suicide bombers

[_Mercury]

For those who were following the suicide bombers thread on MAD, here is the post i was going to make before it was suddenly locked:

You're right it was a distortion. I should have stated again our fundamental difference of opinion. I believe your opinion is that without religion than the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I believe that without the political environment the religious zeal to kill oneself would not be necessary. I don't think they're perfectly entertwined. You remove the political and the entire motivation crumbles. You remove the religion and it does not.

Without the sanction of religion the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I am not saying that other forms of opposition and even terrorism would not be carried out. I am saying that without Islamic leaders sanctioning suicide terrorism as an acceptable method of martyrdom, the suicide terrorism would have not been popularized within this particular conflict.

I agree this is a waste of time. I can type over and over again that "politics and sociological problems" are the only true motivating factor. Religion is part of the equation. Religion is used as a way to... well let's see what you said about this.
I think I found my answer by reviewing your earlier statements:

Perhaps my paragraph above clarifies my stance.

We actually agree! You say here that those that manipulate suicide bombers do not believe any of it is about God. The poor suicide bombers have been manipulated. It's not about God at all. It's all about the will of the person that manipulated them to believe it WAS about God.

Whoa. I said that we cannot know whether or not those who manipulated suicide bombers do not believe any of it is about God. They may well sincerely believe it is. Or they may be deliberately manipulating their trusting followers. I really don’t know the answer to that, and neither do you.

I believe you're wrong. This is dying for a cause. How do they refer to themselves? They call themselves martyrs for a cause! Are you suggesting that they do not believe they're dying for a cause?

Again, what is your point?

Saying “dying for a cause” is acceptable does not necessarily entail suicide for a cause. It was the introduction of the suicide as part of terrorism that was controversial. (see my above link and quote)

Of course I think that the suicide bombers believe they are dying for a cause.

Suicide bombing is wrong. I can say so. I can be agnostic and say Timothy McVeigh was wrong. I can be a military brat and say the U.S. military has done things in it's past that were wrong. I can be a proud American and still condemn slavery.

What is your point? I believe it's all religiously motivated. Now tell me why I can't condemn it?

I tried to clarify my point above in my “Pahoran’s strawman” response. It is tiring dealing with Pahoran, and I can only take so much of it, hence, my refusal to engage in a point-by-point exchange with him. I can only ask you to not rely on his words to ascertain what I am trying to say.

The people who cannot condemn it without engaging in hypocrisy are those who do believe God tells people to kill other people. If you do not believe that, you can condemn it without hypocrisy. For those who actually believe that God tells people to kill other people, to condemn the Muslim terrorists requires the believer to insist that, despite the overwhelming evidence of the unreliability of man’s ability to ascertain God’s will, HE knows it well enough to know that even though God told followers of HIS religion to kill other people and they did so righteously, the Islamic terrorists were NOT obeying God because God would never tell them to do such a thing.

That was a very convoluted sentence, so I will try to restate in a list:

1. Believer A: God has, in the past, told followers to kill other people, and they did so out of obedience and love for God. The examples of this can be found either in my own religion’s scripture or sacred history.
2. Believer B, Islamic terrorist: God told me to kill other people and myself in order to die as a martyr, to help free my people.
3. Believer A: OH NO HE DIDN’T. God would never, never tell you to do such a thing.
4. Observer: Didn’t Got tell people of your own faith to kill other people? How can you know that God didn’t tell Believer B to do it too?

5. Believer A: You are just trying to paint all religion as evil.


I don't know if anyone is interested in the conversation over here or not, but just in case.

Suicide bombing is as much about religion as political upheaval in England was about papist/catholic divides. Religion is a tool to the power brokers of the middle east, a means to an end.

[_dartagnan]

Suicide bombing is as much about religion as political upheaval in England was about papist/catholic divides. Religion is a tool to the power brokers of the middle east, a means to an end.

Not in this instance. Islamic suicide bombing is everthing about religion. I mean good grief the bombers wear symbolic keys around their necks, keys to the gates of heaven - not a political symbol like as Palestine flag. Their last words are often "Alluah Akbar" and not "long live Palestine."

[_Mercury]

Suicide bombing is as much about religion as political upheaval in England was about papist/catholic divides. Religion is a tool to the power brokers of the middle east, a means to an end.

Not in this instance. Islamic suicide bombing is everthing about religion. I mean good grief the bombers wear symbolic keys around their necks, keys to the gates of heaven - not a political symbol like as Palestine flag. Their last words are often "Alluah Akbar" and not "long live Palestine."

To the bomber, yes. It is religiously motivated. But to those who fund militant Madrasa's it is a political move to gain power. Religion is always about politics, not just in this case.

[_beastie]

Dart –

This is an emotionally taxing subject. I really do not know the answer. I have some loose opinions, but no answers.

The summer before 9/11 I read two intriguing books: Robert Wright’s Non-Zero, which I read because I absolutely adore his book The Moral Animal, and Howard Bloom’s The Lucifer Principle. Non-Zero is a very optimistic book in terms of the possible outlook for human society. Wright believes we can learn to move past our “Zero-Sum” mentality, in which there is a “winner” and a “loser”, to a Non-Zero Sum mentality, in which negotiations allow for neither to “lose”. (I’m oversimplifying and it’s been a while since I read it, so Truth Dancer, who is more versed in this, may want to correct me or clarify ;)

Bloom, on the other hand, presented a much darker picture in general, based on the idea of a somewhat inevitable pecking order, in which the “top dog” is constantly being targeted by those lower on the pecking order. He specifically mentioned that the US, while currently “on top” of the pecking order, was very vulnerable to those societies that had been diminished by recent history, including, notably, Islamic societies. He predicted that the greatest thread facing the US was terrorism from Islamic radicalists.

Today, of course, we all agree with that – but before 9/11, that wasn’t a prominent theme in our society.

I was intrigued by these two seemingly contradictory viewpoints and pondered which was more likely and realistic all summer. And then 9/11 happened.

Even aside from that, I have struggled with religion in general for years. I understand why we have religion, and one might as well struggle against the existence of love between human beings as struggle against the existence of religion. But I have struggled in terms of reconciling my own thoughts about the place religion plays in our society and larger world.

So after 9/11 I wondered about Islam, and wondered about what kind of religion it really was. I read some of the Kuran. I read more about the origins of the mid-eastern conflict. And it just seems like such a muddled mess, such a Gordian knot, that I eventually gave up. What did my opinion matter anyway?

I do believe that religion is inextricably tied into the whole scenario – as I tried to express on the MAD thread, I think there is little doubt that the Islamic suicide terrorists would not engage in suicide terrorism without the sanction of their religious leaders. And obviously the conservative wing of the Islamic religion has a horrible track record in terms of human rights. No society that treats women the way they do will thrive in today’s world – you just can’t ignore the potential of half the human race, for one thing. But, of course, there is a more moderate Muslim voice, and they would probably view the writings that the extremists use to justify violence in the same way as most Christians view the Old Testament – more of an artifact of an ancient society whose mores we have obviously moved beyond, thank goodness. So if Christians get to move beyond the Old Testament in terms of their actual practices, and still view the Bible as inspired in some way, then Muslims can do the same thing.

I once read an article that opined that the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam is a younger religion, and that younger religions tend to be more volatile and even dangerous.

So I don’t know any answers. I do know that there are very serious social problems in the mid-east, and the US isn’t some noble knight in shining armor, because we are not motivated by larger morality but by our own self interest, which has, in the past and even today, led us to align with leadership in the mid-east that oppresses and takes advantage of its populations. Yet I also believe that some Islamic radicalists have taken advantage of that situation and, instead of trying to rectify the social wrongs, have used the social wrongs to induce acts of violence in their followers, with a far larger goal than of simply rectifying social wrongs, and instead establishing a new social order based on Islamic law.

So I guess like every other situation in this world, there is fault on every side of this issue, and what I’m really left wondering is if Robert Wright is just an idealistic dreamer, and human natures dooms us to this seemingly eternal struggle with one another. The names change, the players change, the details change, the background scenery changes… but it seems the plot doesn’t.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Beastie,

I don't know much but what I do (think I) know is that the world is complex! :-) The problems we currently face will not be solved by simple solutions.

I also feel quite certain that the "solutions" of the past are not appropriate for today's world. We hold onto stories, texts, beliefs, and ideas from a different world; a world that no longer exists.

As you know, I have hope (most of the time) that the world will move beyond our current challenges. I know it is a long shot. I also know that how the universe unfolds may not include the human. In other words, the universe will continue unfolding/evolving/creating itself whether we are here or not. I see no evidence humans are necessary. We are just one way, of many possibilities, for the story to continue.

Now, I happen to believe it is possible for humans to change enough to be a part of the future of our world (you did a great job summarizing Wright's ideas), but as I said it certainly is a long shot.

The way I figure it, if creatures could find a way to capture the sunlight for energy, or create multicellularity, or use oxygen from the atmosphere, then we, as thinking aware beings should be able to figure out how to overcome our difficulties.

I think we face two primary obstacles. First, much of the world is holding onto an archaic understanding of the world and our human-ness, and secondly, much of the world believes someone will come in and save the world.

I strongly believe if the majority of the world believes the world will end shortly and someone will come and solve all the problems, humans will not survive. The world will not be healed until humankind understands that if there is healing to be done it is up to us to do it. I also do not think we have the luxury of holding onto primitive ideas. We live in a different world and MUST come up with new solutions.

I think this will take the creativity of all of humankind.... which the world may or may not allow. I don't think we have a chance if women continue to be degraded and diminished. I get a sense that the healing of our world REQUIRES women to be a part of it. (Have you read Helen Fisher's, The First Sex? It is excellent)!

OK... I'm rambling on! LOL!

So I guess like every other situation in this world, there is fault on every side of this issue, and what I’m really left wondering is if Robert Wright is just an idealistic dreamer, and human natures dooms us to this seemingly eternal struggle with one another. The names change, the players change, the details change, the background scenery changes… but it seems the plot doesn’t.

Is Robert Wright an idealistic dreamer? Perhaps.... like me! :-) I guess I see possibility which gives me hope. But I do realize it would take a miracle! (Miracles to me are just the way of the universe.... so who knows)?

I think we are so new to the experience of self awareness and choice that we still haven't figured it out. We may in time, if we can survive long enough. The question is, will we survive long enough to get it figured out. I think it is possible!

Enough of my theories! :-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

I think the Christian ability to generally move beyond the Old Testament has to do with th emphasis on education in the Western World. The more educated the population, the less likely they are to allow or manipulate the collective and/or individual violent side of humanity to emerge. (and we all have that violent side; some of us hide it better than others, though)

We see it here in our own underclass, in the gang violence. We see it in Britain and in France: the underclass, the uneducated, the poor are more prone to violence to solve their problems than the learned and the middle class.

The vast majority of Muslims are not literate; only the rich are educated, and it's in the vested self-interest of the rich to keep the status quo. Until someone educates the currently uneducated Muslims throughout the Middle East, we're going to see that vast population manipulated and controlled by the rich who have an agenda of taking over the world. The same can be said for the uneducated in India, Southeast Asia, Russia, South America, and Central America. The uneducated and illiterate can be led by rich religious nuts, and the rest of the world suffers.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony.... YES!!!

Education is the key in my opinion.

I think the more we are educated, the less likely we will hold onto our archaic past or even our animal instincts (generally speaking). It is as if learning about our world, each other, and life itself IS that which moves humankind into a new awareness... one which will find solutions and create a new world.

~dancer~

[_harmony]

I think we face two primary obstacles. First, much of the world is holding onto an archaic understanding of the world and our human-ness, and secondly, much of the world believes someone will come in and save the world.

All it takes for evil to grow is for good men to do nothing.

I think you are correct, as far as you go. The Christian world's been holding its collective breath for 2000 years, waiting for Christ to come back and save them. Instead of actually getting out there and doing the work Jesus entrusted to them, they've been looking past the mark and waiting... waiting for someone to save us all. And look what it's brought us? War. Greed. Butchery. An unquenchable thirst for power. And Mormons are not exempt. We're no better at Christianity than any other so-called church of Christ. We don't follow his commandments any better than anyone else, yet we claim his authority and the fulness of his gospel.

The Muslim world is no better, deliberately keeping the general population illiterate so they can be easily manipulated. They're about 200 years behind the Christian world, but they're following the same path.

I think the invention of the printing press was one of the most important things one man has ever done for the rest of the world. Literacy is the key to there even being a future. As long as millions of illiterate people trust unscrupulous men, we'll have little if any progress.

And much as you and I and the gatepost might want it, women are not going to be allowed their proper place in life, able to exercise their intelligence for the good of mankind, until we refuse to take it anymore. Have you ever read "Women's Gate"? Only in fiction are women powerful enough to change the course of the world.

[_dartagnan]

VB:

To the bomber, yes. It is religiously motivated. But to those who fund militant Madrasa's it is a political move to gain power.

But those who fund it are not strictly political opportunists who don’t share in the same religious motives of those actually enacting the violence. The motive of suicide bombers is not something that was ideologically pushed on them by some grinning political strategist twirling his mustache.

Osama bin Ladin already had the resources to fund his own terror operations, and he knew as well as anyone else that 9-11 would force him into exile, running from cave to cave trying to stay alive. His goals were not strictly political, he often invokes religious injunctions and as I said, when it comes to Islam, there is no separation of religious and political so to make the distinction is really meaningless in this context.

Religion is always about politics, not just in this case.

Care to clarify or expound on that? Always being about politics doesn’t make much sense to me.


Beastie:

Bloom, on the other hand, presented a much darker picture in general, based on the idea of a somewhat inevitable pecking order, in which the “top dog” is constantly being targeted by those lower on the pecking order. He specifically mentioned that the US, while currently “on top” of the pecking order, was very vulnerable to those societies that had been diminished by recent history, including, notably, Islamic societies. He predicted that the greatest thread facing the US was terrorism from Islamic radicalists.

He is not the only person to predict this. Daniel Pipes predicted the same thing, for very different reasons, none of which have anything to do with a supposed “pecking order.” The problem I have with Bloom, and the atheist/agnostic approach in general, is its reductionism that drives it. The differences between various religions, their teachings, are not accounted for in their models. Instead, religion is all equal. Bloom’s comment on pg 176, “Christians by the millions would take upon themselves the privilege of killing, torturing and raping those who weren't members of their triumphant creed,” is not only idiotic, but it betrays the reductionism in his method. The fact is Christianity has never endorsed forced conversion, although the same cannot be said of certain Byzantine emperors.

Bloom dissects history to find examples that appeal to the model he predesigned, but history is vast, and virtually any point can be supported by history if the right events are focused upon and the contrary events are ignored. For example, Nazi Germany was ay the top as was communist Russia. Neither or these suffered from those further down the power ranking, “pecking away” at them. They were scared s***less of them and were avoided at all costs.

I do believe that religion is inextricably tied into the whole scenario – as I tried to express on the MAD thread, I think there is little doubt that the Islamic suicide terrorists would not engage in suicide terrorism without the sanction of their religious leaders.

Perhaps.

And obviously the conservative wing of the Islamic religion has a horrible track record in terms of human rights. No society that treats women the way they do will thrive in today’s world – you just can’t ignore the potential of half the human race, for one thing.

Agreed.

But, of course, there is a more moderate Muslim voice, and they would probably view the writings that the extremists use to justify violence in the same way as most Christians view the Old Testament – more of an artifact of an ancient society whose mores we have obviously moved beyond, thank goodness.

And here is where it gets more complex and requires further effort to understand the subtle differences.

Islam already has a system of interpreting the Quran. The ahadith was created for that exact purpose, and has been the source of interpretation for centuries. While Judaism has the Talmud, Christianity doesn’t have an official book that serves to interpret the Old Testament.

The Quran is understood by Muslims to be God’s word in the most literal sense; far more literal than anything you’ve seen from the most fanatical Evangelicals thumping their Bible. This is significant. The Quran is understood by many to be uncreated and timeless. This means it pertains to all time period and since man cannot change God’s word, nothing can be changed in it. The same doesn’t hold true for the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Old Testament. Two billion Christians, for example, readily admit the Old Testament has been abrogated by the New Testament. However, you still don’t see millions of Jews waging battles while shouting citations from Joshua and David. Further, Jewish scholars from all corners are accepting the premise that the Old Testament is a compilation of stories, some of which may be factual or fiction. Even the so-called “moderate” voices in Islam would not accept that premise for the Quran. This moderate voice, incidentally, is a tiny minority of the whole. Even if every American Muslim spoke out against Islamic terrorism – and to be sure, they don’t even come close to doing so – that representation would be less than one half of 1% of Islam.

So if Christians get to move beyond the Old Testament in terms of their actual practices, and still view the Bible as inspired in some way, then Muslims can do the same thing.

Nobody is saying they can’t, but they fact is they generally don’t. If Muslims can justify discarding Jihad, then they should feel free to discard all sorts of other annoying things in the Quran; like viewing Jews with the utmost contempt, accepting polygamy as divinely sanctioned, etc… but they don’t.

I once read an article that opined that the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam is a younger religion, and that younger religions tend to be more volatile and even dangerous.

This is absurd. By that logic, the most violent religion on earth should consist of NRMs including the pacifist Bahai faith.

I do know that there are very serious social problems in the mid-east, and the US isn’t some noble knight in shining armor, because we are not motivated by larger morality but by our own self interest, which has, in the past and even today, led us to align with leadership in the mid-east that oppresses and takes advantage of its populations.

I don’t know what America has to do with Islamic terrorism, but I think this is a gross exaggeration and generalization of the overall American view. Think whatever you want of the Bush administration, but Americans in general really did want to remove Hussein for the larger morality. But the problems in the mid-east are “homegrown” as DCP would say, and the blame cannot be thrown onto our shoulders, although that is precisely what many people try to do. And I do not know why people think America not aligning itself with dictators would somehow result in them not taking advantage of their own populations. I don’t get the point here.

Yet I also believe that some Islamic radicalists have taken advantage of that situation

These kinds of statements, while true to a certain extent, seem geared to take focus off the religious element. I mean name some examples of these people are just looking to take advantage of the situation, and then analyze their religious activism.

instead of trying to rectify the social wrongs, have used the social wrongs to induce acts of violence in their followers, with a far larger goal than of simply rectifying social wrongs, and instead establishing a new social order based on Islamic law.

Well, I also think it is an illusion that so many people think there are a handful of bad political strategists that woke up one day and said, “Hey, I could really take advantage of the hatred towards America. Let me go get some followers and talk them into violence.” Just look at the riots in France, all of which began without benefit of some political strategist trying to take advantage hundreds and thousands of Muslim youths who, in reality, act according to their own decisions, not because someone took advantage of their ignorance.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Kevin,

The Quran is understood by Muslims to be God’s word in the most literal sense; far more literal than anything you’ve seen from the most fanatical Evangelicals thumping their Bible. This is significant. The Quran is understood by many to be uncreated and timeless. This means it pertains to all time period and since man cannot change God’s word, nothing can be changed in it.

How many Muslims do you personally know well? How many have actually told you this is their belief?

My experience just doesn't match yours. I'm certainly not an expert on Islam but I have attended conferences and lectures to help expand my understanding. I also communicate with a few Muslims on the internet.

Those Muslims I know interpret the Quran much as do Christians, the Old Testament. They do not believe as you suggest Muslims must.

(With the exception of one Muslim man I know who is currently in prison and will be deported to Pakistan after his very long prison term). ;-)

~dancer~