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!
The reason for the suicide may have a lot to do with it. Suicide because you are too cowardly to live would be considered bad, but suicide for the Greater Good would be considered OK.
You hit it on the head IMHO...
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP79404
It gets much worse with this scumbag.
Good point.
on the otherhand... pearls before swine.... I do agree with you but there are those that the Lord closes their eyes so they can not see the truth if they wanted. I dont understand that fully but it may be true in some cases.
Thanks so much. Terrific sources.
Indeed, this is apparently how the, shall we say, pro-suicide clerics rationalize it.
and guess what?
In most islamic circles, Al-Qaradhawi is labeled a "moderate" muslim.
Good analysis.
The key here is the Imams teachings in the Madrassas.
If the Imams could in some way, shape or form be persueded that this current "fad" of Suicide Bombings is in fact NOT honorable, THen over time I would expect these events to decrease.
However, That said, I'm nothing more than an observer from the outside looking in.
and the so-called "moderate, free" press of the middle-east is as well.
First of all, the majority of the arab press is not free, its state run. The government and religious structures control all the content with a iron fist.
Al-Jizzera has given a weekly show to Al-Qaradhawi where he preaches to the masses.
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=1427
"London-Based Salafi Scholar Issues Fatwa Prohibiting Suicide Operations"
27/08/2005
By Mohammed Al Shafey
Ulysses Grant, were he running the Midle East campaign, would have shut down Al-Jazeera and jailed the editors and reporters. Teddy Roosevelt would have just beat them up.
I'm not a professional in these areas, but it seems to me that four things or trends upset the 'balance' and made terrorism a viable option.
One was the fawning press coverage of the MSM to the murders in Munich.
Second was the moral victory that the Egyptians had in the Yom Kippur war. In 1947, 1948, 1956 & 1967 they had the rationalization that the West was activiely supporting their enemy and that is why they last. In 1973 they proved that the Islamic world could fight back & "win". The Egyptian army is still claiming that they weren't defeated (quoted in a History or Military channel TV show) because they "stopped the Israeli army from entering Cairo". This was the first strategic Islamic victory since the conquest of the Balkans.
Third was the Feminist movement in the Western world. Prior to that time, the stereotypical Western family could be viewed as not much different than the Islamic model. The woman stayed at home and raised children. When the Western model changed to 'liberated women', this export became a challenge to the Islamics.
Fourth was our retreat from Vietnam. Not only could the West's client state be beaten, the "Great Satan" was run out of town by the peasants.
The Islamacist clerics have justified suicide attacks by putting the emphasis on the attack, rather than on the act of the suicide.
Well put.
It's an interesting web site.
Special Dispatch Series - No. 971
August 26, 2005 No.971
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD97105
Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi and, Other Islamic Scholars Debate Suicide Operations in a Counter-Terrorism Conference Held in Sharm Al-Sheikh
The London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat has published a report by Huda Jasim on changes made to Iraqi schoolbooks following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. The new schoolbooks will be introduced with the start of the 2005/6 school year in September.
According to the report, the Iraqi education minister formed a committee of senior educators and specialists to reexamine the country's school curricula for the new Iraq. The committee proposed substantial changes to be made to the school textbooks, with the aim of completely eradicating the Saddam personality cult and placing considerably less emphasis on the Ba'th Party than the old textbooks.
The report stated that the new Iraqi history texts will present a new narrative about the Iran-Iraq War, with Iraq, not Iran, in the role of aggressor. Also, unlike the old school texts, the new texts do not teach that the Persians have throughout the ages harbored enmity towards the Arabs, and do not accuse them of sowing internal discord in Islam or of coveting the lands of Iraq and the Gulf states. Iraq is not portrayed as playing a heroic role in the wars against Israel. In addition, the new textbooks include such topics as democracy and human rights, and redefine the terms "citizenship" and "homeland."
The following are the main changes to Iraq's school textbooks for the school year beginning September 2005, which were reported on in the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report:
Eradicating the Saddam Personality Cult
According to the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report, the new textbooks no longer promote the Saddam Hussein personality cult, which had left its mark on the educational system. Thus, for example, Saddam's picture, which appeared on the first page of all of the old school books, has been removed. In a high-school English textbook, the sentence "I love Saddam" has been changed to "I love Iraq." Unlike the old texts, a new fifth-grade textbook on Arab-Islamic history does not compare Saddam Hussein to the Abbasid Caliph Harun Al-Rashid.
The following paragraph no longer appears in school textbooks: "We love you, April, month of good fortune and light. It is during you that our Party [the Ba'th] has its birthday, and during you is the birthday of our commander, President Saddam Hussein, may Allah protect him and keep him safe."
The Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report states that the sixth-grade patriotism text no longer mentions national holidays such as Army and Police Day, Teacher and Student Day, the Day of the Establishment of the Ba'th Party, Saddam's birthday, the anniversary of the 1958 July Revolution, and Victory, Peace, and Martyrs' Day. The report states: "The first chapter of the old [fourth-grade national education] textbook focused on the role of 'the leadership of the party and the revolution as headed by President Commander Saddam Hussein (may Allah keep and protect him) in caring for the Iraqi family...' In the new books, this chapter has been changed into a chapter discussing rules of etiquette, including proper manners for eating, speaking, and other etiquette topics." The new geography text reflects post-Saddam changes to the names of districts in Iraq. The former District of Al-Qadassiya is now the District of Al-Diwaniyya, and the former District of Ta'mim is now the District of Kirkuk. [1]
No More Glorification of the Ba'th
According to the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report, in addition to removing all signs of the Saddam personality cult, the new textbooks seek to clearly distinguish between the history of Iraq and that of the Ba'th Party. The textbooks no longer list what were formerly named as Ba'th Party achievements. For example, the Saddam-era sixth-grade textbook Modern History of the Arab Homeland contained the following passage: "The loyal sons of the Arab nation were able to perceive the severity of the state of schism and regression suffered by the Arab nation, and its need for unity and renewal. This is how the idea of the Socialist Arab Ba'th began. And thus, from its very beginning, the Socialist Arab Ba'th has represented the desire of the entire Arab nation to look towards its future." This textbook went on to describe in detail how the early Ba'th leaders defined the problems facing the Arab nation, and followed this with the history of the 1958 revolution in Iraq and the 1962 revolution in Yemen.
It is apparent from the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report that the exclusive emphasis on the Ba'th Party that prevailed during the Saddam era is absent from the new sixth-grade textbook Modern History of the Arab World. This book's fourth chapter focuses on the July 1952 revolution in Egypt, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the Egyptian resistance to the "1956 tripartite aggression," the 1958 union between Egypt and Syria, and the Algerian revolution of 1954. Only within this context is the July 1958 coup in Iraq also mentioned. According to the report, the new Iraqi schoolbooks do not deal at all with the 1963 and 1968 revolts which brought the Ba'th to power in Iraq. [2]
A Change of Attitude Towards the Persians
The negative Arab attitude towards the Persians, a well-known cultural phenomenon since the days of early Islam, was cultivated and strongly encouraged under Saddam, and the Saddam-era textbooks clearly reflected this orientation. The Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report shows that the new textbooks are adopting a more positive attitude towards their neighbors to the East. Absent from the new history texts are statements such as "the stark hostility which Persians harbor towards Arabs" and "the Persian conspiracy against Arabism and Islam." The new Islamic history textbooks do not, as the old ones did, accuse the Persians of fomenting civil strife [fitna] during the time of the first three Caliphs, or of playing a role in the murders of the Third Caliph 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and the Fourth Caliph 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. All statements about the war with Iran have been omitted from first-grade reading texts, including "I want to write a letter to my father and his friends who are at the front fighting our Persian enemies and defending the homeland," and "We congratulate you for the victory, oh soldiers. Commander Saddam, we salute you for our victory."
Presenting the Iran-Iraq War in a Different Light
According to the report, the new textbooks reflect an extremely significant change with regard to the 1982-1989 Iran-Iraq War. Contrary to the narrative taught during the Saddam era, that Iranian aggression led to the war, the new books teach that Iraq began the war, and that the war ended without a clear victory. For example, the following paragraph from a Saddam-era text was not included in the new history texts: "On September 4, 1980, Iranian forces shelled Iraqi towns, closed the Straits of Hormuz to Iraqi ships, and shelled 'industrial' installations and boats anchored at the [mouth of the] Shatt al-Arab. The brave Iraqi forces reacted to this aggression on September 22, 1980 – that is, 18 days after the operative moves by Iran to conquer Iraq. The courageous Iraqi army showed the Iranians that these covetous designs were nothing but unrealistic delusions, as the Iraqi army crushed their military forces in one battle after another in various places, and did not permit them to them defile Iraq."
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reports that the new textbooks have also dropped chapters accusing Iran of irredentist aspirations in the Arabian Gulf, which the Iranians call the Persian Gulf.
The following paragraph has been omitted from a sixth-grade history book: "The region of the Arabian Gulf was for centuries subject to Iran's covetous. The Iranian danger to the gulf region is similar to the Zionist danger in Palestine, because Iran falsely claims that the region of the Arabian Gulf should again belong to it. Its claims to Bahrain prove this. In order to realize the covetous Persian designs on Arab territory, Iran plotted with Britain in 1971 to conquer the three Arab Islands in the Arabian Gulf, Tanab Al-Kubra, Tanab Al-Sughra, and Abu Musa, once Britain evacuated them. Due to its conquest of these islands, Iran came to control the Arabian Gulf's Straits of Hormuz."
As part of the change of attitude towards Iran, also not included in history books was a chapter about Iraq-Iran relations following the 1979 fall of the Shah of Iran. One such passage is: "Iraq expected that the new government would change its attitude toward it, and turn over a new leaf in the relations between the states, which were to be founded on mutual respect and good neighborly relations. However, after the Khomeinists took control of Iran, it became clear that they were nothing but an extension of the former government and that they harbored more rancor against Iraq and against the Arab nation than their predecessor. The covetous designs against Iraq and the Arabian Gulf were brought out into the open, and Iran's new rulers began to declare openly, on official occasions and in the media, that they wanted to 'export the revolution' outside of Iran – meaning impose their regime over Iraq and the countries of the Arab Gulf. Their claim that they rule according to Islamic law is nothing but a screen covering their imperialist designs. Islamic law has nothing to do with their actions, which contradict the doctrines of Islam..."
Iraq's Role in the Wars with Israel
The Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report also says that the new textbooks do not include paragraphs from the old texts about the Iraqi army's heroism in the 1948 and 1973 wars against Israel. The fifth chapter of the Saddam-era sixth-grade Modern History of the Arab Homeland included a paragraph on the subject of "Iraqi objection to the U.N. partition plan" that was also not included in the new text. The old text explained: "The socialist Arab Ba'th Party played an important role in resisting the Jewish and Zionist forces, because the party created, from among its warriors and supporters, groups of volunteers who fought alongside the Arab forces for the liberation of Palestine."
As for the role of the Iraqi army in the 1973 war, the Saddam-era text includes the following: "On the Syrian front, the Syrian army could have achieved a clear victory over the Jewish and Zionist forces in the Golan Heights; however, the Syrian forces did not press on due to orders issued by Syrian ruler Hafez Al-Assad. The situation was reversed; the Jewish and Zionist forces took the offensive and advanced towards Damascus, which would have fallen into Zionist hands were it not for the fact that the Iraqi army arrived with amazing speed, entering the fray and fighting heroically. Thus, the Iraqis saved Damascus, and would have brought victory had the Syrian regime not accepted the ceasefire."
A New Definition of Citizenship and Homeland
The new text on national and social education reinterprets the term 'citizenship.' In previous textbooks, this term had been defined as love of the homeland, the people, and the commander; the new textbooks present it as an inner conviction based on connection to the country and the people living in that country.
The new textbooks also define the term "homeland" differently than the old books. According to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the old books stated that the "homeland" was "the territory where the people lives, whose resources it uses, and upon which it builds its culture. It is comprised of districts, cities, localities, and villages. Our homeland is Iraq, which is part of our greater, pan-Arab homeland." The new text states that the "homeland" is "where any given people lives. It has stable and recognized borders, and is where [the people] builds its culture. Other nations must respect these borders. It is the right of every human being, without regard to his developmental level, to have a homeland…"
As for "citizenship," the Saddam-era text states: "Our basic, fundamental duty to the homeland is to defend and protect it from invaders and from those who covet [our land], so as to protect its freedom, glory, honor, and independence. Defense of the homeland is carried out in many ways - the most important of which is to join in carrying arms, and to be constantly prepared to fight the enemies who covet [our land]. This is done by joining the army, or the People's Army, or by working in the Domestic Security Forces apparatuses."
In contrast, the new textbooks refer to the state's role in promoting proper citizenship: "The citizenry is the basis of democracy. There can be no democratic society which is not based on each and every citizen. The civilized and democratic countries have established rules and principles to guarantee the rights of the citizens, so that the citizens feel safe in them. At the same time, [the citizen] undertakes to carry out his duties toward the state and society. We find, however, various societies which continue to violate citizens' rights, and in them the citizens feel neither safe nor secure."
Education for Human Rights and Democracy
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat also reports that the new Iraqi curriculum teaches that it is the right of every individual to enjoy citizenship, equality, liberty, privacy, freedom of movement and ownership, and the right to live in dignity.
I like these, and can agree with all but #2: if you believe (as I do) that suicide bombings are driven by the "honor/shame" paradigm, then "winning" in 1973 should have brought honor, not more desperation and shame.
First examine the warrior psyche: In all societies a few will wish to elevate themselves to an ultimate warrior status, i.e.: Assassins, Irgun, Nazi S.S., Marines, Gurkha, Hamas, Napoleon's Old Guard, Ninja, Commandos, Spartans, etc. Those who self-image themselves as ultimate warriors obcess over fear and how to innoculate themselves from it. The warrior caste they join requires devotion to its many mantras, some of which are: Devotion to authority, physical and mental perfection, emotional self-control, never be taken prisoner, die for your brothers, make the enemy die with you, etc. Through initiation and group acceptance, the warrior's new belief system has a new fatalism. The warrior now has a part ownership in the caste and the final price of admission is that the caste controls the warriors fate - Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die.
Second: Very few true warriors can be mercenaries, people are always more willing to fight for an idea. The most effective warriors see themselves as leaders ("An Army of One" plays to this)and come to realize that greater leadership requires greater self-sacrifice and that ultimate leadership requires ultimate sacrifice, namely death. Warriors commonly seek hero status from the group they choose to represent either because of a need for superiority or a need to overcome some character inadaquacy (perhaps being bullied when young).
Third: The warrior caste must have a significant cause available and tactically convenient to it. The warrior caste must also see itself improved and elevated by joining any cause. If it does, it will commit its fully initiated true-believers. The death of the member warriors is simply an extension of the operational tactics. Their death is necessary as a recruiting tool and a demonstration of the groups solidarity and devotion.
Fourth: Forensic tests of tissue samples that could found of suicide bombers in Iraq show that many were not sober. High levels of narcatics and stimulants are commonly found, so much for fear.
Fifth: Tribal/hierarchical obedience in muslim societies is very powerful and ingrained. So that is easily transferred to clerics, imams, bin Ladens, Zarqawis, etc.
In summation: There is a combination of individual nurturing and lack of direction, tribal allegiance, historical inertia, munition technology, culture clash, drug intoxication, religious civil war, racial hatred, and political ascendancy, all at work here. It will not end until all facets are addressed.
Also, several sources provide financial rewards for the martyr's family here on earth. In these ways a marginalized dead-end loser becomes a hero in death that he knows he can never be in life.
Until the koran is rewritten or reinterpreted this will not change. There is trouble in River City, most definately.
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.