ThSe ClaEsh oXf CiSviliEzatXions

Anti-Islamic columnist Daniel Pipes, posting on a website whose banner ad is a picture of the Pope and a declaration that "While radical Islam is on the rise, Western culture is losing a battle with itself," relates the story of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a recent UNC graduate and Iranian immigrant who drove a rented Jeep into a crowd of students in an attempt to "'punish the U.S. government'" for attacking Muslims. Pipes blames the incident on "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," reiterating his claim that:

Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.

Hmm. To me that sounds like Pipes is saying he thinks Islam is the problem - a fundamentally violent religion that turns sane men mad.

I can't deny that Islam does seem to be playing a role in much of the violence currently going on around the globe...but something about Pipes' "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" theory doesn't add up. No matter how martial a religion, Islam could never turn people as violent, as quickly, as kids like Taheri-Azar have become. A far more nefarious force is at work...sex.

In my observation, men from traditional cultures (in which religions like Islam or Christianity, or other traditional values keep sex under wraps) who find themselves plunked down right in the middle of the relatively sexualized West often find that their traditional values put them at a disadvantage in the great Girl Hunt. This leads to cognitive dissonance - either the guy's tradition is wrongheaded, or the West is evil. To their credit, lots of guys pick the West. But, inevitably, some don't.

Look at Taheri-azar's case. Pipes notes that Taheri was shy, introverted. A "conscientious student." And during his university years, the man was planning his jihad (must beat going to frat parties). The man was not exactly a chick magnet. People like Francis Fukuyama who talk about the alienation of Muslims living in the West usually think about jobs and economics rather than sex; but I think writers like these fail to realize that, for men aged 18-24, getting laid is usually a better measure of social acceptance than getting a job.

Note that, while many suicide bombers in localized, nationalistic terrorist movements like Hamas are women, the international terrorists who study in the U.S. and strike in foreign lands are all men.

And note that a number of the September 11th attackers spent their last night on Earth at strip clubs - not out at a bar flirting with women, but at a place where even the sexually maladjusted can always buy a lap-dance with cash.

I realize that the "Shy Terrorist Syndrome" has, as yet, little hard evidence to support it. But it is consistent with (also dubious) theories that predict that sexual frustration drives men to violence. And it wouldn't be the first time the clash between tradition and sexuality has produced political rage - does anyone really think that conservatives want to ban abortion and birth control and homosexuality because they're worried about religious concerns? The radical right is obviously obsessed with the notion of stopping people from having casual sex.

And here we come to the role of Islam. When Europeans or Asians get angry about sexualization, their traditional Christian (or Asian) culture tells them to fight it through laws and exhortations; radical Islam suggests violence. Even though Islam is not the underlying cause of terrorist rage, it helps to turn that rage in a dangerous direction. Take away radical Islam, and Mohammed Taheri-azar might just be another angry skinhead.