Was Islam Responsible for the Boston Bombings, or Was “Internet Islam”?

[rug]

Opinion
April 24, 2013
By Ivan Strenski

There must be sane ground between the Islamophobia of the right and the tender tolerance of the left. There must be some sense in which indicting the world’s billion Muslims for the crimes of the Tsarnaev brothers not only is false, but also counterproductive, on the one side. And, on the other, there must be some sense in recognizing the avowed and admitted role of religion, and Islam, in particular, in the bombings.

But where is it?

I say this because we all know real Muslims as friends, relatives, co-workers and such, and know that they do not countenance what the Chechen brothers did. We also know enough about the history of Islamic civilization to realize that their understanding of Islam likewise does not as well encourage the behavior of the Tsarnaevs. But, how then to make sense of Boston?

Mark Juergensmeyer speaks of Islam being “hijacked.” In the past, I have too have used this very phrase—to describe the 9/11 attacks, for example. But, I have come to think that such usages have misled us into believing something about Islam that we no longer believe about any religion, or for that matter, any or most ideologies or belief systems. [Mark Silk makes a complementary argument here. –The Eds.]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/7071/was_islam_responsible_for_the_boston_bombings__or_was__internet_islam___

[grantcart]

1. Islam had zero to do with it.

It was carried out by a sexually frustrated man between the ages of 17 and 28 (and his younger brother) whose personal life was in disarray and in a fit of impotence struck out to try and get affirmation in a spasm of narcissistic violence.

It is exactly the same as CT, CO and McVeigh. Young males who have failed in their primary objectives, have no back up plan and now find their lives sinking into meaningless mediocrity.

McVeigh used the tragedy at Waco, Tsarnaev used the war in Iraq. Except they moved to the US after the war, and could have moved to Canada where their aunt already lived. More to the point the war didn't bother Tsarnaev when he sought America glory as an Olympic boxer.

You will never find a mass murderer killing for any cause who is doing well in school or their occupation and in a committed loving relationship. The stated motivations are nothing more than attempts to get heroic validation as a martyr to overcome the bitter ordinariness and loneliness of the life they have created.

[rug]

2. I don't disagree.

I think the point this article is getting at is that so-called "internet Islam' allowed these two to be "self-radicalized" in the name of Islam.

[grantcart]

3. It wasn't Islam (internet or otherwise that radicalized them). It was their own bitter

disappointment with their life.

His radicalization started when he married a Christian and when he couldn't transform her into his image of the perfect wife beat her up. He became radicalized when he was unable to advance in boxing. Based on Maddow's interesting link to the murder of 3 MJ I am guessing (purely speculative) that he confronted the guys that were supplying his brother (whose friends say was a daily pot smoker) and ended up taking their lives. How many drug related deaths are there where both the drugs and the money are left at the scene of the crime. Islam, or whatever excuse these losers come up with, is a POST radicalization justification for the bitter lives they have constructed.

In some cases it is Islam, others it is RW ideology, anti abortion activism and so on.

IMO the public justification of these guys radicalization happens long after they have taken the steps to act out violently. If not this they would have found another excuse.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. So religion has nothing to do with it, but your argument starts with 'he married a Christian'

which is of course not correct as she converted to Islam. Before they were married. She wore a hajib and worked 80 hours a week for him.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Sexually frustrated? You mean the married man with a kid? How on Earth would you know that?

Lots of script writing going on, if you ask me. In addition, your description even if true is also true of millions of others, so it becomes hard to frame those things as anything like a full explanation. Which does not mean the OP is correct, just that your argument is made up and insufficient.
Sexually frustrated. Did you interview his wife? People amaze me with what they 'know'.

[grantcart]

11. His abusive relationship with women has been well reported, including a criminal conviction:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313473/Boston-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-called-wife-Katherine-Russell-Tsarnaev-slut-prostitute.html

Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev displayed a disturbing pattern of verbal abuse and violence toward women that included fits of rage against his wife and an arrest in 2009 for slapping a previous girlfriend, according to police records and accounts from those who knew him.

Close friends of his wife Katherine Russell, 24, claimed today that Tsarnaev, 26, was combative, angry and controlling

. . .

Three of Russell's friends told National Public Radio's Laura Sullivan that Tsarnaev would often insult Russell and call her names, such as 'slut' and 'prostitute.'

He was known to fly into into fits of rage where he would throw objects, including furniture, friends said.

Asked whether he had hit Ascencao, Tsarnaev stated, 'Yes, I slapped her.' He specifically stated that he struck the left side of her face.

His arrest and conviction for beating up his girlfriend was significant to become an obstacle to him getting citizenship.

So yes I stand by the "sexually frustrated" analysis. His behavior exactly matches a person who is unable to develop a loving intimate relationship.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. No psychologist with any degree of skill would diagnose from a newspaper clipping

Nor would they assert this man was somehow born irrevocably broken, or that his upbringing--including his religious education--played no part in his socialization.

[struggle4progress]

5. As far as I can tell, there have always been people who do stuff like this:

they seem to cut across the cultural spectrum, having all manner of religious and political views

[rug]

6. Do you think the internet provides an ideology to attach to?

[struggle4progress]

8. There's no particular "internet ideology." Excessive internet use may prevent some people

from hearing points-of-view, other than those they already prefer, by increasing social isolation of users and by trapping people in self-selected "echo chambers." And it may also make it easier for people to plan certain acts, by making some information more readily available. So some minor phenomenological aspects of such activity might change, depending on internet use. But I don't see anything really new here

[rug]

9. No there isn't but it does distill ideologies.

All the subforums of reddit come to mind. There seems to be a lot of self-identified ideologues inhabiting the internet.

[MADem]

10. I think "Crazy Mama" had a role in that mess.

But at the end of the day, these two were adults and they had the ability to think for themselves.

I think THEY were responsible for their actions.

[dimbear]

13. I, personally, don't go about blowing up other folks. Why? It seems wrong to me.

As an atheist, it's impossible for me to see any ethical system where that is justified. OTOH, within radical Islam, or within radical Christian cults of certain stripes, there clearly do exist kinds of justification for these evil actions.

Someone will be able to trot out an example of some atheist who blew up something. I ask you to play the numbers, consider it all statistically. When you hear the phrase IED, what comes to mind really?

[rug]

14. The universal trait behind these acts is desperation.

If anyone enjoys privilege, whether it be education, wealth or leisure, the likelihood of committing these acts drops.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Demonstrably false

Many of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle or upper class families, and were relatively well-educated. At least in that specific example, the perpetrators were driven by ideology, not desperation.

[Phillip McCleod]

16. perhaps it is desperation that motivates these acts..

..we've all felt desperate from time to time, but we don't blow things up. yet more reports come out every day of people telling the cops to cut of their penises because they're 'straight' and, besides, 'god' (happened, see rawstory), or much much much worse. it happens every day in afghanistan and iraq and pakistan and and and .. people killing in the name of their god.

this is why the nones are rising worldwide .. that extreme of zealotry is turning people off, maaan, and how, and all that more moderate voices can do is try to defend what they each see as the 'real' religion X, and seek justifications that distance themselves from the violence.

the dialogue does not *progress*.

[dimbear]

17. Desperate people often turn to self destruction, sometimes for the best, but never

would an upright person no matter how desperate turn to random slaughter....without some lure.

Some lure or some excuse.

[hrmjustin]

18. How committed these two were to Islam will not be know for awhile or never completely.

I think Islam needs a reformation. Than again so does christianity but for different reasons.