class of civilizations - religiously motivated terrorism
TRANSCRIPT
2010
Saint Anselm College
Michael Patrick Somma
[ RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED TERRORISM]
Do individuals with genuine religious beliefs engage in atrocities such as terrorism in the name of religion? Or is religion just an excuse or justification for their political objectives? The argument in this piece presumes that religion serves solely as a rationalization or justification for an individual or group’s behavior. This article will historically analyze the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity and Islam in order to show how actors misinterpret traditional and scriptural elements as being extremist and radical in nature. In addition, this paper will show how extremists utilize fear as a weapon to achieve their goals. 20th century political theorist and communist leader Mao Zedong spoke of this fear when he preached - “kill one, to move a thousand.” Our history is packed with thousands of years of religious conflict and once again we have come face to face with what is known as a Holy War. In the present day, terrorists stretch beyond the symbolic value of an act and wreak destruction and annihilation in the name of God to instill that very same fear within millions of people. We must come to understand the true political motivations and psychological nature of the people who so recklessly endanger innocent civilians. These are the same individuals who choose by their own accord to participate in violent attacks because of a warped interpretation of their religion.
Religion has conquered the minds of humans for millennia, whether prehistoric,
medieval, or modern faith, humanity has been both guided and twisted through the
years at the hands of religion. The monotheistic religions of Islam and Christianity
derive guidance from their belief in God’s revealed teachings which emphasize charity
and compassion for the poor, vulnerable, and under-privileged. The interpretation of
religious teachings and Holy Scriptures into radical and fundamentalist ideologies has
existed since the development of these two religions. Religious writings are subject to
widespread analysis and can be utilized to justify political motivation because of their
elongated lifespan. Mankind’s interpretation of religious teachings can be often
misconstrued or distorted for political purposes or personal gain. This misinterpretation
is meant to emphasize to a particular religion’s follower what they stand to gain, instead
of what they can give back to others. Religious fundamentalism is a constantly growing
power coming from within the original Abrahamic faiths that we recognize as
Christianity and Islam. One can conclude that religious extremists, both Christian and
Muslim, emphasize political and personal gains above the welfare of the community.
Christianity and Islam share more similarities than differences in their literal and
figurative composition. Together, they educate that people who have underlying
conflicting personal interests can still get along with one another in order to maintain
peaceful and functional societies which contribute to the greater good of mankind.
Islam and Christianity are not “violent” religions as some critics tend to argue.
According to the Bible, God gave Moses the 10 commandments in the Old Testament in
hopes that it would bring order and structure to society, not violence and immorality.
2
Similarly, Mohammed received the 5 pillars of Islam from Allah, in hopes that it would
make society a better place through proclamation, prayer, fasting, alms, and the Hajj.
Religious extremists maintain a much clouded perception of the world which
they live in. There is irony in the fact that fanatics are more likely the cause of violent
conflict, rather than the active solution to the problem. In both Christianity and Islam,
extremists exploit non-believers to advance their political motivations under the
disguise of a religiously motivated act. More often than not, these terrorists share
common traits and motivations with violent politically motivated secular activists. The
key element of Christian and Islamic fundamentalism is that each believes they possess
special and direct access to transcendental, absolute truth. (Masalha, 2006) Ideological
dedication of a believer is often a decisive factor, embedded within absolute and
uncompromising perspectives that are not historically grounded. (Masalha, 2006)
Fear: The Deep Impact Felt in the Heart
In his Presidential inaugural address, Franklin D. Roosevelt cautioned the
American people to heed his warning: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” It is
unlikely the former President realized the political impact that his advice would play in
the years to come. That being said, it is also unlikely that FDR would have been
prepared to politically strategize and fight the war which we fight today. Violent
activities like terrorism have a common thread that connects them all together. That
common ground is fear. Fear is attributed to being a rousing cause behind political
violence because it is virtually always present. Fear is as old as civilization, as timeless as
3
human conflict, and has existed since people discovered they could intimidate the many
by targeting the few. (Miller, 2006) The word “terrorism” comes from the Latin word
terrere which means to frighten. The first recorded use of the term can be traced back
to the 18th century French Revolution’s Reign of Terror. (Miller, 2006) It is quite
possible that the underlying reasons and explanations to why terrorists hate, kill, even
die for a political agenda are because of fear. As a result of the dangerous nature that
revolves around terrorist activities, no widely accepted definition exists for the term
terrorism. The U.S. Department of Defense has defined terrorism to be “the calculated
use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear, intended to coerce or try to
intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are political, religious, or
ideological.” (Miller, 2006) It is clearly obvious that the existence of fear and the use of
fear in terrorist activities are connected for a reason, to achieve a political agenda.
From a psychological standpoint, almost all conventional warfare contains a
terroristic element. For example, why would a group threaten war at all unless the goal
is to intimidate your enemy into complying with your demands? Modern warfare
strategies instruct that once the enemy resists, your strategy should shift to a new
dimension, instill as much fear as possible to increase the likelihood of surrender with
minimal casualties on your part. This is not a new idea; the rational behind shock-and-
awe type campaigns has been around for centuries. (Miller, 2006) But a clear
distinction must be made; praying on civilians fear by terrorizing them is not the
righteous path. Warfare strategy evolves and as a result, the weapons utilized in
warfare also develop. Throughout the historical evolution of warfare, quantum
4
technology improvements in weaponry have been referred to as terror weapons. Such
weapons include, the iron blade, crossbow, mounted cavalry, long-range cannon, poison
gas, machine gun, blitzkrieg assault, aerial incendiary bombardment, germ warfare, etc.
(Miller, 2006) The issue is not the weapon, but the person wielding the weapon; an
individual can possess a new weapon and target only military targets, but an extremist
in the possession of a weapon of that strength targeting civilians who are untrained in
warfare and unprotected is unjust.
Religious fundamentalists in both Christianity and Islam are united together by
the art of fear. Extremists are frightened of change, of modernization, and of losing
influence over their followers. The abandonment of young members from churches and
mosques in order to seek material gratification offered by the modern world is
unacceptable according to radicals. The influence that the mass media maintains over
the young men and women of the world is incredible, covering topics ranging from
fashion, alcohol, drugs, sexual relations, and even freedoms. All of these issues threaten
the structural rigidity of the radical community. Their community is focused upon the
fundamental basics of religion, and a strict following of the Holy Scripture. Another
issue which can present a major problem is the advanced education offered in colleges
and universities. Religious extremists rely upon scripture to support their radical
teachings, and having to compete with traditional scholarly educators is a battle they
cannot win. Terrorists are terrified by a future which they cannot control, a future
which they cannot understand, and a future which they cannot survive in. The response
to such a threat is retributive terrorism its fullest extent. The primary interest of the
5
terrorist is destruction; the enemy is hated not because of what they do but for the very
fact of their existence. Therefore, nothing less than eradication will suffice. (Miller,
2006)
The threatening panic discussed is present in fundamental Christians and
Muslims alike. Antagonists prey upon the fear of those who cannot protect themselves
in order to achieve a political victory. One of the key things to remember is that terror
echoes loudest among those people who have the least amount of power. It targets the
deprived that are lacking hope and guidance. Religious texts are repeatedly cited for
their concerns of moral decay, decadence and the influence of the impious. Utilizing
religion as a cloak to hide their true political motivations, extremists argue their violence
is justly and historically grounded. Referring to scripture and traditions which have been
purposely misconstrued to support their cause; religious extremists are able to hide
behind religion to carry out their political acts. Because of religion’s mysterious nature
and powerful history, faiths offer hope for future salvation, and as a result dedicated
followers can become entangled in the web of extremism by following terrorist cause.
We humans are a species who rely upon social gathering to come together in groups
with shared values, religion, culture, language, tradition, heritage, even location. These
groups look to survive and prosper and as a result look for hope and guidance from the
charismatic few. When an outside influence threatens the core characteristics that
bond a group together, they will naturally fear for their survival. Logically, the group will
attempt to identify the threat and repel it to strengthen the group cohesiveness. In
6
addition, it is fairly common for leaders of a group to exaggerate a threat to exploit the
population fears and achieve a political objective.
The history of the world is written in blood and millions of people have perished
at the hands of frenzied zealots who held power over the weak. Often times they are
given a harsh choice – conversion to the enemy religion, or face the sword. There are
numerous examples imbedded in the past where fear has motivated individuals to act
violently. For example, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Sudan, in the late 1980’s the
violent conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, the constant religious struggle between Palestine
and Israel, and among the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The Nazi holocaust although
carried out by the Nazi’s, has been traced to fear that the Jews would have negatively
influenced Nazi society. During the Cold War, the build-up of the nuclear arsenal
between the United States and the Soviet Union was never put to test, mainly out of
fear that violence would cause a nuclear holocaust. Fear is the major trigger of action;
its urgency and motivational power are unmatched in the eyes of the beholder. The use
of fear as a tool for destruction by Christian and Islamic radicals has shaped, and will
continue to shape the world which we live in.
Christian Radicals and Fanatics
Christian extremism can be traced back thousands of years to the creation of the
Bible and the spread of Christianity in the ancient world. A thousand years ago near the
start of the first crusade we saw Christianity require a strict path for worship, follow the
Pope’s words or endure excommunication. This was the beginning; today we see
7
Christian extremism in the form of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, Army
of God, and Lamb of Christ. These groups are linked to the belief that Christians are the
one and only descendents of the “Chosen People” of old Israel. They believe in the
inerrancy of the Bible and scripture, stating that the word of God will provide a road
map for the future. Christianity is not a religion that openly promotes violence, but
violence is not an uncommon occurrence with the religion. History has shown us
through events such as the Crusades, the shootout at Waco, the Oklahoma City
bombing, the genocide in Rwanda, and so on, that there are violent phrases within the
Bible to justify action. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy states, “When the Lord,
your God, brings you into the land which you are to enter and occupy, and dislodges
great nations before you – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hibites and Jebusites: seven nations more numerous and powerful than you – and when
the Lord, your God, delivers them up to you and you defeat them, you shall doom them.
Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.” – Deuteronomy 7:1-2.
(Halbur, 2007) Phrases like these are cited correctly and are actually printed in the
Bible, but they are taken out of context to purposely show that action taken up for God
will be rewarded. In the book of Luke it is written, “I tell you, to everyone who has,
more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here
and slay them before me” – Luke 19.26-27. (Halbur, 2007)
It is clear that violence exists within the Bible in a fashion deemed appropriate by
both the Church and the rules of Just War doctrine. The problem remains to be the
8
intentional misrepresentation of messages that are as old as the Bible. Extremists and
radicals of the Christian faith take phrases that were given to man, by God, more than
two millennia ago and turn them into a call for Holy War against the non-believers. As
told in the Old Testament, there was various times where God commanded the
Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. A parallel can be drawn to the United
States Constitution which grants us the Second Amendment right to legally carry and
possess a firearm. When the Constitution was written in the late 18th century during the
Revolutionary War, the majority of our army was made up of militia who lived at home
until formally called upon to protect the land. Similarly, God commanded the Israelites
to defend their nation from those who sought to take it from them. Peace was always
the ultimate goal, America sought peace with Great Britain and God wanted the
Israelites to have peace in the land. Passages that promote violence is not the
underlying issue, rather the determination of when and where to use force justly. John
the Baptist acknowledged that Roman Soldiers, whose job was to keep the peace of
Rome or “Pax Romana”, could use force or violence in order to keep the peace. Paul
also observed that “the state does not bear the sword in vain,” but is “God’s servant for
your good,” – Romans 13:4 (Halbur, 2007)
Actors of Christian terrorism and extremism propose that violence be legitimized
and aimed at specific targets. (Sharpe, 2000) These targets of violence are recorded in
history to be some of our darkest hours as Christians. Events such as mail bombings of
federal judges and NAACP leaders, to the bombings of abortion clinics, and the
Oklahoma City bombing by in 1995 – the worst terrorist attack on our nation, predating
9
September 11th 2001. (Sharpe, 2000) The Christian Identity Movement is one of the
major players which provide motivation for acts of domestic terrorism. In the
mid-1940’s, three men, Bertrand Comparet, William Porter Gale, and Wesley Swift,
came together to form what is known today as the Christian Identity Movement. This
following is a deviant form of Christianity and a branch of the white supremacist
philosophy which has wreaked havoc on this country for centuries. (Sharpe, 2000) The
dedicated members of this movement can be found among the lists of neo-Nazi’s, skin
heads, and other white supremacist groups. (Sharpe, 2000)
In 1957, the Reverend Ian Paisley established what is known today as the Free
Presbyterian Church (FPC) in Northern Ireland. (Southern, 2008) This church maintains
locations in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, as well as the United States.
(Southern, 2008) The institution prides itself upon fundamentalist doctrine and
denounces ecumenical movements, Protestant apostasy, Roman Catholicism, and
institutional separatism. (Southern, 2008) One of the major beliefs of the Free
Presbyterian Church is that the bible is inerrant. (Southern, 2008) Biblical inerrancy is a
doctrinal position that is listed as the Church’s first article of faith – therefore confirming
FPC members’ belief that the bible is the absolute authority and divine inspiration of
God. (Southern, 2008) According to FPC members, “holding the authority of Scripture
as a revealed truth, we necessarily believe the sufficiency of scripture. We need no
other authority for faith and practice. We do not need or accept any additional
authority.” (Southern, 2008) Many Christian fundamentalists also blame the secular
10
Western world for supposedly weakening God’s willingness to protect America.
(Southern, 2008)
Unfortunately, the large portion of people who suffered in the terrorist attacks
of September 11th 2001 was not religious fanatics or fundamentalist believers; they
were daily commuters, public works officials, and other civilian jobs. Free Presbyterian
members, though not responsible for the attack, have not categorized 9/11 as an
affliction moral evil. They see 9/11 as a punishment from God and the vehicle for the
execution of his rebuke was the 19 Islamic terrorists who hijacked four airliners.
(Southern, 2008) There are some Free Presbyterian Church ministers who believe that
God is prepared to use human agents, such as Islamic extremists, in order to execute
divine punishment. According to one minister of the Free Presbyterian Church, “…God
did this, that the Lord was behind this, that this has been the work of no doubt an
almighty God who controls all things. Whenever a calamity comes upon a nation it’s
always the Lord that is behind it. You can say that this particular calamity was part of
God’s own eternal plan, God’s own eternal decree.” (Southern, 2008)
The Free Presbyterian Church accepts the Old Testament account of ancient
Israel to actually be an instructive example of how a society ought to conduct itself
before god. (Southern, 2008) In the eyes of FPC members, September 11th is a divine
action aimed at chastising the United States for its sin, not a divine fault. (Southern,
2008) Traditional Christians reflect upon 9/11 as a day where divine protection was
absent, but FPC members understand 9/11 to be direct divine action against the United
States. (Southern, 2008) According to a Free Presbyterian Church member, “God
11
Almighty is the first cause, anything else is secondary. So whether it was Satan himself
inspiring the mind of this terrorist – whether it was bin laden – they’re all secondary
pawns in the whole board you might say. There’s one big mover and that’s God. The
next time you see a replay of those twin towers falling upon themselves or the plane
ploughing into the side of that building remember, God did it, God did it.” (Southern,
2008)
The evidence is clear that very little attention is being paid to the portions of the
bible which act as a resource for promoting peace. Instead, historical examples are
being used as a model for understanding the legitimacy and righteousness of violence.
The problem is not the existence of these violent messages; the underlying issue is that
these examples from history are misinterpreted or misconstrued to fit the extremists’
political ideology. The Bible, like the Koran, is not a tool utilized in creating war and
conflict, it is a book meant for peace and guidance. But, focusing on ancient Israel’s
violent battles in the Old Testament will nevertheless encourage attitudes of promoting
violence against Christianity’s enemies. (Southern, 2008) In order to gain support from
parishioners for the War in Iraq, some Free Presbyterian members went as far as
comparing former President George W. Bush to the biblical figure of Joshua, who in
ancient times operated according to God’s will. (Southern, 2008) America is
conceptualized as a Christian country and its foreign policy with Israel and the Middle
East is believed to be one of the major contributing factors which triggered the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. Therefore by viewing religion and nationality as one, the
chief aim of certain Islamic groups is the destruction of Christianity and America as a
12
whole. (Southern, 2008) A member of the Free Presbyterian Church supports this by
saying, “There are Islamic states who exist to spread terror. There are major
movements in the religion of Islam not just little lunatic cells like you get in any country
or indeed in any religion but there are major movements that are dedicated to the
destruction of Christianity and therefore of America.” (Southern, 2008)
Another division of Christianity that has been distorted under extremist views is
Evangelical Christianity; which prophesies a radical belief of the Second Coming of Jesus
Christ. There is some disagreement as to whether the Second Coming would be
precipitated by mankind’s positive achievements, or by his failings. In either case, the
resulting effects of the prophecy are terrifying – political anarchy, religious apostasy,
increased hatred, earthquakes, plagues and widespread misfortune. In order to prevent
these events, Evangelicals believe that Solomon’s Temple must be reconstructed.
Jerusalem is the original construction site, and in order to fulfill the biblical prophecy of
the Jewish people it must be rebuilt in Jerusalem. One of the supporting groups for this
cause is The Christian Right, an Evangelical faction who is committed to supporting and
protecting Israel at all costs. The Christian Right began its political crusade in the 1950’s
and gained momentum and influence in the late 1980’s and into the 1990’s. As shown
before, the attempt to use fundamentalist views in order to gain support for personal
selfishness and for a political agenda is the reason violence arises.1 Christian radicals
have planned and carried out attacks throughout the years under the impression that
God will reward them for their services. Unfortunately, not only are these beliefs
1 The source used here was a copy of a book used during a theology class in the spring of 2009. The book is no longer in my possession so the copies of the pages are unavailable.
13
misguided and wrong, they are immoral and unjust against everything that is written in
the biblical scripture which promotes peace.
One of the questions which have shaped the comparison between religiously
motivated terrorism and political terrorism has to do with the belief of the actor. The
concerning questions that arise are therefore: Do actors with legitimate religious values
fight wars in the name of religion? Or is religion just a proxy or a cover-up for political
objectives? In the Western world, we as a society have had a historical tendency to
discount religiously based motivations as relics of a time before the nation-state existed.
(Horowitz, 2009) The opposition which the United States faces in it’s global War on
Terrorism, or as it has come to be known now as “overseas contingency operations,”
argue a version of Islam they claim legitimizes violence against the West and other
Muslims. (Horowitz, 2009) The issue at hand is a complex problem, but a problem
which can be resolved with peace as well as violence. Utilizing religion as an argument
in favor of warfare can lead an individual, or even a group, to act in different behavior
than normally expected. Religion has the ability to infuse believers with a certainty of
purpose and the promise of something better in the afterlife. A perfect example of how
religion poses as an important influence on behaviors in times of war is the Catholic
Crusades. In 1096, the first crusade was launched by Pope Urban II. Conflict between
the invading Christian armies and the residential Muslims and Arabs would continue
until the final crusade ended in the late sixteenth century. (Horowitz, 2009) The Pope
used his influence on Christian knights and peasants to serve their religion against the
enemies which are warned in the Bible. For hundreds of years the Crusades were
14
fought under the assumption that Christians were prophesized to reside in the Holy
Land. The territory that these Christian knights and Muslim armies were fighting for was
believed to be holy and sacred to their causes, but rather the land was a sought for a
political advantage. The religious significance and relevance of territory can ratchet up
the frequency and intensity of conflicts to a degree higher than normal. Since it is
difficult to find a compromising solution between two different religions, campaigns can
be expected to drag on and lengthen.
Islamic Extremism and Fundamentalism
Since its creation in 622 A.D., Islam has been a religion expanded by conquest;
similarly, Christianity grasped the opportunity when it existed. The paralleled concepts
of “jihad” and “Crusade” not only resemble one another, but they distinguish these two
faiths from other major world religions. In the past, religious violence has been
measured in levels and is usually influenced by specific factors such as; demographic
growth and/or decline, economic developments, technological change, and intensity of
religious commitment. (Huntington, 1996) For example, the spread of Islam in the 7th
century was accompanied by massive migrations of Arab peoples. The scale and speed
of this migration was unprecedented, and posed a serious threat to the neighboring
Byzantine and Sassanian empires. A few centuries later, the Crusades occurred and
were in large part a product of economic growth, population expansion, and the revival
of 11th century Europe’s religious beliefs. All these factors when compiled together
15
made it possible to mobilize large numbers of Christian knights and peasants for the
march to the Holy Land. (Huntington, 1996)
A strikingly similar mix of factors aroused in the late 20th century that would
increase the conflict between Islam and the West. First, from and economical
standpoint, Muslim population growth continued to generate large numbers of
unemployed young people. Because of this there was a greater opportunity to recruit
these young men to the Islamist cause, pressure neighboring societies, and eventually
migrate to the West. Second, Huntington refers to the “Islamic Resurgence,” which
gave Muslims renewed confidence in the distinctive character, value of their civilization,
and principles in comparison to the West. Third, the Western world maintained its
military and economic superiority from the rest of the world. This allowed America and
its allies to intervene on Muslim conflicts, thereby generating resentment among
Muslims for Western foreign policy. Fourth, the Soviet Union and the political ideology
of communism removed a common enemy that existed between the West and Islam –
creating the perceived threat from the remaining other. And finally, intermingling and
contact between Muslims and Westerners brought forth a new sense of identity for
each side. With different identities arising, tensions and tolerance declined greatly in
the 1980’s and 1990’s. (Huntington, 1996) Looking at the world through their new
identity, Muslims began to fear and resent the Western culture as materialistic, corrupt,
decadent, and immoral – stressing all the more need to resist conforming to the West
and its policies. Radical and extremist Muslims plan attacks aimed at the West more
16
and more for not adhering to a “religion of the book,” an imperfect, erroneous religion.
(Huntington, 1996)
On February 26th 1993, the World Trade Center in New York City was attacked by
a truck bomb which detonated in the garage underneath the North Tower. The terrorist
group al-Qaeda was found to be responsible for the attack and as a result the U.S.
government charged the conspirators with intending “to levy a war of urban terrorism
against the United States.” In addition, they argued that future bombing plans in
Manhattan were carried out by “soldiers” in a struggle “involving a war” against the
United States. (Huntington, 1996) If Muslims are accusing the West of waging war on
Islam, and if the West is claiming that Islamic groups look to wage war; one can
reasonably deduce that something very much like a war is underway. (Huntington,
1996) Former President Bill Clinton sought to calm the tensions of both sides by
showing the world that Islam is not our enemy, it is Islamic fundamentalism. As much as
the underlying issue is extremist groups and radical fundamentalism, the problem
remains to be the differing cultures of Christianity and Islam. So, is the problem Islam –
a completely and wholly different civilization whose people are convinced of the
superiority of their culture? And for Islam, is the enemy not the perceived Department
of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency – it is the West? A rival civilization,
whose people is convinced of the universality of their culture, and believes their
superior power, imposes on them the obligation to extend itself throughout the world.
Looking at these factors, one could validly deduce that there is no solution to the
conflict between Islam and Christianity. These are the ingredients that fuel the
17
millennium long conflict between Islam and Christianity, and political motives is at the
heart of the recipe. (Huntington, 1996)
To gain a political advantage over an adversary by proclaiming Holy War under
misinterpreted portions of scripture is unjust. Such was the case in October of 2002
when two Muslims, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, engaged in what they
dubbed a “jihad against the United States.” For three weeks the serial duo terrorized
the areas of Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland targeting civilians with a sniper
rifle. Muhammad and Malvo killed 10 and injured 6 others during the frightening
rampage which left police and federal law enforcement baffled. The purpose of their
attacks was thought to be religiously motivated, as they proclaimed jihad against the
United States. But, when John Allen Muhammad left a note at one of the shootings that
stated, “Call me God,” there was clearly a political motivation behind the attacks meant
to cause fear among the people. It was later deduced that the religious motivations
were simply a cover for their future political motivation. Before his execution
Muhammad revealed the motive behind the attacks were in fact to recruit members to
a camp in order to teach them how to terrorize cities.
At the origins of the Islam and Christianity conflict is the fight for possession of
the Holy Land, or as we know it today, Jerusalem. According to the Bible, Jerusalem was
founded by the Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe which existed approximately 5,000 years
ago. (Masalha, 2006) Each of the faiths has sought to reveal scriptural evidence that
prohibit giving up parts of the Holy Land. (Masalha, 2006) Christians emphasize the
holiness of Jerusalem and also the political and territorial wholeness of the greater
18
Israel, therefore advocate for exclusive Israeli control over Jerusalem. (Masalha, 2006)
The major religious symbol which Jerusalem represents to Christians is the place of
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the messiah. In addition, Christian radicals rely
upon literal interpretations of Old Testament commands to possess and settle the
“Promised Land” by means of holy wars and military territorial expansion. (Masalha,
2006) According the Christian fundamentalists, Jerusalem has been artificially made
holy by Muslims through wordplay and false beliefs.
From the Islamic perspective, the religious importance of Jerusalem focuses on
Al-Haram Al-Sharif, the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
According to the Koran, the prophet Muhammad was carried on his night journey from
Mecca and from the rock he ascended to the seventh heaven. (Masalha, 2006) The site
where the Islamic mosque is built is the exact same spot where the destruction of the
Jewish temple occurred in 70 A.D. by the Romans. This conflicting interest is at the
fundamental level of construction of the two faiths; neither side will accept the other’s
argument, forcing extremists to take words into action.
In the late 20th and early 21st century, jihadists and extremists such as Osama Bin
Laden have described the actions taken by the United States as the next generation of
Crusading. (Horowitz, 2009) Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, there has been a
greater interest in the connection that religion and war plays and how religious
traditions can be forces for peace as well as war. For example, the belief that there is a
reward in the afterlife may induce behavior that normally would be characterized as
risky, especially when the result is death. (Horowitz, 2009) A Wahhabi Muslim noted,
19
“we had again and again been told of the great reward that would come to us from God
for every infidel we slew, and we believed what we were told implicitly. Nay more, we
were promised immediate Heaven and glorious houris there, if we were fortunate
enough to get killed.” (Horowitz, 2009)
Islamic terrorism has emerged to be one of the most pressing issues of the 21st
century. Islamic terrorists claim that their foundational purpose is the defense of Islam
and the Umma – the Muslim community. In addition, they also claim that aggression
taken is justified because it is retaliation for what they see as a mobilization by Israel
and the United States against Islam. The Koran states, “Those that make war against
God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have
their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall
be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter” – 5:33.2 Islamic
terrorists like to call themselves freedom fighters, much like our founding fathers are
known as. We hear the phrase “freedom fighter” and immediately recall our fight for
independence from Great Britain. Unfortunately, our founding fathers were not
targeting civilians; they focused their guerilla warfare style attacks on the British army
and navy.
In an interview with The American Conservative magazine, Robert Pape, author
of the book Dying to Win, said “The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorists
attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to
compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the
2 ibid
20
terrorist view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to
the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign – over 95% of all the incidents –
has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state or any other non-Islamic
state to withdraw.” (Pape, 2005) In fact, the 1967 War became a turning point for
political Islam within the region by popularizing political Islam as the only true path to
victory against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and western colonialism
in general. (Masalha, 2006) Two great examples of an Islamic extremist group are the
Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban relies on a strict literal and inerrant reading of the
Koran to govern the societal code of law. Also, external religions were rooted out of
their society by destruction of holy shrines and forcing people to adhere to Islamic law.
(Gibbs, 2005) In addition, tribal leaders usually ruled the organization but Mullah Omar,
the charismatic hero of the Afghan-Soviet war maintained veto powers. (Gibbs, 2005)
Al-Qaeda is structured in a similar fashion with strict reading of the Koran and
destruction of other regimes that don’t adhere to their views. (Gibbs, 2005)
The sacred Holy Book of Islam, the Koran, denounces the killing of any person
who is not guilty of at least one of two crimes: “That is why We laid it down for the
Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other
villainy in the land, shall be deemed as having killed all mankind; and that whoever
saved a human life shall be deemed as having saved all mankind” – 5:32.3 Radical
fundamentalists justify violence against other Muslims, in particular against regimes
who are non-Islamic, who in their minds are apostates. “And there are those who built
3 ibid
21
a mosque from mischievous motives, to spread unbelief and disunite the faithful, in
expectation of him who had made war on God and His apostle. They swear their
intentions were good, but God bears witness that they are lying. You shall not set foot
in it” - 9:107.4 The beliefs of Islamic fundamentalists are based upon actual scriptural
texts which have final authority, but they are misinterpreting the texts to support their
political mission. According Shariah law, any apostasy for Islam would be designated
the death penalty, even that of Muslims. In the mind of a terrorist, all apostates should
be condemned to death. However, among traditional Muslims, the only way someone
may be declared an apostate is by an established religious authority. Since there is no
established religious authority for Muslims, Islamic terrorists cited apostasy as the
justification for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. “Slay them
wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you.
Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of
the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the
sword” – 2:192.5 There is no limit to the violence which can arise as long as terrorists
feel we are attacking them or driving them out of their homeland. The only exception
that extremists acknowledge is the peace which must remain within their Holy Mosque.
The Clash of Civilizations as seen by Samuel Huntington
Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, sought to introduce a new idea called “The Islamic Resurgence” at the end
4 Ibid5 ibid
22
of the 20th century. Huntington attempted to explain why Muslim’s look at Islam not
just as a religion, but also as a source of their distinct uniqueness, reliability,
authenticity, growth, influence and hope. (Huntington, 1996) This “Resurgence”
contains an acceptance of modernization, with a denouncement of the West, and a
pledge to following Islam as the path to life in the new world. (Huntington, 1996) A
perfect example of this was stated in 1994 by a top Saudi official who proclaimed,
“foreign imports are nice as shiny or high-tech things. But intangible social and political
institutions imported from elsewhere can be deadly – ask the Shah of Iran…Islam for us
is not just a religion but a way of life. We Saudis want to modernize, but not necessarily
Westernize.” (Huntington, 1996) This statement is a prime example of the fear instilled
into Islamic society that the Western world is attempting looking to control Islamic
society.
“Islamitization” as Huntington attempted to put it contains differing segments,
one of which is political Islam, or better known as Islamic fundamentalism. (Huntington,
1996) As a matter of fact, one can draw comparisons between the “Islamic Resurgence”
and Marxism, the philosophical theory developed in the late 19th century. Both have
scriptural texts, a vision of a utopian society, dedication to fundamental change,
defiance of existing powers and the nation-state, and a wide range of diverse beliefs
spanning from moderate reformist to violent extremist. (Huntington, 1996) Yet the
most intriguing aspect of the “Islamic Resurgence” is it’s fundamental similarities to the
16th century Protestant Reformation. The two events are both reactions to apparent
existing institutions; both look to return to a more demanding and pure form of their
23
religion; both preach work, order and discipline; both appeal to the emerging middle-
class individual; and both are complex movements with more specific sub-strands,
specifically two major ones: Lutheranism and Calvinism compared to Shi’ite and Sunni
fundamentalism. Some have even drawn the parallel between Christian theologian John
Calvin and Islamic religious figure Ayatollah Khomeini because of the similar monastic
disciplines they tried to evoke on society. (Huntington, 1996) It is stated clearly in
historical texts that for both events the purpose is fundamental reform. For example, a
Puritan minister recalled “reformation must be universal…reform all places, all persons
and callings; reform the benches of judgment, the inferior magistrates…reform the
universities, reform the cities, reform the countries, reform inferior schools of learning,
reform the Sabbath, reform the ordinances, the worship of god.” (Huntington, 1996)
Likewise, Hassan al-Turabi, a Sudanese religious leader similarly stated “this awakening
is comprehensive – it is not just about individual piety; it is not just intellectual and
cultural, nor is it just political. It is all of these, a comprehensive reconstruction of
society from top to bottom.” (Huntington, 1996) The similar yet conflicting nature of
these two reformation movements created tension and stress upon the religious
communities for years to come. As problems began to brew under religion, political
aspirations arose and continued to fuel factions and groups to engage in violence.
The Western world, especially the United States, stands by the argument that
the West has no quarrel with Islam – only with violent extremists and terrorists.
Unfortunately, there is fourteen hundred years of recorded history that proves
differently. One of the major events in history which clearly shows the conflicting
24
nature of Islam and Christianity was the Christian led Crusades. In 1095, the first
Crusade began, marking the start of a century and a half long assault by Christian
leaders in order to successfully establish Christian rule in the Holy Land and its adjoining
areas. The repeatedly conflicting relationship between Christianity and Islam is a clash
of two cultures whose original cause is as intangible as the religions themselves. The
cause stems from the nature of the two religions and the civilizations grounded in their
roots. (Huntington, 1996)
One example of the contradicting societal bond that the two religions maintain
with one another can be seen in their present day ideology of secularism. Islam is
conceptualized as being a way of life that transcends and unites religion and politics, in
contrast to Christianity which sees separate realms for God and “Caesar.” (Huntington,
1996) Differences are not the reason for this historical clash of religions, as a matter of
fact it is the similarities that cause the illustrated issues. Deeply rooted within the two
Abrahamic religions are similarities naked to the eye of the common observer, but both
clearly visible and historically conflicting. Both of these great religions believe in
monotheistic deity’s, which unlike polytheistic faiths does not allow for assimilation of
the enemy’s divine nature. This similarity is one of the most basic religious beliefs, yet
can be a major attribution to the rift between these two faiths. With a clear disapproval
for the other, individuals on both sides see the world in dualistic us-and-them terms. In
addition, both religions universally claim to be the one true faith which all humans can
adhere to. Also, both Christianity and Islam have teleological views of history in
contrast to the cyclical and static views prevalent in other civilizations. Finally, both
25
faiths are missionary religions believing their followers have an obligation to convert
nonbelievers to their one true faith. (Huntington, 1996)
The relationship between Christianity and Islam is about as unstable as two earth
tectonic plates colliding underneath the Earths crust. In other words, the collision
between these two historically great faiths is the cause of world altering events.
Religion has been one of the most important influences on the evolution of cultural
society; it has brought about changes that seem to transcend the boundaries of tangible
results. Unfortunately, with all great creations, there is a side effect that is directly
associated with religion – that affliction is the devout extremist. They are the cause of
destruction, fear, pain and suffering in a millennia long war between ordinary beliefs
and the radical extremes. Within the cultures of Islam and Christianity, fundamentalism
is a growing disease, a cancer that has imbedded itself in society. If we cannot muster
the strength and confidence to take on this timeless enemy it will evolve into a
mechanism of destruction that will bring conflict to the future.
26
Bibliography:
1. Hassner, Ron E., Horowitz, Michael C. (September 15th, 2010). Debating the Role of Religion in War. International Security, Volume 35, Number 1, summer 2010, pp.201-208. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ins/summary/v035/35.1.hassner.html
2. Gibbs, Scott, (September 4th, 2010). Islam and Islamic Extremism: An Existential Analysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Volume 45, Number 2, spring 2005, pp. 156-203. DOI: 10.1177/0022167805274728 http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/45/2/156
3. Masalha, Nur, Hayes, Michael. (September 14th, 2010). Research Notes: A Comparative Study of Jewish, Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Perspectives on Jerusalem: Implications for Inter-faith Relations. Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal. Volume 5, Number 1, May 2006, pp. 97-112. DOI: 10.1353/hls.2006.000 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hls/summary/v005/5.1masalha.html
4. Silke, Andrew. (September 26th, 2010) Holy Warriors: Exploring the Psychological Processes of Jihadi Radicalization. European Journal of Criminology. Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 99–123. DOI: 10.1177/1477370807084226 http://euc.sagepub.com/content/5/1/99
5. Horowitz, Michael. (September 11th, 2010). Long Time Going Religion and the Duration of Crusading. International Security, Volume 34, Number 2, fall 2009, pp. 162-193. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ins/summary/v034/34.2.horowitz.html
6. Miller, Laurence. (September 20th, 2010). The Terrorist Mind: I. A Psychological and Political Analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Volume 50, Number 2, April 2006, pp. 121-138. DOI: 0.1177/0306624X05281405. http://0-ijo.sagepub.com.library.anselm.edu/content/50/2/121.full.pdf+html
7. Sharpe, Tanya Telfair. (October 14th, 2010). The Identity Christian movement: Ideology of Domestic Terrorism. Journal of Black Studies, Volume 30, Number 4, March 2000, pp. 604-623. DOI:10.1177/002193470003000407
8. Guns and Bibles: Militia extremists blend God and country into a potent mixture (1995, June 19). Christianity News Today, pp. 34-36
9. Southern, Neil. (August 10th, 2010). September 11th: A Christian Fundamentalist Interpretation. Department of Education and Social Science: University of Central Lancashire, Volume 9, Number 2, 2008, pp 139-160. DOI:10.1558/poth.v9i2.139
10. Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 109-111, 209-211, 213, 216-218
27
11. Halbur, Virginia. (2007). Saint Mary’s Press College Study Bible. Winona, Minnesota. ISBN: 978-0-88489-907-5
12. Corrigan, John. (2009). Jews, Christians, Muslims: A Comparative Introduction to Monotheistic Religions. Prentice Hall, ISBN: 978-0023250927 (Source that is no longer in my possession)
13. Pape, Robert. (2005, July 18). The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. The American Conservative Magazine.
28