Martyrs Misapplied

Today's news, particularly from the Middle East, is filled with the brave actions of martyrs belonging to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, or a myriad of sub-sects connected in some way with the Muslim religion.

This denoting of such personnel as "martyrs" is rubbish.

It would be akin to celebrating the soldiers landing in Normandy on D-Day, or those who died at Ypres, as martyrs. Brave, yes. Patriotic, yes. Afraid, yes. Skilled, yes. But martyrs they were not.

My reasoning here begins with a definition, in this case from Merriam Webster's Free Dictionary: A martyr is "A person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing and refusing to renounce a religion."

Some examples come to mind. Various saints of the Catholic Church, such as Peter or Andrew would qualify, as would Thomas a Becket, Thomas More, or (although a number of Papal hurdles had to be crossed that took some time) Joan of Arc. And not to be forgotten are the deaths in Canada of Fathers Lalement and Brebeuf.

Indeed, the Catholic Church can be said to have originated the word "martyr." Yet in no case did such martyrs launch themselves into such a state. They endured passively; it was their persecutors that acted.

This point is key. There can certainly be Muslim martyrs, but not if you are wearing a suicide vest with an aim to create as much carnage as possible. That is not passivity, that is acting to purposefully harm; that is not martyrdom, it is murder.

And if you look carefully at my list of Catholic martyrs, all were adults, well aware of what they were doing, and why. The children that are often used as Muslim "martyrs" have barely lived, and are totally under the control of an Imam or Mullah who "is commanded by Allah."  And such Imams or Mullahs tend not to be near any incident that might suddenly turn explosive. I mean, they might be at risk. Can't have that.

Ghastly people. I suspect Dante, were he alive and writing The Inferno, would fire them all into the Ninth Circle. Couldn't happen soon enough.