Social | Dr. Wael Haddara

The Middle East Eye: Why terrorism is caused by much more than just religion

Aug 21, 2017

Photo: People flee during the terror attacks in central Paris on 13 November 2015 (AFP)

Wael Haddara is an educator, associate professor of medicine at Western University, Canada, and a leader in the Canadian Muslim community. In 2012-2013, he served as senior advisor to President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.

The spate of terrorist attacks in the UK have again brought to the fore a seemingly unresolvable debate. Is Islam to blame for the recent outbursts of violent extremism?

US President Donald Trump and those in his camp have an emphatic answer – yes – and fighting terror includes banning Muslims from entering the United States and potentially deporting those currently there.

But bigotry and xenophobia are a poor substitute for evidence-based analysis as a basis for sound policy. Decades of research on violent extremism have yielded empirical insights that can help us confront this terror far more effectively than fearmongering.

Attackers would not fit the bill

In a superficial sense, the connection to “radical Islam” is obvious. The perpetrators of attacks – in Manchester, London, Nice, Orlando and Paris – all paid some form of homage to Islamic State (IS). Some had travelled to Syria.

But they, and many others like them, would never pass muster amid the actual ranks of “Islamist militants”.

Salman Abedi, the Manchester terrorist, was a party boy with a fondness for vodka Red Bull and weed
Mohamed Bouhlel, the Nice attacker, had a history of petty crimes, “did not pray and liked girls and salsa”
Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, and Salah Abdessalam, the Paris ring leader, also consumed alcohol publicly and regularly, and both were regulars at gay bars
Mateen had profiles on several gay dating apps while Abdessalam was known as a gay “rentboy”
Michael Zihaf-Bibeau, the gunman who shot dead a soldier in Canada’s capital, was a drug-addled petty criminal, who, like Abdessalam, had served time in jail

The personal history of many perpetrators of terrorist acts in Western countries fit exactly with that profile: troubled childhoods, lack of religious observance and occasional criminality. These features lead many in the Muslim community, as well as experts like Olivier Roy, to conclude that these terrorists are not “real” Muslims and that Islam is irrelevant to their violence.

Why self-belief matters

Research into “radicalisation” suggests there is no single path to radicalisation. An ideological foundation for violence as elaborated by Daesh (as Islamic State is often called) may be one factor.

But others are also important: political or social grievances; a lack of alternatives to pursue those grievances (for example, there was a sharp reduction in the appeal of violent groups in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and a sharp spike after the military coup in Egypt); and the means and resources to organise an attack; and, finally, individual factors.

One framework that can help us understand those individual factors is Terror Management Theory, developed by a group of American psychologists during the 1980s and validated by more than 400 empirical studies.

Terror Management Theory posits that because we all have a desire to live, the consciousness of our own mortality can lead to potentially paralysing existential terror. We may manage that terror by denying that we will die (“I’m too young” or “I’m too healthy” etc), but eventually we manage it by believing in our immortality; whether literal (belief in an afterlife) or symbolic (legacy, works etc).

But for this sense of immortality to succeed in mitigating the terror of dying, individuals must believe themselves worthy of those rewards and accolades.

In other words, for a belief in an afterlife or legacy to successfully relieve the terror of dying, one must have a sense of self-belief that the way one has lived one’s life is worthy of salvation or the adulation of fellow men.

People lacking in self-esteem, who have not effectively managed their terror of dying, respond by lashing out against others who do not share their cultural worldview.

For example, studies show that Americans, when reminded of their mortality or of 9/11, were more likely to agree with the use of extreme tactics to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, despite knowing those tactics would also kill thousands of innocent people, and would support the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Similarly Iranians, reminded of their mortality, were more likely to express support for suicide bombings against Americans. In both settings, control groups that were not exposed to the idea of dying responded in more tolerant and inclusive ways.

Phenomenon not unique to Islam

How does this inform the current debates? How does Islam fit into the equation?

To the extent that there is any religiosity, Abedi, Bouhlel and others demonstrate a classic profile of individuals with low self-esteem who have what Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport called “extrinsic religiousness” where religion serves as little more than a social group identifier.

Intrinsic religiousness describes religion as a part of who people are – an end in itself. Not surprisingly, intrinsic, but not extrinsic religiousness protects against hatred of, and lashing out at, other groups in Terror Management Theory studies.

This phenomenon is not unique to Islam and is consistent with an exhaustive report from the UK security service MI5 that a religious identity may actually protect against radicalisation.

In Terror Management Theory studies, priming subjects with positive verses from their holy texts – for example, “Do good to others because Allah loves those who do good” (Qur’an, 28:77) or “love your neighbour as yourself” – reduced the hatred toward, and lashing out against, others.

Bouhlel and those whose religious education derives primarily from IS propaganda cannot draw on that fund of spiritual enlightenment.

And so, in the face of personal crises – such as Abedi’s academic failure and increasing isolation and Bouhlel’s marital breakdown and financial problems – they may seek to regain their self-esteem through spectacular acts of terror.

The us-versus-them world

One part of the solution for mitigating the risk of terror may well be decent policy on both the domestic and foreign levels that reduces inequality, isolation and injustice.

The Islamic State, and troubled individuals, use religion to establish an us-versus-them world. Punitive security measures against Muslims reinforce this binary vision. Populists like Trump seem to be unaware of how they mirror the very narrative they claim to be fighting.

Their attacks, in turn, may spur a generation of young Muslims into approaching their faith, not as a path to spiritual and social fulfillment and enlightenment, but rather as an extrinsic identity that helps them assert their place in a hostile world. This plays right into the hands of IS narratives that reinforce exactly what Terror Management Theory studies warn against.

Much of the public seems to think that “radical Islam” is what causes terrorism. Yet the underlying psychology that leads to violence is about much more than just religion. The responsibility to stifle vicious fanaticism through inclusion and respect doesn’t just belong to Muslims, but to all of us.

Original Link: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-terrorism-caused-much-more-just-religion

Interned Italian-Canadians Left Deep Holes in Communities They Were Forced to Leave Behind

Sep 28, 2016

It started off with a post that appeared on my Facebook timeline. A friend, who is part Italian, posted a story from the North Bay Nugget. I normally would have let the story pass, but, for whatever reasons, I read this one and it was about the City of North Bay dedicating a plaque to The Empire Hotel, “considered the social and business hub of North Bay for over 50 years,” and to its builder, Italian-Canadian Leo Mascioli.

The Empire, as it turns out, is a big deal. It is the only building in North Bay designated as a Priority One Heritage building and Princess (now Queen) Elizabeth and Prince Phillip stayed there during their tour of Canada in 1951. The Nugget story went on to describe the treatment of Italian Canadians during the Second World War and the fact that when suspicion fell on Italian Canadians at large, Leo Mascioli’s achievements counted for nothing. I was intrigued by the story, but even more intrigued when my friend sent me this link with a cryptic, “you may relate to this…”

Leo Mascioli left Italy at the age of 18, coming first to Boston, then to Canada. He worked on Marconi’s telegraph machine (to which I feel I have a connection because the first signal was sent from Signal Hill in St. John’s, Newfoundland) and then went back to Italy to marry his childhood sweetheart.

He eventually came back to Canada in 1906 and worked hard. Very hard. He was able to start his own construction company and went about building things…in North Bay, Sudbury and Timmins. In addition to the Empire, he built movie theaters — and the first movies in the north were shown in his theaters.

His story resonated. Since moving to London, Ontario, I’d heard variations of this story multiple times from people with Syrian and Lebanese ancestry. Muslims of Syrian and Lebanese heritage first came to the London area in the late 1800s and worked hard to build a community. Many were very successful, becoming business owners, councilmen and well-regarded community builders.

But then the story diverges.

On June 10, 1940, shortly after the declaration of war by Italy against the United Kingdom, police moved across Canada and seized/arrested Italian-Canadians. And so it was that Leo Mascioli (and 500 other local Italian-Canadians) were seized in Timmins. Leo Mascioli was 64 and he had settled, lived in and contributed to Canada for 34 years before he was interned at Petawawa, along with thousands of others.

The reaction back home was muted. Italian-Canadians in Timmins gathered to declare their loyalty to the Empire. And while the serving mayor of Timmins attended the gathering, the former mayor wrote a piece for the local paper claiming that Mascioli was a communist. History not being without a sense of irony, another article urging the internment of Italian-Canadians was published in the local paper — on the same page as the movie listings for Leo Mascioli’s movie theaters.

We hear a lot about the internment of Japanese-Canadians, but the internment of the Italian community is less well known. Mascioli’s story has been the subject of some study. His granddaughter recreated some of the events around his internment from his old documents — and it’s a poignant read. Mascioli also features prominently in the work of a researcher documenting the history of film exhibition in Northern Ontario.

Mascioli was eventually released after eight months in internment camps. He never returned to Northern Ontario and was left with the sense that his life’s work — the years spent helping people and building communities — was all interned with him.

My foray into this chapter of our recent history started with the Nugget story that Leo Mascioli was honoured with a plaque. Left unsaid in that story was that the commemoration took place 76 years after Leo Mascioli was interned for no other reason than being an Italian.

The Italian community in Canada has made great strides since then, but the toll exacted on individuals had a real impact. A plaque is a modest testament for the injustice that Leo Mascioli and others endured. A better testament would be to honour their memory by not reliving the xenophobia and fear to which they fell victim.

Good resources on Italian-Canadian history:

Panorama Italia: Teaching the Forgotten History of Italian-Canadian Internment Camps.

Italian Canadians as Enemy Aliens: Memories of World War II.

Jessica Whitehead’s site on the history of movies in Northern Ontario and Mascioli’s contributions

Good article on Leo Mascioli’s contributions to culture in Northern Ontario on Sudbury.com

Paula Mascioli on her grandfather, Leo Mascioli — from the Mission of Timmins Voices.

Dr. Wael Haddara is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario. He is a husband, a father, a pharmacist, a physician, a lecturer, a bibliophile, a community activist, a Canadian political analyst and a thought-leader on the Middle East.

Photo: www.italiancanadianww2.ca

Is #Violence Ever Part of a Solution? My Take on #BlackLivesMatter

Jul 12, 2016

Between people who care about each other – or ought to – violence is never the answer to grievances; but rather a part of the problem and a dangerous one at that.

If violence fails to stem the tide of grievances there will always be those who argue that it has failed because it was not enough; that to make sure #blacklivesmatter, more police officers should be shot.
But violence is even more dangerous if it is deemed to have succeeded. If the tide begins to turn today against police brutality there will be those who will argue that the renewed interest in safeguarding people of colour is not because ‪#‎AltonSterling‬ or ‪#‎PhilandoCastile‬ gave “the last full measure of devotion”, but rather, the argument will go, that the spectre of black men “fighting back” is what forced white America to reassess.

The American political tradition has much that is shameful: Slavery, the genocide of native Americans, Jim Crow laws, and much more. But it also has much that is ennobling. I continuously pray that the United States of today can be inspired by the best of its traditions, not its worst. “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” – Abraham Lincoln

What Has Humanity Learned From Auschwitz And Dachau?

Jul 11, 2016

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY WAEL HADDARA DURING A VISIT OF DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP

Many experiences change who you are and how you view the world. Yesterday Prime Minister Trudeau visited Auschwitz-Birkenau and shared a written reflection in the book of remembrance on the importance of not forgetting the dark moments of history. “Today we bear witness to humanity’s capacity for deliberate cruelty and evil,” he wrote.

I was in Germany for a few days in late fall 2014 with some friends. We drove from Munich to Frankfurt and decided to make a stop in Dachau on our way to Frankfurt. The weather was appropriately dreary and cold. Of the five of us, all emotionally hardened health care professionals, accustomed to dealing with death, dying, tragedy and misery, only 2 could complete the tour. The rest terminated our visit after various lengths and re-grouped in the cafeteria.

For those not familiar with Dachau, unlike Auschwitz, it was not an extermination camp, but rather a camp originally intended to hold political prisoners and subsequently became a labour camp. Some 32,000 people are known to have died at Dachau and likely many thousands more perished without record.

Dachau is a place of indescribable evil, but the most disturbing element of Dachau was how it exemplified Hannah’s Arendt’s idea of the banality of evil. I watched a video of four survivors describing their arrival at the camp and their ordinary, bureaucratic, routine processing as they handed off their clothes and received camp clothes. On the walls, the paint had finally peeled off, years after Dachau was liberated to reveal an imprint: “Rauchen verboten” – no smoking. Records were meticulously kept and officers wrote home to their spouses as if they were posted at any other ordinary posting.

“On the walls, the pain had finally peeled off, years after Dachau was liberated to reveal an imprint: “Rauchen verboten” – no smoking.”

I found myself reflecting on what exactly has been learned from Dachau. Germans, as a nation, seem to have learned much. But it is disheartening to observe that humanity, as a whole, seems not to. Srebrenica calls into doubt whether “never again” is anything but a motto. How the world has approached Syria and the brutal, bloody reign of Assad, means that we have not learned the imperative of fighting those for whom human life is expendable. We have not learned that the sanctity of human life is non-negotiable. We have not learned that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I found myself wondering what would have happened if Hitler had not been so reckless as to invade Russia and the Vichy regime was more successful in establishing a vassal state in France. Would the UK, the US and others have been more willing to ‘engage’ with the Nazis because Nazi power was a fait accompli?

In the center of the camp – where prisoner roll call was held, a sign now stands in four languages that reads: “May the example of those who were exterminated here between 1933-1945 because they resisted Nazism help to unite the living for the defence of peace and freedom and in respect for their fellow men.” I wondered then and I still do – has it?

I found myself more bothered by this question of ‘what have we learned’ than I thought I would be. I am still not sure. I know that given how difficult Dachau was, I am not likely to go to Auschwitz any time soon. One can only absorb so much evil at a time

“May the example of those who were exterminated here between 1933-1945 because they resisted Nazism help to unite the living for the defence of peace and freedom and in respect for their fellow men.”

Humour, Satire and power

May 9, 2013

I have been intrigued by the effects of satire and humour on public perceptions and trust. There seems to be reasonable evidence to suggest that political satire likely erodes the public’s confidence in political institutions. That’s perhaps not shocking since the purpose of making fun of politicians is precisely to erode public confidence in them. The difficulty arises in transitional settings like the countries of the Arab Spring. Robust criticism of government policy and actions (or inaction) is likely very important in ensuring that a real transition to representative government happens. At the same time, however, it is trust that is precisely what is needed to ensure a successful transition, and actions that erode trust generically may not be terribly helpful.

I recently came across an excellent perspective on humour (of the dark kind in this case) that crystallized a lot of my own thoughts on the subject. From Katie Watson’s “Gallows Humor in Medicine” (Hastings Center Report, Volume 41, Number 5, September-October 2011, pp. 37-45):

“Opinions, thoughts, and arguments framed as jokes bribe and confuse our powers of criticism— if we laugh at them, by definition we’re not in a critical mode. And if I say, “Wait, wait, I want to respond to that joke with a rational counter-statement challenging its underlying suppositions,” then I’m a drag and everyone laughing will resent having to stop playing. So positions promoted through jokes somehow seemstronger than those supported by arguments. They also have a built-in protection against criticism: “Hey, it was only a joke.”

Another analysis of backstage joking … focuses on humor as deployment of power. Bullies use jokes as weapons of humiliation, and brainy victims of physical aggression sometimes retaliate with humor, shifting the fight to terrain where they stand a chance. Since laughing renders us physically vulnerable for a moment, even the innocent pleasure of making a friend laugh can be understood as an act of (consensual) physical dominance and submission, and it is often observed that the language of comic performance is one of physical destruction (he killed, we slayed them). The teller of a spontaneous joke or funny story also wields the narrator’s power to frame and interpret events. When someone wonders if “it was wrong to make a joke” backstage, perhaps they are really asking about the use and abuse of the powerthat comes with asserting oneself as the (comic) narrator of someone else’s tragedy.

But a sophisticated analysis of power and humor includes assessment of relative power. This is captured in the concept of “joking up”—the idea that it’s okay for the less powerful to make fun of more powerful individuals or groups, but the reverse (joking down) is not … in jokes about people less powerful than the teller, the “punch” of the punchline can feel too literal.”

The Long (and Painful Memories) of The Digital World

Jan 12, 2012

Every now and then, something pops up that reminds me that in the digital era, things are now very different. Without a doubt, we all carry with us certain memories. But memories of the vivid kind have long been a purview of famous people (through museums, monuments, tributes and the like) or of dreams and recollections….

I remember a few years after my grandmother passed away having a thought flash through my mind that when I next visit her I would share a particular story with her… and then I realized that I would not be able to do that anymore. I shared this with my father and he said that occasionally happens to him as well… I’m sure it happens to all of us..

But the digital world is different. What happens when someone dies? Do you delete their entry from you e-address book or your email client? I’ve had to deal with this a couple of times now and both times I have felt it would be a sort of betrayal to the deceased friends’ memory to do that… then I included the email of a deceased friend on a group mail by accident and it sparked some painful memories on the part of others …. So I deleted it finally.

Smartphones pose a similar risk. They are not so smart that they automatically update themselves… and again, what do you do? As with emails, I have kept certain contacts because it felt too final to remove them… And I think this is different from “do I keep those letters from my friend who has passed?” I dont think anyone “deletes” letters and cards from deceased friends – they get put away in a memento box – out of sight… but somehow still preserved. You cant do that with address books and contact lists…. there is no memento box…. (at least not that I am aware of ….)

Today I was going through my twitter links and came across @jacklayton. The account is still there. Last entry is for August 22. The FB still exists as well. This is no different that a public tribute, but the quirkiness of social media adds poignancy.

The penultimate entry on Jack Layton’s page reads “Jack Layton changed their ‘About” presumably to now use the past tense: “Jack Layton was Leader of Canada’s NDP.”