The Deadly Cost of Denial: United Nations Hypocrisy on Religious Terrorism

“There will come a day that we will see far more radical extremists and terrorists coming out of Europe because of lack of decision-making, trying to be politically correct, or assuming that they know the Middle East, and they know Islam, and they know the others far better than we do. I’m sorry, but that’s pure ignorance.”

~ Mr Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, at Riyadh

In 2022, the UN declared March 15 as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia — a move to fight religious discrimination. Yet, in stark contrast, the UN Security Council’s statement on the Pahalgam attack failed to mention that Hindus were deliberately targeted by Islamist terrorists. This silence reflects a disturbing bias and moral failure. By avoiding any reference to radical Islamist ideology and repeating the hollow phrase “terror has no religion,” the UNSC insults victims and emboldens terrorists. Ignoring clear jihadist motives while refusing to use the term “Islamic terrorism” distorts the truth and devalues the suffering of those affected. This isn’t neutrality — its appeasement disguised as diplomacy, and it deeply undermines the Council’s credibility.

RELIGIOUS TERRORISM IS REALITY – AND WHY IT IS REQUIRED TO BE CALLED OUT:

The phrase “terror has no religion” is often repeated, especially by political groups, to avoid addressing uncomfortable truths. In 2006, EU Commissioner Franco Frattini banned the term “Islamic terrorism,” arguing that such acts misuse religion. If taken seriously, this logic would render the term “religious terrorism” meaningless. But if it’s merely a strategy to sidestep reality, it becomes dangerous. Misdiagnosing the roots of terrorism—especially deliberately—leads to harmful, ineffective responses. This claim must be tested against facts, history, and religious doctrines, not wishful thinking. While some argue it’s a tactical myth to separate terrorists from their faith, in practice, it often shields extremists from internal accountability. History warns that such denial may offer short-term comfort but causes long-term harm. Religion’s role in terrorism must be judged by real-world behaviour and impact, not just by its idealistic teachings. In his famous book “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?” Bertrand Russell puts the idea brilliantly –

‘Religion is primarily a social phenomenon. Churches may owe their origin to teachers with strong individual convictions, but these teachers have seldom had much influence upon the churches that they have founded, whereas churches have had enormous influence upon the communities in which they flourished. To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ but the church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force we must not go to the Gospels for our material.”

Religious terrorism is real because it draws its motivation and legitimacy from faith. For terrorists, religion offers moral justification for violence, regardless of broader interpretations. When religious leaders remain silent or fail to condemn such acts, terrorism cannot be dismissed as merely political. The claim that “terrorism has no religion” shifts blame from religious authorities to secular institutions, ignoring the critical influence of faith communities.

As long as jihadists believe their violence is divinely sanctioned and Islamic clergy avoid openly denouncing them, jihadi terrorism must be recognized as religious in nature. The contrast is stark: authors like Salman Rushdie face fatwas for their words, yet few such edicts are issued against terrorists. This double standard exposes the fallacy behind denying religion’s role in terror. Extremists rely on religion to justify killing — something no sane person would do without believing they served a higher cause. To understand religious terrorism, we must see it through the eyes of the perpetrators, who act not out of spirituality, but with political intent under the guise of divine approval. Hassan Butt, the bomber who was recruiter and member of Al Qaeda affiliated Al-Muhajiroun gave an interview to ‘The Guardian’ in its issue of Sunday,1st July 2007; In which he brought out interesting revelations:

“When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy…..

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology….

…. Though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

…..There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war…….

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

…..But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away….”

Even secular, modern states that claim “terror has no religion” often treat terrorists according to their professed faith—offering religious services in prison or honouring rites after death. The contradiction is glaring when those who deny any religious link to terrorism protest religious discrimination if such services are withheld. Unlike terrorists who openly identify as religious fighters, such as in the Pahalgam attack, politically correct voices deny the religious aspect while avoiding offense at all costs. If the world truly wants to combat religious terrorism, it must acknowledge it for what it is and respond with clarity—not comforting illusions.