I certainly understand the terror and damage caused by a suicide bomber. I disagree that suicide bombers do this because they hope for afterlife sex. They are driven to do this for overtly political reasons and because they have no hope for a better life.
Obviously humans are complex creatures with complex motivations, and as you say, their political and sociological situation may make some of them more receptive to certain ideologies. But that can't be the whole story, and I think their religious beliefs do matter a great deal. For one thing, not all of these people are poor or repressed. A significant number of them are well educated, middle class citizens of western countries who have become radicalized by militant preachers. Others, like Bin Laden, are multinationals in possession of a vast fortune, a lot of which they owe to their dealings with the west. It's hard to argue that those people are angry with the west because they are poor and disenfranchised. A lot of these people, by their own words, are angry with the west not so much because we are rich and they are poor, but mainly because they feel that the west is interfering with their pursuit of the establishment of Islamic dominance and rule. For example, one of the main gripes about the war in Iraq was that they view the U.S. as being in collusion with the Shi'a majority government, whom they view as apostates. One of the first clashes with Al Qaeda was over the separation of East Timor from Indonesia - hardly a case of a rich western country oppressing a Muslim society. And of course, there is a broader clash of cultures here as well. It is hard to imagine a bigger cultural divide than exists between the west and extremist Islamic sects, and by their own words, these people really do despise western culture (which explains attacks against nations that have done little to anger radical Islamists in the way of political or military interference, like Denmark, Belgium and Holland).
It's also impossible not to anger these people and retain core values, like those of freedom of expression and freedom from/of religion. Draw a little cartoon, or write a novel, or say
anything critical of their beliefs, and you will be marked for death.
EDIT: Just wanted to add something that I came across today while reading about the ideology of IS. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi once said:
“The rulers of Muslim lands are traitors, unbelievers, sinners, liars, deceivers, and criminals.”
And
“[we believe that] fighting them is of greater necessity than fighting the occupying crusader.”
The text then goes on to emphasize that the main use of offensive Jihad employed by IS is against (the perceived idolatry and apostasy of) the Shi'a, and later it states
While “the Crusader forces will disappear from sight tomorrow or the day after,” the Shi‘a will remain “the proximate, dangerous enemy of the Sunnis…The danger from the Shi‘a…is greater and their damage worse and more destructive to the [Islamic] nation than the Americans.”
Now, does this make sense if this is really all only a reaction against western mistreatment? Although it is undoubtedly a factor, I think it's a stretch to think that it's the whole story.
In any case, it's an interesting read so far, so I'll leave the link here:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/ideology-of-islamic-state-bunzel/the-ideology-of-the-islamic-state.pdf
reply
share