In the aftermath of violent attacks, public commentary quickly reaches for a familiar label like “religiously motivated terrorism”. The term sounds intuitive but it is analytically flawed, socially harmful and counter-productive to both national security and social cohesion.
I would argue that a more accurate and useful concept is “identity-motivated terrorism”: the use or threat of violence against civilians to advance an agenda grounded in the perceived defence, restoration or supremacy of a collective identity.
This shift in language is not semantic politeness. It reflects what decades of research in political violence, radicalisation and security studies have consistently shown — namely, that religion is not the causal driver of terrorism, even when religious language is loudly invoked. The underlying motivation is identity: racial, political and/or civilisational.
This is like 1984. You can’t speak the truth.
It is quite correct to say that Islamist terrorism is based on an extreme minority interpretation of Islam. It is not correct to say that it isn’t based on religious belief.
The attackers were supporters of Islamic State – whose mission is to explicitly have a state run on 9th century Islamic rules.
Since the 9/11 2011 attacks there have been over 50,000 seperate attacks where Islam was a factor. Not 50, not 500, not even 5,000 but 50,000. To claim religion is not a factor is crazy.
The death toll since 9/11 is 313,262 killed and 380,603 wounded. I don;t think those victims think it is socially harmful to call a spade a spade.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
5 comments:
ABC left wing pinko rag…. The only place that still likes Albo, and the only place where you will find commentary on the latest hate speech laws that aligns a little bit with the govt line.
>"I would argue that a more accurate and useful concept is “identity-motivated terrorism”: the use or threat of violence against civilians to advance an agenda grounded in the perceived defence, restoration or supremacy of a collective identity."
That's right. The 'collective identity' here is the Umma - Google definition: "The ... collective community of Muslim believers, transcending national and racial boundaries, emphasizing shared faith." Halim Rane doesn't realise it, but all he is doing is reinforcing the religious nature of 'religious terrorism'.
I prefer a more down-to-earth definition and to hell with semantics if people are being murdered and killed.
There is a long list of terms we can use, so you can argue all you want about a correct definition rather than what we need to do to solve the problems of -
-Religious wackos, nutjobs, fruitcakes, fruit loops ETC
It is also complete nonsense to deflect the underlying motivation as "identity: racial, political and/or societal"
Especially when every society has been founded based on a religion and the underlying values.
So called intellectual works like that contribute nothing to solving a problem.
Their only practical use is to perhaps take a printed version to mop up the mess from the acts of "religiously motivated terrorism".
That or use on one's own backside
While sympathetic with the proposition that Islamic terrorism is, well, Islamist, I'm not sure you can sugar the pill with an attempt to portray ISIS as having an extreme minority interpretation of Islam. All my reading on the matter forces me to the conclusion that violence, terrorism, misogeny and refusal to accept dissent is simply business as usual for mainstream Islam. If some adherants choose to cherry-pick the good bits from the Koran and ignore the rest, rhey immediately risk being declared apostates, the penalty for which is death. I presume that's why you never hear condemnation of terrorist activity from "ordinary" Muslims; because the incentive to keep their heads down is stronger than the incentive to challenge the status quo. And that makes them as culpable for the violence as ISIS.
Yes, Jones Boy , I agree , apparently the Muslim who wrestled the gun off the shooter at Bondi has been condemned as a traitor by some Muslims.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.