Research On Religion » September 11

Richard Nielsen on Deadly Clerics

tonygill — Sun, 06 May 2018 08:00:54 +0000

Political rebellion and violence in the Middle East has recently been associated with religious belief and rhetoric, often spurred on by the writings and recordings of Muslim clerics. What motivates imams to advocate such tactics? Prof. Richard Nielsen, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, answers this question with reference to previous theories of revolution and an examination of the career paths of imams who advocate violent jihad. His findings reveal fascinating insights into what prompts individuals down the path of violence and suggests possible solutions to mitigating terrorism.

Our discussion begins with Rich recalling how he, himself, was led down an academic path of studying violent jihad. Initially on a STEM path, his experience watching the September 11 terrorist attacks unfold and a chance encounter with a professor at a Harry Potter film moved him in the direction of studying political science and international relations. He noted that most work on political violence in the Islamic world focuses on lay radicalization, so he turned his attention to what motivated various clerics to radicalize. Rich lays out the parameters of what constitutes an imam in Sunni Islam, pointing out that there is no central authority to determine membership in a priesthood exactly. We learn that “imam” means “to be in the front,” which opens up the definition of who speaks for Islam officially to a wide range of individuals. Rich observes that many people who are not formally trained in theology often present themselves as religious scholars (e.g., Osama bin Laden), sometimes employing the mundane tactic of posing in front of bookshelves to present an intellectual aura. We also discuss what a fatwa is, correcting some of the misperceptions that Westerners have. (Rich also reveals what the topic of the most downloaded fatwa is, and the answer may surprise you.)

Following this discussion, we move into a theoretical discussion of why men rebel. Rich covers the various existing explanations for why Muslims have joined militant movements in recent decades, including ideas that such behavior is inherent in the theology, that it is a response to modernity and secularizing pressure, and the rise of transnational philanthropy. Rich finds little credence in the theological uniqueness of Islam, though he does note that faith can motivate people to undertake actions that overcome pure self-interest. In contrast to these pre-existing theories, he advances a claim that builds upon the work of Ted Gurr who argued that rebel leaders are often prompted into their career paths when they face relative deprivation — expectations about where they should be in life do not match with their current circumstances. Prof. Nielsen then argues that many of the Muslim imams who have turned to advocating for political violence started out with academic ambitions that were frustrated by state action. He illustrates this with a few examples. Our conversation then turns to the use of social media in spreading jihadist thought, and whether or not Gurr’s theory of “relative deprivation” (or Nielsen’s notion of “blocked ambition”) is more noticeable now given that the costs of organizing collective action have decreased with telecommunications technology. Rich points out that sustaining collective action still requires organizational incentives, but it is now more possible for aggrieved individuals to get their message out, be it by Twitter or (a few decades ago) cassette tapes.

We finish the conversation with Prof. Nielsen’s reflections on how political violence can be combatted. He argues for less involvement of religion in politics, something he doesn’t see as a realistic option in Islamic nations in the near future. Another option, though, is to not block that intellectual pathways of budding scholars and clerics. We both note how this is very reflective of our own academic industry. Rich then finishes with some reflections about what he has learned over the course of his studies in the past two decades, noting how individuals often have post-hoc rationalizations for the actions they undertake, and how he started as a firm rational choice scholar devoted to statistical methodology, but developed an appreciation for social psychology and anthropological methods to research (without abandoning his former theoretical and methodological frameworks). Recorded: May 3, 2018.

(Note: At one point during the discussion, Tony accidently attributes “relative deprivation theory” to Charles Tilly and more institutional explanations to Ted Gurr, a mistake that should reveal that he wasn’t paying attention in graduate school.)

Deadly Clerics: Blocked Ambition and the Paths to Jihad, by Richard Nielsen.

Why Men Rebel, by Ted Gurr (mentioned in podcast).

The Audacious Aesthetic, by Flagg Miller (mentioned in podcast).

Masters of the Word, by William Bernstein (mentioned in podcast).

RELATED PODCASTS

Ron Hassner on Religion on the Battlefield.

Ron Hassner on Religion in the Military.

Ron Hassner on Sacred Spaces and Holy Conflict.

Sean Everton on Dark Networks.

Nathan Brown on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Jason Klocek on Religious Violence and Repression.

Religious Liberty and Violent Religious Extremism.

Eli Berman on Religious Terrorism.

John Owen IV on Confronting Political Islam, Lessons from the Past.

Peter Henne on Religion-State Relations and Counterterrorism

tonygill — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 08:00:57 +0000

What determines whether or not a foreign government cooperates with US counterterrorism efforts? Prof. Peter Henne, and assistant professor of political science at the University of Vermont, examines the variation in how different governments in Muslim nations respond to US overtures. We discuss a bit of Dr. Henne’s background as a terrorism/counterterrorism analyst, why he became interested in the topic, and then dive into the content of his new book Islamic Politics, Muslim States, and Counterterrorism Tensions (out with Cambridge University Press). He begins by reviewing the general literature in international relations that seeks to explain why nations agree to cooperate with one another. We review international self-interest (the realism school), domestic political pressures, and then turn to how religion might play into this mix via the theories of “civilization” theorists such as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. While each perspective adds something to our understanding about why nations would yield to pressure from the US to help in quashing terrorist groups, Peter proposes an institutional perspective that takes into account pre-existing religion-state relations within Muslim nations, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the past half century, and the international context. We review some of the dimensions of US counterterrorism policy and then Prof. Henne lays out his theory of why some states would be more cooperative with the US than other states. Whether a state is “open” or “closed” politically matters a great deal, as does how governments have structured their relations with Islamic organizations, including militants. The history of counterterrorism since the early 1990s is the presented and we review some of the larger trends in counterterrorism efforts, noting that Africa has been the least cooperative region with the U.S. Our attention then turns to three case studies that present different religion-state relations: Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey. Pakistan, while relatively open politically at times, must wrangle with Islamic activism, support for such activism in the military, and the conflict in Kashmir when weighing its policy options towards the US. The UAE, by contrast, has exercised greater control over Islamic groups in civil society and although there has been funding of militant groups through charitable channels, the interest and ability to manage these groups more effectively have made the Emirates a more consistent partner with the US. Finally, we examine Turkey that has had a history of overt secularism, favored by the military leaders, but which has also seen an uptick in religious activism within civil society and amongst political parties. This has led to Turkey as having one of the most complex and nuanced positions towards US counterterrorism efforts, including the surprise decision by the government not to participate in the US invasion of Iraq in the early 21st century. We close with some speculation by Prof. Henne where US relations with Muslim nations are heading in the near future, as well as what he has learned over the course of his study of this topic. (It should be noted that while we were recording this, there was a three-alarm fire on the University of Vermont campus, but Dr. Henne — not in the building that was burning — stayed on for the interview. How cool is that?) Recorded: August 3, 2017.

Islamic Politics, Muslim States, and Counterterrorism Tensions, by Peter Henne.

RELATED PODCASTS

Podcasts on the topic of Islam and Politics.

David Smith on Religion, International Relations, and Foreign Policy.

Lawrence Rubin on Islam and Ideational Balancing.

William Inboden on Religious Liberty, Foreign Policy, and the Arab Spring.

Thomas Farr on Religion, Religious Liberty, and US Diplomacy.

Jeremy Menchik on Islam, Tolerance, Democracy, and Indonesia.

Denis Dragovic on Religion and State-Building.

Robert George on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (and banjo music).

Daniel Philpott on Religious Resurgence and Democratization.

Melissa Matthes on Sermons after Tragedies

tonygill — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:00:22 +0000

With the 12th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks upon us, we examine how clergy respond to national tragedies in their sermons. What does a priest or pastor say to a congregation looking for answers to an unimaginable and shocking event? Are there any common themes that emerge among clergy when confronted with national tragedy, or are their responses conditioned by the specific context. To address these questions, we invited Prof. Melissa Matthes – associate professor of government and the humanities at the US Coast Guard Academy – to talk about her research project examining sermons following such momentous events. She has been reading sermons that were delivered in the weeks following the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the assassinations of John F. Kennedy (1963) and Martin Luther King (1968), the Los Angeles riots of 1992, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (1995), and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (2001).

We begin with Dr. Matthes’s account of how she came to undertake this study, which was prompted by her personal experience with the events of 9/11 given that her husband was working in NYC at the time and that she knew several victims of the tragedy. Melissa attended services at her local parish within 48 hours of 9/11 and talked with a number of other colleagues who did as well. The fact that people all around the country flocked to houses of worship almost immediately is an indication of how important religious denominations remain as part of our civic education. Melissa notes that people turn towards the clergy in times of crisis for answers on how to make sense of what seems unimaginable.

Interestingly, Melissa noted her disappointment with the relative lack of mourning for the victims of 9/11 in many of the sermons at that time. This prompts an interesting discussion about the role of public mourning and grief in times of tragedy. Prof. Matthes references the famous Greek play Antigone and notes how Adolph Hitler not only banned that piece of literature but also prohibited German citizens from attending large scale public funerals for fear that they would be a rallying point for political opposition. Tony notes how important funerals have been in recent years with the publicly expressed grief surrounding death of a Tunisian street vendor setting off what we today call the “Arab Spring.”

Dr. Matthes then details the nature of her study, explaining the choice of crises she examined, how she selected the sermons, and the questions she set out to examine. Primarily, Melissa wanted to investigate the nature of public mourning, how church-state relations were viewed by the clergy during moments of crisis, and how the clergy conceived of patriotism. Tony then asks a series of questions about whether many of these sermons – dating back to Pearl Harbor and ending with 9/11 – contain common theological themes or references to biblical passages. He also inquires whether she noted denominational differences in the nature of the sermons or whether or not there was a call to be find more ecumenical common ground in our nation’s responses.

We then walk through several of Dr. Matthes’s case studies, with particular emphasis on Pearl Harbor, the JFK and MLK assassinations, and September 11. Interestingly, we discover that the sermons immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor do not contain “rally around the flag” messages, but instead emphasize the need to promote a peaceful response. In part, Melissa argues that this emphasis is due to clergy feeling somewhat betrayed by their close association with the US government during World War I and a desire to stand back from the government at the time, much to the dismay of President Franklin Roosevelt. With respect to the two assassinations occurring in the 1960s, Melissa notes that John Kennedy’s death was conceived as an act of martyrdom and in Christ-like terms, a surprising response given that Kennedy was not necessarily all that popular just prior to his death. Moreover, she observed that many clergy tended to blame society for “pulling the trigger,” and use JFK’s death as a moment of national reflection. The response to Martin Luther King’s assassination was different. Surprisingly, far fewer sermons were saved following that event (as compared to the Kennedy assassination where people actually sent sermons to the JFK presidential library). Melissa notes a sense of “national resignation” amongst the clergy following the death of MLK and also notes how the response of black clergy differed from white pastors.

In terms of the response to September 11, and in much contrast to the much-analogized attack on Pearl Harbor, clergy responded with sermons that advocated “lining up with the state” to fix the problem and then to move forward. Gone, to a significant extent, was the sense of public mourning that had accompanied earlier tragedies. We finish with Melissa’s broad reflections on her study. She is most impressed with the fact of how relevant churches remain in the life of the U.S. even while participation in institutional religion seems to be on the wane. Recorded: September 8, 2011.

RELATED LINKS

Melissa Matthes’s bio at the US Coast Guard Academy.

RELATED PODCASTS

Ron Mock on Pacificism, War, and Terrorism.

Ron Mock on Pacifism, War, and Terrorism

tonygill — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:00:02 +0000

In light of the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and with an eye towards more recent assaults on US diplomatic missions overseas, we explore the topic of Christian pacifism in the face of war and terrorism with Prof. Ron Mock, associate professor of political science at George Fox University and the director of GFU’s Center for Peace & Justice. Our interview begins, though, with Tony posing a questions he has asked several other guests in the past: As a Christian, would you have fought in the American War of Independence in the 1770s? We offer up this question early in the podcast as a means of exploring the dimensions of Prof. Mock’s own pacifism. In the process of this discussion, Ron talks about his background growing up in the Church of God and why he joined the Religious Society of Friends (i.e., Quakers). The conversation then returns to whether or not Ron sees the War of Independence as a just war and what the colonists could have done differently at that time. We then fast forward to the contemporary era and Tony asks Ron where he was on the morning of September 11, 2001 and how he reacted to the news of those terrorist attacks. We use this discussion to set the table for our discussion of pacifism by realizing that there is a natural, perhaps innate, tendency for humans to react to such events with anger and a desire to strike back. This leads Ron, who is a self-identified pacifist, to offer up an intriguing critique of pacifism wherein he notes that pacifists have rarely struggled with the dual Christian mandate of loving both your enemy and your neighbor. Sometimes, as we note with a couple hypothetical scenarios, can be difficult. If an enemy is attacking your neighbor, can you sit by idly or be so forgiving of the aggressor that you neglect your duty to the victim? This prompts us to look at the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who during World War II faced a difficult choice as a Christian pacifist. We then turn to the issue of terrorism in the contemporary world and Prof. Mock offers us his five-part definition of terrorism as a means for understanding how to respond to this threat. He proceeds to offer a critique of contemporary US foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in particular the use of unmanned drones. Ron is concerned with the process that many militaries (or terrorists) have to dehumanize their enemies and drone attacks only augment this problem even more. He then offers up his solution from a pacifist perspective on how to deal with such threats. Recorded: September 14, 2012.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Ron Mock’s biography at George Fox University.

Loving Without Giving In: Christian Responses to Terrorism and Tyranny, by Ron Mock.

When the Rain Returns: Toward Justice and Reconciliation in Israel and Palestine, by Ron Mock

RELATED PODCASTS

Should Christians Have Fought in the US War of Independence?

Sean Everton on Dark Networks.

Eli Berman on Religious Terrorism.

Monica Toft on Religion, Violence and Civil War.

Christian Novetzke on Kung Fu Fighting and Eastern Religions.