Playstore.png

External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State

From Religion
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bibliographic Information
Journal Bayān al-Ḥikmah
Title External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State
Author(s) Khan, Muhammad Kalimullah, Saeed Ahmed
Volume 3
Issue 1
Year 2017
Pages 23-23
Full Text Crystal Clear mimetype pdf.png
Keywords External and Internal, Contributory Factors, Facational, Precipitants Links.
Chicago 16th Khan, Muhammad Kalimullah, Saeed Ahmed. "External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State." Bayān al-Ḥikmah 3, no. 1 (2017).
APA 6th Khan, M. K., Ahmed, S. (2017). External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State. Bayān al-Ḥikmah, 3(1).
MHRA Khan, Muhammad Kalimullah, Saeed Ahmed. 2017. 'External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State', Bayān al-Ḥikmah, 3.
MLA Khan, Muhammad Kalimullah, Saeed Ahmed. "External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State." Bayān al-Ḥikmah 3.1 (2017). Print.
Harvard KHAN, M. K., AHMED, S. 2017. External and Internal Factors of Political-Religious Violence and Pakistan’s Role: Unravel Threats for the Security of Modern Islamic State. Bayān al-Ḥikmah, 3.

Abstract

Political scientists and Islamic philosophers have long been discussing the different phenomena of violence. This article analyzes external and internal factor of violence in Pakistan, interpreting the religious and political dimension of the violence. The presence of external and more specifically internal factors are the real threats for the security of the country. Building from theoretical approaches, I fielded two dimensions of the political-religious violence, violence inside the country and outside the country. It is found out, on the one hand, that the both dimensions can be met with the profound enforcement of the law. On the other hand, both dimensions of the violence can be the big contributory factors of violence due to the poor promulgation of the law. Unjust political-religious dispensation inside the country rise the frustration, and outside support make it fertile and leads it towards violence. It is proposed that on equity bases, political-religious deprivation and absolute deprivation of the minority elite class can be disposed of. I also come up with balanced educational system, which should be the blend of traditionalism and modernism for the fulfilment of our spiritual dimension and for the greater understanding of our political-religious outlook.

Introduction

This article discusses external and internal factors linked to the incidence of political-religious violence. As it is clear that, every problem or issue has some factors behind it. Because factors that cause the problem are sometimes not well addressed, then issues become more complicated and the solutions become rather less effective and efficient for the prosperity of the state. Therefore, to sort out the factors is a basic key to reach towards the solution of the issue. Sometimes, the real factors to address the problem are neglected, and the irrelevant factors, which appear to cause the problem, are dealt with without addressing the core issues. Therefore, in this article, the following external and internal factors are discussed.

Spectres of the state sponsorship of violence

Extremist politics and religious extremism

Political deprivation and escalation of the violence

Psychological factor: Individual and organizational motivation

There are also internal factors, which include the following:

Political factor with preconditions and precipitants links

Economic factor: A synthesized model of political-religious violence

Educational factors: A rational thinking towards violence

Religious schismatize approach: A pure and exclusive driver of violence

External Factors and the Myth of Altruism

The modern world is confronting violence in different manifestations. It covers a wide range of acts such as nuclear war, bomb blast, suicidal attacks, target killing and assassinations. The history of violence indicates it as old as the human civilization itself but the past few decades have witnessed a dramatic transformation in the nature and use of political-religious violence. Violence is always an action, not a philosophy; as Milton describes, “mind in its own place, can make heaven of hell and hell of heaven”[1]. Wherever the wave of violence arises in the world, either the law was totally disappeared on the surface of the society, or there was law but it was too weak to ban the violence. In some cases, there was the law but it could not satisfy every department; that is why incidents have been increasing day after day. Pakistan’s case is not different from that analysis. Violence started from the first day when there was no law or regulation or even a constitution. Unevenly, institutions were running and dragging the country. It is obvious that law is a river, which brings the mass into the stream of liberty and equality, with necessary checks and balances. However, when the laws in new Pakistan were promulgated, then they should have banned every kind of violence. Nevertheless, the state could not do so, because there were lots of faults and flaws, which could not deal with the common interests of all classes. That is why, violence neither stopped nor decreased but actually increased.

Therefore, the laws or ordinances, which were promulgated, not for the public but they were mainly for serving the aristocracy and political interests as well. Because of neglecting the public interest, feelings of frustration grew and became the cause of separation. Then the public believed that there was no fault of law but cultural, social, linguistic and geographic differences separated Pakistan into two parts. One can question, are there no any differences in different parts of the country? Therefore, the response to this question is that social, cultural, linguistic and political differences still exist. Poor promulgation of the law was the contributing factor to neglecting the public interest. In 1973, the constitution was promulgated. However, legislators, who made the amendments within the constitution, could not stop the violence. This is because the law was so weak. The whole constitution had only four or five articles, which gave only the guaranty of public rights, but nothing beyond that. Therefore, in conclusion, it was the law along with political interests, which was enforced for the sake of politicians and ruling class and those who had might and power.

Not only Pakistan but also other third world countries are facing the problems of prevailing violent activities in one or some other forms. These activities, suicide attacks, and bomb blasts have prevailed across whole landscapes; specifically Pakistan has become the glaring example. In Pakistan, some observers attribute the violence and violent activities to the political instability, economic conditions and low standard of living of the masses. One school of thought says that the injustices done by super powers towards the third world countries have led the world to this situation. However, according to another school of thought, the current violent activities, the blasts and suicide attacks that happen everywhere in the world are signs of the game of political gains among the super powers of the world. Some people’s ideas go towards the clash of civilizations between the west and Islam. What may be the reason to deal with this ‘wicked’ problem?[2]

The study of political and religious violence is extremely important to contemporary society. Political-religious Violence, as a domestic problem, prompts one to think about how the groups come about, how they function, and most importantly, where the winning players are found. How do politicians recruit the winning players, and what action can be taken over the long run to nullify these factors of unrest[3]. One of the noteworthy things related to cause is, that factors of violence differ from one society to another, due to its religious, ethnic and political nature[4].

The Specter of State Sponsored Violence

Violence emerged due to the most pressing concern of governments, which did not deliver any positive role of politics[5], pre and post 9/11, and the superpowers had launched a great adventure, in which those who did not support them were deemed to be against them. Therefore, Pakistan was the epicenter and first direct affected country during the Soviet-Afghan War and after 9/11 during NATO-Afghan War. Furthermore, when the society and the state are unable to provide justice to people, then the outcome is frustration and anger against the prevailing system[6]. Thereafter, external aggression comes forth to destabilize the situation even more. If the society is tolerant and democratic, and if the state structure establishes religious and political harmony and social justice, the violence will hardly take place or grow in the society. Unfortunately, exploitation and persecution of weaker sections of society by state forces create conditions for the growth of violence. From this perspective, it is not wrong to argue that most of the factors of violence are domestic, rather than external in nature[7]. Yet external factors do contribute to the emergence and rise of violence. Some of the external dimensions of violence are as follows:

Ifs and buts background support

Foreign hands to support violent groups

Providing economic and political patronage to violent groups Sympathizing and supporting the cause which violent people are striving for roxy support to different non-governmental organizations Support through media

External dimensions of violence cited above are applicable in various case studies of conflict. Foreign support is given to various armed groups when the situation is fertile for an external intervention. Moreover, some states argue that they only support those who are fighting for liberation and their struggle cannot be called a torrent of nature[8]. The concept of legitimate and illegitimate violence adds a new dimension to external kind of political violence because it was geared to achieve the foreign policy[9]. Now the organizations, which were felt violent, are banned in order to prevent disruption in their own sponsoring countries. Meanwhile, across the Durand Line from West to South, a lot of High Commissions and sub-offices, and directly their governments have indulged in playing a great role to sabotage the state’s peace and harmony. Specifically, many offices of Indian High Commission are working near Durand Line in Afghanistan, which are responsible for creating extremism and violence in Pakistan. Therefore, JagmohanMeher’s[10] criticism is out of the question that Pakistan tries to look for the strategic depth across the Durand line. Most often, political-religious violence is associated with “non-state actors”. However, security forces within may use violence to assist in repressing dissent[11]. Three different ways that states can engage in the use of violence. First is governmental violence, second state involvement in violence and third state sponsorship of violence. However, here our concern is only with one category: state sponsorship of violence or state supported violence, which assists by different means to terrorist organizations. Such kind of state gives shelter or physical strength to organizations. Moreover, they provide them weapons[12][13]. Due to these problems, the giant of extremism was going to flutter and flourish in the society.

Extremist Politics and Religious Extremism

The germs of extremism are not only well found in the religious mind, as some secular intellectuals discuss, but these germs of extremism are also find in secular and so called enlightened individuals, states and nations. However, even if it might not be covered with fundamentalism, yet it is dangerous issue[14]. The dangerous elements of extremism run into the blood of secularism and liberalism in the world as well. It is ironic reality that sometimes extremists face the responsive anger of non-extremist’s extremism[15]. For some authors the involvement of extremism in violence would indeed be one acknowledged extremist attribute[16]. Other notions such as qualities of randomness[17]and a lack of relationship[18] serve as typical examples of extremism.

The first manifestation of extremism is to be a respectful of self-opinion. As Breton and Dalmazzone discusses, and focus on intolerance, which is the big factor of violence[19]. Intolerant person does not allow any dialogue and discussion so that he could not lessen his worth in society. In this way, his behavior and attitude do not allow him learning more, and consequently prejudices and bigotry seep into his personality. He does not tolerate anyone, and tries to impose his own wish on others. This thing leads him towards extremism. Moreover, the spirit of tolerance expels from his mind and he always opposes moderate views specifically on religious matters[20]. Yusuf Qaradāwi sheds light on extremism in these words:

“Bigotry is the clearest evidence of extremism. An extremist seems to address people in this way: extremists have the right to speak; others’ duty is to listen. Extremists have the right to lead; others’ duty is to follow. They also argue that their opinions are right, whereas people’s opinions can never be right. Thus, a bigot can never come to terms with others. Agreement is possible and it can be reached when people hold moderate positions. However, a bigot neither knows nor believes in moderation”[21].

In this case, extremists do not accept any terms and conditions of the dialogue. They just impose their terms on the majority of the people, as this Pakistani nation has gained such experience. Moreover, extremist mindset pressurise the people on both ways mentally and physically, and accuse severely of laxity[22]. The purpose of extremism is to undermine public confidence in the government institutions by spreading fear and insecurity. According to another theory that, religion is the key to these deeds, although it is very far from the reality that religion is the cause of extremism. Moreover, this is also not conceivable that it gives moral confirmation for the violent act, such as assassination, and provides pictures of a celestial war[23]. Sometimes, interpretations of religious texts inspire the majority of people to indulge in the violent activities[24]. The implications of the fight against extremism in Pakistan are also important for the international community. The image of Pakistan, portrayed in part by the images that appear in the West, is that of a highly “dangerous state” which is rife with extremism, albeit it was completely unreasonable and unacceptable that there was extremism and religious intolerance during Zia era as Mr. Paul[25] mentioned. In addition, the policies of the leading foreign players have had a major impact on the rise of extremism in Pakistan[26]. Therefore, extremism, which was imposed by aliens, made religious parties inflexible in Pakistan[27]. During the 1990s, extremism’s tree was quite likely to flourish; because the flow of money and arms through foreign players affected every aspect of common person’s life. According to Tariq Ramadan, Saudi money was a problem[28] to spread extremism. Consequently, the wrong concept of Jihad grew up in the common person’s mind, as well as in the different organizations that took birth in that arena, who desired for military training and direct combat experience in Afghanistan[29].

In this way, Guelke is fearful to Intra-Third World conflicts on extremism than international terrorism. He quotes “there has been relatively little spill-over from political violence within third world states into the international arena”[30] but the criticism on liberal democracies of Third World Countries that they induce extremism is not a reality check to predict like that, because there are many developing countries where no any extremism exist. Back to the point, extremism erupted into countries until the ideology of pan-Islamism emerged. The notion of pan-Islamism grew; however, before it, Arab-Nationalism had emerged during the First World War. It was inevitable that there would be attempts to crush the idol of nationalism but it could not be done, and a Pan-Islamism was introduced[31]. The efforts of some individuals to promote Pan-Islamism, without collaboration between man and state, made it more complicated. That is why; the tree of violence grew through extremism’s seed. As far as the Qurānic philosophy of revolution was concerned, it had totally been changed during the decline period. Those individuals interpreted the Qurān by their own thoughts, where there was no promise of success in this world. According to those revolutionaries, you just struggle and then leave it on Allah’s will; you are not concern with it whether it is fruitful or not. Allah will reward either in this world or in the hereafter. Even, they said by their own point of view that Allah did not give any guaranty of success to any Prophet[32]. Extremism seeped into society through those not fully comprehended ideologies; however, it was an internal phenomenon of Pakistan at all. The Durand Line between Pakistan and Afghanistan was the epicenter of external imposed extremism; it could be controlled after the fall of Soviet Union, but due to brethren and ethical relationships with Afghanistan, it could not be sealed and extremism getting worse.

Political Deprivation and Escalation of the Violence

The denial of political rights is another factor for creating deprivation, which results in violent means and methods employed to attain political freedom. Right from the French revolution to decolonization after the World War II, and even now, every act of political deprivation has produced extremism and violence. The four great revolutions of recent times: French (1789 to 1799), Bolshevik (1917-18), Chinese (1911-12) and Iranian (1978-79), all resulted from extreme political-religious commotion and non-participatory nature of the ruling elite[33]. It was the decline of monarchies and churches in French revolution and on contrary; it was the rise of nationalism and democracy after French revolution. One of the typical features of the predominantaura of the sadness in Pakistan is that deprivation gives rise to frustrations. Therefore, the consequent extrasensory perception of illness is enough to inspirethe people to adopt violence as an expression of their anger. It is not necessary to achieve equality and equity at all levels, but the political imbalance, which is based on an unjust system, needs to be changed into an equitable order. The objective should be not to achieve equality but equity, through the dispensation of political justice. Political alienation is an arch of violence. The political deprivation started through the invasion of Anglicism into the sub-continent. Moreover, after partition, it was dispensable to co-ordinate the joint defense system to protect them from external political invasion, as was the demand of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah towards Nehru[34] but it could not be applied. This point of view is not necessary totally in favor of Friedman’s analysis that violence can be minimized through the applying of capitalist rules or the capitalist system, which will in turn reduce the violence and deprivation. This idea opens the doubt, because it can be applicable to some extent for only those states that have a capitalist mental approach but it cannot be applied to other socialist or other states. However, Max Weber seems to be right in his analysis that a human community claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory[35]. One thing is very vivid, that violence is either inherent with politics or with opposition to the power and that it leaves destructive remains, which takes decades to be repaired. The Soviet Union is the best example, which was segregated into many independent states. It does not mean that any politically deprived country would submerge into a prosperous society. Afghan nation was politically deprived; that is why the Soviet Union invaded it and consequently the Soviet Union itself became a politically deprived country. Now, Pakistan’s example is not so different to Afghanistan’s deprived situation, the difference is only of monarchial rule and so-called democratic rule. Due to political deprivation, terrorist groups played a vital role to create disharmony in the country.

Foreigners played a vital role in the dismemberment of Pakistan. They did not appreciate the existence of a Pakistani nation. However, they intended to destroy the Islamic ideology and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The prime objective was to weaken the state politically, so that the slogan of ideology could destroy. When the foreign players saw that political deprivation had prevailed in the whole country then a Civil War was created to segregate the country and in consequence, a ‘secular state’ was declared[36].

Political deprivation started when the autocratic and chosen political elite had been looming on the political horizon of the country. To some extent, it was the factor to separate the country into two parts. Politicians’ concocted political deprivation is also present in Baluchistan province of Pakistan, where people are considered politically deprived, and foreign agendas and separatist movements like AzeemterBalochistan(Greatest Baluchistan)and BalochLiberation Armyare busy in creating turbulence and turmoil. Furthermore, a democratic governments’ role was no less than the dictatorial governments, to facilitate the deprivation and violence in Pakistan[37]. Due to this reason, the foreigners’ roles are increasing in Baluchistan province, which can become the cause of great loss, if it would not check properly.

If one discusses the incompetence of the governments then political deprivation will be the factor. How those governments control the political deprivation, is a very critical, because those governments were involved in such deprivation. These things provide motivation and furthermore, direction of the violent foreign groups that are creating more agitation. Secondly, if the governments have democratization in the institutions, then international democratic governments will support them to crush the undemocratic elements or the violent minds. The 1990s have seen a shift to democratic governments in the world. In response, politically deprived factions in society will come into force through foreign extremist or violent groups or even extremist governments. That is why, governments become involved directly or indirectly in violence through foreigner forces, due to political deprivation. Blumenthal’s analysis rather diverts the issue but it gives the clue towards deprivation. According to her analysis, the idea of justice or fairness may be more centrally related to attitudes towards violence than are feelings of deprivation. The perceived injustice underlies the deprivation that gives arise to anger or frustration[38].

Psychological Factor: Individual and Organizational Motivation

There are three main hypotheses to explain human motivation: biological instincts, social learning and frustration aggression. Zafar mentioned Sigmund Freud’s theory that human is embodied with an instinctive urge and appetite to attack and subjugate others[39]. It means that naturally human being try to divert their basic drives towards aggression. The second point is that the social learning of the person also convinces him towards violence. If one grows and develops in an oppressed society, he can be easily attracted towards violence. Jean Jacques Rousseau presents a theory of social learning; he argues, “The human mind is like a blank sheet (tabula rasa) and whatever his society likes, paints on it”. If one lives in a violent society, he/she will remain to be motivated towards violence. The psychologists of Yale University coined a theory of frustration aggression in 1939. They suggested that the aggressive behaviors of a man reveal the existence of frustration in him and the frustration produces the aggression[40]. The motivation for violence can vary, including attention to a cause, personal notoriety, anger, revenge and retribution against a perceived injustice. Suicide attackers are sometimes bereaved siblings who wish to take vengeance for their loved one’s violent death. Fatima Bhutto is a very good example in this context. Her book “Songs of Blood and Sword” gives a glimpse towards this tumultuous and vehement political scenario.

Sometimes, individuals are motivated by organizations, who commit suicide attacks. This is also a fact that suicide attackers attempt suicide attacks due to poverty so that their families could get financial aid[41]. This is a common way of thinking for the nonprofessional about suicide attackers. However, it is the common responsibility of all the stakeholders to contemplate on the issue to understand the phenomenon of the violence from political-religious, cultural and socio-economic perspectives. In short, a sense of deprivation, sense of being exploited and sense of being cheated are important factors presumed to escalate violence in this modern era[42]. Sometimes, peoples are pressurized by organization to act violently[43]. Therefore, to analyze this fact, it is important to study the role of the organization, which causes the phenomenon.

The organization is crucial in the execution of most violent attacks, in acquiring weapons, well planning and accurate targeting. Indeed, most violence experts argue that the role of the terrorist organization is more powerful factor to prepare the individual than any other organization. Therefore, the individual shows his identity to the organizations and groups for suicide attacks, so that he could not suffer from the loss of identity. Historically terrorist groups employ the individuals, seeing whether they are strong or weak[44]. It should also be pointed out that in the perverse logic of terror; suicide attackers are big assets for terrorist organizations to gain political, religious and monetary benefits[45]. In terms of political gain, this can be seen that groups compete each other for power[46]. However, it is somewhat grim to say that why suicide attackers come to suicide. Some may come to violence for their political-ideological goals[47]. On the other hand, they may come for strategic alternative. Indeed, violence may occur for political, religious, ideological, and strategic grounds.

Internal Factors of Violence

Political Factor with Preconditions and Precipitants Links

Political and absolute deprivation is the major factor of violence. The French Revolution was the result of this political deprivation, which created unrest among the French masses[48]. As mentioned earlier, sometimes-real factors are neglected and other less important factors becomes the topic of the issue. This is the case that real and genuine factors are political-religious but have been neglected. More or less all major issues, which took place, have political and religious dimensions and causes, and when it is covered in narrow circle then other factors are submerged with it and real political-religious factors become faded and less visible. Due to this reality, government should take strong measures whether it is precipitants or precondition factors to counter the violence. Precondition factors are long[49] that spawns the restlessness among the mass. On the other hand, precipitants are short-term factors that flare-up the violence[50]. The minority class is always targeted through political factors. In this research article’s context the minority does not only stand for Hindu-Muslim or Christian-Jews; it can be stand for any kind of minority. In this regards, it refers to the elite minority, as E. J. Hobsbawm lends weight to that perspective[51]. In political-religious violence, Political factor is a direct cause, which affects the elite class directly, because violence is the major result of elite group disaffection. Secondly, if there is lack of opportunities to participate in the political process, then this thinking creates motivation for both political-religious violence. On that account, different governments cannot estimate the real derived dissatisfaction and grievances of mass.

Charles Kegle[52] describes the violence as existing in two groups and correlates it to terrorism. First, is the Root Cause Group and second is the Contagious Group[53]. The supporter of root cause theory sees politically oppressed people are more flat to violent and terrorist behavior. Their basic needs force them to change their fate. Political oppression, suppression and hopelessness are common sufferings of such people. This theory dictates that such a quality of life transform them from a moderate man to a violent man and a terrorist. However, political violence is a major cause of political terrorism[54]. We should address the root causes of the problem; people become violent, especially due to the injustices to different classes[55].The denial of political rights is another source of creating deprivation, resulting in adoption of violent methods to attain their political freedom. Moreover, when people see that, the ruling party is not just or when they think the unfair behavior of the ruling party, they stand up and start violent activities. When differences grow up to the peaks among the people and the government, then direct confrontation with government start. This is the same case, when Arab Countries fail to assist the Palestinians; they stood up by their own means for their basic right of self-determination. Crenshaw argues that the defeat of Arabs in the Arab-Israel War disappointed the Palestinians and led them to their own particular struggle[56]. Although, this case study is not sufficiently pointed towards Pakistan’s geo-social situation and its own rules, at least it makes the political-religious factors clear.

It is noted that the effects of the minority elite class can create the dissatisfaction. However, violence emerges most rigorously when mass negativity and resentment of the elite, are agreed upon. It is much more difficult to instigate the majority of the populace against the government, yet the elite class can bring radical changes. The majority of the mass in Pakistan are those who are affiliated politically with someone, but due to biased political minds inherent to political parties, they cannot be expected to create any kind of change. That is why; Pakistan has been badly affected. Although, it was a fact that Pakistan was saved from any direct foreign aggression in the 1990s, yet it could not stop the wave of violence, which was coming from West. Therefore, it is being forced to make compromises to its crucial and vital interests[57]. Even the friend countries started looking towards Pakistan with suspicion. It has become more important for Pakistan to clean its image tinted with violence and take a rightful place amongst the international community[58]. There is no moderate, reasonable person in the world who justifies violence, instead of a human killer. In this regard, however, Mussolini asserted that “there is a violence that liberates, and there is violence that enslaves; there is moral violence and stupid, immoral violence”[59]. Anyhow, if the weaker party’s vital interests are threatened, ultimately they will become cruel and violent.

Instead, if the government’s conduct towards its citizens is unresponsive, there will be grievances, which in turn may lead to increase of violence. Because, no doubt, bad economics (it will be elaborated under) counts a lot but the actual condition, which contributes more than that, is the relationship between the citizens and governments. As Moore contends, “The evidence is clearly negative…that…a decline in the material situation and a massive threat to their way of life …bring about a revolutionary situation”[60]. The political-religious factor along with economic factor is a prominent ingredient and if the state cannot decide how to deal with it then it will effectively serve a great loss. From above discussion, we can say without any ambiguity that Pakistan should take strong measures at five levels as follows:

Obedience to constitution and law enforcement

Free and fair justice to the mass, combined with political awareness olitico-ethical and moral suasion and eligible leadership ositive role of governmental institutions towards the reduction of civil strife brogation of wrong past political decisions, politicized laws and their positive alternative solution

Economic Factor: A Synthesized Model of Political-Religious Violence

The second explanation of political-religious violence singles out economic; how to allocate resources to produce commodities and how those commodities should be distributed for public consumption in a society, so that violence on both i.e. political and religious levels, could eradicate. No doubt, this is a challengeable problem to fulfill the human needs relating to scarce and limited resources. However, one may argue that this is no less challengeable than how can people be prevented from indulging in illegitimate means of earning? This is of concern, because some innocent people fall into the hands of violent people in order to meet their economic needs. Hunger, poverty and economic disparity increase violence rapidly in the country. Due to inflation, buying power goes down and people are compelled to sort out their needs illegally. These kinds of problems are the core issues of violence, as there is a popular saying that “the poverty is the mother of revolution and crime”[61]. Moreover, when economic resources are captured illegally by some states, or through a handful people, then the violence would be animated. Therefore, there would be more resentment because poverty, inequality and a repressive political system prevail in society; as the result of this, militant tendency grow in the world. Therefore, inadequate facilities and poor condition of life are the main cause of violence in Pakistan.

Kegley argues that political and economic deprivations are the main causes of violence. He supports the “Root Causes Theory” by arguing, “Politically oppressed and economically deprived people are more prone to violent behavior”[62]. They are deprived of their basic needs and this condition forces them to change their fate by any means. This is an example of a wider gap between means and ends. However, at the same time, Guelke asserts, “a liberal democracy has proved little more successful than other forms of political systems in overcoming the relative weakness of the state in many Third World Societies”[63] and that economic development is a very important factor to maintain law and order. One of the characteristics of the prevailing environment in Pakistan is unjust economic dispensation, which rapidly gives rise to frustration. Lack of economic facilities is sufficient to motivate individuals and groups to adopt violence as an expression of their anger. However, the present political and economic imbalance, which is based on an unjust system, needs to be changed. The violent people put their lives in danger, so that they can attain peaceful, political rights and well-being[64].

Due to economic disparities and unemployment, people cannot make ends meet; consequently, they fall into the clutches of merciless violent people. Unemployment is a growing problem in Pakistan. Pakistan has reached at a critical juncture and joblessness is increasing daily. It is a central problem because when unemployment is high, resources are not effectively used and people’s incomes are low; such economic miseries damage the common person’s life[65]. In Pakistan, about 2.4 million eligible persons were estimated as unemployed in 1999. The unemployment rate is increasing in both rural and urban areas in absolute as well as in percentage terms. Unemployment in rural areas is greater than in urban areas. Because of industries, there are more chances of employment in urban areas. In rural areas, there is no proper source of earnings, due to which the unemployment rate is increasing; the agriculture sector is not absorbing them due to adaptation of mechanical machines and instruments and bad conditions. Small-scale industries are not working efficiently due to the country’s worsening economic conditions. Therefore, rural people are not finding proper sources of earning. It is clear from the percentage of employed persons by major industries division, therefore the tendency of violence increase due to the lake of economic resources. Due to the inequality of the employment resources, the ratio of violence increased during the last decade of 20th century. Therefore, people individually are much affected than collectively. Moreover, collective sense of violence is lesser than individual[66].

According to Quddus, unemployment is classified into four categories:

(a) Frictional unemployment (workers who are simply moving between jobs)

(b) Structural unemployment (workers who are in regions or industries that are in persistent slump)

(c) Cyclical unemployment (workers who are laid off when the overall economy suffers a downturn). In Pakistan, unemployment is of structural and cyclical nature.

(d) Technological unemployment (new inventions throw people out of work faster)[67].

Unemployment occurs when educated people do not try to work. Therefore, the key element of unemployment is the rigidity of wages. The same situation is in Pakistan, inflexibility arises because of costs involved in administering the compensation system[68]. Due to an imbalanced economic structure, the ratio of violence is increasing steadily.

Educational Factor: A Rational Thinking towards Violence

Plato quotes Socrates[69], who said, “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance”[70]. Therefore, it can be argued that illiteracy contributes much to violence. If people are provided proper education to enable them do away with poverty, this will almost certainly help to reduce the outbreak of violent activities. In Pakistan, Maximum 2.3 per cent[71] Gross National Product (GNP) is earmarked for the education sector. This is a very alarming situation and a considerable factor, which is nurturing the violence. A lack of education is one prime reason for a sudden violence in recent years[72].

Education, whether it is religious or modern scientific education, both sectors of education fulfill the demands of human beings, if it is utilized in a positive way. These two sectors can become the central path to minimize the violence. However, if education is used in a negative sense then it promotes the violence in society. However, there is a third sector of vocational education, which has unfortunately been neglected. If governments pay attention to this sector of education, then several resources can be created to control the unemployment and poverty that leads towards violence. This sector of education can break the cycle of poverty in the country at some extent, because vocational education has less chance to create the violence than the other sectors of education. Moreover, due to bypass of vocational education, the cycle of poverty is increasing. Therefore, researcher strongly suggests that vocational education is a necessary and vital component to break the spiral of violence in the society.

The imbalanced educational system in Pakistan has been one of the reasons for the growth of violence. The first imbalance to be considered in the religious sector of education, which is not fulfilling the demands of modern times. It is inherited from ancient teaching methods and curriculum, which cannot meet or deal with the challenges of this modern age. The second imbalance can be found in the government education system, which has two mediums of education, Urdu and English. Due to this dual system, violence is increasing. In this case, the government should develop only one medium of education, either Urdu or English medium, so that feelings of inferiority could be minimized. Moreover, ethical and moral issues should integrate into both secular and religious learning, in order to provide the basis for a balanced education.

Thirdly, the education sector should develop personality. Educational institutions are only producing cogs to fit into the machines, whose work is only to produce fodder for economic prosperity[73]. To meet the challenges of violence, education for the younger generation should be geared towards the objective of an overall development of the personality. Personality cannot develop only to beautify and fulfill the material needs. If it is developed on this base then man will become selfish; he will see only his desires and benefits. He will do nothing for the welfare and benevolence of the society and humanity. Due to selfishness, thereafter perversity becomes the cause of violence. Therefore, to eradicate the violence, government should take steps towards the spiritual needs of our young school going generation. People need to acquire higher values and meet their basic spiritual needs to live peacefully. One important issue, which needs to bear in mind that the proliferation of sects and splinter groups in Pakistan are the result of the spiritual vacuum provided by the minimizing of religion from public life. This also provides a lucrative opportunity for disaffected groups with political agendas to seek and secure recruits for their causes, by providing them with their brand of education to indoctrinate the innocent with their philosophies and ideologies[74].

Hence, lack of education can be blamed for the increase of violence in all corners of the country. Realistically, education can be appeared as a powerful antidote to violence[75]. Education in general, is a powerful tool to provide alternatives to the illiterate, impoverished areas that are the recruiting grounds for violence. In early childhood, minds are very susceptible to positive and negative reinforcement. If children are not given alternatives, they will develop a sense of guilt. One example is enough to make it clear. A seventeen-year-old student came into the clutches of violent people. He was asked to leave the school and join the madrasa where you would get religious education. It was asked would you prefer this temporary life or eternal life where chaste maiden would wait for you[76]. This example shows the irresponsibility of parents who do not care for their children.

In childhood, children further develop their sense of inferiority or competence. If a child takes pride in being productive, he will develop a sense of competence. The most practicable and feasible solution to the prevention of child combatants in Pakistan would be to provide them appropriate, pure and untainted education[77]. As mentioned earlier, ethical, moral and spiritual, blended with modern and religious education, can produce fruitful results because sometimes, mere education and the flow of wealth seem to have a positive link with the recent surge in violence, instead of being the remedy for it. Only education (through such rigid sects who have no real sense of education) could produce the masterminds of violent activities as are presently.

Religious Schismatize Approach: A Pure and Exclusive Driver of Violence

Violence as a religious factor can be seen more or less in every society. The concept of Kali[78],[79] and zealots’ ideologies[80] are some of its examples. Notorious names like Fouche, Lyons and Loire come under this pattern. We should keep in mind that religiosity is not itself problematic towards any definition and it can be found in every society and in any field of life. In the same way, violent people exist in many fields. Undoubtedly, irrational human behavior cements the enmity. Whether it is religion or other issues of life, these things operate in a similar manner. Conservatism brings about extremism. Therefore, Muftis should very careful to pass the edict, so that conservatism could not come into society, because at some extent conservatism produces radicalism. Sometimes, people take up arms and attack one another on the basis of religious edicts. If we do not uproot radicalism, violence will increase more gradually.

Moreover, they impose their doctrines upon others through armed struggle. Because of this, violence takes place. Those who are waging a war against violence want to eradicate the growth of violence without considering the above crucial issues. They do not want to eradicate the root cause of violence. Instead, both international and local agencies provide funds to violent people. The fact is that there is no place for violence in Islam nor does violence have anything to do with Islam. It is self-invented thinking, which produces violence in society. My whole discussions on external and internal factor, which trigger the political and religious violence, conclude with a plea for a change of behaviors and characters towards moderation. Moreover, the conclusion of this article can be lined up under.

Conclusion

Violent behaviors indulge in terrorist activities for political and religious purposes, so that people could not represent moderation and represent other side too[81]. Secondly, they have lust of power, which can certainly destroy human moderate spirit. Islam does not teach any hatred but it says that there should be love in our lives[82]. On the other hand, when terrorist and violent people listen the word ‘democracy’ they think that its means the ‘Western democracy’. Therefore, according to those people’s views, democracy is the total negation of Islamic essence, and it has no link or connection with Islamic laws and rules. Due to this reason, they feel hate towards the name of democracy and they utterly reject the concept. They think that it is a smaller minority that controls the whole system of state. According to those people, they do not have right to serve the state[83]. Due to it, a religious group pushes ahead to get its ‘rightful’ place in the sharing of power and consequently a clash of classes occurs and only civilians come under attack. They consider that this political system is open for some and close to other particular groups as fascist organizations in Germany are not allowed to access state institutions[84].

On the other hand, some think tanks (not local) create more gulfs between the two sects (moderate and extremist)[85]. This is because they have to create the negative trends to investigate the differences between two sects, so that, they should remain so far apart to prevent any harmony. In this sense, the extremist religious factor becomes more vivid as an ingredient for violence. Therefore, state within state cannot be expected to favor one thought against others. It has to treat all orthodoxies equally if it wants to survive and maintain a true rule of law. The ruling parties and the opposition in Pakistan must join hands to isolate the hate monger by overwhelming popular support.

Secondly, it is valid that state violence has the potential to be politicized but on the other hand, it is far from reality that state violence has the potential to be Islamized, as mentioned by Edwards[86]. There is no any argument that, in this example, state violence can be linked with Islam. Criticism can be directed towards the violent behavior of misinterpreted religious mindsets as with the Zealot’s ideology towards opponents; either they were Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes[87]. However, it is agreed that state and society must be seen as connected entities, as Ibn Khaldun stated, “a state is inconceivable without a society, while a society without a state is well-nigh impossible, owing to the aggressive propensities of men, which require restraint; any disturbance in either of them will cause disturbance in the other”[88]. Furthermore, if someone comments that in Pakistan, violence is endemic. Conversely, someone can say that this is only a Muslim problem. However, it cannot gain any validity, because no well-founded and logical argument behind it. History mirrors to every occurrence including the communal violence to specific event such as the golden temple incident where each extremist religious mindset comes under discussion. The Indian Army assassinated hundreds of Sikhs in the Golden Temple on 1984 and they were considered extremists because they had secured a huge amount of heavy weapons there[89]. Moreover, Ibn Khaldun comments are valid from a perspective that state and society are inseparable, and disturbances can be created either by state, by society or by both.

References

  1. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239.New York: I. B Taurus Publishers.
  2. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New Delhi: Penguin Books
  3. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  4. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  5. Roteberg, R. I. (2004). The failure and collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, prevention, and repair. In R. I. Rotberg (Ed.), When states fail: Causes and consequences, p. 1. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  6. Bevernage, B. (2012).History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice. New York: Routledge
  7. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  8. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239.New York: I. B Taurus Publishers.
  9. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  10. Meher, J. (2012). Pakistan’s strategic obsession and the road to catastrophe: Is there a way out? India Quarterly, 68 (4), 345
  11. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239. New York: I. B Taurus Publishers
  12. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  13. Folorunso, M. (2013).Terrere’s universe: A 2000 Year adventure in terrorism in honour of Dr. BamangaTukur.AuthorHouse
  14. Pockrass, R. M. (1987).Terroristic murder in northern Ireland: Who is killed and why?, Terrorism: An international Journal, 9(1), 341
  15. Freedman, L. (1983). Why does terrorism terrorize? Terrorism: An international journal, 6 (3), 324
  16. Hutchinson, C. (1972). The concept of revolutionary terrorism.Journal of conflict resolution,16(3), 383-96.
  17. Kupperman, R. & Trent, D. (1979).Terrorism, threat, reality, response.Stanford University: Hoover Institution
  18. Friedlander, R. (1979). Terrorism and the law, what price safety?IACP study1 (13), 123, Gaithersburg, MD.
  19. Breton, A., &Dalmazzone, S. (2002). Information control, loss of autonomy, and the
  20. emergence of political extremism. In A. Breton, G. Galeotti, P. Salmon & R. Wintrobe (Eds.), Political extremism and rationality (pp. 45-49).Cambridge University Press.
  21. Kurzman, C. (1998). Liberal Islam and its Islamic context.In C. Kurzman (Ed.), Liberal Islam (P. 24). New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Qaradāwi, Y. (1991). Islamic awakening between rejection and extremism.American Trust Publication and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
  23. Chodary, D. (1978). Eradication of extremism. London: Free Press.
  24. Afghani, Z. (1987).Fanaticism, violence and clashes, vol: 1. Al-Mustafa publishing systems
  25. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239. New York: I. B Taurus Publishers
  26. Paul, T. V. (2014). The warrior state: Pakistan in the contemporary world.Oxford University Press.
  27. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  28. Esposito, J. &Voll, J. (1996).Islam and democracy. New York: Oxford University
  29. Donnelly, P. (2002). Tariq Ramadan: The Muslim Martin Luther?Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2002/02/15/ramadan_2/.Accessed on 20 March 2015.
  30. Nasr, S. V. (1994). The vanguard of the Islamic revolution.California: University of California Press.
  31. Guelke, A. (2008). The age of terrorism and the international political system.London: I.B. Tauris.
  32. Choudhury, G. (1990). Islam and the contemporary world. London: Indus Thames Publishers
  33. Al-Qadri, M. Tahir.(1999). QurāniPhalsapha e Inqalaab, (Qurānic Philosophy of Revolution). Lahore: MinhajulQurān Publications.
  34. Cohen, S. (2003). The jihadist threat to Pakistan. Washington Quarterly, 26 (3), 7–25
  35. Dawn, Karachi, 12 March 1948.
  36. Owen, D. & Strong, T. (Eds.), Livingstone, R. (Trans.). (2004). Max Weber, The vocation lectures: Science as a vocation and politics as a vocation. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
  37. Choudhury, G. (1990). Islam and the contemporary world. London: Indus Thames Publishers
  38. Jalalzai, M. (2003).The crisis of governance in Pakistan. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications.
  39. Blumenthal, D. (1975). More about Justifying Violence: Methodological Studies of Attitudes and Behavior.Publishers: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
  40. Zafar, M. (2007).Violence, terrorism and teaching of Islam. Islamabad: Da‘wa Academy, Higher education commission, Islamabad.
  41. Hamilton-Hart, N. (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Expert Analysis, Myopia and Fantasy.The Pacific Review 18 (3), 303–325.
  42. Linden, E. V. (2003). Focus on terrorism.Vol. 6. New York: Nova Science Publishers
  43. Midgley, M. (2002).Understanding the war on terrorism. Open Democracy, 25-10-2002. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/reflection
  44. Lichbach, M. (1989).An evaluation of “does economic inequality breed political conflict?” studies.World Politics, 41(4), 431-470.
  45. Waller, B. (1926). Paths to world-peace. London: Unwind Brother, Ltd.
  46. Cronin, A. (2003). Terrorists and suicide attacks. CRS report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Retrieved from.www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA44532
  47. Paz, R. (2003). Suicide terrorist operations in Chechnya: An escalation of the Islamist struggle, International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism. Retrieved from, http://www.ict.org.il. Accessed on 25 November 2003
  48. Bloom, M. (2004). Palestinian Suicide Bombing: Public Support, Market Share and Outbidding.Political Science Quarterly, 119 (1), 78
  49. Stone, J. &Mennell, S. (Eds.). (1980). Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution, and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  50. Bjorgo, T. (Ed.). (2005). Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality and ways forward.
  51. New York: Routledge.
  52. Eckstein, H. (1965). On the etiology of internal wars.History and theory, 4 (2), 140
  53. Hobsbawm, E. (1975). Revolutionaries. New American Library
  54. Charles H. Kegel (August 16, 1924 - April 1981) was a professor in the Department of Communication Skills at Michigan State University and in the Department of English at Idaho State University
  55. Kegley, C. (1991). The causes of terrorism in international terrorism. London: Macmillan Education Ltd
  56. Kennedy, M. (1986).The root cause of terrorism.The Humanist,46 (5), 5-9
  57. Rubenstein, R. (1987). Alchemists of revolution:Terrorism in the modern World. New York: Basic books publishers
  58. Crenshaw, M. (1990).The causes of terrorism.In C. W. Kegley Jr. (Ed.).International terrorism. New York: St. Martin’s Press
  59. Ahmad, E. (2001). Terrorism: Theirs and ours. Open Media, Greg Ruggiero
  60. Wilkinson, P. & Rapport, D. (Eds.). (2011). Terrorism versus democracy: The liberal state response. Oxon: Routledge.
  61. Seldes, G. (Ed.). (1967). The great quotations. Mussolini’s speech in Udine, Italy, September 20, 1922.Quted in New York: Simon & Schuster.
  62. Moore, B. (2003). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  63. Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton University Press
  64. Kegley, C. (1991). The causes of terrorism in international terrorism. London: Macmillan Education Ltd
  65. Guelke, A. (2008). The age of terrorism and the international political system.London: I.B. Tauris.
  66. Jackson, R; Smyth, M. B; & Gunning, J. (2009).Critical terrorism studies: A new research agenda. Oxen: Routledge
  67. Rashid, A. (2002). Jihad: The rise of militant Islam in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press
  68. Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, New York, 1947, p. 76. Earlier Jaspers wrote that 'there can be no collective guilt of a people or a group within a people’.
  69. Quddus, S. A. (1990). Social change in Pakistan. Lahore: Progressive Publishers
  70. Krauthammer, C. (1986). “Partners in crimes”, in N. Benjamin (Ed.) Terrorism:How the West can win New York: Farrar & Straus.
  71. 469–399 BC, a classical Greek philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy
  72. Plato. (1993). The last days of Socrates. (Revised edition.).(H. Tredennick, & H. Tarrant, Trans.). 1969.Penguin Books,
  73. Malik, N. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and development in Pakistan. Oxon: Routledge
  74. Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. London: Indigo Publishers
  75. Bsteh, A. (Ed). (2004). Intolerance and violence, manifestations and reasons, 2nd Vienna international Christian-Islamic Round Table , Vienna, February21 to 24, 2002. Verlag St. Gabriel
  76. Pinto, D. (2013).Education and etiquette: Behaviour formation in fascist Spain. In R. Wodak& J. E. Richardson (Eds.), Analysing fascist discourse: European fascism in talk and text (P. 133). New York: Routledge
  77. Krueger, A. &Maleckova, J. (2003). “Education, poverty and terrorism: Is there a causal connection? In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(5), 119-144
  78. Roznama Leader (Urdu newspaper), 8 October 2008.
  79. Stern, J. (1999). The ultimate terrorists.Harvard University Press.
  80. Farquhar, J .N. (1981). Thangs, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (P. 259). (New
  81. York: Charles Scribner’s sons.)
  82. Nanji, A, (1986).Encyclopedia of religion, (P:459) New York: Macmillan publishing company
  83. Angus, S. (1922). Zealots, in Hastings, J (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion and ethics,
  84. (Vol: 12, P: 849).(New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.)
  85. Yahya, H &Oktar, A. (2013).Islam denounces terrorism. Turkey: Global Publishing
  86. Shahida M. (1995, March 31). Accent on peace and good will.Dawn, p. 5
  87. Choueiri, Y. (1996). Political discourse of contemporary Islamist movements, In Islamic fundamentalism, Sidahmed, A. S &Ehteshami, A. (Eds.), Arab Studies Quarterly 21 (2), 24, west view press
  88. Hafez, M. (2004).Why Muslims rebel. London: Lynne Rienner publishers
  89. Cheema, P. (Ed.). (2006.). Political violence and terrorism in South Asia. Islamabad: policy research institute.
  90. Edwards, B. M. (2006). Islam and violence in the modern era. P: 105. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  91. Sasson, H. H. (1976). A history of the Jewish people.Dvir Publishing House
  92. Dawood, N. (Ed.). (1967). Al-muqadima (Ibn Khaldūn): An introduction to history. (F. Rosenthal, (Trans) Princeton: Princeton University Press
  93. Tully, M. & Jacob, S. (1994). Amritser: Mrs Gandhi’s last battle.Rupa and company Publishers
  1. urr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239.New York: I. B Taurus Publishers.
  2. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New Delhi: Penguin Books
  3. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  4. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  5. Roteberg, R. I. (2004). The failure and collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, prevention, and repair. In R. I. Rotberg (Ed.), When states fail: Causes and consequences, p. 1. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  6. Bevernage, B. (2012).History, Memory, and State-Sponsored Violence: Time and Justice. New York: Routledge
  7. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  8. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239.New York: I. B Taurus Publishers.
  9. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  10. Meher, J. (2012). Pakistan’s strategic obsession and the road to catastrophe: Is there a way out? India Quarterly, 68 (4), 345
  11. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239. New York: I. B Taurus Publishers
  12. Post, J. M. (2007).Mind of the terrorist. Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Service Committee, 15 November 2001
  13. Folorunso, M. (2013).Terrere’s universe: A 2000 Year adventure in terrorism in honour of Dr. BamangaTukur.AuthorHouse
  14. Pockrass, R. M. (1987).Terroristic murder in northern Ireland: Who is killed and why?, Terrorism: An international Journal, 9(1), 341
  15. Freedman, L. (1983). Why does terrorism terrorize? Terrorism: An international journal, 6 (3), 324
  16. Hutchinson, C. (1972). The concept of revolutionary terrorism.Journal of conflict resolution,16(3), 383-96.
  17. Kupperman, R. & Trent, D. (1979).Terrorism, threat, reality, response.Stanford University: Hoover Institution
  18. Friedlander, R. (1979). Terrorism and the law, what price safety?IACP study1 (13), 123, Gaithersburg, MD.
  19. Breton, A., &Dalmazzone, S. (2002). Information control, loss of autonomy, and the emergence of political extremism. In A. Breton, G. Galeotti, P. Salmon & R. Wintrobe (Eds.), Political extremism and rationality (pp. 45-49).Cambridge University Press.
  20. Kurzman, C. (1998). Liberal Islam and its Islamic context.In C. Kurzman (Ed.), Liberal Islam (P. 24). New York: Oxford University Press
  21. Qaradāwi, Y. (1991). Islamic awakening between rejection and extremism.American Trust Publication and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
  22. Chodary, D. (1978). Eradication of extremism. London: Free Press.
  23. Afghani, Z. (1987).Fanaticism, violence and clashes, vol: 1. Al-Mustafa publishing systems
  24. Gurr, N. & Cole, B. (2000).The New face of terrorism: Threat from weapons of mass destruction, P. 239. New York: I. B Taurus Publishers
  25. Paul, T. V. (2014). The warrior state: Pakistan in the contemporary world.Oxford University Press.
  26. Michael, S. (2007). Terrorism a socio-economic and political phenomenon with special reference to Pakistan.Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3 (1), 57
  27. Esposito, J. &Voll, J. (1996).Islam and democracy. New York: Oxford University
  28. Donnelly, P. (2002). Tariq Ramadan: The Muslim Martin Luther?Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2002/02/15/ramadan_2/.Accessed on 20 March 2015.
  29. Nasr, S. V. (1994). The vanguard of the Islamic revolution.California: University of California Press.
  30. Guelke, A. (2008). The age of terrorism and the international political system.London: I.B. Tauris.
  31. Choudhury, G. (1990). Islam and the contemporary world. London: Indus Thames Publishers
  32. Al-Qadri, M. Tahir.(1999). QurāniPhalsapha e Inqalaab, (Qurānic Philosophy of Revolution). Lahore: MinhajulQurān Publications.
  33. Cohen, S. (2003). The jihadist threat to Pakistan. Washington Quarterly, 26 (3), 7–25
  34. Dawn, Karachi, 12 March 1948.
  35. Owen, D. & Strong, T. (Eds.), Livingstone, R. (Trans.). (2004). Max Weber, The vocation lectures: Science as a vocation and politics as a vocation. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
  36. Choudhury, G. (1990). Islam and the contemporary world. London: Indus Thames Publishers
  37. Jalalzai, M. (2003).The crisis of governance in Pakistan. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications.
  38. Blumenthal, D. (1975). More about Justifying Violence: Methodological Studies of Attitudes and Behavior.Publishers: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
  39. Zafar, M. (2007).Violence, terrorism and teaching of Islam. Islamabad: Da‘wa Academy, Higher education commission, Islamabad.
  40. Hamilton-Hart, N. (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Expert Analysis, Myopia and Fantasy.The Pacific Review 18 (3), 303–325.
  41. Linden, E. V. (2003). Focus on terrorism.Vol. 6. New York: Nova Science Publishers
  42. Midgley, M. (2002).Understanding the war on terrorism. Open Democracy, 25-10-2002. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/reflection
  43. Lichbach, M. (1989).An evaluation of “does economic inequality breed political conflict?” studies.World Politics, 41(4), 431-470.
  44. Waller, B. (1926). Paths to world-peace. London: Unwind Brother, Ltd.
  45. Cronin, A. (2003). Terrorists and suicide attacks. CRS report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Retrieved from.www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA44532
  46. Paz, R. (2003). Suicide terrorist operations in Chechnya: An escalation of the Islamist struggle, International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism. Retrieved from, http://www.ict.org.il. Accessed on 25 November 2003
  47. Bloom, M. (2004). Palestinian Suicide Bombing: Public Support, Market Share and Outbidding.Political Science Quarterly, 119 (1), 78
  48. Stone, J. &Mennell, S. (Eds.). (1980). Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution, and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  49. Bjorgo, T. (Ed.). (2005). Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality and ways forward. New York: Routledge.
  50. Eckstein, H. (1965). On the etiology of internal wars.History and theory, 4 (2), 140
  51. Hobsbawm, E. (1975). Revolutionaries. New American Library
  52. Charles H. Kegel (August 16, 1924 - April 1981) was a professor in the Department of Communication Skills at Michigan State University and in the Department of English at Idaho State University
  53. Kegley, C. (1991). The causes of terrorism in international terrorism. London: Macmillan Education Ltd
  54. Kennedy, M. (1986).The root cause of terrorism.The Humanist,46 (5), 5-9
  55. Rubenstein, R. (1987). Alchemists of revolution:Terrorism in the modern World. New York: Basic books publishers
  56. Crenshaw, M. (1990).The causes of terrorism.In C. W. Kegley Jr. (Ed.).International terrorism. New York: St. Martin’s Press
  57. Ahmad, E. (2001). Terrorism: Theirs and ours. Open Media, Greg Ruggiero
  58. Wilkinson, P. & Rapport, D. (Eds.). (2011). Terrorism versus democracy: The liberal state response. Oxon: Routledge.
  59. Seldes, G. (Ed.). (1967). The great quotations. Mussolini’s speech in Udine, Italy, September 20, 1922.Quted in New York: Simon & Schuster.
  60. Moore, B. (2003). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  61. Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton University Press
  62. Kegley, C. (1991). The causes of terrorism in international terrorism. London: Macmillan Education Ltd
  63. Guelke, A. (2008). The age of terrorism and the international political system.London: I.B. Tauris.
  64. Jackson, R; Smyth, M. B; & Gunning, J. (2009).Critical terrorism studies: A new research agenda. Oxen: Routledge
  65. Rashid, A. (2002). Jihad: The rise of militant Islam in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press
  66. Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, New York, 1947, p. 76. Earlier Jaspers wrote that 'there can be no collective guilt of a people or a group within a people’.
  67. Quddus, S. A. (1990). Social change in Pakistan. Lahore: Progressive Publishers
  68. Krauthammer, C. (1986). “Partners in crimes”, in N. Benjamin (Ed.) Terrorism:How the West can win New York: Farrar & Straus.
  69. 469–399 BC, a classical Greek philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy
  70. Plato. (1993). The last days of Socrates. (Revised edition.).(H. Tredennick, & H. Tarrant, Trans.). 1969.Penguin Books,
  71. Malik, N. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and development in Pakistan. Oxon: Routledge
  72. Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. London: Indigo Publishers
  73. Bsteh, A. (Ed). (2004). Intolerance and violence, manifestations and reasons, 2nd Vienna international Christian-Islamic Round Table , Vienna, February21 to 24, 2002. Verlag St. Gabriel
  74. Pinto, D. (2013).Education and etiquette: Behaviour formation in fascist Spain. In R. Wodak& J. E. Richardson (Eds.), Analysing fascist discourse: European fascism in talk and text (P. 133). New York: Routledge
  75. Krueger, A. &Maleckova, J. (2003). “Education, poverty and terrorism: Is there a causal connection? In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(5), 119-144
  76. Roznama Leader (Urdu newspaper), 8 October 2008.
  77. Stern, J. (1999). The ultimate terrorists.Harvard University Press.
  78. Farquhar, J .N. (1981). Thangs, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (P. 259). (New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.)
  79. Nanji, A, (1986).Encyclopedia of religion, (P:459) New York: Macmillan publishing company
  80. Angus, S. (1922). Zealots, in Hastings, J (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion and ethics, (Vol: 12, P: 849).(New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.)
  81. Yahya, H &Oktar, A. (2013).Islam denounces terrorism. Turkey: Global Publishing
  82. Shahida M. (1995, March 31). Accent on peace and good will.Dawn, p. 5
  83. Choueiri, Y. (1996). Political discourse of contemporary Islamist movements, In Islamic fundamentalism, Sidahmed, A. S &Ehteshami, A. (Eds.), Arab Studies Quarterly 21 (2), 24, west view press
  84. Hafez, M. (2004).Why Muslims rebel. London: Lynne Rienner publishers
  85. Cheema, P. (Ed.). (2006.). Political violence and terrorism in South Asia. Islamabad: policy research institute.
  86. Edwards, B. M. (2006). Islam and violence in the modern era. P: 105. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  87. Sasson, H. H. (1976). A history of the Jewish people.Dvir Publishing House
  88. Dawood, N. (Ed.). (1967). Al-muqadima (Ibn Khaldūn): An introduction to history. (F. Rosenthal, (Trans) Princeton: Princeton University Press
  89. Tully, M. & Jacob, S. (1994). Amritser: Mrs Gandhi’s last battle.Rupa and company Publishers