1 1/2 paper

Religious Terrorism from A Different Perspective 

  Throughout his book “Terror in the Mind of God”, Mark Juergensmeyer challenges  the thoughts of his readers by introducing a different perspective from which religious  terrorism can be looked at. In his introduction, Juergensmeyer demonstrates how terrorism  is meant to terrify as it is very much unlike military attacks. Terrorist attacks are attacks  which are unpredictable; therefore, they are much more terrifying. People often find it ironic  that terrorism is the combination of religion and violence, but Juergensmeyer thinks they go  hand in hand. Given this, Juergensmeyer looks at terrorism from a different perspective, and  tries to understand why the attacks are committed in the first place. 

  There are always two sides to every story, and with terrorism, it is no different.  People often assume that terrorist attacks are well planned out attacks which are designed  to attack a specific group of people; however, this often not the case. Mark Juergensmeyer  makes this clear as he makes an attempt to get a better understanding as to why these  attacks are done in the first place. In his introduction, Juergensmeyer writes, “What puzzles  me is not why bad things are done by bad people, but rather why bad things are done by  people who otherwise appear to be good – in cases of religious terrorism, by pious people  dedicated to a moral vision of the world” (7). Here, Juergensmeyer recognizes that the  people who commit these terrorist attacks are often times not bad people at all. As he had  mentioned, they are people who have a moral vision for the world; however, in order to  achieve this, unfortunately, they commit these attacks which not only cause suffering to the  victims, but also to anyone who may have witnessed the attack. It is not only unfortunate to  those who are suffering, but also to the perpetrators. It is unfortunate for them as,  “Although every society contains sociopaths and others who sadistically enjoy killing, it is  seldom such persons who are involved in the deliberate public events that we associate  with terrorism, and few studies of terrorism focus exclusively on personality”  (Juergensmeyer, 8). With this, Juergensmeyer shows that those who participate in terrorist  attacks don’t necessarily enjoy killing others; however, they are caught up in this moral view  of the world, which leads them to commit such attacks. Juergensmeyer argues that these  attacks don’t make them bad people, as he agrees with the old saying, “One person’s  terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” (9), which is why Juergensmeyer uses the  word “perpetrator” to refer to them instead. 

  Given that there are two sides to each story, and that those who commit these acts  are oftentimes good people outside of the attack, one may wonder what their motive was.  Although it may seem like one person commits a terrorist attack, terrorism is rarely done  just by one person, there are oftentimes a community of people behind an attack. When  discussing this topic, Juergensmeyer writes, “It also requires an enormous amount of moral  presumption for the perpetrators of these acts to justify the destruction of property on a  massive scale or to condone a brutal attack on another life, especially the life of someone  one scarcely knows and against whom one bears no personal enmity” (11). This shows that  it is definitely not easy for people to go out and carry out an attack on large groups of  people; however, they do it because they feel that they are under attack, as well as the  community which they are a part of. Juergensmeyer claims that this is one of the main  reasons why these people execute these acts, “…the perception that their communities are  already under attack – are being violated – and that their acts are therefore simply  responses to the violence they have experienced” (Juergensmeyer, 12). Although one  outside of this community may not think that is a valid reason to be executing large attacks,  those within that community genuinely feel as if they are under attack and that it is their  duty to fight back in order to bring the world to that ideal moral vision which they share. 

  Although some may not understand that those who do these acts feel as if their  community is under attack, there are many who do; however, they don’t understand how  these attacks can be worth it to the perpetrators. The attacks done by these communities  give them power for very little time and even then, that power isn’t of any use politically, so  what is the purpose these attacks? Juergensmeyer understands this argument; however,  upon further research, he has come to the conclusion that terrorist attacks are done due to  humiliation. Juergensmeyer has come up with this after having spoken with a leader of the  Hamas movement, “‘To die in this way’ – through suicide bombings… ‘is better than to die  daily in frustration and humiliation’” (Juergensmeyer, 187). This Hamas leader went on to  say that humiliating someone is the worst thing anyone can do; therefore, to counter it, one  must be a defender of the faith so that they are not “doomed to hell”. Given this, religion and  violence appear to cancel out this humiliation, which is why, upon further inspection,  Juergensmeyer found it to be a theme within most acts of religious terrorism. Furthermore,  it is common in society for people to view those who fight in the military as heroes. They  receive this special treatment because they put their life on the line to fight for what they  think is right. Juergensmeyer claims that the same can be said about the members of  radical religious movements. When writing about activists, Juergensmeyer includes, “They  were indeed soldiers at one time in real wars, and continue their identities as war heroes –  or perhaps fulfill their frustrated careers – in the imagined wars of politico-religious  struggles” (189). Juergensmeyer follows this with the example of Timothy McVeigh, who  enjoyed killing people while he was in the military, but after he had come back to the United 

States, he continued to carry around weapons as if he was preparing for another war. Later  in life, he was convicted for the Oklahoma City bombing. 

  Throughout the book, Juergensmeyer has been providing reasons as to why  someone would think to commit these acts; however, the reader may still be left wondering  why someone who believes in God would commit these acts. Although the previous  reasons listed are still valid, religion is more about peace than it is about war, even  Juergensmeyer recognizes this as he writes, “In a curious way, then, both religion and  violence are seen as antidotes to humiliation” (187). Which shows that even Juergensmeyer  originally found it ironic that these people believe that religion and violence goes hand in  hand; however, as he dug deeper, the thought process of the members within these  communities became more clear. These people are often young men, as are those in  militaries, who have many concerns about their future, social location, and most  importantly, their sexual relationships. All this, combined with the fact that they are young,  leaves them socially marginalized. Social marginality is a fear which all young men in  radical movements seem to have in common. This fear has, “helped to fuel the racism of  many radical religious movements” (Juergensmeyer, 192). However, sexuality is most  definitely the largest reason as to why these men throw bombs. As mentioned previously,  many attacks are done due to humiliation, and there is nothing more humiliating than failure  over “…what one perceives to be one’s sexual role” (Juergensmeyer, 195). Given this, many  of these terrorist acts are most likely done so these men feel a sense of empowerment as  they might feel that their role in society is at stake. For this reason, it is rare to see any  female terrorists. In these communities it is also believed that it is the role of men in public  life and that women should be at home; therefore, another reason why women are rarely  seen executing these attacks. Sex also has a lot to do with men mainly being the  perpetrators as men typically strive for sexual power. When discussing this, Juergensmeyer  includes a folklore about men which goes, “…sexual frustration leads to a fascination with  phallic-shaped weaponry that explodes in a way that some men are unable to do sexually”  (198). The young men in the Hamas movement were able to relate to this as they would  enter their suicide pacts in hopes that the blasts that kill them would send them to heaven  where they have twenty two virgins waiting for them, ready to participate in the “most  delicious acts of sexual consummation”. 

  Religion is something which is interpreted differently by each person. For this reason,  there can be confusion between believers as to what they believe God would want, which  can often times create controversy as everyone may not agree with what someone may  think. For instance, “Among Muslim groups, Hamas has also been marginal. Though the  movement has had is clerical supporters… Hamas has not been authorized by all members 

of the Islamic hierarchy in Palestine, nor has it ever sought such authorization”  (Juergensmeyer, 220). This shows that although a movement may be formed by people in  the religion, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone in the religion agrees with the  members of the movement, nor does it mean that those members have interpreted the text  correctly. For this reason, it’s not just victims of the attacks who would like this war with  religious terrorism to end, but also followers of the religion who are getting a bad name due  to the acts done by these communities. The issue with trying to end this war is that radicals  “…cannot conceive losing” (Juergensmeyer, 229). Juergensmeyer; therefore, lists the five  possible outcomes of the war on terror. The first possible outcome is to end this war with  force. Using military power to stop these radicals is an effective way of lessening any  potential terrorist attacks in the future; however, it is not guaranteed that it will. As  Juergensmeyer mentions on page 230, “It [United States Tomahawk cruise missiles] would  not have removed all of them, however, and the attempt may well have elevated the  possibility of more terrorist acts in reprisal” (Juergensmeyer, 230). Here, Juergensmeyer  admits this plan may not be the greatest as it could just cause more terrorist attacks from  people getting upset that their loved ones had been killed in air strikes. Furthermore,  Juergensmeyer states that this plan is only effective if a secular government is willing to  declare total war and fight for years. Juergensmeyer’s second possible outcome is  attempting to scare the terrorists. However, this would only work on “fringe members” of  these activist groups. Most of the members of these groups already believe that they are  under attack, which is why they are committing these terrorist attacks in the first place;  therefore, this would not be an effective way to put an end to religious terrorism. The third  possible scenario is letting the terrorists “win”. It is possible to work out a compromise with  these groups and potentially put an end to these attacks, but once again, it is not  guaranteed to work. For instance, “A few activists may be appeased, but others may be  angered by what they regard as a sellout of their principle” (Juergensmeyer, 234). Like most  compromises, not everyone will be left happy and it is extremely risky when dealing with  terrorists as their attacks are unpredictable and oftentimes difficult to stop. The fourth  outcome is taking away the politics from religion. This would be an effective way to bring  peace between these terrorist groups and the rest of the world; however, “most religious  activists regard the social manifestation of cosmic struggle to be at the very heart of their  faith and dream of restoring religion to what they regard as its rightful position at the center  of public consciousness” (Juergensmeyer, 235). Here Juergensmeyer claims that it would  work, but unfortunately, the leaders of these groups want to closely follow the rules set by  their religion, which means that the whole world would have to follow the same guidelines.  The fifth potential solution would be to have governments embrace the moral values  associated with religion. For example, “…the British response to Irish terrorism [was], the  government’s stance in following the rule of law and not overreacting to terrorist  provocations demonstrated its subscription to moral values” (Juergensmeyer, 238). In this  situation, the government didn’t do anything extreme to fight back against the terrorist  attacks, they just followed the law and with that, it became difficult for the religious activists 

to make the government seem like the “bad guy”; therefore, their attacks were not  justifiable. Ultimately, Juergensmeyer believes that, “the cure for religious violence may  ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself” (Juergensmeyer, 243). 

  By looking at religious terrorism from a different perspective, Juergensmeyer was  not only able to find out who the types of people that commit these acts are, but also what  motivates them to do it. Throughout the last chapter, Juergensmeyer discusses the  potential solutions to this war; however, he proves that it is not as simple as most people  may think. Due to unpredictability with terrorist groups, it is important to make sure  everyone is satisfied if peace is the end goal. For this reason, Juergensmeyer it is important  to look at religion differently altogether and hopefully put an end to all this violence. 

Religious Terrorism Part 2   

Terrorism is quite literally meant to terrify people. Terrorism was defined by us, those  who have been affected by this terror, leaving them terrified. In most cases, the fear of such  acts is resulted into feelings of anger or sadness. Thus, bringing in religion and most would  ask why would religion end up in more terror and peace? In certain chapters in the book,  terror is said to be caused by religion (mostly). When some people hear the word “terrorist”  they think murderer. Which in most cases they aren’t wrong? However, the most common  misconception is that all terrorists are middle eastern or from Europe. The author, Mark  Juergensmeyer, uses the term “terrorist” but goes into detail on why he is even hesitant to  use it. “For this reason I use the term ​terrorism​ sparingly. When I do use it, I employ it in the  same sense as the word ​murderer​: it applies to specific persons only after they have been  found guilty of committing such a crime, or planning to commit one. Even then I am  somewhat cautious about using the term, since a violent act is ‘terrorism’ technically only in  the eyes of the courts, more publicly in the eyes of the media, and ultimately only in the eyes  of the beholder” (Juergensmeyer 8). Although most people would agree terrorism is bad,  some believe that “one’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. The study of the psychology  of terrorism is paired social psychology because they both take deep dives into how people  interact while in groups. I firmly believe that no one is born a terrorist. It is the group that  they are a part of that shapes them into committing such heinous acts against people, that  gives them the notoriety of a terrorist. Juergensmeyer also believes the same thing, he says  it comes from people who get caught up in the communities that share extreme world  views.  

Terrorism is an operation. It has so many brains put into one massive attack that can  send the world in a panic. “Terrorism in a seldom a lone act” (Juergensmeyer 9). It takes a  community of support and tons of organization to perform these attacks. These people who  coordinate the plan can range all around the globe, they just have to share in the ideals in  what they believe their message should be, hence religious terrorism. How do we think the  attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon happened? People from all around the  globe helped orchestrate the attack and look what kind of message it displayed not only to  the American community but to the world. In my opinion, that’s when the world learned that  terrorism was real, and it could happen at any moment. As long as someone has the  internal conviction of being able to commit a terror crime, they can do anything. “When  Mohammed Atta and other members of the Al-Qaeda network boarded commercial airlines  in Boston and Newark which minutes later plunged into the World Trade Center, eventually  causing them to crumble into dust, they came as part of a well-orchestrated plan that  involved dozens of co-conspirators and hundreds, perhaps thousands, or sympathizers in  the United States, Europe, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia , and elsewhere throughout the world…  As these instances show, it takes a community of support and, in some cases, a large  organizational network for an act of terrorism to succeed” (Juergensmeyer 10).  

Dealing with terror attacks and major individuals pose some problems. Many are  hard to distinguish whether what thoughts are running through their heads. Juergensmeyer  interviewed numerous people who have participated in these organizations and movements  starting at the beginning of chapter 10. Starting with ISIS, the book goes into the  involvement of ISIS and how their goal was not to obtain power by controlling an obscene  amount of land, but power in general. They wanted people to hear their message. “This was  a sentiment shared by many of the thousands of volunteers who supported the movement  online through Twitter and other forms of social media, and by those who had flocked to the  region to support the imagined caliphate. For them, the struggle was never simply about the  power of controlling the land. But it was about power. In a message to his loyal followers  around the world, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi explained that conducting acts of  terrorism on the movement’s behalf were empowering. ‘Terrorism is to refuse humiliation,  subjugation, and subordination’” (Juergensmeyer 230). With the position that ISIS took and  how they conducted themselves to convey their message to the world, caught the attention  of other groups looking to produce the same acts to illustrate their message. Religious  beliefs I think play a huge part in the way the Hamas conducted their movement. In Islam,  humiliation is not to be messed with. Islam finds itself with pride due to their dignity to their  land. Acts of violence and religion were antidotes to humiliation according to a local  Prophet. The end result on the war on terror is that, the groups who participate in acts like  these are avoiding their governments to become known as “radical terrorists” to gain  traction on their movements. “’To die in this way’ – through suicide bombings – the political  head of the Hamas movement told me in words that were strikingly similar to the ISIS  leader al-Baghdadi, ‘is better than to die daily in frustration and humiliation.’ … He then told a 

story that the prophet had told about a woman who fasted daily, and yet because she  humiliated her neighbors, she was doomed to hell. The point of the story, he said, is that  dishonoring someone is the worst act that one can do, and the only thing that can counter it  is dignity: the honor provided by religion and the courage of being a defender of the faith. In  a curious way, then, both religion and violence were seen as antidotes to humiliation”  (Juergensmeyer 231). These terrorist organizations seem to be remained in these criminal  actions, only to become even worse in the public’s eyes. However, they do it because they  believe that their actions are justified due to their religious beliefs and how powerful their  message is.  

Chapter 11. The Mind of God. This chapter dives deeper into the idea that these  organizations believe that their actions are directly from God himself. There are many  different interpretations of scripture and religious traditions through God’s will. Mainly most  of these ideas came from humans trying to attempt to recreate and learn the knowledge of  God. Now, this doesn’t always, or does it have to result in violence, it is just how people  perceive the information given to them. In almost every religion there has been a case  where killing another person because it was “justified by God”. “Similarly, in one of the first  videotapes that Osama bin Laden released for viewing on Al-Jazeera television after the  9/11 attacks, he praised God, saying that by His will the twin towers of the World Trade  Center had collapsed. It was a comment similar in its piety to the one made by the shy  young man who grinned into the video camera the day before he was to become a martyr in  a Hamas suicide operation, proclaiming that he was ‘doing this for Allah’” (Juergensmeyer  266). Through these justifications, religious activists have been able to go out and do  whatever they want, being certain that they were following the word of God. Thankfully,  many have strongly disagreed. Justifying the thought of killing someone is incredibly hard  to do and in almost all cases it will never be justified. I personally will never be able to  understand how that someone can think that. In the book, Juergensmeyer states that he  was invited to a convocation in Spain a year a terrorist attack happened. This meeting was  to discuss the root causes of what religious terrorism stems from and what we need to  learn about it. “The Spanish government convened the terrorism experts to seek  explanations about how such a thing could have happened. I was asked to lead a group of  experts focusing on religion-related terrorism, and we were given the assignment to find ‘the  root causes’ of religious terrorism. Our group quickly came to a conclusion, but it was not  an answer to the assignment; rather, it was a comment about how it was phrased”  (Juergensmeyer 269).