Understanding Religious Violence

Thinking Outside the Box on Terrorism

J.P. Larsson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9780754639084
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351876889
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

There is a long-standing fear of that which is not understood. Since September 11, 2001 the fear surrounding the violent elements of religion has led to heightened tensions. Research is thus essential to counteract the effects of 'religious xenophobia'. In this compelling book J.P. Larsson investigates religious violence, terrorism and armed conflict in order to deliver the understanding required for a more peaceful world and to allow for a framework of conflict transformation. This multi-disciplinary text will greatly interest those in the fields of international relations, theology and sociology.

Chapter 1
Introduction

It is not only leaders like Usama bin Laden or George W. Bush who wage wars against the infidel and against the Axis of Evil respectively. Throughout history, and in every tradition, similar claims have been made and similar wars fought. More often than not, these claims are founded upon some religious ideal or code. Indeed, we live in a world that seems plagued by religious violence. It is easy to be disconcerted about the state of the current international arena: the Middle East is simmering, extremist and fundamentalist groups are emerging on an almost daily basis in every continent and more than 100 armed conflicts of various intensity rage around the world. We live in a world where an AK-47 can be bought in almost every major city, where a vial of anthrax can be relatively easily obtained and a passenger jet can be used as a weapon with the aid of box-cutters. In this world neighbour seems pitted against neighbour in intractable conflict, statutory rape is more than common and ‘honour killings’ seemingly the norm. Most terrorism and (political) violence today seem to have religious undertones, either implicitly or explicitly. To most political scientists, politicians, decision-makers, media professionals and the general public such violence appears inherently irrational and illogical. As it is my belief that it is not, my aim here is to try to highlight on what I base this belief and how we can attempt to understand religious violence with a view of overcoming it.

With more than 9,000 distinct religions in the world today, existing in just over 200 recognised nation-states, conflict is inevitable. Indeed, there is little doubt that religion has had a somewhat ambivalent, or even paradoxical, role in international affairs throughout history, as bearer of both olive branch and sword. Most wars in the modern international system (350 years) have been fought for religion (religious causes), framed and contextualised by religious language or fought with the belief that god was on the side of good and the right cause. Due to the central part religion has played in individual human lives, and thus in individuals’ interaction and consequently in social affairs, much has been written on the role of religion in armed conflict and violence. However, much of what has been written is necessarily tainted by the authors’ own belief-systems, values, presuppositions, assumptions and – for whatever reason – blatant bias. When faced with new situations, Christian theologians, for example, must defend the faith and have thus invested a great deal of effort searching for, and often finding, justifications for the use of violence. Alternatively, if not completely legitimising violence, they have at least tried to make it more bearable with various just war doctrines and by offering guidance and assistance to those affected by conflict and violence. Similarly, Islamic jurists have found themselves required to justify to the believers how violence and peaceful submission to Allah are entirely compatible. More recently, of course, their explanations have been sought by outsiders (Western politicians, media, and public) as to why their ultimately peaceful faith is able to prescribe violence. As religion is at the centre of human civilisation, religious leaders and religious scholars of all traditions often find it necessary to attempt to offer such understanding. However, the relationship between religion and armed conflict is not merely a religious issue.

Social scientists, politicians, political analysts, academics (of all denominations, and of most disciplines) and laymen without any religious training often feel that the role of religion in armed conflict, or – indeed – the relationship between religion and violence is too serious to avoid. Here, however, the conclusions are widely different from the religious attempts at understanding. Often, social scientists feel compelled to explain in some way this relationship, rather than to understand it, which is more likely for a believer. Explanations range from the facile ‘religion is the cause of all violence’ to the possibly even more simplistic ‘religion is the only road to peace’. Indeed, even within the self-avowedly secular discipline of International Relations those academics that consciously avoid the issue, and will not mention religion at all in their analyses of armed conflict, are in fact making the most popular statement in that particular discipline, that religion should not even be an issue worth contemplating. Politicians tend to be ambiguous, and necessarily so when it comes to religion’s relationship to foreign policy, armed conflict and peace. Without losing valuable support in the electorate, they feel the need to relegate religion out of the ‘public sphere’ and into the ‘private sphere’ in the multi-religious and (with globalisation) increasingly shrinking world of today. In a world where global communication is becoming as much an advantage as it is proving to be a problem, media are playing a large part, and as such, are becoming a focus of some debate. This debate is still young, and has yet to be turned inwards onto itself. The language used in media concerning the relationship between religion and violence is often more perforated by presuppositions and inherent value-statements than are commonly recognised, as will be explored at some length in chapter four. Media have to a great extent perpetuated religious antagonisms, solidified erroneous stereotypes about ‘the other’ and prolonged armed conflicts. Sometimes this is done unwittingly, but what is worse is that it is often done with the most cunning of intentions.

There are, as such, no ‘origins’ of any war, for example, apart from the stories that are told about them.¹ As has been shown throughout history, due to its dynamics war is paramount to any society. This is where historians, and others, come to play vital parts in the identity building of a society, providing the myths and lieux de mémoire that are necessary for a communal identity, which to a large extent, therefore, is an ‘imagined community’.² The trick for the scholar, apart from realising that all stories are told for a purpose, would be to investigate what the causes of the stories are, rather than the causes of the events. The narrativist would further be interested in how the stories are told, and perhaps in drawing parallels to ancient Greek dramas, as some scholars have indeed done. That is, exploring whether the narrative of a particular event is a comedy, tragedy, romance, epic or satire may point to some interesting conclusions. These conclusions would be of great importance in any analysis of an individual’s or group’s historical consciousness. The all-important role of the historian, within any society, is to ‘re-member’ the past asserting that the narrative is true and that ‘what is alleged to have happened did happen’.³ Whilst this is neither the place nor time for a complete survey of the Narrativist tradition of International Relations Theory, or even an overview of the main scholars within the field, it is important to see that Narrativism is largely a philosophical and linguistic instrument for understanding historical interpretation, which is the application I use in this book.

This study is neither a presentation of Narrativism, nor is it using its methodology or terminology. However, I will continuously draw upon the Narrativist basis that no story is value-free, and that all narratives exist for some purpose or another. Indeed, although these reasons are often legitimate, the limitation on a particular aspect of armed conflict (namely religion) and of religion (namely violence) does raise certain new issues and considerations that I will highlight in chapter 4. In the present postmodern academic era, any analysis will inevitably shape the discourse it aspires to investigate, and thus it will change the phenomena it is describing.

In order to come to an understanding of religious violence, ‘terrorism’ and armed conflict I propose that we embark on a journey. This journey will take us from explanations of these phenomena, as espoused and advocated by secular political scientists, and end by looking at how the problems that will be highlighted in the earlier part of our ‘journey’ can be overcome by understanding. I call this a framework for conflict transformation. As with any journey, physical or academic, I believe that it is as important to have a smooth ride as it is not to miss any vital sights (or insights) along the way. I have therefore structured this journey in five stages, each interlinking with the other.

First, therefore, I offer a number of ‘questions/problems’ of religion in relation to armed conflict. Rather than exploring tacit questions, I look at the explicit ‘answers’ often given by scholars. It is termed ‘questions/problems’ as it highlights the contemporary – and often problematic – perspectives from the traditionally ‘realist’ or ‘positivist’ perspectives that exist within international relations in academia and practice with regard to the general issue of religion and armed conflict. Although these perspectives are portrayed as answers, I would argue that they are nonetheless part of the questions and problems, rather than helpful for understanding. I have adopted a mainly social scientific perspective and most of the arguments of the chapter will in fact be refuted as we proceed on the journey. In many respects, this first main chapter is the building upon which present International Relations rests, which – in terms of this book – explains the role of religion. This ‘building’ will be dismantled and in its place the framework for understanding will be erected as another and potentially more functional, structure.

Continuing this metaphor for a moment, in chapter 3 I aim to show how the building is used. In other words, this chapter is illustrative of how religion and armed conflict interact on the contemporary international arena, under what circumstances and when religious armed conflict becomes a fact. This is termed the ‘correlates’ of the study, and is basically an empirical interlude in passing from explaining to understanding. In contrast to various ‘Correlates of War’ projects, I do not provide an analysis of the sorts of circumstances in which wars have occurred more frequently but rather when they occur today. I do not attempt to show any frequency of recurrence but rather a cross-section of religion and armed conflict on the contemporary international arena. This is achieved by highlighting a number of types of religious armed conflict, such as terrorism, inter- and intra-state war, millenarianism, apocalyptic violence and state-policy, and illustrating these with examples from the contemporary world. for balance of argument, religion’s peacemaking and non-violent attributes are also briefly highlighted.

Chapter 4 will explore where the assumptions that make the discourse possible come from. This is termed the ‘prerequisites’ for explanation, and – in other words – explores the philosophical prerequisites for contemporary perspectives. Here, rather than exploring the prerequisites for the actual events described in chapter 2 (and illustrated in chapter 3), that is, what conditions must be necessary for events to occur, I present a number of conditions that make the discourse possible. That is, it pertains to prerequisites for knowledge and for the paradigms. In order to do this, I investigate how definitions, assumptions and ontological bases make the questions/problems highlighted in chapter 3 possible for exploration.

Having explored the ways in which religion and armed conflict exist in practice, in chapter 5 I move on towards an understanding of why the perspectives highlighted in chapter 2 have come to light. That is, what made them possible at the most base level? This, in other words, refers to the historical ‘causation’ of the contemporary perspectives. In this chapter I explore two ontological issues that make the discourses of chapter 2 possible. Firstly, this means an investigation of rationality and religion, and why it is commonly perceived within International Relations circles that religion is irrational and illogical and why this not only frames religion as a threat but also why it is an impediment to both scholarship and practice. This section pertains mainly to the Rational Actor Model (also known as Rational Choice Theory), which is the underlying ontology of most contemporary International Relations (IR). The second ‘cause’ of the perceptions of chapter 2 is the legacy of Westphalia and what this means both for IR as an academic discipline and practice and what it means for religion on the international arena. Here, I explore what the implications have been by explicitly taking religion out of international relations, as with the peace-treaties of 1648, and what this means for religion on the international arena today.

Finally, the last of the five stages on the journey refers to the religious ‘origins’ of the contemporary perspectives; namely the logic of the violence of religion. This is not the same as the previous chapter as causation refers to what has caused the perspectives and discourse to develop into what they are, and origins pertains to what lies behind the actual phenomena. Chapter 6, therefore, concerns the underlying logic of religious violence, and what makes stereotypes, fears and ignorance rife. A number of religious phenomena pertaining to violence, such as when and how it may be legitimately used and against whom is given a serious and rational treatment with a view of getting to a position where the ultimate framework may be explored. Here, knowledge is the key and it is believed that religious violence can be understood logically and as a rational phenomenon.

Thus I end the journey by offering a ‘solution’ to the problems by providing a framework, as alluded to earlier. This is not necessarily the best framework, or even the only possible one, but one that I believe is useful to bear in mind for contemporary conflict transformation as it deals with many of the current problems of conflict resolution. In my concluding chapter (chapter 7), this framework is explicitly aired and tested using a variety of criteria. A number of recommendations to academics, practitioners and laymen pertaining to religion and armed conflict/violence are offered with a view to a more peaceful and unprejudiced world.

Although, as claimed above, the academic heritage of this study is grounded in narrativist theories of International Relations, there are – of course – other academic disciplines that have lent more than their names in passing to the research. Indeed, if by ‘Theology’ is meant the search for meaning, then it is very much a theological work. But since the term has come to take on subjectively Christian connotations, and also notions pertaining to the divine, I cannot align myself with such a view, although the discipline is changing. There is, however, some overlapping with ‘Religious Studies’ and ‘Islamic Studies’, the extent of which will be noticed by the reader. Similarly, any study of armed conflict would be lacking if it did not have a basis within traditional International Politics in general and ‘Strategic Studies’ in particular. Without doubt, chapter two is profoundly ‘Strategic Studies’ oriented in content and approach, whereas chapter four – for example – would be more from a ‘Critical Security Studies’ perspective. There is, however, something of an obsession with categorisation and labelling within the academy, and as such this is better left to the critics.

Although it must be acknowledged that my earliest academic roots stem from Buddhist ‘Theory of Knowledge’ (and the research is thus coloured by this tradition) this study aims in all aspects to be as neutral and ‘non-confessional’ as possible, if such neutrality is indeed possible. In accepting that there is no predetermined conclusion, however, a caveat must be that this book was written not only within a particular academic and societal context, but also in a particular language, and within that language’s value-system. Here, it is important to note, as with Narrativism, that I see much mileage in the discipline of ‘Critical Linguistics’. In this respect, ‘Critical Linguistics’, somewhat separate from the general academic discipline of Linguistics, pertains to the fact that language (popular, academic, media) cannot be neutral but contains certain inherent values. The academic roots of this study mentioned here, and others that will become apparent throughout, form an integral part of research that prides itself on its ability to have eidetic vision in a field notoriously either ignored or only approached from a very specific angle.

It should be clear, of course, that although references to particular groups like al-Qa’ida are rare and specific events, like 11 September 2001 are even rarer, the arguments made and conclusions drawn apply equally well to these as to any other. Events on the international arena – or in International Relations – have a peculiar tendency to become formalised concepts, with little or no conscious effort from the actors involved, observers or subsequent analysts. The Cuban Missile crisis of 1962, for example, is as little a mere incident as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. We no longer remember the dates of 28 October and ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Foreword
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Questions/Problems: Contemporary Perspectives
• 3 Correlates: Illustrative of Contemporary Perspectives
• 4 Prerequisites: Philosophical Prerequisites for Contemporary Perspectives
• 5 Causation: Historical Causation of Contemporary Perspectives
• 6 Origins: Religious Origins of Contemporary Perspectives
• 7 Conclusions: A Framework for Conflict Transformation
• Bibliography
• Index