Posted on 08/28/2005 11:53:39 AM PDT by LS
Freepers, I have a question (and I know I'm just asking for a lot of joke answers here, but I'm serious.) I've been doing a lot of reading on Islam/the Arab mind/terrorism. I'm especially interested in how concepts of shame and honor play into this.
Using such works as John Laffin, "The Arab Mind Considered" (1975) and Patton Howell's "The Terrorist Mind," (2003), it seems that prior to the mid-1970s at least, suicide was considered an act of dishonor or shame in Arab societies (and, again, I know that all Muslims, esp. Iranians, aren't "Arab"). The point is that it was an act of shame to kill oneself, even when destroying an enemy.
Yet by the 1980s (earlier?) we see so-called "suicide bombers." Does anyone have a take on how the concept of shame came to be ok when applied to suicide disappeared in the Arab world? And when did this occur? So far, the sources I've seen aren't helping. Thanks Freepers. I'll bet I have solid answers within 30 minutes!
I think that it has to do with the extremism that has moved to the forefront - and how that has changed definitions. where committing suicide in the quiet of your room may be a dishonorable thing, carrying out a homicide bombing isn't a suicide, so much as it may be considered dying while attacking the kfir.
Read your Koran.
Also look up the Hashishin, aka the Assassins. It's where we get the name. And, don't forget to read up on the celebrations of the martyr Hussein.
They are actually Homicide Bombers...
The Islamacist clerics have justified suicide attacks by putting the emphasis on the attack, rather than on the act of the suicide.
They compare it to a man waging an impossible fight and dying in the process.
In their mind is is similar to a man facing overwhelming odds, rushing into battle and dying while striking out at the infidel.
Anybody with a modicum of common sense can see the difference between their justification of suicide bombing and a suicidal mission. In a suicide bombing a terrorist dies by their own hand. In a suicidal mission, one dies at the hands of the enemy.
The clerics have equated the two kinds of attacks. It doesn't make any sense, but enough Muslims have bought the justification.
The same reason that Jonestown happened. A nut speaks, koolaid is consumed.
Fighting for one's beliefs and dying for a noble cause.
Of course the Islamofascist application is totally wrong and perverse.
Actually, I disagree wirth that usage for the following reason. All successful bombers are homicide bombers but those that use themselves as the delivery system should be distinguished as suicide bombers. It matters little I suppose but the logic of "Homicide Bombers" escapes me.
I can't remember the source, but I was told that it was Arafat who populized this terrorist 'technique'.
I don't know from where his justification, but he spread the idea through the schools from the youngest ages, and romanticised the concept.
It's simple....it's what one does when they know they have lost.
Example:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP96805
"The Sharia rulings that forbid harming civilians remained valid [for centuries] until Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi and a group of ulama created a dangerous breach with regard to Jihad. This was when, out of support for Hamas, he ruled that suicide operations among civilians were legitimate. He said: This is one of the glorious types of Jihad, and it is a kind of terror that is legitimate according to Shari'a. He claimed that [in Israel] there is no difference between a civilian and a soldier – because the children of today are the fighters of tomorrow, and they are all occupiers.
"He [applied] this same fatwa to [suicide] operations in Iraq, saying that there was no difference between the [American] civilian and a member of the American military – because the civilian is serving the soldier. Then he applied this to all civilians, Muslims and non-Muslims, [in Iraq], who are connected to the occupation forces, by ruling that the sentence of anyone who collaborates with the occupier is the same as the sentence of the occupier himself. This is the same basis of jurisprudence one on which [Abu Mus'ab] Al-Zarqawi, [Abu Muhammad] Al-Maqdisi, [3] Abu Qatada, [4] and Sheikh Hamed Al-'Ali [5] rely…
"This fatal breach has created an ideological and moral crisis in Islam – as [former editor of the Saudi daily Al-Watan Jamal] Khashoggi said [in a July 19, 2005 article in the UAE daily Al-Itihad ]– and it has caused much damage to Islam and the Muslims. The moral deterioration has reached the point that they blow up children in Baghdad and peaceful civilians on buses in London. These fatwa s are a moral and ideological mark of shame, which we must purge from our Islam…"
That's pretty much the conclusion.
An interesting twist on the fight in Iraq is that they're having trouble finding suicide volunteers.
["it seems that prior to the mid-1970s at least....."]
Well, your timing is about right. But, I would consider your question more generally, More specifically, I think the consequences of the actions of the Arab terrorists at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich was a major paradigm shift in the thinking of these fanatics. In short, they realized that terrorism could work (T.V. network coverage, etc.)
I believe your reasoning is correct. Muslim clerics identify feeble-minded students in their Madrassas and single them out for “special” treatment. A young feeble minded sexually repressed Muslim male can be made to believe that he is going to Hell simply because he masturbates, and that his only salvation is to die in the service of his God. And as an added bonus, he gets to spend eternity with seventy-two horny virgins. So just strap this bomb on Akmed, this is a win-win situation. Now, ain’t God great?
I guess they're beginning to run out of lemmings for their lost cause!
Do you think this is a variant of a particular type of Islam, ie., Wahabbism? It would be worth knowing if all of the homicide bombers were of a particular "sect" or approach to Islam.
The Assassins were not suicidal. They were killers. I did read up on them. The Koran is ambivalent (since it places no inherent value on human life anyway, I suppose it could be considered pro-suicide). I found nothing in the Hadith to support suicide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.