Martyrdom in the modern world

What is a martyr? Most people in the Western World would consider that person to be someone who even under the threat of death refuses to disown religious, social or political principles deeply felt. Socrates accepted death for the “crime” of impiety and “corruption” of youth—but his real crime was refusing to accept the political “status quo” in Athens. Jesus Christ gave the example for Christian martyrdom by refusing to renounce his teachings and in the face of crucifixion, and this gave inspiration to many persecuted early Christians. Thomas More the pragmatist sought not to be an example for others to follow, but undertook a highly personal mission to remain true to what he considered the “true” Christian principles. In “modern” times, the three civil rights workers murdered in Meridian, Mississippi in 1964 could be considered martyrs, dying for a moral cause. A scene of a Buddhist monk who committed self-immolation during the Vietnam War had an undeniable effect on the public perception of the morality of that war.

Martyrdom can be tricky to apply, because there are strikingly different interpretations of what that requires. For example, abolitionist John Brown’s actions had a basis in deep religious faith, but he did not shy away from perpetrating cold-blooded murder, such as at Pottawatomie Creek in retaliation of the sack of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery forces. In fact, Brown did not play the role of “martyr” until his arrest following the Harpers Ferry raid, and according to the strict definition, he is not a true martyr. Nevertheless, he did exhibit some of the traits of the martyr complex, including the desire to be seen dying for his beliefs. Brown was certainly in no way the martyr that Gandhi was, assassinated by a Hindu fanatic who opposed Gandhi’s call for tolerance and a united Hindu/Islamic India; there is a question, however, if Gandhi was expecting to this consequence, and his many fasts were of his own choice.

Today, “martyrdom” is most often heard practiced by Muslims. If one wonders why violence—even against each other—is so venerated in Islam, one need only consider its definition of martyrdom: Anyone who dies conducting jihad (“holy war”), or those who die “unjustly”—however that is interpreted—is granted a place in “paradise” as a “martyr.” In the West, people who commit acts of violence in the name of religion are considered criminals and/or psychologically “touched.” After all, Jesus preached about “turning the other cheek.” Soldiers who die in war are considered “patriots” and “heroes,” but it doesn’t necessarily grant them a place in Heaven. While its adherents claim that Islam is “a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity,” that definition has its limitations on how it is practiced and to whom. 

Take, for instance, the case of an Afghan man named Abdul Rahman, who had lived abroad for many years, converted from Islam to Roman Catholicism. Rahman was arrested upon his return to Afghanistan in 2006, having been disowned by this parents and divorced by his Muslim wife. He was charged with apostasy—meaning the abandonment of Islam for another faith. This is apparently no minor crime under sharia law; it requires the death penalty. According to who? The Prophet Muhammad. Most religions claim that they are “true” religion, but none other than Islam seems so megalomaniacal on the subject. Although as late as the 17^th century, forcible conversion was practiced in some European states, the threat of death was seldom utilized, and in no country today is anything other than ostracism (or in the case of the Balkans, forced emigration) is the “penalty” for having an unacceptable religious faith. But throughout much of the early Islamic period, it was a convert or die proposition.

Of course, it is not wise to have opinions on these matters, but in the case of Rahman, was he a Christian “martyr” in the classical sense? Although Afghanistan currently has a “freedom of religion” clause in its constitution, its basis is sharia law, and it was insisted upon by prosecutors and religious leaders that Rahman must repent or die. Rahman response was that of the “classical” martyr: "They want to sentence me to death and I accept it… I am a Christian, which means I believe in the Trinity… I believe in Jesus Christ.” The international media picked-up on the story, and Afghan president Hamid Karzai was put in a rather embarrassing position. The judge in the case found it expedient to find “irregularities” in the investigation, and when Italy offered Rahman asylum, he was released. 

There have been other instances where Taliban influence seems hardly less in evidence. Christian converts named Said Musa and Shoaib Assadullah Musawi claimed to have been beaten and sexually abused while awaiting trial for apostasy. No one would provide them legal counsel for fear of being targets themselves. Both were freed on condition that they leave country. Meanwhile, in Iran the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has reportedly gathered-up and burned 10,000 bibles smuggled into the country, and have established a covert spy network to uncover secret Christian converts in the country also shows that some people preferred the teaching of Jesus over that of Muhammad, only to be arrested and enduring “persuasion” to reconvert.

Nevertheless, there is still the question if “martyrdom” applies here. Martyrdom usually leads to—but does not require—that one dies for their belief; it is just more “meaningful” if one does so. Last year, a grisly video was briefly floating on the Internet that showed a man being decapitated with a knife. There has been some question as to why this occurred and where, but a liberal political commentator named  Tawfiq Okasha appeared on a talk show called "Egypt Today" claiming that the video showed a Tunisian man accused of converting to Christianity. The men who surrounded him were supposedly chanting "Let Allah be avenged on the polytheist apostate”--apparently in reference to the Holy Trinity. As the man was being beheaded he appears to murmuring a prayer, amidst cries of “God is Great.” The man’s head is then held up to cries of “victory.” Okasha expressed outrage at the act, asking if this is what Egypt should expect from Muslim Brotherhood rule.

There is this cynical, jaded view in the West that violence in many countries of the Middle East is part of the culture; of course, the same could be said of the activities of anarchists from the late 19^th and early 20^th century in this country, as well as the current fanaticism concerning gun ownership—except that we tend to make more excuses for ourselves, and few commit such acts in the name of their religious faith. But how does one justify going into a marketplace occupied by women and children with a bomb strapped to their waist? This person doesn’t belong in “paradise,” according to the Western mind—he belongs in some other place, and picking-up all his pieces is probably not worth the effort anyways.  

But it is also true that we don’t recognize those who bear witness to their faith in the face of persecution and even death in the same way as centuries ago. No doubt it is because it seems so remote; in this country, there is freedom of religion, and many Americans either do not practice a religion (except maybe the “religion” of capitalism and greed), or are “lapsed”--although they still adhere to the "Judeo-Christian" ethic. Many people can’t understand how someone could be so “fanatical” about their religious faith that they’d actually die for it; obviously some of this has to do with whether someone believes that there is actually an afterlife dependent on one’s behavior (and some of us don’t buy the idea of some fundamentalist and evangelical Christians that just “faith” and not good works is required). 

However, there remains the inescapable irony of one religious faith that preaches that without faith, one will merely not be “saved,” while in the other, if one does not have “faith” they face imprisonment, torture and even execution. If you had a “choice,” which religion would you choose? In the Islamic world, there is no acceptable “choice” unless it is from Christianity to Islam (like the Egyptian-born actor Omar Sharif, would did so for “career” reasons). In such an environment, making the “wrong” choice to free oneself from antiquated beliefs and strictures, despite knowing the consequences of doing so, qualifies one for at least a measure of admiration for the courage exhibited.