Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

danpeterson

On “The Myth of Religious Violence”

Last updated on: February 5, 2019 at 9:44 pm   by Dan Peterson

On “The Myth of Religious Violence” 2019-02-05T21:44:26-07:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

 

The Arizona, at Pearl Harbor

The forward magazines of the U.S. Navy battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) explode shortly after 08:00 hrs during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (USA), 7 December 1941.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain photograph)
I don’t believe that theology played a significant role in the Pearl Harbor attack.

 

The 20th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.  (Alister McGrath)

 

***

 

A provocative essay.  I expect that the title alone has already upset some of my secular-minded readers:

 

The Myth of Religious Violence

 

***

For several reasons, I think that I need to share this column again, which Bill Hamblin and I originally published in the Deseret News back 6 September 2014:

 

Critics of religion commonly point to the violence done in its name and, accordingly, pronounce it toxic. And, for obvious reasons, the parade example of its dangers has been Islam.

However, in his 2010 book “A World Without Islam,” Graham Fuller argues brilliantly, via sweeping analyses of world history, that “religion is the vehicle of political confrontation and turmoil, not the cause.”

Fuller, a political analyst specializing in Islamic extremism who formerly served as CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan, and as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, isn’t particularly interested in defending theism against its critics. His own religious beliefs, if he has any, are invisible. He simply wants to accurately understand the causes of the tension between the West and the Islamic world so that appropriate steps can be taken to reduce it.

“If there had never been an Islam,” he writes, “if a Prophet Muhammad had never emerged from the deserts of Arabia, if there had been no saga of the spread of Islam across vast parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, wouldn’t the relationship between the West and the Middle East today be entirely different? No, I argue, it might actually be quite similar to what we see today.

“Most of the history of the West’s relations with the Middle East is really about the geopolitics of empires and states and not much about religion itself — regardless of the slogans, banners and ideological fervor invoked at the popular level to support the state. Take Islam out of the equation, and there’s a very good chance you’d still find the Middle East at loggerheads with the West.”

Fuller compares the situation to a furious argument between spouses over whether the pasta is overcooked: Their anger may be entirely real, but, plainly, there’s much more going on than mere disagreement over rigatoni. So, too, in the Middle East: Communities, states, politics, power and regional nationalisms are at issue. “Religion serves as a handy tag, constitutes an important element of identity in which the specific theology is really only incidental,” he writes.

As in Africa, Asia and Latin America, so in the Islamic world: “The problems stemming from colonialism and imperialism would exist in equal measure without Islam.”

“Islam,” Fuller admits, “seems to offer an instant and uncomplicated analytical touchstone for most affairs in the Middle East, by which to make sense of today’s convulsive world. By referring to Islam, we can reduce things to a polarized struggle between ‘Western values’ and the ‘Muslim world.’ ” But that oversimplification — what the Swiss Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan has described as “Islamizing the problem” — is false and misleading.

Fuller is acutely aware of the prominent place that Islam occupies in current disputes worldwide, but he contends that the faith “has primarily served as flag or banner for other, deeper kinds of rivalries and confrontations taking place.

“The factor of Islam provides focus, color and vigor but is not especially central.”

Tracing rivalries between East and West back to the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C., he maintains that Islam is merely the most recent vehicle for expressing resistance to the West, the latest banner under which the old but ongoing geopolitical struggles of the Middle East are perpetuated. Surveying ostensibly religious disputes going back centuries before the rise of Islam — such historical depth is extraordinarily rare in political analysis, but remarkably enlightening (especially with regard to the deep-rooted ancient cultures of the Middle East) — Fuller argues that “religious doctrine is almost never the issue at stake.”

We shouldn’t be surprised, of course, to see the powerful symbols and inducements offered by religion used to mark ethnic “fault lines” and to “sanctify” conflicts. But we shouldn’t be misled by superficial appearances. If Islam hadn’t come along, Fuller plausibly argues, Eastern Orthodox Christianity would have played much the same role. “The Middle East was … quite capable, without Islam, of developing aversion to the West.”

“In the end, I hope to persuade the reader that the present crisis of East-West relations, or between the West and ‘Islam,’ has really very little to do with religion and everything to do with political and cultural frictions, interests, rivalries and clashes.”

Readers of “A World without Islam” may reject some or many of Fuller’s specific recommendations for American foreign policy. But they’ll see the Middle East — and China, India, Europe and Vladimir Putin’s Russia — in fresh and instructive ways.

 

Uncategorized

Previous Post



February 5, 2019

"Near East"? "Middle East"? "Nile-to-Oxus Region"?

Next Post



February 5, 2019 New Testament Notes 19-20


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

This Gospel alone records seven 'I am' statements from Jesus. Which of these is NOT one of them: the bread of life, the good shepherd, the way and the truth and the life, or the Alpha and Omega?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The bread of life The Alpha and Omega The way and the truth and the life The good shepherd

Related posts from Sic et Non

Family

I came here freely, with neither garlic nor...

Sic et Non

Family

Looking at the Largest Orthodox Cathedral on Earth

Sic et Non

Family

The Iron Gates and the Lion of the...

Sic et Non

Family

Walking through History

Sic et Non

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Latter-day Saint

When to Use AI and When Not To

Drawing on my new book with Trevor Sutton, "Irreplaceable: Humanity, Vocation, and...

Crabs in a Bucket: Why Evangelicalism Won’t Let...

There’s an old saying about crabs in a bucket. You don’t need...

Chapter 10, Elena: Progress

Open and Relational Theology & Social Psychology About this series: This series...

How Should We ‘Use’ Early Christians?

In his prefatory letter to the king of France in his Institutes...

Christa Pike, Human Sacrifice

Tennessee wasn't just trying to kill Pike. It was trying to perform...

Chonda Pierce Brings Her Comedy to Mobile in...

Chonda Pierce has spent decades making audiences laugh from a stage. Now...

view all Latter-day Saint blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube