The relationship between religion and violence is far more
complex than what many are led or choose to believe. While
it may be convenient to blame only theological beliefs or
interpretations as it relates to religious violence (as it
pertains to ‘terrorism’ and putting aside secular versions),
it is far from being a responsible thing to do. To use Islam
as an example, there are definitely those who interpret the
traditional sources of the religion in a way that would
justify violence or could even breed it. Nevertheless, the
presence of overwhelming amount of Muslims who do not
succumb to such interpretations will eventually force an
observer with such a superficial understanding to become one that
pays attention to the complexity of the issue. This short
essay will argue that frustration strengthens the ties
between violence and religion. While socio-economic and
political factors play a large role in shaping the worldview
of individuals who justify religious terrorism, the
ideological institutions and frameworks that perpetuate such
factors are just as relevant. Before one can move beyond
wondering about the correlation between religion and violence, it is
important to first understand the ideological frameworks in
which terms and definitions are constrained to in such a
discussion.
In Islam, there is a clear understanding – for the
mainstream followers – that violence is a part of the
religion and that it is sometimes a necessary part of life.
In fact, it is a very important part of the religion that
cannot be shunned by practicing Muslims. For an outside
observer (take the North American media for example), this
is a horrible concept to even imagine -- that a religion
officially embraces the idea of violence. This horrified
reaction is often misinformed and does not even try to
comprehend the context as to why it is so important. While
there are Muslims who attempt to avoid or hide this
interpretation so that they can be better accepted by the
mainstream non-Muslim community, it is far from accurate.
Like Bin Laden, they often exploit religion by selectively
reading and interpreting sacred texts, history and doctrine.
Not only does it simplify the issue, it subjects Muslims who
do not have the same understanding to be placed outside the
realm of negotiations.
Pacifism is not part of
mainstream Islam, similar to the fact that it is also not a
part of the fundamental beliefs of those who do not even
follow a religion. Islam does not promote violence without
context but it does promote its exercise whenever there is a
need for it. If there is any sort of injustice that is being
committed against a particular person or a community, a
Muslim must rise in order to defend against such oppression,
even through violence. That being said, whether it should be
used or not is judged on a case by case basis, justified
through a rational analysis of a given situation. This is
how the concept of ‘jihad’ is understood in the mainstream
discussion within the Muslim community. Of course, this
would require adherents to follow an extensive code of
humane conduct when they do choose to engage in it such as:
the environment, innocent people, women and children must
not be harmed, no form of torture can be used and if the
enemy surrenders it must be accepted. The way that this has
been portrayed in the media is that: violence is a
recognized and legitimate part of Islam thus it is a violent
religion. In addition to censoring the context, people who
argue this continue to seek to divide Muslims among the
line of: moderate and extremist. Not only are these two
terms utilized, there have been many other subcategories
created in order to divide the community: fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist, radical and so forth. Those who accept jihad
in the sense that jihad can involve violence and is not a
mere internal struggle – which is the large majority of
Muslims – are seen anything but moderates. Clearly, this is
one of the reasons why Muslims feel that they are under
attack. While many use such as terms responsibly, there are
those who throw around the words poorly defined and without
any sort of context. In those cases, all these terms, when
faced with any sort of responsible intellectual analysis,
are of very little value aside from creating more bigotry
toward the Muslim population. Dealing with the realm of
discussion that this creates can even be frustrating for
non-Muslims who defend the religion.
The intentional misunderstanding of the relationship between
religion and violence in the case of Islam, and similar to
those shown for other religions who do not accept pacifism,
can eventually create the atmosphere to breed a particular
psychological perspective. In addition to being under the
conditions of social trauma, political instability and
economic uncertainty, such a perspective can succumb to a
deep sense of frustration in dealing with those who are
outside the faith. As a result, this frustration can
manifest into an angered reading of traditional sources in
order to justify violence against those who are seen to be
unwilling to understand their beliefs. Included in these also
are those who do not show any understanding of their current
socio-economic and political situation as demonstrated by
the constant bombardment that they receive – whether it be
physically in the form of bombs or with the onslaught of
foreign culture, religion or ideas. Those who turn to
terrorism are frustrated because they see the world as
having a limited ability to escape the framework of doctrine
that is imposed by ideological institutions such as: the
journals of opinions, schools, universities and the mass
media. Such ideological institutions will then influence
governments to put its limited and ignorant perspectives
into action. Thus, reacting with violence is a way to resist
all this.
With the increasing levels of internalization,
differentiation and isolation due to frustration, the
relationship between religion and violence can turn away
from context and rationality. Instead, it will turn to
indiscriminate violence that is not subjected to any
particular code of conduct which the religion often lays out
– such as those laid out in Islam without contention within
the mainstream discussion. In light of all this, even the
most so-called “moderate” who have comfortable lives in
places such as North America and Europe can become
“radicalized”. These individuals will often feel strong ties
to people of the same faith in other lands. An example of
this is the ideology that Hamas perpetuates by combining
Islam and Palestinian nationalism. They view the defense of
Palestine as a jihad incumbent upon all Muslims and they
keep religious, social, political, and military aspects in
the mind of those that listen. Thus, the extent of their
frustrations against U.S. and Israeli attacks is felt not
only by those who live in Palestine but by Muslims around
the world. In certain governments (such as the United
States), war is a viable substitute for targeting the roots
of terrorism as opposed to creating radical changes in
policy that would stifle such wide reaching appeals.
People must ensure that the institutions of their country –
whether it is the media or popular culture – function in a
way that will not continue to intentionally misunderstand
and frustrate those who are targeted by intellectual
irresponsibility. It must be recognized that it is possible
to think that one is defending a religion – in the example
used, rejecting violent jihad as part of Islam – when in
fact more is being done to harm the situation. It is
important to understand that religions are not monolithic
structures that only perpetuate one form of opinion and for
outsiders to try their best to respect the internal
processes within these communities. Far too often do
outsiders encourage their own champions within a religion
and these people often have very little clout within it.
Regardless of how uncomfortable one can be with a particular
interpretation of the religion, they must respect the
internal discussions that are occurring. In addition to
decreasing frustration in this way, it must be accompanied
with efforts to halt policies that breed socio-economic and
political poverty – in other words, the real roots of
violence.
