Terrorism and Religion - Literature review Example

TERRORISM AND RELIGION Name of the Student Name of the Course Name of the University Date Terrorism is not a new concept. It has been practiced throughout history by the governments, extremist organisations, and individuals. Religious communities and organisations are no laggards, when it comes to employing terrorism for achieving their objectives. However, it has become common place for the Islamic terrorists to take shelter under religion to support their insidious actions (Wilson 2002). Religion has a tremendous influence, especially among the populace of the developing world. This feature is ruthlessly exploited by the terrorists. Terrorists have frequently been seen to utilise advanced technology and communication systems to increase the lethality of their actions. These initiatives have made it possible for terrorists to plan and execute their plans rapidly and accurately. It is incumbent for the international community to adopt measures to contain terrorism. This can be done to some extent by resolving the disputes or conflicts that form the basis for terrorism (Wilson 2002). However, such measures do not have much effect on terrorism based on religion, as these terrorists want total change in the political and social structure. In most terrorist attacks, the targeted victims are innocent civilians. As such, terrorist organisations claim a heavy toll on humanity. The UNICEF had stated that a majority of the victims were civilians. For instance, nearly 80% of the victims of terrorist attacks, in the recent years, were women and children who were far removed from the demands or grievances of the terrorists (Wilson 2002). Thus, the terrorist targets the so called soft target, namely innocent women, children and the common man. Although the 20th century had witnessed a number of human accomplishments, it remains the bloodiest century in history. This is due to increased terrorist activities. In this century, terrorists have killed more than sixty million people. Such massacres were unheard of in the previous centuries. Terrorism has succeeded in rendering more than 21 million people refugees. In addition, it has displaced nearly six million civilians; and what is truly disturbing, more than 300,000 children have been forcibly made to participate in armed conflicts, all over the world (Wilson 2002). Such is the iniquity practised by the terrorist. Religion is blatantly employed to justify terrorism, and this development has become the basis of terrorism. Communication is an essential component of the present form of religion based terrorism. Terrorist organisations exploit religion. For instance, Bin Laden is not a prominent person in Islam, and he does not have any theological role. All the same he issues Fatwas against his perceived enemies; because, such Fatwas are accorded importance by a large number of people (Religion and Terrorism 2002). The power of a Fatwa lies in its capacity to bind the believers. Moreover, these religious diktats are very useful in obtaining widespread support and funding from the followers of that religion. In all religions there is some form of liturgy, and the terrorists use this liturgy to justify their violence. Bin Laden is known to cite Quranic quotations to inspire his followers and justify his misdeeds. He has also been seen to use his own perverse interpretation of the tenets of Quran for that purpose (Religion and Terrorism 2002). Thus, Bin Laden has justified his attacks on the innocent US civilians, by misquoting the Quran. The Oxford English Dictionary, describes a terrorist as an individual who uses violence or intimidation to coerce a government or an identified community. In accordance with this definition, terrorism is independent of religion or race. The perpetrators of terrorism select violence rather than peaceful methods for resolving a dispute or conflict (Agbu 2008). However, modern terrorists make use of religion and its tenets to justify their activities. They intend to change the general understanding of terrorism by invoking religion. Islam does not advocate violence against any individual. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to prevent terrorism carried out under the cover of their religion (Agbu 2008). They should not allow the fanatics to exploit the tenets of Islam for furthering and realising their nefarious purposes. A democratic society is believed to be less susceptible to conflict or violence on political grounds. Democratic principles, like freedom, openness, and political participation provide a democracy with greater credibility among the people. Issues of dissatisfaction or frustration do not serve as a threat to democracy; because, a democratic system, incorporates several mechanisms to resolve such problems. In addition, the individuals in a democracy can demand of their government to resolve such disputes (Sutalan 2008, 4). This description is liable to create the impression that there is no room for terrorism in a democratic system. However, this is not the reality. The denial of access to power and political participation, to some specific groups, gives rise to an opportunity, whereby terrorism could emerge. Features like racism, extreme right and ethnic terrorism, generally transpire in the less proportional democracies. Such systems are more likely to experience terrorism (Sutalan 2008, 4). The Central Asian Republics have fallen prey to the scourge of Jihadi terrorism. The terrorists of this school consider Western democracies to be anti – Islamic political systems, as they treat the people as sovereign. For the Islamic terrorists, Allah is sovereign; consequently, the state should be ruled subjected to the tenets of the Quran, as interpreted by the mullahs (Raman 2006). Such rule is termed as Islamic democracy. In addition, Islamic terrorist contend that Western democracies are opposed to Islam. Not surprisingly, the efforts of the US to promote democracy in the Islamic world, is viewed as a conspiracy to promote Christianity; which could undermine the faith of Muslims in Islam. The present day Islamic terrorists believe that the jihad wars of the 1980s against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, to be incomplete. The older version of jihad was termed as the war between Islam and Communism. (Raman 2006). The present form of jihad is a war between Islam and the apostates. Non – Muslims who disregard Islam, as well as the Muslim rules that cooperate with the US, are termed apostates. This view was popularised by the al – Qaeda organisation. However, the Islamic terrorists of the Central Asian Republics, consider the governments that cooperate with Russia and the US as apostates. The jihad movement treats both Russia and the US as the external forces that are inimical to their movement. All the same, there is considerable hypocrisy involved, because Islamic terrorists do not consider China as their adversary. The reason for this is that Pakistan depends on China for its nuclear programme and weapons (Raman 2006). Pakistan is the mainstay of the Islamic terrorists; hence, the Islamic terrorists avoid any act that could prove to be embarrassing for the Pakistani authorities Terrorists attach much importance to the media. The latter attracts the world at large, and has an audience that stretches across the globe. It is the aim of the terrorist to reach as vast an audience as possible, so that the suffering caused by them is clearly visible to all. Most of the terrorists use the media to spread their propaganda and to announce their involvement in the havoc caused by terrorist activities. Quite frequently, terrorists have been seen to possess technical expertise and skill to telecast their propaganda videos, in a manner that achieves the maximum effect (Jařab 2005). Terrorists are very difficult to deal with, because they employ the institutions of democracy to commit their vile deeds. For instance, terrorists make the most of the media, as no democratic government would prohibit the dissemination of information about terrorists. Any attempt to preclude terrorist information would seriously compromise the basic tenets of democracy. Thus, democratic societies and the media are placed on the horns of a dilemma (Jařab 2005). The Soviet Union had occupied and established a government in Afghanistan. This was opposed by the US and its Allies, which funnelled huge amounts of arms, ammunitions, financial resources and other essential supplies through Pakistan, in to the war torn Afghanistan. The Mujahedeen revolutionaries were trained and armed by the US via the intelligence forces of Pakistan, and were employed as a spearhead against the occupying Soviet forces (Roberts 2009, 30). What was essentially a trial of strength between the USSR and the US was transformed into a religious war. The unquenchable thirst for power was the root cause for the unbridled proliferation of global terrorism. In the past, the canon of counter – insurgency had often been devoid of the element of sensitivity, while a few other concepts had been possessed of a historical character. Some experts in counter – insurgency had viewed it as the outcome of social problems (Roberts 2009, 36). The theoretical underpinnings of counterinsurgency are discussed below. Cultural knowledge is indispensable for the success of any counterinsurgency operation. The American concepts of what constitutes normalcy or rational behaviour does not lend itself to generalisation. This is because the concepts of rationality, behaviour, degree of religious devotion, and gender based norms vary are markedly different in other societies. Consequently, what an external observer assesses as abnormal in a society, may be viewed by its members as normal behaviour. Hence, the main operators in counterinsurgency, like the commanders, planners, and small-unit leaders should possess an understanding of the cultural diversity in different communities. These entities should abstain from imposing their beliefs regarding normal behaviour on a foreign society (Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center 2006, 1 – 15). Such are the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of counterinsurgency. The Pentagon has been seized with counterinsurgency. A number of places across the world have been subjected to counterinsurgency operations. Some of these are the Columbian jungles and the dry lands adjoining the Sahara. In theory, counter insurgency promotes the overhauling of various aspects in the targeted nation. Some of the theoretical benefits include improvement in infrastructure, increase of security, and establishment of cordial relationships between the security forces and the local population (Hallinan 2010). Any counter insurgency initiative should support the national government, as well as the beleaguered populace. Unfortunately, the US Military authorities ignored this basic tenet and assumed that society would be safeguarded, if the insurgents were physically eliminated, instead of removing the threat of insecurity from the mind of the individual. As a result, their focus was restricted to narrow considerations, like the elimination of enemy warriors in Afghanistan. Consequently, the US was unable to achieve a broader strategic victory in Afghanistan (Greaves 2008). Both the US and the UK adopt a comprehensive strategy that employs all the facets of the power of the state to a territory where insurgency is being addressed (Roberts 2009, 34). A major assumption in this context, albeit fallacious is that there exists a state with true power. This has been the bitter experience of the US and its allies in Afghanistan (Roberts 2009, 35). In this regard, it would be germane to consider some of the political assumptions made in the past. Several doctrines had been developed during the period of the Cold War, in order to suppress movements to cast off the colonial yoke. The US manual updates and revives these doctrines, as is evident from the declaration in its introduction that it aims to enable the Army and Marine Corps leaders to effectively conduct counter insurgency operations at the global level (Roberts 2009, 35). Apparently, the US manual applies the same yardstick to each and every insurrection. However, this notion has been discounted by the statement of the authors that no two insurgencies are similar. The manual goes on to stress the indispensability of constantly adapting and updating knowledge in response to the complexity of counterinsurgency manoeuvres (Roberts 2009, 35). In the past, counter insurgency doctrines had paid scant regard to the context and historical background of the movement. This was compounded by the proclivity of some authors to establish general rules regarding counter insurgency, on the basis of specific events. These authors had thereafter attempted to apply these generalised rules to markedly different struggles (Roberts 2009, 36). A major drawback with the US manual is that it does not accord importance to systems of justice. Specifically, it ignores the justice systems of the insurgents. Thus, there is a tendency to gloss over judicial systems. It is essential to scrutinise the incidents of the past that led to the growth of terrorism. Such evaluation discloses the fact that the governments effecting counter insurgency operations had ulterior motives. The efforts of the US and its allies, ably assisted by the mujahedeen, proved overwhelming for the USSR and contributed to the eventual collapse of the latter. An offshoot of this war was that local tribal groups resorted to terrorist activities in their battle against the Soviets. These groups owed a loose allegiance to their US and Pakistani masters. The Pakistani intelligence services provided financial and technical assistance to the terrorist groups in Afghanistan, subsequent to receiving the same from the US and its proxies (Roberts 2009, 30). In this manner, a large number of well trained and battle hardened terrorists were generated by the US and Pakistan. The ostensible motivating factor for these terrorists was Islam, and thus full-fledged religion based terrorism is a Frankenstein’s Monster of US making. There was scant control over these terrorist groups, which blatantly employed the religion card to stake their claim to legitimacy. Thus, religion was the mainstay of the revolutionary movements in Afghanistan. In 1989, the Soviet Union beat a hasty retreat from Afghanistan, and the war ravaged country was taken over by the revolutionaries. These entities had established a number of schools to teach combat and guerrilla techniques to the religiously motivated people to fight against the forces of the Soviet Union. Gradually, these schools spread to other places in the Soviet empire (Roberts 2009, 30). Thus, terrorism based on religion was promoted in the region by the US, via its proxy Pakistan. In fact, there are numerous instances, wherein the US had ignored the manner in which the government of a country was treating its citizens. The aim of the US has always been to dominate a particular region or nation, and there is scant regard for the human rights abuses or other gross iniquities being committed by the rulers of that country. As long as the government of a nation supports and provides free or concessional access to its resources, the US prefers to turn a blind eye to what actually transpires in that country. Thus, repressive and brutal regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Republic are supported by the US (Hallinan 2010). A glaring instance of the callous and absolutely selfish attitude of the US is provided by Afghanistan, whose rulers steal the resources of the nation. As such, the theoretical objectives of counter insurgency are far removed from the reality. Counterinsurgency is a stratagem employed by the US to acquire and retain control over a troubled region. As such, counterinsurgency is a strategy of domination perpetrated by a country on another country or region. The US is a past master at utilizing counterinsurgency to engender its own brand of neo – colonialism. To surmise, counterinsurgency is a self – defeating strategy that bodes no good for any nation. Bibliography Agbu, Uche. Terrorism and Religion. February 25, 2008. http://newsflavor.com/opinions/terrorism-and-religion/ (accessed October 22, 2010). Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center. Counterinsurgency. Field Manual No. 3 – 24. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5, 2006. Greaves, Wilfrid. "The People Paradox: Human Security and US Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan." Inquiry & Insight 1(1) (2008): 33 – 52. Hallinan, Conn. Dispatches From The Edge: The Great Myth: Counterinsurgency . August 3, 2010. http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2010-08-03/article/35986?headline=Dispatches-From-The-Edge-The-Great-Myth-Counterinsurgency (accessed October 24, 2010). Jařab, Josef. "Media and terrorism." Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Committee on Culture, Science and Education. May 20, 2005. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/edoc10557.htm (accessed October 23, 2010). Raman, B. Jihadi Terrorism in Central Asia: An Update. February 1, 2006. http://www.e-prism.org/images/B._RAMAN_-_JIHADI_TERRORISM_IN_CENTRAL_ASIA_-_1-2-06.pdf (accessed October 22, 2010). Religion and Terrorism. February 22, 2002. http://www.religioscope.com/info/articles/003_Hoffman_terrorism.htm (accessed October 22, 2010). Roberts, Adam. "Doctrine and Reality in Afghanistan." Survival 51(1) (2009): 29 — 60. Sutalan, Zeynep. The causes of terrorism. IOS Press, 2008. Wilson, Henry S. Terrorism and Religions. 2002. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2457 (accessed October 22, 2010). Read More

The Oxford English Dictionary, describes a terrorist as an individual who uses violence or intimidation to coerce a government or an identified community. In accordance with this definition, terrorism is independent of religion or race. The perpetrators of terrorism select violence rather than peaceful methods for resolving a dispute or conflict (Agbu 2008). However, modern terrorists make use of religion and its tenets to justify their activities. They intend to change the general understanding of terrorism by invoking religion.

Islam does not advocate violence against any individual. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to prevent terrorism carried out under the cover of their religion (Agbu 2008). They should not allow the fanatics to exploit the tenets of Islam for furthering and realising their nefarious purposes. A democratic society is believed to be less susceptible to conflict or violence on political grounds. Democratic principles, like freedom, openness, and political participation provide a democracy with greater credibility among the people.

Issues of dissatisfaction or frustration do not serve as a threat to democracy; because, a democratic system, incorporates several mechanisms to resolve such problems. In addition, the individuals in a democracy can demand of their government to resolve such disputes (Sutalan 2008, 4). This description is liable to create the impression that there is no room for terrorism in a democratic system. However, this is not the reality. The denial of access to power and political participation, to some specific groups, gives rise to an opportunity, whereby terrorism could emerge.

Features like racism, extreme right and ethnic terrorism, generally transpire in the less proportional democracies. Such systems are more likely to experience terrorism (Sutalan 2008, 4). The Central Asian Republics have fallen prey to the scourge of Jihadi terrorism. The terrorists of this school consider Western democracies to be anti – Islamic political systems, as they treat the people as sovereign. For the Islamic terrorists, Allah is sovereign; consequently, the state should be ruled subjected to the tenets of the Quran, as interpreted by the mullahs (Raman 2006).

Such rule is termed as Islamic democracy. In addition, Islamic terrorist contend that Western democracies are opposed to Islam. Not surprisingly, the efforts of the US to promote democracy in the Islamic world, is viewed as a conspiracy to promote Christianity; which could undermine the faith of Muslims in Islam. The present day Islamic terrorists believe that the jihad wars of the 1980s against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, to be incomplete. The older version of jihad was termed as the war between Islam and Communism.

(Raman 2006). The present form of jihad is a war between Islam and the apostates. Non – Muslims who disregard Islam, as well as the Muslim rules that cooperate with the US, are termed apostates. This view was popularised by the al – Qaeda organisation. However, the Islamic terrorists of the Central Asian Republics, consider the governments that cooperate with Russia and the US as apostates. The jihad movement treats both Russia and the US as the external forces that are inimical to their movement.

All the same, there is considerable hypocrisy involved, because Islamic terrorists do not consider China as their adversary. The reason for this is that Pakistan depends on China for its nuclear programme and weapons (Raman 2006). Pakistan is the mainstay of the Islamic terrorists; hence, the Islamic terrorists avoid any act that could prove to be embarrassing for the Pakistani authorities Terrorists attach much importance to the media. The latter attracts the world at large, and has an audience that stretches across the globe.

It is the aim of the terrorist to reach as vast an audience as possible, so that the suffering caused by them is clearly visible to all. Most of the terrorists use the media to spread their propaganda and to announce their involvement in the havoc caused by terrorist activities.

Read More