Personally, I dislike Foucault .
Personnaly I don't like Foucault neither , it's borring to read and extremely not well written, even in French. But it is usefull just to explain "our" approach of security and understand what western societies are waiting from secular state in term of security.
I still think that Foucault pointed out what is the western paradigm of security.

It's a spiritual victory over the unbelievers and apostates. We're dealing with people who have totally rejected or have no concept of secularism. graphei
It's untrue. Even if I did tease JMM on that point, there is a fondation of securlar state in most of the Muslim societies I have been working in, even in Somalia: the clan.
Then I would just throw you the Al Nadha periode or muslim renaissance which had for aim, for the muslims (the Sudanese and Egyptian in first place) to accaparate the tools of the british: education.
Not being a specialis of Afghanistan I cannot tel but the the actual Muslim Brotherhood is a deviance of the first Muslim Brotherhood. Understanding the effort of people as Taliban and reducing them to a banch of men who are just martian compare to us is, I think, dangerous. It is forgetting that they know or thing they know West and in deed had a lot of contact with us. They pretty good empiric cultural anthropologists in deed.

Somali pirates have been trained by western private security societies to secure boats before turning themselves to piratrie. And when I was in Somalia, they reminded me the old fation european barbarian with their f@%$#*&! honnor.

Talking of the religion, I agree with Marct that it is difficult to understand the symbolic dimension of sef destruction acts. But I would not make it a matrix to analyse Islam but rather a very specific minority of Muslims.
Madam, I think it's time for you to go on the field and face the great big world and all its contradictions. .