Introduction
After 9/11, there was a misinformed trend of identifying terrorism by factors such as race, religion, or political beliefs (Patel, 2021). The response to the terrorist attack was all on account of national security by the two main Western protagonists, the United States and the United Kingdom, through the “Global War on Terror” (Baker & Phillipson, 2011). Increasing reports of “intelligence-led policing” methods included racial and religious profiling (ibid.), inevitably suggesting that an Asian person was more likely to perform a terrorist attack than a non-Asian person (ibid.). Following the bombings on the London Tube on 7 July 2005, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police clearly stated the government’s perspective on the matter: “Intelligence-led stop and searches have got to be the way … It is going to be young men, not exclusively, but it may be disproportionate when it comes to ethnic groups” (Dodd, 2006, cited in Baker & Phillipson, 2011: 3). Ramirez et al. (2003) underline racial or religious profiling are not imperative or effective for the War on Terrorism. The consequences of such actions can be detrimental to long-term investigative activities, as racial or religious profiling prevents law enforcement agencies from conducting thorough criminal investigations (ibid.).
This investigation into the causes of terrorism relates to existing work and elaborates on previous research. The purpose of this study is not to understate the religious influence on terrorism, but rather focus on other factors that are just as important and need to be recognized. Furthermore, theocracies like Iran have been recognized as state sponsors of terrorism and for human rights abuses. However, there is a lack of acknowledgment that democracies also contribute to this phenomenon, with only some authors recognizing this integral problem. Newman (2006: 749) highlights that many analysts are hesitant to recognize root causes as they reject the idea “that there may be any legitimate causes or grievances behind terrorism”. The lack of awareness and discussion of causes has led to the demonization of certain communities.
With the idea of racial and religious profiling being central to counter-terrorism methods and evidently not useful, this paper looks at whether religions/religious beliefs are root causes for terrorism, while aiming to identify the causes of terrorism. It is divided into three sections: the first examines religion and violence, the second explores causes of terrorism, and the third investigates the role of states, theocratic and democratic in engendering terrorism.
Religion and conflict
Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations?” (1993) and book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) are well known for the argument that Islam is inclined to conflict, compared to other religions. Huntington separates the world into civilizations, to some degree centered around religion, except one. Future conflicts, according to Huntington’s main thesis, will be between these civilizations as opposed to being centered on a particular ideology (e.g., communism vs capitalism), national (US vs USSR), etc. Rather than focus on whether all religions are prone to conflict, Huntington’s position allows the idea that some religions, like Islam, are more conflict-prone. He argued that Islam was the most troublesome civilization as it encouraged “loyalty to the religion that supplants the nation-state, while it is hostile toward ideas such as democracy, liberty, individualism and universal human rights” (Hamourtziadou, 2020: 23). While Huntington did not predict the events of the 11 September 2001, attack, he has been credited with predicting the cultural and religious context that may give rise to an act like 9/11 (Pew Research Center, 2006).
In Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, Hector Avalos (2005) argues that religion is subject to violence, as it is a breeding ground for conditions of scarcity, using the “scarce resource theory”. Four major scarce resources that are provoked by religion are discussed in his book: inscripturation, sacred space, group privilege, and salvation. He applies each scarce resource to the Abrahamic religions. According to Avalos, inscripturation inherently promotes violence for individuals who dispute the legitimacy of a specific sacred scripture. For example, Deuteronomy 18:20 sanctions those who follow other Gods to be put to death (BibleGateway, 1982a). Violence occurs when religious groups oppose one another. One example is when Muhammad (PBUH) used scripture as a justification for the attack on the Qurayza Jews in the 7th century CE (Avalos, 2005). The Jews’ refusal to adopt Islam’s new doctrine and the objection to abdicating the Torah led to bloodshed and violence. This was an example of how conflicts arise over scripture, thus playing a key role in violence. In relation to the scarce resource theory, inscripturation has become a scarce resource to those who do not have access to these scriptures, or the education to read. “If these books are the basis of authority, then they are a scarce resource to those who cannot read them” (Avalos, 2005: 105).
Avalos claims that sacred space is shared by major religions and defines this as “bounded space whose value is placed above that of surrounding spaces for purely religious reasons” (ibid.:106). According to the scarce resource theory, sacred places are probable for conflict as not everyone has access to or inhabits sacred spaces. One cannot speak of sacred spaces without the most significant location that holds a home for three of the world’s biggest religions: the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s history has been habituated with attacks over the last century. This essentially validates Avalos’s (2005) study, where faith in these religions and scriptures can cause violence. Closely associated with inscripturation and sacred spaces is group privilege, which is the notion that “certain groups have privileges and rights not granted to those outside of the group” (ibid: 108).
Group privilege is implicit in the Tanakh, as when believing one is selected, insiders and outsiders are immediately created. Outsiders are then a reason for potential conflict when they do not have equal rights to the empowered groups. For example, Jews are advised against marrying non-Jews in Ezra 10:3-44 (BibleGateway, 1982b). Avalos (2005: 143) postulates “the repeated notions that Yahweh will conquer the entire world do not differ much from some conceptions of jihad”. In summation, violence ensues from group privilege as a response to religious competition.
Salvation “refers to the idea that one receives certain more permanent supernatural status or benefit by joining a particular religion” (ibid.: 109). Respecting the scarce resource theory, salvation is not available to everyone as it may only be available to those joining a particular group or willing to pay a price. Salvation leads to violence when certain modes of salvation command violence when individuals want to attain this. Avalos refers to orthodox Christianity, stating that the foundations for salvation are based on violence, specifically the torture and death of Jesus Christ, and it is fundamental to attain salvation. Islamic salvation occurs when any obstacles concerning salvation may result in violence to attain this (Avalos, 2005).
Avalos’ standpoint is simple yet clear, stating religion is a catalyst for violence. The scarce resource theory provides a theoretical framework where religion creates scarce resources, thus conflict arises. When practicing individuals recognize scarce resources as having a high value, religion has the potential to incite conflict and violence. It is not an unknown phenomenon that religious texts have been perverted to favor the ideology of the interpreter, however, Avalos goes against this perspective and is able to bring passages that elicit or have the possibility to lead to violence, without manipulating the text to fit a distorted purpose. It is notable that he makes the effort to read the Abrahamic texts in a manner other than the conventional non-violent one. Avalos (2005: 381) states “We need to ask ourselves, as academics, why the Bible and the Qur’an, among other scriptures, are worth privileging at all”. While Avalos primarily focuses on Abrahamic religions, he also notes that all religions are subject to violence. Avalos’s perspective demonstrates that religion can be a root cause of terrorism, primarily on the basis of direct quotes from religious books and historical events that have been immoral and provoked violence. The perception of revenge in Judaism, the martial triumphalism of Islam and the custom for atonement in Christianity, require a call for violent acts to execute their religious worldviews (Juergensmeyer, 2017).
Çınar (2009) highlights that religion is not a direct cause of terrorism, but it can be used as a justification for terrorism. Interviews with terrorists frequently show that they feel frustrated and defeated. By enlisting people in a more powerful movement and guaranteeing ultimate victory, religion offers some terrorists a chance to deal with these internal problems in a way that addresses their own shortcomings. While religion may help some people cope with their difficulties, it is not the primary cause of their frustrations.
To say that any religion is inherently evil and a harbor for violence is unfair and wrong, as this denies the individuals the Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB). “Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’” (GOV.UK, 2022). When FoRB is threatened, other human rights are made vulnerable, including deprivations of freedom of expression and detention without trial. Respect between religious groups can hinder the spread of extremism. Religion or belief-based discrimination hurts society and obstructs economies. Finally, cultural relativism would protect and justify the concept of religion (Zechenter, 1997). Juergensmeyer (2017) states that many Muslims, Christians, and Jews regard their religion as a peaceful one.
To solely focus on religion as a cause for terrorism can cause more harm than good to practicing civilians. For example, after the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans have been targeted for security checks, interrogation, and other investigations due to their skin color, clothes, name, or country of origin (Ramirez et al., 2003). This ultimately created a demonization of the Muslim community. Communities of color and other minority groups are also less inclined to trust the law, when law enforcement practices are portrayed as unfair, biased, and disrespectful. Although President George W. Bush urged Americans not to place the blame for the 9/11 attacks on Islam, Islamophobia has invaded public discourse, with the belief that Islam supports terrorism.
Religion will never go away. Gerson et al. states:
Religion also happens to be one of the oldest, deepest, most universal needs of the human soul. It cannot be ignored. Most of the predictions of early modern sociology – that science and modernity would make religion marginal and irrelevant – have utterly failed. (Gerson et al., 2010: 3)
Instead of seeing religion as a source of terrorism, future research should instead explore the misrepresentation and perversion of religion. According to the World Population Review (2023), approximately “85% of the world’s people identify with a religion”. If religion did cause terrorism, there would be a lot more terrorist attacks committed in the name of religion.
Causes of terrorism
Many studies have been conducted to demonstrate the correlation between why individuals join terrorist groups and why they become terrorists. For the purpose of this argument, mainstream religion will be void to demonstrate the significance of other factors leading to violence and terrorism, and how the religion has been utilized as a tool to attract some of these individuals. In the qualitative interviews by Scull et al. (2020) there emerged key themes regarding individuals and their involvement with terrorist groups, specifically members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, for which they are apprehended in Kuwait’s Central Prison. Emergent themes were religious identity development, personal connections, propaganda, defense of Islam, social marginalization, and ideology. The study’s reliance on analysis of interviews with terrorist group members that concentrate on ideological aspects is one of its shortcomings. Terrorists may choose to support such organizations for other reasons, apart from ideology, that are essentially not captured by this sample. A study conducted by Gómez et al. (2021) observed patterns of coercion that resulted in individuals joining terrorist groups, like the loss of relational ties, such as through deaths of family members, were key components as to why they chose to join the terrorist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Heitmeyer (2005) states there is no universally agreed theory to explain terrorism. Borum (2004) instead states that their individual behaviors for violence can fall under theoretical pretenses for example, social learning theory, cognitive theory, and biological factors that influence aggression. Lia and Skjølberg’s (2000) (cited in Heitmeyer 2005) survey of theories and hypotheses is respectable, however, it has its own set of problematic factors, due to its oversimplification and generalization of terrorism. Elliott and Lockhart (1980, cited in Alexander & O’Day 2015) and Krueger (2018) address the importance of acknowledging the backgrounds of terrorists. For example, in the study Elliott and Lockhart (1980), offenders of terrorist activities were intelligent, achieved higher educational achievements, displayed lower levels of evidence for early development concerns, with a decrease in court appearances compared to other “ordinary” offenders. Correspondingly, Krueger (2018) claims there is little correlation between poverty and lack of education as a root cause for terrorism, despite what world leaders and prominent thinkers may disclose. For example, President Bush said, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror” (G.W. Bush, 2002, cited in Krueger, 2018: 12). Human rights activist, Elie Wiesel contested that “The fanatic has no questions, only answers. Education is the way to eliminate terrorism” (Jai, 2001, cited in Krueger, 2018).
Staub (2002, cited in Zeidan, 2006: 220) on the other hand discusses a multitude of circumstances that interfere with fundamental human needs are the potential root causes of terrorism which are as listed: “poverty, relative deprivation, and sense of injustice; difficult life conditions, including great social and cultural change …” Scull et al. (2020) also state their sample of participants had lower levels of education, which affected them to think critically and independently. Consequently, they were more vulnerable to societal pressure and influence. Terrorist leaders are more likely to be educated and middle-class, however, those who are recruited display lower levels of education. Lack of job opportunities is also a factor in joining terrorist groups (Çınar, 2009).
Religious extremism
Some authors argue religion is not the root cause of terrorism. But instead religious extremism is one of the main root causes of terrorism and is not restricted to one religion (Zeidan, 2006). For example, “Gush Emunim, the Jewish Settlers Movement, has more in common with the Taliban than it does with ultra-orthodox Jews in terms of political action” (ibid: 220–221). Esposito (cited in Richardson, 2013) highlights the emergence of political Islam, and makes key differences regarding mainstream and extremist movements. He gives the example of bin Laden as his motivations were not religious but were based on the grounds of political and economic grievances; nonetheless, they use a history of religious extremism to justify their actions. Onimhawo and Ottuh (2007: 92) discuss some reasons behind religious extremism: “religious fundamentalism, exclusivism, fanaticism, bigotism, ignorance, intolerance”. These individuals often act in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs when they lack sufficient knowledge or ideas about them, thus giving a false impression of their religion.
Political terrorism
According to Kirk (1983), political terrorism is violent political action that is predominantly intended to instill fear in the community, or a significant portion of it, for political goals. Political extortion occurs in the form of terrorism. Political objectives are often thought of as being ideological in nature. Political terrorists are consequently thought to be zealots who will kill and be killed in order to advance “the cause”. Terrorism is politically motivated violence and the majority of terrorism has the goal of political power, yet there is a large emphasis on religion. Schwenkenbecher (2012) categorizes terrorism as a political phenomenon which distinguishes it from other criminal strategies: terrorism objectives characterize it as a political tactic compared to criminal tactics. It is generally believed that the political aspect of religion is what motivates individuals or groups to use terrorism in the name of a particular religion: “In this sense, even religious terrorism is understood as a genuinely political strategy” (ibid.: 13). Gregg (2014) also concurs, stating the goals of religious terrorists are political and not religious. Al-Qaeda, for example, were a group in which their ultimate aims were religiously formulated, but their immediate objectives were almost purely political. Al-Qaeda uses religious grievances as vindications for their violence, but the issues solicited have correlations to political grievances, for example, oppression, poverty, and exploitation are reoccurring concepts (Quiggin, 2009). Esposito (cited in Çınar 2009) alleges political and economic grievances are the main causes and religion turns into a tool for mobilization and legitimization. Onimhawo and Ottuh (2007) state individuals will exploit religion to achieve political goals. However, Schwenkenbecher (2012) argues that terrorists may claim to fight for a political cause, but in actuality they are influenced by personal motives, hatred, and/or lust for revenge.
Nationalist terrorism
Hamourtziadou and Jackson (2018) state that nationalist movements utilize force to either win the independence of their people or resist secession and claim to represent a nation. When the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was founded in 1919, it was regarded as a nationalist organization that aimed to remove British rule from Ireland and make it independent and unified (Johnson & English, 2008). Pressman (2007) states that the IRA differs from Al-Qaeda, as the IRA defined its objectives through a national territory.
Ideology
Ideologies are discussed by many authors as causes of terrorism. Drake (1998) states that ideologies not only fuel initial motives for terrorists, but they also play a central role in the terrorist’s target. The choice of a terrorist’s target is critically influenced by the ideology, which also gives them a primary motivation for their activities and a lens through which to evaluate other people’s behavior. Additionally, ideology enables terrorists to defend their acts of violence by placing the responsibility on either the targets or other actors, whom they believe has led them to use violence. Although it is not the only cause, ideology gives terrorists a starting point for valid targets and a way to defend their actions to the public and to themselves (Drake, 2007; Kruglanski & Orehek, 2011). Pape (2005, cited in Kruglanski & Orehek, 2011) gave one illustration of such ideology when he noted that terrorists frequently see the foreign occupation of their territory as a state of affairs that needs to be corrected. The occupier is the problem, and terrorist action is resolving the issue with the ultimate goal of coercing the occupier to leave the territory. Ethno-nationalistic or politico-religious can be variants of ideology (Hassan, 2006). In an effort to persuade the government to ideologically concede to the terrorist’s position, terrorists who are said to be driven by ideology communicate with the government through its citizens (Kirk, 1983).
Despite many authors claiming that an ideology is needed to drive the incentive for many terrorists, Barzegar et al. (2016: 8) found that, through surveyed stakeholders, there was an overwhelmingly large consensus of agreement that there “exists no causal, predictive link between ideology and violence”. Holbrook and Horgan (2019) also reiterate this conception, claiming the link between ideology and terrorism is weak. There is also the notion of “little to no causal, linear link between particular Islamic beliefs and extremist violence” (Barzegar et al., 2016: 8). Barzegar et al. (2016) state the need to protect the rights of religious minorities. The importance of this conception stems from the human security framework aiming to protect individuals from discrimination. Civil rights violations and anti-Muslim hate crimes must be treated intently by law enforcement agencies, to dispel the misconception that Muslims are solely or even mostly to blame for violent extremism. Religious profiling offers extremist groups access to truths that they may use to gain sympathy and support for their cause. In order to combat this perception, law enforcement authorities must do everything within their ability to shield Muslims (and categorically all religious individuals) from hate speech, crimes, and unfair criminal investigations.
Mass media can serve as a powerful propaganda tool that has the ability to mold the attitudes of the public (Slone, 2000). When the 7/7 London terror attacks and the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack occurred, UK media outlets initiated stereotypes of Muslim terrorists and misrepresented Islamic beliefs as terrorism (Ahmed & Matthes 2017). As the media infiltrates most of public discourse, it is not implausible to correlate the media with crimes inflicted upon practicing individuals. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (2015) five-yearly review of equality and human rights in Britain (2015) found individuals who did not practice religion were rarely distressed about crime, “In England, Muslims (67.8%), Buddhists (67.1%), Hindus (66.4%), Sikhs (61.6%) and Christians (38.6%) were more likely to report feeling worried about physical attack and acquisitive crime than those with no religion (32.3%) in 2012/13”. Zeidan (2006) additionally states that after 9/11 media bias against Muslims and Arabs radicalized moderate Muslims, as they felt that injustice had been imposed on them. When Muslim extremists did commit acts of terrorism, they received “357% more US press coverage than those committed by non-Muslims” (Chalabi, 2018).
State terrorism
Theocracy is defined as a “belief in governance by divine guidance, a form of regime in which religion or faith plays the dominant role. It denotes thus a political unit governed by a deity or by officials thought to be divinely guided” (Zakai, 2008: 342, cited in Seyfi & Hall 2019). Similarly to the way a democracy is frequently run by elected officials, so too is a theocracy run by elected officials – in this case, the elected officials of God (Cliteur & Ellian, 2020). The political issue with theocracy is that it cannot limit the role of religion to support morality. This is because the theocracy’s logic is to place speculative ideas on the state, regardless of how flawed they may be (Ward, 2013). Therefore, this flawed notion could be imposing religious texts on people against their will, like in the case of Iran (abusing the human rights of Iranians) and using measures like terrorism to influence events beyond its borders for regional and emerging powers (Fayazi, 2017). Oberschall (2004: 37) claims Iran is important as it “was the first contemporary Muslim theocracy and also one of the first state sponsors of Islamist terrorists”. Iran is a country in which they have actively assisted terrorist organizations for example, “in 2019 Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), Harakat al-Nujaba, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq” (US Department of State 2019). Fayazi (2017) highlights the rationales for Iran’s support for terrorism. For example, Iran employs terror groups to endanger governments it opposes. Ben-Yehuda (2010) states that potentially violent and unpleasant flare-ups within and across cultures might occur from the conflicts and tensions between democracies and theocracies. Chenoweth (2006) and Li (2005) argue that terrorism will decline, as democracies provide platforms for citizens to express their interests and support peaceful solutions. By virtue of the increased ability to dispute and articulate grievances, individuals and groups are more likely to seek non-violent routes. Spinoza (cited in Ward 2013) favors democracy, considering it to be the most rational and natural form of government, and he regarded it as the pinnacle of political possibilities.
The conclusion, then, is that theocracies engender or enable terrorism, while democracies fight or disable terrorism. But is this the case?
To focus on theocracies as sponsors of terrorism would be one end of the spectrum. Democracies like the US have a controversial history of endorsing terror groups (Fayazi, 2017). For example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was employed by the CIA in the 1970s to prevent the Soviets from spreading and hindering the expansion of Marxist ideology to the Arab people (ibid.). Al-Qaeda and ISIS originated and are still financed by the US (ibid.). The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, informed the House of Commons that Al-Qaeda was a “product of Western intelligence agencies” (Ebrahim, 2017, cited in Fayazi 2017). Democracies may be involved with state terrorism, but they will not terrorize their own citizens, as this would go against the principles of democracy. Dictatorships, on the other hand, will terrorize their own citizens.
The “Global War on Terror” was launched by the US in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks (George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum n.d.) as a military and moral endeavor to eradicate terrorism; yet the US and its partners (including the UK) have subsequently committed horrific crimes against civilians, essentially opposing human security and acting as “terrorists”. For example, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on the constructed threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) possessed by Saddam Hussein. But WMDs were not found (Røssaak, 2017; Kimball, 2003) and the fear of Saddam Hussein’s affiliation with Al-Qaeda was fabricated and unreliable (Bapat et al., 2007). This made-up narrative of labeling people outside of their borders as terrorists and then terrorizing other (foreign) civilians in the name of a social justice cause, like democratic imperialism (Encarnación, 2005), is an example of the double standard. Russia was labeled as a state that uses “means of terrorism” after the “destruction of civilian infrastructure and other serious violations of international and humanitarian law amount to acts of terror and constitute war crimes” (News European Parliament, 2022). Whereas the US and the UK are able to successfully claim the moral high ground after dropping bombs on innocent civilians. Hamourtziadou (2021) further underlines that the neoliberal democratic system that the US and its allies imposed on Iraq was incapable of producing either the outcomes expected in a developed country or a democracy, in the Western tradition. Highly developed countries like the UK and the US maintain economic prosperity, and long-lasting political stability, and experience little prospect of major war. To this day, on the other hand, Iraq continues to be a weak state.
The true intentions of the Global War on Terror lie within democratic imperialism. Hamourtziadou (2007) highlights that the US–UK coalition went to war “to change the regime, to gain control of the region and its oil, at the expense of Iran, China, Russia, to have more influence over other countries that depend on that oil”, producing violent resistance retaliations in the form of insurgency and terrorism, and giving rise to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Hamourtziadou, 2007). It was a clear abuse of power that would spark conflict and enmity in the region for decades, and result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths from force, poverty, disease, and displacement.
“US-led forces killed 37% of all civilian victims in the first two years” (Hamourtziadou, 2023) of the Iraq war. Mike Prysner, a former Iraq veteran, spoke of the crimes committed by the US government: “We were told we were fighting terrorists, but the real terrorist was me and the real terrorism is this occupation. Racism within the military has long been an important tool to justify the destruction and occupation of another country… Racism is a vital weapon employed by this government” (John, 2013: 00:07:09–00:07:29). This is particularly important, as Hamourtziadou (2020) highlights that the War on Terror created “winners” and “losers”. The winners of this conflict were the ones who authorized the War on Terror, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who, despite invading and destroying countries and killing civilians, were re-elected. The losers were the Iraqis.
Between 2003 and 2020, the only constants have been communal violence, terrorism, poverty, weapons proliferation, crime, political instability, social breakdown, riots, disorder and economic failure. In Iraq, we observe the lack of basic security that exists in “zones of instability”. (Hamourtziadou, 2023)
Theocracies and democracies have enabled or provoked terrorism, as well as committed acts of terror on civilian populations. Their actions have conflicted with the central beliefs and values of democracy and with those of religion. This study has argued that religion should not be regarded as a root cause of terrorism. While terrorists may commit crimes in the name of religion, there are underlying causes that motivate individuals to commit such acts that are not central to religion: social marginalization, propaganda, identity fusion, political, national and individual backgrounds. States – theocratic and democratic – are also factors in causing terrorism, either by sponsoring it or by provoking it. Democracies like the US and the UK have contributed to the grievances of terrorists and have acted on a scale terrorists could not reach.