Translated material
Terrorism and religion
In society
Terrorism and religion
April 30, 2013 George Satarov
The tragedy in Boston and the Caucasian-Islamic trace discovered in it instantly aroused old songs about the Islamic nature of terrorism. In our country, this excitement prompted, for example, the Blog of Protodiacon Andrei Kuraev on the website of Echo of Moscow. The ideas expressed there are not the words and not new. I will need only one quote from this text, it is no coincidence that the abstract is: “ Maybe terrorism is a consequence of the distorted understanding of the Qur'an. But it is precisely the Koran, and not the books about Winnie the Pooh . "
Criticism of the idea of religious connotation of terrorism does not require intellectual valor. It is enough to recall two examples: Russian bombers of the second half of the XIX and early XX centuries. As far as I know, they were not obsessed with the ideas of Islam. The same can be said about Irish terrorists. And this is the second example. And on this, we will finish the topic of exposing Islam as a simplifying problem to a non -productive level. But then the question arises: where is the dog buried? Let's try to find the answer, of course, not final. The problem is too complicated. And this is just my point of view.
First, we will agree on the signs of terrorism. There are three of them. First: this is the planned and organized murder of people or the purposeful creation of a direct and direct threat to their lives (hostage capture). Second: all this happens outside the traditional hostilities between the warring parties. The third sign: as a rule, ordinary peaceful inhabitants become the victims, not involved in any military operations. Looks like it seems?
Then the second question: what else can be ranked to actions that fall under the above description, in addition to small groups of Russian bombers or an extensive network of al-Keda? Adnequately expanding the range of analysis, we will easier to find the place where the dog is buried. The response is prompted by the systematic accusations of the United States by the aggressive part of the Islamists: they accuse the United States of state terrorism. But indeed, passing invectives regarding US policy, is there a terrorism of a state scale on behalf of the state? The answer is obvious: yes. Relying to the term “Stalinist terror”, we do not sin against the meaning if we return to the signs listed above. And it is clear that this terror was carried out by state institutions. And there are many such examples in history. Each reader can remember at least a couple.
Now we can take the next step in our reasoning, posed the next question. And what is in common in Islamic terrorism and in the Stalinist terror, armed with the “most advanced theory”, as well as in other manifestations of terrorism, both listed above and in the readers who have surfaced in memory? It seems to me that there is, of course, one criterion, but the combination of five works quite well. Let's go in order.
The first criterion: the division of the surrounding social space, along with the individuals inhabiting it into "their" and "strangers." This distinction is extremely ancient, ancient in written history. Previously, they say, it was possible to eat strangers, and their own-no. This division, no matter how signs of belonging to the polar groups it is generated, has many common features. For example, there were always rituals of confirmation of confirmation of “your own”: whether it is confirmation of the purity of faith-rasa or the commitment of the “Lenin-Stalin case”. It is easy to see that the ideology of any terrorism contains a clear justification for the separation into “one’s” and “strangers”. In the case of Islam, these are “true and infidels” by religious basis, and in the case of Stalin’s terror, this is a social group, dynamically expanding, under the name “internal enemy, servant of imperialism”. At the same time, the practice of terrorism clearly demonstrates the specificity of the attitude to the "strangers". At the same time, the indicated distinction to “their” and “strangers” does not define terrorism unambiguously. The simplest example from childhood: “Guys from our court” and “Guys from the neighboring”.
The second criterion: a feeling of some infringement rooted in society. It can be generated by the previous defeat, injustice from the "strangers" and other causes. As a private consequence, the presence of “strangers”, guilty of infringement of “their own”, makes it possible to explain the latter to explain all his problems by the presence of “strangers”. The second private consequence is that “strangers” are loaded with all the negative qualities, from which it follows that they are only busy, that they create problems for “their own”. However, it is clear that all this is characteristic not only of terrorism. The term "Empire of Evil" in relation to the USSR refers precisely to such mythology. The USSR, of course, created his own.
The third criterion: the abominability of “strangers” contributes to the exaltation of “their own”. As a result, a tremendous social gap is created between “their own” and “strangers”, developing into a biological, abyss, justifying, if necessary, any violence against “strangers”. It is on such grounds that any propaganda was built during the war.
The fourth criterion: lack of alternatives, i.e. The confidence of “their own” is that they can solve their problems and cleanse their infringement only by force. It should be said that in some cases this is justified. The lack of alternative methods for solving problems “their own” can be an objective property of the situation, formed, by the way, “strangers”. Violence here is not only a means of solving problems, but also revenge for infringement, and an attempt to compensate for the difference formulated below in the fifth paragraph.
This is the last, fifth: terrorism, in the presence of the above conditions, occurs when “their own” feel some incommensurability with “strangers”. Often this is the incommensurability of the scale, or the incommensurability of strength, or wealth and success of T.P. Terrorism acts, as said during my childhood, “stealthily” (listen to this word). He, in particular, does not announce his intentions before his action.
And this is only the beginning. The effects inherent in the 20th century are distinguished further: the collapse of colonial empires, the Cold War, during which both sides were intensively engaged in the preparation of professionals who own terrorist methods, who had nowhere to calm themselves after a temporary restoration of the parties, and much more, quite concrete historical, and not general anthropological.
I am sure that there may be other criteria and other factors. But even the above is enough to understand: terrorism is not explained by the primitive ideas of the Xenophobsky, like demonstrated by a humble protodiacon. It is sad that such simplified ideas about terrorism are very common, and this, of course, contributes to its expansion.