Executive Summary:
The presence of “the thing and its opposite” in religious texts has rendered human relationships with their faith subject to varying interpretations, shaped by different perspectives in understanding, explanation, and interpretation. This complexity is often led by the “believing” elite, who have historically produced “Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologies.” Thus, sacred texts can be multifaceted, at times straying from their original context, their historical circumstances, and their highest moral aspirations. This complexity allows the human mind to interpret texts as it wishes—or as desires or interests dictate.
The entangled and often tense relationship between religiosity and extremism has made it easy to exploit religion as a tool for violence. This exploitation is facilitated by backward cultural, social, and economic interactions, authoritarian political structures, and opportunistic alliances that steer religious texts towards objectives that stray from their true essence.
Religious principles lose their deepest meanings when they are reduced to secondary aspects or isolated contexts, thus undermining the coherence of their moral frameworks. This reduction can polarize perceptions of religion as one of peace, violence, or something in-between, as described by Michel Onfray. Generally, religious extremism is committed for reasons unrelated to faith itself, but it draws upon it as a sacred authority.
In this study, we aim to explore the following key topics:
Topics:
- Introduction
- Do the Sacred Texts Incite Extremism?
- The Sacred History of Extremism
- Extremism, Violence, and the Monopolization of Truth
- Defining Boundaries between Religion and Politics
- The Interlinking of Religion and Politics in Islam
- Extremism between Religiosity and Politics
- The Clash of Extremist Fundamentalisms
- Sources and References
Introduction
The emergence of religions marked the birth of “the original sinner,” a figure distinct from the “instinctual human” and embodied a competition between the forces of good and evil, as described in religious narratives about the beginning of creation. This competition evolved into a moral paradigm with the introduction of Abel, symbolizing good will, as a counterpart to Cain, representing ill will. This narrative laid the foundation for moving from human blood sacrifice—symbolized in Cain’s murder of Abel—to animal sacrifice in the “Abrahamic offering,” reflecting a relative departure from the violent customs of the ancient Near East, where the firstborn was considered the property of the deity. It also established faith as an act and introduced a new religious dimension, presenting God as a supreme being with absolute authority and limitless possibilities.[1]
Human interpretations of divine retribution or forgiveness toward non-believers have been riddled with contradictions, wavering between the potential for good and the tendency toward evil. Instead of striving to become “in the image and likeness of God,” people have attributed human desires and inclinations to God. Rather than grounding faith in morality, with God as the ultimate legislator of ethical law, religion was often reduced to self-serving rituals and superficial acts of devotion, performed in sanctuaries, churches, and temples, aiming to win God’s favor.
Do the Sacred Texts Incite Extremism?
No one can deny that the three Abrahamic religions emphasize the concept of “God’s wrath,” and that part of human faith historically stemmed from fearing God’s wrath for disobeying His commandments. However, this fear was not the entirety of these religions’ messages. The sacred texts were not “calls to extremism.” While verses of violence exist, they are balanced by verses that emphasize peace within the same scriptures. This balance aims to break the historical association between “sacred extremism” and “pagan pluralism” and to establish tolerance as a moral option and legal framework for humanity.
In Judaism, Moses’s anger toward his people, his breaking of the Tablets of the Law, and his orders to “kill each his brother and his companion and his neighbor” (Exodus 32:27) to reinforce faith are contrasted with the “Ten Commandments” (Exodus 20:13-15) he carried, which include commands such as, “You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal.” Thus, extremism in Judaism often emerged as “an extreme religion facing an extreme society.”
This harsh stance was somewhat softened with the advent of Christianity, though not entirely abandoned. As Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish [the Law], but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17). Thus, the sword remained as a substitute for peace[2], and the whip as a substitute for dialogue.[3] However, Jesus’s message of love and forgiveness, as expressed in “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you” (Matthew 5:44), stood as a counterbalance.
In the Quran, verses referencing killing and combat—found in various chapters like At-Tawbah and Al-Anfal—are historically contextualized. These verses are balanced by others emphasizing wisdom and mercy, as in, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and argue with them in a way that is best” (An-Nahl 16:125), and “We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds” (Al-Anbiya 21:107).
The coexistence of “opposites” in interpreting religious texts has made humanity’s relationship with faith subject to diverse calculations and varying approaches in understanding, explanation, and interpretation. This dynamic is often shaped by a “believing elite” responsible for producing Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology, resulting in sacred texts that are “multi-faceted.” Such texts, at times, diverge from their original historical contexts and ultimate ethical purpose, permitting interpretations driven by individual reasoning, desire, or self-interest.
The complex and often troubled relationship between religiosity and extremism has made it relatively easy to exploit religion as a vehicle for violence. This is exacerbated by underdeveloped cultural, social, and economic interactions, authoritarian political structures, and opportunistic alliances, which distort religious texts to serve objectives that deviate from their intended meanings. Religious principles lose their profound meanings when reduced to secondary aspects or isolated contexts that disrupt their integrated moral framework, polarizing religion as one of peace, violence, or something in-between, as described by Michel Onfray.[4]
In general, religious extremism is committed for reasons largely unrelated to religion but backed by its sacred authority. This sacred association gives its representatives a presumed mandate to monopolize authority. The symbolic power of sacred language thus amplifies a group’s existing strength, providing legitimacy to use extremism in its defense.[5]
This arises from the religious person’s desire to connect with the sacred, which, in reality, equates to their desire to establish a concrete truth for themselves rather than to tie their existence to a secular time without purpose. For many groups, the defense of religion and the history of the religious community provides a theoretical basis for legitimizing extremism.
The Sacred History of Extremism
The absence of “historical consciousness” as a linear process has led individuals and societies to overlook the fact that humans are not the “makers of history” but are shaped by it, bound by conditions and circumstances beyond their control. As a result, the present often becomes an echo of the past, carrying forward its issues and assumptions. This phenomenon is particularly visible in many societies’ tendency to revert to past narratives.[6]
Although the Abrahamic religions do not view time as a closed loop but rather as a temporal journey that prepares humanity for eternity, calling for a linear progression in history toward paradise and fulfillment, traditional societies often disregard the significance of historical progress. Only “sacred time,” marked by divine revelations (revelation) or the establishment of religion and its community, holds true meaning. In these contexts, there is a firm belief in the “power of origin,” where the original event is considered the essence of strength and imbues it with value.
The early eras of any religious movement are often deemed “sacred time,” as history during these periods is seen as a divine manifestation. The events within these times represent a supreme will that must be followed. This is especially evident in religious practices that transition from remembrance to active participation in commemorating sacred events, such as the Crucifixion of Christ or Ashura, to affirm the sacredness of the religious narrative. This practice links present-day disasters to past tragedies, providing an interpretation that remains steadfast regardless of the passage of time or changing realities. This phenomenon is observed in the three major religions, where historical extremism is revered and can be repeatedly invoked, giving it a sense of absolute religious value.[7]
To this day, behind every event—be it conquest, siege, or battle—the will and punishment of “Yahweh” can be perceived, intended to prevent the Jewish people from deviating from their divine path and to ensure they preserve their religious heritage as entrusted by Moses.[8]
This concept persists in Christianity, with the added layer that calamities are seen as trials or divine retributions for straying from God (as in attributing the Sack of Rome to its moral and spiritual decline). This view became the foundation of the “philosophy of history” in Christianity, pioneered by figures like Saint Augustine (354–430 AD), who saw history as a source to identify “heretical” groups opposing church authority, such as the Donatist movement.[9] In combating heresy, Augustine aimed to restore historical purity and solidify its place in theological teachings.[10]
In this way, history was repurposed as a doctrinal tool, becoming a pillar of Christian identity. Islamic historians like al-Tabari, al-Mas’udi, and Ibn Khaldun also contributed by transforming historical events into “mythical/sacred” occurrences, such as the Battle of Badr, where angels were believed to have fought alongside Muslims against the Quraysh.[11]
The concept of sacred history has become an ideological foundation for Islamist political movements that seek to revive the glory of the Islamic ummah and have introduced the concept of Islamist religious terrorism. The “syndrome” of sacred history has altered the linear course of history, inspiring calls for a return to the roots under various slogans like “the predecessors left nothing for the successors.” This perspective redefines progress as a return to what was foretold by the early believers, with some advocating for a strict adherence to the interpretations of these predecessors. In this view, one separates from secular or “profane” time and embeds oneself in sacred, “greater” time by emulating the idealized actions from religious history.[12]
This approach, which sanctifies historical extremism in “mythologized” texts, forms the basis for various manifestations of religious extremism. It has permeated traditional societies and remained intertwined with cultural practices over extended periods, embedding itself as a longstanding element in these cultures.
Extremism, Violence, and Its Role in the Monopoly of Truth
The Abrahamic faiths share many commonalities in their relationship between humans and God, as well as in shaping spiritual, humanitarian, and ethical values such as the pursuit of goodness and the rejection of injustice. They also agree that humans are responsible for their actions, while God is accountable for judgment and reward. However, despite this pure monotheism in the messages of all the prophets, no common foundation was established to unite these religions. The three faiths diverged by claiming possession of the absolute truth that cannot be challenged: “the Jews are God’s chosen people,” “Christians are the salt of the earth,” “Christianity is the way, the truth, and the life,” and “Muslims are the best nation ever brought forth for humanity.”
The understanding of the monopoly on truth within each of these religions has led to a significant challenge in fostering unity and establishing shared ethical values for all humanity. Since truth is perceived as indivisible and absolute, accepting any form of participation from another religion in this truth becomes impossible. This leads to an overwhelming form of symbolic extremism and a tendency toward exclusionary and sometimes eliminationist views. “The faithful” attempt to understand the other religion based on what they see and hear (through popular culture) which is often far removed from the source of the religion. They then judge the other religion according to their own values, believing that their faith possesses the absolute truth and that all other beliefs are false. Religion, in this view, is seen as beyond “debate,” creating a disconnect from the epistemological truth that should make religion the most open to discussion, as it is concerned with everyone and tied to eternal destiny.
Historical context has shown that this distorted understanding of religiosity has evolved through certain phases, each of which led to the creation of factions, sects, and schools of thought within each religion, with each striving to claim the truth and legitimacy over others. History is replete with bloody conflicts among adherents of the same religion, often under the pretext of monopolizing the truth and eradicating perceived heretical beliefs. In Judaism, various religious factions emerged, such as the “Haskalah” reformers, who sought to adapt Jewish beliefs to modern life, and the “Haredim,” who adhered to the mystical (Kabbalah) interpretation of the sacred Jewish texts.[13]
In Christianity, debates about the nature of Christ and his divinity led to the formation of four major branches (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Protestantism), in addition to independent Christian sects such as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Messianics.
Islam, like other religions, has experienced divisions into sects, schools of thought, and religious groups. These splits began immediately after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, centered around the contentious issue of succession, which led to the greatest sectarian division in Islam’s history between Sunni and Shia. This divide, which has never been fully resolved or bridged by a framework for coexistence, continues to fuel conflict. The ongoing extremism between these two sects in areas of “contact” such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen suggests that the disputes originating from the event of the Saqifah (the meeting at the Saqifah of Banu Sa’ida, which discussed the succession) feel as fresh as if they had happened yesterday.
The struggle to claim the truth became the root cause for the emergence of religious extremism and its various forms, whether it is the violence between the three major doctrinal groups (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), or the conflicts between smaller groups, such as Catholics and Protestants, Sunnis and Shias, Hindus and Muslims. This competition for truth has led to the rise of extremist groups within these religious traditions, often justified by defensive rhetoric, and has resulted in movements of extreme violence that have affected all three Abrahamic faiths, regardless of how this violence manifests within each religion.
The Boarders Between the Religious and the Political
Since the emergence of early human communities, the alliance between temporal and spiritual powers has been documented through the integration of the roles of the ruler and the soothsayer. The “soothsayers/priests” established what resembled legislation to shape societies according to the ruler’s “vision,” using the weapon of prohibition (as a moral authority) and extending religious protection over the political structure. Political orders became laws that society was forbidden to transgress. With the advent of the society of gods, the political and religious powers merged; the king became a god, and the god became a king. The use of extremism simultaneously supported and fortified both powers.
The appearance of religions marked a different foundation for the relationship between the religious and the political. In Judaism, the fusion of the two powers continued, as had been the case before. What is mentioned in the Torah does not distinguish between religion and politics, nor between the establishment of laws and commandments (the Ten Commandments) as the basis for building a new society and ensuring its continuity (the authority). Violence was deeply ingrained in solidifying both powers, preserving a society that began its journey within a history built on structural violence. The political power led the violence, while religion provided a religious justification for its actions and behaviors.
The religious authority would later recede under Roman rule (30 BCE – 14 CE), and everyone coexisted according to the political view that “Romans are blessed, and others are barbarians,” with no right to intervene in politics or matters of governance. However, the retreat of religious authority did not eliminate its role, as it clung to the weapon of prohibition and the constraints that emerged from the temples, imposing them on social, economic, and political life. This is evident in the historical account of the trial of Jesus Christ, where the “religious” verdict was enforced by the Roman king, Pilate.[14]
Judaism returned to considering the religious as an infrastructure for the political, which had a profound impact on legitimizing occupation to achieve political goals under a religious cover and establishing the Jewish state as a political entity. Since the eruption of the “Jewish question” in Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the attempt to find a solution for the civil and legal existence of Jews as an unintegrated minority in society and the possibility of searching for an alternative homeland, the Zionist movement turned toward “Jewish nationalism” as a religious, Torah-based, and historical specificity. Its political agenda sought to achieve its goals of establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine.
Christianity established the possibility of separating the religious from the political. The Gospel did not directly interfere with what was politically or socially established, nor did it prescribe a specific form of political community organization. However, the saying of Christ, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”[15], laid the foundation for submission to the ruler as submission to God. This eventually led to the strengthening of the bond between religion and politics during the reign of Constantine over the Roman Empire (306-337 CE), with his desire to rule the civilized world (from the Mediterranean shores to Iran), thus establishing the “Kingdom of Christ,” which oversaw the “external affairs of the Church.”
The union of religion and politics (the Church and the Byzantine Empire) marked the beginning of religious wars and the legitimacy of using violence and persecution in the name of religion, both among Christians themselves and between Christians and other kingdoms. This reached its peak during the papacy of Pope Urban and the Crusades (1096–1291 CE), which aimed to liberate Eastern Christians from the persecution of the Seljuk Muslims and to reclaim the holy places in Palestine, imposing God’s peace on the world in response to the popular “eschatological” vision of the coming of the Savior, which had prevailed since 1095. Religious ideas merged with worldly expansionist ambitions, and the armed “pilgrims,” carrying crosses, sought wealth and fame[16], all while proclaiming, “Let there be peace.”
This war left a long-lasting impact politically, economically, and socially, with some of its effects continuing into modern times. It represented the onset of the “religious wars,” sustaining the bond between religion and politics and legitimizing extremism until the end of Europe’s Dark Ages and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, led by the German monk Martin Luther, who challenged the authority of the Church.
The Religious-Political Connection in Islam
In Islam, the connection between religion and politics is evident through:
First: The concept of “innovated sovereignty”: Only God holds ultimate power, and the laws outlined in the Qur’an acquire sanctity and origin. Therefore, one must adhere to His rulings and commandments, even though interpretations of them may vary.
Second: The belief that the mission of the Prophet was to establish a religious empire. As a result, Islamic thinkers draw their political theories from the idea of the rightly-guided caliphate.[17]
Islam did not legitimize extremism in a direct sense; the Qur’an was revealed in response to scattered incidents and does not contain a singular interpretation of violence in its verses on fighting and war. Scholars have debated whether these verses are temporary commands or eternal ones. Some view fighting and jihad as obligatory, while others cite verses advocating forgiveness and mercy. During the early conquests, Muslims followed the Prophet’s approach of negotiation and did not impose Islam by force on newly acquired subjects (such as the People of the Book and Zoroastrians). Instead, they became “Dhimmis” (protected subjects), and Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab continued to implement the Persian system of King Khosrow I for treating non-Zoroastrians. They also safeguarded the churches and shrines of Christians.[18]
It is important to note that the Qur’an does not state that Muslims’ mission is to conquer the world. However, more zealous groups emphasized hadiths of jihad as central teachings, viewing them as the path to spread the faith, such as the hadith: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah.” This led to the establishment of contemporary jihadist movements.
Extremism Between Piety and Politics
Despite the “formal” separation between the religious and the political in various stages experienced by religious societies, and the efforts to define their roles, the mission of spreading the message of all religions carried the seeds of conflict with the “other” to establish the foundations of the new religion and form the religious community. In our present time, where various forms of violence intensify, and the notion of political/religious violence is frequently echoed, the question arises: Can extremism be a demand of religion? Is extremism inherently religious, or is it political/religious? Politics and religion together form the foundational moment during which societies are shaped, defining their characteristics and identities through drawing boundaries between the inside and the outside (enemies and friends, infidels and believers). In this way, religion and politics become two sides of the same coin, differing in that politics leads to action/violence, while religion operates through symbols to maintain the community, its cohesion, and its internal formation. Based on the interconnection between religion and politics, and their mutual “service” to each other, religious symbolic extremism transforms into material violence, which is produced and promoted collectively, and reclaimed as a necessity to reshape reality anew.[19]
According to a perspective that outwardly appears religiously sacred but secretly aims to achieve a goal unrelated to religion, politics triumphs in the name of religion to use it as a tool in its extremism. This can be seen in the trajectory of Islamic groups and their clerics, starting from the “Muslim Brotherhood” and the ideas of “Hassan al-Banna,” in transitioning from a community-oriented call to the political authority’s control over it, shifting from representing enlightened Islam to establishing jihadist groups.
With the rise of contemporary extremism, which gained momentum after September 11, and has become increasingly frequent and widespread in recent decades, no place in the world remains unaffected.
The focus will be on the key points of the phenomenon of extremism, which manifest in:
First: The varying international policies in dealing with extremism. Some consider it an “evil,” while others view it as a tool of warfare, seeing it as both a means to assert their control at times and a mechanism to fight their enemies at other times.
Second: The trend toward discussing extremism, which is often framed in terms of justification rather than finding a solution. This means ignoring the reality that these justifications, in their diversity, hold no meaning without the constant invocation of the model of the ideal state (the rightly-guided caliphate), and the recreation of the first Islamic society as a model of good that appeals to some, where the confrontation with the “other” and violence against them becomes a justification.[20]
Third: The overt and clear avoidance of discussing extremism rationally, which means not addressing it intellectually or with the right tools. The danger of Islamist extremism lies in turning people into sacrificial offerings for a set of doctrinal beliefs held by organizations with dense membership and funding, based on purely religious motives.
Fourth: In its current state, extremism has moved from the myth of the “sacred past” to the myth of the “sacred future” in establishing the “global Islamic nation,” i.e., “from what is to what is possible.” It is promoted as a possible truth for those who follow it—ignorant individuals searching for the safety of the sacred past in an uncertain future. This shift marks a return of primitive extremism with modern tools.
The ideologies of extremism in religious organizations like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others share common traits in their dynamics of formation (religious) and goals: (re-establishing the first Islamic society) and strategy (establishing the Islamic caliphate). They adopt violence as a means to achieve their objectives. This indicates that their solutions require a reformative intellectual movement that redefines religion, its role, and its function in the age of technology. Ultimately, the solutions to the phenomenon of extremism rest in the hands of Muslims themselves, determining which version of Islam they seek. For religion, in its entirety, was created for humanity and its elevation, not for its destruction.
The Conflict of Extreme Fundamentalism
Despite the advancements and major leaps humanity has made, including discussions on the division or allocation of space, religion still serves as a driving force that can be exploited and turned into a tool of war. However, matters do not stop there in a world that has crossed the threshold of globalization, where global extremism, with its various forms of violence—economic, political, and cultural—represents the foundational causes for the growth of religious and nationalist fundamentalist movements. These movements have drawn from the phenomenon of identities, fueling their fierce struggle to impose their existence and affirm their dogmas, while maintaining their differences, which manifest in counter-violence that rejects dominance and assimilation.[21]
Even in a major power like the United States, the twentieth century witnessed a noticeable rise in the “more conservative and fundamentalist” evangelical movement within Protestant denominations. This movement believes in the literal infallibility of the Bible, particularly in the “Apocalyptic” narrative and the end times, which in 1978 led to the mass suicide (918 people) of followers of Reverend Jim Jones in Guyana (South America), directed by him, and called the “revolutionary suicide” to rid themselves of the world’s evils. The return of Christ and the Battle of Armageddon, “Megiddo Hill,” became a meeting point between the Torah and the Bible. This inevitable event was embraced by the “New Evangelicals” sect. This idea was not confined to “religious priests”; President Ronald Reagan in 1980 proclaimed, “We may be the generation that will witness the Battle of Armageddon,” and Reverend Billy Graham supported President George Bush’s stance on the Iraq War, calling it part of the “war of salvation.”
In Europe, despite the separation of church and state, countries have not been free from the rise of Christian nationalist movements, which have become more aggressive in the face of Islamic extremism and “Islamophobia,” making Islam their enemy. Movements like “Pegida” in Germany, meaning “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West,” along with neo-Nazi groups and other populist movements, have gained significant support, achieving record-breaking votes across nearly all of Europe.
The dilemma of extremism that accompanies human development is not limited to the violence of “Islamic” extremist fundamentalist movements. Most religious adherents and political ideologies have internalized extremism and violence against the “other” (both East and West). The Nazi nationalist ideology sparked violence in World War II and the Holocaust against Jews. The far-right Jewish ideology coined the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land.” Communist ideology and the clash between Soviet East and Western America in Afghanistan gave rise to al-Qaeda as a resistance movement before it transcended the goals set by its creators, transforming into an independent fundamentalist force that turned against its makers and declared its holy war on their existence. Christian right-wing ideology blessed the invasion of Iraq and inspired President George W. Bush, who dubbed it the “Crusade.”
It is a closed circle of extremism. The terrorist acts carried out by some Islamist extremists have offered religion as a sacrifice on various battlefields, while the extreme Western perception of Muslims, lumping them together under the banner of discrimination based on religion and linking religion with terrorism, has led to a more extreme West with less acceptance of the “other.” This, in turn, transformed the entire world into a victim of a fireball ignited by the hands of extremists, both East and West, who serve each other despite differing battlefields.
References
[1] The Myth of the Eternal Return, by Mircea Eliade, translated by Nihad Khayata, Dar Tlas, Damascus, First Edition, 1987 (Pages 192-194)
[2] John 2:13-14-15-16
[3] Matthew 5:44-47
[4] Philosopher Michel Onfray and Islam According to the French Model, by Mohsen Al-Mohammadi, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. (https://aawsat.com/)
[5] Symbolic Violence, by Pierre Bourdieu, translated by Nadhir Jahel, Arab Cultural Center, Beirut, First Edition, 1994 (Pages 6-25-36)
[6] A Savior System from the Past, by Hawazen Khaddaj, Tahawolat **Magazine, Issue 21, 2015. www.tahawolat.net/ArticleDetails.aspx?Id=6758
[7] The Myth of Eternal Return (Pages 185-187)
[8] 1 Samuel 12:10
[9] Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism)
[10] The Theological Interpretation of History in Augustine’s Philosophy, by Dr. Amer Abdul Zaid Al-Waeli, Al-Mothaqaf Newspaper. www.almothaqaf.com/index.php/derasat/60720.html
[11] Sacred Violence and Sex in Islamic Mythology, by Turki Ali Rabeeo, Arab Cultural Center, Second Edition, 1995 (Page 11)
[12] Searching for History and Meaning in Religion, by Mircea Eliade, translated by Dr. Saud Al-Moula, Arab Organization for Translation, First Edition, 2007 (Page 35)
[13] Ancient and Modern Jewish Religious Sects, by Abdul Wahab Muhammad Al-Jubouri, Al-Bidaya Website. (https://andalusiat.com/…/الفرق-الدينية-اليهودية-القديمة-والمع-2)
[14] Jesus’s Trial in the High Priest Council and the Political Roman Law. (https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/يسوع)
[15] Mark 12:12-17
[16] The Previous Reference: Blood Fields – Religion and the History of Violence (Pages 241-261)
[17] Religion and Politics in Judaism and Islam, by Samira Bushlouh, Al-Jazeera Net.(https://www.aljazeera.net/…/الديني-والسياسي-في-اليهودية-والإسلام)
[18] Blood Fields and the History of Violence (Pages 285-286-287-290)
[19] “Theory of Interpretation”: Discourse and the Overflow of Meaning, by Paul Ricoeur, translated by Said Al-Ghanami, Arab Cultural Center, Casablanca, Morocco, 2006 (Page 103)
[20] Religious Debates on Violence and Terrorism, by Abdel Azim Hamad, Shorouk News.(https://www.shorouknews.com/columns/view.aspx?cdate…id..)
[21] Fundamentalist Identities in the Age of Collision, by Prof. Dr. Ali As’ad Watfa,Al-NabaaNetwork.(https://annabaa.org/news/maqalat/writeres/aliasaadwatfa.htm)
