New York Times' David Brooks in an opinion piece raised the question of how much is religion involved in Jihadism, or psychology, or politics? He added that "the core of our confusion is that we are unclear about what a religion is, and how it might relate to violence sometimes carried out in its name." So he borrowed from William James’s classic work, “The Varieties of Religious Experience.”
Essentially religion was used by two entities - a practical, political one (the spirit of corporate dominion) and an intellectual one (the spirit of dogmatic dominion) - that envelops the spirit of religion.
Brooks continued by saying that “the spirit of religion begins with a sense that God exists. God is the primary reality, and out of that flows a set of values and experiences: prayer, praise, charity, contrition, grace and the desire to grow closer toward holiness. Sincere faith begins with humility in relation to the Almighty and a sense of being strengthened by his infinite love.”
He then used this logic to posit that “In some sense the phrase “Islamic radicalism” is wrong because terrorism is not a radical extension of this kind of faith. People don’t start out with this kind of faith and then turn into terrorists because they became more faithful.”
He goes on to state that “The spirit of dominion, on the other hand, does not start with an awareness of God. It starts with a sense of injury and a desire to heal injury through revenge and domination.”
So that gives him the reason to believe that “For the terrorist, a sense of humiliation is the primary reality. Terrorism emerges from a psychic state, not a spiritual one. This turns into a grievance, the belief that some external enemy is the cause of this injury, rather than some internal weakness.”
Brooks then cited the forensic psychologist Reid Meloy who talks about “the moral outrage that comes from the belief that my victimization is connected to the larger victimization of my group.”
That leads Brooks to this – it’s only at this point in the pathway that religion enters the picture, or rather an absolutist, all-explaining political ideology that is the weed that grows up next to religion. Bin Ladinism explains all of history, and gives the injured a course of action that will make them feel grandiose and heroic. It is the human impulse for dominance and revenge that borrows righteous garb.
For the religious person it’s about God. For the terrorist, it’s about himself. When Omar Mateen was in the midst of his rampage, he was posting on Facebook and calling a TV station. His audience was us, not the Divine.
Omar Mateen wanted us to think he was martyring himself in the name of holiness. He was actually a sad loser obliterating himself for the sake of revenge.
