Wealthier Muslims are more vulnerable

to radicalization
BY ALI SINA OCTOBER 15, 2014
The Lefts mantra is that socioeconomic conditions determine cultural, political
and even intellectual conditions of a society. This dogma is based on Karl Marxs
materialistic interpretation of history, who in his Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy, wrote, It is not the consciousness of men that determines
their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
This is the dogma of all strands of Leftists from hardcore communists to
lukewarm socialists. It is however patently wrong. Take the example of Saudi
Arabia and Qatar were money literally flows from the ground, and compare
them to Somalia, Bangladesh and Pakistan were most people survive on a budget
of one dollar per day. Despite the vast differences in their socioeconomic
conditions, the majority of the people in these countries support honor killing,
deny equal rights to women, violate the innocence of their children, kill gays and
apostates and hate the Jews. All these countries are dictatorial and corrupt and
even when they pretend to elect their governments, the elections are sham and
their democracies are theocracy.
Unless you are a Leftist, is should be obvious that the common denominator of
Muslim countries is their religion. It is the opposite of what Marx said. It is
human beliefs, values and religion, i.e., his consciousness that determines his
cultural, political and intellectual conditions. The socioeconomic condition of a
society is determined by the consciousness of its members.
The difference between the wealthy Muslim countries and the impoverished ones
is owed to the oil factor. Oil is a wildcard. It changes the outcome, but not the
rule. Muslim countries are incapable of generating wealth. They can generate
terrorism. That is because of what they believe.
The following report published in the Guardian confirms my point. Despite the
insistence of the Leftists to link Islamic terrorism to the socioeconomic condition
of Muslims, the evidence show that wealthier Muslim kids are more likely to
become terrorist and the factor is their depression caused by opulence. These
kids have plenty of money but are spiritually empty.
Ali Sina
Research into early stages of process follows reports of girls and women
travelling to Syria to join Isis fighters and have children
Karen McVeigh The Guardian
British Muslim women and girls are just as vulnerable to becoming radicalised
as their male peers, according to the author of a study into the early stages of the
process.
The news comes amid reports of girls as young as 14 travelling to Syria from the
west, to marry Islamist fighters, bear their children and join their communities.
A study from the Queen Mary University of London has found that suffering
from depression, being financially comfortable, well-educated and socially
isolated were common factors among those sympathetic to acts of terrorism,
identified by researchers as the first of two stages of early radicalisation. The
second, it said, was contact with radical, unorthodox beliefs.
Those whose families had lived in the UK for generations were more vulnerable
than migrants, the report found.
As many as 500 British fighters have travelled to Syria and Iraq, it has emerged,
while academics say as many as 10% of them could be women.
Professor Kamaldeep Bhui, professor of cultural psychology and epidemiology at
Queen Mary University, said that gender did not play a significant role in the
risk of radicalisation: Women are no less likely in our analysis to have
sympathies with terrorism, Bhui said. If anything, they were more likely to
show such sympathy, but not significantly so he said. There is an increasing
epidemic of girls he added.
Academics said as many as 60 British females have fled to Syria to join Islamic
State (Isis), mainly between the ages of 16 and 24. They include Aqsa Mahmood,
20, a woman from Glasgow who fled to Syria in November last year. Twin sisters
Zahra and Salma Halane, 16, left their home in Chorlton, Manchester, in July
without their parents knowledge to follow their brother to Syria. And in August,
Amal El-Wahabi, 27, a mother of two from north London, and wife of a fighter,
became the first Briton to be convicted under terror laws of funding jihadi
fighters in Syria. Her friend, Nawal Msaad, 27, who tried to smuggle 15,000 in
rolled-up banknotes in her underwear, on a flight to Turkey form Heathrow, was
cleared of the same offence.
At a briefing organised by the Science Media Centre, at the Wellcome Collection
in London, Bhui said that parents worried about their children should look out
for signs of depression or disaffection and warned that those who indulged in
fantasy worlds or alternative identities were more at risk.
He interviewed 600 Muslims aged 18-45 from the Bangladeshi and Pakistani
community in Bradford and London and asked detailed questions about their
lives and their views on terrorism, in order to find out what drives Britons to go
abroad to fight. He calculated their risk of radicalisation according to a score of
sympathy or condemnation of a series of protests against injustice, from non-
violent to terrorism and suicide bombing.
The group who sympathised were younger, in full-time education and generally
wealthy, he said. They were more likely to be depressed and socially isolated.
He found that those who expressed sympathy with terrorist ideologies were more
likely to be middle class, with a household income of 75,000, and likely to be
disaffected or depressed, with a smaller social network than those who
condemned terrorist acts, he said.
Bhui said that these individuals, when they come into contact with unorthodox
thinking, connect with it. He said that mosques could act as a protective
factor. Those in the Bangladeshi community were more likely to condemn
terrorism, in the group he surveyed, he said.
Interestingly, Bhui said that migrants were less likely to become radicalised
because they are poorer, busier with the need to earn money and they
remembered the problems of their homeland. Those who are having a hard life,
who are migrants, are too busy to have fantastic thoughts about attacks, he
said.
The numbers of those who had sympathy with terrorism were small, he said,
with 2.5% showing sympathy and 1.5% having sympathy for the most extreme
acts of violence and terrorism.
He described government moves to strip Britons who travel Iraq or Syria to join
Isis of their citizenship as a disaster. He said: My personal view is that it would
be a disaster, because you are criminalising them. Some of those kids are 15 to
18, young and probably inexperienced and police in Wales took a different
stance. They didnt want to criminalise. I would be happy to work with them.

Ali Sina
Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.