Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections

I used to let questions and remarks about this subject pass unanswered because answering them in a few lines simply isn’t possible. Not answering them is however not much of a solution. Hence I thought it could be useful to write this short analysis.

Introduction.

Especially in the USA many seem to have the idea that “the Muslim world” is some sort of monolithic bloc where all nations are clones of each other. This impression often comes combined with the idea that “shari’a law” governs them which then must be “based on Al Qur’an” and therefore must be everywhere the same. That impression of a monolithic bloc called “the Muslim world” is as far removed from reality as the idea of “one shari’a law” that is “based on Al Qur’an”.

Many Europeans, having a history intertwined with that of the MENA and being themselves citizens of nations with each their own languages, cultures, constitutions etc… usually can look at this with a more realistic view on the diversity within the Muslim world. Yet when it comes to the legal systems and if and how this incorporates elements of shari’a, the confusion is almost as great about this as it is elsewhere.

In addition most people have the idea that the violent actions they witness – the so-called suicide bombers with their appeal to Allah as justification for their actions - are the result of a more recent history of the region. In reality this is of course only a surfacing, dramatic result of a much longer process. To gain some understanding about this an overview of significant differences between what is usually called “the Muslim world” and “the West” is a necessity.

Before I try to paint such a picture, some remarks

1. Since this isn’t supposed to be a bookwork I shall limit myself to comment on the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region.
2. When I talk about the situation of Muslims in “the West” that is aimed at mainland-Europe. However, when talking about “the West” in context of the main target of the Radicals and causes and context of this radicalism, it should be clear to all those who ever read any “statement” made by some of its leaders that this includes the USA (and sometimes the USA only.)
3. This is only a global, hence by default generalising and superficial, description of some main elements in societies I see as important for a Western audience to become aware of in order to understand where this radicalism is rooted.
4. My focus and goal is to give the reader an idea how such radicalisation – constituting no less then a rape of Islamic dogma and teachings - can be successful in influencing people, Muslims, to commit the most horrible acts while screaming “Allahu Akbar” (=God is the Greatest of everything ever possible).
5. I call such groups and individuals Radicals because “fundamentalist” is a typical US term that can only be understood and applied within the typical Christian context where it originates. The word formerly didn’t even exist in Arabic. The meaning of “fundamentalist” in a (US) Christian context doesn’t cover what I mean with naming “Radicals” those you would call “fundamentalist Muslims”. That should become clear – I hope - while you go on reading.

Chapters can be found here:

http://ad-dabaran.livejournal.com/

1. Being Muslim
2. Political MENA.
3. Social MENA.
4. MENA and the West.
5. MENA goes to Europe.
6. MENA and Wahhabi influence, over there and everywhere.
7. Radicals: The strategy.
8. And what about Al Qur’an?
9. The future.
10. The Danish cartoons.

Like I said, a very short and of course largely incomplete and generalising analysis on a very complex issue, yet I think it can provide for a start of further discussion or questions.

salaam.

I'll paste my reply from the other thread here (and leave the other one for its topic and the trolls )

Very interesting - I don't actually have time to read it all right this moment, but so far you're making plenty of sense.

An article you might find interesting (although I suspect you're already familiar with the subject ):

http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/PhilosopherOfIslamicTerror.htm

Which is all about Sayyid Qutb (I probably spelled that very badly!) and the philosphy/ideology that informs 'Al-Qaeda' - and the wide and deep gap between this philosophy and the philosophies that the west holds true. Very interesting read, as it's by a NYtimes journalist who is discovering it for the first time - he makes some good points.

PS : It seems that many western transliterations of arabic words have multiple spellings. Are people making them up or is there no formal way of translating the phonemes?

As you shall discover I included Qutb in the analysis, with a link to an informative page. At some later time I shall (maybe) write that out myself. He is not the only influence on the line of thinking of the Radicals, but I see him as the most important.

Academic translitteration of Arabic follows a few standards, usually a writer indicates which one is followed in his work. To spell them outside such a setting is always a matter of perception. Arabic has a few consonants with different forms and some other sounds alien to most Westerners. Doubled consonants are written as singular and short vowels are not written in standard language use, and vowels can also function as a consonant and then we have of course the hamza (indicates a glottis stop).
To make it even more difficult for the average non Arabic speaker names are not always what Westerners are used to see as "name" and (what you call) "Christian" name.
Praise yourself lucky that you don't have to work through ranges of names and surnames and nicknames people used to have in earlier days, to find out "who" on earth is "who" exactly. You can fill shelves with bookworks that only handle about that art of name finding

salaam.

Aldebaran said:

I used to let questions and remarks about this subject pass unanswered because answering them in a few lines simply isn’t possible. Not answering them is however not much of a solution. Hence I thought it could be useful to write this short analysis.

Click to expand...

Yes, it can... Islam is used as an excuse (and justification) for many horrible things, many horrible people. And different Muslim govenrments aren't the same. Some, if not most, are quite nice and welcoming people...

Sorry if this is a revelation to you. Have you actually been to a country where the state religion is Islam...?

jæd said:

Yes, it can... Islam is used as an excuse (and justification) for many horrible things, many horrible people. And different Muslim govenrments aren't the same. Some, if not most, are quite nice and welcoming people...

Sorry if this is a revelation to you. Have you actually been to a country where the state religion is Muslim...?

Click to expand...

mmm.. I happen to be born in a nation where Islam is the State Religion, and I happen to live there. (I don't know where "Muslim" is a State Religion. That this exists is indeed a revelation.)

salaam.

Aldebaran said:

mmm.. I happen to be born in a nation where Islam is the State Religion, and I happen to live there. (I don't know where "Muslim" is a State Religion. That this exists is indeed a revelation.)

salaam.

Click to expand...

Ok... So what, apart from your extensive knowledge of Islam, makes you U75's official interpreter of Islam, and Muslims and their aims...?

What has all this to do with this thread? Can you stay on topic please or if you have nothing to say, why do you enter it?

salaam.

Ok... So what, apart from your extensive knowledge of Islam, makes you U75's official interpreter of Islam, and Muslims and their aims...?

Click to expand...

Currently, a respectful approach, an obvious knowledge, an interested readership and the absence of a challenger.

Very interesting work, but I think you underestimate the current influence and future potential of "the Radicals."

jæd said:

Ok... So what, apart from your extensive knowledge of Islam, makes you U75's official interpreter of Islam, and Muslims and their aims...?

Click to expand...

i think you've answered your own question

Aldebaran, Interesting thread and when I have sometime I'd like to read thru the link you've posted.

mellowmoose said:

i think you've answered your own question

Click to expand...

Well... The link is interesting but it doesn't say anything one can deduce for ones-self. And in a lot fewer sentences.

Do I have anything to contribute. Yep, and it was bit more concise than the original poster.

jæd said:

Well... The link is interesting but it doesn't say anything one can deduce for ones-self. And in a lot fewer sentences.

Do I have anything to contribute. Yep, and it was bit more concise than the original poster.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see someone with such an insight. I'm looking forward to read your abundance of works on Islam and everything related and other academic publications. Where can I find them?

salaam.

Aldebaran said:

I'm glad to see someone with such an insight. I'm looking forward to read your abundance of works on Islam and everything related and other academic publications. Where can I find them?

Click to expand...

Right... I must have missed the faq point where only posters with and established works and published papers may post on a subject:

Pray tell, which publications have carried you most recent paper...? And which name should I search on Google for a complete directory of your works...?

I've scan read this so please correct me if I err.

As somebody born into a deeply sectarian society were religion is a dangerously passionate part of politics I find Muslims I now live amongst a rather level headed bunch. As a Leftie I have serious problems with religious people in general and am vexed by the desire to live under Sharia and prevalant Muslim anti-Semitism in particular but let's leave that aside.

There's a lot here on the prejudiced view of Muslims in the West and this is true. Islam isn't a monilith, its great core is peace and moderation, even within the Salafi, like Outb, a majority seek a way of peace. It's a like viewing Americans as Astronauts and Cowboys.

I would say fundamentalist is an entirely accurate description of Islamic fringes like the Salafi who as you say seek a return to the 7th century and also ignore deep traditions and the constructions of the Hadith. I find them almost indistinguishable from the wilder fringes of fanatical Calvinism I grew up with, which also represents a clear perversion of scripture.

I also agree with you on suicide bombing being a recent phenomenom, and I'd recommend Pape's book on the topic. I'd add it's a throughly un-Islamic practice, espeacially alien to the Sunni.

But suicide bombing is should not be the real issue here. People have always given their lives in battle. The Germans in WWI sometimes regarded the French and British as suicidal fanatics as they did the Soviets in WWII. This says more about the failure of empathy in Germans than their opponents.

The more pertinent issues are whether the slaughter of the defenceless and unarmed can be justified based on scripture if not decency. Killing the innocent has been routine in warfare since it began but is the duty to defend the faith being corrupted? I obviously think it is but my knowlege is superficial. Where do you stand on this?

jæd said:

Ok... So what, apart from your extensive knowledge of Islam, makes you U75's official interpreter of Islam, and Muslims and their aims...?

Click to expand...

I thought Aldebaran was offering a personal, and imo interesting, dimension. Enough, in fact, to concentrate on the issues he raises, rather than resorting to that hardy perennial of attacking the poster, and making the thread about the poster, before the thread even gets off the ground.

I mean, if you or I express views on Christianity, that wouldn’t mean we're "officially interpreting" Christianity, would it? - perhaps I've got the wrong end of your stick, or perhaps you've identified a deeper and more sinister message in his link?

London_Calling said:

I thought Aldebaran was offering a personal, and imo interesting, dimension. Enough, in fact, to concentrate on the issues he raises, rather than resorting to that hardy perennial of attacking the poster, and making the thread about the poster, before the thread even gets off the ground.

I mean, if you or I express views on Christianity, that wouldn’t mean we're "officially interpreting" Christianity, would it? - perhaps I've got the wrong end of your stick, or perhaps you've identified a deeper and more sinister message in his link?

Click to expand...

Well... I think it just I kind of find his/her posting style a bit patronising. He's a relativly new poster and serving up c+p odysseys already. I'd be interested in the journals and papers (s)he has written... (Such things must have been written if she/he called me up on it...)

Reading through the LiveJournal entry it strikes me as very.... One-sided and perhaps a bit ill-informed. I think the following illustrates this: "“Muslims don’t want democracy” is a slogan you hear regularly in the West." Um... Where is this regularly heard...? I've never heard it, not even "regularly". And not something that I've heard Bush or Blur saying, and I'm guessing that it would be something they would say, it were a popular sayinh...

i dunno, i've heard it said or implied in any number of pubs, tabloid newspapers, and indeed on here. those that seek to tar all muslims with the brush of terrorist have been known to trot that sort of thing out all the time - especially recently when the sharia question came out.

Aldebaran,

I note you mention Qutb as an influence but I would be interested to learn your views on Abdullah Azzam.

He seems to be a major influence. He was Osama bin Laden's lecturer in religious studies at university but they eventually fell out. Azzam wanted to concentrate forces on Palestine and within muslim lands whereas Osama wanted to attack the west as well as the muslim lands. Azzam was killed by a car bomb in 1989 and it's possible that Osama did it.

Other candidates for the assassination include the Pakistani secret services, the CIA, mossad etc (usual suspects). But there's a pretty good chance (based on common sense) that it was indeed Osama's sect - they had motive and opportunity.

The reason Azzam's philosophy is important is because he promoted a theory that it was a duty upon muslims to attack infidels even in times of peace.

He thought that muslims should attack neighbouring countries every couple of years or so even if no hostility exists between them. Just to keep them on their toes and remind them who's boss.

He justifies his position in qu'ranic terms in his book Join the Caravan. The "radical" muslims have taken this idea on board and think that attacking infidels is always good.

By the way, I would take issue with calling them "radical muslims", I would call them "conservative muslims". Radical is when you break away from the central theme, conservative is when you try to get closer to it. These people aren't radical, they're conservative. They do a disservice to the word "radical".

jæd said:

Well... I think it just I kind of find his/her posting style a bit patronising.

Click to expand...

If you tried hard, couldn't you maybe put that down to writing not just in another language, but another script - I take it you've noticed the Arabic language looks a lit unusual ? And no, that's not intended to be patronising, either.

He's a relativly new poster and serving up c+p odysseys already.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do happen to know him from another board some time ago, so I'm less wary. However, his "c+p odysseys" are (a) his own work, and (b) not posted on this board.

Reading through the LiveJournal entry it strikes me as very.... One-sided and perhaps a bit ill-informed.

I think the following illustrates this: "“Muslims don’t want democracy” is a slogan you hear regularly in the West." Um... Where is this regularly heard...? I've never heard it, not even "regularly". And not something that I've heard Bush or Blur saying, and I'm guessing that it would be something they would say, it were a popular sayinh...

Click to expand...

Lets discuss that then, rather than the poster himself?

Fwiw, I think I'd agree 'we' don't hear that message much, but then we don't live in the Glorious Heartland, where many do believe Bush's absurd freedom messages - perhaps, like Muslims, 'we're' not all thinking the same, not least because, like them, 'we're' exposed to different media, as well as different leaderships.

Indeed, many would be horrified if people in the Middle East assumed views expressed in the Mid West were endemic of all westerners. Which, I think, is one of Aldebaran's points.

banjo said:

Aldebaran,

... I would be interested to learn your views on Abdullah Azzam.

He seems to be a major influence.

The reason Azzam's philosophy is important is because he promoted a theory that it was a duty upon muslims to attack infidels even in times of peace.

Click to expand...

From what I understand it the true muslim, or conservatives as you choose to describe them, are moving away from following ideas pushed by 'leading figures' to a more anarchist interpretation.

This revolves around the (Islamic) premise of complete monothesism, which sees following anything but the Quraan & hadith as 'the subjugation of man by man'. In other words there should be no clerical hierarchy.

Some interesting comments already
I shall try to come back to this later today.

Some not so interesting "comments" too of one single poster.
1. he didn't read or for some reason chose to overlook my thread asking if this board WANTS a thread like this
2. he has no clue about my private PM conversation about the subject with editor
3. he can't use the "report this post" button if he has some issues with me or this thread...

so, Jaed, if you want a thread filled with comments on me, my posting style etc.. etc.., why don't you just make one (everyone is entitled to have a hobby) instead of disturbing mine.
= We try to set up a decent conversation/discussion = We do not try to set up a "Let's hate Aldebaran Fanclub and disturb with joint forces every thread he makes or even every thread in which he makes one single post". I had such a very active Fanclub already on the "other board" London Calling speaks of, but since that was Made in USA and I was the only Middle Eastern ever posting there and they were (many still are) in full "let's nuke them all" mode, that was really no miracle. If you are that type of poster then I have a good remedy for that. You could however use that method too if you can't look at my posts without feeling your blood tension rise. Problem solved. Case closed.

salaam.

Just for background Pape whose book Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism I plug above, gave a short speech at The Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose Conference and it can be seen on video there.

I just - quickly- read the interview with Pape.

He makes good points but seems to miss or overlook what I described in my little analysis = how on earth "Islam" can be - and is - used to motivate and brainwash suicidal terrorists.
Of course one can't bring forward everything in a short interview. Probably he doesn't overlook that in his book? It looks like an interesting work. I hope to find a translation in an language I know. Would be easier to read.

The links with Marxist-inspired groups like the Tamil Tigers is not an unusual insight and in my view - note that I am in no way occupied with studying "suicidal terrorism" - a correct assessment of the international situation. From what I read and heard on the subject, links and contacts are detected between methods and ideology of other such groups, both from the left and from the right and even where you wouldn't expect it since they have not in the least something to see with Islam or Muslims.
It comes down of course to further political goals and like I said: that is also a domain where Islam itself provides for a platform that can be exploited. You can't make that work in a religion like Christianity, for example.

salaam.

London_Calling said:

Fwiw, I think I'd agree 'we' don't hear that message much, but then we don't live in the Glorious Heartland, where many do believe Bush's absurd freedom messages - perhaps, like Muslims, 'we're' not all thinking the same, not least because, like them, 'we're' exposed to different media, as well as different leaderships.

Indeed, many would be horrified if people in the Middle East assumed views expressed in the Mid West were endemic of all westerners. Which, I think, is one of Aldebaran's points.

Click to expand...

Yes, are they...? Without any source for this quote we know neither if it is true or just an exaggeration... If it were true, countries use propgandanda against each other... How is this suprising...?

Aldebaran said:

3. he can't use the "report this post" button if he has some issues with me or this thread...

Click to expand...

So... If Aldebaran posts up nuddy pics or posts general violates the posting rules then we can't brng up this... Must've been some wonderfu conversionsation he had.

Aldebaran said:

We do not try to set up a "Let's hate Aldebaran Fanclub and disturb with joint forces every thread he makes or even every thread in which he makes one single post". I had such a very active Fanclub already on the "other board"...

Click to expand...

Perhaps if multiple threads on multiple boards go the same way, then perhaps the origional poster should learn from this. Joint forces, what joint forces...?

Aldebaran said:

He makes good points but seems to miss or overlook what I described in my little analysis = how on earth "Islam" can be - and is - used to motivate and brainwash suicidal terrorists.
Of course one can't bring forward everything in a short interview. Probably he doesn't overlook that in his book?

Click to expand...

His main point is that suicide bombing isn't a pecularly Muslim phenomenom, and that it's just a parsimonious tactical innovation and its use is motivated by foreign occupation. He does not say that Islam makes no contribution to the tactic's popularity in the ME just that this has been greatly overstated.

Christianity is very much a religion of martyrdom, we are washed in the blood of the lamb, the lamb being Christ of course and he urges us:

Matt.10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Click to expand...

Acts of suicidal self sacrifice unsurprisingly are not uncommon in Western military history though not perhaps as routine as Hollywood action movies suggest. Of course when the enemy does it they are frothing heathen fanatics.

The Arabic term for Martyr, shaheed, does not appear in the Qur'an but is found in the Hadith and unlike Christians Muslims are urged by scripture to avoid wasting their lives in extravagantly acts of suicidal piety.

Using Islam as a belief system to motivate suicide bombers in attacks on the innocent requires a very evasive attitude to The Prophet's writings on the conduct of war and an heretical attitude to Islamic views on suicide. This is rocky ground indeed but men are devious and the Salafi who discard all but their own selective interpretation of scripture have managed it. Sageman has written well on this.

It's perhaps useful here to Look back at the history of suicide attacks to discount the idea that Islam can be demonized as the source of suicide bombing.

Ironically the Jewish Sicari fighting the Roman occupation bear an uncanny resembalance to modern Salafi Jihadis.

But its actually its the self effacing Buddhist influenced societies of the Far East that seem the most naturally prone to suicide attacks, this PDF connects some of those dots. It points out that it was a Japanese group that carried out the first modern suicide attack in the Palestinian conflict, the Lod massacre.

After the Kamikazi perhaps the most famous suicide attackers were the Assassins who were Ismali Shi'ites. Martyrdom has always played a prominent part in Shi'a thought and that they were the first to perfect Suicide Bombing in the ME is not coincidental but as pape has pointed out that they were under foreign occupation at the time is probably more signifigant. That Kozo Okamoto settled in the Beka vallery is something I'll have to look into.

Interestingly the French press use the elegant term Kamikaze for a suicide bombers. Four years after 9-11 I've yet to see a Yank journalist make this imaginative connection, which is odd as it was Yanks who had planes flying into them. Perhaps their proprietors fear to offend powerful Tokyo.

To paraphrase the words of a sucide bomber, it is a sacred duty to kill Infidels by whatever means:

"I AM A TERRORIST" Marwan seems certain he is on a "pure" path. Unlike many other insurgents, who reject the terrorist label and call themselves freedom fighters or holy warriors, Marwan embraces it. "Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim." He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy."...


That would be Sura 8:60.

"It doesn't matter whether people know what I did," he says. "The only person who matters is Allah--and the only question he will ask me is 'How many infidels did you kill?'"

In the mind of an extremist Sunni a Shi'ite is an apostate and thus worthy of the same treatment, or worse; the converse is also true in respect to the extremist Shi'ite. The reason why Isam spread so rapidly was because Muslims bore little fear of death in battle against the Infidel. Waves of determined and focussed 'suicide' attacks happened from the earliest days. To die in the cause of killing Infidels was/is to guarantee an exulted place in Heaven, which for the male of the species at least was/is promised to be laden (indeed, bin laden) with all the very best spoils of war for all eternity. Wine, women, and even song is promised, more than enough to satisfy the most avarous and ectectic of taste. There will also be young boys to pander to the more exotic sexual inclinations.

FruitandNut said:

To paraphrase the words of a sucide bomber [source please] , it is a sacred duty to kill Infidels by whatever means:

"I AM A TERRORIST" Marwan seems certain he is on a "pure" path. [source please] Unlike many other insurgents, who reject the terrorist label and call themselves freedom fighters or holy warriors, Marwan embraces it. "Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim." He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy."...


That would be Sura 8:60.

"It doesn't matter whether people know what I did," he says. "The only person who matters is Allah--and the only question he will ask me is 'How many infidels did you kill?'"

In the mind of an extremist Sunni a Shi'ite is an apostate and thus worthy of the same treatment, or worse; the converse is also true in respect to the extremist Shi'ite. [source please]

The reason why Isam spread so rapidly was because Muslims bore little fear of death in battle against the Infidel. [source please]

Waves of determined and focussed 'suicide' attacks happened from the earliest days. [source please]

To die in the cause of killing Infidels was/is to guarantee an exulted place in Heaven, which for the male of the species at least was/is promised to be laden (indeed, bin laden) with all the very best spoils of war for all eternity. Wine, women, and even song is promised, more than enough to satisfy the most avarous and ectectic of taste. There will also be young boys to pander to the more exotic sexual inclinations. [source please]

Click to expand...

Deja Vu? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3580541#post3580541

The first one looks like it's pulled from a Time article .

I've seen FruitandNut use some more 'interesting' sources before this though. See e.g. this thread (he comes in at post 8, as the discussion develops and from post 12 onwards, it becomes clear that his sources include stuff that I personally consider very dubious)

Bernie Gunther said:

The first one looks like it's pulled from a Time article .

I've seen FruitandNut use some more 'interesting' sources before this though. See e.g. this thread (he comes in at post 8, as the discussion develops and from post 12 onwards, it becomes clear that his sources include stuff that I personally consider very dubious)

Click to expand...

(Italicised for emphasis)

Agreed. He doesn't seem to know his Al from his El. Neither do his sources either.