'Religious extremism is the main cause of terrorism'. To what extent do you agree with this claim?

Perhaps the most reported cause of terrorism in the contemporary world is religious extremism. The validity of
this statement has been widely questioned by academics and this essay will further the line of argument that
Religious extremism is far from the ‘main cause’ of terrorism. To do this, the essay will briefly define the
meaning of ‘terrorism’ and then proceed to explain the different causes of it. Ultimately, this essay will outline
why religious extemism is not the main cause of terrorism and instead assert that multiple factors such as
politics and psychology play a greater part in causing people to commit acts of terror.

To the chagrin of the civilized individual the reasons why someone may resort to terrorist action seem
incomprehensible and it is often easier to label these people as insane or psychologically damaged. However, as
Richard English states in his book titled Terrorism How to Respond - ‘research suggests that there is, in fact,
nothing inherently psychologically damaged or psychopathological about those who practice terrorist
violence…’ So what is terrorism and why do people carry it out? Unfortunately, despite attempts to answer this
question, the answer remains elusive. For simplicity, this essays definition of terrorism is ‘a politically
motivated act designed to change policy through violence or other method’s of instilling fear/terror into the
wider public audience.’ It is important to note that terrorism may be motivated by violent resistance to the state,
violence or threat in service to the state or violence in the service of self interests.1 A classic example of the last
group are the various drug Cartels that use terror tactics in order to subjugate a population in order to continue
un-impeded operation.

The idea that religious extremism is the main cause of terroism is flawed. While religion undoubtedly plays its
part in terrorism it is not the root cause of it and in fact, terrorist groups may screen out unstable individuals
(fanatics) as they would pose a security threat to the organisation.2 A great example of this is the use of
fundamentalist Islam in terrorism. Islamic law on the rules of war are clear that attacks on women and children
are prohibited, yet the standard bearer for Al Qaeda - Osama Bin Laden - was involved in the planning of the
9/11 attacks and expressed no remorse for the women and children killed in the attack.3 Another example is the
Munich Olympics massacre of September 1972 where both male and female athletes were targeted by the
Palestinian terror group ‘Black September’. This raises an interesting question, what is the real relationship
between terrorism and religion? Academics such as Micheal Doran would assert that the use of religious
extremism is purely pragmatic in these organisations, thus the use of fundamentalism is there only to recruit and
inspire the lower level followers of the movement. Once again, Al Qaeda can be used as an example of a
pragmatic organisation. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda members obtained terrorist training courtesy of Iranian officials.
This cooperation is unusual as the religious divide between these two organisations is prominent, with Iran
being mostly Shia and Al Qaeda being majority Sunni.4 The schism between these two Islamic ideologies is
often extremely hostile so the fact that they have worked cordially together lends credence to the fact that
religious fundamentalism is not a main motivator behind terrorism. Overall, the relationship between religion
and terroism is utilitarian with religion providing a useful motivator for recruitment and to inspire individuals to
commit actions outside of normal human behaviour - such as suicide bombings. However, despite using
religion to help achieve its aim, the terrorist organisation was not started solely because of religious extremism.

1
Martha Crenshaw, The Causes of Terrorism, (Comparative Politics, July 1981), Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 379
2
Jerrold M. Post, “When Hatred is bred in the bone:” The social psychology of Terrorism, (Psychiatric and Neurologic
Aspects of War, Oct 2010), p. 15.
3
Michael Doran, The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda, (Political Science Quarterly, 2002), Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 177.
4
Doran, The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda, p.178.
Politics are a major factor in all terrorist activity. Terror groups are formed around shared political ideology,
often in response to an event that they perceive as harmful to them or their community. The exact nature of the
politics that a group will form around are very diverse. Some groups may be separatists and carry on the
resistance and ideology that their parents taught them, with the classic example of this being the Irish
Republican Army who used terror tactics against Britain with the aim of furthering their political goal of a
unified Ireland.5 Contrastingly, terror groups may be categorised as ‘social revolutionaries’.6 These groups are
in conflict to change the way that their nation is governed from within and, as such, are hostile to the regime
and people loyal to it but do not seek to separate from their nation. An example of social revolutionaries who
used terrorism was the Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Faction). This group was a militant west German far
left faction who sought to transform German politics to be much more left leaning - they did this by conducting
a terrorist campaign. They hoped the bombing and shootings they conducted would provoke an excessive
response from the Government which they hoped would proliferate the revolutionary sentiment to the wider
public. Another more modern example of a social revolutionary terror group would be Hamas whose aim is to
unify Palestine as an Islamic state and remove Israel and western influence from the region.7 The nature
between violence and terrorists is that violence has been deemed a suitable means to achieve their political
goals. This violence and the fear that it causes may be aimed to disrupt and destabilize a government which in
turn could cause the movement to swell in numbers, especially if the government is unpopular with the masses.
Alternatively, the group may elect to carry out terror attacks in foreign countries to gain widespread attention
and potential legitimacy for their cause. Overall, politics and ideology are greater causes of terrorism when
compared to religion. Religion may be a key part of politics - especially in non secular areas of the globe - but it
is still the politics, not religion, that causes a terrorist group to form.

Another valid contender for the title of the main cause of terroism is psychological factor. These may make a
person more permissive to the idea of terrorist activity as a strategy to further their goal. One constant
throughout all terrorist actions - based upon interviews with terrorists - is that they all had similar desires for
revenge or, the same perceived idea of shared plight with the group. This may make an individual more likely
to sympathise with the organisation or even take part in the groups terror campaign. The shared psychological
characteristics are complex and diverse but may include rage (at an injustice), group dignity, power, prestige
and camaraderie.8 So it is safe to say that there is a psychological factor that causes terrorism. Out of all of these
examples the idea of ‘victimhood’ and the ‘they started it’ mentality is often present when considering the
psychological examinations of terrorist fighters. This naturally leaves some individuals with the idea of striking
back at the offending party and even seeking out training to become more effective fighters.9 This is seen as a
contributing factor towards the truly horrific forms of retaliatory attacks such as the many forms of public or
televised execution.10 However, this doesn’t mean that all terrorists or people who may be influenced by them
are psychologically abnormal. As mentioned in the introduction, the primary reason that terrorists are so
difficult to predict or pre-empt is the fact that they nearly always appear psychologically normal. Another
strong argument that psychology is a major cause of terrorism is that not everyone who believes in a particular
groups ideology or shares their anger at a shared injustice actually commits to terrorist activity. Because of this
it is possible to state that there are permissive psychological factors within a person that contribute to terrorist

5
Martha Crenshaw, The Causes of Terrorism, (Comparative Politics, July 1981), Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 385.
6
Jerrold M. Post, “When Hatred is bred in the bone:” The social psychology of Terrorism, (Psychiatric and Neurologic
Aspects of War, Oct 2010), p. 15.
7
Muhammed Muslih, The Foreign Policy of Hamas, (Council on Foreign Relations, 1999), pp. 1-2.
8
Richard English, Terrorism How to Respond, (Oxford University Press, 2nd July 2009), pp.30-31.
9
Jerrold M. Post, “When Hatred is bred in the bone:” The social psychology of Terrorism, (Psychiatric and Neurologic
Aspects of War, Oct 2010), p. 17.
10
English, Terrorism How to Respond, p. 31.
activity.11 Notwithstanding, there can be no single motivation or personality that is valid for all forms of
circumstance where terrorism is present.

Ultimately, the idea that religious extremism is the main cause of terroism is incorrect. The modern literature on
terrorism is beginning to move much further away from the idea that religion is major motivator for terrorist
groups to emmerge, and instead is closing in on a much more political and psychlogical explanation for why
terrorism is deployed. While religion doubtless plays its part in the context of group politics, especially in the
Middle East, the defining factors of terrorist groups is that they have deployed terrorist action in order to further
a political aim, not a religious one. The use of violence and terror tactics has been carefully chosen by the
leadership of these organisations as they have deemed them to be the most effective measure for success,
especially when the objectives of a group are harmful to an established government.12 This logical and
calculated nature of terrorism is clearly seen in most organisations. For example, when ISIS (ISIL) or Daesh
came to the attention of the western audience with several high profile terror attacks in western cities in 2015 -
2018 little was known about the organisation whose political efforts resonated as far back as the 2003 Iraq
war.13 Using this as an example, it would be more correct to say that the main cause of terrorism is a mix
between politics and psychology. The political element of terrorism is the driving factor behind the creation of
terrorist groups whose motivations can be sepratist, in an attempt to obtain self governance for their perceived
people, or attempt to unify a group under one identity. Part and parcel to these political ideologies is the factor
of group psychology which explains why these groups form in response to an event and why some individuals
are willing to commit terrorist attacks to support their groups political objectives which they believe in.
Religion can be seen as part of a person's psychology and perhaps to some individuals it is what motivates
them. However, religious fundamentalism is still a part of a wider group psyche and creates a sense of
belonging and comradeship - this in of itself does not cause a group to use terrorist tactics or even provide the
wider motivation for violent activity but, it may make certain individuals more permissive to carrying out
attacks.

11
Martha Crenshaw, The Causes of Terrorism, (Comparative Politics, July 1981), Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 390.
12
Martha Crenshaw, The Causes of Terrorism, (Comparative Politics, July 1981), Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 386-387.
13
Willem Theo Oosterveld and Willem Bloem, The Rise and Fall of ISIS: From Evitability to Inevitability, (The Hague
Centre for Strategic Studies, 2017), p. 5.
Bibliography:

● Martha Crenshaw, The Causes of Terrorism, (Comparative Politics, July 1981), Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.
379-399.
● Michael Doran, The Pragmatic Fanaticism of al Qaeda, (Political Science Quarterly, 2002), Vol. 117,
No. 2, pp. 177-190.
● Muhammed Muslih, The Foreign Policy of Hamas, (Council on Foreign Relations, 1999), pp. 1-55.
● Jerrold M. Post, “When Hatred is bred in the bone:” The social psychology of Terrorism, (Psychiatric
and Neurologic Aspects of War, Oct 2010), pp. 15-23.
● Richard English, Terrorism How to Respond, (Oxford University Press, 2nd July 2009), pp. 27-55.
● Website, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/why-people-join-isis/419685/ ,
accessed on 08/03/2021 15:43.
● Willem Theo Oosterveld and Willem Bloem,The Rise and Fall of ISIS: From Evitability to Inevitability,
(The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2017), p. 1-23.