"Perspectives on Terrorism" fancies themselves to be "Terrorism Analysts". What they are is Islam Apologists.
Or maybe christening them with the name Apologists is to give them too much credit.
Because what they really are is just liars.
Here's an article by them.
Here's a response from our friend The Last English Prince (in response to some friend of hers who, apparently is (doing the intellectually fashionable thing) trying to come to grips with the state of the world by blaming anyone but Muslims):
The authors are apologists for Islam. Throughout, statements like this: "Using these texts, trainers rely on twisted interpretations from the Holy Quran and from more or less well known Hadiths"
Again and again the authors speak of the "true Islam". The "true Islam" is brutal in application. I can accept some of the data, but I absolutely cannot accept the whitewashing of Islam under the guise of examining IS recruitment and training models.
The Yazidi female slaves are not an IS invention. They are a Muhammadan invention.
The fourth Caliph was recruited into Islam when he was a boy of about eleven years. The authors need not wring their hands over child recruitment. It has been going on since the seventh century. This is not new.
ISIS works hard to establish compliance, not Bi'dah - or innovation. The authors imagine that in understanding ISIS they understand how Islam has been twisted.
They have it backwards.
In understanding Islam, they will then understand ISIS.
The authors completely lack an understanding of Hadd penalties and why the man inside the gate, but outside the home was lashed. If they understood Hadd, they would understand that the lashing fell within rules of compliance based on how the text reads in the Arabic.
I am absolutely not interested in reading anything which seeks to distance Islam from practices which are in actuality sanctioned by Islam.