IndexIntroductionReligion and terrorismConclusionIntroductionFundamentally, subjective opinions emerge in the attempt to understand the reasons behind the formation of a terrorist group. “Bruce Hoffman… defined terrorism as violence – or, equally importantly, threat of violence – used and directed in pursuit of or serving a political purpose” (Ward, 2018). Opinions about why terrorist groups emerge and attacks had increased following the September 2001 attacks that saw two planes hijacked and ultimately crash-landed into the World Trade Center. After Al-Qaeda, a known terrorist organization, took responsibility, scholars such as Matthew Bunn and James Dingley published reports on what "fuels" such groups. It becomes important to understand the "fuel" of terrorist organizations, as attacks become more frequent and the targets are populous cities such as London and New Zealand. However, papers like those by Bunn and other scholars complicate understanding why such groups emerge. This essay will focus on the period between 1950 and 2019 and will discuss three main reasons; firstly, whether or not religion forms the basis of terrorist groups, secondly, whether or not they are driven by their poor economic conditions and finally whether they desire liberation from a form of oppression. It becomes clear that from research, the idea of ​​what the Abrahamic religions believe has been tainted due to individuals formulating their own ideology with the use of religious principles. Consequently, it is clear that religion is not a foundational factor but instead sees the formation of groups as a result of the desire for some form of liberation, from a country or from oppression. “Lyons and Haribson found that the average terrorist…[is] normal, suggesting that the terrorist behavior was normal” and not psychologically ill. Could it be that we live in a world full of terrorists who have yet to be set on fire? in their radical journeys for freedom? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayReligion and TerrorismThe claim that "religion" is a key factor in the creation of terrorist groups is becoming very 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 through the fact that the religious building becomes a center for 'learning a social activity, a meeting place for both prayer and discussion of local events and center and center of the local structure of relationships'. Dingley shows the influence of religion with the concept of “Ummah” as provoking reactions. This becomes clear when 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 others members of the “ummah”. ”, thus creating peace and harmony”. Alongside this, “the word Islam itself means surrender or submission (to the will of Allah), which also implies the will of the “ummah” and brings order and harmony. A consequence of this is that anything that appears to attack the community and an established order is seen as an attack on God (Allah)'. Therefore, it becomes clear that the impact that religious accommodations and radical religious leaders have on vulnerable individuals can lead to a case of indoctrination. This can occur in the case of a large influx of individualswho visit such centers, making them an ideal breeding ground. While it is important to note, this is only the case for radical religious leaders present in such facilities. However, this argument has merit because the Islamic State wants to attack Western countries because they pose a threat to their values ​​and society. meetings between both sides in "Muslim countries". Dingley mentions the influence of Christianity on radical individuals as any form of modernity “undermines the sense of order and community that the Catholic Church represented as morally sacred.” In this case, it is clear that their values, such as Islam, are valued and any form of attack will be met with protection. In essence, this suggests inevitable attacks due to individuals who do not think alike. Dingley highlights a trend; of such religions backfiring some form of attack which shows that they are attempting to free themselves from this form of oppression. In line with this, the desire to “build an ideology based on the idea of ​​supremacy against other groups in society and the idea of ​​true faith” shows a form of communitarianism – a value emphasized by religions. The desire to ensure that one's group is superior to others is in line with those in the Islamic State who want to eradicate the idea of ​​“Islamic countries against the West” (Meierrieks and Krieger, 2009). This demonstrates the case of religion being against states, evident in most recent terrorist attacks such as the 2017 London attacks. Bjorgo highlights a similar line to Dingley but shows a correlation between methods of attacking religious values . The number of deaths at the hands of al-Qaeda in 2001 alone was “3,000” due to a suicide bomber, which is evidently their favorable option, as seen in 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 of “self-sacrifice [being] the will of Allah and description of the guaranteed rewards for the Shaheed (martyrs) in paradise” (Bjrgo, 2004). This shows that religious values ​​motivate such attacks. The underlying ideology behind today's Islamic terrorist groups can be considered to be due to Salafi jihadism, a militant Islamic movement that aimed to call on other Muslims to defend "Muslim land" from foreign occupation. Al-Qaeda's ideas can be traced back to 1998 with Dr. Fadl highlighting Jihad as a constant and natural state of Islam. Fadl refers to Osama Bin Laden and underlines that "Muslims could undertake effective military action inspired by certain Islamic principles." Contact with conservative Islamic scholars and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and ideological basis for his belief in puritanical Salafi Islamic reform in Muslim societies and in the necessity of armed resistance in the face of “perceived aggression.” It becomes clear that such principles are in line with Dingley's idea in protecting their Ummah but also in justifying their “retaliation for… aggression in the Islamic world”. Al-Qaeda is a clear example of how religion provides the foundation for their group. This is a result of their ultimate goal of being an "Islamic State" with the need for "an authority based on the Quran to govern". The state would be based on Sharia law. One of the principles of the law is the immediate death of those who degrade the verses of the Quran. The desire to realize such a state came at a high cost following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris in 2015 and also the London bombings in 2007. Therefore, it becomes clear that religion is a factorcrucial in this case with the method they use but also their justification for the attacks. Al-Qaeda is an example of adhering to "Islamic" principles in carrying out its attacks and forming its ideology on "Islamic principles". the true form of religion. Eposito emphasizes that religion is not a credible explanation for the formation of terrorist groups. It turns out that “the Islamic scriptures of the Koran were actually much less bloody and less violent than those of the Bible [and that] the laws of war provided by the Koran are actually reasonably humane” (Esposito, 2015). Eposito points out that Islam has been portrayed wrongly justifying the need to understand the historical context behind the quotes used by terrorist organizations. Many individuals lived in “tribal societies and environments” (Esposito, 2015), meaning that “tribal raids and wars were considered normal and lawful unless a truce was concluded between tribes,” however “chivalry it prohibited killing noncombatants such as children, women, religious leaders, and the elderly” (Esposito, 2015). It becomes clear that the attacks committed by such Islamic groups are unjust. This is reinforced by the verse of 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 do not offer you peace, then Allah will not allow you any way against them" ( 4 :90). Meirrieks demonstrates that it is not possible “to conclude whether religious (as well as ethnic) factors drive terrorist attacks” by following empirical research. To understand the arguments made by critics like Dingley that Islam causes terrorist attacks, it is necessary to mention Islamism. Both variations have similar values ​​but differ fundamentally. The focus of Islamism sees “their effort to build a way of life based solely on the laws of Shar'i, Islamists strive to reject all aspects of Western influence – customs, philosophy, political institutions and values”. While traditional Islam focuses more on peace. In light of this, it is clear that most scholars and critics have confused their understanding of what form of Islam the majority of these terrorist groups believe in. It is also important to mention the impact of Islamism as an unconventional ideology. of touch. Beyond that, it is also important to note that instead of adhering to a religion, they adhere to what is known as an ideology. This is identified as a result of ISIS wanting a reformed society based on its ideas, while Islam accepts and has evidently integrated into modern society. In light of this it is clear that "terrorists do not kill for their religion". Therefore, it justifies and demonstrates that modern religions do not constitute the founding factor of terrorist groups but have instead been confused with sub-branches. It is important to note that it shows signs of wanting liberation from Western philosophy. Furthermore, it could be said that terrorist organizations are formed as a result of bad economic conditions. To begin with, it is important to define that to judge what constitutes a poor economy, it is necessary to refer to social inequality and the lack of economic prosperity. In this case, the focus will be on an impoverished economic system. It is clear that such conditions leave individuals with no choice but to take revenge since “a combination of poor economic and institutional conditions may play a role in the genesis of terror.” The failure of the combination of both tools in a country leads individuals to resort to revenge methods against the government or, in most cases, against foreign countries. Theinvolvement of other countries has evidently led to severe economic sanctions against the weaker country. Many countries identify themselves as having intervened on the basis of geopolitics and globalization. However, the impact of ruining a country's economy leaves humans to tap into their nationalistic feelings but also their human nature of wanting revenge. This could also occur through domestic terrorism. An example of impoverishment occurred in Iran with America stopping all forms of oil sales with Iran and banning all investment in the country. As a result, this had a serious impact on Iran's economy. Choi points out that Iran experienced a “145% increase in domestic terrorism during periods of economic sanctions between 1979 – 1981 – 1984 and 2002… their natural reaction is to lash out at the rich and the government [that controls the country ]”. It becomes clear that terrorists formed groups and were activated as a result of the intervention of foreign countries that managed to ruin their prosperity and economic 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 greatest gains for them in terms of GDP per capita in absolute terms” (Petersen and Jungbluth, 2019). This case has been evident in Iran following the U.S. ban on U-turn financial transactions and also the ability to control them as seen through changes made to their country and education to other countries of stop trade. As a result, it was clear that the United States would benefit from their relationship. Scholars such as Newman have pointed out that “poverty of resources, combined with poverty of perspective, choice, and respect, helps allow terrorism to thrive” (Newman, 2006). Alongside this, “the reconstruction of labor markets and the creation of [further] claims [see individuals] becoming unemployed due to economic change”. This was evidently the case in Iran, following the fact that “48% of Iranians…[do not have enough] money to buy food or provide adequate shelter” (Choi, 2014). The inevitable result of this was a “trigger of violence…thereby intensifying their economic misery and generating poverty-related political violence” which in our case translated into terrorist attacks due to the hostile environment. Due to poor conditions, this contributes to individuals losing trust in their current government and seeing an increase in their resort to attacks in hopes of removing their government through fearful methods. This is the result of a discrepancy between “what individuals think they deserve and what they actually receive through the economic (distributive) process”. As a result, it leads to an alienated group in society becoming victims of the economic changes made as a result of their governments' decisions. In most cases, we also see the weakening of government due to the state diluting some form of power as a result of relations between countries on an economic basis. As a result, it “provides the space and oxygen for terrorist groups to thrive.” This power vacuum is exploited by terrorists through the use of propaganda and also by manipulating vulnerable individuals. A case study demonstrating poor economic conditions as a trigger for terrorist actions is highlighted through the Islamic Republican in Iran. After the overthrow of the Shah's monarchy, that wasHaving become dependent on “foreign industries” (M. Vedat, 2003), and the United States, Iran has seen a lack of prosperity, which has frustrated its people. An example of its economic recession is highlighted by the 1978 budget which ended with a “$7.3 billion deficit” (M. Vedat, 2003) due to the poorly executed plan to “depend on imports and foreign trade” ( M. Vedat, 2003). , 2003). After overthrowing the Shah's monarchy, the republicans decided to turn against those who had contributed to their country's economic decline. Many examples have occurred since 1983 through terrorist methods. A significant attack on the United States occurred through support for the September 2001 attack, but also in 1983 with the hostage-taking of US officials. Inflicting fear on them is a method of terrorism. Bjorgo highlights the ideological reasoning for individuals who want to support their state through Durkheim. Here we are talking about the mention of a social duty but also of a form of altruism that they implement through terrorist attacks to enhance their country and a form of revenge. All in all, it becomes evidently clear that the impact of poor economic conditions due to impoverishment sees individuals resorting to terrorist methods to fulfill their social duty and improve their conditions. This may also show that Iranians feel trapped due to lack of economic prosperity and desire economic freedom. However, poor economic conditions cannot be seen as 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 were ignorant, desperately poor, naive or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless they were runaways, held paid jobs” (Newman, 2006). While this is just one example, it is clear that a lack of economic prosperity does not contribute to the formation of terrorist groups. This is because "successful" terrorists support their campaigns through funds to which they have access and which would not be able to exceed their desires. None of this would happen if they lived in unfavorable economic conditions. An example of this is Osama Bin Laden, whose wealth amounted to “29 million dollars” (Anon, 2016). It is clear that one of the largest terrorists known in history was not motivated by poor economic conditions, but the opposite. The fact that Iran is a significant example of how bad economic conditions can fuel terrorist methods is only so to a certain extent. This is because political and cultural reasons are driving factors for Islamic republicanism. It was pointed out that Shah posed 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 helplessness rather than pure poverty.” This is highlighted by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), who had suffered injustices in the field of labor and education at the hands of the Sinhala party – Sri Lanka Freedom Party – which won elections in 1956, 1960 and 1970. Following the failed attempt of the Tamil United Front of 1972 which attempted to introduce another state through peaceful methods, saw Velupillai Prabhakaran form his own group from this party in 1976 which became known as LTTE. The lack of justice has seen the use of Guevara tactics and a Marxist-Leninist style of terrorism with the use of “suicide bombings” against the Sri Lankan government. LTTE forces often ambushed government troops and attacked in “waves,” meaningthe LTTE would first attack the enemy and then engage in suicide bombings, which often confused and frightened the Sri Lankan government forces.” It is clear that the idea of ​​liberation had been more of a reason to form his own terrorist group than the economic conditions, even if these had not been the best after the recent colonial clashes. Ultimately, it is clear that poor economic conditions do not fuel terrorists, as this is the result of more substantial factors combined. Beyond that, there is no specific terrorist group that was formed directly based on the lack of economic prosperity in their country. Overall, it is clear that terrorist groups form as a result of the desire for liberation of some kind. This argument carries incredible weight as 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 the desire for “freedom from limitations on thought or behavior” [and also from] oppression” (Fowler, 2012). Two examples of terrorist groups demonstrate this argument. The Irish Republican Army emerged in the 20th century and attempted to gain Ireland's full independence from Great Britain. This had been 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 division of Ireland between the South and the North, this was still not enough. Their main objective was to ensure that Ireland was free from the oppression of Great Britain due to the attacks they suffered because they were Catholic. To achieve the unification of Ireland, “The violence they used [was] to put pressure on the State. In the sense that the more they killed many people, the more the State probably granted their wish)” (Pratiwi, n.d.). They had attempted to gain “public sympathy” (Pratiwi, n.d.) to eradicate British rule over Ireland. This was a result of constant British oppression with the likes of Easter Rising and Bloody Sunday identifying the case of lack of freedom for their thoughts. This was clear as both events had seen the English attacking the Irish following their peaceful ways of wanting to gain independence. The freedom of their behavior was also limited by martial law introduced at the beginning of the 20th century which inevitably created a hostile environment. It becomes clear that the IRA believed they could only remove this stronghold by inflicting fear on Britain. While the case may identify the group as having formed for religious reasons, it is clear that their political objectives were more significant, as highlighted by Jackson and Sinclair. Likewise, the Palestine Liberation Organization shows a desire for liberation. The circumstances under which the group emerged were the result of the creation of Israel in 1948 following the Balfour Declaration. The United Nations had divided Palestine to allow both Arabs and Jews to occupy it. However, this caused a mixed response with the Jews accepting their gain but the Arabs rejecting it. This hostile environment saw a two-phase war in 1948 and 1949 which saw Israel win through the use of militias and the defeat of the Arab armies. The impact of this war and further relations between the two countries have seen a displacement of people and also Israel's intention to expand into the West Bank. The hostile relationship had not been witnessed due to the failure to conclude a treaty to end hostilities in 1949, which highlighted a case of desire for revenge. Accordingly, the movement is.