>> As for the religious ideology, I have seen reports to the effect that
>> the whole "martyrdom" thing is quite important to these folks
>
> Uh, these folks being the bombers, right?
Right -- and their supporters.
>> -- their moral justification is that because the bombers die, too,
>> they are showing their sincerity and strength.
>
> Well, killing oneself for a cause one believes in does seem pretty
> sincere and indicative of some strength of character. I doubt most
> people here would be willing to do that (from what they know of
> themselves now).
It could also be indicative of serious mental illness. Of course, there have been lots of commentators who have diagnosed the Palestinian bombers that way. It's interesting to compare this practice with the traditional Japanese cult of suicide (one might call it). Suicide has usually been seen as showing strength of character in that country, whereas in Western countries we assume one has to be quite crazy to kill oneself. Is this just a matter of cultural differences, or is there a way to settle this empirically?
In any case, what I was suggesting was that, in our Western Christian-influenced idea of martyrs, anyway, a martyr doesn't commit suicide and kill a bunch of other people too, she or he is killed by some authority (the Roman Empire, etc.) and refuses to avoid it.
> One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious
> principles.
> One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a
> belief, cause, or principle.
>
> One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
> One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.
>
> tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs
> To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to
> religious beliefs.
> To inflict great pain on; torment.
>
> [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek
> martur, from Greek martus, martur-, witness.]
>
> If there are any Islamic scholars here, does this definition square
> with an "Islamic" idea of martyrdom (assuming there is such a thing)?
> I'm pretty sure this definition applies to anyone, regardless of group
> affiliation, but I could be wrong . . . .
Yes, the point is to bear witness to one's convictions by *suffering* death, not causing it to oneself and by-standers. The Palestinian bombers are basically deliverers of bombs to civilian targets, who let themselves be blown up for two reasons, as I see it: to deliver the bombs as close as possible to a crowded place full of unsuspecting, unarmed civilians and to show what great heroes they are, and what a righteous cause it is that inspires them to such a heroic action. Naturally, I prefer the diagnosis of mental illness, and don't think much of the people actually running these organizations -- who don't bomb themselves, but stay in hiding and incite mostly young people to do it. But I'm only a typical secular Westerner who probably doesn't understand the profound religious meaning of the act.
> Well, creating a "Jewish place" for Jews to "feel at home" (assuming
> they can't do it where they live already) wasn't a bad idea; I could
> get behind the feelings that engendered it, much as I can sympathize
> with anarchism; it was certainly a bit more practical at the time
> than, say, demanding the authorities create and enforce hate crime
> legislation.
I wonder about that; was it really the most practical approach to the problem of anti-Semitism? I guess it varied country by country -- France was different from Germany, Russia, etc.
> <indignant snort!> Marx wasn't an American. Neither was Ghandi. Or
> Robert the Bruce for that matter.
I don't think any of these guys had this overly optimistic, can-do American attitude; Marx was well aware that the project of establishing socialism he was working on could fail, and Gandhi was a very hard-headed, realistic strategist, under his mystical image. Robert the Bruce I don't know enough about to comment on. :-)
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.