Analysis of Religion as a Foundational Factor in The Creation of Terrorist Groups

Introduction

Fundamentally, subjective opinions arise in attempting to understand the reasoning behind the establishment of a terrorist group. “Bruce Hoffman…has defined terrorism as violence — or equally important, the threat of violence — used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim” (Ward, 2018). Opinions on why terrorist groups emerge, and attack had increased following the September 2001 attacks which saw the hijacking of two aircrafts and eventually being flown into the World Trade Centre. Following al-Qaeda taking responsibility, a known terrorist organisation, it sees scholars such as Matthew Bunn and James Dingley publishing reports on what ‘fuels’ such groups. It becomes important to understand the ‘fuel’ for terrorist organisations, with attacks becoming much more frequent with the likes of populated cities such as London and New Zealand being targets. Nonetheless, the articles like Bunn’s and other scholars complex the understanding of why such groups emerge. This essay will focus on the period between the 1950 – 2019 and discuss three prominent reasons; firstly, whether or not religion forms the basis for terrorist groups, secondly, whether or not they are driven by their poor economic conditions and lastly if they are desiring liberation from a form of oppression. It becomes clear that from research, the idea of what Abrahamic religions believe in has been tainted because of individuals formulating their own ideology with the use of religious principles. As a result of this, it is clear that religion is not a foundational factor but instead sees groups forming as a result of desiring some form of liberation, either from a country or oppression. “Lyons and Haribson found the average terrorist…[to be] normal, which suggest[s] that terrorist behavior was normal” and not psychologically ill, Could it be that we are living in a world full of terrorists who are yet to be ignited on their radical journeys for liberty?

Religion and terrorism

The claim that ‘religion’ is a foundational factor in the creation of terrorist groups is becoming much evident because of recent attacks. Critics such as James Dingley identify reasons to justify Abrahamic religions as supporting the idea of terrorism. It is highlighted through religious housing becoming a center for 'learning a…social activity, a meeting place both for prayers and discussion of local events and centre and the centre of the local structure of relations'. Dingley shows the influence of religion with the concept of the “Ummah” as provoking reactions. This becomes clear as the term stresses “the idea of an Allah-given order, whose form was revealed through the Prophet: how men should live together in an ordered structure of relationships, bonded by ties of moral obligation to other members of the “ummah”, thereby creating peace and harmony”. Alongside this, the “the very word Islam means surrender or submission (to the will of Allah), which implies also to the will of the “ummah” and brings order and harmony. One consequence of this is that whatever appears to attack the community and an established order, it is seen as an attack on God (Allah)'. Therefore, it becomes clear that the impact religious housing and radical religious leaders have on vulnerable individuals can lead to a case of indoctrination. This can be the case with a large influx of individuals visiting such centres, making it an ideal breeding ground. Although it is important to note, this is only the case with radical religious leaders being present in such facilities. Nonetheless, this argument holds weight as a result of the Islamic State wanting to attack the Western countries because they are a threat to their values and the encounters between both sides in ‘Muslim countries’. Dingley mentions the influence of Christianity on radical individuals as, any form of modernity “undermined the sense of order and community the Catholic Church represented as morally sacred”. In this instance, it is clear that their values like Islam are cherished and any form of attack will be greeted with protection. In essence, this suggests inevitable attacks due to individuals not being like-minded.

Dingley highlights a trend; of such religions retaliating against some form of attack which shows that they are attempting to liberate themselves from this form of oppression. In line with this, the desire to “build[ing] an ideology based on the idea of supremacy against other groups in society and the idea of true faith” shows a form of communitarianism – a value stressed by religions. The desire to ensure their group is superior in comparison to others aligns with the likes of the Islamic state who want to eradicate the idea of the “Islamic countries versus the West” (Meierrieks and Krieger, 2009). This demonstrates the case of religion being against states which is evident in a majority of the recent terrorist attacks such as the London 2017 attacks.

Bjorgo emphasises a similar line to that of Dingley but shows a correlation between the methods of attack to religious values. The number of deaths by al-Qaeda alone in 2001 saw “3000” through a suicide bomber which evidently is their favourable option as seen through another attack in Kenya 1998 - killing “224”. Suicide terrorism can be justified a case of “religious fanaticism'(Bjrgo, 2004) which aligns with the following Islamic principle of “self-sacrifice [being] Allah’s will, and the description of the rewards guaranteed for Shaheed’s (martyrs) in paradise” (Bjrgo, 2004). This demonstrates that religious values motivate such attacks. The root ideology behind islamist terrorist groups today can be seen to have been because of Salafi Jihadism, a militant Islamic movement which aimed to call upon other Muslims to defend the ‘Muslim Land’ from foreign occupation. The ideas of al-Qaeda can be traced to 1998 with Dr Fadl highlighting Jihad as a constant and natural state of Islam. Fadl refers to Osama Bin Laden and highlighted that “Muslims could take effective military action inspired by select Islamic principles”. The exposure to conservative Islamist scholars and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and ideological basis for his belief in the puritanical Salafist Islamic reform in Muslim societies and the necessity of armed resistance in the face of “perceived aggression”. It becomes clear that such principles align with the idea of Dingley in protecting their Ummah but also justifying their “retaliation for…aggression in the Islamic world”. Al-Qaeda are a clear example of religion providing foundations for their group. This is as a result of their end goal being an ‘Islamic State’ with the need for “The Quran-Based Authority to Govern”. The state would be based on the Sharia law. One principle of the law is the immediate death upon those who degrade the Quranic verses. The desire to fulfil such a state has come at great cost following the Charlie Hebdo Shooting in Paris 2015, and also the London bombings in 2007. Therefore, it becomes clear that religion is a foundational factor in this instance with the method in they utilise but also their justification for attacks. Al-Qaeda are an example of adhering to ‘Islamic’ principles in carrying out their attacks and forming their ideology on ‘Islamic principles’.

On the other hand, the idea of religion being a foundational factor holds a lack of weight when comparing it with the true form of religion. Eposito highlights religion as not being a credible explanation for the formation of terrorist groups. It is revealed that “the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible [and that] the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane” (Esposito, 2015). Eposito highlights that Islam has been painted wrong through justifying the need to understand the historical context behind quotes used by terrorist organizations. Many individuals were living in “tribal society and environment” (Esposito, 2015) meaning “tribal raids and warfare were considered normal and lawful unless a truce had been concluded between tribes”, however “Chivalry forbade killing noncombatants like children, women, religious leaders and old people” (Esposito, 2015). It becomes clear that the attacks committed by such islamist groups are wrongful. This is enhanced by the verse from the Quran - “Had Allah wished, He would have made them dominate you and so if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them” (4:90). Meirrieks demonstrates that they cannot “conclude whether religious factors (as well as ethnic ones) drive terrorist attacks” following empirical research. In order to understand the arguments posed by critics such as Dingley of Islam being a cause of terrorist attacks, one must mention Islamism. Both variations hold similar values but differ fundamentally. The focus of Islamism sees “their effort to build a way of life based purely on the Shar'i laws, Islamists strain to reject all aspects of Western influence - customs, philosophy, political institutions and values”. Whereas the traditional Islam focuses more on peace. In light of this, it is clear that a majority of the scholars and critics have confused their understanding of what form of Islam a majority of such terrorist groups believe in. It is also important to mention the impact of Islamism as an ideology that is out of touch. Alongside this, it is also important to note that rather than adhering to a religion, they are adhering to what is known as an ideology. This is identified as a result of ISIS wanting a reformed society based of their ideas, whereas Islam accepts and has evidently integrated into modern society. In light of this it is clear that that “terrorists don’t kill for their religion”. Therefore, it justifies and demonstrates that modern day religions do not form the foundational factor for terrorist groups but instead have been confused with subbranches. It is important to note that it shows signs of wanting liberation from the western philosophy.

Moreover, it could be said that terrorist organisations form as a result of poor economic conditions. To begin with, it is important to define that in order to judge what constitutes a poor economy, one must comment on social inequality and a lack of economic prosperity. In this instance, there will be a focus on an impoverished economic systemic. It is clear that such conditions leave individuals with no other options but to gain revenge as “a combination of poor economic and institutional conditions may matter to the genesis of terror”. The combination of both instruments failing in a country leads to individuals resorting to revengeful methods against the government or in most cases against foreign countries. The involvement of other countries has evidently resulted in severe economic sanctions being made to the weaker country. Many countries identify themselves as intervening on the basis of geopolitics and globalisation. However, the impact of ruining the economy of a country leaves humans to tap into their nationalistic feelings but also their human nature of wanting revenge. This may also come about through domestic terrorism too.

An example of impoverishment had occurred in Iran with America stopping all forms of petroleum sales with Iran and the banning all investment in the country. Consequently, this resulted in a severe impact on the economy of Iran. Choi highlights that Iran had experienced an increase of “145% in domestic terrorism during the periods of economic sanctions between 1979 – 1981 – 1984 and 2002… their natural reaction is to lash out against the rich and the government [who control the country]”. It becomes clear that terrorists had formed groups and been triggered as a result of foreign countries intervening and being able to ruin their economic prosperity and growth. This is because of the pervasive and one-sided nature of globalisation. A report in 2018 highlighted developed industrialised countries as benefitting the “most from globalisation because increasing globalisation generates the largest GDP per capita gains for them in absolute terms” (Petersen and Jungbluth, 2019). This case was evident in Iran following the banning of the U Turn financial transactions by the US and also being able to control them, as seen through the changes they made to their country and instructing other countries to cease trades. As a result of this, it was clear USA benefitted from their relationship. Scholars such as Newman have highlighted that that the “poverty of resources, combined with poverty of prospects, choices and respect, help enable terrorism to thrive” (Newman, 2006). Alongside this, the “reconstructing of labour markets and creating [more] grievances [sees individuals] become unemployed as a result of economic change”. This was evidently the case in Iran following “48% of Iranians….[not having enough] money to buy food or provide adequate shelter for themselves” (Choi, 2014). The inevitable outcome of this was a “violence trigger… thus intensifying their economic misery and generating poverty-related political violence” which in our case transferred to terrorist attacks because of the hostile environment. As a result of poor conditions, it contributes to individuals losing belief in their current government and sees their use of attacks increasing in the hopes of removing their government through fearful methods. This is as a result of a discrepancy between “what individuals think they deserve and what they actually receive through the economic (distributive) process”. Consequently, it leads to an alienated group in society who become victim to the economic changes made as a result of their governments decisions. In most cases, it also sees the weakening of their government due to the state diluting some form of power following relations between countries being on an economic basis. As a result, it it “provide[s] the space and oxygen for terrorist’s groups to flourish”. This vacuum of power is utilised by terrorists through the use of propaganda and also manipulating vulnerable individuals. A case study that demonstrates poor economic conditions as triggering terrorist actions is highlighted through the Islamic Republican in Iran. Following the overthrow of the Shah monarchy who had become dependent on “foreign industries” (M. Vedat, 2003) and the United States it saw a lack of prosperity for Iran, which frustrated its people. An example of its economic downturn is highlighted through the 1978 budget ending up with a “$7.3 billion deficit” (M. Vedat, 2003) due to the badly executed plan of “depend[ing] on imports and foreign trade” (M. Vedat, 2003). As a result of removing the Shah monarchy, the republican then decided to turn on those who contributed to the economic downfall of their country. Many examples have occurred since 1983 through terrorist methods. One significant attack on the US was seen through the support for the September 2001 attack but also in 1983 with the taking of hostages of US officials. The inflicting of fear upon them is a method of terrorism. Bjorgo highlights the ideological reasoning for individuals wanting to support their state through Durkheim. This sees the mentioning of a social duty but also a form of altruism in which they enact through terrorist attacks to enhance their country and a form of revenge. All in all, it becomes evidently clear that the impact of poor economic conditions because of impoverishment sees individuals resorting to terrorist methods to fulfil their social duty and improve their conditions. This could also show those in Iran as feeling entrapped as result of lack of economic prosperity and wanting economic liberty.

However, poor economic conditions cannot be seen as the most important reasons for the creation of terrorist groups. Newman highlights that “Nasra Hassan (2001, 37) interviewed nearly two hundred and fifty people involved in the most militant Palestinian groups: “none of them were uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded, or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless they were fugitives, held paying jobs” (Newman, 2006). Although this is only one example, it is clear that a lack of economic prosperity does not contribute to terrorists’ groups forming. This is because ‘successful’ terrorist supports their campaigns through funds they have access to and would not be able to exceed their desires. All of which would not occur if they were living in poor economic conditions. One example of this is Osama Bin Laden whose wealth amounted to “$29 million” (Anon, 2016) . It is clear that one of the largest terrorists known in history was not motivated because of poor economic conditions, but because of the opposite. The instance of Iran being a weighty example of highlighting poor economic conditions as fueling terrorist methods is only to a certain degree. This is as a result of political and cultural reasons being driving factors for the Islamic republican. Shah had been highlighted was one who was a threat to Iranian culture but also his “regime seemed quite authoritarian”. As a result of this, “Terrorism is thus often linked to a sense of injustice and impotence rather than sheer poverty”. This is highlighted through the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) who had suffered injustices in the work and education sphere by the Sinhalese party – Sri Lanka Freedom Party – who won elections in 1956, 1960 and 1970. Following the failed attempt by the Tamil United Front in 1972 who attempted to introduce another state through peaceful methods, it saw Velupillai Prabhakaran forming his own group from this party in 1976 which became known as the LTTE. The lack of justice saw the use of Guevara’s tactic and a Marxist-Leninist terrorist style with the use of suicide attacks “against the Sri Lankan government. LTTE forces would often ambush government troops and attack in “waves,” meaning here that the LTTE would first swarm the enemy and then engage in suicide bombings, which would often confuse and scare Sri Lankan government forces”. It is clear that the idea of liberation had been more of a reason to form their own terrorist group rather than economic conditions, even though they had not been the best following their recent colonial encounters. Ultimately, it is clear the poor economic conditions do not fuel terrorists, due to it being as a result of more substantial factors combined. Alongside this, there is no specific terrorist group which had been formed directly on the basis of a lack of economic prosperity in their country.

Overall, it is clear terrorist groups form as a result of desiring liberation of some type. This argument holds an incredible amount of weight as it aligns with the aims of the terrorist groups discussed in this essay but since the 1950s. It is important to define what liberation actually means – the Oxford Dictionary defines it as wanting “Freedom from limits on thought or behaviour” [and also from] oppression” (Fowler, 2012). Two examples of terrorist groups demonstrate this argument. The Irish Republican Army emerged in the 20th century and had attempted to gain full independence of Ireland from Britain. This had been as a result of historical and religious conflict with Britain since the 17th century with the Battle of Drogheda. Although they had gained part of their objective following a split in Ireland between the South and the North, it still was not enough. Their main objective had been to ensure Ireland was free from Britain’s oppression due to the attacks they encountered because they were Catholics. In order to achieve their unified Ireland, “The violence that they used [was] to pressure the State. In a sense that the more they killed many people, the more the state will likely grant their wish)” (Pratiwi, n.d.). They had attempted to achieve “sympathy from the public” (Pratiwi, n.d.) in order to eradicate British rule over Ireland. This had been as a result of constant British oppression with the likes of the Easter Rising and Bloody Sunday which identify the case of a lack of freedom for their thoughts. This was clear as both events had seen the British attacking the Irish following their peaceful methods of wanting to achieve independence. The freedom of their behaviour was also restricted seen through the Martial Law being put in place at the start of the 20th century which inevitably created a hostile environment. It becomes clear that the IRA believed they were only able to remove this stronghold through inflicting fear onto Britain. Although the case can identify the group as being formed because of religious reasons, it is clear that their political objectives were of more significance as highlighted by Jackson and Sinclair. Similarly, the Palestine Liberation Organization show the desire for wanting liberation. The circumstances for the group to emerge had been as a result of the creation of Israel in 1948 following the Balfour Declaration. The United Nations had divided Palestine to allow occupation for both the Arabs and the Jewish. However, this cause a mixed response with the Jews accepting their gain but Arabs rejecting it. This hostile environment saw a two-stage war in 1948 and 1949 which saw Israel winning because of their use of militias and beating Arab armies. The impact of this war and further relations between both countries saw a displacement of people and also Israel intending on expanding to the West Bank. The hostile relationship had not been assisted due to no treaty being formed to end hostilities in 1949 which highlighted a case of wanting revenge. As a result of this, the movement had emerged with the purpose of wanting to liberate Palestine from Israel occupation. It had rejected the legitimacy of Israel and any form of partition and looked upon revolutionary violence. A covert arm of the Fatah emerged in what became known as the Al-Asifa which saw itself as tool for armed revolution. They had pledged to fight until Palestine is liberated. “After 1968 the PLO and its associated groups adopted a policy of terrorism against civilians” in order to liberate the Palestinians which, saw bombings and hijackings with examples including the bomb on the 22nd November 1968 at the Jerusalem Market. The Palestine National Covenant highlighted the partition as an illegal act due to it being “contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination…”. It becomes clear to critics that the formation of such a group had been on the basis of liberation. This is apparent through the movement attempting to eradicate any forms of oppression on their people. It is clear that this identifies liberation as being the most justifiable reason in understanding the formation of terrorist groups. This is because the PLO are attempting to eradicate the oppression that exists today and that had continued since the wars between both countries since 1948-67. Their main objective is to remove Israel occupation which exists upon oppression. Therefore, it is clear that many groups since the 1950s are retaliating against some form of oppression or restriction on their behaviour or thoughts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that religion is not a credible explanation for why terrorist groups form. This is highlighted as a result of groups such as ISIS which ‘represent Islamic principles’ being founded upon an ideology based of their personal aims. This is important to add due to many critics tainting the image of Islam and therefore depicting it as a religion of violence. Academics such as Eposito highlight that the likes of Dr Fadl has manipulated Quranic verses to support their out of date ideology. Similarly, the argument presented by critics posing the theory of economic reasons holding strength is also one that is not credible. This is as a result of a lack of terrorist groups being based off because of only economic conditions. History has highlighted that a combustion of societal factors such as politics influence and motivate their methods of revenge. Therefore, it becomes apparent that both arguments highlight that groups of such desire a form of liberation. This is clear either through desiring to prevent the ‘oppression of Western philosophy’ as stated by ISIS or attempting to ensure economic liberty. Modern and previous terrorist groups identify themselves as ‘normal citizens’ being restricted to enact freely and being restricted as seen through the Palestinians losing their land. Nonetheless, it is confirmed that a majority of the terrorist groups since the 1950s till today have formed upon the desire of wanting either economic, political or social liberty. This brings to light on what constitutes a valid form of liberation due to its subjective nature.