By Peter Knoope, Associate Fellow ICCT -The Hague.
Religion is an important identifier. It gives shelter and secures values. It offers belonging and personal cornerstones for moral guidance. It’s a home and a family and can constitute a major part of a person’s identity. Religion can be a powerhouse.
Off late a renewed debate is raging as to what exactly is the role of religion is in the wave of terrorism that is increasingly gaining momentum and expanding its space. In Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Tunisia, Kenya and Cameroon. I can go on to France and Denmark or to Mali and Nigeria. It does not seem to stop; and it is constantly taking us by surprise. Popping up in new and unexpected places.
Many of the attackers claim that religious texts, or interpretations of these texts, inspire them to fight and kill infidels or other opponents to their cause. So it seems simple and logic to go along with the narrative of the attackers and find the answer to the question, as to the “why”, in the religion. And a relevant number of my fellow counter terrorism experts do. The religion offers the inspiration and the collective, it offers the words of the “all mighty” and the terrorists find justification for their violent actions in their interpretation of those words.
But then again the fast majority of those who identify with the same religion claim that it is all wrong. The correct interpretation of the religion is non-violent and peaceful. And based on the facts, that claim seems correct. Most religious people are pleasant non-violent individuals. So it’s not the religion that is the issue, but the weird thinking of some.
And then there are those that have studied and analysed the texts, referenced by DAESH (formerly known as ISIS) and AQ, and come to the obvious conclusion that; yes, it’s all there! There is no escape the religion offers the ingredients necessary to justify the struggle and the killing. From there those analysts subsequently conclude that it is obvious: terrorism is the potential outcome of religion.
But is this conclusion correct?
When one takes the trouble to study the motivations of young people that feel attracted to political violence, one discovers that there is a diversity of reasons that drive people to make that choice. Lack of other, more attractive, propositions is just one off them. Grievances about injustice and societal or collective political exclusion yet another. Anger and frustration about a failing governance system is not unusual. One comes across feelings of humiliation and alienation. And not unusual also is the idea to be occupied or dominated by foreign powers. All these reasons are found. Along with pure excitement and potential of fame and a reason to live and die for. It changes with time and place.
You will notice the absence of religion in this list of motivations. So again: “what does religion have got to do with it?” The answer is rather simple. Religion offers identity and a home. It is the cover that is put on top of the driving motivations by those that recruit amongst the angry restless youngsters that seek to find a way to express anger and frustration. Those that feel excluded, humiliated or oppressed, are brought under the comforting umbrella of the religion. And interpretations do the rest to justify actions, identify and dehumanize the “other”.
The debate that is raging, whether religion is the issue or not, is the wrong discussion. Religion, and what it offers to people, is abused by the brokers of violence. That abuse is not inherent to (a specific) religion. Since religion is an identifier it can offer consolation and shelter to the homeless and the seeker. to the angry and the humiliated. And that is exactly what happens. Abuse and falsification. It works.
So for those who seek the answer to the real question, which is; how to fix the problem?, the only path to take is to look at the motivations of the restless youth and try to address the real issues and leave religion as such out of the equation.
