Iran, the bomb, and religious devotion
In his book "Dying for Heaven: Holy Pleasure and Suicide Bombers -- Why the Best Qualities of Religion Are Also Its Most Dangerous" author Ariel Glucklich argues against the misconception that religious terrorists fight their enemies out of hatred. Rather, it is the positive aspects of religion that inspire the most heinous actions, he says. We asked Glucklich, a professor at Georgetown University and member of the steering committee of the Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, to apply his theory to Iran.
GUEST BLOGGER: Ariel Glucklich
It is clear that Iran is headed in the direction of arming itself with nuclear weapons. It will soon join Pakistan as the second Muslim country in the exclusive nuclear-arms club. The Israeli and American governments (Saudis, too) have taken this threat very seriously long before Ahmedinejad began his anti-Semitic rants in 2005.
Is Iran more dangerous than Pakistan (where the military controls the nuclear arsenal) or the Soviets during the cold war? After Nagasaki, no one has launched a nuclear attack, why should the Iranians?
Once Iran is fully armed, Will religion become an unpredictable factor? Is there any reason to believe that Iran will no longer act as a rational player, properly weighing costs and benefits to know when to back down from escalating a local flare-up into a major nuclear standoff -- or worse?
Well, has religion ever driven anyone to irrational, counter-productive and self-destructive behavior?
If that last question sends a chill through your spine, then you recognize that we need to understand precisely and reliably how religion in general and Shi'ite Islam specifically can lead to counter-productive miscalculations by a nuclear-armed nation. This is uncharted terrain; the standard answers do not apply.
First, we need to do away with the misconceptions that Islam favors jihadist aggression, that Muslims hate Jews so intensely they are willing to die killing them, that the virgins of paradise make suicide an attractive option and that life until the messianic Imam arrives is not worth living.
Also useless are the theories of recent writers such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens who argue that religion is intrinsically irrational and destructive; if that were true, religion would not have survived or promoted cultural evolution over the last 20,000 years, nor would it continue to prosper today.
I claim that Iran is dangerous not because Shi'ite Islam, or for that matter religion in general, is hate-filled or irrational (that is, that it favors self-destruction). On the contrary, a nuclear Iran can be more frightening because religion is based on love, honor, altruism and, not least, self-sacrifice.
The most powerful religious rituals and symbols in Iran revolve around the themes of Husayn's martyrdom in Karbala in 680 CE, and that tragic event plays out to feelings of sadness, contrition and penance. The Ashoura is not a festival of rage and revenge but love, devotion and regret.
The Shi'ites, as a community, bond together through the power of martyrological symbols, not unlike the Christians who place the crucifixion and resurrection at the heart of the Christian community.
For the Shi'ites, martyrdom is not an abstract and ancient institution. It is a living force that defines what it means to be a community, to have legitimate authority and to submit your personal interests to something greater than yourself.
This symbol holds for the nation as a whole but it also trickles down to local bureaucracies, educational institutions, police and military units. It looks a bit like this: Martyrdom is devotion (that is, love) and obedience to authority is how the individual can play his or her role in a nation ruled by the flag of martyrdom.
To put this in stark terms, the lesson of Karbala, where Husayn died, is that defense of the righteous community, of those who follow the true path of Islam, may require acts that emulate Husayn's decision to die when he was cornered. This is not only just; it is also beautiful and satisfying religious theater.
Personally I do not think the Iranian government will threaten to use its atomic weapons, and I believe that it is as susceptible to deterrence as the Soviets were during the cold war. That's because the community perceives its group interest and seeks pleasure and happiness as social values. Knowing that your enemy wants to promote his interests and wants to be happy is highly reassuring in a nuclear world.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: hassani1387 | November 4, 2009 7:59 AM
Posted by: tlwinslow | November 4, 2009 3:23 PM
Posted by: pofinpa | November 4, 2009 4:48 PM
Posted by: Arshama | November 4, 2009 4:50 PM
Posted by: mbintampa | November 4, 2009 7:26 PM
Posted by: joe100821 | November 4, 2009 8:57 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.