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!
Versions of this story are found in just about every medieval account of the Assassins. I have no specific source, and I unfortunately don't have the time right now to research it.
I'm not sure that the honor / shame of suicide issue comes into play, I'm not convinced that the bombers view themselves as committing suicide.
The islamics always use a term that is translated as martyr. The labeling of them as 'suicide bombers' is in error.
I believe that they view themselves as warriors. They carry out their orders joyfully, evidently believing that they will enter paradise. I would believe that it is easier to be motivated if your culture has a victory
They are pumped up, attacking the infidel to protect their homeland. Not depressed as suicides are considered to be.
They also know that their allies in the media will give them at least 1 - 2 minutes of air time per show per event for each "suicide". This is "free advertising" for the terrorists.
If the 'paradise' & MSM support factors did not come into play, we would be hearing about another sniper shooting. Whether or not it was connected to the islamic terror organizations, the DC sniper incident proved that they couldn't trust that route since their message might not get out ('We are looking for white guys in a van'). The islamics learned that if they didn't control the message + the messenger, the islamic terror component could be censored.
Mostly it was the Muslim Brotherhoods which became influential. His ideas served their cause, and apparently his extensive writings (mostly from prison) are very eloquent.
The Muslim Brotherhoods struck a chord in the wake of the abolition of the Caliphate (by Ataturk: during the Ottoman era, the Sultan was the Caliph, before that various Arab dynasties held the position).
Agree with all. My focus is more on the aspects of honor and shame/humiliation, and concepts (or lack thereof) of "sanctity of life" in Islam.
That's exactly what I'm referring to as "honor." Their "martyrdom" brings them, and their familes honor (see Saddam's $$ paid to the families).
No religion reveres it's warriors and their crusades more than Islam. Muslim crusades were driven by greed but are carefully cloaked in religious salvation.
The concept of "honor" is largely of tribal importance only and would contribute a very minor driver to the suicide bombers.
Middle Eastern peoples are very insular and xenophobic and parochial. The pre-Perry Japanese have nothing on them. Saudi sand is sacred, all our Gulf War equipment had to be inspected as completely sandless by Saudis before leaving the Gulf. That anti-foreign bigotry is irrational enough to cause a need for a retaliation 'call to arms' and is a basic theme of bin Laden.
It should be considered and not misunderstood that bombing is a tactic, not a strategy. The bomber's leadership does not want to lose its most motivated fighters but needs the increased effectiveness of a fully delivered munition, that's all.
In the fight for Falluja, many jihadists openly ran at Marine positions, smiling and chanting and firing as they ran. The results were predictable. What was unusual was that most wore untightened tourniquets on their arms and legs to continue their attacks after being badly wounded. Life was precious to the jihadists and their leaders and is to be preserved at all costs and death is only the last tactical result, not its goal.
They don't see themselves as suicidal at all. Islam has at least as high a sanctification of life as any religion. They revere the purposed death just like we see the necessity of Jesus' crucifiction. Christinity would not exist without martyrdom. Jihadists believe they strengthen Islam in just the same way.
I think I disagree with your take, as it seems at odds with everything else I'm reading about shame and honor, but this is all very helpful nonetheless.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477356/posts
FYI: A Brief History of the Tailban (not too long, pretty insightful)
FYI: A Brief History of the Tailban (not too long, pretty insightful)
University of Alberta ^ | Dr. Saleem Qureshi
Posted on 09/04/2005 5:27:45 PM CDT by yankeedame
A brief history of the Taliban
by Dr. Saleem Qureshi
Dr.Saleem Qureshi
"Taliban" is the plural of talib, literally meaning seeker, in context, a seeker of knowledge, i.e., talib-e-ilm, or a student.
The Taliban were the children of Afghan refugees who fled their country in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that started on December 25, 1979. The refugees were housed on the Pakistan side of the frontier where relief and education were provided by religious organizations in Pakistan, funding and organizational facilities by Saudi Arabia and the CIA.
The schooling was provided by religious parties, particularly the Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Islam, a fundamentalist part that espouses the most puritanical, restrictive and harsh interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence, variously called Deobandi (in India and Pakistan), Wahabi (in Saudi Arabia), and Hanbali (one of the recognized four schools of Sunni fiqh-jurisprudence).
The Taliban thus represent the least progressive or moderate interpretation of Sunni Islam and along with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under Taliban rule was the only country to be so closed off from the rest of the world.
Prior to the Taliban, the majority of Afghans, like the majority of Indian-Pakistani Muslims, Turks, Central Asians and Caucasians, belonged to the most tolerant and eclectic interpretation of Islamic Law, i.e., Hanafi.
Starting with the communist coup of April 20, 1978, and exacerbated by the Soviet invasion of December 25, 1979, the 'reforms' that were introduced so conflicted with the Afghan values that they were identified as anti-Islamic, making it incumbent on every Afghan to oppose those 'reforms' and the advocates of those 'reforms'--that is, the Afghan communist rulers and their patrons, the Soviets.
The Americans, who saw the opportunity to humiliate the Soviets, enthusiastically encouraged the Islamic dimension of the Afghan nationalist war against foreign occupation, hence the rise of Jihad and the Mujahideen, who were then the darlings of the CIA. Osama bin Laden was a Mujahid who developed a mind of his own, independent of his CIA creators.
The Soviets departed in defeat but left Afghanistan in shambles. The Afghan society, which has always been tribalistic and historically held together by traditional loyalty to monarchy, had no acceptable symbol of legitimacy any more.
Even during the insurgency and at the height of Jihad against the Soviets, no Afghan Khomeini emerged to unite the various tribal strands that were engaged in combat against the foreigner. Consequently, on the departure of the Soviets, and once their surrogate, Najibullah, had been dislodged, Afghanistan was faced with a political vacuum.
This vacuum was made worse by the fighting between the contending forces of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani, tribal leaders vying for exclusive control. Kabul suffered a great deal of damage as a result of bombardment and the rather cruel treatment of the population by the contending warlords.
In this environment of war entered the Taliban, supported by Pakistan, and promising peace and stability.
By 1996, the Taliban succeeded in establishing themselves as the rulers of most of Afghanistan. Though harsh and very restrictive, the Taliban rule succeeded in providing peace and security to the Afghans under their control.
The Taliban are Pushtuns, who account for almost 48 percent of the Afghan population and their area is mainly the southern half of Afghanistan. To rule Afghanistan, the rulers have to have the support of the Pushtun; all the rulers of modern Afghanistan since its founding in 1747 have been Pushtuns.
Pushtunwali is the customary law of the Pushtuns, which has two major pillars: honour and hospitality. Honour lies in freedom, and an Afghan will not willingly tolerate to be ruled by a foreigner--as the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th century learned to their dismay. Hospitality means that an Afghan will never surrender a guest, especially to the enemies of the guest so long as even a single member of the host family is alive. No wonder those who know the Afghan culture know that you can coax an Afghan into hell, but you can't push him into heaven.
Thanks. More good stuff.
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.