Radicalization theory was designed to serve counterterrorism policy, not truth

Evidence

In short, while white supremacists are allowed to train with guns at sites all over the United States, a Muslim American who acquires a weapon is deemed suspicious. As Targeted and Entrapped notes, the “evidence” that is routinely used in court cases to prove radicalization and a predisposition to commit violence by Muslims includes items such as violent videos, radical religious speeches, or weapons. Kundnani’s analysis of various radicalization theories leads him to the conclusion that “radicalization discourse was, from the beginning, circumscribed to the demands of counterterrorism policy makers rather than an attempt to objectively study how terrorism comes into being.” — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 599

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 599
• XREF: connects to: Sartre’s radical freedom doctrine unintentionally justified the status quo — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 826; Radicalization discourse was built to serve counterterrorism policy, not science.; Muslim radicalization discourse was built to serve counterterrorist policy, not to explain terrorism. (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Muslim radicalization discourse was built to serve counterterrorist policy, not to explain terrorism. #corroborates (0.95)
• Counter-radicalization conflates perpetrators’ religion with causes of terrorism. #expands (0.75) — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 946
• Radicalization theories justify treating Muslims as an imperial scapegoat class #expands (0.75)
• Radicalization theory reduces all Muslims to presumptive terrorists #expands (0.72) — Khaled A. Beydoun, The New Crusades_ Islamophobia and the…, 138
• Terrorism studies lacked disciplinary rigor, letting biased ideologues shape security policy #expands (0.72)