Religious martyrdom part of tradition that fuels terrorism

Martyrs memorial in Tahrir

Martyrs are highlighted historically as providing impetus for development of religious community cohesion in the inception of many faiths. They are sometimes lauded by religious leaders, but when martyrdom is fused with politics, as in Islam, the issues become complex and offer serious problems in war and domestic conflicts that includes terrorism.

Christian martyrs were those who died for their beliefs, according to Christian history. These martyrs have been the substance of many tales about those professing belief in Jesus going to their deaths on crosses, in the den of lions and in other terrifying ways. Death by the sword in battle as a form of martyrdom is seen somewhat differently in Christian belief and behavior where conflict is concerned.

 The martyrs fought for Christ in the Crusades but protected their lives, not wantonly giving them up as a tactic in order to seek heaven's rewards. They were, however, told by the Church they would receive God's blessing if they lost their lives in the service of promoting the faith by fighting the infidel. Pope Urban is quoted as saying this, "God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it! "

Martyrdom as part of political life presents complex problems in conflicts. Martyrs who don't fear death are able to take chances beyond those of ordinary folk, as demonstrated, for example, by the Japanese Kamikazes during World War II who purposefully destroyed themselves and their aircraft in fighting the enemy. Martyrs who are willing to sacrifice themselves for political freedom take similar risks, which is the difficulty faced in the Middle East as groups struggle for new freedoms. Some writers parallel Japanese Kamikazes with suicide bombers in the Middle East. On the other hand, Kamikazes were directed by the government of Japan as part of military planning rather than martyrdom being part of special factions within the government, as most occurs in Islam and that can be aimed at their own governments.

According to experts, martyrdom is associated with the whole of Islam. Complete obedience and submission to Allah's will means a fearless sacrifice in pursuit of religious doctrine for dealing with events in a cross section of circumstances. This includes civil conflict and war between nations as well.

The concept in Islam of martyrdom is called shahada. Experts on Islam tell us "the word shahada is derived from the Arabic verbal root shahada, which means to 'see', to 'witness', to 'testify', to 'become a model and paradigm'. Shahada therefore literally means to 'see', to 'witness', and to 'become a model'. A shahid is the person who sees and witnesses, and he is therefore the witness, as if the martyr witnesses and sees the truth physically and thus stands by it firmly, so much so that not only does he testify it verbally, but he is prepared to struggle and fight and give up his life for the truth, and thus to become a martyr. In this way, and by his struggle and sacrifice for the sake of the truth, he become a model, a paradigm, and an example for others, worthy of being copied, and worthy of being followed. "

The events in North Africa and the Middle East, where Muslims are seen setting themselves on fire or placing ticking bombs on their bodies set to explode and kill others in order to testify to their beliefs and what they see as truth, follow Islamic tradition, as martyrs become models for building groups and solidarity in action. It is the very soul of their faith, according to history's context, and for that reason can bring special problems to adversaries, both within individual governments and in international conflicts.

It is that concept of martyrdom infused with a combination of political and religious belief that is part of the ISIS terrorism strength, as they continue to expand their aims with individuals and groups.  But the notion is not only that of Islam, It is part of religious traditions that in the modern world can create problems far beyond the tribe and are therefore what experts tell us need to be understood and defused if international understanding and true peace can be established.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Forsloff, writer of this article, was the first female student in the Middle Eastern Studies department at Portland State College, now Portland State University, in 1960, studying both the languages of Arabic and Hebrew as part of a program of studies in preparation for work as a journalist in that area of the world.  Although that career did not materialize, Carol has continued her interest and studies of the Middle East through reading and interaction with various groups over five decades since her tenure at Portland State in an effort to understand the events that occur in the region and to report those events in a meaningful way.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia denounces violence against non-Muslims

Pilgrim in Mecca Saudia Arabia

Carol Forsloff----In a major statement to the Arab world, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-AsShaikh, has issued a statement condemning violence against non-Mulims in the Middle East under Muslim protection. He has also prohibited violence against Muslims labeled as infidels.

This statement, coming as it does during the Syrian conflict, underlines the fact there are Muslims who have been concerned about the violence that is perpetuated by religious animosities, not just between Christians and Muslims, or Jews and Muslims, but also violence that sets one sect of Islam against another.   In Egypt a number of clerics have voiced alarm over the attacks on Coptic Christians.

The Grand Mufti, in addition to being a religious leader, is also the Chairman of the Council of Senior Uleme (religious scholars) and the General Presidency of Scholarly Research.

The Grand Mufit on September 16 condemned acts that create the "shedding of blood of Muslims and of those living in their counties in peace."

 Shaikh Al-AsShaikh also maintains, "Given the dangerous developments in the Muslim world, I would like to warn against the danger of attacking Muslims and those (non-Muslims) under Muslim protection."

"In view of the fast-moving dangerous developments in the Islamic world, it is very distressing to see the tendencies of permitting or underestimating the shedding of blood of Muslims and those under protection in their countries. The sectarian or ignorant utterances made by some of these people would benefit none other than the greedy, vindictive and envious people. Hence, we would like to draw attention to the seriousness of the attacks on Muslims or those who live under their protection or under a pact with them," Shaikh Al-AsShaikh said, as he quoted a number of verses from the Qur'an and Hadith.

But the Mufti is not alone in proclaiming that violence of Muslim against Mulsim and against Christians and Jews is wrong. "I condemn the attacks against Christians in Egypt in the strongest possible manner"said Asghar Ali Engineer, a Muslim Indian and head of the Centre for Studies on Society and Secularism in Mumbai. He was underlining the absolute evil of violence against the Coptic community in Egypt. "Human life is sacred, he told Asia News, “and no one can claim the right to attack another human being for any reason. This is unacceptable. "  

Christian Bishop calls for patience with respect to Egypt’s unrest,democracy

[caption id="attachment_19929" align="alignleft" width="225"] Coptic Church[/caption]

Editor-----In the midst of the turmoil in Egypt, the accent of the news has been on the political impact it will have on the rest of the world, specifically the Middle East.  But one of the factors fueling unrest has to do with religious divisions that foster political ones, and in the mix of this are people of religions outside of Islam who are victimized by the violence and fervor that have stimulated violence in the Arab world.

While the Arabs have had their “spring,” the old stereotypes and attitudes towards Christians and Jews is mixed in the minds of some who displace their anger on disparate religious groups.   News reports have touched lightly on the plight of those who are not Muslim but who live among the followers of Islam in places like Egypt, where unrest is the very definition of the day-to-day situation.

Some of the problems related to the Christians are outlined by Fox News using a YouTube video of events to relay the facts about how various religious groups are faring during the present uprising in Egypt.  The concern about personal safety is particularly high given the threats against Christians that have been made by militant groups and the violence that has already occurred.

Yahoo News has also reported on how Islamic militants have attacked Christian churches.    Muslim extremists were reported to have set fire to a Franciscan school, then to have taken three nuns and paraded them through the streets until a Muslim woman offered the nuns some refuge.  Two other women were assaulted and abused as they tried to flee the mob surrounding these incidents.  Additionally some media have reported how supporters of Mohamed Morsi, the ousted President of Egypt have attacked dozens of Coptic churches.

A young Christian Egyptian, who is afraid of his name being used for fear of reprisals on his family, expresses great stress and fear in these days of violent confrontations shown regularly on television news.  He said, “My family scared . They don’t go to work or walk only in street when many Muslims live , and Christians girls here don’t go out door..

In the last 3 days i have heard all the day and night gunshot that scared the kids,  and kids asking will Muslims kill us today or tomorrow... "

A Coptic Catholic Bishop, Youhanna Golta of Alexandria, Egypt,  is the assistant to the Coptic Catholic Patriarch, expresses a view of moderation, reminding people to have a balanced perspective and to remember that democracy takes time and patience.  Egypt only has had two years to develop theirs, while European countries and the United States have had centuries.  He said people should not be just concerned about Coptic Christians but the whole of Egypt.
"Civil war is when a part of the country turns against the other part. This is not the case in Egypt," the bishop said Aug. 15, the day after more than 600 people were killed and several thousand injured after a police crackdown on people protesting the ouster of former President Mohammed Morsi.

"In Egypt, the people are united against a certain group that doesn't represent more than 2 percent of the country," he explained.  He was referencing the Muslim Brotherhood extremists. "This cannot be called a civil war; these are called (acts of) terrorism.

"With respect to the burning of the churches, I said today in the Akhbar newspaper that 'burning of the churches makes us (Christians) proud, because we are contributing to the liberation of Egypt.'"

As the world sorts out its political responses to Egypt’s crisis, those of religions outside of Islam worry about their fate in a country where extremism is on the march and muffles the voices of the temperate among the Egyptians who simply want the turmoil to end so they can enjoy a life of relative peace and prosperity that other countries surrounding them enjoy.

France’s Mideast talks plan masks fears of becoming marginalized

Alain Juppe

Michael Cosgrove - French Foreign minister Alain Juppé is now winging his way back to France after his visit to Tel Aviv and Ramallah to try and persuade Israel and the Palestinians to meet in Paris for talks aimed at getting the stalled Mideast peace talks back on track. He failed to sell his idea of course, but at least France’s name was mentioned - albeit little - in the Mideast for once. It can't be said he didn't try.

Juppe's visit didn't attract any hostile opposition but then again it wasn't given much prominence in Mideast press and diplomatic circles either. The French offer to host Mideast negotiations in Paris by early July at the latest was broadly based on the same kind of ideas that Obama unsuccessfully put to Netanyahou recently. Those ideas included a return to pre-1967 borders, and a promise of no unilateral action to be taken by either side in the future.

Crucially however, France's approach differed from that of the United States in one insurmountable way. France supports the rapprochement between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority and Hamas whereas the Americans and Israelis reject it. That alone was enough to ensure the failure of Juppe's mission, assuming that it had any chance of succeeding in the first place, which is extremely doubtful. Abbas predictably gave the plan a guarded welcome whilst, equally predictably, the Israelis made it perfectly clear that they had rejected it, although they did use restrained and polite language to express their disapproval.

There was no way that France was going to succeed in restarting negotiations on a basis which was even more unpalatable to the Israelis than that which they rejected in no uncertain terms in Washington.  So why did the French come up with this package in the first place, given that they must have known that it had 'Failure' written all over it like white on rice from the moment it was conceived? The answer can be summed up in one word - influence.

Although France is the most vociferous advocate of attempts to oust Muammar Gaddafi from Libya it has generally regarded many of the various revolts and revolutions which are shaking the Mideast and Northern Africa with a mix of outward support and inner anguish. Indeed, former Foreign minister Michèle Alliot-Marie outraged public opinion during the Tunisian revolution when she suggested that France should help the Tunisian authorities to suppress it by supplying riot troops and equipment. She was finally forced to resign in February after it was leaked that she had used a Tunisian businessman's private plane during the uprising. Alain Juppé is her successor.

France used to be - and would still like to regard itself as being - a big player in the Mideast and Africa due to its former colonial role in those regions, but French influence there is on the wane because former friends and allies which helped France do business with many of the countries involved in today's events have either been weakened or have already gone. Ben Ali is in exile (and France has never condemned his order to police to open fire on protesters) and the French still consider that Obama betrayed Egypt's Mubarak.

Why is Libya different? The only reason that France is in such a hurry to get rid of Gaddafi is that Paris did not approve of his decision to improve relations with Britain and the United States at France's expense. To top it all off, America and China have been making commercial inroads into markets which had always been controlled by France before, and both Chinese and American diplomatic activity has been increasing over the last 10 years or more. It's much the same thing in the Mideast, where French influence has been declining for many years whilst that of America is increasing. An example of the competition that France now faces can be seen in the fact that whereas France only - and begrudgingly - gave Tunisia about 12 million dollars in urgent aid after the revolution there, America wiped out 1 billion dollars of Egyptian debt.

France's options are extremely limited compared to those of America's massive foundations, cultural and educational exchanges and financial clout, and it's not as if the French can count on European support for action in Africa and the Mideast given that European governments are chronically incapable of reaching a consensus on so many issues. Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy's ambitious plans to form a trade and diplomatic Union of countries around the Mediterranean, which includes France of course, are now all but brain dead thanks partially to a mix of British and American diplomatic pressure to counter it because it was obviously conceived to be a means of reducing Anglo-Saxon influence in the region. The French would understandably like to regain what used to be their enormous influence over Northern Africa and the Mideast, and France's failed Mideast talks initiative is a result of that policy, but it would take an astronomical leap of faith to believe that they have any realistic chance of doing so.

The pendulum of fate which inexorably regulates the rise and fall of empires is now falling for France but it is still, just, rising for America, although that country too shall reach its zenith one day before beginning, in its turn, to fall under the weight of the gravity of change.