Who Are The Terrorists?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Ideas, Religion, The War On Terrorism, WarNothing Aside points to a observation about the terrorists that not a lot of focus is on.
It has long been clear to me that arguments that suggest that Islamic terrorists are motivated by the poverty of their situation are bogus. Bin Laden was a billionaire. Many of the September 11 terrorists were well educated and had real prospects for success in engineering careers or the like. And now with the London bombings, we are seeing that today’s terrorist was yesterday’s teacher’s aide, yesterday’s husband of a pregnant wife, and yesterday’s university student. What motivates Muslims of such promise to give it all up and take as many people as they can with them?
It’s a good question and the blog points to a Thomas Friedman essay that cooks up some food for thought.
Muslims are raised with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.
My first response to this was “Wow, pretty big generalization.” But then I thought about other religions and I would argue that a large chunk of Christians, Jews and Hindus are raised with the same 3.0 mentality. Sure, some religions are more flexible than others, but they seemingly all have the same superiority complex.
However, he brings it back to economics and makes a fascinating guess.
Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0.
This is interesting, because I personally think that the more open to change a religion is, the easier it will be to spread and the better off people will be because it’s more about the relationship between yourself and whichever diety you worship instead of all the ancillary things. Personally, I’m not a religious man, but I think tolerance, understanding and appreciation of an ever changing world engenders more love than restriction.
This is not to say that Islam is an inferior faith, but I could personally never practice it. Their laws governing the strict rules about relationships between men and women just doesn’t make sense to me in a society such as ours. I recently worked with a Muslim, became friends and even helped him design a logo for a laundry and dry cleaning business he was starting up in Kansas City. But whenever he would explain his relationship with his wife I openly and candidly questioned how this could create a healthy portrayal of woman in the Islamic world. He agreed issues existed which he wish didn’t, but he still enjoyed the relationship with his wife: he works, she raises the kids and tends the house.
So is this more easily explained as simply a matter of terrorists blowing themselves up, repressed frustration and anger against one’s own religion or a combination of both? Because clearly, something is terribly wrong with the men and women who do this and we need to get to the bottom of what emotions and thoughts they all share, since getting to a state where you become a martyr can not be an easy trek. If we can attempt in earnest to understand it, maybe we can help the Islamic world come to grips with why this is happening so it’s better off for all of us. We don’t get bombed and they don’t constantly get looked at as terrorists (and also not get bombed).
Now, I doubt this is what Rove meant when he talked about liberals wanting to offer therapy (please Karl, remember the poll numbers?), but if so, how else will you ever end this problem? By trying to kill or detain all potential terrorists who would give their life for Allah? The logisitics alone make my head spin. Something else is needed and I think it has started and will continue so we can solve this problem together. That’s the only way you can truly put an idea like terrorism six feet under.
In any event, I thnk I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter. However, anybody who attempts to point at the entire faith as the problem is missing…well, the point.
UPDATE: 2:51 a.m. CST
From the comments section, Donklephant contributor and essayist Michael Totten points to this essay from Paul Berman written the month after 9/11.. Needless to say, it’s poignant.
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 16th, 2005 and is filed under Ideas, Religion, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 16th, 2005 at 2:37 am
This is the best thing I think has ever been written on the subject. It’s an essay by Paul Berman, published in The American Prospect shortly after September 11, and later expanded into a book of the same name.
July 16th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Thanks, I’ll update the post to reflect this.
July 16th, 2005 at 5:52 am
My first response to this was “Wow, pretty big generalization.� But then I thought about other religions and I would argue that a large chunk of Christians, Jews and Hindus are raised with the same 3.0 mentality. Sure, some religions are more flexible than others, but they seemingly all have the same superiority complex.
Actually Friedman is referring to a literal and mainstream idea of Islam: that it is the third and most current revelation of God. It is “better” because it represents an actual historical progression, in which Christianity improved on Judaism and Islam improved on Christianity. This is not an idea found in other major religions – not surprisingly, since the others are all older than Islam.
It seems pointless to accuse any religious believer of having a “superiority complex” regarding their religion, since it’s hard to imagine anyone devoting themselves to a religion that they thought to be inferior. If you mean that all religions imagine themselves holding a worldwide monopoly some time in the future – that isn’t true, either.
July 16th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Good points here …
I believe there are a few reasons were in Iraq, and it has little-to-nothing to do with terrorism …
It’s about regime change and the terrorist attacks, Sept. 11th, et all aren’t the reason but the opportunity to put in motion the prototype or beta version of the Wolfowitz, and others’ plan
There’s a revolution, civil war, whatever you want to call it going on within the Muslim world, about Islam … In short, the extremists of Islam believe, among other things, the moderates have become too complacent, too “Westernized” and they want to bring it all back …
Freidman, and some others (including Christopher Hitchens) have had some good writing on this recently (as noted by Justin’s snippets) …
Iraq was a gift for the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) boys, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfield, Cheney, Libby among them … Their paper, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century – Rebuilding America’s Defenses kind of lays that all out …
Iraq was an easy target to launch this in … Saddam was weakened by the first Gulf War, and the UN sanctions … Militarily, the entire world knew it would be a no-brainer to overcome the Iraq Army …
There was talk from the administration, after taking Baghdad about, “winning the hearts and minds” but that comes from sense of a more traditional war, and occupying/liberating force … They completely miss the bigger picture of what was going on in the Muslim/Islamic world … Kind of like showing up for a party in costume, when everyone else is in formal wear …
Where’s the talk and plan from the administration, the State Department about engaging and assisting the Arab world in denouncing the terrorists? All they talk with is military force and “terrorists being brought to justice” … Can anyone point to a trial and sentence of a terrorist (or “enemy combatant”), either from Sept 11th or the fighting in Iraq or Afghanastan?
Last night, Carlson Tucker on his ‘Situation’ (I was channel surfing, so no slams here) read from a recent poll in three muslim countries .. I think it was India, Indonesia but not sure, I missed that part … One of the survey questions was “Do you have confidence in Osama bin Laden? … Over 85% said “Yes” and Tucker pointed out how different these countries were, socially, econmically – the only common point was religion
The Arab/Muslim world has to get off their asses and work just as hard, harder even, on “recruiting” the young would-be suicide bombers … It’s not a military issue, but more of religion/social/economic … Until that happens, we get the never-ending cycle of violence, death and destruction …
Peace
JTD
July 16th, 2005 at 7:51 am
I’m sure that the rampant corruption in the Middle Eastern states has something to do with the disaffection of Arab youth, making it easier for these terrorist masters to recruit for their cause. Whilst Islam itself may not be the root cause, telling young men that fighting “jihad” will mean Paradise and uncountable virgins, is certainly a factor in their favor.
July 17th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Justin,
First off, thanks for the link. I just found this great blog the other day after following Michael Totten’s link. This blog definately has potential.
My comment was going to be spectacular, but then Glen beat me to the punch. He’s right that some clarification of Friedman’s point is needed. Friedman, I think, was pointing to the simple chronology of the religions. Islam began after all the others and is seen by its followers as the latest, and therefore more important, revelation of God. As such it would indeed by God 3.0.
Another thing: I don’t necessarily think that all Muslims see their religion in this way. Similarly I don’t think all Christians or Jews or Hindus see their religion in this way either. Most people are accepting of the beliefs of others and while they certainly think their belief system is the best in their eyes, they also see that others may differ. However, fundamentalists, whether they are Islamic, Christian, Jewish, etc., tend to be the ones who see religion in this contentious, “our way or the highway” formulation. This is when we get into trouble.
July 17th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Hey all, thanks for the clarification of the chronology. I didn’t even think about that when I read it, but it makes sense for and maybe it was Friedman’s aim to have the reader make that leap.
However, I still think a good deal of honesty is needed within each faith so that we can see what propels people to horrific acts in the name of “_______.” Because mind you, every religion has it’s own bloody history. Is this all really just the effect of misinterpretation of what is considered unquestionable or something larger? I don’t know, but I’m willing to have conversations to figure out why.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
english guy said: “I’m sure that the rampant corruption in the Middle Eastern states has something to do with the disaffection of Arab youth, making it easier for these terrorist masters to recruit for their cause.”
Does that apply to Leeds?