Bringing Religiosity Back In: Critical Reflection on the Explanation of Western Homegrown Religious Terrorism (Part II)

An unusual feature of the social scientific study of religious terrorism is the erasure of religiosity as a significant motivational factor. This article delineates and criticizes the presence of this peculiar interpretive preference, demonstrating that it is methodologically unsound and theoretically and empirically unhelpful. In Part I of the article, published by the same author under the same title in the February 2021 issue of Perspectives on Terrorism, the foundations of the critique were established. In this article, Part II, three types of arguments commonly used to minimize the role of religiosity in motivating religious terrorism are examined. These arguments are identified by the primary interpretive errors they rely on. Some arguments (1) mistakenly treat the religious background and knowledge of homegrown jihadists as a sound indicator of their religiosity; others (2) inappropriately apply a modern Western normative conception of religion to homegrown jihadists; and some arguments (3) rely on an overly dichotomized conception of the relationship of social processes and ideology in the process of radicalization. The critique argues the need to develop a more refined conception of the role of ideology, and more specifically religiosity, in the determination of the actions of religious terrorists.