RELIGIOSCOPE
– You have emphasized
the emergence or re-emergence of religious motivations for
terrorist activities over the past 20 years. But there were
already terrorist groups that were involved in actions justified
in part by religious background. Were people in the IRA
religious people or rather non-practicing members of their
faith community, using their religious affiliation as a
kind of ethnic, political divide? Do we have indication
that religious factors had been playing a role in some contemporary
terrorist groups before the 1980s?
Bruce
Hoffman –
I think the main question is really what role does religion
play in the justification and legitimization of violence.
Even when terrorists are religious, the fact that they may
worship in churches, may have been devout in their practices,
is almost immaterial. The key is whether they are using liturgy
or religious texts to justify or explain the violence or attract
recruits and whether there is some sort of clerical figures
involved in some leadership roles.
That
often struck me as the main difference. Virtually the entirety
of the IRA are Catholics. And it is about the Catholic minority
in Northern Ireland. That is the problem in Northern Ireland
as it is a case of two minorities. The Protestants are a minority
in the island as a whole and the Catholics a minority in the
province. Two peoples are striving to maintain majority status.
First of all, they do not refer to themselves as terrorists.
They call themselves paramilitaries. Secondly, they do not
call themselves Catholic and Protestant. They call themselves
nationalist, loyalist or unionist paramilitary. They consciously
do not make a religious connection. Even if they go to church,
they do not use liturgy or the Bible to justify their violence,
they are not involving clerics in its justification or legitimization.
I think it is very different from the contemporary religious
terrorism we see today.
Religion’s
importance in contemporary terrorism is as a means of communication.
It really shows how religion is being twisted. Bin Laden himself
does not have any theological credentials, yet he issues fatwas
because he knows people will listen to them, that it is an
enormously helpful means to enhance his message to attract
new support – and truly is a perversion of religion. Now you
do of course have clerical figures in Islam, in Judaism, in
white supremacist Christian Churches in the United States,
using liturgy to justify violence, including Bin Laden citing
the Quran again, a perverse interpretation of it.
You
do see clerical militants in their own right using religion,
but more and more I think that, in a world that is increasingly
devoid of ideology, religion is being used artificially to
fill that void. I think Bin Laden himself is very cynical
about that. Despite the efforts of the United States and the
West to say this is not a clash between civilisations, he
constantly says that it is. He also says it is a matter of
ideology based on religion, because even he knows his more
abstract political demands were too narrow to attract a very
wide following and he is consciously trying to broaden his
potential constituency. It is significant in that he is not
a clerical person, he doesn’t have any theological credentials
yet he peddles this message. The message is bought by people
as there is an ideological void he cynically and manipulatively
is filling.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– According to your research and to your
long observation of the evolving terrorist scene, modern
religious terrorism surfaced around 1980, while the previous
decades had seen groups with secular motivations, either
Marxist or ethno-nationalist. That was a year after the
Islamic Revolution in Iran. How far is there a link between
both? The Islamic Revolution was widely seen as the sign
of a comeback of militant religion on the international
scene, and this impressed people far beyond the world of
Islam.
Bruce
Hoffman –
There is a direct causality. We know that Iran in the 1980s
sponsored terrorist movements in many countries that sought
to establish the same Islamic sytsem that existed in Iran.
The revolution in Iran in 1979 and 1980 held up the possibility
of what could be achieved. It clearly demonstrated what an
enormously powerful motivating force religion can be, and
again it was at a time of the decline of ideologies. Now we
see the ideological void. But in the 80s, people were beginning
to question the clash between communism and capitalism. In
the 1990s both of those secular gods had failed newly democratised,
newly free market countries. The conspicuous void in secular
ideology became profound. The problem that societies everywhere
face is very much this gap in an intellectual centre of gravity.
In what do we believe has become the question? Demagogues
are very adroit, very clever in filling this gap and telling
us what to believe and manufacturing it, no matter which religion
they really belong to, but packaging messages of hate and
intolerance in very seductive ways, because there is this
vacuum.
The
struggle against Bin Laden is one of secular humanism against
a very reactionary, retrograde interpretation of religion,
of religious tradition. Bin Laden senses the importance of
ideology and has very effectively married ideology to religion
and this is the message that he peddles. He has tied it up
on one anti-US and anti-Western view that holds that the U.S.
and the West are hegemonic powers. His message is not necessarily
religious, but he is using religion to communicate it.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– The terrorist scene is ever evolving. If
we look at the Rand-St. Andrew’s Chronology of International
Terrorism, there were twenty-six religious international
terrorist groups active in 1995, out of fifty-six international
terrorist groups, but in 1996, thirteen out of forty-six.
How can we explain such huge changes from one year to another?
Does it mean that there were some groups no longer active,
that did no longer signal their presence, or that the groups
are somewhat ephemeral, dissolving and reorganising themselves?
Bruce
Hoffman –
Very much the later. The whole process is a dynamic one. An
element of social d,arwinism that affects terrorist groups
where the strongest and fittest either survive by reinventing
themselves, by appealing to more diverse constituencies, but
also by learning from the mistakes of others, resurrecting
and continuing themselves. One sees this in Islamic Kashmiri,
which have undergone several name changes and even changes
in leadership, yet emerge more militant and stronger to constantly
carry on the struggle. The weaker groups are left by the wayside,
but unfortunately the ones that are able to continue are usually
more formidable adversaries and they are also particularly
adept at spreading their messages beyond their own countries.
This
is another role that religion has played. Many terrorist groups
believe that broadening the constituency gives them more strength,
as in Bin Laden’s trajectory. Pakistani groups are branching
out and helping like-minded Muslims in Indonesia. Using religion,
they are trying deliberately to spread their revolution beyond
their borders in order to create something in which the sum
is greater that the parts. This is part of their strategy
right now.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– Someone claiming affiliation with an ethnic
group cannot expect to get a lot of support beyond the limits
of that ethnic group, but claiming an affiliation with a
major religion creates indeed a much wider potential constituency.
Bruce
Hoffman –
Wider potential constituency, yes. And much more extensive
communications vehicles, because you have the mosques. Where
do you have a set number of people gather at a regular time
each day, at various points in the day? This is why religion
is so attractive for demagogues and for people seeking to
use religion to further their causes: because you’ve got an
easy way to communicate with a ready-made audience, and if
you can tailor your message in exactly the right way, then
you can communicate very effectively with this audience, and
that’s really the cart driving the horse. It is not so much
religion that is driving the terrorism, but people manipulating
and exploiting religion in this world devoid of another system
of strong beliefs and using it for wrong purposes.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– Following the tragedies of September 11th,
everybody is paying attention to radical groups from the
Muslim world, but you have repeatedly emphasized that no
major religious tradition is immune to terrorism. Where
do you see a high potential of danger at this point?
Bruce
Hoffman –
The trouble with September 11th was that it raised
the bar, the way the criteria for judging terrorism all of
the sudden went from a record of 440 victims to seven times
as many. It almost created two different categories of terrorists.
Any
number of religious traditions that have produced terrorist
groups have all aspired to do what Ben Laden did on September
11th He wasn’t unique in his aspirations and his
grandiose ambitions. Where he was unique is in actually putting
thought into action. He was the first one to use and manipulate
religion to justify higher levels of lethality. He achieved
it, and that of course means our focus now is very much on
the radical Islamic threat. If I had said in August that basically
four guys with box cutters would lay the World Trade Centre
to waste, nobody would have believed me. It was sophisticated
yet was clever in its simplicity. Other groups that are like-minded,
if they are clever enough, can at least attempt to emulate
Bin Laden. They were unique because they produced September
11th, but I do not think they were unique to any
one group or movement, and that is worrisome.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– In your book Inside Terrorism and
in your articles, you have emphasized that religious terrorism
leads to more intense forms of violence, and you have been
proved right by the recent developments. It seems that religious
terrorists see themselves as actors in a metaphysical, cosmic
war between good and evil. Their violence can been seen
as highly symbolic too, not necessarily meant to reach immediate
political goals. In several articles as well as in his book,
Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious
Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2000), Mark Juergensmeyer spoke of "performance violence".
Do you agree with that observation? After all, all terrorists
are very conscious of their audience and the impact their
actions will have upon it, aren’t they?
Bruce
Hoffman –
The religious terrorists don’t have to overcome the hurdle
to mass murder that other, secular terrorists do. They all
use violence for its symbolic or demonstrative value. The
IRA’s success against the British government in the 1990s
was non lethal terrorism: they issued warnings, in some cases
they disrupted mass transit, they had big bombs in downtown
areas, they pulled in on Saturday morning. That is opposed
to religious terrorists that hit the World Trade Center exactly
when everybody was arriving for work or explode a bomb outside
of Oklahoma City Murrah building exactly when people were
arriving for work, or attack at Luxor exactly when it was
most filled with tourists. Two very different mindsets. Once
they have made the commitment to violence, religious terrorists
have less compunction about inflicting mass violence compared
to secular terrorists. I think it is because of the legitimization
and justification of liturgy that creates a mentality out
of religious order where anybody is fair target. Muslims were
killed in Kenya and Tanzania, Muslims were killed in the World
Trade Center, in the Pentagon attacks. Bin Laden has made
a distinction between good and bad Muslims. With secular groups,
you still have some hesitation in inflicting casualties amongst
members of their own ethnic group. We now see a twisted use
of logic and justification of religion, saying there are good
or bad Muslims, the bad ones are therefore fair game.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– What makes some religious terrorists look
even more ruthless is their willingness to sacrifice not
only the lives of many victims, but their own lives as well.
However, there are secular groups involved in suicide attacks
as well. For example the Tamil Tigers. What are your observations
about the issue of suicide attacks in relation to secular
and religious terrorism?
Bruce
Hoffman –
This comes in the category of demonstration terrorism, or
terrorism that is designed to really send a very powerful
message in addition to the act. A lot is made of suicide terrorism.
Historically, it has been extremely infrequent. Nonetheless,
there are now signs that it is indeed increasing: especially
in Palestine and Israel; but it has also spread among and
beyond entirely secular groups like the Tamil Tigers to others
like the Kurdish PKK. It is difficult to know if this trend
will be sustained, but already suicide terrorism is increasing
at a disturbing rate. Also, there is an intimate connection
between terrorism’s overall increasing levels of lethality
and the growing incidence of suicide bombings.
What
makes September 11th unique is that you had nineteen
individuals, so many at one place at one time doing it, but
even Al-Qaida has not been able to sustain on any systematic
basis mass suicide attacks. I don’t know if that will change
in the wake of September 11th, but at the same
time I think we have to be careful about having our attention
diverted. What the terrorists try to do is to convince us
that there are brigades, battalions, even companies of suicide
terrorist, when in fact there are only platoons. They are
also trying to use this violence to say there is no way you
can stop us, this is a kind of act there is no defence against.
That is part of the psychological weapon that they are trying
to wield.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– While
it is obvious that religious beliefs can offer high rewards
to people for convincing them to risk their own lives, there
are also people sceptical of the role played by the religious
motivations. Obviously, it is impossible to divide neatly
religious beliefs from other factors in a person’s or group’s
motivations. However, if we refer to the recent events,
supposing the reports about a meeting between Muhammad Atta
last summer and an Iraqi intelligence official less than
three months before the events are accurate, it would shed
a strange light upon the alleged role of strict doctrinal
beliefs in the case of Al-Qaeda. Maybe, even with religious
terrorist groups, there is a stage from which operational
goals and efficiency take precedence upon cherished beliefs?
Bruce
Hoffman –
One of the appeals of using religion in terrorism is to create
a mass movement, the more mass movement, the less control
and the less purity and depth of commitment of all individuals.
As a movement broadens, that is always a risk. It is alliances
of convenience. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is
this kind of rationale.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
- So this applies to religious terrorists as well, according
to your knowledge of such groups?
Bruce
Hoffman –
In Bin Laden’s case, he’s been one of the few terrorist leaders
very successful in bringing together Shiite and Sunni terrorists,
which in some respect is a bigger gulf than Islamic terrorists
with secular Arab regimes. So it is very much alliances of
convenience. My point is that religion is the medium more
than anything else. I think his fundamental message is one
of revolution and change against what many people regard as
an increasing hegemonic West seeking to impose its values.
That’s where he gets his greatest attraction, Religions is
the mean through which he communicates that and rallies people.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– You have also paid attention to possible
ways of countering religious terrorism. You have emphasized
that one should take into consideration the sense of alienation
of many of those groups, but also, in the case of Muslim
groups from the Middle East, the problem of anti-U.S. sentiment
in those parts of the world. Following the attacks of September
11th, the USA obviously had to act, but this
does not lessen anti-U.S. sentiment, on the contrary! How
does one counter terrorism efficiently?
Bruce
Hoffman –
Education in the form of public diplomacy. Since the end of
the Cold War, the United States’ public diplomacy, United
States’ cultural activities throughout the world have been
vastly scaled back, which gave the playing field over to militants
of various stripes. I am not saying it is an easy process
now or that the United States doesn’t have to catch up a lot.
It
also means avoiding labelling people "fundamentalists".
I have always thought that was a huge mistake. People who
are very devout, who have a very literal interpretation of
Scripture, are labelled somehow as undesirable. There is a
pejorative kind of connotation. We have done a good job in
recognising that. What good that can come from September 11
is the importance of recognising Islam and the Muslim peoples.
It would have been unheard of in years past that President
Bush would give a feast in celebration of the breaking of
the fast during the Ramadan period, that the United States
Postal Service would introduce a beautiful stamp with Arabic
calligraphy on it. This shows greater perception, greater
awareness of the world beyond America’s borders. All that
is entirely positive, but at the same time we are really playing
catch-up. The curve has gotten very far ahead of us and that
is why there are firstly these terrorist attacks against the
United States and vehemence directed against the U.S. I am
optimistic that we can make up for lost time, but it will
require tremendous patience. In that period we may just have
to prepare for more terrorist attacks in some incidences because
the alienation has already taken hold. It will be a slow process
to counter it.
[TOP]
RELIGIOSCOPE
– So
basically you think we shouldn’t overestimate an anti-U.S.
rhetoric which is still current in some parts of the Muslim
world, that it might still be overcome?
Bruce
Hoffman -
The U.S. also defended Muslims in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in
Kuwait as well, and we communicate that very poorly. People
forget that the most secular regime in the Middle East is
Saddam Hussein’s. The U.S. went to war on behalf of the people
of Kuwait and also Saudi Arabia. Obviously there were national
interests in that as well. The U.S. is not good in communicating
these things. You talk about root causes of terrorism: alienation
is the most profound one and mitigating that alienation is
extremely important
