One friend wrote:

I’m willing to allow the posibility that the theology behind “Islamic” suicide bombings is of a very marginal sort (I’m also willing to allow that it’s mainstream – wry grin) but when the suicide bombers themselves claim to act from a religious motive I really don’t know that Pape is right to try to wisk it away.

Nathan responded:

Fair comment. But, we surely have to acknowledge that the vast majority of violence and long term conflicts are given religious justifications by their perpetrators. That’s not new. It has always been the case. When “Christians” in Northern Ireland or the Balkans used religious explanations for their violence, most of us would have been happy to argue that it wasn’t really an expression of their Christian commitments, but a hiding of other motives behind a religious facade.

If Pape is right that serious research shows that the clearest statistical relationship to terrorism is not a particular faith allegiance, but a particular perception of political oppression and foreign occupation, then I reckon that has to be taken seriously. The fact that people describe their perception of their oppression in religious terms is no surprise. So does George Bush. It is always easier to say that “I’m doing theses things in obedience to God” than to say “I’m doing these things because I am and angry and violent person.” It is just the religious version of the Neuremburg defence: “I was just following orders.” Surely that is such a known universal human reflex that we have to factor it in to any consideration of the claimed motives of terrorists.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

And more:

You could swap the names around and the description would work equally well for some of the Christian right-wing extremists who shoot abortionists or commit atrocities in the Balkans. The most notable difference between the atrocities committed by Muslim extremists and those committed by extremists of other faiths seems to be the willingness of the perpetrator to kill themselves in the process.

Personally, I don’t think it is the suiciding that is terrorising us all, it is the bombing. Maybe holding the two terms together is clouding the issue. Perhaps if we separate the two issues, they will look something like this:

– The people groups who are most likely to commit terrorist acts are those who perceive themselves as being dispossessed and humiliated by another people group or nation, and who feel powerless to do anything about it by peaceful and legal means.

– The people who are most likely to be willing to willingly kill themselves in the process of committing terrorist acts are those in the aforementioned group who are young, angry, fanatical, and who hold strong religious beliefs in an afterlife reward and in the righteousness of their cause. On this one, there is a religious difference – Islam seems to give its adherents a greater confidence in an afterlife than most other religions.

I too suspect that there are genuine links between Islam and terrorism, but my take on them is different.

1. A theological foundation: Islam and Judaism both have strong theologies of sacred lands – places that are absolutely central to their faith and which the desecration of or foreign occupation of is therefore perceived as an intolerable blasphemy. Most forms of Christianity do not have a comparable sense of being bound up with a particular homeland. I suspect that that is a major factor in why there is more violent militance among religious extremists associated with Islam and Judaism than Christianity. Christians are more likely to interpret a military occupation in purely political terms and less likely to interpret it as a religious blasphemy and humiliation.

2. A politico/demographic foundation: the nations most actively involved in military occupation of other nations are currently nations whose dominant religious affiliation is with Christianity. A number of the nations presently experiencing a major foreign military occupation are predominantly Islamic.

3. Combine the above two factors, and I think you have a recipe for escalating terrorism.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

And back to the first friend:

(1) I agree with two points made by Pape (points already acknowledged in previous posts); (i) that one of the declared objectives of suicide bombers is to end occupation by foreign troops. (ii) that while a great many Muslims share the bomber’s theology, they do not resort to suicide tactics – by implication suicide bombing is _not_ a logically necessary outcome of such theology.

(2) I make two observations regarding the weakness of Pape’s methodology; (i) it requires a particular definition of “religion” which is open to question – by what standard does he determine that the actions of the Tamil Tigers are “secular”? Slippery subject that – particuarly as the Tamils define themselves in religious/ethnic terms (i.e. Hindu Tamils in destinction to Buddhist Sinhalese). (ii) what he demonstrates is that “all suicide bombers have a strategic goal”. This is not the same as demonstrating that “no suicide bombers have a religious motivation.”

(3) If one reads more broadly around Pape’s area one will discover that; (i)

his position is not shared by all working in the field – there are numerous commentators (some Muslim) who affirm the religious basis of “Islamic” suicide bombing (in fact, his work is an attempt to counter this opposing view) (ii) he does not, in fact, discount religious aspects to suicide bombing. In an interview with “The American Conservative” Pape stated that

“I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn’t occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils.” – see http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=15030

And, note here the sudden reintroduction _by Pape himself_ of religion as a factor in the actions of the supposedly “secular” Tamils!

(4) While I agree that religious difference plays a part in many conflicts, I am not sure that this is the same as to claim “religious justification”. I am unaware, for instance, that the IRA _ever_ claimed their actions to be motivated or justified by Roman Catholic theology. In their own self-understanding their actions were always political – albeit persuing the political agenda of a particular religiously (and culturally) defined group. Sure, they wore the label Roman Catholic as a badge of distinction – but their aim was always to establish a secular republic. I think in this regard there are some distinctionst to be made between the Irish republicans (and loyalists) and Osama bin Laden’s crew. They are similar in that their self identity is formed (partly) religiously, they are different in the way they make use of that self-identity. One reason, then, that you can’t call the IRA’s terror campaign “Christian” is because the IRA never claimed that it was.

(5) Those responsible for “Islamic” suicide attacks clearly want more than withdrawl of foreign troops from “Muslim” soil. For instance;

“The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.” (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html)

So you see, a much broader socio-political agenda than simply “American troops out”.

And the fact that their actions target “apostate” Muslims – not just American soldiers – should alert us that there is something more than politics at work.

In short, I think that Pape’s work is interesting, I certainly don’t dismiss it as unimportant. But while it may give a good general overview of the common factors behind suicide bombing _generally_, I don’t believe it comprehensively addresses the particular question of suicide bombings in the name of Islam.

~~~

And more:

Hi Nathan,

Where Pape reintroduces religion into the debate is not in the Age article you cited, but in his interview with the American Conservative reproduced in the The Asian Tribune http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=15030).

Here he acknowledges that religious differences help to “demonise” opponents as a means of motivating suicide bombing.

Is cynically suggest that while the Tigers are politically atheist/marxist, this doesn’t preclude waving the Hindu banner when it furthers the cause.

And as the subject will come up…

I believe that the connection between Islam and suicide bombing to work (roughly) like this; (1) a small cadre of ultra-radical Muslims posess a particular political-religious agenda (in their theology there is no separation of church and state, making arguments about “political” vs “religious” motives moot). (2) they emphasise those aspects of Islamic theology which will (1) demonise “the enemies of Islam” whether that be Jew, Christian or “apostate” Muslim and which will (2) garner sympathy with potential supporters. (3) from among these potential supporters those who can be exploited to commit suicide attacks are so exploited. (4) boom!

Note a few points here; (i) Leaders of Muslim extremist groups – despite their theological rhetoric – generally decline to enter the gates of paradise via “martyrdom missions”; (ii) those who do carry out suicide bombings are often young, idealisic, naive and easy to exploit (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/exploit.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3515710.stm); (iii) the recent London bombings indicate that living under “American oppression/occupation” is more an ideological issue than a matter of life experience.

I hope I’m making it very clear that any connection of suicide bombings to Islam is (1) a connection to a particular theological/political stream of Islam to which not all Muslims adhere and (2) exploitative in the extreme.

I just can’t come to the view that the connection is non-existent.