What do you think?
Rate this book
Comparative Studies in Religion and Society
Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence
Completely revised and updated, this new edition of Terror in the Mind of God incorporates the events of September 11, 2001 into Mark Juergensmeyer's landmark study of religious terrorism. Juergensmeyer explores the 1993 World Trade Center explosion, Hamas suicide bombings, the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack, and the killing of abortion clinic doctors in the United States. His personal interviews with 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mahmud Abouhalima, Christian Right activist Mike Bray, Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdul Azis Rantisi, and Sikh political leader Simranjit Singh Mann, among others, take us into the mindset of those who perpetrate and support violence in the name of religion.
319 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
61 people are currently reading
970 people want to read
About the author
Mark Juergensmeyer
52 books24 followersMark Juergensmeyer is a professor of sociology and global studies, affiliate professor of religious studies, and the Kundan Kaur Kapany professor of global and Sikh Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He was the founding director of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, and is a pioneer in the field of global studies, focusing on global religion, religious violence, conflict resolution and South Asian religion and politics. He has published more than three hundred articles and twenty books, including the revised and expanded fourth edition of Terror in the Mind of God (University of California Press, 2017).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
September 18, 2022
This is THE book on terrorism.
I was particularly struck by his idea of it as "performance violence," which I think captures the essence of it perfectly. I cited it in my book COLUMBINE and used the phrase there.
I was particularly struck by his idea of it as "performance violence," which I think captures the essence of it perfectly. I cited it in my book COLUMBINE and used the phrase there.
July 29, 2022
Most work on terrorism approaches it from what you mind call the Clausewitzean lens: war as a continuation of policy by other means. Political scientists especially focus on terrorism as a rational strategy or a "weapon of the weak," a way for small groups to wage asymmetrical warfare, garner attention, shift national or international politics, etc. There's certainly a lot to be said for this approach, but MJ in this book unpacks a different approach to terrorism from the perspective of sociology, semiotics, and religious studies.
MJ approaches terrorism as an activity of meaning-making and assertion as much as rational political strategy. He does so through 5 case studies of terrorists around the world: white nationalists and anti-abortion terrorists in the US, Sikh terrorists in India, Palestinian terrorists like Hamas, Jewish terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, and Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. He shows similar mentalities, styles, and trends in each of these. For example, are all reacting in some way to political, social, and cultural change by leaning back on fundamentalist religion and making war on representatives of change. They are asserting the superiority of the permanent and transcendent over the new and mutable.
On a deeper level though, MJ shows that terrorism isn't just about strategic calculation. It is cultural and social activity deeply woven with meaning and narrative. Religious terrorists are responding to what they see as a disordered cosmos: something has gone fundamentally wrong, the rightful laws or rulers have been usurped, corruption and decadence are spreading, and their people have become lost and dispossessed. Religious terrorists see themselves as soldiers of what MJ calls cosmic wars, wars between essential good and essential evil that transcend their individual lives. They fight against dehumanized, shadowy enemies, and this combined with the cosmic war concept makes them more willing to shed massive amounts of blood than secular terrorists. Each terrorist attack is supposed to be an event in which the dispossessed group asserts its dignity, spreads its message, and defies an evil and oppressive authority (at least in their eyes). For example, the Aum sarin attack really had no strategy behind it. It was all about triggering the apocalypse and registering their hatred of bourgeois Japanese society; similar things can be said about other terrorist attacks.
For the individual terrorist who is likely (or certain) to die in their attacks, strategic calculation is even less important. Rather, they seek meaning within a grand cosmic narrative and escape from tawdry, often meaningless lives. It isn't necessary poverty that makes terrorists but a sense of liminality: it isn't a coincidence that such a large number of terrorists are single young men. They lack but desperately want a place in society but do not yet have a permanent job, a spouse, a family, and positions of authority. For the serious but adrift young man, radicalism can be a short-cut to transcendent meaning. This kind of radical altruism (that is also ultimately self-serving) is what helps create the young terrorist. The group and leadership may be calculating and rational, but I think that MJ's more meaning-based approach is more useful for studying the motives of individual terrorists.
One thing I'd like to take from this book to apply to my own research is to look at how counterterrorists, broadly construed, also see terrorism as a manifestation of a broken, disordered universe and how that belief plays out in their policies, rhetoric, etc. Terrorism is such an extreme form of human violence that I think it provokes intense feelings and grand narratives on both sides, and I'd like to unpack historically how counterterrorists have also made meaning from their actions, linked CT to other issues, and forged narratives to try to understand what is happening to them and what they are doing in response. In short, I'm not saying that rational policy making doesn't exist but that it's very hard to not engage in the human activities of meaning making, symbolism, and narrative.
I didn't love everything in this book. I thought the organization was a little ineffective: 5 case study chapters followed by 4 thematic chapters exploring the nature of religious terrorism. This got a little repetitive. I'm also not all that convinced that religious terrorism is necessarily worse than secular terrorism, although some major attacks since the 1990s suggest that it might be because of a tendency toward Manichean and cosmic thinking.
MJ approaches terrorism as an activity of meaning-making and assertion as much as rational political strategy. He does so through 5 case studies of terrorists around the world: white nationalists and anti-abortion terrorists in the US, Sikh terrorists in India, Palestinian terrorists like Hamas, Jewish terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, and Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. He shows similar mentalities, styles, and trends in each of these. For example, are all reacting in some way to political, social, and cultural change by leaning back on fundamentalist religion and making war on representatives of change. They are asserting the superiority of the permanent and transcendent over the new and mutable.
On a deeper level though, MJ shows that terrorism isn't just about strategic calculation. It is cultural and social activity deeply woven with meaning and narrative. Religious terrorists are responding to what they see as a disordered cosmos: something has gone fundamentally wrong, the rightful laws or rulers have been usurped, corruption and decadence are spreading, and their people have become lost and dispossessed. Religious terrorists see themselves as soldiers of what MJ calls cosmic wars, wars between essential good and essential evil that transcend their individual lives. They fight against dehumanized, shadowy enemies, and this combined with the cosmic war concept makes them more willing to shed massive amounts of blood than secular terrorists. Each terrorist attack is supposed to be an event in which the dispossessed group asserts its dignity, spreads its message, and defies an evil and oppressive authority (at least in their eyes). For example, the Aum sarin attack really had no strategy behind it. It was all about triggering the apocalypse and registering their hatred of bourgeois Japanese society; similar things can be said about other terrorist attacks.
For the individual terrorist who is likely (or certain) to die in their attacks, strategic calculation is even less important. Rather, they seek meaning within a grand cosmic narrative and escape from tawdry, often meaningless lives. It isn't necessary poverty that makes terrorists but a sense of liminality: it isn't a coincidence that such a large number of terrorists are single young men. They lack but desperately want a place in society but do not yet have a permanent job, a spouse, a family, and positions of authority. For the serious but adrift young man, radicalism can be a short-cut to transcendent meaning. This kind of radical altruism (that is also ultimately self-serving) is what helps create the young terrorist. The group and leadership may be calculating and rational, but I think that MJ's more meaning-based approach is more useful for studying the motives of individual terrorists.
One thing I'd like to take from this book to apply to my own research is to look at how counterterrorists, broadly construed, also see terrorism as a manifestation of a broken, disordered universe and how that belief plays out in their policies, rhetoric, etc. Terrorism is such an extreme form of human violence that I think it provokes intense feelings and grand narratives on both sides, and I'd like to unpack historically how counterterrorists have also made meaning from their actions, linked CT to other issues, and forged narratives to try to understand what is happening to them and what they are doing in response. In short, I'm not saying that rational policy making doesn't exist but that it's very hard to not engage in the human activities of meaning making, symbolism, and narrative.
I didn't love everything in this book. I thought the organization was a little ineffective: 5 case study chapters followed by 4 thematic chapters exploring the nature of religious terrorism. This got a little repetitive. I'm also not all that convinced that religious terrorism is necessarily worse than secular terrorism, although some major attacks since the 1990s suggest that it might be because of a tendency toward Manichean and cosmic thinking.
September 11, 2009
There clearly is a phenomenon, as Mark Juergensmeyer terms it, that can be accurately labelled as “religious terrorism.” He rightfully includes in this category groups such as the U.S.-based Christian Identity movement, whose members have resorted to killings of members of ethnic minority groups, abortion providers, and others deemed “undesirable” in their imagined, white-ruled, Christian theocracy.
Yet just as often, Juergensmeyer gets the classification of “terrorist groups” at least partially wrong. This is particularly notable in his roughshod treatment of the Israel-Palesitne conflict, where he gets caught in a rather confused “chicken and egg” conundrum of his own making. Sure, many Palestinian resistance groups claim a religious backing, but do suicide bombings happen due to the attackers’ conception of Islam, or because it is their response to a brutal military occupation (which, of course, belongs to the much more notable category of “state terrorism”)? The answer is obvious in its own right, and even moreso in light of Robert Pape’s work on suicide bombers (in the Middle East and elsewhere), showing that every suicide bombing campaign in history has had secular, nationalist goals – particularly, to free the homeland from what they see as a military occupation. Some of the rest of Juergensmeyer’s analysis of “terrorism’s” roots – including several pages on the supposed sexual frustration of the attackers, or the notion that they hate us because of our “modern culture” – is of even less value.
Juergensmeyer is right to laud the effectiveness of less heavy-handed “anti-terror” campaigns, such as the British reaction to IRA attacks in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome message if we are indeed more concerned with actually lessening the probability of future attacks in the U.S., as opposed to militant posturing and jingoist chest-thumping. Yet while Juergensmeyer is also correct in noting that “terrorism” does not exist because there are terrorists, but rather because of material conditions and ideologies, he frequently confuses what exactly is the nature of those causes, and accordingly, how this phenomenon can be addressed.
Yet just as often, Juergensmeyer gets the classification of “terrorist groups” at least partially wrong. This is particularly notable in his roughshod treatment of the Israel-Palesitne conflict, where he gets caught in a rather confused “chicken and egg” conundrum of his own making. Sure, many Palestinian resistance groups claim a religious backing, but do suicide bombings happen due to the attackers’ conception of Islam, or because it is their response to a brutal military occupation (which, of course, belongs to the much more notable category of “state terrorism”)? The answer is obvious in its own right, and even moreso in light of Robert Pape’s work on suicide bombers (in the Middle East and elsewhere), showing that every suicide bombing campaign in history has had secular, nationalist goals – particularly, to free the homeland from what they see as a military occupation. Some of the rest of Juergensmeyer’s analysis of “terrorism’s” roots – including several pages on the supposed sexual frustration of the attackers, or the notion that they hate us because of our “modern culture” – is of even less value.
Juergensmeyer is right to laud the effectiveness of less heavy-handed “anti-terror” campaigns, such as the British reaction to IRA attacks in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome message if we are indeed more concerned with actually lessening the probability of future attacks in the U.S., as opposed to militant posturing and jingoist chest-thumping. Yet while Juergensmeyer is also correct in noting that “terrorism” does not exist because there are terrorists, but rather because of material conditions and ideologies, he frequently confuses what exactly is the nature of those causes, and accordingly, how this phenomenon can be addressed.
August 1, 2020
Mixed feelings on this book.
The interviews that Juergensmeyer recounts are pretty unique. He speaks with those who have acted violently against others and hears their stories. Certainly a carefully researched book that is quite interesting at times.
But his overall premise is a bit flawed. He does a poor job defining "religion" and the lines get easily blurred between a so-called religious violence and secular violence. Admittedly my opinion is influenced by William Cavanaugh.
The interviews that Juergensmeyer recounts are pretty unique. He speaks with those who have acted violently against others and hears their stories. Certainly a carefully researched book that is quite interesting at times.
But his overall premise is a bit flawed. He does a poor job defining "religion" and the lines get easily blurred between a so-called religious violence and secular violence. Admittedly my opinion is influenced by William Cavanaugh.
November 26, 2008
I read this a few months after 9/11/2001 with the hope of learning something ethnological about those who (1) feel they have a direct connection to God, and (2) can justify their own triggering violence by means of that connection.
I recall learning a few things but on the whole recall being very disappointed by the author's limitations. I expected an account that would actually be able to enter the conceptual and emotional universe of those that act on the impulse of religious violence. Instead, I think I recall receiving a social scientific analysis -- one that stops at the exact door through which one has to enter the exploration.
A much better book for this purpose, albeit one that explores the religious hatred between 16th century Catholics and Protestants in what we today call "Europe" (and which is better referred to as "Western Asia" or "Norther Africa") is offered by Carlos Eire's War against the Idols. Eire not only provides the history and politics but allows you to feel the violence his characters express. Of course, you then have to transport that feeling to the present.
For contemporary purposes I would strongly recommend the powerful and incisive article by Ghasan Hage, “Comes a Time We Are All Enthusiasm: Understanding Palestinian Suicide Bombers in Times of Exighophobia,” Public Culture, 15, 1, pp.65-89.
I recall learning a few things but on the whole recall being very disappointed by the author's limitations. I expected an account that would actually be able to enter the conceptual and emotional universe of those that act on the impulse of religious violence. Instead, I think I recall receiving a social scientific analysis -- one that stops at the exact door through which one has to enter the exploration.
A much better book for this purpose, albeit one that explores the religious hatred between 16th century Catholics and Protestants in what we today call "Europe" (and which is better referred to as "Western Asia" or "Norther Africa") is offered by Carlos Eire's War against the Idols. Eire not only provides the history and politics but allows you to feel the violence his characters express. Of course, you then have to transport that feeling to the present.
For contemporary purposes I would strongly recommend the powerful and incisive article by Ghasan Hage, “Comes a Time We Are All Enthusiasm: Understanding Palestinian Suicide Bombers in Times of Exighophobia,” Public Culture, 15, 1, pp.65-89.
October 13, 2016
Of course, this book gave incredible insight into why terrorists and religious extremists emerged, but I thought it did more than that. There was a really powerful chapter called "Manly Warriors" which dissected the type of people that become terrorists. Intentional or not (although I feel it was), the section provided a very interesting critique of the types of societies terrorists thrive in, as well as the morals associated with those communities. I left this with a whole new sense of appreciation of the religious (or lack thereof) freedom I've always taken for granted. Although my life may not always be perfect, I'm able to walk through it in a way that allows me to value peace more than violence and terror, and for that I'm extremely appreciative.
December 7, 2013
This is a first for me: a textbook that I felt compelled to read cover to cover. Juergensmeyer's book, assigned to me for my class on Religion and Globalization, covers a rich topic in a thorough and satisfying way. While the writing can be a bit too dry and academic for more casual readers, the sheer depth of reporting on display deserves a shout-out, as does the author's balanced, even-handed take on a naturally polarizing subject.
January 26, 2023
Juergensmeyer really tries to be objective and to understand terrorism and religious violence. To be fair, his case studies contain some interesting insights and his analysis of terrorism as an essentially modern phenomenon of symbolic expression that is linked to meaning, identity and the experience of empowerment is plausible. The problem of his analysis is the link to religion. Juergensmeyer overlooks the fact that symbolism is no genuinely religious feature, 'secular' societies are symbolic too. Juergensmeyer has no criteria to distinguish between terrorism and religious violence. At some point he emphasizes the symbolism of religions, at other points he shows the symbolic dimension of terrorism per se. To save his argumentation Juergensmeyer would have to admit either that not only religion is symbolic or that all terrorism is religious per se, but he does not seem to want to do either of that. First would undermine his analysis and the secular-religious dichotomy on which it is based, the second would simply be a very unconvincing thesis or include such a broad understanding of religion that again his secular-religious distinction would be undermined.
Juergensmeyer's analysis would be far more convincing as an analysis of violence or terrorism per se, the connection with religion is arbitrary and incoherent. There are many other little problems of his argumentation, most of them related to the serious blind spot for Western violence in his analysis. Might be interesting for some of the case studies but overall I would not recommend a reading, I am sure there exist better analyses of terrorism.
Juergensmeyer's analysis would be far more convincing as an analysis of violence or terrorism per se, the connection with religion is arbitrary and incoherent. There are many other little problems of his argumentation, most of them related to the serious blind spot for Western violence in his analysis. Might be interesting for some of the case studies but overall I would not recommend a reading, I am sure there exist better analyses of terrorism.
March 31, 2024
Well written and kept the book interesting, but a little long at times.
December 19, 2015
This book is divided into two sections. This first half is a series of case studies of incidents of global terrorism from six major world religions. Juergensmeryer has personally interviewed some of the perpetrators of the violence, so this section is very fascinating. The second section is where he provides his analysis that terrorism is a performance that is akin to theater. The act of terror is for an audience to behold and targets are symbolic. I do agree with some other reviewers that some of the events discussed in this book aren't really terrorism and would be more aptly labeled religious violence. I think the author is just trying to combat Islamophobia and trying to show readers that all religions have violence.
By far the most compelling character in the book in my opinion was Abouhalima. He critiqued Americans for not understanding “the soul of religion.” Until Western policy makers attempt to understand the soul of religion, no war fought against any religious extremist group will be successful. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of Juergensmeyer’s work is his analysis of the power struggle going on across the globe between secularism and religion. He asserts that “Religion gives spirit to public life and provides a beacon of moral order” (248). In Jonathan Ebel’s book Faith in the Fight, American WWI soldiers believed fighting for their country and fighting for God was the same thing. I think one can argue that nationalism becomes a secular religion. So America is facing a religious crisis on two fronts: one being the above critique not just by Abouhalima but by many right wing movements within the U.S. and secondly in the growing distrust and disillusionment with the U.S. government. The symbolic capitol of the U.S. government has declined considerably post-Vietnam and Iraq.
Juergensmeyer concludes by stating “In a curious way, then, the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself” (249). While it may on the surface appear that he is arguing for a push away from secularism, what he is really arguing for is a sort of a happy medium between the lifeless, soulless, meaningless secularism, and the dogmatic oppression of religious theocracy. Extremes are rarely good. The Buddhist philosophy of the middle path applies to most everything in life. Juergensmeyer offers five ways forward. Military victory or domination by either side does not seem very probably, so perhaps his last suggestion is the best; governments showing some moral integrity. Violent retribution only unleashes the reciprocal violence that Rene Girard warns us is so catastrophic if religion does not step in to solve the crisis. Plus, more violence only makes it easier for terrorist to recruit and justify their attacks. What is the future of religion in America? Is the concept of the God of the ancient philosophers, also called the One or the Good, a potential option for bringing a religious element into a multicultural society?
By far the most compelling character in the book in my opinion was Abouhalima. He critiqued Americans for not understanding “the soul of religion.” Until Western policy makers attempt to understand the soul of religion, no war fought against any religious extremist group will be successful. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of Juergensmeyer’s work is his analysis of the power struggle going on across the globe between secularism and religion. He asserts that “Religion gives spirit to public life and provides a beacon of moral order” (248). In Jonathan Ebel’s book Faith in the Fight, American WWI soldiers believed fighting for their country and fighting for God was the same thing. I think one can argue that nationalism becomes a secular religion. So America is facing a religious crisis on two fronts: one being the above critique not just by Abouhalima but by many right wing movements within the U.S. and secondly in the growing distrust and disillusionment with the U.S. government. The symbolic capitol of the U.S. government has declined considerably post-Vietnam and Iraq.
Juergensmeyer concludes by stating “In a curious way, then, the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself” (249). While it may on the surface appear that he is arguing for a push away from secularism, what he is really arguing for is a sort of a happy medium between the lifeless, soulless, meaningless secularism, and the dogmatic oppression of religious theocracy. Extremes are rarely good. The Buddhist philosophy of the middle path applies to most everything in life. Juergensmeyer offers five ways forward. Military victory or domination by either side does not seem very probably, so perhaps his last suggestion is the best; governments showing some moral integrity. Violent retribution only unleashes the reciprocal violence that Rene Girard warns us is so catastrophic if religion does not step in to solve the crisis. Plus, more violence only makes it easier for terrorist to recruit and justify their attacks. What is the future of religion in America? Is the concept of the God of the ancient philosophers, also called the One or the Good, a potential option for bringing a religious element into a multicultural society?
June 11, 2021
I am of two minds about this particular book. On one hand, I found it to be incredibly informative on the subject of terrorism and terrorists and it provides an interesting look into their minds and motivations - and it's pretty much what you'd expect.
But, on the other hand, I don't agree with the author's penultimate solution to solving terrorism. To be fair, he offers five solutions, which he assigns varying degrees of success. One of them (to engage the moderate wings of these groups and bring them into talks and negotiations whilst simultaneously ostracizing - maybe even eliminating - the most extreme elements, all while ensuring that we stick to our own rules, laws, and principles) matches mine own ideas. However, he sees that as less than ideal - although a far sight better than simply engaging them militarily, as it only feeds into their narrative of a vast, "cosmic struggle." The author's ideal solution is to bring religion back into government - which, to me, is the whole damn problem to begin with.
He seemingly agrees with some terroristic sentiments that the "secular world" is lost, soulless, and has no actual purpose for people, and that we need to "bring religion back" to give people that sense of purpose. Aside from this being absurd in the extreme, I simply ask: which one? He proposes a sort of minister/secretary/department of religion, but again, which one? Do we simply have one, who represents the "majority" and thus ostracizes everyone else, leading to more terrorism and alienation, no doubt, or do we have a thousand ministers/secretaries/departments of religion, for each recognized one. What about unrecognized ones? What about ones who are actively opposed to each other? What about when the majority vote goes against that person? Is it then okay for them to bomb another building? Religion is the problem.
It's funny, too...because he even mentions a part where he was speaking to a supporter of Hamas, and this supporter admitted that the best place for his child to meet a Jewish person and probably get along, and learn to understand them, would be in the University. Weird! It almost sounds like EDUCATION is the solution to your problem there, Mr. Author. Perhaps, universal, free higher education could be your solution, rather than a freaking theocracy....sigh.
Oh well, it was still an interesting read.
But, on the other hand, I don't agree with the author's penultimate solution to solving terrorism. To be fair, he offers five solutions, which he assigns varying degrees of success. One of them (to engage the moderate wings of these groups and bring them into talks and negotiations whilst simultaneously ostracizing - maybe even eliminating - the most extreme elements, all while ensuring that we stick to our own rules, laws, and principles) matches mine own ideas. However, he sees that as less than ideal - although a far sight better than simply engaging them militarily, as it only feeds into their narrative of a vast, "cosmic struggle." The author's ideal solution is to bring religion back into government - which, to me, is the whole damn problem to begin with.
He seemingly agrees with some terroristic sentiments that the "secular world" is lost, soulless, and has no actual purpose for people, and that we need to "bring religion back" to give people that sense of purpose. Aside from this being absurd in the extreme, I simply ask: which one? He proposes a sort of minister/secretary/department of religion, but again, which one? Do we simply have one, who represents the "majority" and thus ostracizes everyone else, leading to more terrorism and alienation, no doubt, or do we have a thousand ministers/secretaries/departments of religion, for each recognized one. What about unrecognized ones? What about ones who are actively opposed to each other? What about when the majority vote goes against that person? Is it then okay for them to bomb another building? Religion is the problem.
It's funny, too...because he even mentions a part where he was speaking to a supporter of Hamas, and this supporter admitted that the best place for his child to meet a Jewish person and probably get along, and learn to understand them, would be in the University. Weird! It almost sounds like EDUCATION is the solution to your problem there, Mr. Author. Perhaps, universal, free higher education could be your solution, rather than a freaking theocracy....sigh.
Oh well, it was still an interesting read.
May 19, 2025
The book was good and easy to read and I felt like the author did a good job at being neutral so for that I would give him 5 stars. BUT I feel that being neutral in present times (2025 based off interview he has done about Palestine and isNOTreal) you need to be on the right side of history and he is not so for that he gets a 1.
February 9, 2015
The important book about religious terrorism. The best analyze of connections between terrorist attacks cases. Unbelievable stories about terrorist operations.
April 20, 2018
Widely quoted and full of shit.
January 9, 2021
I first picked up this book because it was sitting around in my sister's book shelf, and I have always been pretty interested with the facets of religion, and the topic of this book is something that I have thought to myself many times before: how can some terrorists perform horrific acts then claim it in the name of their religious cause when that very same religion advocates peace and non-violence? This book addresses that question very articulately and logically. For the first half of the book, Juergensmeyer covers many cases of religious violence and terrorism from many of the major religions around the time the book was written (late 90's/early 00's), like the Christian Identity Movement in the States and the Sinn Fein bombings in Ireland to the Aum Shinrikyo in Japan and Sikh nationalists in Punjab. Jeurgensmeyer interviewed many people around the world that are either directly or indirectly related to accounts of religious terrorism and includes snippets of those conversations throughout the book. In the second half of the book, he begins to explore what all of the religious terrorists he reviewed had in common and digs into what the mindsets are like for violent religious activists. He attempts to define what the justifications are in their minds for violence in conjunction with their religious struggle, which he defines as a "cosmic war". I can thoroughly say that this book completely shifted the way I have perceived terrorists, not just ones associated with a religious cause. Juergensmeyer connects many ideas in this book in a coherent fashion and makes it comprehensible while still being informative and engaging. I can see now why some terrorists would reach to some extreme measures like blowing themselves up near innocent people or killing dozens in a place of worship. For them, they are encased in a cosmic struggle that transcends the consequences and ethicality of real-world life, and the struggle is usually against a force they seem as extremely oppressive. They are fighting for the sake of the struggle because they see their traditional values in danger of being completely erased, and Juergensmeyer explains it very well throughout the book, which is why I rated it 4 stars. I took off one star because at certain points the book seemed extremely dense and was hard to read through, but overall it made a lot of sense.
March 3, 2020
Good overview of the many forms of terrorist acts committed by fanatics/radicals of various religions. Gives some historical background that's useful to understand Palestinian/Israeli conflict, for example. Or the Hindu/Sikh situation in India, which I knew virtually nothing about. Published in 2003, so book could probably use an update, given the role social media now plays.
Not sure many will be satisfied with the author's conclusion. I know I'm not. Concludes by saying, "In a curious way, then, the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself."
This line concludes an entire chapter dedicated to discussion of the failures of secular nationalism--a product of the Enlightenment--which has failed to address certain spiritual needs (paraphrasing). I agree with this basic premise. But an increased appreciation for religion hardly seems like a solution to religious radicalism in places like India or Palestine, places where fraught geopolitics are so intertwined with religion that it's hard to separate the two. Perhaps even impossible, in the case of Israel/Palestine, where the land is such an important part of the religion? The author's conclusion also falls short when you consider how, historically, religion was appreciated by the majority, yet this appreciation didn't seem to prevent the Inquisition, for example. Additionally, the conclusion seems naively Eurocentric. There are plenty of modern theocracies that struggle with religious extremism. Iran comes to mind. In an increasingly connected global context, religious pluralism, I believe, will probably always lead to violence, sadly. The only way to stop religious violence, it seems to me, is to abolish religion. This, I think, is a very bad idea.
Not sure many will be satisfied with the author's conclusion. I know I'm not. Concludes by saying, "In a curious way, then, the cure for religious violence may ultimately lie in a renewed appreciation for religion itself."
This line concludes an entire chapter dedicated to discussion of the failures of secular nationalism--a product of the Enlightenment--which has failed to address certain spiritual needs (paraphrasing). I agree with this basic premise. But an increased appreciation for religion hardly seems like a solution to religious radicalism in places like India or Palestine, places where fraught geopolitics are so intertwined with religion that it's hard to separate the two. Perhaps even impossible, in the case of Israel/Palestine, where the land is such an important part of the religion? The author's conclusion also falls short when you consider how, historically, religion was appreciated by the majority, yet this appreciation didn't seem to prevent the Inquisition, for example. Additionally, the conclusion seems naively Eurocentric. There are plenty of modern theocracies that struggle with religious extremism. Iran comes to mind. In an increasingly connected global context, religious pluralism, I believe, will probably always lead to violence, sadly. The only way to stop religious violence, it seems to me, is to abolish religion. This, I think, is a very bad idea.
June 13, 2017
I came to this book looking for insight on the troubling and complicated matter of religious violence. I don't think I expected The Answer, but I was looking for deeper ways of understanding this topic and maybe some connections that I had not previously made. I can't say I found that in this book. I appreciated the exploration of very distinct examples of modern religious violence, but wanted this expert to help me make a little more sense out of all of these disparate examples.
Also, it seems worth mentioning that his treatment of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is disappointing to say the least. Context and background are often left out in favor of answering a broader question, which he never gets around to answering
Also, it seems worth mentioning that his treatment of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is disappointing to say the least. Context and background are often left out in favor of answering a broader question, which he never gets around to answering
August 2, 2021
Overall very good and informative. The last few chapters in particular raised lots of very interesting and thought provoking points about the ways people link their social struggles to a perceived "cosmic war", and also how if this idea continues it is destined never to end. Quite repetitive, but mostly in a helpful way; it was useful to be reminded who each religious leader or activist was, which group they were associated, and whether they themselves had committed an act, orchestrated it, or even denied being a part of it.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in finding out about terrorist attacks in recent history from ALL the major religious faiths, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in finding out about terrorist attacks in recent history from ALL the major religious faiths, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
June 28, 2023
Read this for school, but it was super interesting in its own way. It's all about violence committed in the name of religion, and dissects the question of whether religious violence is motivated/caused/encouraged by religion, or whether religion is used as an excuse for people to be violent, or both, or neither. The most recent edition has a lot about semi-recent acts of terrorism (ISIS violence, for example) which was useful for my research. The last chapter was especially helpful, about ways to undermine/deescalate the assumption of a "cosmic war" so as to not feed into the binary and catastrophic thinking that is almost always present with religious terrorism. It was a super interesting read.
January 25, 2022
One of the most illuminating things I have read, this book manages to tread the fine line of excessive sensationalist rhetoric and condoning the terrible stuff the subjects of this book have done. Hats off to you, Dr. Juergensmeyer, for not only making such a great scholarly work so accessible for the layman, but also for updating it with new information as extremism morphs in this age. Highly recommend if you want to actually understand why terrorism happens and what makes terrorists and their movements tick, but without the weird fetishization that "true crime" does to anything it touches.
March 31, 2025
Decades ago I read this book as part of a college course. When moving boxes out of my family's basement I came upon some of my old books and ran across this and decided to read it with fresh eyes. I hate to say that it is just as relevant and chilling, but unfortunately, it is perhaps moreso than when I first opened it.
While it doesn't make for enjoyable reading, it does make for important reading.
While it doesn't make for enjoyable reading, it does make for important reading.
December 1, 2021
The first part covers examples of religious violence across multiple religions, while the second part attempts to explain them in various theoretical frameworks. I dislike certain aspects of how the author frames Christianity's relationship to Judaism, while enjoying his thoughts on how male fears of emasculation and loss of power tie into their greater numbers in these movements.
August 21, 2017
Older study of the subject but still reasonably relevant. Post-Charlottesville, I found the author's analysis of the sexual elements involved in young men getting involved in terrorist activity to be on point, despite what some might think. I would like to see a newer edition at some point.
August 24, 2022
Good lay down of what I am called Cosmic War Theory in which extremists hijack religions to instill a sense of pending apocalypse to energize a base of support. The author's warning, do not fall for it and get bated into a fight that can never be resolved on earth.
December 10, 2019
The repetitiveness wore me out, but there was much to glean from his truly privileged interviews with terrorists...worth a skimming read!
January 3, 2020
Does not provide sufficient evidence to support its theses
April 23, 2025
took me FOREVER to read
but taught me really important stories about religious violence around the world, and the mindsets and idealologies behind it
also super helpful for my global paper
but taught me really important stories about religious violence around the world, and the mindsets and idealologies behind it
also super helpful for my global paper
May 29, 2025
Very well written ideas but the edition I have has grammatical errors everywhere! But whatever. So interesting how personal insecurity can lead to "cosmic war"
October 29, 2025
Thick and extensive case studies, but it essentializes religious elements sometimes: how can one draw a causal process between religion and violence without doing so ??
November 13, 2010
Terrorism has been at the forefront of national conscience in the past 10 years with the September 11th tragedy. The 80s and 90s saw the rise of this awareness. In what seems to be an anticipation of a more catastrophic event, Juergensmeyer’s Terror in the Mind of God dissects some of the religiously motivated terrorist acts of the 90s, searching for the rationale behind such acts. In doing this he comparatively examines what the majority of people would deem as “terrorist groups, zealots, or fundamentalists” in an effort to get behind the label that we give them and obtain an understanding of an otherwise senseless acts of violence (4).
Juergensmeyer breaks his book down into two sections. The first is chaptered according to terrorist groups and their respective world religions. The second ties these religions together with correlating themes. The author looks at Christian groups and their activities in America, Jewish groups and their work in Israel and Palestine, Muslims with activities across the world, Sikh violence against the state, and the Aum Shinrikyo gassing of the Tokyo subway. In doing so, Juergensmeyer hopes to point out similiarities in the way of violent radical thinking across religious lines. The second part of the book examines several concepts, separated by chapter. The “theater of terror” states that every violent act plays out in a theater of sorts, in that there are key actors and with ample media exposure, the world is an audience. The violence is bound to get some sort of reaction, after which the actors, no matter the limit of their resources, and their causes get ample exposure with maximum effect. “Cosmic War” tells of a belief common to all terrorist groups that the work they are doing is larger than life. Their belief is that they are a gambit in a struggle of good versus evil. When viewing something through these lenses, it is easier to accept that someone would be willing to commit the act of suicide bombing (146). In this vein, they are martyrs. Heightening this image, they demonize the enemy, which makes it easier to do their sometimes grisly work. Often killing of innocents is involved, yet many justify the murder of innocents as a small price to pay in view of the magnitude of their missions (175). The chapter “Warrior Power” builds up the participants, who are often on the fringe of society to partake in these cosmic acts. It concentrates on who partakes in these acts and why. Juergensmeyer also looks upon sexual frustrations that these often disenfranchised people have. He brings up the gender aspects of committing these acts and that many of them are motivated by a feeling of social disorder, partially attributed to the rise of the woman from her traditional role (198) and the blurring of acceptable sexual norms. The “Mind of God” reiterates that terrorists feel that they are doing the work of a higher power, particularly when it comes to fighting the secular government. It is here that Juergensmeyer questions the effectiveness of terrorism in its ability to accomplish its main goal. While it would appear that the “New World Order” is still healthy, there have been some successes for terrorists, who have pointed out, that as a society we cannot afford to be complacent.
It would be very easy to be subjective dealing with the issue of terrorism. Juergensmeyer, while not advocating the work of these groups, projects their voices by extensively utilizing the method of interview in his book. Every major religious group that he questions has at least one figure which he interviews (most use several, but the chapter on Aum Shinrikyo is noticeably lighter in its us of interviews). This authenticates their voice and motive.
I would have like to have read a timelier book from Juergensmeyer as this one was written right before September 11. He employs heavy use of the World Trade Center as a symbol of globalism and as a target (he references the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 throughout his book), along with the importance of transportation (i.e. planes) to our modern world and that this importance is not lost on these groups which want to maximize their sacrifices. While a few acts, like the World Trade Center bombing are continually referenced, it is appreciated that he often brings up other instances of lesser known terrorism, such as the Columbine shootings, and uses them as examples. Terror in the Mind of God is a good book for anyone who wants to understand the correlating motives behind a wide range of terrorist organizations.
Juergensmeyer breaks his book down into two sections. The first is chaptered according to terrorist groups and their respective world religions. The second ties these religions together with correlating themes. The author looks at Christian groups and their activities in America, Jewish groups and their work in Israel and Palestine, Muslims with activities across the world, Sikh violence against the state, and the Aum Shinrikyo gassing of the Tokyo subway. In doing so, Juergensmeyer hopes to point out similiarities in the way of violent radical thinking across religious lines. The second part of the book examines several concepts, separated by chapter. The “theater of terror” states that every violent act plays out in a theater of sorts, in that there are key actors and with ample media exposure, the world is an audience. The violence is bound to get some sort of reaction, after which the actors, no matter the limit of their resources, and their causes get ample exposure with maximum effect. “Cosmic War” tells of a belief common to all terrorist groups that the work they are doing is larger than life. Their belief is that they are a gambit in a struggle of good versus evil. When viewing something through these lenses, it is easier to accept that someone would be willing to commit the act of suicide bombing (146). In this vein, they are martyrs. Heightening this image, they demonize the enemy, which makes it easier to do their sometimes grisly work. Often killing of innocents is involved, yet many justify the murder of innocents as a small price to pay in view of the magnitude of their missions (175). The chapter “Warrior Power” builds up the participants, who are often on the fringe of society to partake in these cosmic acts. It concentrates on who partakes in these acts and why. Juergensmeyer also looks upon sexual frustrations that these often disenfranchised people have. He brings up the gender aspects of committing these acts and that many of them are motivated by a feeling of social disorder, partially attributed to the rise of the woman from her traditional role (198) and the blurring of acceptable sexual norms. The “Mind of God” reiterates that terrorists feel that they are doing the work of a higher power, particularly when it comes to fighting the secular government. It is here that Juergensmeyer questions the effectiveness of terrorism in its ability to accomplish its main goal. While it would appear that the “New World Order” is still healthy, there have been some successes for terrorists, who have pointed out, that as a society we cannot afford to be complacent.
It would be very easy to be subjective dealing with the issue of terrorism. Juergensmeyer, while not advocating the work of these groups, projects their voices by extensively utilizing the method of interview in his book. Every major religious group that he questions has at least one figure which he interviews (most use several, but the chapter on Aum Shinrikyo is noticeably lighter in its us of interviews). This authenticates their voice and motive.
I would have like to have read a timelier book from Juergensmeyer as this one was written right before September 11. He employs heavy use of the World Trade Center as a symbol of globalism and as a target (he references the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 throughout his book), along with the importance of transportation (i.e. planes) to our modern world and that this importance is not lost on these groups which want to maximize their sacrifices. While a few acts, like the World Trade Center bombing are continually referenced, it is appreciated that he often brings up other instances of lesser known terrorism, such as the Columbine shootings, and uses them as examples. Terror in the Mind of God is a good book for anyone who wants to understand the correlating motives behind a wide range of terrorist organizations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews