This is Beginning to Erode my Admiration for Fervent Islam

[WIP]

It wasn't until relatively recently that I started to realize that this generally accepted position since 9/11 -- that Islam is different than other religions, and cannot be made compatible with Western values -- was fundamentally flawed. The first glaring error is that -- if Islam inevitably leads to terrorism, religious strife and wars, why is Islamism, Muslim terrorists and persecution of religious sects, such as the ones in this story, all recent phenomena of the last few decades? The other problem we can't ignore, is that Christianity in America (and now in Canada too) is developing its own militant strains. Mostly expressed as support for the military invasions, but it is spawning home-grown Christian militias who are expressing their independence and hostility to the government. Seems like if there is a revival of moderation in Islam, Christianity will be the problem religion!

There have been a few studies in recent years linking economic downturns and uncertainty to growth in religion, and that anxiety leads to religious extremism. This report atScience and Religion Today makes a lot more sense of these issues than the good religion/ bad religion debates:

Does Anxiety Lead To Religion Extremism?

A series of studies by researchers at York University shows that it can. The researchers put volunteers in either neutral or anxiety-provoking situations and then asked them to rate the strength of their religious convictions, including whether they would die for their faith or support a war to defend it. When people were put in anxiety-producing situations (like working on a complex math problem), they became more extreme in their religious convictions. The reaction was strongest in people with “bold” personalities (eager and tenacious, with high self-esteem) who were already vulnerable to anxiety and didn’t feel empowered to achieve their daily goals.

We shouldn’t be too surprised. Past research has shown that anxiety and insecurity can turn people to religion—and that religious conviction can act as a “buffer” against anxiety. And earlier studies by the researchers at York have shown that strong religious beliefs are linked to low activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area of the brain that becomes active when a person makes errors or experiences uncertainty. Psychologist Ian McGregor, who worked on those studies and the new one, notes in a write-up of the research that:

Taken together, the results of this research program suggest that bold but vulnerable people gravitate to idealistic and religious extremes for relief from anxiety.

If anxiety and social upheaval lead to religious extremism, that could provide an explanation for why groups like Sufis and other religious minorities, were able to live for centuries in Pakistan and have now become the targets of zealous religious purists. And it's an ominous warning for what we might face from some aspects of fundamentalist Christianity in the coming years!

[DogOnPorch]

And it's an ominous warning for what we might face from some aspects of fundamentalist Christianity in the coming years!

The Moon might turn purple, too.

[Borg]

All kidding aside I hear the casualties are over 200. Where's the Arab wailing over these Muslim deaths?

There will be none

Borg

[Borg]

Seems to me they should get 72 virgins, just like the males. If there are females who have never had sex inhabiting heaven, I can only assume there are males who have never had sex, too.

Gotta be running out of virgins sometime soon.

Either that or Allah is a liar and sends the "used virgins" back for a second, third, fourth blah, blah, blah ... job with the new arrivals

Borg

[DogOnPorch]

I think far too much is made of the 72 virgins line. I roll my eyes every time I hear it. And I seriously doubt that it is the major motivating factor for pretty much all but those who would count as clinically insane. Monotheistic religions are not just about getting cool stuff, they are about serving " God " . Someone who kills for 72 virgins hardly counts as a religious fanatic in my book, because they are not killing for the perceived rightness of their actions, but rather for the reward.

Take a hypothetical case: Say you see someone drowning in the river, and you know if you save them you will be showered with accolades, rewardly handsomely and treated like a hero. The right thing to do is to save the person. However, if you save them because you want the accolades and rewards, you have failed at being a good person. Goodness relies on doing it because it is the right thing to do.

If people are becoming suicide bombers because they want the virgins, they are in fact failing at being " good Muslims " (what they would count as good in their twisted notion of how things are). So, to harp on the 72 virgins deal is to basically say they are equivalent of being bad Muslims, unreligious, or so on. Which, I think, would be really odd, because we usually ascribe to them religious fanatacisim.

Houris are mentioned in the Koran...72 of them for your Jihadi pleasure comes from one of the various Hadiths. So that you think too much is made of them is just your single opinion...and certainly not that of a suicide bomber.

[Bonam]

If people are becoming suicide bombers because they want the virgins, they are in fact failing at being " good Muslims " (what they would count as good in their twisted notion of how things are). So, to harp on the 72 virgins deal is to basically say they are equivalent of being bad Muslims, unreligious, or so on. Which, I think, would be really odd, because we usually ascribe to them religious fanatacisim.

Of course they are "bad Muslims". After all they kill dozens or hundreds of their own people, as in this example, with their suicide bombings. Do you expect their beliefs to make some kind of logical sense when they can be used to justify such acts? The actual suicide bombers tend to be stupid people talked into carrying out these acts by extremist terrorist/religious leaders. Those leaders will turn whatever key is appropriate to get the person to act as they wish. Whether it is explaining the glory and righteousness of their cause, or promising them 72 virgins, or promising a pension for the deceased martyr's family, can probably vary on a case by case basis. But anyone stupid enough to be talked into carrying out a suicide bombing is likely to swallow these promises hook, line, and sinker, regardless of whether they make any sense, and not bother thinking deeply about the moral consistency of whether they are doing something for a reward or doing it selflessly.

[jbg]

I think far too much is made of the 72 virgins line. I roll my eyes every time I hear it. And I seriously doubt that it is the major motivating factor for pretty much all but those who would count as clinically insane.

To some extent I agree.

But I do believe that the leaders take advantage of adolescent or near-adolescent hormones in seeking their human missiles.

[DogOnPorch]

Seems to take it seriously enough...

[bush_cheney2004]

To some extent I agree.

But I do believe that the leaders take advantage of adolescent or near-adolescent hormones in seeking their human missiles.

Too bad...when I was a kid, all we had to do was get a copy of Playboy or Penthouse.

[DogOnPorch]

To some extent I agree.

But I do believe that the leaders take advantage of adolescent or near-adolescent hormones in seeking their human missiles.

[WIP]

Instead of this stupid crap about 'why is their religion so stupid'...as opposed to ours which has the God who sacrifices himself to himself because he requires blood offerings as atonement...anyway, here's a little insight into what can happen when increased anxiety levels, there is a heightened people feel their culture is under attack, courtesy of Terror Management Theory, which developed in the 80's, and was based on the work of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, who believed that people deal with the knowledge that they will someday die by maintaining a strong belief in their cultural worldview. That faith provides meaning to their lives and a sense that their individual lives matter, as well as the promise of symbolic--or literal--immortality if they uphold their society's values.

One consequence of the theory, according to previous studies by the researchers, is that reminding people of their own mortality--by asking them to think about their own deaths, for example--makes them cling strongly to elements of their worldview like religious beliefs or national pride. And what happens when they perceive that their cultural worldview is at risk? Such as the perception of many Muslims that their culture was threatened by European colonization, and subsequent American economic colonization, along with their military bases. I wonder if a little real insight into the causes of religious extremism will have any effect on the simple-minded, who just want to throw crap at the wall:

A study conducted by Abdolhossein Abdollahian, PhD, a Professor at Zarand Islamic Azad University in Tehran, Iran, Dr. Pyszczynski, and colleagues at Skidmore College and the University of Arizona, investigated the effect of mortality salience on support for martyrdom attacks among 40 Iranian college students. Participants were randomly assigned to answer questions about either their own death or an aversive topic unrelated to death. Participants then evaluated materials from fellow students who either supported or opposed martyrdom attacks against the United States. While control participants preferred the student who opposed martyrdom, said Dr. Pyszcynski, participants reminded of death were more likely to approve the actions of suicide bombers following mortality salience and they also indicated they were more likely to consider such activities themselves. "These findings provide the first experimental evidence documenting the psychological determinants of the appeal of martyrdom," wrote the study authors.

The reactions to mortality salience appear to be universal, Greenberg said. "Studies in the U.S. that involved showing people images of 9/11 or other scenes of death have resulted in a high percentage of people being willing to support the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. In Iran, the reminder of death increased support for suicide bombers."

In a study of 127 Rutgers University students, participants were asked whether they would support nuclear and chemical weapons and pre-emptive attacks against countries that might be a threat to the United States. The students who were first asked to think about their own deaths expressed support for extreme measures against other countries. "Despite their differences, Americans and Iranians have something in common-thoughts of death increase the willingness of people from both nations to inflict harm on citizens of the other nation," according to the authors.

"The current research represents a unique attempt to prospectively understand the reactions of people who were about to witness the collapse of their worldview," wrote the authors. "From a terror management perspective, worldviews are "standardized systems of death denial" (Becker, 1975, p. 154), and when worldviews come under threat, their proponents may feel that the road to eternal life has been obstructed. In this case, denial of the threat may be an effective way to shield oneself from existential terror. However, when denial ultimately fails, violence may be a preferred mode of coping because it constitutes a desperate attempt to salvage the disintegrating worldview.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_kathlyn__061226_could_understanding_.htm

That last point is a key one to remember! A peaceful fundamentalist is still going to be prone to hostile reactions when he is placed in close proximity with fundamentalists who have an alternative model of death-denial, since a different path to eternal life is a threat to their own path to immortality.

[Guest American Woman]

I think far too much is made of the 72 virgins line. I roll my eyes every time I hear it. And I seriously doubt that it is the major motivating factor for pretty much all but those who would count as clinically insane. Monotheistic religions are not just about getting cool stuff, they are about serving " God " . Someone who kills for 72 virgins hardly counts as a religious fanatic in my book, because they are not killing for the perceived rightness of their actions, but rather for the reward.

I agree that too much is made of the "72 virgins" and think that it's more a matter of us putting that reason on their actions than it is them doing it for that reason.

Take a hypothetical case: Say you see someone drowning in the river, and you know if you save them you will be showered with accolades, rewardly handsomely and treated like a hero. The right thing to do is to save the person. However, if you save them because you want the accolades and rewards, you have failed at being a good person. Goodness relies on doing it because it is the right thing to do.

Yet the person who is drowning is saved either way. If someone saves me, ultimately I don't care if they did it out of the goodness of their heart or for some personal reward. It's the end result that matters.

If people are becoming suicide bombers because they want the virgins, they are in fact failing at being " good Muslims " (what they would count as good in their twisted notion of how things are).

Not really, because they are still killing infidels. It's the end result that supposedly matters most.

So, to harp on the 72 virgins deal is to basically say they are equivalent of being bad Muslims, unreligious, or so on. Which, I think, would be really odd, because we usually ascribe to them religious fanatacisim.

Religious fanatics aren't always "good religious people" by any means. They follow their own warped ideas and apply their own principles. But like I said, the virgins are just the reward for the deed; the killing of infidels. And the deed is ultimately what's most important.

But I do think the truth of the matter is more complicated than just being religious fanatics. In the end, I believe it's mostly about power. Whether it's the power to force their religious beliefs or the power to rule or the power to frighten people into submission. But doing it in the name of God/Allah makes it more acceptable, somehow. "I'm doing God's will" sounds so much better than "I'm doing this for me," and will obviously get more followers. Those with the power know enough to stay away from situations that will get them hurt/killed. They lure others into it; into doing their dirty work for them.

And that's where the promise of a glorious after-life comes in. But from what I've read, families of suicide bombers sometimes get a lot of money, so the offer of money is a big enticement, too. And then there's revenge. Some of the suicide bombers have lost loved ones and kill out of anger.

Some interesting facts, according to this site: Who Are The Suicide Bombers?

Suicide bombers are predominately single men, relatively educated and aged between 17 and 24. It was found that 23 per cent of suicide bombers were university graduates, 24 per cent finished High School and 6 per cent finished elementary school.

The ISS report noted that suicide terror has become the most prominent method of the Palestinian terror infrastructure. Initially, it was supported by ideological explanations, but today large sums of money are transferred to maintain the infrastructure. There are many people living in the territories whose paid work is to initiate, plan and implement suicide attacks: for them, the ideological component is relatively weak and sometimes does not exist at all.

[dre]

Yet the person who is drowning is saved either way. If someone saves me, ultimately I don't care if they did it out of the goodness of their heart or for some personal reward. It's the end result that matters.

In another thread recently about the siege of Gaza, I used the same argument about incident with the flotilla leading to the end of a lot of restrictions on humanitarian goods... I figured it was the end result that mattered, but you were buying it at all, because the people on the flotilla were "dishonest".

So what is it? The end, or the means?

[Guest American Woman]

In another thread recently about the siege of Gaza, I used the same argument about incident with the flotilla leading to the end of a lot of restrictions on humanitarian goods... I figured it was the end result that mattered, but you were buying it at all, because the people on the flotilla were "dishonest".

So what is it? The end, or the means?

In the example I gave, my being saved, no one else is involved, so whether someone saves me for the glory or out of the goodness of their heart makes no difference at all. If they had to lie in order to save me, hurting others in the process, that would be a different matter/situation.

Edited July 12, 2010 by American Woman

[jbg]

Maybe my loss of respect for fervant Islam was premature. Things are actually looking up in parts of the Islamic world (link).

I had previously considered the Islamic world among the world's greatest and most constructive civic-minded civilizations.

[WIP]

Religious fanatics aren't always "good religious people" by any means. They follow their own warped ideas and apply their own principles. But like I said, the virgins are just the reward for the deed; the killing of infidels. And the deed is ultimately what's most important.

There are a number of studies like the one I cited previously, which correlate anxiety with religious extremism, and moral outrage with support for suicide bombing. When someone perceives their culture is at risk, someone in the group may lash out in an extreme manner, such as a suicide attack. But, the most significant feature is the attitude and support for such an extreme tactic by their societies. The psychological study mentioned previously, showed that support for suicide attacks rises when the group considers their lives are at risk -- and especially when their culture is perceived to be at risk. The group that considers their society to be weaker, will justify any form of asymmetrical warfare (like suicide attacks), but is that any worse than the group who sees themselves as the dominant culture increasing their support for pre-emptive nuclear attacks, as in the Rutgers Study?

Also, your theory that suicide terrorism is caused by a desire to dominate other cultures doesn't explain why suicide bombing tactics are such a modern phenomena that do not have historical precedent in Islamic interpretations of martyrdom before recent decades; nor does it explain why the largest number of suicide bombings in modern times have been committed by Hindu Tamils against Buddhist Sri Lankans -- so what is the religious reward for Hindu suicide bombers?

But I do think the truth of the matter is more complicated than just being religious fanatics. In the end, I believe it's mostly about power. Whether it's the power to force their religious beliefs or the power to rule or the power to frighten people into submission. But doing it in the name of God/Allah makes it more acceptable, somehow. "I'm doing God's will" sounds so much better than "I'm doing this for me," and will obviously get more followers. Those with the power know enough to stay away from situations that will get them hurt/killed. They lure others into it; into doing their dirty work for them.

No, just the opposite! The answer to the question of why someone would resort to suicide attacks is revenge and a perceived lack of power. The Chechen Black Widows did not volunteer to become suicide bombers to force their religious beliefs upon others -- they did out of revenge against Russians who stamped out their independence movement and killed their husbands and sons in the process.

[bloodyminded]

There are a number of studies like the one I cited previously, which correlate anxiety with religious extremism, and moral outrage with support for suicide bombing. When someone perceives their culture is at risk, someone in the group may lash out in an extreme manner, such as a suicide attack. But, the most significant feature is the attitude and support for such an extreme tactic by their societies. The psychological study mentioned previously, showed that support for suicide attacks rises when the group considers their lives are at risk -- and especially when their culture is perceived to be at risk. The group that considers their society to be weaker, will justify any form of asymmetrical warfare (like suicide attacks), but is that any worse than the group who sees themselves as the dominant culture increasing their support for pre-emptive nuclear attacks, as in the Rutgers Study?

Also, your theory that suicide terrorism is caused by a desire to dominate other cultures doesn't explain why suicide bombing tactics are such a modern phenomena that do not have historical precedent in Islamic interpretations of martyrdom before recent decades; nor does it explain why the largest number of suicide bombings in modern times have been committed by Hindu Tamils against Buddhist Sri Lankans -- so what is the religious reward for Hindu suicide bombers?

No, just the opposite! The answer to the question of why someone would resort to suicide attacks is revenge and a perceived lack of power. The Chechen Black Widows did not volunteer to become suicide bombers to force their religious beliefs upon others -- they did out of revenge against Russians who stamped out their independence movement and killed their husbands and sons in the process.

This is a really excellent post, WIP.

My only slight disagreement is that "pre-emptive nuclear attacks" (or "pre-emptive war" generally) is too generous a way to look at it. We're actually talking about "preventive" nuclear attacks and war, which is a far more dubious matter.

[DogOnPorch]

WIP: There are a number of studies like the one I cited previously, which correlate anxiety with religious extremism, and moral outrage with support for suicide bombing. When someone perceives their culture is at risk, someone in the group may lash out in an extreme manner, such as a suicide attack. But, the most significant feature is the attitude and support for such an extreme tactic by their societies. The psychological study mentioned previously, showed that support for suicide attacks rises when the group considers their lives are at risk -- and especially when their culture is perceived to be at risk.

Even at the height of the invasion of Russia (Summer of '42, say), the Soviets didn't engage in suicide attacks. Suicidal attacks, perhaps; but, not ones where death was already the forgone conclusion.

Japan, however....

[ToadBrother]

Even at the height of the invasion of Russia (Summer of '42, say), the Soviets didn't engage in suicide attacks. Suicidal attacks, perhaps; but, not ones where death was already the forgone conclusion.

Japan, however....

I'm sure you could find examples of Soviet soldiers knowingly go to their deaths for Mother Russia. Let's face it, sacrificing one's self for the tribe in suicidal fashion is hardly unique to Islamists, it's a motif in most cultures, and is certainly, in military traditions, held in the highest esteem.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm sure you could find examples of Soviet soldiers knowingly go to their deaths for Mother Russia. Let's face it, sacrificing one's self for the tribe in suicidal fashion is hardly unique to Islamists, it's a motif in most cultures, and is certainly, in military traditions, held in the highest esteem.

I'd disagree for the most part as I can't recall any event of Russian suicide attacks that stand out in the same way as Iwo Jima or Leyte Gulf (et al). Suicidal attacks, however, were all too common...wave assaults en masse, etc...with the NKVD helping you along with a bayonet if it was before February 1943 (after which the NKVD was given a "desk job"). But in those cases, I'm quite sure the individual soldier was quite keen on staying alive to see the next day.

You might have a few examples that could indeed blow this premise out of the water...

[Bonam]

I'd disagree for the most part as I can't recall any event of Russian suicide attacks that stand out in the same way as Iwo Jima or Leyte Gulf (et al). Suicidal attacks, however, were all too common...wave assaults en masse, etc...with the NKVD helping you along with a bayonet if it was before February 1943 (after which the NKVD was given a "desk job").

I think the line between what you call suicide attacks and "suicidal attacks" is drawn pretty thin. Soviet soldiers often hadn't even the faintest hope of staying alive in many of the situations they were forced into. The only difference was that the Japanese kamikaze pilots did it individually, whereas Russians were forced to do it by the thousands at a time.

Let me put it this way... if one of the kamikaze pilots harbored hopes of jumping out of his plane before it crashed into its target, landing in the ocean, swimming back to shore, and staying alive, would that have made his attack any less of a "suicide attack"? I think his chances in such an attempt may well have exceeded the chances for Russian soldiers to survive some of the situations they were placed into, such as rushing crossfires from multiple German machine gun nests, completely emptyhanded.

[Jack Weber]

I think the line between what you call suicide attacks and "suicidal attacks" is drawn pretty thin. Soviet soldiers often hadn't even the faintest hope of staying alive in many of the situations they were forced into. The only difference was that the Japanese kamikaze pilots did it individually, whereas Russians were forced to do it by the thousands at a time.

Let me put it this way... if one of the kamikaze pilots harbored hopes of jumping out of his plane before it crashed into its target, landing in the ocean, swimming back to shore, and staying alive, would that have made his attack any less of a "suicide attack"? I think his chances in such an attempt may well have exceeded the chances for Russian soldiers to survive some of the situations they were placed into, such as rushing crossfires from multiple German machine gun nests, completely emptyhanded.

It's not less of a suicide attack,bot they both have different motivations...

The Russian suicide attack was usually because of poor generalship,poor materials,general incompetence etc...

The Japanese Kamikaze was on a divine mission,everything else was irrelevent...Kamikaze means "Divine Wind"..It's actually kinda creepy and similar to the 72 virgins,Islamofascist stuff...

Edited July 19, 2010 by Jack Weber

[jbg]

It's not less of a suicide attack,bot they both have different motivations...

The Russian suicide attack was usually because of poor generalship,poor materials,general incompetence etc...

I think mixed with an overall callousness towards human life. They were one small step above radical Islam. Remember these Cossacks were the same drunken mobs that burst into Jewish homes during Passover and drove the Jews en masse from Russia and Ukraine during the 1890's.

[Bonam]

I think mixed with an overall callousness towards human life. They were one small step above radical Islam.

While they certainly had no regard for human life, I would still not equate them with radical Islam. In WWII, the Russians were fighting to prevent a ruthless and terrible enemy from taking over their homeland. The USSR did more (and sacrificed more) to annihilate Nazi Germany than all the other allies combined, by far. That alone wins them renown and respect in my book.

Remember these Cossacks were the same drunken mobs that burst into Jewish homes during Passover and drove the Jews en masse from Russia and Ukraine during the 1890's.

To refer to Soviet soldiers as "Cossacks" would be quite an insult to many of them (the vast majority were not cossacks). And, while antisemitism has certainly been rife in Russia for hundreds of years, do not forget that it was nonetheless Russian soldiers who liberated many concentration camps, Russia where many eastern European Jews sheltered from the Nazis, the USSR which recognized Israel only three days after its independence.

[DogOnPorch]

{double post)

Edited July 19, 2010 by DogOnPorch