Religion and Terrorism

It is easy, but wrong to blame religion for the actions of those who appear to act in its name. Islam has been credited with providing the impetus for extremists to engage in acts of terror, while Anders Breivik, who detonated a bomb in Norway killing scores of children, was said to have had intense personal problems stemming from childhood. These were suggested as the reason for his actions, rather than his online connections with right wing anti-Islamic religious groups.

To try and differentiate those whose motives are driven by strong religious convictions from those who either find religion a convenient cover or psychopaths with only tangential connections to religion is splitting hairs. It is impossible to draw a line. Yesterday, I heard on public radio an analysis by an investigator of the attacks in Paris. One of the perpetrators apparently had never been in a mosque and another had a book “Islam for Dummies” (I never knew such a book existed). The conclusion drawn was that for at least some of the terrorists, religion was not the basis for the attack. We tend to look for alternate reasons for heinous acts committed by those whose religions we respect, but quickly blame the faith when its principles are less familiar or agreeable to us.

If there is one common thread, it is that the largest seedbed of Islamic radicalization lies within the countries whose citizens have suffered the greatest economic collapse. These include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan, although it appears to be spreading in Africa. I don’t think this connection is a coincidence. If personal problems and not religion are the primary factors to explain Brevity, couldn’t economic hardships be the primary factors explaining Islamic terrorists?

Iran had a democratically elected government and western culture was sought by it citizens. Then when the Iranian leader, Mossadegh and his parliament voted to deny British Petroleum the right to sovereignty over the Iranian lands on which it was drilling and to nationalize the company, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt led a coup in 1953 and installed a monarchy under the Shah Reza Pahlavi, who ruled as a dictator for 26 years before radical Islamic clerics overthrew him in 1979. Afghanistan was a very secular country with decentralized tribal law until a ruinous civil war in which sophisticated weapons were infused into the fighting by Russia and the US, each supporting opposite sides. When the super powers left, the country plunged into anarchy until the Taliban instituted strict Islamic law. To ignore these conditions and blame words written over a thousand years earlier for this radicalization seems irrational to me. The religion didn’t change. People changed because their conditions changed and strict religious interpretations allow for easier accumulation of power to combat unfavorable conditions.

I also disagree with those who believe that extremist Islamic interpretation comes directly from religious text. The seven pillars of Islam relate to devotion to God; purity of body, mind, and soul; prayer; charity; fasting; Pilgrimage to Mecca; and the struggle against enemies of Islam (known as Jihad). The last one has caused the greatest disagreement. The radical elements of Islam believe this to mean struggle against people and states that are enemies of Islam. This is the justification for terrorist activities. Others have interpreted that pillar to mean a struggle within oneself against the enemies within the mind or sinful thoughts. Certainly multiple interpretations of Biblical passages also exist. When Ham, son of Noah, laughed at his father’s drunkenness as mentioned in Exodus, Noah put a curse on Ham and his descendants, who were destined to always be servants. There are those, including my grandmother, who believed this was the reason why blacks were thrust into that role. In earlier times it had also been used to explain black skin and to justify slavery. If you look hard enough you can find something in a sacred writing to justify almost anything.

Much of the Quran follows the Old Testament. Although, I have not read through the Quran, I have read passages that compare the two. The Quran has less extreme penalties. The Old Testament condemns to death anyone who blasphemes the Lord; does not keep the Sabbath; curses his parents; commits adultery, homosexuality, or bestiality; bears false witness; or is a disobedient son. The Quran is not so quick to condemn to death and does make allowances for those who repent. In the Battle of Jericho as mentioned in Exodus, God instructs Joshua to circle Jericho seven times, blow rams’ horns and the walls will come tumbling down. After which Joshua was ordered to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in the city. Today, that would go a long way to satisfy the definition of terrorism. To those who say “That was a long time ago and things were different and we don’t do things like that today”, I say Those writings are still part of the Bible and I know of no one who has ripped out those pages. Those words are still there for anyone to use who chooses to justify committing such acts. And if one were to literally follow the Old Testament text and commit such acts as promulgated, would you blame the text or the person?

The Catholic Church split in 1054 with the Orthodox Church ruled from Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire in the east, while in the west, the Roman Catholic Church ruled from Rome. When Alexios I ruler of Byzantine asked Pope Urban II of Rome for help against the Turks, Urban called for a crusade of Catholic soldiers, promising forgiveness of sins. There were four Crusades with only limited and temporary success in the First and Third Crusades. In the Fourth Crusade, known as the People’s Crusade, thousands of Jews were slaughtered and Constantinople itself was sacked weakening it and causing it to fall to the Turks in 1453. Is the Bible to blame?

Following the Crusades in 1480 Spain started an Inquisition primarily against Jews. During its long existence, Moors (Islamic Spaniards who migrated from North Africa introducing ideas and culture from the East) and protestants were also targeted. The goal was to rid the county of all non Orthodox Catholics. It has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced to leave. There were two other Inquisitions (Portuguese and Roman). Ferdinand and Isabella, of Christopher Columbus, fame created the one in Spain. Catholics who had converted to another religion had to renounce the conversion or face torture. Those reneging on their promise of change were put to death. Burning at the stake was an officially recognized method of execution. The last person executed was in 1826.

Who is to say that the long period of engaging in these acts of wanton cruelty and repression did not have the effect of establishing an acceptance and foster the attitudes that laid the foundation for the mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis?

Certainly Islamic terrorism is not just a current problem. The Turks have a long history of abuse in the Middle East against both the Kurds and the Armenians. Although they deny it, it has been estimated over a million Armenians were massacred by the Turks during the Armenian Genocide which began in 1915 and lasted through much of WWI.

In conclusion I state that a person can find justification in a sacred text for any act or point of view, whether it is the Bible, Quran, or some other book. The period of time involved is not a factor nor an excuse. It merely changes the conditions and the economic relationships among the parties. Religion has been used as an excuse for promoting self interest without regard for the rights or welfare of others. The Ku Klux Klan and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition both call themselves Christian and use the same Bible.