Table of ContentsIntroductionReligion and TerrorismConclusionIntroductionBasically, subjective opinions arise when trying to understand the reasoning behind the creation of a terrorist group. “Bruce Hoffman…defined terrorism as violence – or, just as importantly, the threat of violence – used and directed in pursuit of or in the service of a political objective” (Ward, 2018). Opinions about why terrorist groups emerge and attack have grown in the wake of the September 2001 attacks, which saw two planes hijacked and ultimately landed on the World Trade Center. Following the takeover of al-Qaeda, a known terrorist organization, researchers such as Matthew Bunn and James Dingley are publishing reports on what "fuels" such groups. It is becoming important to understand the “fuel” of terrorist organizations as attacks become more frequent and target highly populated cities like London and New Zealand. However, articles like those by Bunn and other researchers complicate the understanding of why such groups emerge. This essay will focus on the period between 1950 and 2019 and discuss three main reasons: firstly, whether or not religion forms the basis of terrorist groups, secondly, whether or not they are motivated by their poor economic conditions and finally whether they want to free themselves from a form of oppression. It is clear from the research that the idea of ​​what Abrahamic religions believe in has been tainted by individuals formulating their own ideology using religious principles. As a result, it is clear that religion is not a founding factor but rather the formation of groups resulting from the desire for some form of liberation, either from a country or from oppression. “Lyons and Haribson found the average terrorist…normal, suggesting that terrorist behavior was normal” and not psychologically ill. Could it be that we live in a world full of terrorists who have not yet been set on fire. about their radical journeys for freedom? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayReligion and TerrorismThe claim that “religion” is a fundamental factor in the creation of terrorist groups is becoming increasingly evident due to recent attacks. Critics such as James Dingley identify reasons to justify Abrahamic religions as supporting the idea of ​​terrorism. It is highlighted by the fact that the religious habitat becomes a center "for learning a... social activity, a meeting place both for prayer and the discussion of local events and a center and the center of the local structure of relationships. Dingley shows the influence of religion with the concept of "Ummah" as provoking reactions. This becomes clear as the term emphasizes "the idea of ​​an order given by Allah, the form of which was revealed through the Prophet: how men should live together in an ordered structure of relationships, bound by bonds of moral obligation towards other members of the “Umma”. ", thus creating peace and harmony." Besides this, “the very word Islam means surrender or submission (to the will of Allah), which also implies the will of the “Ummah” and brings order and harmony. One consequence of this is that anything that appears to attack the community and an established order is seen as an attack on God (Allah). It therefore becomes clear that the impact of religious accommodations and leadersreligious radicals on vulnerable individuals can lead to a case of indoctrination. This may be the case in the event of a large influx of people visiting these centers, making them an ideal breeding ground. Although it is important to note, this is only the case when radical religious leaders are present in such establishments. Nevertheless, this argument has weight as the Islamic State wants to attack Western countries because they pose a threat to their values ​​and society. Meetings between the two camps in "Muslim countries". Dingley mentions the influence of Christianity on radical individuals, as any form of modernity "undermined the sense of order and community that the Catholic Church represented as morally sacred." In this case, it is clear that their values ​​like Islam are cherished and any form of attack will be met with protection. Essentially, this suggests inevitable attacks due to individuals not being like-minded. Dingley highlights a trend; such religions are fighting back against some form of attack, which shows that they are trying to free themselves from this form of oppression. From this perspective, the desire to “build an ideology based on the idea of ​​supremacy over other groups in society and on the idea of ​​a true faith” demonstrates a form of communitarianism – a value emphasized by religions . The desire to ensure that their group is superior to others aligns with that of the Islamic State which wants to eradicate the idea of ​​“Islamic countries against the West” (Meierrieks and Krieger, 2009). This demonstrates the case for religion versus states, which is evident in the majority of recent terrorist attacks such as the 2017 London bombings. Bjorgo points out a similar line to Dingley but shows a correlation between attack methods against religious values. The death toll attributable to Al-Qaeda in 2001 was "3,000" from a suicide bomber, which is obviously their favorable option, as shown by another attack in Kenya in 1998 - killing "224". Suicide terrorism can be justified as a case of “religious fanaticism” (Bjrgo, 2004) which aligns with the following Islamic principle: “self-sacrifice [being] the will of Allah and the description of the rewards guaranteed to the Shaheed (martyrs) in paradise” (Bjrgo, 2004). This demonstrates that religious values ​​motivate such attacks. The fundamental ideology behind today's Islamist terrorist groups can be seen as due to Salafi jihadism, a militant Islamic movement that aimed to call on other Muslims to defend "Muslim land" against foreign occupation. Al-Qaeda's ideas date back to 1998, with Dr. Fadl emphasizing Jihad as a constant and natural state of Islam. Fadl refers to Osama bin Laden and emphasizes that "Muslims could carry out effective military action inspired by certain Islamic principles." The exposure of conservative Islamist scholars and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and ideological basis for his belief in puritanical Salafist Islamic reform in Muslim societies and the need for armed resistance in the face of "aggression perceived”. It becomes clear that such principles align with Dingley's idea of ​​protecting their Ummah but also justify their "retaliation against…aggression in the Islamic world." Al-Qaeda is a clear example of a religion that forms the foundation of its group. This is because their end goal is an “Islamic state” with the need for “Quran-based authority to rule.” The state would be based on Sharia law. One of the principles of the law is the immediate death of those who degrade the Quranic verses. The desire to achieve such a state hascost a lot after the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris in 2015, as well as the London bombings in 2007. It therefore becomes clear that religion is a fundamental factor in this case, with the method used, but also their justification attacks. Al-Qaeda is an example of adhering to "Islamic" principles in conducting its attacks and in forming its ideology on "Islamic principles". On the other hand, the idea that religion is a fundamental factor lacks weight when compared with the true form of religion. Eposito emphasizes that religion is not a credible explanation for the formation of terrorist groups. It is revealed that "the Islamic scriptures of the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those of the Bible [and that] the laws and principles of warfare prescribed by the Quran are actually reasonably humane" (Esposito, 2015). Eposito points out that Islam has been mischaracterized by justifying the need to understand the historical context behind the quotes used by terrorist organizations. Many individuals lived in "a tribal society and environment" (Esposito, 2015), meaning that "tribal raids and wars were considered normal and lawful unless a truce was agreed between the tribes ", however "chivalry forbade the killing of non-combatants such as children, women, religious leaders. and the elderly” (Esposito, 2015). It clearly appears that the attacks committed by these Islamist groups are unlawful. This is reinforced by the verse from the Quran: “If Allah had willed, He would have made them dominate you and so if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not allow you any means against them” (4:90). Meirrieks demonstrates that they cannot “conclude whether religious (as well as ethnic) factors lead to terrorist attacks” as a result of empirical research. In order to understand the arguments made by critics like Dingley that Islam is a cause of terrorist attacks, Islamism must be mentioned. Both variants have similar values ​​but differ fundamentally. Islamism focuses on “their efforts to build a way of life based solely on Islamic laws, with Islamists striving to reject all aspects of Western influence – customs, philosophy, political institutions and values.” Whereas traditional Islam focuses more on peace. In light of this, it is clear that a majority of scholars and critics have a confused understanding of the form of Islam that the majority of these terrorist groups believe in. It is also important to mention the impact of Islamism as an unusual ideology. of touch. At the same time, it is also important to note that instead of adhering to a religion, they adhere to what is called an ideology. This is identified as a result of ISIS's desire for a reformed society based on its ideas, while Islam accepts it and has obviously integrated into modern society. In light of this, it is clear that “terrorists do not kill for their religion.” Therefore, this justifies and demonstrates that modern religions are not the founding factor of terrorist groups but rather have been confused with sub-branches. It is important to note that he shows signs of wanting liberation from Western philosophy. Additionally, it could be said that terrorist organizations form because of poor economic conditions. To begin with, it is important to define that judging what constitutes a poor economy requires commenting on social inequalities and lack of economic prosperity. In this case, the emphasis will be placedon an impoverished economic system. It is clear that such conditions leave individuals with no option but to take revenge, as “a combination of poor economic and institutional conditions can play a role in the genesis of terror.” The failure of combining both instruments in a country leads individuals to resort to methods of revenge against the government or, in most cases, against foreign countries. The involvement of other countries obviously led to severe economic sanctions against the weaker country. Many countries believe they are intervening on the basis of geopolitics and globalization. However, the impact of ruining a country's economy leaves humans exploiting their nationalistic feelings but also their human nature of desire for revenge. This can also happen through domestic terrorism. An example of impoverishment occurred in Iran when America stopped all forms of oil sales with Iran and banned all investment in the country. Therefore, this had serious consequences on the Iranian economy. Choi points out that Iran experienced a “145% increase in domestic terrorism during periods of economic sanctions between 1979 – 1981 – 1984 and 2002…The reaction is to attack the rich and the government [which controls the country ]”. It is becoming clear that the terrorists formed groups and were triggered as a result of the intervention of foreign countries which may have ruined their economic prosperity and growth. This is due to the pervasive and one-sided nature of globalization. A 2018 report highlighted that developed industrialized countries benefit “the most from globalization, because increasing globalization generates the largest GDP per capita gains for them in absolute terms” (Petersen and Jungbluth, 2019). This case was evident in Iran after the United States banned U Turn financial transactions and its ability to control them, as evidenced by the changes it made to its country and ordered other countries to stop exchanges. As a result, it was clear that the United States benefited from their relationship. Scholars such as Newman have pointed out that “poverty of resources, combined with poverty of opportunity, choice and respect, helps allow terrorism to flourish” (Newman, 2006). At the same time, “the rebuilding of labor markets and the creation of [more] grievances [are seeing individuals] become unemployed due to economic change.” This was obviously the case in Iran, where “48% of Iranians… [did not have enough] money to buy food or obtain adequate housing” (Choi, 2014). The inevitable result of this situation was a “trigger of violence…thus intensifying their economic misery and generating poverty-related political violence” which, in our case, escalated into terrorist attacks due to the hostile environment. Due to poor conditions, this contributes to individuals losing faith in their current government and increasing their reliance on attacks in hopes of overthrowing their government through frightening methods. This results from a gap between “what individuals think they deserve and what they actually receive through the economic (distributive) process”. Therefore, this leads to an alienated group in society who become victims of the economic changes made as a result of their government's decisions. In most cases, there is also a weakening of their government due to the state's dilution of some form of power following relations between countries based on an economic basis. As a result, it "provides the space and oxygen necessary for terrorist groups toprosper.” This power vacuum is exploited by terrorists by using propaganda and also manipulating vulnerable individuals. A case study that demonstrates that poor economic conditions trigger terrorist actions is highlighted by the Islamic Republican in Iran. After the overthrow of the Shah's monarchy, which had become dependent on “foreign industries” (M. Vedat, 2003) and the United States, Iran saw a lack of prosperity, which frustrated its people. An example of its economic slowdown is highlighted by the 1978 budget which resulted in a “deficit of $7.3 billion” (M. Vedat, 2003) due to the poorly executed plan of “import dependence and foreign trade” (M. Vedat, 2003). , 2003). Following the suppression of the Shah's monarchy, the Republicans then decided to turn against those who contributed to the economic downfall of their country. Many examples have occurred since 1983 through terrorist methods. A significant attack on the United States was manifested through support for the September 2001 attack, but also in 1983 with the hostage taking of American officials. Inflicting fear on them is a method of terrorism. Bjorgo highlights the ideological reasoning of individuals wishing to support their state through Durkheim. This sees the evocation of a social duty but also of a form of altruism that they put into practice through terrorist attacks to promote their country and a form of revenge. Overall, it becomes evident that the impact of poor economic conditions due to impoverishment pushes individuals to resort to terrorist methods to fulfill their social duty and improve their conditions. It could also show that Iranians feel trapped due to a lack of economic prosperity and a desire for economic freedom. However, poor economic conditions cannot be considered the most important reason for the creation of terrorist groups. Newman points out that “Nasra Hassan (2001: 37) interviewed nearly two hundred and fifty people involved in the most militant Palestinian groups: “none of them was uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless fugitives, held paid jobs” (Newman, 2006). Although this is just one example, it is clear that lack of economic prosperity does not contribute to the formation of terrorist groups. Indeed, “successful” terrorists support their campaigns with the funds to which they have access and would not be able to exceed their desires. All this would not happen if they lived in poor economic conditions. An example of this is Osama bin Laden, whose wealth was “$29 million” (Anon, 2016). It is clear that one of the greatest known terrorists in history was not motivated by poor economic conditions, but quite the opposite. The example of Iran, which highlights poor economic conditions as fueling terrorist methods, is only to a certain extent. This is because political and cultural reasons are determining factors for the Islamic republican. Shah had been highlighted as a threat to Iranian culture, but his "regime also seemed quite authoritarian." As a result, “terrorism is often linked to a sense of injustice and powerlessness rather than simple poverty.” This is evidenced by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), who suffered injustices in the areas of labor and education at the hands of the Sinhalese party – Sri Lanka Freedom Party – which won elections in 1956, 1960 and 1970. After the failed attempt ofTamil United Front in 1972, which attempted to introduce another state through peaceful methods, saw Velupillai Prabhakaran form his own group from this party in 1976, known as the LTTE. The lack of justice led to the use of Guevara's tactics and a Marxist-Leninist style of terrorism with the use of suicide attacks "against the Sri Lankan government". LTTE forces would often ambush government troops and attack in "waves", meaning here that the LTTE would first overrun the enemy and then engage in suicide attacks, often confusing and frightening the government forces. Sri Lankan. It is clear that the idea of ​​liberation was more of a reason to form their own terrorist group than economic conditions, even if they were not the best after their recent colonial encounters. Ultimately, it is clear that poor economic conditions do not fuel terrorists, but are the result of a combination of larger factors. Besides this, there is no specific terrorist group that was formed directly based on the lack of economic prosperity in its country. Overall, it is clear that terrorist groups form in response to a desire for liberation, in one form or another. This argument carries incredible weight because it aligns with the goals of the terrorist groups discussed in this essay, but since the 1950s. It is important to define what liberation actually means – the Oxford Dictionary defines it as wanting "to be free limitations in thought or behavior” [and also] oppression” (Fowler, 2012). Two examples of terrorist groups illustrate this argument. The Irish Republican Army emerged in the 20th century and attempted to gain full independence for Ireland from Great Britain. This was the result of historical and religious conflict with Britain since the 17th century with the Battle of Drogheda. Although they had achieved part of their objective following the split of Ireland into South and North, it was still not enough. Their main goal was to ensure that Ireland was freed from British oppression due to the attacks they faced because they were Catholic. In order to achieve a unified Ireland, “the violence they used [was] to put pressure on the state. In the sense that the more people they kill, the more likely the state is to grant their wish)” (Pratiwi, n.d.). They had attempted to gain “public sympathy” (Pratiwi, n.d.) in order to eradicate British rule over Ireland. This was the result of constant British oppression, with events like the Easter Rising and Bloody Sunday highlighting a lack of freedom of thought. This was clear as both events saw the British attack the Irish following their peaceful methods of gaining independence. Freedom of behavior was also restricted, as evidenced by the martial law implemented in the early 20th century, which inevitably created a hostile environment. It becomes clear that the IRA believed they could remove this stronghold only by inflicting fear on Britain. Although the case identifies the group as having been formed for religious reasons, it is clear that their political goals were more important, as Jackson and Sinclair point out. Likewise, the Palestine Liberation Organization displays a desire for liberation. The circumstances in which the group emerged were a result of the creation of Israel in 1948 following the Balfour Declaration. The United Nations had divided Palestine to allow the occupation of both.