Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?

Author(s): Jannah Aishah Maysun

Source: Journal of Global Faultlines , October-November 2023, Vol. 10, No. 2 (October-
November 2023), pp. 252-263
Published by: Pluto Journals

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48750207

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Pluto Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Global Faultlines

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.

Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?

Jannah Aishah Maysun

Copyright

2023, Jannah Aishah Maysun. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Submission date: 23 May 2023; Acceptance date: 18 July 2023; Publication date:
17 November 2023

Abstract

This article explores religion as a cause for terrorism, looking at different causes for terrorism
and discussions into the harms associated with popular conceptions of associating religion
with terrorism. The results of this research demonstrate that there are multiple causes
for terrorism, which are not associated with religion, despite “intelligence-led policing”
methods pertaining to religious and racial profiling. Theocracies and democracies have both
abused human rights, demonstrating that states will ultimately prioritize their interests at
the expense of the rights and freedoms of civilians, including the right to life.
Keywords: religion, terrorism, extremism, ideology, state

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.), inevita-
bly 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.).

Birmingham City University

Jannah.maysun@mail.bcu.ac.uk

252

DOI:10.13169/jglobfaul.10.2.0252
This content downloaded from
103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

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 recog-
nize root causes as they reject the idea “that there may be any legitimate causes or griev-
ances 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 terror-
ism, 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 reli-
gions, like Islam, are more conflict-prone. He argued that Islam was the most troublesome civi-
lization 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, inscriptura-
tion 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 vio-
lence. 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

253

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.
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 big-
gest 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) postu-
lates “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 sta-
tus 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 com-
mand violence when individuals want to attain this. Avalos refers to orthodox Christianity, stat-
ing 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 obsta-
cles 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 dis-
torted purpose. It is notable that he makes the effort to read the Abrahamic texts in a man-
ner 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 guarantee-
ing ultimate victory, religion offers some terrorists a chance to deal with these internal prob-
lems 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

254

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

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 tar-
geted 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 demoni-
zation 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 individu-
als 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 ter-
rorist 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 theo-
retical 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 acknowledg-
ing 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

255

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.
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 vul-
nerable to societal pressure and influence. Terrorist leaders are more likely to be edu-
cated 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 extrem-
ism 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 reli-
gious 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 vio-
lence and the majority of terrorism has the goal of political power, yet there is a large empha-
sis 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 strat-
egy” (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

256

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

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 ide-
ologies not only fuel initial motives for terrorists, but they also play a central role in the ter-
rorist’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 vio-
lence 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 occupa-
tion of their territory as a state of affairs that needs to be corrected. The occupier is the prob-
lem, 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 ter-
rorist’s position, terrorists who are said to be driven by ideology communicate with the gov-
ernment 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 reit-
erate 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.

257

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.
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 injus-
tice 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 reli-
gious 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 democ-
racies 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).

258

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

Democracies may be involved with state terrorism, but they will not terrorize their own citi-
zens, 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 terror-
ist 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 sub-
sequently committed horrific crimes against civilians, essentially opposing human secu-
rity 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 con-
stitute 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 civil-
ians. 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 devel-
oped 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 resist-
ance 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 particu-
larly important, as Hamourtziadou (2020) highlights that the War on Terror created “win-
ners” 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

259

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.
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.

References

BibleGateway (1982a) Holy Bible, New King James Version, Deuteronomy 18:20. Available
at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018%3A20&version=
NKJV [Accessed 16 December 2022].
BibleGateway (1982b) New King James Version, Ezra 10:3-44. Available at: https://www.biblegate-
way.com/passage/?search=Ezra%2010%3A3-44&version=NKJV [Accessed 16 December 2022].
Ahmed, S. & Matthes, J. (2017) “Media Representation of Muslims and Islam from 2000 to
2015: A Meta-Analysis”, International Communication Gazette, 79(3): 219–244.
Alexander, Y. & O’Day, A., eds. (2015) Terrorism in Ireland (RLE: Terrorism & Insurgency).
London: Routledge.
Avalos, H. (2005) Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Baker, A. & Phillipson, G. (2011) “Policing, Profiling and Discrimination Law: US and European
Approaches Compared”, Journal of Global Ethics, 7(1): 105–124.
Bapat, N. A., Ertley, D., Hall, C., & Lancaster, M. (2007) “Perfect Allies? The Case of Iraq and
Al Qaeda”. International Studies Perspectives, 8(3): 272–286.
Barzegar, A., Powers, S., & El Karhili, N. (2016) “Civic Approaches to Confronting Violent
Extremism: Sector Recommendations and Best Practices”. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, pp.
1–60. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/28366145/Civic_Approaches_to_Confronting_
Violent_Extremism_Sector_Recommendations_and_Best_Practices
Ben-Yehuda, N. (2010) Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and
Secular Extremism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borum, R. (2004) Psychology of Terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida.
Chalabi, M. (2018) “Terror Attacks by Muslims Receive 357% More Press Attention, Study
Finds”. The Guardian, 20 July. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/
jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study [Accessed 1 February 2023]
Chenoweth, E. (2006) The Inadvertent Effects of Democracy on Terrorist Group Emergence.
Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School
of Government, Harvard University.
Çınar, B. (2009) The Root Causes of Terrorism. METU Studies in Development: 93–119.
Available at: https://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423909983.pdf
Cliteur, P. & Ellian, A. (2020) “The Five Models for State and Religion: Atheism, Theocracy,
State Church, Multiculturalism, and Secularism”, ICL Journal, 14(1): 103–132.
Encarnación, O.G. (2005) “The Follies of Democratic Imperialism”, World Policy Journal,
22(1): 47–60.

260

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2015) “‘Is Britain Fairer?’: Key facts and Findings
on Religion or Belief”. Available at: https://equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/is-
britain-fairer-findings-factsheet-religion.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2023].
Fayazi, N. (2017) Iran: Is it Really the Leading State-Sponsor of Terrorism? Pretoria: Institute
for Global Dialogue.
George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum (n.d.) “Global War on Terror”. Available at:
https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror [Accessed 1
January 2023].
Gerson, M., Ostrolenk, M., Khalil, G., & Khan, S. (2010) “Faith or Fanaticism?: A Dialogue on
the Problem and Promise of Faith in The Middle East”. The Review of Faith & International
Affairs, 8(3): 3–12.
Gómez, Á., Martínez, M., Martel, F. A., López-Rodríguez, L., Vázquez, A., Chinchilla, J.,
Paredes, B., Hettiarachchi, M., Hamid, N. & Swann, W. B. (2021) “Why People Enter and
Embrace Violent Groups”, Frontiers in Psychology, 11(614657): 1–13.
GOV.UK (2022) “Freedom of Religion or Belief: Understanding This Human Right”.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-of-religion-or-belief-understanding-
this-human-right [Accessed 30 December 2022].
Gregg, H.S. (2014) “Defining and Distinguishing Secular and Religious Terrorism”.
Perspectives on Terrorism, 8(2): 36–51.
Hamourtziadou, L. (2007) “Actions, Reactions and their Consequences”. Iraq Body Count,
6 May. Available at: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/week-in-iraq/43
[Accessed 15 January 2023].
Hamourtziadou, L. (2020) Body Count: The War on Terror and Civilian Deaths in Iraq. Bristol:
Bristol University Press.
Hamourtziadou, L. (2021) “From Invasion to Failed State: Iraq’s Democratic Disillusionment”.
Open Democracy, 23 July. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-
west-asia/from-invasion-to-failed-state-iraqs-democratic-disillusionment/ [Accessed 30
December 2022].
Hamourtziadou, L. (2023) “Iraq 20 Years On: Death Came from The Skies on 19 March
003 – and the Killing Continues to This Day”. The Conversation, 17 March 2023. Available
at: https://theconversation.com/iraq-20-years-on-death-came-from-the-skies-on-march-
19-2003-and-the-killing-continues-to-this-day-201988 [Accessed 20 March 2023].
Hamourtziadou, L. and Jackson, J. (2018) “5/11: Revisiting the Gunpowder Plot”, Journal of
Global Faultlines, 5(1–2): 91–94.
Hassan, M.H.B. (2006) “Key Considerations in Counterideological Work Against Terrorist
Ideology”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29(6): 531–558.
Heitmeyer, W. (2005) “Right-Wing Terrorism” in T, Bjørgo, ed. Root Causes of Terrorism
(pp. 159–171). London: Routledge.
Holbrook, D. & Horgan, J. (2019) “Terrorism and Ideology: Cracking the Nut”. Perspective of
Terrorism, 13(6): 1–15.
Huntington, S.P. (1993) “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, 72(3): 22–49.

261

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Global Faultlines, 2023
Vol. 10, No. 2, 252—263.
Huntington, S.P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
John (2013) “Mike Prysner Full Speech 2008 Winter Soldier in Maryland” [video] YouTube,
10 December. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L9NTpkYnI [Accessed 10
March 2023].
Johnson, T.H. & English, R. (2008) “Rethinking Afghanistan: Echoes of Ulster and the IRA?”
Available at http://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/citizen-
ship-and immigration/johnson.pdf
Juergensmeyer, M. (2017) “Does Religion Cause Terrorism?” in J.R., Lewis, ed. The Cambridge
Companion to Religion and Terrorism (pp. 11–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge Companions to Religion).
Kimball, D.G. (2003) “Iraq’s WMD: Myth and Reality”, Arms Control Today, 33(7): 2.
Kirk, R.M. (1983) “Political Terrorism and the Size of Government: A positive Institutional
Analysis of Violent Political Activity”, Public Choice, pp. 41–52.
Krueger, A.B., ed. (2018) What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, 10th
Anniversary Edition. 10th edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kruglanski, A.W., & Orehek, E. (2011) “The Role of the Quest for Personal Significance in
Motivating Terrorism” in J. Forgas, A. Kruglanski, & K. Williams, eds. The Psychology of
Social Conflict and Aggression (pp. 153–166). New York: Psychology Press..
Li, Q. (2005) “Does Democracy Promote or Reduce Transnational Terrorist Incidents?”
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(2): 278–297.
Newman, E. (2006) “Exploring the “Root Causes” of Terrorism”, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, 29(8): 749–772.
News European Parliament (2022) “European Parliament Declares Russia to be a state
Sponsor of Terrorism”. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20221118IPR55707/european-parliament-declares-russia-to-be-a-state-sponsor-of-ter-
rorism [Accessed 19 March 2023].
Oberschall, A. (2004) “Explaining Terrorism: The Contribution of Collective Action Theory”,
Sociological Theory, 22(1): 26–37.
Onimhawo, J.A. & Ottuh, P.O.O. (2007) “Religious Extremism: A Challenge to National
Unity and Development”, The Nigeria Journal of Christian Studies, 2 & 3: 54–66.
Patel, F. (2021) “Ending the ‘National Security’ Excuse for Racial and Religious Profiling”.
Brennan Center for Justice, 22 July. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
analysis-opinion/ending-national-security-excuse-racial-and-religious-profiling [Accessed 1
December 2022].
Pew Research Center (2006) “Five Years After 9/11, The Clash of Civilizations Revisited”.
Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2006/08/18/five-years-after-911-the-
clash-of-civilizations-revisited/ [Accessed 20 January 2023].
Pressman, J. (2007) “Rethinking Transnational Counterterrorism: Beyond a National
Framework”, Washington Quarterly, 30(4): 63–73.
Quiggin, T. (2009) “Understanding al-Qaeda’s Ideology for Counter-Narrative Work”,
Perspectives on Terrorism, 3(2): 18–24.

262

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Are religious beliefs truly the root cause of terrorism?
Jannah Aishah Maysun

Ramirez, D.A., Hoopes, J., & Quinlan, T.L. (2003) “Defining Racial Profiling in a Post-
September 11 World”, Am. Crim. L. Rev, 40: 1195–1223.
Richardson, L., ed. (2013) The Roots of Terrorism. London: Routledge.
Røssaak, M.K. (2017) “Searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction: US Intelligence Failure
in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq”, Essex Student Journal, 9(1).
Schwenkenbecher, A. (2012) What Is Terrorism? London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Scull, N.C., Alkhadher, O., & Alawadi, S. (2020) “Why People Join Terrorist Groups in Kuwait:
A Qualitative Examination”, Political Psychology, 41(2): 231–247.
Seyfi, S. & Hall, C.M. (2019) “Deciphering Islamic Theocracy and Tourism: Conceptualization,
Context, and Complexities”, International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(6): 735–746.
Slone, M. (2000) “Responses to Media Coverage of Terrorism”, Journal of Conflict Resolution,
44(4): 508–522.
US Department of State (2019) “Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Iran”. Available at:
https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/iran/ [Accessed 15
March 2023].
Ward, L. (2013) “Benedict Spinoza and the Problem of Theocracy” in Ward, A. & Ward, L. eds
Natural Right and Political Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Catherine Zuckert and Michael
Zuckert (pp. 132–152). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
World Population Review (2023) “Religion by Country 2023”. Available at: https://world-
populationreview.com/country-rankings/religion-by-country [Accessed 10 January 2023].
Zechenter, E.M. (1997) “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the
Individual”, Journal of Anthropological Research, 53(3): 319–347.
Zeidan, S. (2006) “Agreeing to Disagree: Cultural Relativism and the Difficulty of Defining
Terrorism in a Post-9/11 World”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 29:
215–232.

263

This content downloaded from

103.196.156.253 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:46:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms