The role of religion in al-Qaeda’s violence

This chapter explores the role of religion in jihadist violence by applying recent insights from the field of religious studies to the case of al-Qaeda. Whereas religion is often perceived as an explanatory factor in al-Qaeda’s attacks, the chapter demonstrates that the meanings attributed to religion are dependent on particular historical and cultural contexts. As a result, the chapter argues, the concept of religion cannot be consistently separated from its alleged secular counterpart, which makes any distinction between religious violence and secular violence arbitrary. Moreover, in the case of al-Qaeda’s violence, alleged religious and secular factors appear to be strongly intertwined and cannot be separated consistently. Thus, the chapter argues, whereas particular beliefs, values and practices deemed ‘religious’ by the perpetrators may fuel jihadist violence in particular contexts, questions of whether religion, as an abstract category, causes or contributes to violence are inconsistent. Instead, it is more fruitful to explore why questions on the role of religion in al-Qaeda’s violence have been so prevalent over the last years. The chapter concludes that, for al-Qaeda, presenting the perceived conflict between Islam and the West as a religious conflict reconfirms and authorises the group’s self-definition and facilitates and legitimises its violence

The internal brakes on violent escalation:a typology

Most groups do less violence than they are capable of. Yet while there is now an extensive literature on the escalation of or radicalisation towards violence, particularly by ‘extremist’ groups or actors, and while processes of de-escalation or de-radicalisation have also received significant attention, processes of non- or limited escalation have largely gone below the analytical radar. This article contributes to current efforts to address this limitation in our understanding of the dynamics of political aggression by developing a descriptive typology of the ‘internal brakes’ on violent escalation: the mechanisms through which members of the groups themselves contribute to establish and maintain limits upon their own violence. We identify five underlying logics on which the internal brakes operate: strategic, moral, ego maintenance, outgroup definition, and organisational. The typology is developed and tested using three very different case studies: the transnational and UK jihadi scene from 2005 to 2016; the British extreme right during the 1990s, and the animal liberation movement in the UK from the mid-1970s until the early 2000s

Denunciation and the construction of norms in group conflict: examples from an Al-Qaeda-supporting group

In situations of violent group conflict, group members often argue about how to deal with the outgroup. While some argue for aggression, force and separation, others argue for negotiation and cooperation. Each side attempts to persuade the group that their own position is normative and is most in line with the interests and essence of the group. These arguments often involve denunciations of opponents as disloyal or deviant. In such situations, definitions of group identities and norms, and what counts as loyalty and deviance, are therefore disputed. This paper analyses how a UK-based Al-Qaeda-supporting organisation denounces ‘moderate’ Muslims in the UK who engage with secular institutions and who ally themselves with non-Muslims in political disputes. Drawing on theological, historical and political arguments, a prescriptive norm is constructed whereby the correct behaviour of Muslims in the West is to avoid participation in secular political systems and to avoid political cooperation with non-Muslims. Muslims who are seen as breaking these norms are denounced and denigrated in a variety of ways by assigning them a range of deviant identity positions. Denunciations involve explanatory accounts which construct opponents as unworthy representatives of the group based on their deviation from Islam, or from ignorance, cowardice, mental weakness or self-interest. This paper illustrates that the practice of denunciation is an important aspect of the organisation of group conflict. Finally, it argues that it is dangerous for social psychologists to treat group norms and protoypes as consensual