This week in Islam

[kimmy]

Didn't Hassan i Sabbah actually invent terrorism in the modern sense?

-k

[Big Guy]

I remember reading a book in which people were crucifying each other and lining the roads with these crosses to send a message to others.

[kimmy]

I remember reading a book in which people were crucifying each other and lining the roads with these crosses to send a message to others.

Was the book called "A Storm of Swords"?

-k

[Big Guy]

Nope, it was the "Bible".

[WIP]

Didn't Hassan i Sabbah actually invent terrorism in the modern sense?

-k

Do I really have to look him up? The wiki entry says he's the founder of the Ismaili Muslim sect in the 12th century. Without further reading, that might indicate that he is on the fringes of Islamic thought and certainly there were no high explosives in existence back then, so how does he relate to the terrorism issue?

[WIP]

Nope, it was the "Bible".

And during Roman times, some historians believe that Roman officials executed at least 10,000 by crucifixion, and yet failed to stamp out slave rebellions, uprisings and even terrorism in at least one case - the Jewish Zealots continued a strategy of random assassinations of Roman soldiers, and Roman and Jewish public officials. If torture and excessive violence didn't completely suppress unrest back then, how do oppressive global authoritarians think somewhat less extreme methods will work today?

[kimmy]

Do I really have to look him up? The wiki entry says he's the founder of the Ismaili Muslim sect in the 12th century. Without further reading, that might indicate that he is on the fringes of Islamic thought and certainly there were no high explosives in existence back then, so how does he relate to the terrorism issue?

He also founded the Hashshasheen, from whom we westerners obtained the word "assassin". Hassan i Sabbah had specially trained followers who were known for gutting political and military figures in gruesome public murders. i Sabbah was able to command influence from governments of his day through the threat of assassination. People would wake up to find a dagger on the pillow next to their head, just to let them know they weren't safe anywhere, but the real carnage was usually done in public with as many witnesses as possible, just to build spread fear of what would happen if you crossed Hassan i Sabbah.

Nope, it was the "Bible".

Oh yeah, that one. Well, the ancient Romans did a lot of brutal stuff to enforce their will upon the peoples they'd conquered. Jesus was far from the only guy who got crucified. It was a punishment generally reserved for rebels, rabble-rousers, and anybody considered a threat to the established authority-- Jesus would certainly have qualified as such. This sort of thing is hardly unique to that time or place, either. Making a prominent public example of trouble-makers as an example to others who'd follow their example is something that has been done by cultures all over the globe at some point or another.

And during Roman times, some historians believe that Roman officials executed at least 10,000 by crucifixion, and yet failed to stamp out slave rebellions, uprisings and even terrorism in at least one case - the Jewish Zealots continued a strategy of random assassinations of Roman soldiers, and Roman and Jewish public officials. If torture and excessive violence didn't completely suppress unrest back then, how do oppressive global authoritarians think somewhat less extreme methods will work today?

Fanatics of any calling are hard to deal with, especially if they believe there's a reward waiting for them in the afterlife.

-k

[WIP]

He also founded the Hashshasheen, from whom we westerners obtained the word "assassin". Hassan i Sabbah had specially trained followers who were known for gutting political and military figures in gruesome public murders. i Sabbah was able to command influence from governments of his day through the threat of assassination. People would wake up to find a dagger on the pillow next to their head, just to let them know they weren't safe anywhere, but the real carnage was usually done in public with as many witnesses as possible, just to build spread fear of what would happen if you crossed Hassan i Sabbah.

Okay, now I get the reference! No doubt, the assassins were a pretty scary lot! But, I would still like to read more about the background of the Ismaelis and what was going on there at the time. It's a subject area I am only vaguely familiar with.

Oh yeah, that one. Well, the ancient Romans did a lot of brutal stuff to enforce their will upon the peoples they'd conquered. Jesus was far from the only guy who got crucified. It was a punishment generally reserved for rebels, rabble-rousers, and anybody considered a threat to the established authority-- Jesus would certainly have qualified as such. This sort of thing is hardly unique to that time or place, either. Making a prominent public example of trouble-makers as an example to others who'd follow their example is something that has been done by cultures all over the globe at some point or another.

Yes, and the number I posted yesterday - 10,000 crucifixions by Roman jurisprudence in total, is a conservative estimate! There are some historians who believe the total number may have been ten times that figure.

But, the reason why I find the proliferation of this form of torture/public execution so significant, is because it was so ineffective at achieving its desired goal: suppressing potential uprisings against Roman and Roman-appointed authorities. The threat of being hoisted up and mounted on a cross, may have prevented unrest from boiling over for a little while, but it only worked for a very short time....something that today's authoritarians, with their drones, secret prisons, use of torture, teargas and stun grenades might want to think about today!

Fanatics of any calling are hard to deal with, especially if they believe there's a reward waiting for them in the afterlife.

-k

A good name to look up on this subject would be anthropologist - Scott Atran, who's specialty is not specifically in psychology, but he has done most of his work in the Middle East and has interviewed prospective suicide bombers and advocates for recruiting suicide bombers. His theory is that the religious language is like gift-wrapping: it doesn't actually provide the motivation for the bombers or the rebell8ious terrorist groups who have recruited them.

The basic scenario is that the first ingredient is a group or a local population who feel they have lost all control over their lives and there are no ways of casting off their government or get rid of security forces or the walls or checkpoints that regulate their daily lives. And, that daily routine continues getting bleaker and bleaker, with no end in sight. The authorities can't be voted out, and they can't realistically be overthrown (always the first step before suicide attacks), so they feel humiliated by their situation and decide that the only way to fight back is to end their lives, but do so in a method that will exact revenge on their oppressors. And after that, they pull the religion card.

And it's not just Muslims who will look up verses or theological justifications for suicide attacks against an enemy! The Quranic verses cited, only refer to fighting against insurmountable odds against an enemy, knowing that there is no way to escape death. And we sure as hell have lots of those kinds of martyrs in our historic folklore also!

I'm not sure what the theological justification was for Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka to turn to suicide attacks, but I'm sure the same pieces can be put together. A "fanatic" is going to find some reason to seek revenge in a suicide attack. Over here, it seems we are seeing something very similar in the acts of domestic violence and attacks on police that are often referred to as "suicide by cop." Not that the suicide attackers should be validated for what they have done; but the smart approach would be to do something about the underlying contributors to the problem; not just keep adding more extreme punishments and walls of security to try to stop the attackers once they are determined to carry them out.

[drummindiver]

A good name to look up on this subject would be anthropologist - Scott Atran, who's specialty is not specifically in psychology, but he has done most of his work in the Middle East and has interviewed prospective suicide bombers and advocates for recruiting suicide bombers. His theory is that the religious language is like gift-wrapping: it doesn't actually provide the motivation for the bombers or the rebell8ious terrorist groups who have recruited them.

The basic scenario is that the first ingredient is a group or a local population who feel they have lost all control over their lives and there are no ways of casting off their government or get rid of security forces or the walls or checkpoints that regulate their daily lives. And, that daily routine continues getting bleaker and bleaker, with no end in sight. The authorities can't be voted out, and they can't realistically be overthrown (always the first step before suicide attacks), so they feel humiliated by their situation and decide that the only way to fight back is to end their lives, but do so in a method that will exact revenge on their oppressors. And after that, they pull the religion card.

So he concentrated on radicals in the Middle East (which is why my comment pertains to them, not the Tamils). Fair enough. What about the reams of evidence that show many radicalized westeners, as well as Middle East fanatics, come from well to do families?

And you say "their" government. Who are you talking about specifically? Is not the only government they are looking to overthrow Israel's. Which, btw, is a democracy and can be voted out.

Edited January 3, 2015 by drummindiver

[kimmy]

So he concentrated on radicals in the Middle East. Fair enough. What about the reams of evidence that show many radicalized westeners, as well as Middle East fanatics, come from well to do families?

That's something I have found interesting of late, is how many of these radical Muslims we are seeing in western countries are converts-- regular western people who have for some reason or another have joined Islam as adults and become way more fanatical about it that most of their co-religionists. The guy who attacked Parliament, the guy who ran over the soldiers, the German guy who made headlines for starting the "Shariah Patrol", as well as numerous Canadians who've been found fighting in Muslim militias in Asia and Africa. Western raised non-Muslims who looked at radical Islam and violent jihad and said "that's for me! I want to get in on that!"

What's up with that?

-k

[eyeball]

Cognitive dissonance is my guess. A rats-in-a-cage-like syndrome - at some level our species is going nuts and probably faster than we can pin any one reason to but I'm convinced that trying to reconcile things like the Shiniest Beacon proclaiming that liberty and democracy should reign while embracing torture and supporting dictatorships could lead or contribute to the sort of dissonance that drives people nuts.

Edited January 3, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Nah...it only drove them to get rid of royal monarchs with funny hats.

[Argus]

But, the reason why I find the proliferation of this form of torture/public execution so significant, is because it was so ineffective at achieving its desired goal: suppressing potential uprisings against Roman and Roman-appointed authorities. The threat of being hoisted up and mounted on a cross, may have prevented unrest from boiling over for a little while, but it only worked for a very short time...ut.

So you're saying that these Muslims have the right idea in simply exterminating entire populations which fail to convert to their brand of Islam?

After all, that works every time. Dead people don't rebel. The previous Christian populations of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt being prime examples.

[eyeball]

Same bullshit with funnier hats.

[bush_cheney2004]

Better our "bullshit"...than yours.

[eyeball]

Finest kind alright.

[WIP]

So he concentrated on radicals in the Middle East (which is why my comment pertains to them, not the Tamils). Fair enough. What about the reams of evidence that show many radicalized westeners, as well as Middle East fanatics, come from well to do families?

And you say "their" government. Who are you talking about specifically? Is not the only government they are looking to overthrow Israel's. Which, btw, is a democracy and can be voted out.

I don't want to misrepresent his theories and findings on terrorists and their motivating factors, but the problem is that he is not at all interested in being a celebrity scientist like Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, Dawkins, and others who spend most of their time writing books and appearing on TV, who are usually the go-to guys as "expert" opinion on this and other issues where religion and politics intersect. I first came across Atran, when he challenged Sam Harris, Carolyn Porco, and a couple of physicists whose names I forget, but were all part of a panel discussing how the scientific community should deal with religious beliefs and believers. Let's just say that Atran was the odd man out on the panel of "new atheists, who spent most of their time talking about the evils of religion and how all the world's problems can be solved by convincing everyone to abandon their beliefs in God and other supernatural concepts.

Since most of his work is found only in scientific...mostly anthropology journals, most of his ideas online are presented by others to support their thinking or try to knock them down. Here's one example in a review of a book he wrote a few years back in New Scientist - HOW TO CATCH THE JIHADI BUG which takes on the presentation that terrorists are motivated by their religious training:

His main finding is that terrorist organisations tend not to be the sophisticated, well-ordered hierarchies that we commonly suppose, but loose networks of friends and family who die not just for a cause but for each other. Who gets radicalised is often quite random: "Someone gets the jihadi bug, and friends follow, gathering force from sticking together." Understanding these social dynamics, Atran believes, is key to tackling terrorism.

Talking to the Enemy is recommendable not just for its vivid insights into the motivation of terrorists, but also for its study of Islamic radicalisation and the anthropology of religion in general. It is worth reading for its demolishment of many of the simplistic ideas put forward by self-declared "scientific atheists" such as Sam Harris, Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins, who see religion as the root of intolerance and campaign with missionary zeal for its eradication.

Dawkins has argued, for example, that suicide bombers are brainwashed in religious schools. Yet none of the 9/11 hijackers or the Madrid train-bombers attended a religious school, and the one London

Underground bomber who did so attended only briefly. Indeed evidence shows that in Muslim communities the deeper a person's religious scholarship, the less likely he or she is to be involved in jihadist activities.

The suggestion by Harris and others that the world would be less violent without religion - and especially without Islam - also looks hollow when you consider the crimes against humanity committed by atheists. Prior to 2001, for instance, one of the most prolific dispensers of suicide terrorism was the secular Tamil Tigers. In trying to understand, or predict, terrorist activity, it makes scientific sense to look beyond religion, such as to the social dynamics of particular friendship networks and the recruitment strategies of jihadist organisations whose agendas are usually avowedly political.

The scientific atheists' disregard of evidence when making their case "makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist", says Atran. He is on strong ground: gathering data first-hand is not something Atran seems shy of, even if it means risking his own life.

In other words, like so many other subjects, this one too, is a lot more complex than presented in mainstream media, and solving the problem is not going to happen just by attacking other peoples' religions.

Edited January 4, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

So you're saying that these Muslims have the right idea in simply exterminating entire populations which fail to convert to their brand of Islam?

After all, that works every time. Dead people don't rebel. The previous Christian populations of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt being prime examples.

No, I'm saying that we've been played for fools by buying into this Christian vs. Muslim battle!

Think for a second: if Islam and Muslim populations seek to exterminate all other religions, how the hell were Christians...and many other smaller sects, including Jews, able to survive and flourish in Muslim nations for centuries? Egypt and Iraq and some other Arab nations had large Jewish populations for centuries until the modern state of Israel was created, and Egypt and much of the rest of the Arab World responded with Pan-Arabism and forced them into exile....mostly ending up in Israel as the most hawkish and vengeful segment of the modern Israeli State!

It's interesting to note that Iraq's very large Christian population wasn't imperiled until Dubya had this great idea of doing what his father failed/did not want to accomplish - overthrowing Saddam. And the attacks on Christians and other minorities who are still caught in the middle of the sectarian war between Shias and Sunnis, which has led to deaths and ethnic cleansing out of most of Iraq today, was never considered an important issue by the so called Christian leaders of the United States! Otherwise they would have done something to stop it.

It's all just a game for resources and other pieces on a global geopolitical chessboard, and 99% of what's written about these issues in MSM is bullshit! Ending the problem of "Islamism" would be very simple: get out of their countries, stop trying to control all of the oil coming from the oil-producing nations, and let them manage their own affairs however they settle, on their own!

The present Sunni/Shia conflagration is mostly a U.S./western creation, and ISIS or whatever, it will all have to run its course, and the best way for it to end with as little bloodshed as possible, is to remove the issue of outside interference!

Looking at it from an historical perspective, I find it interesting that the 20th century began with the continuation of a trend towards secularization and declining interest in religion in most of the Muslim World....including Arabia. But, after oil was discovered, and Israel is founded, and the last caliphate disintegrates, a gradual decades-long re-entrenchment of fundamentalism begins to take hold, and is strengthened by U.S. alliance with Islamists against nationalistic left wing movements in most Muslim nations. So, the problem is largely blowback for stepping in without having any regard for consequences in the future.

[eyeball]

solving the problem is not going to happen just by attacking other peoples' religions.

They're not trying to solve the problem, they're trying to sidestep it.

Radicalized religious people are an effect not a cause. Blaming victims is the solution victimizers always use to avoid talking about the real problem.

[drummindiver]

I don't want to misrepresent his theories and findings on terrorists and their motivating factors, but the problem is that he is not at all interested in being a celebrity scientist like Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, Dawkins, and others who spend most of their time writing books and appearing on TV, who are usually the go-to guys as "expert" opinion on this and other issues where religion and politics intersect. I first came across Atran, when he challenged Sam Harris, Carolyn Porco, and a couple of physicists whose names I forget, but were all part of a panel discussing how the scientific community should deal with religious beliefs and believers. Let's just say that Atran was the odd man out on the panel of "new atheists, who spent most of their time talking about the evils of religion and how all the world's problems can be solved by convincing everyone to abandon their beliefs in God and other supernatural concepts.

Since most of his work is found only in scientific...mostly anthropology journals, most of his ideas online are presented by others to support their thinking or try to knock them down. Here's one example in a review of a book he wrote a few years back in New Scientist - HOW TO CATCH THE JIHADI BUG which takes on the presentation that terrorists are motivated by their religious training:

His main finding is that terrorist organisations tend not to be the sophisticated, well-ordered hierarchies that we commonly suppose, but loose networks of friends and family who die not just for a cause but for each other. Who gets radicalised is often quite random: "Someone gets the jihadi bug, and friends follow, gathering force from sticking together." Understanding these social dynamics, Atran believes, is key to tackling terrorism.

Talking to the Enemy is recommendable not just for its vivid insights into the motivation of terrorists, but also for its study of Islamic radicalisation and the anthropology of religion in general. It is worth reading for its demolishment of many of the simplistic ideas put forward by self-declared "scientific atheists" such as Sam Harris, Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins, who see religion as the root of intolerance and campaign with missionary zeal for its eradication.

Dawkins has argued, for example, that suicide bombers are brainwashed in religious schools. Yet none of the 9/11 hijackers or the Madrid train-bombers attended a religious school, and the one London

Underground bomber who did so attended only briefly. Indeed evidence shows that in Muslim communities the deeper a person's religious scholarship, the less likely he or she is to be involved in jihadist activities.

The suggestion by Harris and others that the world would be less violent without religion - and especially without Islam - also looks hollow when you consider the crimes against humanity committed by atheists. Prior to 2001, for instance, one of the most prolific dispensers of suicide terrorism was the secular Tamil Tigers. In trying to understand, or predict, terrorist activity, it makes scientific sense to look beyond religion, such as to the social dynamics of particular friendship networks and the recruitment strategies of jihadist organisations whose agendas are usually avowedly political.

The scientific atheists' disregard of evidence when making their case "makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist", says Atran. He is on strong ground: gathering data first-hand is not something Atran seems shy of, even if it means risking his own life.

In other words, like so many other subjects, this one too, is a lot more complex than presented in mainstream media, and solving the problem is not going to happen just by attacking other peoples' religions.

"When you look at young people like the ones who grew up to blow up trains in Madrid in 2004, carried out the slaughter on the London underground in 2005, hoped to blast airliners out of the sky en route to the United States in 2006 and 2009, and journeyed far to die killing infidels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; when you look at whom they idolize, how they organize, what bonds them and what drives them; then you see that what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy.... Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: ...fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool. Western volunteers for ISIS are mostly youth in transitional stages in their lives. For the most part, they have no traditional religious education and are ‘born again’ to religion. They are self-seekers who have found their way to jihad in myriad ways," Scott Atran

Uh, so what? The main denominator? Islam religion/ideology.

Professor Atran in an interview about ISIS told me that the “first wave of foreign fighters was tightly linked to a humanitarian concern.” But now, Atran continued, “current volunteers … believe that they are part of a great historical movement that has reestablished the Islamic Caliphate,” and they believe they must fight to secure and expand it.

However there is usually no active recruitment. These are usually kids hooking up on the internet with like-minded individuals. Most so-called “Jihadists,” sometimes up to 90 per cent, are not very knowledgeable about religion. They tend to come to religion later in life and become self-radicalized.

But what about the role of religious education? Are these horrible atrocities happening because young Muslims read and study the Qu’ran?

In fact young Muslims tend to have a limited background in Islam making them more vulnerable to extreme interpretations says Sageman in a lecture on terrorism.

Uh, people joining up to kill and terrorize tightly linked to humanitarian concern? He has a very different idea of what humanitarian is than mine.

So, the Qu'ran, nor religion, has anything to do with ISIS and what's going on? Just a bunch of angst driven kids hooking up online?

So, where are all the young Christians, coming to religion later in life and reading the bible, which we all know is full of incredible violence and racism? Why aren't they flying planes into buildings and kidnapping and chopping ppl's heads off?

[Big Guy]

I find the posting relating to suicide bombers to be very interesting. These folks in the Middle East who strap a bomb around themselves, get into the proximity of their enemy and detonate the bomb are referred to as lunatic, radical, extremist, looney etc. It appears that they are crazy people and certainly not nice people. The idea of somebody giving up their lives while taking some enemy with them is looked down upon as demented.

Nathan Hale said (and I assume meant) "I regret that I have but one life to give to my country". He is still considered a hero.

So the action to give your life for your country or cause seems to depend on which side of the conflict you support.

During the wars, there have been many instances where soldiers have rushes into suicidal conditions to save other soldiers. We call them heroes and celebrate their actions. The Japanese Kamikaze were "crazy" because they flew their planes into the good guy warships. Soldiers giving up their lives to save others are given posthumous medals.

I believe that the idea that someone is prepared to die to take out some enemy rather than continue to live makes the average person uncomfortable. I believe that is why we look at suicide bombers as deranged fanatics and make jokes about their religious beliefs because we really do not want to consider their motivation.

How bad is living that death becomes an alternative? How much hate or dislike does it take to strap a bomb around yourself and enter enemy territory? How is that hate and dislike created and why is it directed at us?

I think that until we get logical and concrete answers to those questions that we will continue to create more and more suicide bombers and never understand the cause.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

The motivation is in the lies provided by those Islamists who talk them into it. Paradise, and all that crap.

If they actually believed it , they'd do it first.

[WIP]

Uh, so what? The main denominator? Islam religion/ideology.

You missed the whole point! The root causes do not come from their religious training...that provides the later justifications for what they do or plan to do....just like Manifest Destiny was wrapped in Godtalk to justify ethnically cleansing the continent of Indians and taking half of Mexico.

Uh, people joining up to kill and terrorize tightly linked to humanitarian concern? He has a very different idea of what humanitarian is than mine.

So, the Qu'ran, nor religion, has anything to do with ISIS and what's going on? Just a bunch of angst driven kids hooking up online?

So, where are all the young Christians, coming to religion later in life and reading the bible, which we all know is full of incredible violence and racism? Why aren't they flying planes into buildings and kidnapping and chopping ppl's heads off?

Looking at the radicalizing of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. right now, I am seeing a big change from what even fundamentalists were saying 20 or more years ago! After toning down the Onward Christian Soldiers rhetoric after the Vietnam War debacle, rightwing Christianity is telling us God is on the side of the fight against Islam, regime change, fighting for "Christian" armies, and doing whatever warcrime is necessary to win the battle against Islam.

Set up the right conditions, and I can see the Christian terrorist coming along as soon as they find themselves on the losing end of some of these wars.

[bush_cheney2004]

You missed the whole point! The root causes do not come from their religious training...that provides the later justifications for what they do or plan to do....just like Manifest Destiny was wrapped in Godtalk to justify ethnically cleansing the continent of Indians and taking half of Mexico.

Also worked in Canada for ethnically cleansing Acadians and conquering First Nations for God and Crown. Godtalk ran residential schools in Canada until 1996 !

[On Guard for Thee]

Also worked in Canada for ethnically cleansing Acadians and conquering First Nations for God and Crown. Godtalk ran residential schools in Canada until 1996 !

Hey don't worry man, it's still available in the US on KGO 810 radio. Although I'm sure you already knew that.