COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM Lessons from the Abrahamic Faiths An EWI Policy Research Report OCTOBER 2007 SYNOPSIS To counter violent extremism, community leaders and governments must address a multitude of risk factors that contribute to it: political grievances, structural inequalities, ethnic tensions, social change that challenges previously dominant social groups or sectors, feelings of humiliation, and a culture of violence. Countering violent extremism is a long-term undertaking that requires patience and political will. This EWI Policy Research Report concentrates on: what compels individuals to take violent action in the name of religion; what makes the message of these extremist movements appealing; and what role these movements play in actively recruiting and priming individuals for violent action. EWI set out to compare three cases of religious extremism to test the hypothesis that this phenomenon has particular manifestations but universal foundations. There were a number of disparities between the three cases, with the most obvious difference being the faiths themselves. Beyond this, the social, economic, and political contexts in which they are situated differ, at times dramatically. For example, in the Jewish and Christian examples, the extremists in question share – nominally perhaps – the same faith as the majority of those who comprise their governments’ power structures. This is not the case for Muslims in the UK, who are not only a religious minority, but also one that is comprised of a number of different minority ethnic groups. COSMIC WAR: DOING GOD’S WORK On an individual level, those who have eventually embraced violence in the name of religion came to see their grievances not in secular, local terms, but as part of a civilizational struggle or a “cosmic war.”1 This is a grand clash between the forces of good and evil. Religious extremists advocating violence see themselves as warriors of God and agents of historic change. The theology is employed in defense of a notion of the way things should be and God is seen as a defender of that particular civilization. Thus, in these three case studies, we found the dominant characteristic to be a Manichean worldview (a stark “us” versus “them” approach) and that this served as the rationale for violence. This “good versus evil” image is ingrained in the extremist’s personal identity. The religious belief system becomes the pathway through which extremists define themselves. Such an unforgiving worldview is attractive because it offers simplicity in a complex world. It offers certainty to its adherents that they are on God’s side, because of their belief in how civilization should be ordered. Often, these extremists are already isolated, and, as they become more radicalized, extremists further try to isolate themselves by attempting to recreate in their daily lives a microcosm of their ideal world. However, recruitment also takes place through a broad range of normal avenues, as well as social activities. RECRUITMENT: TO MAKE DAILY LIFE BETTER Each of these movements seeks to interpret, and hence clarify, for its members and potential recruits their social, economic, and political realities through the prism of a religious belief system. Often, this begins with focusing on concrete grievances and later exposing recruits to what can be dubbed more esoteric appeals. These belief systems on offer almost always possess a compelling logical consistency and simplicity to explain the source of the grievance and the path to salvation. 1 Mark Juergensmeyer, The New Cold War (London: University of California Press, 1993), p. 155. i The message is appealing in its simplicity: follow the path of God and you and your community will gain (or regain) dominance. It provides a vision of what civilization should be, a roadmap for making it so, and the justification to do whatever is necessary to either defend or upend the status quo accordingly. PUNISH THE WRONG-DOER The message also generally provides someone to blame, since, in most cases where people are frustrated or alienated because of perceived or real grievances, the desire may exist to focus the ensuing anger on a villain. As Ted Gurr noted long ago, “discontented people act aggressively only when they become aware of the supposed source of frustration.”2 People need to focus their discontent on a villain if they are to be energized to carry out or support violence. Ideology, especially religious ideology, can function to explicate who is an ally and who is an enemy. ROLE OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS Despite the fact that the religious language and rulings of extremists are often in direct contradiction with the central tenets of their respective faiths, religious texts are still used to play a major role in providing ideological incitement and support. Language both supporting and opposing violence can be found in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, and the Quran and Hadith. In the case of extremists across all three religions, there is an almost complete disregard for more universal or humanistic texts in favor of the most insular and violent ones. In this regard, the language religious extremists favor is fully representative of the worldview they share: insular, violent, devoid of humanism, and Manichean. Through their preference for these texts, extremists of each faith commit violent acts with a full sense of legitimacy. Believing the state has failed them they reject state law, and thus God’s law supersedes man’s law, and renders the state’s monopoly over violence moot. Religion provides the rationale and justification for violence, in that way increasing the likelihood that a disaffected individual will engage in violence. Thus, a person’s susceptibility to beliefs that rationalize violence is a function of their discontent. By introducing religious justifications for violence, extremist leaders create a framework in which normal constraints become irrelevant and violence is more easily rationalized, and in some cases demanded. Religion alters the cost/benefit dynamic, removing biological and material self- interest, and replacing it with what one scholar has termed spiritual self-interest. Serving God, in this case through violence, becomes a central means for salvation – the true reward. TRIGGERS FOR ACTION The violent act itself, however, is most often triggered by real-world events such as the desire for revenge, occurrence of a significant date, and belief the enemy is closing in or that other pathways toward change or redemption have failed. Additionally, group dynamics often play a role, and just as an individual may have a tipping point that pushes or pulls him toward violence, so too may a movement. Social movement structures and group activities play a major role in ideological reinforcement and building support for violent action, but are generally successful at maintaining an effective dichotomy between the public face of the movement and its covert, violent underground. To ultimately prevail, it is necessary to undermine the ideological and moral legitimacy that these movements provide to their members, supporters and would-be recruits. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS We conclude that community leaders, not governments, have the bigger role to play in countering violent extremism. This asks a lot of a constituency with no legal responsibility for maintaining security. Government policy and action must be calibrated to create the space where moderate faith leaders and civil society can operate. Government is thus responsible for taking a traditionally liberal approach, i.e. protecting against attacks, enforcing existing laws, and addressing risk factors for 2 Ted Gurr, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: University of Princeton Press, 1971), 119. ii extremism. Leading persons of faith and civil society must be responsible for proactively intervening to undermine the ideology and perversion of religion that leads to the commission of extremist violence. For policymakers: Adopt a “rule of law” approach, refrain from militarization of domestic conflicts with extremists, and avoid interfering in ideological issues that are more effectively addressed by religious and civil society. In essence, government must provide the space for faith communities and civil society to intervene. Be consistent both in language and treatment towards all extremist actors, regardless of religious background, so as not to exacerbate radicalization. Focus on the criminality of the acts involved rather than the ideological justification claimed for such acts. Address asymmetries of knowledge, both in the government and society at large. For leading persons of faith: Work within the faith to expand outreach of moderates to radicals or potential radicals. Improve religious literacy in order to provide counter-positioning to extremist dogma. For civil society: Work to create a platform for discussion, action, mediation, and intervention. For all stakeholders: Reframe our own Manichean worldview by toning down rhetoric and avoiding polarizing language in order to drain support for extremists from their wider communities. iii FOREWORD Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, many religious leaders, civil society organizations, and government agencies have increased their focus on countering extremist violence committed in the name of religion. Yet this type of violence was prevalent long before the attacks of September 11, and almost all faiths have, or have had, their share of extremists prepared to commit violence in the name of