Class of Civilizations - Religiously Motivated Terrorism

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