Curious about Islam and Suicide Bombing

jimmycrackcorm

I'm very curious about about the islamic perspective on how this occurs.
i.e. what is the rational behind it and what is the logic - is it simply poor people with nothing else to fight with or does Islamic religion gravitate people to these methods in a way that say Catholic IRA men would not have?

The only similar analogy I can think of is Japanese Kamakazi pilots during world war two - perhaps there are similarities.

But why Islam and not Christian though?

Wibbs

AFAIK, suicide is totally against Islam(like most religions). Major sin and hellfire beckons kinda thing. OK, if you die in defense of the faith, but that ain't suicide. If it was a load of the Catholic saints would be in trouble. Even if it did have any basis(which it doesn't), some muppet blowin themselves up in a crowd of civilians is against the Islamic rules of war as non-combatants are off limits for a start.

While I wouldn't exactly be the greatest defender of Islam, suicide bombing would have no basis in Islamic theology. I suspect you'll find few Islamic scholars would disagree with that.

I'd say the practice stems from the same twisted theological muppetry that has "Christians" killing abortionists in Alabama.

jimmycrackcorm

I suppose what I am asking is why is it common to Islamism and not other religions. Where does the fanaticism come from when it is against the teaching?

what's this story about having 40 virgins waiting in Heavan - is that myth or is it taught?

Wibbs

IIRC, it is there somewhere. I can't remember if it's in Hadeeth or the Quran though. It seems to only apply to men who are martyrs in the faith.

Maybe we see it as more common in Islam for a few reasons. You could say that the other world religions have become increasingly secular recently and become more "spiritual" than concerned with daily life. After all the Christians were involved in the crusades a while back. Christian women had the tradition of covering their hair, yet few do so today. Islam would have more instruction on daily behaviour, from clothing and washing etc. It's less "secular". More a complete way of life. The Quran, while open to debate and interpretation would be considered unchanging. While the other religious books out there would be similar, the instruction has less of the daily physical context that the Quran would have, so change might be easier. Also, the other world religions with maybe Sikhism as an exception would have had less military traditions in the faith itself. Mohammed was a great miltary leader as well as a great spiritual one.

Many of those who become suicide bombers would be quite un-educated from our point of view as well(not all though). The only book they would have read is the Quran. Add some "mad Mullah" with a political axe to grind, who pushes the more martial aspects of the teaching, disregarding the peaceful passages and you've a recipe for disaster.

Regardless all of that would still make suicide bombing in the form we have today, completely against Islam. Fighting with weapons against foreign non believing invaders and maybe dying in the process, might be OK, indeed heroic in the faith. Blowing yourself up and killing women and kids would, I suspect have the Prophet the first one to rightly speak out against it.

marco murphy

Many of those who become suicide bombers would be quite un-educated from our point of view as well(not all though). The only book they would have read is the Quran. Add some "mad Mullah" with a political axe to grind, who pushes the more martial aspects of the teaching, disregarding the peaceful passages and you've a recipe for disaster.

Regardless all of that would still make suicide bombing in the form we have today, completely against Islam. Fighting with weapons against foreign non believing invaders and maybe dying in the process, might be OK, indeed heroic in the faith. Blowing yourself up and killing women and kids would, I suspect have the Prophet the first one to rightly speak out against it.

Cannot argue with that one bit:)

archdukefranz

Wibbs wrote:

IIRC, it is there somewhere. I can't remember if it's in Hadeeth or the Quran though. It seems to only apply to men who are martyrs in the faith.

Maybe we see it as more common in Islam for a few reasons. You could say that the other world religions have become increasingly secular recently and become more "spiritual" than concerned with daily life. After all the Christians were involved in the crusades a while back. Christian women had the tradition of covering their hair, yet few do so today. Islam would have more instruction on daily behaviour, from clothing and washing etc. It's less "secular". More a complete way of life. The Quran, while open to debate and interpretation would be considered unchanging. While the other religious books out there would be similar, the instruction has less of the daily physical context that the Quran would have, so change might be easier. Also, the other world religions with maybe Sikhism as an exception would have had less military traditions in the faith itself. Mohammed was a great miltary leader as well as a great spiritual one.

Many of those who become suicide bombers would be quite un-educated from our point of view as well(not all though). The only book they would have read is the Quran. Add some "mad Mullah" with a political axe to grind, who pushes the more martial aspects of the teaching, disregarding the peaceful passages and you've a recipe for disaster.

Regardless all of that would still make suicide bombing in the form we have today, completely against Islam. Fighting with weapons against foreign non believing invaders and maybe dying in the process, might be OK, indeed heroic in the faith. Blowing yourself up and killing women and kids would, I suspect have the Prophet the first one to rightly speak out against it.

The crusades were wrong according to the Bible, when Christianity started out it was considered wrong for a Christian to be part of the army, I seriously question the crusades legitimacy as a slight against Christianity.
However it seems Islam is based on territorial gain, unlike even OT where the only territory gained was a tiny strip of land and no more, Islams goal (at least from the actions of the early followers) seemed to be massive expansion.

Islam also seems to be involved with almost every conflict around the world, the Muslims in Israel, the Muslims in Chechenya, the Muslims in Afghanistan, the Muslims in Sudan, in Iraq...

I have many Muslim friends, I'm not saying they are out to get us, but I do spot an errie patern, and I would like this addressed and not dismissed.

Hobbes

and how exactly pray tell do we address it? Also please back up your assertions with facts (goes for your other post too).

archdukefranz

Hobbes wrote:

and how exactly pray tell do we address it? Also please back up your assertions with facts (goes for your other post too).

by not giving X standard repsonse are arguing with/aggreeing with it

example of standard response, "you obviously don't understand their culture"
"you are a racist/bigot/whatever"
...

which assertions need backing up now?

Are you unsure there is a problem going on in iraq or afghanistan?

Hobbes

You said "I would like this addressed and not dismissed.". So I would like to know what your opinion is on how to address the issue.

You also said "However it seems Islam is based on territorial gain," yet you quoted some conflicts when this was the reverse case. Which is why I asked you to back up your assertions with facts.

Please read the charter.

jimmycrackcorm

Back on topic.....

Still doesn't explain why suicide bombing appeals so much to muslims and not to Christians. Surely there are uneducated / poor / militant christians too but they're not know to follow the same track.

My theory is that such fundamentalist view come from Islam being a seemingly so strict religion that binds people to a viewpoint that seems completely unquestionable.

If you look at Catholics and contraception - sure who pays attention and if a sin is committed then you can just avail of confession. Not very strict at all.

Talliesin

Suicide bombing has been found to be an effective terrorist tactic (which is to say, it's a tactic which can massively reduce the target population's faith in the institutions of the state to protect them) by several groups, not all of them Islamic or quasi-Islamic.

Factors deciding whether suicide-bombing is deemed a reasonable tactic include:

• Ease of recruitment.
• Training (military, or other skills deemed useful) level of recruits.
• General attitudes in the community towards altruistic suicide (more generally, towards any act that guarantees your death, but benefits your community).
• Difficulty of attacking by other means.
• Risk of capture.
• Risk of being killed attempting a different type of attack.
• Treatment of captured comrades.
• Success of previous such attacks.

Of these they only factor where one's religion affects things directly is in the attitudes towards altruisitic suicide.

If we consider the case of someone who runs in front of a train to push a child out of it's path we would generally deem this to be a commendable act of courage that most religions and philosophies would support (exceptions including Satanism and Objectivism).

As such most people not deem it to be suicide at all.

Considering then the case of a soldier who in the heat of battle finds that the only way to save his comrades is to trigger an explosion that would inevitably kill him.

This would not be a commendable act in the minds of an absolute pacifist, but to someone who supports military action this would still be seen as an act of bravery. Indeed, while such situations are probably not very common, they are a mainstay of action films and the like.

Following this path along it's not hard to see how some would see actually engineering a situation where such an explosion took place would be commendable. This tactic was used militarily by the Japanese in WWII, the Viet Cong and NVA in Viet Nam, and elsewhere.

If someone saw things this way and also supported the targetting of civilians then it's not hard to see how they could support suicide bombing. Hence while Islam prohibits suicide, and individual Muslim could well convince themselves that a suicide bombing is more closely comparable to the two situations mentioned above than it is to simply taking one's own life, and as such not truly suicide at all.

While the IRA did not use such a tactic they did use hunger-striking to the point of death, and also targetted civilians. To turn the question on around, we can ask "why did the IRA not use suicide bombers?"

Looking at the original points above, they did not have a large number of unskilled volunteers for such attacks; their numbers have been estimated in the hundreds and those people were trained to the extent that other groups would be trained by them in exchange for other resources (e.g. the PLO would supply training grounds in exchange for training by the IRA). They were able to engage in other types of bombings, mortar attacks and shootings. They were able to stay at liberty unless there was sufficient evidence to convict them. While it is likely that at least some allegations of mistreatment of prisoners are true they were able to obtain relatively good conditions if imprisioned. While there were cases of so-called "shoot to kill" campaigns the risks of death rather than capture was relatively low. Finally large scale bombings had been found to be of mixed success in terms of the propaganda effect they were intended to have, and as such suicide bombings may not have proven a useful tactic.

As such it simply wouldn't make much sense for the IRA to make use of such tactics. The fact that they were mainly Catholic and almost entirely Christian or Atheist isn't much of a factor in this at all.

Wibbs

While Talliesin makes very valid points, I would suggest that martyrdom in physical battle is more prevalent as a concept in Islam than many other religions.* This kind of martyrdom is rewarded by a higher place in paradise(virgins, flowing wine etc). If you look at the Christian version of martyrdom its a more passive affair, where they're thrown to lions etc.

Theology like that married to the altruistic suicide that Talliesin speaks of would make it more likely to find an Islamic suicide bomber rather than a Catholic/IRA one. Even if as has been pointed out before, suicide and especially the killing of civilians is considered beyond the pale in Islam. There is quite a large minority of Christian Palestinians who hate Israel and want an independent state, but there are none I can find who have followed this method of their fellow countrymen.

Where they get the logic from a theological point of view for targeting civilians is the mystery. Get it they do as many of these suicide bomber types would consider themselves religious and defenders of Islam. Many if not all would have gotten most of their guidance from clerics. As I said before, there's a lot of twisting of scripture in that area.


PS Great post Talliesin.

You could add the Tamil tigers to the list of suicide bombers too(Hindu IIRC).



*Just as an example;
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca)" Italics mine

archdukefranz

You forgot the cubans, they used that same tactic, but generally on military targets...
the ira focused on civilan targets but using bomb warnings to get people out of the area

the splinter group that killed civilians in omagh are monsters
just the same as a man who gets on a bus and blows himself up killing random people, some going shopping, some to work/college/school is also a monster.

There is no justification to kill civilians.

archdukefranz

Hobbes wrote:

You said "I would like this addressed and not dismissed.". So I would like to know what your opinion is on how to address the issue.

You also said "However it seems Islam is based on territorial gain," yet you quoted some conflicts when this was the reverse case. Which is why I asked you to back up your assertions with facts.

Please read the charter.

Early Islam started off with taking over large parts of land, all the way to spain.
Its seems to be a lot about territorial gain.

Currently I can think of a single armed conflict in the world that doesn't have Islam on one side of the fight.

AARRRGH

I'm pretty sure if the Palestinians had the tanks and helicoptors and guns that the Israelis have, they'd use them instead of suicide bombs.

Hobbes

archdukefranz wrote:

Early Islam started off with taking over large parts of land, all the way to spain.
Its seems to be a lot about territorial gain.

Yes but you are talking about what time in history exactly? Your rationale doesn't follow. If thats the case the French, Italian, Spanish and English culture are all based on territorial gain as all have owned large portions of the globe at one time or another.

Currently I can think of a single armed conflict in the world that doesn't have Islam on one side of the fight.

Northern Ireland Conflict?

archdukefranz

Hobbes wrote:

Yes but you are talking about what time in history exactly? Your rationale doesn't follow. If thats the case the French, Italian, Spanish and English culture are all based on territorial gain as all have owned large portions of the globe at one time or another.

That still doesn't change the fact that the people who are the example by which everyone "should" follow ie muhammed and co. were quite hot on expansion.

Oh and are you saying that Islam is a remnant of that era?

Hobbes wrote:

Northern Ireland Conflict?

Not currently an armed conflict, or at least what I'd call "hot"

archdukefranz

dublindude wrote:

I'm pretty sure if the Palestinians had the tanks and helicoptors and guns that the Israelis have, they'd use them instead of suicide bombs.

Palestinians? Who are the Palestinians? Are they the Druze, the Israeli Arabs, the Jordanian/Syrian/Egyptian/Lebaneese arabs who live in what was known as British Mandate Palestine?
I reckon if any one of the terrorist groups (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah...) got this kind of weaponry it wouldn't help them much in the struggle to wipe out the Jews in the middle east, I think what they have (explosives, rockets etc), it works much more effectively at murdering civilians than a helicopter, a tank or any other weapon that not only requires a great deal more training to use but would provoke a open war. And a war is something that not even the PLO spin doctors would be able to lie their way out of.

Hobbes

Ok this thread has reached its course. Its a toss up between Humanities and Politics. This might be better discussed in Humanities.

Please ensure you read the charter of the new forum.

dalk

archdukefranz wrote:

Currently I can think of a single armed conflict in the world that doesn't have Islam on one side of the fight.

The World At War. Take your pick.

You could just as easily say that most of the conflicts involve Christ on one side.

jimmycrackcorm

dalk wrote:

The World At War. Take your pick.

You could just as easily say that most of the conflicts involve Christ on one side.

I don't think you'll find christians fighting in the name of their religion.

There's been some very enlightening insights in this thread. Talliesin gave an excellent in-depth analysis and probably one of the best posts I have ever read on the boards, but I think wibbs gave a fairly good rationale for my opening post.

Zombrex

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I don't think you'll find christians fighting in the name of their religion.

Christians have been fighting in the name of their religion for the last 2000 years.

Wibbs

True, but with the salient difference that nowhere did JC tell his followers to take up arms against anyone, believers or not. Mohammed most certainly did. The fact is that justification for "holy" war is far higher in Islam.

Talliesin

Wibbs wrote:

nowhere did JC tell his followers to take up arms against anyone

He did tell Peter to obtain a sword.

Sleepy

One other factor as to why the IRA didn't use suicide bombings was, to their credit (and as anyone that knows why I don't post in Politics anymore knows, I'm far from a supporter of Sinn Fein IRA), the IRA didn't actually target innocent civilians very regularly. For the most part, their campaign was built around trying to inflict as much economic damage as possible as this was what the British government seemed to pay more attention to and it didn't carry the same bad PR as innocent civilians being killed.

Add to that, the IRA men were never in as desperate a position as the Palestinians and weren't fighting an enemy prepared to level an apartment block full of non-combatants in order to take out a single man.

Wibbs

Talliesin wrote:

He did tell Peter to obtain a sword.

Which from what I can find is considered a figurative passage(Christian types can help here). After all this is the same bloke who says that "Put away your sword, as all who live by the sword die by the sword"* when Peter tries to defend him from arrest and certain death(also re attaches an Italian lads ear with the holy band aid of Antioch to boot). Blessed be the peacemakers and all that. I seem to remember he didn't even call for war against a non believing army of occupation like the Romans. Hardly compares to ten years of Mohammed's caravan raiding, slave taking, mass killing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#The_killing_of_the_Banu_Qurayza_men.2C_per_Ibn_Ishaq and battles of conquest, that left him ruler of all Arabia, now does it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#War

I do agree with wicknights point that Christians have been fighting for their God for the last 2000 yrs, but justification for that strife is far far harder to find in the teachings of jesus(or any other religious founder for that matter), so my original point that justification for "holy" war** is far higher in Islam stands, I reckon.









*Didn't know that was a biblical quote. There ya go. Good oul google, learn a new thing everyday

** Not justification for suicide bombing against civilians though.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

but justification for that strife is far far harder to find in the teachings of jesus(or any other religious founder for that matter), so my original point that justification for "holy" war** is far higher in Islam stands, I reckon.

Now if Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus we would be fine.

Unfortunately "Christians" can find a justification in the Bible to do pretty much anything they want to do, from starting wars to stringing up homosexuals to bombing an abortion clinic, in exactly the same way a commited Muslim can find a passage in the Quaran to justify blowing up a bus full of children.

The idea that Christianity is in some way a safer religion because Jesus didn't say "go have a holy war" is rather weak in my view, and ignores why religious violence, from raping women, to killing homosexuals, to blow up buildings, occurs in the first place.

Freelancer

Sleepy wrote:

One other factor as to why the IRA didn't use suicide bombings was, to their credit (and as anyone that knows why I don't post in Politics anymore knows, I'm far from a supporter of Sinn Fein IRA), the IRA didn't actually target innocent civilians very regularly. For the most part, their campaign was built around trying to inflict as much economic damage as possible as this was what the British government seemed to pay more attention to and it didn't carry the same bad PR as innocent civilians being killed.

Two points

A) the IRA regularly went out of their way to attack civilian targets, Enniskillen, Warringpoint, The Bread factory murders, Gillford, Birmingham, the bombing campaign on mainland britain.

The IRA killed more civilians than any other side in the conflict, the IRA killed more catholics than any other side in the conflict. I submit that a "sure we were aiming for the other fella" isn't really a comfort to the families of the innocents killed.

Secondly the IRA had martyrs; the hunger strikers commited suicide in a longer and more drawn out campaign than strapping semetex to yourself. If you accept that a sucide bomber has two functions, 1) to cause maximum carnage and harm draw awareness and intenternational recognition to your cause, the hunger strikers were (to use a Al Quaida euphemism) extremely effective "martyrdom operatives."

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Now if Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus we would be fine.

I suppose that's true, but you also could say that if Muslims actually followed many of the dodgier teachings of Mohammed we would be up our necks in slavery, lesser womens rights and wars of conquest(not as I've pointed out suicide bombers though).

Agree with Freelancer on his points re the IRA.

Freelancer

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I don't think you'll find christians fighting in the name of their religion.

1700.

Thats the number of attacks on abortion doctors in the USA since 1977, by fundamental christians.

Wibbs wrote:

I suppose that's true, but you also could say that if Muslims actually followed many of the teachings of Mohammed we would be up our necks in slavery, lesser womens rights and wars of conquest(not as I've pointed out suicide bombers though).

The flip side of this, if you take the bible literally you should be stoning people who plant the seeds of two different crops in the same field, and I should be allowed to sleep with my slave if my wife cannot conceive.

Talking the word of The Koran or the Bible literally can usually lead to trouble , and moderate Christians and Muslims, will admit that the meaning of their holy books need to be re-interperated for the modern world.

Its the fundamentalists on both sides of fence who cause the problems, be it Pat Robertson claiming Arial Sharon's stroke is punishment from God, or Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti calling for Jihad.

Sand

Which from what I can find is considered a figurative passage(Christian types can help here). After all this is the same bloke who says that "Put away your sword, as all who live by the sword die by the sword"* when Peter tries to defend him from arrest and certain death(also re attaches an Italian lads ear with the holy band aid of Antioch to boot). Blessed be the peacemakers and all that. I seem to remember he didn't even call for war against a non believing army of occupation like the Romans. Hardly compares to ten years of Mohammed's caravan raiding, slave taking, mass killing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qu..._per_Ibn_Ishaq and battles of conquest, that left him ruler of all Arabia, now does it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#War

An important point to remember that Mohammed existed, warts and all. Meanwhile, a certain Italian priest is going to have a hard time proving Jesus existed in his trial, as the earliest Gospels were forumlated a century after Jesus death, written in Greek, not Aramaic that was spoken in the Apostles culture and they disagree on Jesus's family history/birthplace and so on. Essentially it seems likely the life Jesus is based on a Jewish revolutionary who fought the Romans in the 1st century AD. Or at least, there is no evidence Jesus of the Gospel existed. But then, it wouldnt be a matter of faith if there was.

My point is its not fair on Mohammed to compare any failings he may have had as a human to a man/myth that may have actually been a constructed heroic image of Che Guerva proportions...

I suppose the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islams formative years came as they conquered an empire, whereas Christianitys came as they were victims of an empire. Hence different perspectives on state power and justification of violence. The concept of just christian war came centuries after the founding of the religion, but it came much, much faster with Islam.