Religion and Terror

One of the big puzzles about Islamic terror is the idea that the truly wicked things the terrorists do might be somehow commanded by God. Like most people (I hope) I've struggled to understand how exposure to Islamic teaching could make a person think it's a good idea to go and blow up a train full of commuters. It seems that for certain minds, the infidels are so excluded from God's love that the rules are relaxed and they can do what they like with them, even things that they themselves are expressly commanded not to do. 

The dissonance this has created since September 2001 is fierce, and underlies tracts such as Sam Harris's The End of Faith. I had mixed feelings about the book when it came out.  I like a good polemic - it's passionately written, and less predictably doctrinaire than Richard Dawkins, for instance. I was also impressed, and also slightly surprised, by his openness to psi phenomena - he has read Radin and Sheldrake, and thinks that Stevenson's work may even suggest evidence for reincarnation. He would like to see mystical experiences explored with an open mind, while 'shedding the provincialism and dogmatism of our religious traditions in favor of free and rigorous enquiry.' (p. 41)

But I was deeply sceptical about his thesis that, because the Koran contains passages that urge violent acts, the rise of Islam means we're doomed. My impression is that many if not most devout Muslims ignore the objectionable bits in the Koran just as most Christians sensibly overlook the Old Testament demands for people who work on Sundays to be put to death. People who are on a spiritual path respond to the best in religious teaching, because it resonates with the best in themselves. The other stuff just gets filtered out. That may not make much sense to a logical mind like Harris's, but in practice it's the way most humans are - thank God.

So I was fascinated by the findings published today by MI5 about the relationship between religion and terror. The spooks have apparently made in-depth studies of several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or associated with, religiously inspired violence in Britain.  And guess what? They aren't really religious at all, in any meaningful sense. Far from being zealots, the study says that British Islamic terrorists don't practise their faith regularly. Many are not literate in their religion, and should be considered novices at best. Very few have strongly religious backgrounds  and tend more often to be recent converts. Some even take drugs, drink alcohol and visit prostitutes, ignoring the Koranic proscriptions.

Interestingly, the promise of an afterlife as a spur to suicide attacks doesn't seem that significant either. There's no sense that would-be suicide bombers are strongly attracted to the idea of virgins in paradise - most who are over 30 have steady relationships and children - so the stereotype of the sexually frustrated young man up for an eternity of shagging is quite wrong, although the report says some may find psychological security in a belief in future rewards. Nor are the terrorist groups at all picky about who they recruit. The report says they are remarkably tolerant of individuals with serious criminal histories, even if they continue to be involved in drug trafficking, assault and even rape.

From MI5's point of view, the findings aren't terribly helpful. It seems the terrorists are not obviously mad or bad, and can come from any ethnic group or race, and any level of education, which means there is little that makes them stand out from the crowd and easier to catch.

I suppose one should be concerned by that, but the report leaves me personally feeling a bit reassured. Deep down I've never really accepted that a person who by any conventional measure is religious - says prayers, attends services, keeps God's commandments, and so on - could be a cruel fanatic bent on creating orphans and widows.  Of course this only applies to Brits, and a different dynamic may apply in Muslim countries. But it's good to know that the link between religion and terror is perhaps not as strong as we've been led to think.

Comments

[The Major]

This is very interesting. I'm sort of defensive about religion because I do think it's a bit of an underdog these days, and people tend to use unfair techniques when arguing against it.

It's often argued that religion is the cause of so many wars, such as in Northern Ireland, the Israel-Palestine conflict, even going back to the Crusades.

However, no war in the history of the world, to my knowledge, has been solely about religion. It may play a role, but it's usually about something else such as politics, land, resources, bigotry. To state that the end of religion would be the end of war is such a ludicrous proposition that I can never believe intelligent people say it.

And for those who do proclaim war in the name of religion, can they truly be considered religious people? Certainly food for thought.

[Mark]

Well, you definitely should be concerned about the fact that these types of people are not easily identifiable. It would make people even more concerned to think that - gasp - they might even be acting quite reasonably. I personally think that terrorism gets a bad rap sometimes. I remember that soon after 9/11 a dude on CNN made the point that terrorsits don't use terrorism because they like the idea - they use it because it's all that they have to work with. If they had tanks and aircrafts they would be using those, and it would be a lot easier to take into account and try to minimize collateral damage. Also, I'm sure that if these terrorists had a chance in hell of doing serious damage to the military of a given nation, they wouldn't be bothered with blowing up little kids in marketplaces. These people don't fight the way that they do because they are sick or irrational people; they fight they way that they do because they have no other realistic choice, other than doing nothing.

[Tony M]

It has always been apparent to me that looking for the religious roots of radical Islamic fundamentalists is wrong-headed.

It's also politically self-serving for certain political positions. If, as they would have us believe, Islam is a dark tide of irrational, implacable hatred, and that human nature itself is unamenable to reasoned argument, there is no alternative but to arm ourselves to the teeth and "protect: ourselves through great violence. It's a justification for the security state and/or those who profit from it. (Dick Cheney, anyone?)

I always thought - and this report supports - looking at the rise of Fascism for a more suitable model for understanding what is going on. Consider the 9/11 murderers. They were almost entirely middle class Saudis. They came from a class that benefitted from the modern Saudi state, yet they are excluded from taking part in it and exercise little or no control over their destiny. This to my mind makes them very analogous to the lower middle classes that formed the backbone of the origins of the Nazi party and other fascist groups.

Now, culture does shape the response to modern political disenchantment in many ways. Take the Irish Hunger Strikers (about whom I have many complex feelings, and whom I do not group with radical Islamic or fascists). To the outside world, the hunger strikes were bizarre and fanatical. But within Ireland and the Irish Diaspora, they had a cultural context that made them very powerful. The suicide bombers are part of a culture that in some way offers support that lets them excuse murder as somehow a sacrifice on their part. But the important point is that the political disenchantment comes FIRST, and the manner of expression comes afterward and is shaped in complex ways.

To me, the analogy with fascism can be extended further. There has always been a division between its leaders/ideologues and the foot soldiers who fill the ranks. (Remember how the Nazis purged its own more working class wing after they took power?) The gulf between Bin Laden, part of an enormously wealthy family, and the poor bastard in poverty in the West Bank, is enormous am similar to many such gulfs seen in other fascist movements.

Again the point is that the roots of radical Islam are not in the Koran. They are in the modern Islamic states with their jumble of wealth and poverty, western ideas and misinterpretations of an ancient past. The reactions and the mixture are not unique to the middle east. They could be found in Germany and Spain in the early 20th century. What is unique is the culture context that shapes the expression of political discontent.

And what will transform it is the gradual growth of prosperity and a growing stake in the running of their society. 70 years ago, militarism, anti-Semitism and nihilism where considered part of the German character, an irrational atavistic and insurmountable obstacle to their peaceful co-existence with the rest of Europe. Now - a few fanatics aside - it is impossible to imagine German invading France. Did human nature change that much in 80 years? No. But German society is utterly transformed.

Religion is not the problem. Religion CAN BE an expression of the problem. It can shape it, just like any other cultural world view. The problem is what it has always been: the belief that we do not share in or have a say in the society we live in.

[Sue Hickey]

I am reading an excellent book by Chris Hedges called "I Don't Believe in Atheists" where he totally rebuffs arguments of Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. Keep in mind that Mr. Harris is quite a bigot when it comes to Muslims and tars everyone with the same brush! Hedges' book is great. He has a Masters in Divinity but has won numerous awards as a journalist (he was their chief correspondent in the Middle East for years). He has no time for fundamentalists in general, both "rabid atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc or for religious fundamentalists, either. It's a great book and he says that while people have used religion for millennium as an excuse to justify bad things, far more have expressed the good side of faith in their works. He says that these "New Atheists" don't research what they criticize, either. Sam Harris hasn't read the Qu'ran, just a couple of passages. He knows nothing about Islam, a wonderfully complex faith, and he says Muslims should be wiped out!

[Mark]

I like Sam Harris, personally, and I agree with him that religion is a bad thing. He may go overboard sometimes, but I think that he is generally correct that if religion was annihilated it would make the world a better place, and ironically would help psi research (and even, perhaps, research into the afterlife!). Harris is probably wrong in saying that religion is by far the biggest contributing factor as to why people would want to blow themselves up, as there are many major contributing factors as to why someone would want to do such a thing - like the one that I posted in my last post, but, at the very least, religion is one of the major contributing factors. Eliminating Islam, as well as religion in general, can only help the situation, though probably not totally solve it.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

I think it is clear that every system of thought can be used to opress people or as an excuse to spread hatred. With religions this is quite obvious from the past, the christian crusades, terrorism now.
But this also happened with materialism or atheistic systems of thought, look at how China is devastating the Tibetan culture or what happend with the communistic countries.

I think it also is a question if the terrorism has anything to do with religion itself! Just as the dogmatic ideology of scientific materialism has little to do with science itself. If one studies religions in depth it is clear there is a huge distinction between the orthodox side of religions with all its rules, dogmatisms, do's and don't and the esoterical side of religions which is the essence of the religion, the unspeakable truth, the direct experience of spirit and self transformation. Unfortunatly the esoterical mystical side is not practiced by much people.
Even in Islam this esoterical side is there: the sufi's, or the gnostics in christianity.
The other extreme is the absolutist orthodox side which can result in violence if one focuses on the wrong dogmas.
It's way to easy and ignorant to just think religion is bad and equals terrorism. Religion clearly also has some great things.

[Mark]

The way I understood it, China is giving Tibet a hard time because of the fact that Tibet is trying to breack away and not following the Chinese laws. I don't think that this qualifies as using materialism or atheism to spread terror, or at the very least it's not using atheism in the same way as religious people use religion. As far as the "esoteric" side of religion, I would rather we use logic, reason and science to study that, and completely eliminate the orthodox side.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

What about Stalin? Or the other communist states where torture, oppression was/is very common. Or Hitler another fine atheist. And it is true China is giving Tibet a hard time because it is trying to break away. They try to break away because China invaded Tibet in the 50's! They destroyed nearly all monestaries, killed millions of people, commited cultural genocide and children in school are now thaught that tibetan buddhism is crap and scientific materialism is the only thing that brings truth. If you need more examples... but it is pretty clear that atheism and materialism can create as much destruction and oppression as religion did. In fact atheism and scientific materialism is a religion for a lot of people.
I'm totally not saying atheism or scientific materialism is inherently bad, I'm just saying every system of thought or ideology can be used to oppress people and this is not something exclusivly for religion.
I don't see the difference with "religious" people using religion as an excuse for their hatred or the idea that they are right and can oppress people for that reason...

[Mark]

Well, I'll certainly agree with you that any system of beliefs can theoretically be used to one's advantage. I can't say, though, that I agree with all of your conclusions. I don't believe that Stalin killed because he was an atheist or because he wanted to advance the cause of atheism, but because he wanted power. That's different from a religious person killing because he wants to advance the religion. I also don't know that the Chinese invaded Tibet simply because they were atheists looking to try to spread the word. I don't think that it's fair to hang these atrocities around the neck of atheism simply because atheists committed these acts. Certainly we can't necessarily always hang atrocities around a religion's neck, either just because a believer commits such atrocities. I guess my point is that it would be easy to come up with religious people who committed atrocities for the sole or main purpose of advancing their religion, but a lot harder to come up with atheists who committed atrocities for the sole or main purpose of advancing atheism.