The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

Capitalism Magazine ^ | July 24, 2005 | Edwin A. Locke

[hripka]

Summary: Their attempt to practice religion consistently explains the terrorists' actions.

Body: The continued attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West--most recently, the horrific suicide bombings in London--have led many to ask, what is the motivation of the terrorists? Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

[PatrickHenry]

Of all the errors of the terrorists, perhaps their biggest mistake is in giving Islam the sole credit for the glories of their long-vannished golden age. In the West, our history is different. We had a thousand years of Greek and Roman civilization before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the West.

We had Greek philosophy, Aristotelian logic, Euclidean geometry, Athenian architecture, Roman military and engineering skills, and a thriving superpower civilization, centuries before we had Christianity. So we know from our history that our religion is a complement to our culture; it's very far from being all there is to it.

The Muslim world doesn't have our experience. For them, everything happened at once -- Mohammed's religion, their military successes, and their high culture (largely inspired by the nations they conquered). They think that Islam alone was responsible for their success; so they imagine that Islam alone will restore all that they have lost.

[fire and forget]

LOL. Bummer. I come to this site because of politics but religion is central to one of our most immediate challenges right now and the topic reveals so much about human nature.

Thanks once again for keeping me pinged.

All the best ....

[B Knotts]

Read some Aquinas.

[balrog666]

Read some Aquinas.

Read some snake-handling Young-Earth-Creationists.

[scoopscandal]

The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

This is absolute BS too.

[B Knotts]

The author made a blanket statement about all religions; he did not single out "Young Earth Creationists." I am suggesting that the blanket statement is inaccurate, as even a brief perusing of Aquinas will show.

[expatpat]

You are right, the catholics have the phrase "examine your conscience", for example. The guy is anti-religion, but he's dead on about Islam.

[balrog666]

The author made a blanket statement about all religions; he did not single out "Young Earth Creationists." I am suggesting that the blanket statement is inaccurate, as even a brief perusing of Aquinas will show.

Yes, he said "religions" and not "religionists," so to speak. Aquinas is not a religion and therefore not a counterexample.

[B Knotts]

I have no quarrel with him over the problems with Islam; I only quibble over his attack on religion, generally.

[B Knotts]

Obviously, a man (Aquinas) is not a religion. Did you use reason to arrive at that conclusion?

Aquinas has, however, been fairly influential on Christianity and Western Civilization.

[45Auto]

Radical Islamists are 9th century thinkers with 20th century weapons.

[Junior]

Oh, I did, in one or more of the four philosophy classes I took in college 20 years ago (I thought it'd be a great way to impress girls). Much of Aquinas' reasoning was tied to the Bible, and thus "revealed" knowledge, rather than empiracle data derived through observation and experimentation.

[Jeff Gordon]

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action

This combined with a lack of humanity makes for a perfect mess.

[jwalsh07]

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts.

So sayeth the bigot.

[escapefromboston]

I agree, this author is clearly not a History buff. He seems to still believe popular misconceptions concerning the middle ages. I guess its easier to believer a lie then to re-exam one's entire world view (In this writer's case, I assume "objectivism")

An objectivist calling another religion irrational is pretty amusing though.

[balrog666]

Aquinas has, however, been fairly influential on Christianity and Western Civilization.

Yes, but, just as in the case of every other religion I know, the primary premises of Christianity were not acquired by evidence, logic, or reason.

[escapefromboston]

What kind of evidence do you want? Is your premise that Jesus didn't exist?

[balrog666]

What kind of evidence do you want? Is your premise that Jesus didn't exist?

Is your "evidence" any better than the "evidence" for Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or ...

[escapefromboston]

Do you doubt that Jesus was a real person who actually lived? I am not saying that you believe he was the Son of God, but do you believe he was a historical person?

[Cicero]

I said the author was delusional to make the statement quoted in italics.

It is NOT conservatives or conservative Christians who are reluctant to indict Muslims. It is not conservatives who refuste to wake up to the danger. It is leftists, who are either secularists or members of liberal churches.