In the wake of any terrorist attack, the immediate questions are who would do such a thing and why they would want to do it. When religion is a part of the picture, the questions are compounded.  One of the enduring questions is what religion has to do with them and what they did. Put simply, does religion has anything to do with it? Could these violent acts be the fault of religion? Well, this essay disagrees with those who think terrorism is always the result of religion. It will aim to explain and clarify why terrorists are not attached to mainstream religion, but rather act as rogue groups.

First of all, there is no precise definition for terrorism. “The negative connotations associated with the word terrorism have further complicated attempts to arrive at a subjective definition of the term” (Donnellan,2005 p.11). However, according to  Burleigh (2009), “Terrorism is a tactic primarily used by non-as well as a hierarchical organisation to create a psychological climate of fear in order to compensate for the legitimate political power they do not possess”. For  (Williams, 2004, p.7), “Terrorism is politically including ideologically, religiously or socially-but not criminally motivated violence directed generally against non-combatants, intended to shock and terrify, to achieve a strategic outcome”. Thus terrorism is not a religious idea, “Nazisms communism, fascism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, and conservative logically imply distinctive sets of ideas” (Kane, 2007 p.27).