So Islam has little or nothing to do with terrorism. That's what one gathers from the article “Terrorism’s New Structure” by British novelist Martin Amis in the 8/16 Wall Street Journal (can't link; subscription required).
Said the editors' tease: "The forces driving international terrorism go well beyond religion. Martin Amis on alienation, the thirst for power, the quest for fame and the inevitable use of weapons of mass destruction." The piece consisted of reviews of recent books on terrorism. The books go to great lengths to attribute the phenomenon to psychological explanations, such as “ desire for fame” or "lack of family support."
But what it says to me is that even the most learned of professors can be blinded by their own prejudices and belief systems. Such facts as those concerning the attack on the Glasgow airport in the summer of 2007, that it was perpetrated by physicians of the British NHS, are simply ignored since their model for the terrorist is the marginalized youth with no education or hope, whose acts of violence are “our fault” for not providing more welfare.
Most academics are rational secularists who will not and cannot accept the concept of religious war. Such things went out with the Crusades centuries ago. They believe that enlightened rationalism has freed mankind from the dark superstitions of the priests and has brought us into the light of knowledge. They do not take seriously what the imams and mullahs say publically concerning Islam’s war on the West and their intentions to destroy us.
Most professors also believe that since they have no religious beliefs of their own, that the threat of Islam simply doesn’t apply to them. But if the Islamics are successful, and black hooded youths with AK 47’s prowl the halls of the universities to enforce “proper teaching”, these secularists will learn too late how wrong they were.