Introduction

- Kill them all, God will recognize his own -

oly Terror The implications of terrorism motivated by a religious imperative. The truth is religion and terrorism shares a long history. What is particularly

striking about this sort of terrorism is their different value systems, legitimation, and justification concepts of morality. For the terrorists, who perform terrorism in the name of religion see such actions as a divine duty executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative and thereby it is unconstrained by political, moral or practical factors. Whereas secular terrorists, even if they have the capacity to do so, rarely attempt indiscriminate killing on a massive scale because such tactics are not consonant with their political aims and therefore are regarded as counterproductive, if not immoral, religious terrorists often seek the elimination of broadly defined categories of enemies and accordingly regard such large-scale violence not only as morally justified but as a necessary expedient for the attainment of their goals. Religious fanaticism prompts more than 20 percent of international terrorist incidents and is largely responsible for the increasingly violent and ruthless nature of terrorism. We have to acknowledge the fact, that the world we live in is not safe at all. These terrorists are everywhere and they will do whatever in their power to establish their beliefs. The main religious fanaticisms that are known as of today are the Muslims and the Jews. And of course then there are the others who are engaged in secular terrorist activities to fulfill their other needs.
1

Terrorism

he definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the International community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged. In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self determination.

Number of terrorist groups (1960s -200s) These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International terrorism that incorporates a single, allencompassing, and legally binding, definition of terrorism. Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance 2

unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

The Major Types

n early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force. The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.
1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

Civil disorder A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism Violent criminal behavior designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Non-Political terrorism Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective. Quasi-terrorism The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasiterrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different. Limited political terrorism Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state. Official or state terrorism Referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions. It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy. 3

Causes of Terrorism
All terrorist acts are basically motivated by two things: 1. Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrongwhen they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.

2. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

People who choose terrorist tactics are also persuaded that violence, or the threat of violence, is effective. There is some question about who actually chooses terrorism, and it may be unfair to think of young recruits, such as some suicide bombers today, who are seduced by cult-like methods of indoctrination as completely culpable for their choices. Among other few causes of terrorisms are:
Ethnicity, nationalism/separatism - Some argue that ethnicity and injustices (perceived or real) is one of the root causes of terrorism. Well, perhaps, this is true, but not totally. While one may be brainwashed into thinking that your people are being persecuted, when in fact they are not, the truth is also that there are millions who are killed by their own, of the same ethnic group and religion. Saddam Hussein killed his own people for example and one can argue that he perpetrated the greatest amount of atrocities than any other foreign power, but yet he was viewed as a "hero" in his part of the world, by people of countries surrounding Iraq. Why? This again demonstrates the fact that ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

Poverty and economic disadvantage - One of the most popular explanations is that poverty breeds terrorism and hence is a cause of terrorism. I don't think this is true at all. You can find my hub titled "The Myth of The Poor Terrorist" that details relatively well-off (rich or middle class, welleducated) terrorists, who've carried out or planned to carry out terrorist strikes. So, I don't really buy this connection between poverty and terrorism. There are also many poor places around the

world where there are no terrorists at all (parts of South America/Africa/Asia come to mind), so this idea is just a favorite catch line of some intellectuals, who can't find a better explanation.

Disaffected intelligentsia - If you look at some of the high-profile conflict areas and the individuals involved, you almost always see that there is an intellectual class that rules the hordes of terrorists. There is a brain behind all the bombings you see, isn't there? And in most cases, these are educated, well-to-do people who have everything in life, but have a sense of disaffection/alienation. There aren't happy with the way the world is at present and want to do something about it. These are the most dangerous terrorists, far more than any of the foot soldiers who carry out the actual attack. These are the brains, who brainwash young confused men and quite often children as well.

Motivation

E I

xpert suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness. Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.

Cultural Factors

slamic radicalism is the most notorious form of the new culture of terrorism, but it is far from the only variety of cultural trends motivating terrorist activity. Numerous cults, whose emergence in many cases has been synchronized with the turn of the new millennium, have also posed an in creasing threat. Finally, the American religious right has been active 5

with escalating and destructive objectives, although law enforcement presence has restrained these groups. Another feature of religious cults that makes them incredibly dangerous is the personality-driven nature of these groups. Cultist devotion to one leader leaves followers less able to make their own moral decisions or to consult other sources of reasoning. If that leader is emotionally or mentally unstable, the ramifications can be catastrophic. The more dangerous religious terrorist groups from traditional faiths may often share this feature of the cult: a charismatic leader who exerts a powerful influence over the members of the group.

Political & Organizational Factors

number of developments on the international scene has created conditions ripe for mass-casualty terrorism. Gross inequalities in economic resources and standards of living between different parts of the world are a popular reason given for the ardency and viciousness of contemporary terrorists, although governmental collapse in failed states as a breeding ground for terrorists presents a more convincing variation on this logic.42 However, there is no comprehensive explanation in print for how poverty causes terror, nor is there a demonstrated correlation between the two.43 The intrusion of Western values and institutions into the Islamic world through the process of free-market globalization is an alternative explanation for the growth of terrorism, which is the weaker partys method of choice to strike back.44 the process of globalization, which involves the technological, political, economic, and cultural diminution of boundaries between countries across the world, has insinuated a self-interested, inexorable, corrupting market culture into traditional communities. Many see these forces as threatening their way of life. At the same time that globalization has provided a motivation for terrorism, it has also facilitated methods for it.

Technological Factors

n addition to the cultural and religious motivations of terrorists and the political and organizational enabling factors, technology has evolved in ways that provide unprecedented opportunities for terrorists. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the possibility of proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state users is the primary factor that has significantly increased the danger of nuclear terrorism. However, non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction and information technology also have created opportunities for terrorists 6

that are in many ways more threatening than radiological terrorism because these alternatives are more probable.

Religion Fanaticism

eligious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in faith-based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system

of belief, viewpoint or opinion. Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings. Religious fanaticism is fanaticism related to a person's, or a group's, devotion to a religion. However, religious fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another's behavior or belief is determined by the core assumptions of the one doing the evaluation. As such, there is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position. As with any fanaticism (e.g. militantism, and anti-superstitious), it has the danger to be bigoted, rely largely on sweeping statements (in some cases entirely) and generalizations often twisting what its opponents are actually saying (or the meaning) to what the speaker wishes their opponent had actually said/ meant. Often the arguments come across as bigoted, completely unwilling and unable to fully take on an opponents point at any stage, just like their religious extremist counterparts, whom they openly despise (although they are often assertions and not arguments, again just like many religious fanatics) and will actively demonize those they opponents.

Features

teffen gives several features associated with religious fanaticism or extremism. Calling it "the demonic", he says: The demonic meets spiritual needs... human beings have a spiritual longing for understanding and meaning, and given the mystery of existence, that spiritual quest 7

can only be fulfilled through some kind of relationship with ultimacy, whether or not that takes the form as a "transcendent other." Religioneven demonic religionhas power to meet this need for meaning and transcendent relationship.

Demonic religion is attractive... because demonic religion is real religion and meets real human spiritual needs, it presents itself in such a way that those who find their way into it come to express themselves in ways consistent with the particular vision of ultimacy at the heart of this religious form. People are not attracted to demonic religion because it is false or a perversion of religion; they are attracted by all it promises to do for them, and more often than not it delivers on its promise. The demonic is a live option ... the demonic is presents itself in competition with another way to be religious, the life-affirming option, and it sometimes wins. It wins because it is present to the moral consciousness as a live option that addresses spiritual need and satisfies human longing for meaning, power, and belonging.

Popular Examples of Religious Fanaticism

Christianity (as Catholicism)

ver since Catholicism was brought to power, those in authority have sought to expand and control the church, often through the fanatical use of force. Grant Shafer says, "Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence. The start of Christian fanatic rule came with the Roman Emperor Constantine I as Catholicism. Ellens says, "When Christianity came to power during the rule of Constantine, it proceeded almost too viciously; repressing all non-Christians and Christians who did not line up with official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice". An example of Christians who did not line up with Orthodox ideology is the Donatists, who "refused to accept repentant clergy who had formerly given way to apostasy when persecuted". Fanatic Christian activity, as Catholicism, continued into the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Catholics, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence , said: The Crusades were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control. On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, 8

the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church. Shafer adds that, "When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately". Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was the monarchy's way of making sure their people stayed within Catholic Christianity. Selengut said, "The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily "internal enemies" of the church". The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity. Selengut continues, saying: The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques; including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts' beliefs were genuine. During the 19th century, most Christian nations have adopted the principle of separation between church and state. Religious fanaticism is since an internal problem of the Christian churches or merely a personal (psychological) problem. However, this is not so in most modern Muslim countries (except, for example, Turkey under Ataturk.)

Islam

slam has become the most publicized religion with members who display fanatic tendencies. One of the recent most catastrophic example would the 9/11 attacks which were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On that morning, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and thousands of those working in the buildings. Both towers collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. A third airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. Hijackers had redirected the fourth plane toward Washington, D.C., targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House, but crashed it in a field near Shanksville in 9

rural Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to retake control of the airliner. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

Nearly 3,000 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks and suspicion quickly fell on alQaeda. Its leader Osama bin Laden initially denied involvement, but in 2004 he finally claimed responsibility for the attacks. Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda members, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. It was not until May 2011 that bin Laden was found and killed.

Funding For Terrorism

tate sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and some other terrorist groups were funded by the Soviet Union. The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine "Revolutionary Tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money". Revolutionary taxes are typically extorted from businesses, and they also "play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population". Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling, fraud and robbery. 10

The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.

Tactics Used in Terrorism

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare will not be effective because forces vary greatly in power. The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different state Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups Imposition of a particular form of government Economic deprivation of a population Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army Religious fanaticism

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison. There is concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers.

Examples Of Terrorism
In Bangladesh there are series of terrorists attack that went through the past decade and among them the most notable was the Grenade Attack on our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The grenade attack on Awami League rally at Bangabandhu Avenue on 21 August was undoubtedly aimed at assassination of Sheikh Hasina. Before she could leave the place of occurrence there were at least 9 grenade blasts and many rounds of shooting. A very determined and well-planned attack was launched and it was carried out in about a couple of 11

minutes. Despite heavy, although less than normal, deployment of police personnel and strict security arrangements in the area the criminals fled the spot safely. Sheikh Hasina escaped this dastardly attack as a number of Awami League leaders and workers laid down their lives, some in attempting to save her and others as innocent victims of the barbarous arrack. We bemoan the loss of Ivy Rahman, secretary of womens affairs of Awami League, and 21 other dead souls. Hundreds of leaders and workers are still fighting for life and many have been permanently maimed. We pray for their recovery and solace.

Another one worth saying is the unforgettable BDR. The 2009 Bangladesh Rifles revolt was a mutiny staged on 25 and 26 February 2009 in Dhaka by a section of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), a Bangladeshi paramilitary force mainly associated with guarding the borders of the country. The headquarters of the Bangladesh Rifles is situated in Pilkhana. The unruly BDR soldiers took over the BDR headquarters, killed army officers including the Director-General, fired on some civilians, held many of their officers hostage, vandalized property and looted valuables. By the second day unrest spread to 12 other towns and cities. The mutiny ended as the mutineers surrendered their arms and released the hostages after a series of discussions and negotiations with the government.

Actions Against Terrorism

esponses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.

Specific types of actions include: Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers Preemptive or reactive military action Increased intelligence and surveillance activities Preemptive humanitarian activities 12

More permissive interrogation and detention policies

The term counter terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors. According to a report by Washington Post, "Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States." The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maxmilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund

Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists...loose on the people" of France. In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon. The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist groups. Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its modern meaning.

Religious Fanaticism vs Terrorism

For the religious terrorist, violence is first and foremost a sacramental act or divine duty executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative. Terrorism thus assumes a transcendental dimension, and its perpetrators are consequently unconstrained by the political, moral or practical constraints that may affect other terrorists. Whereas secular terrorists, even if they have the capacity to do so, rarely attempt indiscriminate killing on a massive scale because such tactics are not consonant with their political aims and therefore are regarded as counterproductive, if not immoral, religious terrorists often seek the elimination of broadly defined categories of enemies and accordingly regard such large-scale violence not only as morally justified but as a necessary expedient for 13

the attainment of their goals. Religion conveyed by sacred text and imparted via clerical authorities claiming to speak for the divine - therefore serves as a legitimization force Religious and secular terrorists also differ in their constituencies. Whereas secular terrorists attempt to appeal to a constituency variously composed of actual and potential sympathizers, members of the communities they purport to defend or the aggrieved people for whom they claim to speak, religious terrorists are at once activists and constituents engaged in what they regard as a total war. They seek to appeal to no other constituency than themselves. Thus the restraints on violence that are imposed on secular terrorists by the desire to appeal to a tacitly supportive or uncommitted constituency are not relevant to the religious terrorist. Finally, religious and secular terrorists also have starkly different perceptions of themselves and their violent acts. Where secular terrorists regard violence either as a way of instigating the correction of a flaw in a system that is basically good or as a means to foment the creation of a new system, religious terrorists see themselves not as components of a system worth

preserving but as outsiders, seeking fundamental changes in the existing order. This sense of alienation also enables the religious terrorist to contemplate far more destructive and deadly types of terrorist operations than secular terrorists, and indeed to embrace a far more open-ended category of enemies for attack.

Conclusion

The primary factors which differentiate religious from secular terrorism can also serve to make religious terrorism much more dangerous. When violence is a sacramental act rather than a tactic for achieving political goals, there are no moral limits to what might be done and seemingly little chance for a negotiated settlement. When violence is designed to eliminate an enemy from the face of the earth, genocide cant be far behind. So, If anyone thinks that the above scenario is unreal and never will happen, think again?
What would a New Yorker have said on September 10th, 2001, if someone had told him/her what was going to happen to the Big Apple on September 11th? 14

Beloved brothers and sisters loyal to the True and Living God, the God of Love and Mercy, join us in prayers, and then, some more prayer for the conversion of Religious Fanatics. Only God can deliver them from the power of Satan. He taught us to "Pray for our enemies and persecutors" and we obey while claiming His promises for the deliverance of those for whom there is still hope. - Thank You Dr.Ahmed

References
1. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1998). 2. PaulWilkinson, Terrorist Targets and Tactics: New Risks to World Order , (Washington: Research Institute for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism, December 1990). 3. Hoffman, Inside Terrorism. 4. David C. Rapoport, Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions, American Political 5. Bruce Hoffman, Holy Terror: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative, 6. Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror Mandated by God, Terrorism and Political Violence. 7. D. W. Brackett, Holy Terror: Armageddon in Tokyo (New York: Weatherhill, 1996).

8. Ellens J. Harold, Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity,

and Islam.

9. Farr, Thomas. "Islam's Way to Freedom." 10. Johnson, J. T. "Opinion, Jihad and Just War." 11. Selengut, Charles. Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. 15

12. Shafer, Grant. "Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity." 13. Steffen, Lloyd. Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious
Violence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

14. Tanks deployed over Dhaka Mutiny. Reuters. 26 February 2009.

16