1234

Terrorism and some religious responses:

Terrorism is not a pleasant enterprise either to the one who executes it or to the one it is
targeted to. By design, terrorism is an unpredictable use of violence against an
individual, group, community, or nation to attain the goal of the perpetrators. Its aim may
include overthrowing, destabilizing, or replacing the existing systems and institutions or
retaliating for the hurt and harm committed. Ideological, political, social, moral, personal,
and religious motivations may play a role in such actions. Terrorism has been used
throughout history and throughout the world by states, organizations, groups, and
individuals. Religious communities have not shied away from terrorism; they often have
used flimsy support from their respective traditions. Modern technological
advancements and communication facilities have given a greater lethality and mobility
to terrorists. The phenomenon of terrorism is not going to go away unless human
communities deal with the issues perpetuating them locally and globally.

Through wars and conflicts, terrorist acts have taken a heavy toll on humanity especially
on innocent civilians. According to UNICEF, 80% of victims of all such aggressions in
recent years have been civilians, mainly women and children. Looking back to the last
century, despite all its valuable accomplishments, the 20th Century has turned out be
the bloodiest century in human history. It is estimated that more than 60 million people
were killed by fellow humans, more than in all the previous centuries of human history.
The century ended with about 21 million refugees around the globe, including about 6
million internally displaced people and more than 300,000 child soldiers (under the age
of 18), girls as well as boys, engaged in armed conflicts.

Even though human conflicts and the September 11 tragedy can be explained in
political and social terms, explicitly or implicitly religious components shape and
motivate them depending on the persons who give leadership to them. There are no
easy answers for the wide range of religious and ethical questions that have been
raised subsequent to September 11 tragedy. A lot of reflection is needed to ponder an
adequate response. Conflict in human communities cannot be totally avoided: it is
bound to happen regularly. But the issue is how we can best utilize the resources that
are available to us to avoid, defuse, and prevent conflicts. Can religious resources be
utilized to achieve these goals?

Preventing religious teachings and visions from becoming a tool to perpetuate terrorism,
as in the case of September 11, is crucial for the well being of humanity and the rest of
the creation. Since religious communities are shaped by the plurality of circumstances
and environments in which they are located, close cooperation and better
understanding among religions is the only way to achieve this goal. In times of
desperation and calamities, it is normal for people to turn to their ultimate visions for life.
For most, these visions are provided by their religious heritage. Accordingly, following
the terrorists attack, people in the USA and in many part of the world responded
religiously. Prayer services, memorials, joint faith worships, vigils, and religious
discourses were in place immediately after the incident. A German theologian, visiting
soon after the incident, noted with surprise the slogan, "God bless America," echoed in

almost every public and private building. His remark was that such a pious and religious
benediction is hard to find in Germany and in Europe in the present context. However,
in Europe some other-closely religio-cultural actions would certainly take place. The
lighting of candles, and their placement in windows or public places as a message of
peace and solidarity, and the organizing of a concert for a peace rally both would be
important actions.

While the majority of the world was going through shock, a small group of sympathizers
of such terrorist action were jubilant, not because they delighted in death and the
suffering of others, but rather they felt that their religious perspectives provided them
with a means of response to what they perceived as evil. For them it was a successful
accomplishment of a planned action to uphold Islamic truth. It was a moral revenge and
a spiritual act. Religiously it was jihad against evil society and the infidels in America, an
interpretation that was not accepted by the majority of Islamic leaders, theologians, and
communities the world over.

The three religions directly implicated in the September 11 event are Islam, Christianity,
and Judaism. It is not so much that these religions directly contributed to it, or led the
way to it, but rather that the people who are directly or indirectly associated with all the
happening around the event come primarily from these three religious traditions. The
USA and the rest of the Western nations are predominantly shaped by Christian values
and worldviews, the Middle East and Central Asia by Islamic traditions and cultures, and
Israel and Jews living in USA by Jewish values and traditions. Even Hinduism is
indirectly implicated, as there is an ongoing conflict in Kashmir between the so termed
‘Muslim terrorist’ and the government of India, a nation with a majority of Hindus. In the
past twelve years of intense struggle, more than 36,000 have been killed, including
‘terrorist’ freedom fighters, as well as soldiers, police, and civilians. This has caused
enormous damage to the social fabric of the society, not to mention the material
damage.

One of the affirmative disclosures of this tragic event was the value of intense interfaith
work that has been going on with some vigor since the 1960s. The interfaith unit of the
World Council of Churches, the Pontifical Council for Inter-faith Relations, the many
national and regional councils of church and denominational programs among
Christians. and similar attempts among the Jewish and Islamic communities and world
bodies, have, through their interfaith work, created a new ethos for addressing issues
when religious feelings are brought out in conflicting situations. The presence and
participation of people of different faiths at the worship service in the National Cathedral
in Washington D.C., and at many interfaith services, especially the one held in Yankee
stadium in New York, were witnesses to such positive attitudes that have developed as
a result of interfaith ministries. Who could have imagined that Dr. Billy Graham would be
willing to participate and preach in a service at the National Cathedral alongside a
Jewish Rabbi and Muslim Mullah, sharing the same chancel area as worship leaders,
and reading and praying from their own sacred texts and traditions?

Even earlier, those who had given their time and talents for interfaith relations shared a
celebrative moment when the United Nations recognized the importance of interfaith
relations and summoned a conference of religious leaders in New York just prior to the
Millennium summit meeting of world leaders in August 2000. One can draw on the result
of the careful work that has been done by religious bodies, educational institutions, and
local communities regarding better understanding between the Islamic faith and
societies since the Gulf War in 1991. However, the task became complicated when
reports from investigation of September 11 identified those involved in the terrorist acts
as adherents of Islam, and alleged to be highly motivated by their religious teaching. It
only further demands from all those who are aspiring for peace and justice a renewed
commitment for interfaith work at all levels.

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism:

What does Islam, Christianity, and Judaism teach regarding the perceived and/or real
adversaries to its faith and community? We have to recognize that none of these
religions are monolithic. They are divided into numerous groups, denominations, and
sects, some with distinct theological emphasis and ethical practices. In these religions
there is a huge spectrum of opinions and expressions. In actuality, what is witnessed is
Islams, Christianities, and Judaisms with all their internal pluralities. The range of
attitudes stretching from liberal to conservative, just to use one denominator, is wide
and complex. What one can summarize from these religious traditions has to be broad-
based and limited to the generic characteristics that undergirds each of these religious
families, even though such an exercise is extremely presumptuous.

Islam:

Islam believes in diversity of religions. Islam actually took birth in the context of Judaism
and Christianity being the prevailing religions. Islam shows a special respect towards
Judaism and Christianity because of the common faith heritage. Islam expects the
followers of these religions to live an upright life as the wish of the creator. The Qur’an
teaches: "And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the
Sabians -- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall
have their reward with their Lord" (2:62) [Ali, 1997:33-34]. (Ref. Surah 2:148; 22:67). As
far as a Muslim is concerned, deviating from Islamic faith is regarded as an offense,
which could be punishable even by death.

According to the Qur’an, the prophet Muhammad gave priority to seeking reconciliation
and peace with Jews and Christians, as well as with other opponents and enemies. The
Qur’an clearly prohibits offensive war, and believers initiating aggression. Surah 2:190
states, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress limits; for
Allah loveth not transgressors." [Ali, 1997:76] Even though peace and reconciliation are
given priority, there are the possibilities of individuals reading several texts of the Qur’an
to find support in engaging in acts of aggression and war like that of September 11,
aiming at those who are identified as enemies of Islam or to those who have wronged
the Islamic community. "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to

fight), because they are wronged" (22:39). "O Prophet! Strive hard against the
unbelievers and hypocrites and be firm against them" (66:9). Those who are killed in
genuine war (jihad) as martyrs will live in the presence of the Lord. "Think not of those
who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the
presence of their Lord" (3:169) [Ali, 1997: 832,1494,172] (Ref. Surah 22:58).

As soon as the perpetrators of the terrorist act had been identified as Muslims, the word
‘jihad’ was repeatedly referred to by the media, as was the case in the 1970s during the
Islamic revolution in Iran and the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah
Khomeini. According to Marcel Boisard, Muslim jurists classify ‘jihad’ (which means
‘intense effort/total endeavor/striving’) into four different types: 1) the intense effort by
the heart; 2) the tongue; 3) the hand; and 4) the sword. The effort of the heart
represents the internal spiritual and moral struggle; it aims at victory over ego. The effort
of the tongue represents the calm preaching and teaching of the morals of Islam. The
effort of the hand represents the setting forth of good conduct as example for the
Islamic community and others. The effort of the sword corresponds to armed conflict
with enemies of the Islamic community in circumstances where believers are
persecuted and their freedom curtailed. This last category, engaging in the efforts of the
sword, is further divided by Boisard into six types: I) against the enemies of God; 2) for
the defense of frontiers; 3) against apostates; 4) against secessionists; 5) against
groups who disturb public security; and 6) against monotheists who refuse to pay the
capitation tax [Boisard, 1988:24-25]. Even then, certain conditions are attached to
minimize the violence and damage done to people and property.

On the basis of the majority of the identified perpetrators of September 11 being Saudi
Arabians, including the alleged plotter and financier, Osama bin Laden, one could
conclude that what has been behind the September 11 incident, and some of the earlier
incidents of terror, is the religious worldview of the Wahhabiya (ahl-al-tawhid ‘People of
Unity’) movement. This particular movement within Islam owes its inspiration and
teachings to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1787) of Arabia, who in the 18th
century called on Muslims to return to the pristine teachings and practices of early
Islam. True Muslim believers, Wahhab felt, should uphold the absolute Oneness of God
(Unitarianism), abandoning all the kafir (unbeliever) elements like the veneration of
saints, grave cults, decorations of mosques, and the Sufi innovations and luxurious
living that subsequently crept in. If the original grandeur of Islam is to be regained, the
Islamic community must reorient their total life by strict adherance to the Qur’anic
teachings and enunciations by the prophet Muhammad. Islamic state law must govern
the people’s life. All polytheist and infidels interfering in the way of this puritanical Islam
are to be considered adversaries, including individuals, groups, religious bodies, or
nation states.

In the face of opposition among the Muslim community itself, Wahhab and his teachings
were sympathetically received by the local Dir’iyah prince Muhammad ibn Sa’ud and his
family in 1745. This religious and political solidarity was instrumental in Arab resistance
to the Ottoman Empire, and to the expansion of the Sa’udi rule over the Arabian
Peninsula. After decades long struggles, when Ibn Sa’ud was able to establish the

Kingdom of Saudi in 1932, Wahhabiya assumed the prime religious position in the
Kingdom. In order to make sure that the Wahhabiya vision of Islam was adhered to both
in public and private spheres, a number of measures were introduced including the
office of ‘religious police’ -- mutawwi’un (enforcers of obedience). However, in recent
decades even the Sa’udi royal family has come under the criticism of staunch Wahhabis
for their openness to non-Muslims and values in their territory, and increasing laxity
towards citizens. Therefore, it is not so much democracy, but the modernization and
westernization that are a threat to Muslims of Wahhabiyah orientation and calls for
opposition including jihad to protect the integrity of their vision of Islam.

Besides the Wahhabiyah movement, there are also other groups within Islam who
subscribe to the jihad of the sword as a religious belief for the protection of community
and faith. It is clear from the above discussion that Islam is not a pacifist religion. Today,
however, the majority of Muslims, and several International Islamic Organizations, will
interpret even the fourth category of jihad as a concerted effort to overcome the evil
found within human society so that peace with justice is accomplished for all humans
throughout the world. Muslim leaders also try to promote peace with justice through
their participation in inter-religious organizations like the World Congress of Religions
for Peace. Also. Islamic nations, as active members of the United Nations, work closely
with other nations of the world in shaping a common future for humanity, bringing in the
Islamic ideals of peace and justice.

Christianity:

Christianity had its origin as a marginalized and persecuted community. However, after
recognition by the emperor Constantine in 312 CE., it soon developed it own means of
using force to achieve its objectives. This included punishment, persecution,
imprisonment, banishment of those who strayed away from the true faith, torture,
execution of those who refused to repent and recant their false beliefs, and crusades to
retrieve lost territories and reclaim members. These methods of force developed
steadily as Christianity’s power consolidated with the sponsorship of the state and its
own organizing skills. Many of these acts throughout history were carried out with the
help and blessings of Christian rulers and political powers.

During the Protestant Reformation, such forces were unleashed against various groups
of Christians, resulting from complex combinations of faith, ethnicity, culture, class, geo-
political loyalties and past histories. Such inter-Christian rivalries in the physical sense
have vanished today. Physical conflicts of any substantial nature today are mostly
perpetuated by socio-political and ideological disagreements, rather than by religious
differences. Alongside such developments, where force was used for achieving the
goals, there was always a counter voice focusing on non-violent methods of resolving
issues, shaped by virtues of love and mercy.

Christianity has both pacifist and nonpacifist theological stances depending on
denominations and historical traditions. For nonpacifists, the ‘just war’ theory, developed
by theologian and church father, St. Augustine (354-430 CE.), has a variety of

interpretations that can be applied again and again in situations of war. War and
violence are considered as answers when they are used as instruments for justice, self-
defense, or for defending innocent lives and preventing enormous damage to material
means. This holds as long as they are undertaken by competent authorities, and when
all means of reconciliation have been exhausted. The plea for negotiation has been
spurned, and can be used only as a last resort when there is a reasonable hope for
victory.

Those who are committed to pacifistic views can point to the fact that in the New
Testament there is not only reaffirmation of the commands of loving ones neighbor as
oneself (Matt.19: 19, 22:39; Mk 12:31. 33; Lk. 10:27) [based on the teachings in the
Hebrew Bible (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18)]. but also the stipulation to not resist the evil doers
with actions of aggression (Matt. 4:39), and even to love ones enemies and pray for
them (Matt. 4:44; Lk. 6:27, 35). Inspired by the teaching of Jesus on non-violence and
his own Hindu faith tradition, Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated the power of pacifistic
means of accomplishing the social and political changes. Martin Luther King Jr. was
able to build on it in his own struggle towards racial justice. The teaching of Jesus, and
examples of Gandhi and King, have been emulated by many individuals and groups
around the world, demonstrating that pacifism is a viable option in the world of war and
violence. Both pacifistic and non-pacifistic views continue within Christianity, leaving the
choice to its members.

However, with the development of separation of church and state, Christians of many
denominations leave the issue of war, violence and aggression to the best judgment of
the state as long as they have the satisfaction and confidence that the state is duly
elected and acts within broad stipulations for just war. The New Testament teachings to
submit to ruling powers: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities: for
there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been
instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1) and, "For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every
human institution" (1 Pet. 2:13), make it possible for many Christians to take such
position. Where political principles of church and state separation are in operation,
resistance to any state promoted war and violence, whether by Christians or people of
other faiths, become both apolitical opposition and a faith action. A number of individual
Christians, Christian organizations, and churches in the USA and around the globe have
raised their voice against the way the USA, primarily in support of the UK, has
proceeded to retaliate since October 7. Since any change to that status can only be
brought by state legislation, the task of church becomes more of a conscience raiser
and an advocate for change of state policy based on its own faith perspective.
Nevertheless, one cannot underestimate the influence of Christian communities and
churches on state policies where they are a sizeable majority.

Judaism:

In the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, we not only read about faith traditions, but also
Jewish social history. Early Judaic tradition operated with an unique understanding of
covenant relation between God and the Jewish community. As long as Israelites were

faithful to the covenant they could count on the protection of God. When Israelites broke
the covenant, they were reprimanded, including facing defeat by their enemies and
captivity by foreigners. In the midst of all this, God’s faithfulness always endured, giving
them hope against their adversaries. In some Jewish traditions, God is understood as
permitting occasional war and providing victory to Israel, God’s chosen people. This
includes the songs of Moses and Miriam, which speaks of a warrior-Lord who triumphed
gloriously over Pharaoh’s mighty army (Ex. 15:1-21). Another, the laws of war, is
encoded in Deuteronomy 20:1-20. Even the central symbol of God’s presence among
people, ‘the ark of covenant,’ was carried into the battlefield to assure victory against
the adversaries (Num. 10:35-36; 1 Sam. 14:1-8). At the same time, prophetic voices
repeatedly spoke about God’s expectation of Israelites to be a light and blessing to
nations (Isa. 42:6. 49:6. 19:24). It also expressed God’s special care and concern
towards the poor and the marginalized, both of Israel and the neighboring communities,
through acts of justice, tempered by a merciful and forgiving attitude (Duet. 10:18,
24:17; Ps. 82:2-4; Isa. 1:17; Amos 5:23-24; Mic.6:8). The prophets, on occasion,
envisioned that all nations would be drawn into Lord’s house and live in ‘shalom’ (peace
and well being). "Nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn
war any more. (Isa. 2:4b; cf. Isa. 56:1-8; Mic.4: 1-4)

In modern times, major voices of Judaism are manifested in the movement of Zionism,
with the founding of the Zionist organization in Basel in 1897. It was a sociopolitical
movement with secular leadership meant to overcome all the adversities that were
faced by the Jewish community. Nevertheless. Zionism has drawn on the religious and
ethnic sentiments of its community. As a model for mission, it has focused on the wish
of their ancestors exiled in Babylonia (597-538 BCE) to return to Jerusalem and to
rebuild the temple. However, there has been no consensus among the Jewish faithful
regarding the physical return to Zion, the retaking the land, and the founding of the
State of Israel that happened in May 1948. Those who have not subscribed to political
Zionism understand the return to Zion as a spiritual yearning for the messianic rule of
justice and peace, not to be substituted with human accomplishment of resettlement in
the former territory, or of establishing a nation-state. While supporters of political
Zionism see it as an act of ‘self-emancipation,’ especially in the context of the horrors of
the holocaust, the affected Palestinians and Arabs see the Zionist claim for a separate
state as a ethnocentric and ‘ethno-territorial’ agenda. Therefore, the Palestinians and
their sympathizers see Zionism as a scheme of violence and terror. According to them,
"The methods of Zionism were designed first to ignore, then to isolate, then finally to
dispossess, evict, and if possible exterminate the native non-Jewish inhabitants of
Palestine" [Zionism & Racism, 1977: 243].

The number of wars and armed confrontations since 1948 with Arab neighbors, the
continued occupation of neighboring territories, and the prevention of the formation of
the independent State of Palestine, has made Palestinians, Arab neighbors, and a large
section of the Muslim world perceive the State of Israel as the aggressors and
perpetuators of terror against the Palestinian people. However, the State of Israel sees
all its aggression on the Palestinians and neighbors as self-defense and self-
preservation. Even though acts of war and aggression were not necessarily done as

religious acts, for outsiders, these acts of terror, and religion, exist in a symbiotic
relation as the Sate of Israel is primarily anchored on a faith community. Rabbi Lerner
explains the complexity further:

"the critique of Israel and its policies toward the Palestinian people, cynically
manipulated by Bin Laden and his cronies, is nevertheless basically legitimate. What is
amazing is that even at this moment when the Middle East is exploding, there is no
serious analysis of Israel’s role. A unique combination of Jewish establishment power
and Christian guilt (deserved) for the Holocaust has led to an amazing reality in
America: there is no public discussion of the role Israel has played in generating the
wild level of anger at the West from which the terrorists are able to recruit" [Lemer,
2001]. The issue here is how to relate particular religious vision about social reality and
communal identity in a complimentary and a relational way in the midst of plurality of
communities and religions. Marc Ellis articulates this as a probing question: "Did the
Jewish experience of atrocity demand a focus on Jewish survival and empowerment, or
did this experience speak to Jews of the need to build a world where atrocity would
never happen again to any people?"

1234

More Related Content

1234