Grandmother Suicide Bomber Sent By Hamas

A grandmother who has been identified as somewhere between 57 and 64 years old, has committed suicide by detonating explosives in Gaza, injuring several Israeli sources. Hamas has claimed responsiblity for the bombing in a video released in which the woman offered herself as a sacrifice to God and the homeland. Her family was said to be "very proud" of her actions.



The sad news continues to come out of the mideast. What did this woman accomplish by blowing herself up? She left a large family behind, who should be benefitting from a grandmother's kindness and wisdom instead of praising her senseless sacrifice.

Related News Links:
lfpress.ca
www.chicagotribune.com

[edit on 24-11-2006 by jsobecky]

Obviously the family does not consider it a senseless sacrifice...

I've only begun my studies into the Islamic culture, as well as the Qu'ran. From what I've learned so far (and please -- correct me if I'm wrong! I'm a tyro philosophy student, not a preacher)... " 'Islam' means surrender, and a 'muslim' is a man or a woman who has made this submission of their entire being to Allah and his demand that human beings behave to one another with justice, equity and compassion." (taken from Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong, p. 5 )

There is no separation between the religious life and the political life.. they are one in the same. In order to actualize the teachings of Muhammed and Allah (the God), then they must live accordingly -- which means everything feeds back into and springs from their religion.

If an action goes against the teachings of Allah, then muslims must act against it, work to correcting it.

I'm going to have to look into the history of this dispute, as I'm not one for following current events. However, if she believed that her actions were in alignment with Allah, then her sacrifice was not senseless.. but necessary.

It's hard for those outside of any thought to understand it, but I'm convinced that we must try to understand so that we may see these actions the way they do -- and hopefully come to some sort of compromise between the warring parties.

While I agree with you Diserria as far as trying to understand them, which I kind of already do, my Western values just refuse to accept this as a necessary act. Like for instance, if they just stopped seeking revenge through vigilante violence right now, then it would make things much easier to settle.

This act does nothing to bring peace, or undo the harm that may have been done against them.

This is true -- however, if a wrong has been done, it must be avenged. (in their system) The wrong is not only against the individual person(s), but also against Allah. *That* is why it's such a big deal... (I'd hope that individual people would eventually learn -- but if you're offending their God, that's a whole different can of worms.)

It is a slippery slope, and the sled race is going fantastically. And, I agree, I do not think that it'll bring peace. But, then again, I don't think it's really about peace anymore... or, maybe they're just doing one heck of a job embracing the idea of 'if you want peace, you must prepare for war'... (I disagree with that saying, but that's just me.)


The thing that makes me wonder -- if they are trying to, or defending, the actualization of Allah's intended way of life (justice, equality, compassion), how far can they bend the rules (are the rules even bending?) before their actions are completely opposite what they are defending?

Justice is one of those words that is defined by culture, and (methinks) only recently was given a semi-universal definition.

Justice for stealing, for example, varies. A fine, prison time, the loss of a hand... All of these are considered justice. We disagree (especially with the latter) because our definition differs.

So, what's a just reaction? Not only does it depend on the crime committed, but the culture.
Ask a hundred people, and you'll get all different answers. (Especially if you ask people from different countries.)

Originally posted by Diseria
There is no separation between the religious life and the political life.. they are one in the same. In order to actualize the teachings of Muhammed and Allah (the God), then they must live accordingly -- which means everything feeds back into and springs from their religion.

If an action goes against the teachings of Allah, then muslims must act against it, work to correcting it.

The problem stems from using a theocracy-based reference point. Being subjective, it is open to too wide an interpretation, and is used to justify any action one chooses to take against whatever one chooses to be offended by.

When Muhammed said "Correct an injustice", he may have meant to sit down with the one who did you wrong. Unfortunately, the current interpretation (not much different than the historical interpretation) has been taken to mean "cut off the head of the infidel".

You may try to justify this on religious grounds, but at some point people need to start living in the present, and not in a realm of reference that might have made sense 7 centuries ago. At some point, if you do not receive the "justice" that your subjective interpretation calls for, you have just got to let it go, and be secure in the belief that it will be corrected in the afterlife.

I'm going to have to look into the history of this dispute, as I'm not one for following current events. However, if she believed that her actions were in alignment with Allah, then her sacrifice was not senseless.. but necessary.

To her it was necessary. Once again, this is the danger of using a centuries-old religious for your frame of justice.

It's hard for those outside of any thought to understand it, but I'm convinced that we must try to understand so that we may see these actions the way they do -- and hopefully come to some sort of compromise between the warring parties.

Yes it is hard to understand it, the same as it is impossible for them to understand our culture. They are unbending in their beliefs. There can be no compromise when one or both parties takes that stance.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The problem stems from using a theocracy-based reference point. Being subjective, it is open to too wide an interpretation, and is used to justify any action one chooses to take against whatever one chooses to be offended by.

Because it is theocracy-based, does that mean that a solution will never be found? That because of the mis-interpretation (or, at the very least, re-interpretation) of the original teachings, we can never come to a compromise?

I understand that logic and theocracy may never meet, at least so far it's very unlikely. But, it seems that (at least what I've read so far) Mohammed, Jesus, the Hindus -- they all taught the same basic ideas: justice, equity, compassion.. thinking outside of oneself, respect, civility... These, I think, logic can agree with as they work out for the best of everyone -- individuals and society.

So, why can't we begin with those points of agreement -- the one, if only, place that theocracy and logic meet?

(I realize I might be grasping at straws, but I cannot simply let go of this... If they are based in theocracy, then it seems to me that we should try to understand that. Maybe not agree with it, but at least see what it is that they're trying to do, the overall points that drive the religion. I cannot abide by throwing my hands up and walking away because of the subjective nature of this and that. There has to be something more...)

You may try to justify this on religious grounds, but at some point people need to start living in the present, and not in a realm of reference that might have made sense 7 centuries ago. At some point, if you do not receive the "justice" that your subjective interpretation calls for, you have just got to let it go, and be secure in the belief that it will be corrected in the afterlife.

I think this goes for every human being... Decide what it is that gets every human being to have the best life possible (what exactly are the factors that lead to a 'good' life), and let us all work towards those. Again, if the original teachings of various prophets/men coincide with that -- where is the problem then? Methinks with the re-interpretations... maybe it's elsewhere. If it is, indeed, the mis-/re- interpretations, then that is where we need to start.

Simply because this or that philosophy (be it religious, logic, whatever) is centuries old does not mean that it's automatically invalid. I believe that Confucius had lessons that we, today, may learn and grow from. It doesn't mean that the ideas will automatically fit in today's society -- but that also doesn't mean that they won't ever fit.

Religious or not, people are still people. Their logic may be based on theocracy, but they are still working with some kind of logic. It makes more sense to me to figure out where the twists are and figure out how to un-twist them, rather than say that a compromise will never be reached.

I don't think that theocracy-based and logically-based are *that* far apart..

Yes it is hard to understand it, the same as it is impossible for them to understand our culture. They are unbending in their beliefs. There can be no compromise when one or both parties takes that stance.

Arguably, the West is just as unbending. If their argument with us is, say, materialism -- we are not realizing our wrong (the fact that we *are* materialistic, and that such a way might not be the best way to live), but rather pursuing it because that is our percieved/subjective 'way of life'.

I do not think that that is their beef with us, but I do not see the West, especially america, trying to bend and work with others. (In fact, we try forcing others to change -- which will never work, not entirely anyhow.)

So the fault of 'unwilling to bend/unbending' is not entirely theirs. The blame must be shared... *everyone* must take their share of the responsibility -- them, as well as us.



I admit that I might be 'too idealistic', trying to find ways to solve people's problems. I'm learning about various philosophies over time, and each makes sense for the culture that they spawned from. I see the validity of why they were created -- I try to, anyhow.

I was taught that there will never ever be a compromise between logic and theocracy. I believed that for many years, until I realized that that is outright admitting defeat -- if there is no answer, then there's no reason to put effort into finding one. Me and my inner rebel cannot abide by that.

If we cannot see the answer, that means we're asking the wrong questions, or we haven't learned enough.

I think this goes for every human being... Decide what it is that gets every human being to have the best life possible (what exactly are the factors that lead to a 'good' life), and let us all work towards those. Again, if the original teachings of various prophets/men coincide with that -- where is the problem then?

I think I can address your entire post by responding to this one question.

There is no problem with that. Where the two coincide, it is serendipitous. But you cannot base your laws on a subjective interpretation, just because it is subjective.

When people defend Islam, they call it the religion of peace. When they defend their own actions, they call on the Quran as their guide.

That applies to some degree to all religions, btw.

Same source as original.


Huh she was sent by Hamas??? More then likely her husband was a member of Hamas and he ordered her to kill herself in the name of Allah (cough)

Still a very bad scenario never the less.

If I were her I would him/them to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut

Originally posted by jsobecky

I think this goes for every human being... Decide what it is that gets every human being to have the best life possible (what exactly are the factors that lead to a 'good' life), and let us all work towards those. Again, if the original teachings of various prophets/men coincide with that -- where is the problem then?

I think I can address your entire post by responding to this one question.

There is no problem with that. Where the two coincide, it is serendipitous. But you cannot base your laws on a subjective interpretation, just because it is subjective.

I do not think that the original teachings coinciding with logical conclusions (at least those that I've read from Aristotle & Plato/Socrates) are serendipitous... I think there is a foundation of basic ideals that all humans try to achieve. (Besides, even if it's lucky, why not roll with it? No matter where the ideas spring from, the ideas in and of themselves are worthy of humanity's attention, no?)

Arguably, most laws are subjective, *especially* in interpretation -- that's why we have lawyers, who find the loop holes and 'bendable' regions of laws. Likewise, anything that humans come up with *could* be considered subjective simply because we cannot know all the facts of any given situation. We cannot know the exact undeniable truth no matter how hard we look/think. So I'm not entirely sure how to get around that...

When people defend Islam, they call it the religion of peace. When they defend their own actions, they call on the Quran as their guide.

That applies to some degree to all religions, btw.

Indeed, and I shall not argue against that. But, because it comes down to a matter of interpretation (a matter of *how* one reads it, strict word-for-word, or leniently) -- *that* is why I'm trying to understand the original teachings. Pick any text of any organized religion, and it's obviously not the original teachings.. it's people's interpretation of the historical person. So we cannot depend on them.

The more that I learn about any religion's original teachers, they strike me as philosophers more than prophets -- it's the people afterwards that transform these 'meat sacks' into 'gods'...

Humanity has made a ga-zillion mistakes. I'm not angry about it -- that's what we do; more importantly, we must learn from them. Then, figure out what the roots are and go from there.

Islam, Christianity, (my studies thus far are limited) -- they all pushed for peaceful resolutions and revolutions in human thought and practice. (It's the fundamentalists that go screwy and run in weird directions..)

But each has ideas that grew up separately from each other -- and yet are, fundamentally, the same! How is that luck? And even if we decide that it is sheer luck and co-inky-dink: so what?
Why not take the stroke of luck and work it into society -- re-shape society based on these good-for-everyone ideas? (The fact that these ideas were said/pushed by the (so-called) prophets would lend them credibility in the eyes of the religious peoples!)


I wonder if I'm even making a true argument, or just playing the hopeful (and ultimately naive) devil's advocate... I don't know all the sides, all the information. I just have this feeling that because there is a point of intersection between logic and theocratic thought (be it lucky coincidence or not) -- that we should work from that. All of humanity won't go all-logic or all-religious, so there has to be some middle ground, no? .....

Originally posted by shots
Huh she was sent by Hamas??? More then likely her husband was a member of Hamas and he ordered her to kill herself in the name of Allah (cough)

Shots, that was sick but also very very funny!

Actually, the woman was very active politically. It has been reported that her home was a haven for terrorists, and just recently she and a group of other women placed themselves as human shields between Israeli forces and the thugs they were pursuing.

originally posted by Diseria
I wonder if I'm even making a true argument, or just playing the hopeful (and ultimately naive) devil's advocate... I don't know all the sides, all the information. I just have this feeling that because there is a point of intersection between logic and theocratic thought (be it lucky coincidence or not) -- that we should work from that. All of humanity won't go all-logic or all-religious, so there has to be some middle ground, no? .....

Yes, there has to be a middle ground. Even our own laws (US) are based somewhat upon the Ten Commandments. We need to take the lessons that religion teaches us and use them as a basis for our actions. But multiple interpretations cannot be permitted.

We can only hope, eh?

Originally posted by jsobeckyYes, there has to be a middle ground. Even our own laws (US) are based somewhat upon the Ten Commandments. We need to take the lessons that religion teaches us and use them as a basis for our actions. But multiple interpretations cannot be permitted.

We can only hope, eh?

So, in theory, one could work through each possible interpretation and logically deduce which are the most correct? (Granted, that's a huge chunk of craziness, but I've a penchant for such projects.. just ask my english professor. )

However, one must also be careful and aware of declaring one or another interpretation as thee fact and edging towards an ideological fascism...


OOoooo... I love and hate lines in the sand when the tide's coming in!!


I hope.. yes. 'Tis the only thing that's gotten me this far in life.