The basic argument that Juergensmeyer makes is that religious terrorism differs from other kinds of terrorism, and does religion plays the justification role in introducing terrorism to the ‘evils’ of the world. At first glance, the wealth of information, and sources that are presented, such as the one-on-one interview with Mike Bray and Rev. Paul Hill. Throughout the book he makes different points differentiating between political terrorism and religious terrorism. For instance,
This paper will discuss religious terrorism in particular. Religious terrorism can be defined as “the terrorism [is] carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influences.” (“Religious Terrorism”) An example of this will be the 9/11 attacks. It was “a series of four coordinated terrorist attack launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.”(“September 11 attacks”) This attack had led to a serious causality, “almost 3000 people dies in the attacks.” (“September 11 attacks”) Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, declared a “holy war against the United States” (“September 11 attacks”) In his “letter to America”, he stated the motives as follows: In opposition to western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia; supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir; the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; U.S support of Israel and the sanction against Iraq. (“September 11 attacks”) The disastrous attack leads to a serious attention of re-constructing the old version of counter terrorism strategy, which had failed to protect the citizens against terrorism. However, ‘terrorism is far to complex for one solution to be effective in dealing with all the possible threats.” (Lygutas 146) Therefore, some of the measures have difficulties in balancing the rights of
The issue of popular support is further connected to terrorist group’s specific objectives, or goals. In general, terrorists motivated by a religious component are often associated with ‘apocalyptic’ like goals. Hoffman notes that these ‘apocalyptic’ goals, are in nature more violent when compared to the often more tangible political based goals of many secular groups. The association between religiously motivated terrorist groups and apocalyptic like goals is well known throughout academia. Jessica Stern’s book, Terror in the Name of God further references this connection. She is particularly careful not to equate these general end-of-time beliefs to one religion in particular. Instead she notes how such beliefs often span across multiple religions by noting their presence in various sacred texts across all three of the major Abrahamic faiths. She further ties back to Hoffman’s work when discussing how apocalyptic like goals often allow for more violence and destruction when compared to other terrorist objectives (such as forming a new government, or expelling a foreign nation from perceived territory). While Hoffman notes the specific constituency that secular terrorists must appeal to, Stern ties the lack of a needed supportive constituency back to religious terrorist goals. Because religiously motivated groups often seek the complete destruction of society, these groups are less concerned with long-term popular support, (beyond basic funding and recruitment needs.)
Secular terror is anything that does not have to do with religion; however, religious tactics can be used to get ahead in secular terrorist organizations. Religious terror is based on the protecting, converging, and maintaining beliefs of a religion upheld by a religious terrorist group. Although different tactics are carried out by each different group of terror, they have some core features in common, such as emotionally evocative symbols, rituals, and myths (Alcorta, Phillips, Sosis, 2012). With their differences and similarities, the question at hand is which terror is greater? Religious
9/11 or the attack on the world trade center is often thought have relations with Islam. The mainstream media often portrays Muslims as all extremist and radicalizers. “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” (Quran 3:15) This is an excerpt from the Quran which can be found in numerous subway stations that are sponsored by the American Defense Initiative. Sponsoring and selectively choosing quotes creates the illusion that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Every Abrahamic religion has a book, often those books are taken out of context and used to support gruesome ideologies. “…Because God liked Abel 's animal sacrifice more than Cain 's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy.”(Old Testament 4:8) The word Islam derives from the root (سلام) Salaam which translates to peace. Although Islam’s literal meaning translates to peace it is the most hated religion in the United States. Supposedly ruled by egomaniac pedophiles, Islam is thought to be a religion ruled by fear and extreme punishments stuck in its old times. Sadly, more often than not, people who believe these such things about participants in the Islamic culture commit hate crimes against the universal group. I hope to reoriented you from these objective ideas about Muslims and Islamophobia. (Boigon)
Throughout the course, various religious and ethnic violent conflicts have been discussed. Two of the most important and most present in current times is the Sunni-Shia and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Although both conflicts are still very relevant today, the structural and triggering conditions that contributed to the conflict began many years ago and since then have escalated to the point where it is now. Although a resolution for both of these conflicts is a far reach at this point in time, the best strategy ideally would be to encourage the nations involved with conflict to deal with the problem at the political level instead of a religious one and create a system that protects all the different expressions of religion in the region.
In comparison of Arabic or Muslim organized terrorist groups, the Israeli or Jewish organized terrorist groups are rarely talked about. Certainly I, an ordinary non-Israeli/Arab, have not heard of any terror ‘group’, apart from brutal attacks against the Palestinians perpetuated by Israeli ‘right wings’ (which are framed as violence perpetuated by individuals). Especially in the media of the United States and of its allies, the theme of Jewish religious terrorism is out of the media’s long list of possible headlines; due to the rejection from the media, Muslim- and Arab-led terrorisms in the Middle East region are the only terrorism that the public know of, and the Jewish religious terrorism is out of the sight of many people. But looking at
The first topic I will be talking about and reasonings is religion. Religion is often the most common form of terror attack but is also the oldest form. Religious terrorism is terrorism carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influence. Religious terror attacks has been occurring since before the bible most popular was the fight of the crusades against the muslims. Nowadays it is mostly consisting of groups like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) why do they do it for this reason? I can’t speak for them but I believe is that they want everyone to believe in what their religious beliefs are.
Essentially, there is another viewpoint that contends that terrorism can be viewed as a socio-political feature that that is difficult to describe with objectivity and universality. What is more, when observing religious fundamentalism, from the political perspective, there is a possibility that the communities which are affected by poverty, fragility, and underdevelopment are the breeding grounds for the dissatisfaction that often lead to violence and extremism.
Each day, we are surrounded by the effect of religion. From the laws we follow, to the traditions that we uphold, the varying religions found throughout the world shape the experiences we have. Religion serves as a firm foundation of principles of which many of us choose to follow. What happens when two parties refuse to agree on the underlying principles guiding a particular belief? When the substructure of a religious group serves as inadequate to fulfill the needs of its followers, the resulting conflict can affect many aspects of our lives. The Sunni Shiite Divide serves as an excellent example of the social problems that may arise from the conflict of one major religious group.
"Religion and violence" is currently one of the most recurrent themes authors write about due to the numerous terrorist actions that consistently occur. These incidents raise multiple questions that the authors of the articles tried to answer by treating different aspects that intersect with religion and violence such as politics and terrorism. The authors of these articles share a lot of ideas and assumptions while simultaneously disagree on others and try to explain certain aspects differently.
Islam and radical Islam are a hot topic among media outlets and dinner tables, often being confused that they are either two different things or derivatives of early Christianity. The fact remains that Islam and radical Islam are one and the same and, though there may be some early similarities to the Old Testament, Islam and Christianity are as different as the clouds in the sky to a deep, barbed pit. Though I will not be covering every facet that exists between the Bible and the Qur’an, I will be covering the so-called “difference” between radical Islam and its “moderate” counterpart, abrogation and how it works within Islam, differences between Jesus and Muhammad as figure heads, and the ethical behavior between neighbors in relation to Islamic and Christian beliefs.
It has been established that individually the two terms (terrorism and religion) have sense of connotation and originality but when one endeavors to integrate the two terms, they lose their authentic and explicit definition. Unlike religion where beliefs and metanarratives are implicated, thus hard to define, terrorism has been defined and redefined by many scholars and despite the many definitions, the scholars acknowledge the use of violence to attain the grievances (power) which are backed by ideologies. Religious terrorism ensues when the ideology that drives the group is religion.
Religious terrorism is majorly underpinned by the idea that religious terrorists employ different violent tactics that are more deadly and indiscriminate compared to other forms of terrorism. Religious terrorism is alleged to be distinct from other forms of terrorism because it involves acts of purification (Gunning & Jackson 2011). These acts are based of ancient rituals, such as self-sacrifice, commonly martyrdom, or targeting a large portion of noncombatants to sacrifice or because they are non-believers, instead of targeting specific political symbols to achieve political aims (Gunning & Jackson 2011). Considering this view, religious terrorism is argued to be deadlier because such terrorists aspire to cause maximum casualties. Following this argument, this characteristic of religious terrorism is different to other forms of terrorism because they do not target any specific defined political demands, since they want to destroy the society and eradicate a great portion of the population (Spencer 2006). This type of act is grounded on the idea that such terrorists see their struggle as good against evil (Spencer 2006). As a result they have dehumanize their victims and anyone who are not apart of their struggle as infidels or traitors (Spencer 2006). Not only does this indiscriminate violence becomes morally acceptable for them but it becomes a righteous and a necessary expedient for their religious purpose and objectives. Furthermore, the idea religious terrorists are