The Role of Religion in Civil Wars

[rug]

Religion often plays an important role in civil wars but is it ever THE precipitating cause behind them? As he explains in today’s Questions and Answers, the CSS’s Owen Frazer doesn’t think so. He sees (and describes) an interplay of factors that drive civil conflicts.

By Owen Frazer for the ISN
6 February 2013

Is there such a thing as a ‘religious’ conflict, or are there simply conflicts with a religious dimension?

If by a ‘religious’ conflict you mean a conflict that is primarily about religion, I think the short answer is no. Of course, in the sense of disagreement or debate, there are “conflicts” within religious movements over interpretation of religious doctrine, etc. However, in the context of civil wars and intrastate conflicts, religious issues per se may indeed be factors in the conflict but they will be just some factors among many. When talking about conflicts there is often an overemphasis on trying to reduce the conflict to one main “root” cause. Doing so only obscures the dynamic and complex nature of most political conflicts.

Religious issues that are part of what the conflict is ‘about’ are only one way in which religion can play a role in conflict. For this reason it can be misleading to speak of conflicts with a religious dimension. It gives an impression that religion is just one part of, or issue in, a conflict and that it can be separated from the other parts. The interplay between religion and the different elements of a conflict is more complex.

When analyzing any conflict it can be helpful to break it down into the three main categories of actors, issues and context and to look at the dynamic interaction between these three categories. Religion can have relevance for each category. Conflict actors can be religiously-inspired (just take for example some of the rebel groups fighting in Mali at the moment), issues can directly relate to religious questions (e.g. to what extent should religious law form the basis of national law), and the wider context can be in part shaped by religious considerations (for example, a history of animosity between different faith groupings or overseas support for particular parties to the conflict based on a shared faith).

In short, conflicts are never only about religion but in some conflicts religious considerations can play an important role at many levels.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=158749&contextid774=158749&contextid775=158746&tabid=1453497829

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. 'Ever'? I think it sometimes has been

The Taiping Rebellion, and the Albigensian Crusade, for instance. Whether there's any current civil war that is primarily caused by religion, I'm not sure. Arguably, religion started the current conflict in Yemen:

According to Human Rights Watch, an armed conflict between Yemeni government forces and Huthi rebels began in 2004. Husain al-Huthi founded the Believing Youth movement in the 1990s, aimed at reviving Zaidi Islam, a branch of Shi’ism found mainly in Yemen, to counter growing fundamentalist Sunni trends in the northern Yemeni governorates where Zaidis dominate. The conflict began as isolated clashes between the Believing Youth movement (Huthis) and the army in Sa’da. Thereafter, anti-Israel and anti-US demonstrations led by Huthis in San’a, Yemen’s capital, which embarrassed the government after it had embraced US counter-terrorism efforts, led to arrests of Huthis and further clashes with them.

Zaidi Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, led the Huthi movement. They had ruled Yemen for a millennium and comprised the state’s religious and governing elite until the army-led revolution in 1962, also supported by some Zaidi tribes, deposed them. Zaidi Hashemites are especially prominent in the Sa’da area, where there has not historically been a significant government law enforcement presence.
...
The Yemeni Government has admitted the presence of Al-Qaeda within its borders, placing the number of members at 300 in 2009. In January 2010, under international pressure, Yemen declared "open war" against the south-operating armed group. The US has used drones in operations against Al-Qaeda, which has resulted in such high-profile killings as that of Anwar al-Awlaki leader in September 2011. Drone attacks have continued into 2012. According to the Ploughshares Website much of southern Yemen, especially Abyan Province, was captured by AQAP in the first half of 2011, and AQAP gained control of the city of Jaar in March 2011.

http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/current_conflict.php?id_state=234

[rug]

2. Don't you think that, from your article, the fact that many in the rebellion were impoverished and

that fact that a goal was to hold property in common had something to do with it?

Don't you think the Cathar opposition to war, capital punishment and marriage might have attracted the attention of the secular authorities?

I don't think I have to make a case about al Qaeda.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Taiping? No, it was religious, for the leaders

Followers may have been poor, but the driving force was religious.

The Cathar opposition to war, capital punishment and marriage stemmed from their religion. It might have, eventually, attracted the attention of the secular authorities, but the pope got there first, and ordered the war.

If you think you don't have to make a case about al Qaeda, then you are giving up on your own thread. What a waste of time, for all of us.

[rug]

6. For other wars, the motive is patriotism, nationalism or some other intangible ideal.

That does not change the economic and political content of the war.

The Cathar religious beliefs did not strt the war. It was the state's perception of those beliefs constituting a threat to the secular war. It was the state who moved to suppress that threat, not the other way around.

No, I don't have to make a case for al Qaeda. What is a waste of time is ignoring evidence to suit a preformed agenda that religion is the root of all evil.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It was the *pope's* perception of the beliefs

He saw them as a threat to the *Catholic religion*. And told their countrymen that their religion demanded the Cathars be suppressed. There's a reason it's called a 'crusade'.

It is the origin of "kill them all; God will know his own" (said by an abbot in command of the sacking of a town).

[rug]

8. That was Abbot Almaric who led the army.

I guarantee you his army was not composed of monks. Who do you think supplied the army, and why? Hint: it was not to spare themselves from Purgatory.

[okasha]

9. Calling the Albigensian Crusade a civil war

is a stretch to begin with. Quite apart from Catharism, there were profound cultural an political differences between northern and southern France, large portions of which were in fact English territory. The so_called Crusade was, from the French point of view, an attempt to regain lands that had been lost when Eleanor of Aquitaine divorced Louis VII and married Henry Plantagenet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. No, it wasn't about Aquitaine/Gascony

It was set in Languedoc, on the Mediterranean end of the Pyrenees, not in the area under English control, on the Atlantic coast. And it remains an obvious fact that, as the OP puts it, "THE precipitating cause" was the Pope wanting to stamp out heresy/a competing religion (depending on you point of view). The king of France may have then seen it as an opportunity to increase his control over the area, but, as the Enc Brit says, he came to it late. You could argue, I suppose, that Toulouse was effectively independent at the time, so that it became a war of conquest, not a civil war.

[Adsos Letter]

3. Even the English Civil War

one of the most religious of European civil wars, wasn't only about religion. The struggle between Parliament and Crown was a major factor.

It probably goes without saying that historical causation is usually multi-faceted, though weight can certainly be apportioned. Seems to be what the professional historians spend most of their time arguing about, especially in the case of the English Civil War/Revolution (which wasn't really the topic of your post anyway, sooo...)

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. The Scottish part of the Civil Wars was more so

Charles alienated two powerful factions in Scottish society through his actions. Firstly, there were the Presbyterians, who believed that Christ, not the King, was the head of the Kirk, and that spiritual power should flow from the Kirk Elders upwards and not from the King down. In his attempts to tamper with religion, Charles gave the Presbyterians political credibility. Secondly, by introducing bishops into government, Charles had weakened the traditional role of the Scots nobility. Disaffected, they drew closer to the Presbyterian radicals. The crunch came in 1637 when Charles insisted, without consultation, on introducing an English-style prayerbook into Scotland. It incited a revolution - the National Covenant was signed at Greyfriar’s Kirk, Edinburgh, in 1638.

The signing of the National Covenant has been called the biggest event in Scottish history. In essence it was a document, a contract with God, signed by the Nobles, Ministers and thousands of ordinary Scots, who pledged themselves to defend Scotland’s rights by stating what they would and wouldn't agree to in matters of Kirk and state. Drawn up by two of Scotland’s sharpest minds, Archibald Johnston of Wariston and Alexander Henderson, it contained radical demands for changes in Scotland's governance.

The Covenant demanded a free Scottish Parliament and a free General Assembly, which means free from the King’s interference. Specifically, it demanded the abolition of bishops, who had blindly served the King in matters of Kirk and State, and, in effect, it limited the power of the King by inflating the role of Scotland’s nobles and Kirk. The medieval order of divinely appointed Kings was truely over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/union/features_union_covenanters.shtml