By Douglas Anele

The difference between the Holy Bible and the Holy Koran, therefore, is not that the former does not contain belligerent injunctions while the latter does. Generally, Christians seem more benign than Muslims now mainly because for centuries philosophers and intellectuals some of whom were devout Christians subjected Christianity to severe criticism from every possible angle, thereby exposing its weaknesses and irrationalities.

The concomitant effect of such relentless criticism over time is loosening of the stranglehold of biblical injunctions on people’s beliefs and conduct, accompanied by increasing acceptance of secular scientific worldview in Christian countries especially in Europe and her cultural colonies in North America. Islam is yet to go through such intense intellectual purifying process. I am convinced that in future secularisation of Islam would get to the stage where Muslims would reject violence and terrorism as a legitimate means of propagating their faith.

But the question remains, why do some Muslims enthusiastically react so strongly to the point of risking their own lives against those they believe have violated certain injunctions in Islamic scriptures, which most reasonable people would consider inconsequential and unworthy of attention? Generally, why do people sometimes respond violently to situations that require calm and rational response? Sometimes, poverty, unemployment, profound sense of alienation and disillusionment induce individuals, especially the youths, to overreact unnecessarily in matters of faith. But in some cases, middle class individuals with good education and jobs, like the pilots involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States of America, also commit atrocities because of religion, which proves that poverty and unemployment are not always the necessary or sufficient conditions for terrorism. Thus, we need to go beyond the usual explanations and identify the basic existential conditions that motivate otherwise intelligent and reasonable men and women to become suicide bombers and agents of death and destruction in the name of God.

Erich Fromm, in his book, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, provides a theoretical model of human nature that illuminates the problem of what he calls malignant aggression. For survival, both humans and animals, he says, engage in adaptive aggression. Nevertheless, human beings are unique because they can be driven by impulses to kill and torture, and derive satisfaction in doing so. More importantly, they are the only animal that can be a killer and destroyer of their own species without any rational benefit, either biological or economic. Such malignant aggressiveness, though unnecessary for physiological survival, is an important part of the mental functioning of humans. Fromm suggests that it is one of the passions that are dominant and powerful in some individuals and cultures but not in others.

It follows that an adequate understanding of the aetiology of fundamentalist terrorism must be predicated on a scientific understanding of human nature and the socio-cultural conditions that tend to engender malignant aggression. Now, human beings can be defined in morphological, anatomical, physiological, psychological and neurological terms. From an evolutionary perspective, the species homo sapiens emerged at the point of evolution when instinctive determination of behaviour had reached a minimum and the development of the brain, especially the neocortex, a maximum. This implies that as human beings we have certain mental qualities unprecedented in the animal kingdom, namely, self-awareness, reason and imagination.

These mental attributes constitute the psychic foundation for existential needs peculiar to us, which create the necessity for a frame of orientation and object of devotion as a substitute for our partial separation from nature. Aside from the basic needs of biological survival and reproduction which humans share with other animals, our capacity for self-awareness, reason and creative imagination demands that we must operate with a picture of the world and our place in it, a cohesive and structured system of beliefs as a substitute for our existential alienation from nature.

Fromm informs us that man (in the sense in which woman is included, of course) needs a map of his natural and social world without which he would be confused and unable to act consistently and purposely. Religion, therefore, is one of the possible answers provided by man to his basic existential psychic needs. But the fundamentalist terrorist does not understand that apart from Islam, there are other and even more adequate solutions to these needs. For instance, science and philosophy provide far better answers than religion to our ineradicable need for an existential map. Generally, speaking none of the system of ideas invented thus far has been completely wrong or completely right. Each one has always been enough of an approximation to the explanation of phenomena to serve the purpose of life; and only to the extent to which the practice of life is bereft of contradiction and irrationality can the worldview on which it is based correspond to the truth.

At last, we have arrived at a very important key for understanding the phenomenon of violent religious extremism usually ignored in discussion of global terrorism. The average Islamic terrorist who has been exposed from childhood to the idea that there is a piece of literature revealed to a holy prophet that contains the actual pronouncements of God would unlikely cultivate and develop the requisite dose of healthy scepticism for evaluating the doctrines of his religion rationally. Rather, he or she would believe wholeheartedly and fanatically what is written in the “holy book.” Thus, in the case of a devout Muslim indoctrinated from childhood with the idea that Islam is the only true religion and that converting at all cost unbelievers or infidels is a religious duty, with the promise of divine reward in paradise after death, the psychological foundation for him to be a willing tool for religious terrorism has been laid. At this stage, it would hardly occur to him to search for passages in the Holy Koran that enjoin peace and brotherly love for all human beings without discrimination. That said, given certain social conditions that engender boredom, alienation, disillusionment and strong belief in the religious myth that life in paradise after death is infinitely better than life in this world, an Islamic terrorist would not hesitate to commit atrocities in the name of his God or prophet.

Therefore, if people are serious about tackling the menace of terrorism, if governments all over the world are genuinely committed to reducing the dangerous escalation of religious extremism, then concerted efforts must be made urgently, among other things, to teach children, especially in schools, the rudiments of critical thinking, comparative religion, and philosophy. There must be a way of letting children know that, despite claims of divine revelation, religion, like everything human, is a cultural artefact which must be subjected to ratiocinative scrutiny such that those parts that tend to encourage discrimination, violence and destructiveness must be passed over in silence as an index of human fallibility and moral weakness. Parents, teachers, and religious leaders must teach the young that religion is meant for man, not man for religion; that it is morally wrong and stupid to main, kill and destroy just because someone said something you do not like about your prophet, holy book, religion or God.

Going back to the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris with which we began this discourse, the notion that those murdered by the lunatics somehow deserved their fate for insulting prophet Muhammad (SAW) is completely ridiculous and morally reprehensible. Now, supposing a group of atheists who passionately detest religion goes ahead to commit a dastardly act in a mosque or church filled with worshippers during jumaat or Sunday service, how would a Muslim or Christian respond to the atheists’ explanation that they were offended by the reverence for God in the “holy books”. Therefore, humankind must put an end to organised religion, or it would put an end to humankind. Concluded.