Most of the terrorist atrocities committed in recent years claim to be inspired by religion. Terrorists frequently refer to religious texts, and use holy scriptures as a justification for the killing of innocent civilians. Indeed, some believe that religion itself has become the problem, while others argue that it merely serves as an excuse. What’s your view?
Two prominent voices lead the debate, but you should have a say too! To post a comment, go straight to the end of the page...
Religion a Force for Good
Faisal Bodi
Religion is not the fundamental problem. Look at the 20th century, and you will see that most civilian casualties were caused by secular conflicts: from the two World Wars to, more recently, the type of ethnic cleansing in places like Rwanda. Even the Balkan wars were triggered by the rather areligious desire of a dominant but repressive Serbian component of the former Yugoslavia to maintain control over its wantaway neighbours.
We have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate violence. Religions such as Islam and Christianity contain a concept of the just war. They recognise that in extremis, violence is a necessary response. It's certainly true of places like occupied Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq.
That's not to say that all violence for which its proponents claim a religious sanction is such. Al-Qaeda may have good cause in trying to drive foreign forces from Muslim lands, but their methods cannot be called Islamic by any stretch of the imagination.
To the contrary, religion can be a unifying and pacific force. When practiced properly it impels adherents to fulfil their rights and responsibilities. On an ethical level, the major monotheistic religions have more commonalities than differences. We only hear about things that go bad, but most believers of different faiths coexist peacefully.
Faisal Bodi is a leading commentator on Muslim affairs. In 2003 he joined al-Jazeera as a news editor and features regularly as a columnist for the London Guardian newspaper.   Not the Problem, But Problematic
Mark Juergensmeyer
Religion is not the initial problem, but the fact that religion is the medium through which these issues are expressed is problematic. What is particularly problematic about religion is that it brings new aspects to conflicts that were otherwise not part of them. It provides personal rewards – religious merit, redemption, or the promise of heavenly luxuries – to those who struggle in conflicts that otherwise have only social benefits. Even more importantly, it provides justification for violence that challenges the state’s monopoly on morally sanctioned killing. Religion, indeed, is the only other entity that can give moral sanction for violence and is therefore inherently at least potentially revolutionary.
Much of the violence in contemporary life that is perceived as terrorism is directly related to the absolutism of conflict. The demonisation of enemies allows those who regard themselves as soldiers for God to kill with moral impunity. On the contrary, they feel that their acts will give them spiritual rewards. Religion, therefore, brings more to conflict than simply a repository of symbols and the aura of divine support. It problematises a conflict through its abiding absolutism, its justification for violence, and its ultimate images of warfare that demonise opponents and cast the conflict in trans-historic terms.
Mark Juergensmeyer is professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He is the author of Terror in the Mind of God (UC Press, 2003) and contributed to the recently published The Roots of Terrorism (Routledge, 2006).
