The Jihadi Next Door, by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco

Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco has written extensively about human trafficking. As she looked into recruiting by terrorists and compared human trafficking, she found many similarities. In The Jihadi Next Door: How ISIS is Forcing, Defrauding, and Coercing Your Neighbor Into Terrorism, she draws parallels between the techniques of human traffickers and terrorist organizations.

Both criminal groups target vulnerable, lonely populations.  They promise belonging, fulfillment, and escape.  And in both cases, the promise does not measure up.  Human traffickers promise glamour, job opportunities, or escape from poverty.  Terrorist organizations promise much the same, but with a veneer of religion.

This last point ends up being the focus and, in my mind, the downfall of Mehlman-Orozco’s book. She wants to make the point that Islamic terrorists are all about power, and not about religion.  A sampling:

“Religion is the veneer used by war profiteers to recruit disposable people into terrorism.”
“A terrorist uses religion or social movements to give them the facade of legitimacy.”
“These terrorist organizations have no genuine affinity or interest in the causes or religions they latch on to, they are simply used as a tool to rationalize and legitimize their criminality and self-interest.”
“This isn’t about Islam. These terrorists are not practicing Muslims, despite what they profess.” “
“Ultimately, when we think of ISIS there should be absolutely no association with religion because that is nothing more than the facade they want everyone to believe in.”
ISIS’s “ criminal organization has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam.”

I completely buy her premise that, like human traffickers, terrorists target the most socially and psychologically vulnerable.  But she hammers the “Islamic terrorists are not Muslim” point so long and hard that it sounds like she's trying to convince herself of it.  Seriously, how can anyone who reads the news or sees ISIS or Al-Qaeda coverage seriously believe there is no association with religion, that they have nothing to do with Muslims or Islam?  A minority sect, maybe.  Violent dissenters from the mainstream of their faith, sure.  But not driven by religion?  It just sounds ridiculous.  I don't buy it.  I think this emphasis really weakened her argument.  Even many of her personal examples, in which she tries to distinguish between the social reasons for Westerners joining up with Muslim terrorists, as opposed to religious motivations, ring hollow.

Are there good, peaceful Muslims in the world?  Of course.  Most Muslims are peaceful, decent people.  Do some Muslims believe their faith compels them to make war on non-Muslims?  Obviously.  To believe otherwise is total denial of reality.


Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!