interpretation of the slides.
But they are not really professional and seem to be written for hillbillies from Louisiana with mental problems...

These read as a primer and are only a framework, you must have the speakers notes to fully understand what is to be delivered. It is a very good technique to present the audience with their existing views and then explain why that view is wrong. If you only see the presentation it gives the impression that the presenter is supporting the 'wrong' view.

It is quite possible that this was written for some very ignorant people.

The overal thought of the slide comes like: 'Suspect Muslims, they might be closet terrorists ready to kill us infidels.'

I didn't really get that impression.

As for Arabic, yes I find it a beautiful language and I'm studying it currently.
My native language is Pashto, I also speak Dutch and have a bit of understanding of English.
But all these languages are nothing compared to the beauty of Arabic.

It's like a web of words, the Qur'an uses the word 'Nafs' for the 'Self'.
And at first it doesn't mean anything. But there's a whole network of words from the same root as the 'Nafs' which make the attributes of the Nafs clear.

I find the rythmic tones of the Qur'an or the Call to prayer very moving.
A lot of Muslims do not understand Arabic but they find the tone of the Qur'an incredibly majestic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAvlimEYEpQ

The Qur'an asks to be recited slowly in rythmic tones.

(73:1) O you the (sleeping) enwrapped one!
(73:2) Stand up in Prayer by night, all but a small part of it;
(73:3) half of it, or reduce it a little;
(73:4) or add to it a little; and recite the Qur'an slowly and distinctly.
(73:5) Behold, We shall cast upon you a Weighty Word.
(73:6) Surely getting up at night is the best means of subduing the self and is more suitable for uprightness in speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jivNz_i9QTU
(5:40 is a good example)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEnqBUdIGc4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK-mxZC1GFk&feature=related
My favourite reciter.

This is very interesting. In particular the second bullet point in the slide. I have often wondered how language effects perception and in particular how a person's 'native tongue' effects their view of the world. I find poetic structure in professional/serious/factual writing irrelevant. In Western education clarity of information delivery is paramount. I spent 8 years as a product manager and one of the product ranges I looked after was books. I had to reduce the book to a title and a single descriptive paragraph. That paragraph had to tell the reader what the book was about and differentiate it from all the other books on the same subject. That was an extreme example of reductionism in language.

It's an interesting comparison between the use of language to convey information. Take two painters Canaletto and Monet.

Take Canaletto, he is an artist who I think is one of the most representational there has ever been. This is a person using paint in the same way a photographer would use a camera.



Take Monet, he is an artist who uses paint to convey feelings.



So is there a fundamental difference between the Arabic and Western mind brought about by the languages each group are brought up with? I think there is. And as such translation is suspect as well, as each group will interpret words into their own context from one they really do not understand. I would contend that it could be impossible for Arabs and non-arabs to truly understand each other beyond a basic transactional level. Learning each others languages may help but I don't think it can ever truly make up for the perception gap brought about by upbringing.

This may well prove to be the basis of the stumbling block on the god hypothesis thread, but I don't want to address that subject in this thread. Does Arabic value beauty over clarity while Latin/European languages value clarity over beauty?

[Asmodean]

I was really shocked when I read this.....

As others have asked before me, please identify the shock factor(s).

My only response to the print-out, aside from slight dissatisfaction with the poor quality, was "...Yeah. And?"

[iSok]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/

[Too Few Lions]

personally, I think this is an incredibly poor piece of journalism full of hyperbole. The title of the article states that FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical' but I don't see any evidence of that in the article.

What it does say is "Any war against non-believers is justified" under Muslim law and a "moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah" and "The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream."

All of which seem reasonable to me having read the Quran. It seems pretty unequivocal in its view of non-believers, and I would worry about anyone who believed it is the unalterable word of their god that they should live their life by word-by-word.

As for the other 'quotes' I never trust anything when they just quote one word and not the rest, they're clearly quoting out of context.
They claim that the FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that "main stream" [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers then supply no evidence to back this up. I would want to see these statements directly quoted before I believe them.

The teaching of the Quran is clearly at odds with a lot of what we in the west hold dear (tolerance and freedom for starters). I think the example of the Mandaeans in Iraq and Iran is a good example of the way many mainstream Muslims, not just terrorists or extremists, can act towards non-Muslims. Mandaeism is a religion centuries older than Islam, and is under threat of extinction due to Muslim intolerance to non-Muslims, and the  murder, rape and forced conversions of non-believers;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQ7SlpcID0

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/Iraq4Jun07GenocideWatchIraqMandaeans.pdf

http://www.gfbv.de/show_file.php?type=inhaltsDok&property=download&id=694

[Too Few Lions]

oh dear, I just realised there's more than one page to that link iSok. That graph on page two is shocking, to suggest that Christians have steadily become less less warlike over time flies in the face of all the evidence from the Dark and Middle Ages! It's only in the last few hundred years that Christians have become more moderate and less belligerent, due to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the gradual erosion of power away from the Church.

I still think there is something very unpleasant and intolerant about the Quran as a book though, and anyone who reads it literally word-for-word as the commands of their god is living in a world inherently different to the open, tolerant society that a lot of us treasure.

4.101 For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies

iSok, can't you see how the above could be dangerous if someone decided it was the command of their god that they had to follow?