Islamic fanatics and the early Christian martyr cult.

[onejayhawk]

There was a cult of martyrdom in the first couple centuries of Christianity. That changed in the 4th century when Christianity was first tolerated, then embraced. A millenium and a half later, we still lament the loss, even though there has arguably been more and worse persecution of Christians in the last century than under Rome.

Is the tide of fanaticism in Islam from the same roots? If so, whither next?

J

 

[brachy-pride]

I dont think early christians who were deliriously happy because of being eaten by a lion, or crucified, have much in common with suicide terrorists/heroes/martys.

The first ones only get killed themselves, the second kill themselves while killing other people.

 

[DBear]

Who the hell is persecuting Islam?

 

[Verbose]

What's suicide bombings got to do with Islam?

It may be a choice for so Muslim radical out to fight a self-professed war on all kinds of "infidels", but Muslim religious authority has spent 1400 years condemning suicide, and still do.

This thing cropped up recently too, some 15 years ago, as a scare tactic in political conflicts. There's nothing "Muslim" about it. A number of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been Christians. So suicide bombings could be considered a "Christian" thing as well.

And the greatest number of suicide bombings, the most consistent use of it as a tactic, has been made by the Tamil Tigers, who are not Muslim.

Look at the political conflict in which they are used. Don't get side-tracked by it somehow being a "Muslim thing".

Heck, we had anarchists blowing people up, including themselves at times — or gunning them down in cafés, ending with putting one in their own brain — in Europe a hundred years ago. No religion involved there, at least not in a traditional sense.

Suicide as part of terrorism is hardly new. It's a bit of a novelty that it has recently spread to the Muslim world and been adapted as a tactic in some quarters.

 

[Plotinus]

I agree with Verbose. I think anyone who claims that Islamic fanatics are akin to early Christian martyrs is going to have to do an awful lot of arguing to make the claim even plausible. Even the Donatists weren't much like them, and they were about as nutty as early Christians got (which is saying something).

 

[Mott1]

What's suicide bombings got to do with Islam?

Well that is a question from out if the blue. Has someone here implied that suicide bombings are exclusively Islamic? Did I miss something?
Your post seems to focus on suicide bombers and you are determined to present it as unIslamic. I am not sure who you are addressing, no one made the claim that it is practised only by Muslims.
I agree that suicide bombing is not only a "Muslim thing", however it is not an unIslamic method when the intent is dogmatic.

It may be a choice for so Muslim radical out to fight a self-professed war on all kinds of "infidels", but Muslim religious authority has spent 1400 years condemning suicide, and still do.

Muslim authority? You seem to suggest that there exists a single authoritive body in Islam. This is a fasle assumption, Muslim scholars themselves cannot agree on a system on which to define religious authority, how to acknowledge religious authority, and what interpretive powers a religious authority gains. These are issues Muslim authorities do not reflect on, they do not believe it bears any importance and simply regard the Islamic doctrine as infallible knowledge and perfect.
That being said, you seem to ignore the distinguished Muslim authorities that have spent 1400 years condoning, promoting, and leading martyrdom by suicide and the self-professed war on infidels, and still do.

This thing cropped up recently too, some 15 years ago, as a scare tactic in political conflicts. There's nothing "Muslim" about it. A number of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been Christians. So suicide bombings could be considered a "Christian" thing as well.

And the greatest number of suicide bombings, the most consistent use of it as a tactic, has been made by the Tamil Tigers, who are not Muslim.

Look at the political conflict in which they are used. Don't get side-tracked by it somehow being a "Muslim thing".

Islam began as a political movement led by a self proclaimed prophet of god. Islam is both a political and religious ideology. You cannot regard Islam by acknowledging one without the other. The goal presented in the Islamic doctrine is to establish a unified world under Islam, governed by the laws and values according to Islam. This is a political goal.

Tamil Tiger and Islamic terrorism are based on two entirely different ideologies. One is strictly political while the other is both political and religious. Their is no doctrine that the Tamil Tigers prescribe too, their is no justification in their methods other than achieveing a political end.
Islamic terrorists find justification and inspiration for their methods in the Islamic doctrine.

Heck, we had anarchists blowing people up, including themselves at times — or gunning them down in cafés, ending with putting one in their own brain — in Europe a hundred years ago. No religion involved there, at least not in a traditional sense.

Suicide as part of terrorism is hardly new. It's a bit of a novelty that it has recently spread to the Muslim world and been adapted as a tactic in some quarters.

Terrorism by suicide is not a new "novelty" that recently spread to the Muslim world. Islamic theology glorifies the act of self martyrdom against overwhelming odds, claiming to provide the martyr with a direct path to heaven.

 

[kaoruchan42]

The Qu'ran says:
"O ye who believe!...[do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

I encourage you to find a passage from the Qu'ran that supports your claim.

 

[Mott1]

The Qu'ran says:
"O ye who believe!...[do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

I encourage you to find a passage from the Qu'ran that supports your claim.

I encourage you to read and research the Quran and ahadiths in thier entirety, only then will you fully understand that the above verse does not apply to self martyrdom.
You provide a single verse in which you believe exonerates Islam of the promotion of self martyrdom and then arrogantly "encourage" me to demonstrate the opposite. It is out of sheer ignornace if not dishonesty to make a claim without atleast having some intimate knowledge of Islam.

Self martyrdom in Islam is demonstrated through the teachings of Muhammad, pronounced by Islamic scholarship and evidenced through Shariah Law.

First you must understand the definition of suicide in context to the Quran and hadith.

Suicide refers to killing oneself on account of anger, pain or some other worldly motive, Islamic scholars are unanimous that it is forbidden and a major sin, making the offender deserving of hell.

"Do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is merciful to you. And, whoever does that, out of animosity and, We shall burn him in a Fire. And that is easy for Allah." [Qur'an, 4:29-30; See Tafseer al-Qurtubi, (5/156)]

"Among those before you, there was a man with a wound, and he was in anguish, so he took a knife and cut his hands, and the blood did not stop until he died. Allah said, "My servant has hastened the ending of his life, so I have prohibited Heaven to him." [Bukhari and Muslim]

"Whoever strangles himself will be strangling himself in the Fire, and whoever stabs himself will be stabbing himself in the Fire." [Bukhari and Muslim]

The ahadith on this subject are many. Muslims, in fact, have been ordered not to even wish for death.

"Let not any of you wish for death on account of harm which has befallen him. But, if he must, he should pray, 'O Allah! Keep me alive as long as life is better for me, and take my life when death is better for me." [Bukhari and Muslim]

All of these texts forbid suicide related to killing oneself for worldly motives such as pain or anguish or lack of patience, and not for raising aloft the Word of Allah.


Secondly, martyrdom or self-sacrifice, in any form, are those performed by one or more people, against enemies far exceeding them in numbers and equipment, with prior knowledge that the operations will almost inevitably lead to death.
In Islam, the name 'suicide operations' or 'suicide bombing' used by mainstream society and media is inaccurate. There is a great difference between one who commits suicide because of his unhappiness, lack of patience and weakness or absence of iman-and between the self-sacrificer who embarks on martyrdom out of strength of faith and conviction, and to bring victory to Islam, by sacrificing his life for the upliftment of Allah's word.


The Shariah Law is evidenced by the following verses applicable to the understanding of martyrdom. I will only provide the basis of evidence from the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, the verses outside of these two books will only serve to strengthened them.

"Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their selves and their wealth, in return for Heaven being theirs. They fight in the path of Allah and they kill and are killed " [Quran, 9:111]

Any scenario in which the Mujahid offers the purchase price in order to attain the merchandise is permissible unless an evidence exists to specifically prohibit it.

"How many a small force has overcome a numerous force, by the permission of Allah. And Allah is with the steadfast ones." [Quran, 2:249]

This verse states that the measure of power in the Shariah is not linked to material, worldly measures.

"Among mankind is he who sells himself seeking the pleasure of Allah. And Allah is Pitying towards the servants." [Qur'an, 2:207]

According to the explanation of this verse by the Sahabah, one who sells himself for the sake of Allah is not considered to have committed suicide.

Thier are many examples in the ahadiths that support this, however for the sake of brevity I will only list a few.

Abu Dawud (3/27) and Tirmidhi (4/280) have narrated (and Tirmidhi graded it as sahih) that Aslam ibn Imran narrated that when they were fighting a mighty army of the Romans, a man in the Muslim army attacked the Roman ranks until he penetrated them. People shouted, saying, "SubhanAllah! He has contributed to his own destruction." Thereupon, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari stood up, and said, "O people! You give this interpretation to this verse, whereas it was revealed concerning us, the Ansar, when Allah had given honour to Islam and its supporters had become many, whereupon some of us secretly said to one another … "Our wealth has been depleted, and Allah has given honour to Islam and its supporters have become many, so let us stay amidst our wealth and make up what has been depleted of it." Thereupon, Allah revealed to His Prophet [meaning] "And spend in the Path of Allah, and do not contribute to your own destruction" [Quran, 2:195] refuting what we had said. So, the destruction lay in staying with our wealth and repleting it, and abandoning combat." Abu Ayyub remained fixed until he [was killed and] was buried in Rome.

In this hadith, Abu Ayyub explained that the verse (Quran, 2:195) does not apply to one who plunges into the enemy ranks alone, even though it may seem to people that he is destroying himself. The Sahabah staunchly confirmed this explanation.


Ibn Abi Shaybah has narrated in his Musannaf (5/338) that Muadh ibn Afra asked the Messenger of Allah, "What makes Allah laugh upon His slave?" The reply: "[The servant] immersing himself into the enemy without armour." Mu adh then took off his armour and fought until he was killed.

This hadith is a clear evidence for the virtue of Jihad in which it is most likely that one will die, and it verifies that Jihad has special rules which permit what may normally be forbidden.

Ahmad narrated in his Musnad (6/22) from Ibn Mas ud that the Prophet said, "Our Sustainer marvels at two men: a man who stirs from his bed … to salah … and a man who fights in the path of Allah, and his companions are defeated, and he realizes what awaits him in defeat and what awaits him in returning [to combat], but he returns [to combat] until his blood is spilled. Allah says, "Look at My servant who went back [to combat] hopeful and anxious for what is with Me, until his blood was spilled."

Muslim has narrated from Abu Hurayrah, "Among the best of lives for people is a man who clasps the reins of his horse in the path of Allah, rushing on its back; whenever he hears a cry [of battle] or advancement towards the enemy, he hurries to it, seeking death and being slain with eagerness."

These are only two of many examples which legitimize those seeking to be killed and pursuing martyrdom as praiseworthy acts.

The promotion of self martyrdom is pronounced by the Scholars of the Sahabah (companions of Muhammad), the verdicts of Renowned Islamic Exegetes, and found in the text of Islamic schools of thought: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali, and Zahiri.

Perhaps this is not enough information to satisfy your skeptisicism and to curb your denial, in that case I will be delighted to entertain you with more in-depth explanations and detail the evidence. Or perhaps you wish to debate this subject which I will be more than happy to oblige. However I "encourage" you first to read and research the Quran and ahadiths in thier entirety before engaging in debate.

 

[kaoruchan42]

I'm sorry if my request came off as arrogant. I honestly did not intend it that way. I honestly wanted to see what you had to say about it. Frankly, I am enormously impressed at your knowledge of Islamic doctrine. What is your religious background, Mott, and how did you acquire your great knowledge of Islam? I think that we should all aspire to be as knowledgeable of a subject. I also thank you for your correction of my misinterpretation of that passage.

However, I still fail to see that what you say of Islam is really different from other groups at other times in history. It is common throughout history for proponents of a cause to glorify those who sacrifice themselves for their cause. Islam is not unique in this. In fact, such things are common in the other two Western religions, Christianity and Judaism. Suicide attacks are mentioned on several occasions in the Bible. It is also similar to the Japanese practice of Kamikaze attacks in WWII. It is widely recognized that the Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks to greater effect than any other groups.

If your point is simply that Islamic doctrine does not condemn self-sacrifice, then I agree with you in light of the evidence you offer, if you will agree that the practice is not only Islamic.

 

[Quasar1011]

There was a cult of martyrdom in the first couple centuries of Christianity.

No there wasn't. You are mis-using the word cult. Rather, mainstream Christianity underwent a period of severe persecution from the period 100-312 A.D., which involved much martyrdom. Actually, there were 10 such periods within that 212 year time span, under 10 different Roman emperors.

Jesus spoke about this period in advance. In Revelation 2:8-11, we read:

"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

Within some theological circles, persecuted churches today are known as "Smyrna-type" churches; persecuted Christians who become martyrs are known as "Smyrna-type" Christians. There are 7 types, each based on a pattern of the 7 churches of Asia Minor. 5 of the 7 churches were rebuked by Christ; only the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia (the missionary church) escaped rebuke. If being a Smyrna-type church or Christian was cultic, why then did Christ not rebuke it?

 

[Plotinus]

In fact there was an enormous cult of martyrdom in the early church. But of course it varied enormously according to time and place. For one thing, the persecutions were not continuous - it would be quite wrong to characterise the entire period of AD 100-312 as a single severe persecution. For the first half of that period, persecutions were typically local and caused by local governors with a particular axe to grind with the Christians. The official position was set out by Trajan in reply to Pliny the Younger's letter on the subject: if you find any Christians, execute them, but don't go actively looking for them. Of course, Tertullian rubbished that approach as completely illogical. It was only in the second half of the period mentioned that persecutions were typically empire-wide and instigated by emperors deliberately trying to eradicate the religion. But, again, it was sporadic. Thus we find a long period of calm in the first half of the third century. Origen, the most prominent Christian figure of the time, was even invited to take part in theological discussions with the mother of the emperor himself. But he was a fan of martyrdom: the story goes that when his father was martyred, the teenage Origen tried to get martyred too, but was prevented only by the fact that his mother hid his clothes and he was too embarrassed to be arrested in the nude. Later, Origen criticised the church of his time for being too lax, a condition he attributed to the lack of good persecution; he yearned for the more rigorous church of his youth. He got his wish, of course, when the Decian persecution broke out - although he himself was only tortured and released to die in obscurity, because the authorities had by this stage realised that killing Christians just encouraged other people to become Christians.

Nevertheless, the cult of martyrdom was very active throughout this period. Relics of the martyrs were greatly prized. Thus we are told that when Cyprian of Carthage laid his head on the block, the last thing he saw before the axe fell was all the cloths on the ground before him - placed there by the other Christians to catch his blood. Later, these would be holy relics. Christians generally bought the bodies of the martyrs from the executioners (at great cost) and buried them in special locations, which became holy. For example, the catacombs under Rome contained the graves of many martyrs, and these would become places of pilgrimage in later years. After the conversion of Constantine, martyria were often built to commemorate the martyrs - small, round chapels, often built at what had previously been holy pagan sites, with the idea of transferring local pagan cults to the saints.

Some Christians took the ideal of martyrdom to extremes. This was particularly so in Africa, which had a strong tradition of both martyrdom and rigorous morality (all the theologians mentioned above were African). The Donatist church, in particular, thrived on martyrdom in the fourth and fifth centuries - an age when, of course, martyrdom was no longer available to orthodox Christians. The Donatists thought the Catholics had basically sold out and welcomed the attempts of the state to crush them. When martyrdom was not available, some would simply kill themselves, thinking this a decent alternative. The Cathars in the Middle Ages did the same thing, though for different reasons (they thought the physical world was inherently evil, so leaving it was a good idea).

Anyone who thinks the early church didn't have a cult of martyrdom should read the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans. This was written in around AD 107, as Ignatius was being taken as a prisoner to Rome, to be executed. It was thus written before the New Testament was even completed. The psychological effect of this letter on the church can't be underestimated: this was enormously influential on the cult of martyrdom that would follow.

(Apologies for the hideous faux-antique translation - this is how nineteenth-century Anglicans thought the apostolic fathers should sound.)

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the San of the Father: to those who are united, both according ta the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

CHAPTER I.--AS A PRISONER, I HOPE TO SEE YOU.

THROUGH prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested; for I hope as a prisoner in Christ Jesus to salute you, if indeed it be the will of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the beginning has been well ordered, if I may obtain grace to cling to my lot without hindrance unto the end. For I am afraid of your love, lest it should do me an injury. For it is easy for you to accomplish what you please; but it is difficult for me to attain to God, if ye spare me. But it is difficult for me to attain to God, if ye do not spare me, under the pretence of carnal affection.

CHAPTER II.--DO NOT SAVE ME FROM MARTYRDOM.

For it is not my desire to act towards you as a man-pleaser, but as pleasing God, even as also ye please Him. For neither shall I ever have such [another] opportunity of attaining to God; nor will ye, if ye shall now be silent, ever be entitled to the honour of a better work. For if ye are silent concerning me, I shall become God's; but if you show your love to my flesh, I shall again have to run my race. Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared; that, being gathered together in love, ye may sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus, that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west. It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise again to Him.

CHAPTER III.--PRAY RATHER THAT I MAY ATTAIN TO MARTYRDOM.

Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will, so that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothing visible is eternal. "For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. The Christian is not the result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by the world, he is beloved of God. For says [the Scripture], "If ye were of this world, the world would love its own; but now ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me."

CHAPTER IV.--ALLOW ME TO FALL A PREY TO THE WILD BEASTS.

I write to all the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable goodwill towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may not be found troublesome to any one. Then shall I be a true disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being in bonds for Him, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.

CHAPTER V.--I DESIRE TO DIE.

From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse. But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of Christ]; "yet am I not thereby justified." May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray that they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, and not deal with me as with some, whom, out of fear, they have not touched. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so. Pardon me [in this] I know what is for my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER VI.--BY DEATH I SHALL ATTAIN TRUE LIFE.

All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. "For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?'' Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose again for our sake. This is the gain which is laid up for me. Pardon me, brethren: do not hinder me from living, do not wish to keep me in a state of death; and while I desire to belong to God, do not ye give me over to the world. Suffer me to obtain pure light: when I have gone thither, I shall indeed be a man of God. Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any one has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am straitened.

CHAPTER VII.--REASON OF DESIRING TO DIE.

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

CHAPTER VIII.--BE YE FAVOURABLE TO ME.

I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if ye consent. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may have your desires fulfilled. I entreat you in this brief letter; do ye give credit to me. Jesus Christ will reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly. He is the mouth altogether free from falsehood, by which the Father has truly spoken. Pray ye for me, that I may attain [the object of my desire]. I have not written to you according to the flesh, but according to the will of God. If I shall suffer, ye have wished [well] to me; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.

CHAPTER IX.--PRAY FOR THE CHURCH IN SYRIA.

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it]. But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time. But I have obtained mercy to be somebody, if I shall attain to God. My spirit salutes you, and the love of the Churches that have received me in the name of Jesus Christ, and not as a mere passer-by. For even those Churches which were not near to me in the way, I mean according to the flesh, have gone before me, city by city, [to meet me.]

CHAPTER X.--CONCLUSION.

Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the Ephesians, who are deservedly most happy. There is also with me, along with many others, Crocus, one dearly beloved by me. As to those who have gone before me from Syria to Rome for the glory of God, I believe that you are acquainted with them; to whom, [then,] do ye make known that I am at hand. For they are all worthy, both of God and of you; and it is becoming that you should refresh them in all things. I have written these things unto you, on the day before the ninth of the Kalends of September (that is, on the twenty-third day of August). Fare ye well to the end, in the patience of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Now consider what Tertullian wrote at the end of his "Apology", about a century later:

But go zealously on, good presidents, you will stand higher with the people if you sacrifice the Christians at their wish, kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent. Therefore God suffers that we thus suffer; for but very lately, in condemning a Christian woman to the leno rather than to the leo you made confession that a taint on our purity is considered among us something more terrible than any punishment and any death. Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us. The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed. Many of your writers exhort to the courageous bearing of pain and death, as Cicero in the Tusculans, as Seneca in his Chances, as Diogenes, Pyrrhus, Callinicus; and yet their words do not find so many disciples as Christians do, teachers not by words, but by their deeds. That very obstinacy you rail against is the preceptress. For who that contemplates it, is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it? who, after inquiry, does not embrace our doctrines? and when he has embraced them, desires not to suffer that he may become partaker of the fulness of God's grace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood? For that secures the remission of all offences. On this account it is that we return thanks on the very spot for your sentences. As the divine and human are ever opposed to each other, when we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by the Highest.

Note how, according to Tertullian, being martyred is a sure means of gaining forgiveness for all sins, and furthermore, all Christians hope to be martyred. The church would later reject the first of these claims (Augustine argued that heretics cannot be saved, even if they are martyred), but the second is probably not too much of an exaggeration for Tertullian's day.

In the fourth century AD, persecutions largely ceased within the Roman empire. Of course, they went on elsewhere. The period of calm in the third century that I mentioned above coincided with a period of incredible persecution in the Persian empire, where many thousands of Christians were slaughtered over a period of several decades. Persecutions continued there in subsequent years, although the division of the churches in the fifth century meant that the Persian authorities became much more tolerant of their Christians (they realised that all the Persian Christians were Nestorians and therefore hated by the Roman Christians, which in their eyes was all to the good). In the west, though, the ideals and the energies that had previously gone into idolising the martyrs were channelled into other outlets instead. This is when people started going on pilgrimages, and also when the monastic movement began. Christians simply internalised the ideals of martyrdom: thus the desert fathers talked of the need to die to the outside world and dedicate oneself to God.

 

[Mott1]

I'm sorry if my request came off as arrogant. I honestly did not intend it that way. I honestly wanted to see what you had to say about it. Frankly, I am enormously impressed at your knowledge of Islamic doctrine. What is your religious background, Mott, and how did you acquire your great knowledge of Islam? I think that we should all aspire to be as knowledgeable of a subject. I also thank you for your correction of my misinterpretation of that passage.

I appreciate the sarcasim and your point is taken. However I found the manner in which you phrased your request to be arrogant because It seemed to me that you just assumed my comments to be based out of ignorance. The confidance expressed in your request made that quite clear.
Since we are being frank, I honestly find it annoying when people rush to the defence of Islam without having any knowledge. How can someone defend (or criticize) a subject they have little or no knowledge of?

However, I still fail to see that what you say of Islam is really different from other groups at other times in history. It is common throughout history for proponents of a cause to glorify those who sacrifice themselves for their cause. Islam is not unique in this. In fact, such things are common in the other two Western religions, Christianity and Judaism. Suicide attacks are mentioned on several occasions in the Bible. It is also similar to the Japanese practice of Kamikaze attacks in WWII. It is widely recognized that the Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks to greater effect than any other groups.

My knowledge on Christianity, Judaism (both of which are not Western religions) and Japanese Shinto is limited, so I am in no position to judge them with any certainty. However what I can say for certain is that Islam and the other religious ideologies have differences, the difference lies in the teachings and philosophies of the great religious founders such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad. This holds true especially for Islam.
Islamic culture, traditions, values and law are modeled directly from the teachings and actions of Muhammad. They are incompatible with modern secular society.
The other religious ideologies have modernized to conform with todays secular society. For instance after World War II with the introduction of a new government, Japanese state Shinto was disestablished. In its present form Shinto is no longer characterized by its religious doctrine and is now observed by festivals and traditional ceremonies.

If your point is simply that Islamic doctrine does not condemn self-sacrifice, then I agree with you in light of the evidence you offer, if you will agree that the practice is not only Islamic.

I have already stated in my previous post that self martyrdom is not exclusive to Islam. My point is that Islamic theology promotes self martyrdom, and that 'suicide bombings' are not unIslamic.

 

[Plotinus]

Kamikaze didn't have much to do with Shinto (and Shinto was never particularly about doctrines anyway). Kamikaze was part of the ideology of nationhood and self-sacrifice fostered by what was essentially a fascist dictatorship in the 1930s and 40s. In particular, the government used traditional Japanese aestheticism to create an ideology of suicide. For example, the kamikaze pilots were known as "cherry blossoms". In Japanese culture, cherry blossoms are the epitome of beauty partly because of their appearance but also partly because they last for such a brief time. Brevity is considered very beautiful in Japan. So the kamikaze pilots were encouraged to think of themselves as cherry blossoms for the emperor - going out in a heart-achingly beautiful moment of brief youth. They were, in effect, brainwashed to believe that they were sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

I pray that we will see the day as soon as possible when we welcome a world in which we do not have to kill enemies whom we cannot hate. For this end, I would not mind my body being ripped innumerable times.

Most were extremely young - perhaps 18 or 19 - and many were more or less pressured into it by family or the military. Many of them didn't really want to die at all.

At the hall where their farewell parties were held, the young student officers drank cold sake the night before their flight. Some gulped the sake in one swallow, others kept gulping down (a large amount). The whole place degenerated into chaos….a mixture of military songs and curses filled the air. While some shouted in rage, others cried aloud. It was their last night of life. They thought of their parents, their faces and images, lovers’ faces and their smiles, a sad farewell to their fiancées – all went through their minds….although they were supposedly ready to sacrifice their precious youth the next morning for Imperial Japan and for the emperor, they were torn beyond what words can express…

I heard of one kamikaze pilot who was flying on his last mission when he received the order to turn around, because the war had ended. He had to endure many, many years of abuse and humiliation from his family and friends, who all believed he should have completed his mission anyway. For the ideology was such that self-sacrifice - even when it would have accomplished nothing whatsoever - was still highly prized. You can see examples of this attitude throughout Japanese culture and still today. For example, it's a stereotype - but a true one - that yakuza cut off their little fingers as a sign of loyalty to the boss. The fact that it accomplished nothing is neither here nor there - it demonstrates the man's loyalty that he is willing to do this. The greatest act of loyalty one could perform is suicide, even though, considered rationally, such an act would be depriving the boss of a follower and therefore detrimental to him. Of course, such things don't exactly happen with the frequency that some films would have us believe. But the ideology is there, and that is the sort of thing that the Japanese government fostered, encouraged, and exploited. Remember that loyalty is a prime virtue in Japan: until only very recently (when changing economic conditions forced many people to revise their values) businessmen who changed companies mid-career were typically bullied and ostracised for their perceived lack of loyalty to the old company.

Some kamikaze pilots were Christians, and they took their Bibles into their planes with them. They believed they were doing the will of God.

The quotes above are from Kamikaze Diaries by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney about the kamikaze pilots. It is based on the journals kept by the pilots themselves, which reveal how truly tortured many of them were. If you're interested in how governments - and perhaps certain other organisations - encourage young people to kill and die in the name of supposedly higher ideals, this book is well worth reading.

 

[Mott1]

Kamikaze didn't have much to do with Shinto (and Shinto was never particularly about doctrines anyway). Kamikaze was part of the ideology of nationhood and self-sacrifice fostered by what was essentially a fascist dictatorship in the 1930s and 40s. In particular, the government used traditional Japanese aestheticism to create an ideology of suicide. For example, the kamikaze pilots were known as "cherry blossoms". In Japanese culture, cherry blossoms are the epitome of beauty partly because of their appearance but also partly because they last for such a brief time. Brevity is considered very beautiful in Japan. So the kamikaze pilots were encouraged to think of themselves as cherry blossoms for the emperor - going out in a heart-achingly beautiful moment of brief youth.

Great post, I agree with most of your assessment. You make an important point here which is a characteristic commonly found in martyrdom:

They were, in effect, brainwashed to believe that they were sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

Shinto was a religious form of Japanese nationalism, so the ideology of nationhood and self-sacrifice has its roots in Shinto tradition.
The Japanese samurai followed the warrior code of Bushido which was developed from a combination of Shinto and Confucianism. This form of Shintoism emphasized loyalty, gratitude, courage, justice, truthfulness, politeness, reserve, and honor.

Without regard for life or name, a samurai will defend his homeland.

Shinto is described by Maurice Pinguet, author of Voluntary Death in Japan

"The Japanese way of life clearly shows the Shinto belief of the Japanese nation and nature. The Way of Gods, a native Japanese religion based on various local nature cults, over which is superimposed a divine genealogy of the imperial dynasty which made it possible to create a religion of national unity and the state"

By the time of the second World War, Shinto had become an inseparable part of Japanese militarism. Whether it was an ideology based solely on Japanese nationalism or religious nationalism the point is that this ideology reformed or modernized to conform with todays secular society.

 

[Plotinus]

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to see certain aspects of Shinto as, in part, expressions of Japanese nationalism, rather than as a cause of it. Yes, Shinto was used to bolster the claims of the nation and of the imperial family, but I wouldn't conclude from that that the extreme forms of nationalism seen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (and which of course continue today, though in less extreme forms, such as history textbooks which don't mention the rape of Nanking etc) had their roots in Shinto. That would be like saying that the medieval code of chivalry had its roots in Christianity.

To put it another way, religion can be a tool in the hands of those with power (political, popular, or whatever). Obviously this is highly relevant to the discussion of the Christian cult of martyrs and extremist Islamists. Now the real question with these things is this: to what extent is the mindset in question imposed upon people by those in power, and to what extent to the people voluntarily adopt it? It's tempting to see this as working only one way, but in fact, of course, it's far more complex than that. Did Felicity and Perpetua opt for death simply because they'd been reading Tertullian and got brainwashed? Or did Tertullian write as he did because he was expressing the popular view? The church didn't really have an authoritative leadership at all during the period in question, and as far as I know the leaders it did have (the patriarchs) weren't in the habit of encouraging people to martyrdom. Really the only exception to that - that I can think of - was the aforementioned Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch. But in his lifetime, that was not such an authoritative position (the patriarchal system did not yet exist). And his letter to the Romans is only about himself, of course - he doesn't recommend martyrdom to others. So why did his letter become so incredibly influential? Surely not because church leaders told people to read it and brainwashed them with it, but because people chose to read it for themselves.

So it seems to me that we should be wary of drawing comparisons that are too close. With the kamikaze, we have a good example of people going off to die because they were effectively manipulated by a state which cleverly reinterpreted popular values in a way that glorified such acts. Those who weren't brainwashed were bullied into it. So it seems that much of the responsibility here lies with those in power. But with the early Christian martyrs, it is hard to see a parallel situation. If they were brainwashed, then who did the brainwashing, and how? The church did not operate as a cult - no-one was forced to join it or prevented from leaving it, and the only people who bought into its ideology were those who chose to do so. Here, then, the cult of death seems to be a more grassroots thing. So now we can ask where Islamic extremists fit on this line. Are they like the kamikaze or like the Christian martyrs?

 

[Mott1]

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to see certain aspects of Shinto as, in part, expressions of Japanese nationalism, rather than as a cause of it. Yes, Shinto was used to bolster the claims of the nation and of the imperial family, but I wouldn't conclude from that that the extreme forms of nationalism seen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (and which of course continue today, though in less extreme forms, such as history textbooks which don't mention the rape of Nanking etc) had their roots in Shinto. That would be like saying that the medieval code of chivalry had its roots in Christianity.

I understand your point and I agree with your reasoning, however I was not suggesting that the idea of self sacrifice or the Kamikaze had been taken directly from the annals of the Kojiki or Nihongi.
Perhaps I used the term roots too loosely, but my point is that traditional Shinto, to a certain extent, contributed to 20th century Japanese state Shinto. From my understanding, in its most basic form Shinto places a large emphases on a sense of communal honor, loyalty and guilt.
Shinto mythology teaches that Japan and the Japanese people were brought into being by divine creation and that their emperors were literally descendants of the Sun Goddess. Its not entirely unlikely that Japanese nationalism can be somewhat inspired by these teachings.
We cannot solely credit the Japanese imperial families of the 19th and 20th centuries for the idea of self sacrifice, crediting facists dictatorship seems even more implausible. The practice of self sacrifice has a long history in Japan, this is evident in the tradition of the samurai and the warrior code "death before dishonor".
Again to reiterate, I am not stating that Shinto promotes self suicide. I do not have the knowledge to even argue that, I merely suggested that it had some influence on the developement of Japanese state Shinto of the early 20th century.
You described it best:

I'd be more inclined to see certain aspects of Shinto as, in part, expressions of Japanese nationalism, rather than as a cause of it.

To put it another way, religion can be a tool in the hands of those with power (political, popular, or whatever). Obviously this is highly relevant to the discussion of the Christian cult of martyrs and extremist Islamists. Now the real question with these things is this: to what extent is the mindset in question imposed upon people by those in power, and to what extent to the people voluntarily adopt it? It's tempting to see this as working only one way, but in fact, of course, it's far more complex than that. Did Felicity and Perpetua opt for death simply because they'd been reading Tertullian and got brainwashed? Or did Tertullian write as he did because he was expressing the popular view? The church didn't really have an authoritative leadership at all during the period in question, and as far as I know the leaders it did have (the patriarchs) weren't in the habit of encouraging people to martyrdom. Really the only exception to that - that I can think of - was the aforementioned Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch. But in his lifetime, that was not such an authoritative position (the patriarchal system did not yet exist). And his letter to the Romans is only about himself, of course - he doesn't recommend martyrdom to others. So why did his letter become so incredibly influential? Surely not because church leaders told people to read it and brainwashed them with it, but because people chose to read it for themselves.

So it seems to me that we should be wary of drawing comparisons that are too close. With the kamikaze, we have a good example of people going off to die because they were effectively manipulated by a state which cleverly reinterpreted popular values in a way that glorified such acts. Those who weren't brainwashed were bullied into it. So it seems that much of the responsibility here lies with those in power. But with the early Christian martyrs, it is hard to see a parallel situation. If they were brainwashed, then who did the brainwashing, and how? The church did not operate as a cult - no-one was forced to join it or prevented from leaving it, and the only people who bought into its ideology were those who chose to do so. Here, then, the cult of death seems to be a more grassroots thing. So now we can ask where Islamic extremists fit on this line. Are they like the kamikaze or like the Christian martyrs?

They are like niether. This arguement is complex and can go in many directions.
First martyrdom can be defined in more than one way.
How do Christians precieve martyrdom? how do Muslims precieve martyrdom?
are Kamikazes even considered martyrs?
Martyrdom can only be defined in context to an ideology or doctrine. If two ideologies or doctrines are antithetic to eachother than the understanding of martyrdom will aslo be antithetic.

Secondly you are generalizing the Kamikaze. You are using them as factual examples of people brainwashed and minipulated by the state rather than a belief system, which seems a bit unfair.
Although you present a good argument, and I do agree that many were minipulated by the state. However there were many Kamikazes who sacrificed themselves for their beliefs nurtured not from the state but from childhood and their parents ancestrial beliefs.

Thirdly I agree that states or institutions can control individual religious beliefs to a certain degree, however it would be much more difficult if not impossible to maintain control over a literate society for very long.
The ideological doctrine must correspond to the state or institution to maintain social hegemony, especially if many of those not in power or independant from the state form the scholarly adherents.

 

[Verbose]

As for the Shinto appearence in this discussion.

It's... complex. There's the very ancient original faith of Japan. And then there's the "revival" in the 19th c. which gave it some very strident nationalistic overtones.

And in between on some 1200-1300 years of Japanese relgious synchretism, of "ryobu shinto", the amalgamation of shinto and buddhism. In the 19th c. they literally had to extricate the shinto shrines out of the buddhist ones and reestablish a distinct separation of the two. People had been building shinto and buddhist shrines within the same temple complexes for centuries. It was convenient and no one cared overly about dogmatic purity.

Just to indicate the scale of merging, the Japanse imperial family derived their origins from the sun godess. But at the same time they were to be exemplary buddhists. How to reconcile the positions? Easy. The sungodess is simultaneously a boddhisattva, one of the avatars of Avalokiteshvara iirc. You can have your cake and eat it.

And that's how it stood until the 19th c., when scholars very consciously refashioned shintoism as part of a nationalist revival.

Traditionally you can get as much nationalism out of buddhism, at least as practised by the followers of Nichiren ("The Pure Land").
And most of the ideas about self-immolation, sacrifice, are rather part of the buddhist make up of the Japanese.

Shinto traditionally deals with ceremonial purity, fertility, luck, the positiva aspects of life. Traditionally you marry in a shinto ceremony in Japan. And shintoism doesn't allow any activities related with disease and death, conditions that render you unclean.

Buddhism otoh exults in everything that has to do with filth, destruction and death — but as a means of overcoming the nasty here and now, showing indifference to the bad stuff and compassion for those suffering, caring for the sick and burying the dead. A shinto priest won't even go near a dead body, so the Japanese are traditionally interred in a buddhist ritual.

And it's from buddhism, the zen-buddhism of the 13th c. Kamakura period, you get the samurai code of Bushido. Which got its final codification in the 17th c. in the Hagakure, a work which opens on the statement that "The way of the warrior is to be found in death."

What happened in the 19th c. was that the modernisers simultaneously turned a kind of Imperial Shinto into a focus for nationalism and veneration of the emperor. (He needed it, having been next to powerless for 700 years), and at the same time they managed to sell the Japanese commoners the line that they were in fact not at all the hard held little folk, whom the samurai despised and who hated the samurai back, but in fact a warrior master race and a natural aristocracy whom it behoved to follow the precepts of Bushido like any samurai.

Amazingly enough it worked.