tv Sara Kamali Homegrown Hate CSPAN April 18, 2021 4:00pm-5:01pm EDT
>> it is my great pleasure to introduce sara kamali, author of the book "home green hate." >> so happy to be with you here today. >> i wasn't done yet. >> okay. >> distracted by admitting someone. normal hill my co-host is here to hit all the buttons. let me continue. i say is in things, a senior fellow in center for analysis of the radical right, a work traces how interlocking institutions of power oppress the many while maintaining privilege for few. reviewers of the book call it eerily prescient, extraordinarily core ragous --
courageous voice. we underditodd green for this event. an associate professor for religion and director of the center for ethics. and also formerred a veers in islamophobia. the awe fors of who books the fear of islam and presumed guilty. join me in welcoming, todd green and sara kamali. >> thank you, dafydd. i want to think rachel who could not be here this evening. i'm delighted to be here virtually at north shire books, and i'm also looking forward to speaking with todd and i would also like to thank everybody has taken the time to join us this evening. thank you. >> thanks for having me as well and i look forward to the conversation with sara about this brand new book i think is groundbreaking and really brings
together two important topics they we talked but. not often linked together in political and public discourse in the united states, and an interesting conversation we can have maybe follow up with the audience, why that is. aside from the fact haven't read her book yet. hopefully that will change, right? so i am happy to be in this position of sort of facilitating conversation officially with sara but her book and let start. along to the -- lang those lines. there are a lot of media pundits and politician that would not readily see a connection between white nationalists and militant islamist yet you wrote a book that seeks to tie the two groups together. can you tell us what this common denominator between the two groups. what do most people not understand but the common force
that drive both white nationalists and militant islamist. >> is apart in thing into seeping he the parallels can seep with both the self-perpetuated narratives victimhood as well as a demonization of the other that essentially justles the use of violence. so, both white nationalists and militant islamists in the united states and transnational yay, around the world, hard is in this sense of victimhood in order to sanction violence against whomever i deemed the other and it's interesting in terms of the different components they do that, either through religion and/or police:beliefs and the -- political beliefs and the sense of victimhood is propped up by domestic politics as wells a
international politics. when i say doc politics mean within in the u.s. and also in other states. for example, with white nationalists and specifically there's a sense of victimhood that white identity is being attacked, not that white identity is on the offensive but the white identity and white culture is being attacked by the new marry cal -- the rise of people of color generally wales as different domestic policies that are used to suppress white culture, such as what we have with gun control. that president biden just spoke on today. and then as far as white -- militant islamism, there's a sense of victimhood very much buttressed by an interpretation of american foreign policy as well as the foreign policy of many european countries perceived as targeting and
attacking specific type of islam by virtue of wars in muslim organizations. many militant islamist don't see their fellow citizens within america, for example, or within northern western european countries, for example, as being fellly muslims but rather they're viewed as apostates and they're viewed as the righteous. since of victimhood and an otherrization that sanctions violence. >> thank you. that's a great overview of your book. i know from reading your book you have pretty strong views on the use of the word "jihad," which has been used by the media
and many politicians but i sense you see that that as kind of a major problem. can you say more why it's inappropriate to use the word "jihad" in the context of violence stirred up by militant slam -- militant islamists as opposed to jihadys. >> the usage of the term "jihad by to many holy war is a misnomer, and strap foe leiting from that, in use of jihadi to talk but something who per pelt waits war is also a misnomer. it's not to concept of jihad in terms of physical violence from a islamic orthodox perspective. and the cor hand uses a different term called kital.
so in using a different term. militant islamist, vatted term specifies the politicization of a certain agenda by islamism. so islamism is quite a general take term and in putting the qualifier mill tap on it signifies there's violence as well as a political agenda which is essentially what these types of terrorists aim to do, is use violence in order -- in the pursuit of a political agent, and moving away from terms like jihad, which are not only religious misnomers, but also we need to move away from the fact that religion itself is the cause of violence rather than perhaps being exploited by certain actors to legitimate violence and there's a big
difference between that, and the term kitaly wouldn't necessarily work either. i wanted some english term. there's enough eye tall sized terms in the book for most readers, but i'm curious to know, todd, what -- how too you sir see the term -- how too you perceive the term jihad and jihadi in your own mind? >> i appreciate your hesitation about the use of those words in part because broader populations in the united states and many so-called western countries struggle understand the relationship win religion and violence their assumption is that people of the muslim background commit violence and open up a book called the koran, read a few passages and then do something horrible, and therefore, using something that is found win islam describes
that kind of violence. narrows the idea of religion that is extricated from larger political, culture circumstances and as a religious scholar, they look at that and say that's not how it works. what we pay attention to is why is such a small minority of people who have muslim background actually do that's and the majority of muslim does not. over a billion people read the koran or listen to it or cite: most of them don't engage in terrorist attacks including here in the united states. what explains the difference? how does al-baghdadi of isis read the same book and lead radically different lies. that's the kind of question we should be wrestling with and then limiting to the jihadi encourages audiences to think this is about religion only as extricated from political and
social and cultural and historical concepts. share with you the skepticism of using that word as opposed to using a language that signals to broader audience there is complicated and other forces at work that shape the religious word views or identities of the people involved. >> that tension between the interpretations of the text and then how texts are essentially wielded for -- in the pursuit of political aims is something it detail within the introduction and make very clear, and it's interest you use the example between al-baghdadi, now deceased head of islamic state, and -- because that same type of reading or misreading of scripture is actually found within white nationalism as well, and there are many different times of white nationalists as i describe. maybe we can jump into that i
guess. >> how people within one religious tradition in kinnity is not exempt from this at all. >> yes. and -- >> the same sacred text' have radically different interpretations and live out in different ways. >> wouldn't necessarily call themselves christian. they call themselves christian identity adherents or white evangelical. so the way i categorize white nationalism which is part of the vernacular and yet there's ambiguity in terms of definition and many things they're used in different ways but white nationalists are people who will seek a white ethnostate and not necessarily in the united states but any nation around the world that is seen as meant to be either divinely or politically or both meant to be for white people. and whether that means that anybody who is considered
nonwhite will either be storm indicated or subjugated, that's left up to interpretation but seemly a white ethnostate and fine that in northern europe australasian, so the cat forever white national jim -- this will be back important -- we have antigovernment, and we have just racists racists and then rolling -- religious low racists and children and a whole spectrum of actually religionly -- theologies that support white supremacy within white nationalism and then the fourth category in our conspiracy theorists such as qanon, and then there's an amalgamation of
all four. so we can see these dynamics come the into play ore over the centuries if not decaded of white nationalism good this country and many others around the world. >> . >> for that. deeper dive into your book. i appreciate it. i'm a -- you are putting these two topics together. white nationalists and militant slammists. the flamework that we into used for militant islamists and white nationalists, the word we hear a lot, used the discourse, it's been recycled quite bit in the news, terrorism. the atlanta shootings among others, the shootings in colorado. the word terrorism -- we have had this conversation before -- the word terrorism is often a loaded word. would argue it's awesome applied almost exclusively, at least in popular discourse to individuals and organizations with a real or
perceived muslim identity who carry out acts of violence targeting muslims. some scholars say maybe this word can't be used. has back to racialized and focused on people with a muslim background or miami who are not white. i am curious about your pigs in this debate. -- your position in this debate. can the word terrorism be salvaged in a way that no longer is racialized and intertwined with islam phobic -- do we need different vocabulary. >> if we use it to awhy to white nationalists will be redeemed and salvaged and that's something i argue the book and use the word terrorism. i discuss at length pointing to many of the -- what you just mention else but it's important to reclaim a lot of this language preshiesly because terrorism has back to intertwined if not synonymous
with millions of muslims in united states as well as billions of muslims around the world who are not in fact violent nor are they even prone to violence as the current terrorism tropes would have us believe. there's always this underlying current of perhaps good muslim versus bad muslim trope and perhaps there's an underlight kernel of violence that would need a certain cass list for a muslim to become violent, but we know from history as well as i hope common sense if that's not the case at all, that's not true. use the word terrorism deliberately within my become in order to reclaim it because we are going to -- as january 6th e are going to need to address white nationalism fully and we need to call it what it is and we're not going to be able to
address the dynamics of white nationalism until we recognize it, which is essentially violence in a pursuit of political aims which is terrorism. >> do you have some sense of hope that maybe things are changing in terms of the broader application of those concepts or terrorism, for example, the january 6th attack on the capitol and the way the media covered that? do you sense a shift of media discourse about actually being serious but applying the language of terrorism, i called the t word, language of terrorism to what happened and will that stick. >> it's interesting you bring up media discourse specifically. i suppose it's whole conversation could be around media discourse and terminology, but while -- if we look at the initial coverage of january 6th specifically, it
was mob or group of people or somewhat more milk toast and then by the time we moved to biden's inaugural speech he addressed terrorism in the context of what he called white supremacying and now with several members of his cabinet, including the department of homeland security, may oreca, we have fully robust conversation on white nationalists, terrorism. so, i would hope that type of discourse moves more towards the public sphere as well and shapes or current understanding of what terrorism is. and along cede that, too -- alongside that, too i think about it just seems perhaps -- just seems perhaps that we moved on post 9/11 to the post 1-6 paradigm and we really have to consider, though, that we really
do need to break down the understanding and dismantle, i think, the idea that muslim americans and muslims around the world or also involved with terrorism, whereas -- i don't think we can physically address white nationallest terrorism until we can understand the dynamics and dismantle the linkagees between muslims around the world and terrorism. to has to be a dual program going on there in order to fully address chit i discuss in the book. >> thank you for that. what do you think explains the islamophobia that drives much of the current counterterrorism paradigm? what does the u.s. government gain by focusing the counterterrorism efforts of individuals and organization wiz a muslim background as opposed to what your half you've book is
about, white nationalists and other linked groups. >> essentially two books in one i think. what does the -- what do agencies have to gain by propagating islamophobia? i think it's a justification of funds and other spending and honestly it's going to be very difficult as we have seen, with even current -- even with the tragedies in atlanta, for example, we cannot even classify that as a hate crime as a nation. there's not a specific comment -- a common way of addressing that or a common way or perceiving the attacks on he majority asian-american and specifically women, and understanding that is hate crime let alone terrorism. so i -- a lot of the current
security agencies at the federal level as well as down to local level, were developed in the post-9/11 paradigm and i do not think they'll be equipped currently or for the near future to deal with the post-january 6th reality that we face. how will you answer your question, todd? >> yeah. i think put this quite a bit. a good conversation to have. both as a scholar and someone who spends a little time with the state department and the government circles, it's clear that counterterrorism initiatives have a lot of funding. a lot of money involved and in washington you should never take that lightly. there's a lot of resources to tap into tameablize or link something to a version of the counterterrorism project that will generate a lot of interest
across the social spectrum, and target the muslim population does that in target offing white populations doesn't. let's be honest. there's a mow provocative point but i peeve islam phoneways fundamentally racism. muslim are treated as a race, conceived us as a race, and imagined as a entity against whom all sources of stereotyping can be used and someone lime todd green afforded individuality so i'm not asked to condemn the generation that attacked the capital or condemn dylann roof and charleston but if were mulls husband and my name were muhammad i would be -- that's that's racism at work here and the racism is very much driving the course terrorism
paradigm so that muslim populations populations and muslim organizations are deem as primary obstacles to larger united states political and addition i say geopolitical ambitions about local dominance, particularly since the cold war. that's been the case, and accelerated significantly after 9/11, the attack by al qaeda, but i don't -- i think it's difficult and always been difficult for the united states government to look at why individuals or white organizations that are not muslim in most cases and then look at them as threats in the same way. that case they're look at aberrations and not deserving of counterterrorism attention or funding. someone like dylann roof commits violence he is just an aberration and doesn't break the mold of the assumption that white people are not muslim or have a christian background generally are benevolent influences in the world but with
a muslim background that's not the assumption at all. so we have to tackle the victim and who is muslim populations are being targeted and presumed guilty by the fact thunder muslim and they must defend themselves and condemn terrorism and ask them to con tell terrorist, wrath someone like me, i am not once ever been asked to condemn any terrorist attack by someone who looks like me or who has my cultural, racial or religious background, never. it's just assumed i would condemn that violence but if i had a different skin color, different name, presumed to be muslim, that would be my life. >> even just the different name, as we have seen witch the colorado attacks. >> right. >> so muslims in america and around the world are very many different skin colors and very dis -- have different languages,
et cetera, and represent diversity even within the united states. yet of course they're not afforded that type of lens, very often criminalized and that type of -- that disparitiy you speak of norms of white privilege afforded to white nationalists terrorist is something i black down in the book, even if we look at the example of the oklahoma city bombing by timothy mcveigh and hi accomplice in 18995 that was the deadliest terrorist attack perpetrate by an american citizen on american soil-to date, and yet the initial media coverage of that was pointing to somebody of middle eastern descent which is problem lattic for the assumption and conflating middle east with muslims which is not necessarily true. and also discrediting the
many -- the majority of arab americans specifically are actually of christian background as well. so, that's another oversight. but it is the history of america is very much predicate upon white supremacy and that is something that i make clear that we need to learn about and reexamine and understand how the implications of that and how the current infrastructures of our many institutions are very much supported by the notion of white supremacy and why that would feed into the -- essentially the looking looking the other way that is a lowed white nationalist terrorism to flourish in this country and many others ithat's a very good point and i can add i think the united states -- always speaking in white populations in particular -- have a lot of work to do in
order to come to terms with the violent history of the nation. exploitation of black bodies and slave trade to jim crow, frankly to atomic annihilation at the end of second world war. the out has long history of some pretty brutal violence, extraordinarily brutal but it's not a history that gets con front very often and commemorated. we know how to commemorate 9/11. he have bumper stickers, never forget. but where is the never forget bumper sticker for the 4,000 plus african-americans who were lynched? that is not the kind of violence white americans want to confront and that our educational system is equipped to help them confront, therefore without that kind of soul searching in the white populations, broadly
speaking, pout quote-unquote our own violent history we already have a warp erred sense of who is prone to violence because we have not confronted that history women have not commemorated it. we haven't been educate about it. we tend to redact or white wash that history or try to wipe it from our collective memories and that is why -- [overlapping speakers] -- so challenging for people. >> that's why it took ten muss years to write honestly is to be able to grapple with the concepts that were very fluid at the time in my writing and the time period in which i wrote the book as well saw a lot of change in terms of not only how we come to understand race which is a fallacy, but very much a term in context that is exploited and wielded for political power, and privilege, and to oppress, but essentially i started writing the book and researching in 2009
and that was the same year that the department of homeland security essentially shut down the unit that was in charge of examining and analyzing and researching what was called right wing extremism at the time and a record that indicate couple and said we need to take this seriously. but the analysts, darryl johnson, was rebuked and then had to essentially apologize because there were population of veterans that was also seen as well. they may be problematic in terms of being recruited specifically for their tactical know how by other -- by white nationalists and that is what we have seen on january 6th specifically, there's a disproportionate number of law enforcement as well as military past and
present who were called upon specifically because of their military and tactical training. and we have seen that time and time again. so, the many -- dynamics that have led us to the current understanding or the current events of white nationalism are not necessarily coming out of the blue. they're very much intertwined with the out of the united states -- the history of the united states and also the history and the current events in terms of how federal government has chosen to not address this issue for decades. law enforcement agencies specifically have been very well aware of white nationalism, and yet there's been a whole security paradigm centered upon muslim -- innocent muslim americans and we have to ask
why.which i have done in the book. so there's the answer in the book, but those disparities are what led me to the comparison aspect. >> right. absolutely. can you delve a little bit more into the question of goods, white genocide that kind of prominent among white nationalists. i referenced the genocide in the american history, the genocide of indigenous populations and there's something that has gained traction and you analyze the theme in your study of white nationalists. can you explain what drives this anxiety, real or perceived anxiety among white nationalists they're subject to some sort of cultural or racial extinction in the united states? >> that's a great point. a whole chapter devoted to this concept and it's called white goods for a reason -- genocide
for a reason. in the united states and around the world the idea that white people are targets of aannihilation either by a planned attack or essentially an overhaul or due to the sheer rise in numbers of people of color. there is the sense that white identity and the cultural and numeric identities or white people are at threat and this has been around for a long time. decades if not centuries and its the common theme of many manifestos. one of the last chapter of the book he detail the idea that replacement theory that is very common throughout and that's something that even nazi germany, for example, propped up their propaganda and discourse but in the current -- the most
recent decades within the united states the concept of white genocide has become a kind of calling card zone essentially in order to justify violence. and so, for example, we have the terrorist attack in el paso, texas, and the person who perpetrated that attack wrote in his manifesto that called upon the great replacement theory that alludes to white genocide even if we look to what is often considered the motto of white nationalists in united states and around the world, the 14 words, that was penned in 1988 by david lane who was himself very prominent white nationalist. he even founded his on religion and proselytizeses that through prison. the the words we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. there's this idea, this
narrative 0 victimhood that views white people as attacking white identity and white people and that white people need to be on the -- need to enact violence in order to preserve their cultural and/or religious beliefs. the concept of white genocide is not out of to where but united states is changing so irthere will be what is called the majority minority even within the next generation in term of adults, so while the violence is not justified the actual reality of the threat as they perceive it is justified. >> thank you. why do you think the united states lacks a federal criminal
statute for domestic terrorism and should there be such a statute? what their obstacles in enacting such statute? >> so there should not be currently given the lack of cultural competency as well as just honestly basic human rights afforded to many people in the country who are not white and i don't want to label them as not white but a that is centering white people but talking about black, asian, pacific islander, last continue x, -- latinx, a whole host of people of different cultural backgrounds and skin colors. but there should really -- we know through history, especially if we look specifically at the history of the civil rights and how civil rights leaders were monitored and surveilled by law enforcement agencies in the
united states and we know that any type of the security paradigm in the united states is essentially founded in order to suppress political opposition to the current status quo, as well as suppress any type of political dissent and that was very early on, for example, in the hoover administration who has had a long reign as well as during the civil rights era, and more recently specifically not only against "black lives matter" advocates and also indigenous people and other people who are protesting standing rock or who protest certain immigration practices. very often these criminal statutes are weaponnized against historically marginalized people rather than used to prosecute and seek justice for the acts of
violence of white nationalists. so if history taught is any federal criminal statute will not be used for white nationalist specifically but often used to further marginalize historically oppressed people through law, as well as there are also argue. s that there are current laws in place that will be able to prosecute white nationalist effectively. there are a whole range of options currently being used but again, as a recent tragedies in atlanta specifically have shown, that they're often disagreement even what constitutes a hate crime. so it's with sometive heartenment i think i say that while we do have these laws available to us, they're very often not used for the purposes
of justice against white nationalists. >> since you brought up hate crimes, quick followup. do you also sense there's a more that can be done on a national level to track hate crimes, better define hate crimes, having law enforcement agencies mandatorily report hate crimes which is currently not the case? is that promising route or also one riddled with obstacles, too. >> riddle with obstacles but any type of positive change for communes to uplift currently oppressed communities has to be -- going to be ridded with on obstacles but tracking of hate crimes which is con shawnable -- which is unconscionable is not being done currently and there's a lot of
secrecy or a veil on white nationalist cases as well. so more transparency will always do -- will always do right by democracy. >> i agree with you. think that one of the challenges with hate crimes is training law enforcement agencies that even are willing to report them, better identify them. again, white people are often given the benefit of the doubt. the law enforcement spokesperson for the atlanta shootings who infamously now saying the guy was having a bad day. well, i don't know. i think you can't quite limit it to that. the guy was just having a bad day. you have to dig a little deeper but initially just had a lack of curiosity what would have driven a person like this to not only murder all these women but women of a common racial background and heritage. that's not a question to them or i remember in 2015 the murders
of three young muslim adults who were murder and the local police connect that was a parking dispute. right? eveneven though the three young muslims were murdered in their apartment execution style. doesn't sound like a parking dispute but this was a police officers didn't have curiosity going further and a year lefter and recently, went back and said we made a mistake there. but the lack of training on even sort of point ought what a hate crime could be think idea of implies sis bias if not explicit bias that motivates people. those conversations are lack in law enforcement agencies and loot more work needs to be done there i'm with you. hope we can make some progress in that regard. >> it's not only about the conversation. also but to the world views of police departments, law enforcement, and the cultures around them that essentially denigrate fellow human beings as the other or as subhuman or not
worthy of the same types of investigations or treatment, and so i think there's -- that's something i address in the book, it's not really until we recognize each other as fellow human beings and respect each other and recognize each's right as human beings that many of these issues and complications we face today are not going to be addressed, dismantled and then met with justice until we do so. >> very good. very good. we have time for more -- we'll do one more and then turn things over into the audience in terms of questions. you get into a good bit of a discussion about needing a new approach to counterterrorism.
the current one is bankrupt. you've to a promise including approach called the holistic justice approach. can you say what you moon by holistic justice and why you insist of hole holistic justice may move to antioppression to count their -- the ramping of islamophobia of the current counterterrorism issues. >> holistic justice is a term that i use in essentially addressing the complexity of white nationalism as well as complexity of the current counterterrorism pear dime which is very much propped by by islam phobia. sew holies city is justice is pred indicates on two prims. one is empathy and -- two prisons and one is empathy, understanding the history of one's own community within the larger narrative of wherever one
is to affect the united states and that's the united states or country in northern europe and that's a country in northern europe, very important to understand one's own placement. so if one is -- and also the history of people who, one, -- one doesn't necessarily identify with. it's not until we understand our histories and current placement and how our positionallities shape our world views of ourselves and towards each other that we will understand how white supremacy is institutionalized through so many aspects of our day, and whether that is not necessarily just relegated to law enforcement but that is through education and that is through health-care and that is through environmental policies, for example, house, et cetera.
so we need to understand if i consider myself white, hough is white supremacy essentially leveraged in order to afford me privilege or there is somebody who is considered indigenous, how is white supremacy exploited in order to oppress those communes. and so i call it the understandings of history and empathy in terms of not condoning or supporting anything but in terms of really understanding the roles through the lens of people we don't necessarily identify with. and then the concept of antioppression which you mentioned moves from antiracism to antioppression is very much to address the full complexity of the challenges of white nationalism we see. so we have been talking about atlanta a lot but -- what the atlanta terrorist attack its point is to it's not just but color identity which is what races and also gender identity but there was definitely a come
opinion informant misogyny and very often in white nationalism there's antisemitism and along the lines genderrity, sexual orientation, nationality, age, it's. a lot of different components that need to be factored in when we're seeking to understand white nationalism and understanding it as anti -- in order to counter white nationalism as well as addressing inequities within the current security paradigm is going to be necessary as well as helpful to move from just looking at this a problem of skin color to looking at this as an issue of many different types of oppression. so. he if the will help us -- empathy will help us understand and antioppression will help us create policies and together it's hoe hill city is justice so
a -- holistic justice, a comprehend hesive form of justice. >> if you have enough questions for star remarks type them in the chat. we have a few really good ones. sara, what your talked about just, holistic justice which dove tails with a question i had, considering howl we are recent ancestors, white people, have benefited from systemic racism, what other ways we can teach or confront the history of american racism and american racist violence to young kids. >> uh-huh. well, understand as well what kind of immediatear any con summing? are they seeing themselves, seeing as well as people who don't necessarily look like them in the media that they're consume and the books they're reading and the video games they're playing. and also getting to know people who don't necessarily, again, look like them. so what theirer friends liker
peers like and the thing that is important because these barriers to the -- white supremacy dismantled when we also dismantle the barriers that lead us to thinking that's another person or that's quote-unquote the other, and i really think it's important especially with children there's such wonderful opportunity for children to be able to grow up learning about different histories and different people and not necessarily just through a white lens. so it's not education isn't critical central component but socialization, getting to know people. during the curb time frame it's not a being a able to meet other children of the playground or at school, but whether through video games of through books or other types of things, just have conversations about, there are
lot of really wonderful kids books specifically that trace maybe what somebody who necessarily maybe haven't -- what they're not necessarilylashing about in school, the challenges and life stories and accomplishments of different communities of color across the united states. >> really are some wonderful children's book that dem minimum strait diversity. i this moves into the comment from the audience that beth had. she said a muslim friend told me in 2001 that jihad was supposed to be more about the personal internal spiritual struggle and not islam's struggle with nonbelievers. i'm curious what the case -- how that means and also when we are -- when-under children are confronted with stereo types of other cultures, what does that feel like?
>> so there's a hadi, prophet muhammad, the last prophet in islam so adam was considered the first prophet. there's a hadif that state that jihad is the greatest jihad is of the self but that is a weak hadif, from my understanding of in terms of the way jihad is meant to create a community of believers and then separate that from the community of people who are not muslim, so, that is very much demen dent on the -- dependent on the legitimacy of having a islamic state. there's no such thing despite what islamic state wants to call itself. there's no such recognition of any type of central authority afforded to in the type of
leader currently within the islamic world. so, that concept of jihad is not applicable to the present day. because that's a political type of divide that is not necessarily seen as attacking nonmuslim and more to reinforce this -- the political construct of a islamic state recognize by the mull mulls majority of the world -- muslim majority of the world there many other time -- types of concept within islam that actually call for the recognition of the commonality of all people, and even the verses of the koran itself which muslims believe were revelations, the latest in she series of revelations so the bible is one revelation, torah and gospel and psalms is another
and other revelations over time but the final revelation of the koran is mulls limbs does muslims believe the common nationality and diversity of religion. so there's a lot of room within islam to appreciate and respect diversity and that's also a reason in the book i talk about the move away from jihad because very often we essentialize islam into jihad or brown people or beards when in think there are two billion beam who call themselves muslim who look different from each other and very different cultural practices, even though they have the same essential beliefs. i don't know -- i want to give you some space, todd, if you want to reply to anything. >> no, great response. i think as a religious bar -- i'm always encouraging my students to remember that islam doesn't believe anything.
christianity doesn't believe anything. christianity are not people. christians believe stuff. they believe a lot of thing so do muslims and our job is to look in this case as muslim what do they understand jihad to mean and a variety of ways that can be interpret. the original question was referring the hadif. and jihad is the inner struggle and some ways that muslim interprets it, jihad in terms of that. but i think the fundamental question is how do muslim themselves and close to 2 billion people me world understanding this concept. one thing to keep in mind, i'll finally say on this point, the islamic state or al qaeda has a certain extreme interpretation of jihad. it's fascinating we should not forget is that people on the far right in europe and the united states are invested in that same understanding of jihad.
and we need to understand why nat might be and what benefit comes from interpreting the concept in that way as opposed the nuances sara has pointed out inmer book and this talk today. >> to tag on to that point as an addendum. that weaponization of very specific understanding of jihad but also the weaponization of islam phone -- islamophobia which is weapon nighted by islamists to perpetuate their own alleged weaponnized with white nationallests in their calls for a white ethnostate. you had a last point but diversity in children you had a second question. >> blending them together. there's know questions in the chat. we don't need to question mine. tara rightly notes that i think i interrupted you when you were
about to recommend a book. what there a book about diversity for children? >> i have a whole list of them. the children's books of diversity? is that the questioner wants okay. so many. and let's see here. there's one, let's talk about race, just about me so i can't pull that up here. and then there's something called -- a book called skin again, so let's talk but race and then skin again, and then -- oh, gosh. excuse me just a second. let me grab this. okay. so here we go. colorscolors of us i'm looking t reading rainbow. so that's a good one. and then also let's talk about
race, and then as far as different communities, for example, -- i find these good for adults, too honestly, because of the -- they're just fun to read and they're beautiful books. we have so many. this one, too. and there's one more which is -- this is quite a recently popular one so it's -- there you go. i'm sure you can find those at northshire book. >> thank you. there's a question from joe who says, how does to letting go of a lone wolf or a bad apple explanation of terrorism, racism, nationalism, shift our understand offering can'tability and responsibility in our attempts to dismantle both white supremacy or nationalism.
>> so, how does erasing lone wolf myth dismantle white nationalism. >> right. how does that help us, getting rid of that. >> well, todd, shall i take it? >> go for it. >> okay. so, there's a reason why i devote other whole chapter to this because we -- even currently a few months ago, the current department of homeland security secretary said something but lone wolves or something, and i really work to dismantle that because it's not until we understand how white supremacy and also the natural extension of white supremacy is going to be white nationalism, we can talk about that a little bit, but there is no such thing ace a lone wolf, and we to -- the reason why i work hard to dismantle that myth is until we understand white nationalism as
a system, as a world view that engages with other like-minded people in order to pros proselytize and share propaganda and recruit we will not be able to understand and come to terms with the full scope and reality of white nationalism. and post 9/11 i'm not sure how old the questioner is but post-philadelphia there was discourse and fearmongerring but cells or lone wolfs and they're somehow is that type of thinking, but really if we understand lone wolf -- if we work to break down thing my of the lone wolf we'll also understand how systems are in play and also how organizational tack takes and social media comes into play, too because very often the lone wolf myth will only cause it to devalue
and essentially minimize the actual scope and threat of the problem, which i know that sounds perhaps counterintuitive given what we now of lone wolf this the lone wolf myth criminalizes muslim americans again if we lochte undercurrent of islamophobia within the security agencies in this country from the federal level to the local level. and how islamophobia has been leveraged to construct and support these security agencies, that's what we seal. we see every muslim is going to have this kernel of violence that only needed to be cat liesed by a certain unphone factor, and then every muslim is violent and the lone wolf is in the applicable to white nationalists. they've may change post january 6th but i highly doubt it. either way i discuss in the book
the parallel between the usage of lone wolf but also how the mythology needed to be dismantled in order to gram with the -- grapple with current organizations and is a just mentioned, social media. so social media is very much a -- offers the space as we have seen with the planning for example of january 6th for groups to get together and not only share common beliefs but also share planning practices for person operating acts of terrorism also we have seen on the attack of the u.s. capitol. >> well, i'm afraid we are out of time. this has been a fascinating discussion. star remarks todd, thank you both so much. the book is home grown hate. why white mental yeas and militant islamist are waging war against the united states. thank you for joining us. >> thank you so much and thank you everybody. i appreciate your questions and your comments.