Religious Terrorism Religious terrorism has flooded the news in the United States since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. After the events of that day, religious terrorism has become a broad term when referencing any act of violence that even loosely can be tied to any given religion, and more importantly when discussing the events that occur in nations that the US finds unfavorable. The term “religious terrorism” has become tainted and skewed in this country to only reference actions tied to Muslim nations or peoples, and somehow justify the acts of white-Americans by making them seem unrelated to race or religious beliefs. It is important that people understand exactly what religious terrorism is what actions fall under its distinctions.
It is defined as “terrorism carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influence”. In the article, Defining and Distinguishing Secular and Religious Terrorism, Walter Laqueur is quoted arguing that “religious terrorism is the ‘new terrorism of the right’ and that it has more to do with nationalism than religion”. It is true that nationalism and religion are closely tied and that religion heavily influences the political views of many nations, however when looking at terrorist acts it is important to decipher between those acts that are more heavily politically motivated, and those that stem from religious beliefs and are meant to inflict or impose the region of the terrorist group on the victimized group or peoples. In order to better understand religious terrorism and the aspects that distinguish it from traditional terrorism, its it helpful to look at specific examples of uniquely religious goals that a particular group may hope to attain. Anticipation or instigation of the apocalypse, the creation of a religious government, and the religious cleansing of a nation or specific group of people. Each of these goals are uniquely religious and typically harbor little to no political
When looking at individual events it is important to consider the facts rather than the assumptions and swayed opinions that come to us through the news and other media sources. It is easy to make connections between religions and events that occur due to extremists from that religion but in order to fully understand the nature of terrorism events all details need to be considered. Passing judgments about an entire religion based off the actions of few only adds to social issues that rule events like this in the first place. An article published by the IDSA entitled Terrorism, Ideology and Misconceptions, they write, “however, in our times, Islam is often being portrayed in association with violence, aggression and terrorism. This is largely due to the media, both national and international, which has constantly depicted Muslims in such stereotypical ways”. This quote demonstrates the power that the actions of few have over the impression of
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
In his essay, Rodriguez believes that the diplomatic affairs we see on the evening news are merely being disguised as a religious war. The fight over oil or land when in reality it is the fight between whose side God is on, the attacks under the control of Al Qaeda when perhaps it’s the greed for power or world domination. According to Richard, these religious wars are allowing terrorism to become prevalent; often times within the same culture (147).
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
The victims will continue to live in fear and hatred for those that want to destroy them and their land.
The Jihad is probably one of the most misunderstood and feared terms in modern day America. Ever since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11th, 2001, the Muslim religious duty of Jihad has had only negative connotations. Of course, seeing two trademark buildings collapsed and mangled on the groundwith thousands dead all in the name of religion would have anyone jump to a negative conclusion. But what most people don’t understand is that the meaning of the term “Jihad” is one greatly left up to interpretation. Each sect of the Islamic religion has a different take on this religion duty and the expectation that go along with it. Therefore, the idea of Jihad that America has learned to fear might not be the true meaning, concept, and intention of the word at all.
The key to identifying the threat posed by a particular terrorist group is its basic tenets, and the level of violence thereof. “Groups that model themselves on an avenging angel or a vindictive god…are more likely to lash out than those whose core myth is the suffering Messiah,” (Stern, p.72). For example, the element that may be both the most prevalent and violent in the world today is fundamental Islamic extremism. With its emphasis on violent martyrdom and conquest on “infidels,” Islam is a religion based on values that are easily twisted to an extreme. Due to their religious ...
What is “terrorism”? Terrorism is a hotly contested term that is subjected to the reader’s political alignments. Most readers can agree that “terrorism” is a form of political action through violence that seeks to instill fear into a population, but defining “terrorism” becomes more complicated when being applied to groups and organizations. Lisa Stampnitzky’s “Can Terrorism Be Defined?” addresses this issue by drawing three important questions from the difficulty of defining “terrorism”: first, who is the enemy? Second, when is violence legitimate? Third, what is political? These three questions are instrumental in understanding terrorism while also understanding why certain groups are labeled terrorists and why others are not. This bias of
There is a strong belief that Islam and politics are directly tied. They are tied in the sense that the building blocks of the religion dictate how they ought to behave in the political environment. Through this mandatory follow up behavior that the religion delineates, many have come to believe that its teachings are a form of terrorism. Mandaville argues that what has challenged the Islamic link between politics and religion was the emergence of secularism, which went against the belief that politics and religion could go together. Islam has been a religion that has been accused of supporting terrorist activities in the world. Different assumptions have been brought up to understand better the linkages between what really lies behind the Islam religion and politics. Peter Mandaville argues that Islam is dynamic and that it has changed over time; situated within time and politics.
The belief that Islam encourages terrorist activities first began after the catastrophic events on September 11, 2001. On this day, Islamic extremists hijacked four planes that were flying above America, which caused approximately 3,000 deaths (Kean). Our nation as well as the attitude towards Muslim individuals have changed since this unforgettable day in history. The initial understanding and perception of Muslims often root from stereotypes that concern Middle Easterners as a whole. Unfortunately, the word “terrorist” is a label given to those of an Muslim or Arab descent and typically, wear long beards. Although there have been many other forms of terrorist attacks by several ethnic groups, the emphasis
Following terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims, such as the San Bernardino Attack, in which there are high civilian casualties, there is always an inevitable discussion surrounding the threat of islamic extremism and international terrorism. Such discussions are led by mass media and politicians and many argue demonize all Muslims, lead to xenophobia and islamophobia and do little more than fear monger. Many people also criticize the seeming hypocrisy of covering such terrorist attacks so widely and insinuating that the Islamic faith is inherently violent and promotes extremism and the Quran provides the underpinnings for terrorism when domestic terrorism is also a prevalent problem in the united states
After 9/11 has induced negative attitudes towards Muslim peoples who tend to be strongly associated with any act of terrorism. The media has played a colossal role in developing such negative association wherein it constantly portrays Muslim people in combination with violent terrorist acts. It does so in a way that they both go hand-and-hand. In other words, it has made it as though the Islamic religion is synonymous with terrorism. The media has perpetuated Muslim stereotypes over the years that followed the 9/11 incident. Because of this, society has developed, and still has developed, this prejudiced mindset about the Islamic religion and the Muslim communities around the world. People immediately assume that any violent act being depicted through the media is the direct result of Muslims. They automatically generate this idea that the act was performed by a Muslim terrorist even when they were not involved whatsoever. Regardless of whether it was true or not, Islamic religion and its Muslim adherents are at the top of societies’ agenda just waiting for the evidence to be generated so that they can then safely blame them for such world affairs. Again, this has led to the attack on the Islamic religion itself wherein people have come to postulate Islam as an act of oppression, violence and hatred towards non-Muslims. Anti-Muslim sentiments and campaigns have resulted from such misinformation the media has been generating and feeding its viewers.
Religious Fundamentalism is not a modern phenomenon, although, there has received a rise in the late twentieth century. It occurs differently in different parts of the world but arises in societies that are deeply troubled or going through a crisis (Heywood, 2012, p. 282). The rise in Religious Fundamentalism can be linked to the secularization thesis which implies that victory of reason over religion follows modernization. Also, the moral protest of faiths such as Islam and Christianity can be linked to the rise of Religious Fundamentalism, as they protest the influence of corruption and pretence that infiltrate their beliefs from the spread of secularization (Heywood, 2012, p. 283). Religious Fundamentalists have followed a traditional political thought process yet, have embraced a militant style of activity which often can turn violent (Heywood, 2012, p. 291). To be a fundamentalist is to wholly believe in the doctrine they are preaching or professing and will go to any lengths possible to have these beliefs implemented by their government , even using force or violence ( Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson, 2007, p. 149). All religions have a fundamentalist element, however, there is more of a significant conflict with Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. It is wrongly thought fundamentalism is exclusively linked to Islamic fundamentalist such as the jihadi group al-Qaeda nonetheless Christianity is the world's largest religion and is bond to have some fundamentalist component such as the Christian New Right in the Unites States of America (Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson, 2007, p. 150).
The word terrorism was first used during the French Revolution from the reign of terror inflicted by the French from 1784-1804 ("International Affairs"). It was used to describe the violent acts perpetrated on the French that inflicted terror on the various peoples and instilled fear within them. However, at the time it had a more positive connotation than the term that instills fear today. During the French Revolution this was because it referred to state-sponsored terrorism in order to show the need of state instead of anarchy, sometimes promoted by other groups (Hoffman 2). Therefore, even though terrorism has taken a new nature, terrorism can refer to official governments or guerrilla groups operating outside national governments ("International Affairs"). In order to encompass terrorism’s various sectors and explain it to the public, in both positive and negative aspects, many analysts have tried to put it into a few words. Terrorism is a method used by tightly of loosely organized groups operation within states or international territories that are systematic in using deliberate acts of violence or threats in order to instill...
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,