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
interpretation 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 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 asking 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 amongst
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 reason why Muslims feel
that they are under attack. While many use such 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 this 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 targetting 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.
Interplay
Between Religion and Violence: