Most Suicide Bombers Are Muslim

[Eliezer]

This is from a psychology today article linkie (http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4359.html)



According to the Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, a comprehensive history of this troubling yet topical phenomenon, while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim. Why is this? Why is Islam the only religion that motivates its followers to commit suicide missions?

The surprising answer from the evolutionary psychological perspective is that Muslim suicide bombing may have nothing to do with Islam or the Koran (except for two lines in it). It may have nothing to do with the religion, politics, the culture, the race, the ethnicity, the language, or the region. As with everything else from this perspective, it may have a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

Now the question... Are some religious beliefs more dangerous than others?

[PWD]

Now the question... Are some religious beliefs more dangerous than others?

Maybe most suicide bombers are muslim because their training is less effective and they can't finish the job... if they survive, they're not suicide bombers any more. Christian suicide bombers, benefitting from the higher median education levels in their countries, tend to get the job done right the first time, snuffing themselves with great precision. Ergo there are less of them at any point in time. ;)

[FeatsofClay]

Did he discount Shintoism and the Kamikaze.

[Brynja]

Is that rhetorical or are you going to do something with the clear paralell?

[The Winslow]

Now that we've posited that shortage of women leads to frustration-driven violence, let's take a look at the two largest countries, population-wise: China and India.



Also, would a shortage of men lead to increased violence from women?

[Brynja]

Nah we aren't nearly as violent, we are far more socially destructive of one another. Similar idea different application.

[PWD]

Now that we've posited that shortage of women leads to frustration-driven violence

A surplus of women can lead to the same effect.

Correlate domestic violence occurrences to purchases of female hygiene products, and you'll find some interesting food for thought.

[Brynja]

Seriously?

[Varaj]

Now that we've posited that shortage of women leads to frustration-driven violence, let's take a look at the two largest countries, population-wise: China and India.

There are some scary predictions based on the raise in male population percentage for those two countries.


Also, would a shortage of men lead to increased violence from women?

Nope. One guy several gals does not produce the same reproduction demand that one gal and several guys does.

[Pigs in Space]

Now the question... Are some religious beliefs more dangerous than others?

I don't see a lot of violence caused by the Buddhists.

So yeah, of course.


If your religion is an Ancient Mayan death cult for example, then of course it's more dangerous than a pacifistic gaia thingo.

[Varaj]

Study on India
Here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wilsoncenter.org%2Fevents%2Fd ocs%2FUrdal_2.pdf&ei=UJtQR8XLCaG-gwK3n_DaCg&usg=AFQjCNGwUi0SxJCwFheTbu7lMfsdDFoklw&sig2=SuoqZQWEZGcXvP_E8_3CyQ)

A whole book on it.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10694
Bare Branches
The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population
Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. Den Boer

What happens to a society that has too many men? In this provocative book, Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer argue that, historically, high male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence. Most violent crime is committed by young unmarried males who lack stable social bonds. Although there is not always a direct cause-and-effect relationship, these surplus men often play a crucial role in making violence prevalent within society. Governments sometimes respond to this problem by enlisting young surplus males in military campaigns and high-risk public works projects. Countries with high male-to-female ratios also tend to develop authoritarian political systems.

Hudson and den Boer suggest that the sex ratios of many Asian countries, particularly China and India -- which represent almost 40 percent of the world's population -- are being skewed in favor of males on a scale that may be unprecedented in human history. Through offspring sex selection (often in the form of sex-selective abortion and female infanticide), these countries are acquiring a disproportionate number of low-status young adult males, called "bare branches" by the Chinese.

Hudson and den Boer argue that this surplus male population in Asia's largest countries threatens domestic stability and international security. The prospects for peace and democracy are dimmed by the growth of bare branches in China and India, and, they maintain, the sex ratios of these countries will have global implications in the twenty-first century.

Valerie M. Hudson is Professor of Political Science and faculty affiliate at the David M. Kennedy School for International and Area Studies at Brigham Young University. She is the author of the books Culture and Foreign Policy and Artificial Intelligence and International Politics and coeditor of The Limits of State Autonomy: Societal Groups and Foreign Policy Formulation and Political Psychology and Foreign Policy.

Andrea M. den Boer is a a Research Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

[Goblin Girl]

Also, would a shortage of men lead to increased violence from women?
No, but it might lead to more inner-directed violence on the part of women, like cutting, anorexia and drug use. Women tend to turn anger inward, while men turn it outward.

Please not that I'm speaking in generalities. :)

Edit: Also, it occurs to me that a multi-generational shortage of adult men might lead to a change in mores, such as an increase in the acceptance of single motherhood. Looking at the US inner city black community, where men kill each other like crazy, which leaves lots of extra women, and you will see what I'm talking about.

IANAS though. (I am not a Sociologist.)

[Schizm]

No, but it might lead to more inner-directed violence on the part of women, like cutting, anorexia and drug use. Women tend to turn anger inward, while men turn it outward.

Please not that I'm speaking in generalities. :)

Edit: Also, it occurs to me that a multi-generational shortage of adult men might lead to a change in mores, such as an increase in the acceptance of single motherhood. Looking at the US inner city black community, where men kill each other like crazy, which leaves lots of extra women, and you will see what I'm talking about.

IANAS though. (I am not a Sociologist.)

I don't remember where it was posted, but someone (varaj, maybe?) posted an interesting and hellishly long article on the surplus of single women in post world war one england. Interestingly, a shortage of available men led to increased Lesbianism. :D

[Goblin Girl]

I don't remember where it was posted, but someone (varaj, maybe?) posted an interesting and hellishly long article on the surplus of single women in post world war one england. Interestingly, a shortage of available men led to increased Lesbianism. :D

You know, that was one consequence I originally posted but edited out, because once I thought about it, I wasn't sure I really believed it. The reason I wasn't sure it would be a consequence was the (increasingly smaller) taboo about it.

[Schizm]

You know, that was one consequence I originally posted but edited out, because once I thought about it, I wasn't sure I really believed it. The reason I wasn't sure it would be a consequence was the (increasingly smaller) taboo about it.

Interesting choice of phrasing, and while I certainly understand your choice to remove it based on the perceived negative connotations of the word "consequence." It is a correlated direct result, however, of a decreased male population.

No need to be all PC and shit about it, though.:tongue:

[Goblin Girl]

Interesting choice of phrasing, and while I certainly understand your choice to remove it based on the perceived negative connotations of the word "consequence." It is a correlated direct result, however, of a decreased male population.

No need to be all PC and shit about it, though.:tongue:

Did I sound PC? Honestly I have no issue with lesbians or lesbianism. I was only trying to aim at speech that precisely mirrored my thought process. But here's another interesting (to me, at least) related sub-issue. During some parts of western history, for example the Victorian era, women weren't really thought of as sexual beings, so sexual relationships between women were invisible. You can see pictures of women holding hands and cuddling, but nobody thought it was anything other than "friendship". And if the women in question spoke of love, it would be assumed that they were speaking of filios or agape rather than eros. So I wonder if maybe the incidence of lesbianism during war time has long been much, much higher than anyone thought.

And I think that in some demographics (US poor blacks) lesbianism is *not at all* acceptable still. So I doubt you would see as much of it. And if it is going on, certainly the women in question aren't going to admit it. It will still be "the love that dare not speak its name."

[Andreas]

Well, all persons killing thousands of people through radioactive fire where christians...

Go figure.

[EDIT] Ok, now that i RTFP, i will add this piece that seems to be a little more on topic:

The Party imposes antisexualism on its members (sponsoring the Junior Anti-Sex-League, etc.), since sexual attachments might diminish exclusive loyalty to the Party. Julia describes party fanaticism as "sex gone sour"; Winston, aside from during his affair with Julia, suffers from an ankle inflammation, alluding to Oedipus the King and symbolizing an unhealthy repression of the sex drive.[citation needed] In part III of the book, O'Brien tells Winston that their neurologists are working on removing the orgasm from humans - Orwell supposed that the sufficient mental energy for prolonged worship requires the repression of a vital instinct, such as the sex instinct. This possibly alludes to the restrictions on sexuality imposed by authorities (civil, political, religious or otherwise, such as in the German National Socialism), be it consciously or by selective pressures on doctrine.

A quote from the articel about the book 1984.
If you manage to suprress the sexdrive of people, you can then use the pent-up energy to fuel all kind of radical anger and uproar.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Funny, I thought the majority of suicide bombers were Hindu Tamil Tigers - they did, after all, invent the tactic. It seems their Muslim imitators have finally surpassed them.

The beliefs a person holds determine their actions. You could get a Zen Buddhist to engage in suicide attacks (e.g. Japanese kamikaze), but other forms of Buddhism would be quite hard (though suicide protest is another matter - Vietnamese monks and all). But if your trying to produce suicide bombers, the best mental software for your recruits to be running is Islam - glorification martyrdom, militaristic attitude to proselytisation, belief in an afterlife, 72 virgins, family gets in as well, etc...

[Eliezer]

Did he discount Shintoism and the Kamikaze.

I don't know what the criteria is for "when religion is involved" but that's what the article is asserting. This would indicate that non-religious suicide bombing or suicide bombing that don't involve religion aren't included in this statement.




According to the Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, a comprehensive history of this troubling yet topical phenomenon, while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim. Why is this? Why is Islam the only religion that motivates its followers to commit suicide missions?


To Tamil Tigers and others probably didn't involve religion in the suicide bombing. The Kamikaze I'm not qualified to talk about, but I was under the impression that it was more socio-political in its motivation.

I think it's important to be clear on this point. When a suicide bombing is religiously motivated.