In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 43 3 Prisoner Radicalization after 9/11 Following the tumultuous era of Attica and the Soledad Brothers, the prison became a central institution in American society, integral to its politics, economy, and culture. Between 1976 and 2000, the United States built on average one new prison each week, and the number of incarcerated Americans increased tenfold. With more than 2.3 million inmates—mostly black and Hispanic—in federal and state prisons, America became the world’s leading jailer, surpassing even China. Related to this unparalleled growth came a silencing of prisoners, brought on not only by the shrinking of individual identities within the sea of mass incarceration, but also by legislation banning prisoners with “anti-establishment” views from having access to the media.1 There would be no iconic black men like Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver, or George Jackson during this era.2 Nor would Black Nationalist groups create icons as they had done before. The radicalization of prisoners ratcheted down considerably during this period, but it still simmered on—to be ignited by 9/11 and the U.S. war on terrorism. In the United States, prisoner radicalization is defined as “the process by which inmates adopt extreme views, including beliefs that violent measures need to be taken for political or religious purposes.”3 Researchers had little interest in the matter until after the 9/11 attacks. Central to this concern was the discovery of an al-Qaeda training manual entitled Military Studies in the Jihad (Holy War) against the Tyrants, seized during a 2000 police raid on a safe house in Manchester, England. Known in intelligence circles as the “Manchester document,” the manual identified Western prisoners as candidates for conversion to Islam because they may harbor hostility toward their governments.4 Prisons had certainly become a matter of interest to al-Qaeda. During a September 2000 interview on an Arab-language television station, Osama bin Laden issued a call for jihad in order to release the “brothers in jail everywhere.”5 Since then, Islam has become the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Europe and North America.6 France is especially instructive. Roughly 8 percent of the French population is Muslim, yet Muslims make up an astounding 80 percent of some French prisons.7 Experts estimate that among those who seek religion while imprisoned in the United States, an 44 > 45 into their folds, thereby creating a resurgent interest in reinventing black manhood through Malcolm’s brand of purified, nonsectarian Islam. The works of Malcolm X and Angela Davis once again became relevant to black prisoners in America, and then to the world. Of this black renaissance, the eminent African American scholar Manning Marable surmised that “Malcolm X represents the most important bridge between the American people and more than one billion Muslims throughout the world.”11 By the time the Arab Spring of 2011 rolled around, thousands of young Muslim inmates had become part of a global hip-hop generation—a generation that is caught up between many cultures and countries, with Islam serving as the means to transcend all of these cultures by subordinating them to a sacred identity.12 * * * Due to the rapid growth of Islam behind bars, occurring against the backdrop of lingering post-9/11 fear, research on prisoner radicalization became a classic “hot button” issue, prompting the president of the American Society of Criminology to pronounce it a “difficult and contentious” area of study.13 It is contentious, I would argue, precisely because it is difficult. Conducting primary research on prisoner radicalization is nearly impossible due to widespread official reluctance to allow researchers access to prisons, often for spurious reasons. My own efforts are a case in point. Prior to being granted permission to study Islamic extremism in California and Florida prisons, the New York State prison system instantly denied my research request with an automated e-mail reply, claiming that it did not have adequate resources to support the project. After a lengthy review, the Bureau of Prisons turned down the research, claiming that it was “too political.” Another state denied all contact with prisoners because the research did not include the radicalization of Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists. Complicating matters, some of the world’s most innovative thinkers on Islamic extremism have entered the fray with a fixed point of view. The acclaimed social anthropologist Scott Atran is the best example. In his sweeping international study, Talking to the Enemy, Atran identifies the role of prisoner radicalization in the formation...

Share