The concept of terrorism is among the most contentious in the fields of political science and security studies, not only because of its inherently violent nature but also due to the absence of a unified definition that commands international consensus. This conceptual ambiguity has created broad space for the political and media instrumentalization of the term, allowing it to be employed as a discursive tool to criminalize specific adversaries or to justify and legitimize intervention within the international arena.
Within this context, the events of September 11, 2001 constituted a pivotal turning point in the treatment of the concept of terrorism. Western political and media discourse increasingly tended to reduce the phenomenon to a specific cultural and religious framework, associating it almost exclusively with the Arab and Islamic worlds, while overlooking the historical extension of terrorism across diverse political contexts that have included radical leftist movements, nationalist organizations, and far-right extremist groups.
Despite the prevalence of this reductive perspective, the majority of academic studies and references define terrorism as a form of organized political violence in which violence—or the threat thereof—is directed against civilians or non-military targets in order to generate psychological and symbolic effects that extend beyond the immediate physical act itself, thereby serving specific political or ideological objectives. From this perspective, religion, ethnicity, or cultural affiliation does not constitute a fundamental determinant in the emergence of terrorism. Rather, its origins are closely linked to the political context, the structure of conflict, the nature of the actors involved, and the form of the relationship between authority and violence.
Nevertheless, an increasing tendency has emerged in Western discourse to associate terrorism with particular cultural and religious identities, most notably Arabs and Muslims. This has contributed to the production of a reductive stereotype that extends beyond the terrorist actors themselves to encompass entire social and cultural communities. This shift has not been confined to abstract discourse alone; it has also been reflected in security policies, legislation, and media and cultural practices, thereby contributing to the redefinition of violence, threat, and belonging within broader civilizational and security frameworks.
Against this backdrop, this study seeks to deconstruct the processes through which this association has been produced, examine the role of the September 11 attacks in reactivating narratives of the clash of civilizations, and explore the contribution of media and cinema to the consolidation of particular representations of Arabs and Muslims.
First: The Historical Roots of Terrorism
A review of the historical roots of the phenomenon reveals that terrorism has never been confined to any particular ethnic or religious group. Rather, throughout history it has represented one of the instruments of political violence, based on the use—or threat—of force to instill fear within society in pursuit of political or ideological objectives. This pattern has appeared in a wide range of historical contexts that long predate the formation of contemporary discourse on terrorism.
Although the term “terrorism” did not acquire its explicit political meaning until the late eighteenth century, particularly with what came to be known as the “Reign of Terror” during the French Revolution, the practice of organized violence as a means of subjugating societies and achieving authoritarian or revolutionary goals had long existed in human history, well before the emergence of the modern state. In this sense, the phenomenon precedes the term itself, just as it predates the cultural or religious frameworks with which it was later associated. This underscores that terrorism cannot be understood as the product of a particular identity, but rather as a recurring pattern within the broader history of political conflict.
Terrorism before the Modern State
The Sicarii: The Jewish Sicarii group (the “Dagger Men”), which emerged in the first century CE under Roman rule, represents one of the earliest historical examples of organized political violence with a terrorist character. The group developed as a radical faction within the Zealot movement, rejecting any form of coexistence with Roman authority or with local elites cooperating with it. It viewed violence as both a religious and political duty aimed at restoring what it considered the “divine sovereignty” of the Jewish people.
The group relied on public assassinations carried out with short daggers, typically executed within crowds in marketplaces or during religious gatherings, with the objective of generating collective fear and social paralysis. The targeting of civilians was not incidental but rather a strategic choice intended to disrupt the social fabric and prevent any cooperation with the ruling authority.[i]
Within the Islamic historical context, the Assassins represent one of the most prominent examples of organized political violence prior to the formation of the modern concept of terrorism. The movement emerged during the eleventh and twelfth centuries in Persia and the Levant.
The group became known for employing political assassination as a central instrument to target political and military leaders as well as symbols of authority in that era, with the aim of instilling fear and weakening political adversaries. Their operations were characterized by a high degree of secrecy and organization. Assassination was used as a means of influencing the balance of power without engaging in open military confrontation, and at times it also served as a tool of political pressure to impose negotiating conditions.
These examples demonstrate that political violence—historically and prior to the emergence of the term terrorism—was not associated with any particular religion. Rather, it functioned as a means of achieving political and ideological objectives across diverse historical contexts.[ii]
The Emergence of the Modern Concept of Terrorism
The French Revolution and the First Use of the Term “Terrorism”: The first use of the term “terrorism” is closely associated with the French Revolution, specifically with what became known as the “Reign of Terror” (1793–1794), when the revolutionary authorities employed systematic violence and mass executions as an official policy aimed at protecting the revolution and reshaping society.[iii]
Over time, the term gradually shifted from its original association with state practices to the activities of non-state actors. It later came to describe violent actions intended to influence the broader public through the spread of fear, whether carried out by nationalist, leftist, religious movements, or armed organizations.
Nationalist Terrorism: The twentieth century witnessed a significant rise in terrorism with a nationalist character, particularly within European contexts, where violence was employed as a tool to achieve goals related to self-determination or national secession. The Irish Republican Army represents one of the most prominent examples of this pattern, relying on bombings and assassinations within the framework of an identity-based nationalist struggle against British presence, often targeting civilians.
Other examples include the organization ETA in Spain, which conducted a prolonged campaign of violence aimed at securing the independence of the Basque region from Spain. Similarly, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia targeted foreign diplomats as part of a discourse rooted in historical retaliation.
Western Left-Wing Terrorism: Another form of terrorism emerged in Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s, represented by radical leftist groups that linked armed violence to resistance against capitalism and imperialism. In Italy, the Red Brigades carried out kidnappings and assassinations, most notably the abduction and killing of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. In Germany, the Baader–Meinhof Group conducted a series of bombings and assassinations targeting symbols of the state and the economic system.[iv]
Far-Right Terrorism: In recent decades, the threat of far-right terrorism has grown significantly, particularly in Europe and North America. This violence is often rooted in ideologies of white supremacy, anti-immigrant sentiment, and rejection of multiculturalism. Despite the clearly ideological nature of this violence, some Western media narratives avoid labeling it as terrorism, instead favoring terms such as “lone wolves,” which at times reflects a normative double standard in the characterization of political violence.
Over the past decade, the phenomenon of “lone wolves” has become increasingly visible within the context of far-right terrorism, where individuals not formally affiliated with organizations have carried out attacks inspired by ideological reference frameworks, as illustrated by the case of Anders Breivik, who was responsible for the 2011 attacks in Norway.[v] Moreover, far-right extremism is no longer confined to neo-Nazi groups; it has evolved into transnational online networks that bring together extremists who subscribe to white supremacist and xenophobic ideologies. This development has made detection more difficult for security authorities and underscores that the term “lone wolf” does not necessarily imply complete isolation. Rather, it often reflects ideological connection through digital spaces, even when the decision to carry out an attack is made individually.
Religious Terrorism: Religious terrorism is not confined to any single faith tradition. Rather, it has appeared across multiple religious contexts throughout history, demonstrating that the instrumentalization of religion in violence is not limited to Islam or to any specific culture. Instead, it represents a cross-religious and cross-cultural phenomenon. Within this framework, several prominent examples illustrate how religion can be transformed into a justification or ideological foundation for political violence.
The Kach movement, founded by the extremist Israeli rabbi Meir Kahane, represents one of the most overtly racist and violent manifestations of Jewish religious extremism in the modern era. The movement was based on an ideology of Jewish supremacy and advocated the establishment of a theocratic Jewish state founded on ethnic segregation, the expulsion of Palestinians and non-Jews from Palestine, and the justification of violence to achieve these goals. Followers of the movement were implicated in a number of violent attacks, most notably the 1994 massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque. Although Kahane was assassinated in 1990, his ideological legacy did not disappear. Instead, it has been reproduced in contemporary political forms through organizations and parties such as Jewish Power and others that have adopted his exclusionary rhetoric, with some of them moving from the margins of extremism into the center of the Israeli political landscape at the meantime.[vi]
Within the Christian context, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, led by Joseph Kony, represents a prominent example of the instrumentalization of Christianity to justify organized political violence. Kony claimed to receive divine revelations and sought to establish a system of governance based on the Ten Commandments of the Bible, interpreted through an extremist and selective reading of Christian doctrine. The organization employed this religious discourse to confer symbolic legitimacy upon its violent practices, which included mass killings, the abduction and forced recruitment of children, and the enslavement of women.[vii]
In addition, certain regions of Asia have witnessed forms of violent Buddhist extremism, where nationalist and racially motivated Buddhist groups have resorted to violence against religious minorities—most notably Muslims—drawing on exclusionary narratives hostile to religious pluralism and minority rights.
Myanmar provides a particularly striking example of this pattern, where what may be described as “Buddhist terrorism” has been directed against Muslims, especially the Rohingya minority. A close alliance emerged between the ruling military council and a number of extremist Buddhist nationalist monks, many of whom were previously associated with the “969 Movement” led by the monk Ashin Wirathu. These actors later reorganized themselves under the MaBaTha organization (the Committee for the Protection of Race and Religion). This alliance contributed to providing religious legitimacy for policies of repression and ethnic cleansing through a nationalist religious discourse portraying Muslims as a threat to the identity of the Buddhist nation. The role of these groups was not limited to rhetorical incitement; in some cases it extended to direct participation in armed violence and the leadership of militias aligned with the regime. Consequently, violence against Muslims became embedded within a broader political–religious strategy, underscoring that terrorism often emerges from the politicization of religious identity within power struggles rather than from the essence of religion itself.[viii]
Hindu extremism represents another example of the instrumentalization of religion in organized political violence. The ideology of Hindutva is based on fusing religious identity with national identity, presenting Hinduism as the exclusive foundation of the Indian nation. This current has been associated with a network of radical nationalist organizations, most notably the paramilitary Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), as well as the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, in addition to the political wing represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This ideological framework has contributed to the justification of systematic violence against religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, including mob attacks, the destruction of places of worship, and the imposition of restrictions on religious conversion. Such dynamics were evident in pivotal events such as the destruction of the Babri Mosque in 1992 and the large-scale violence against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.[ix]
At the same time, Islamist jihadist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others have also employed selective and extremist interpretations of religious texts in order to provide ideological justification for political violence. In these cases, religious texts are often detached from their historical and jurisprudential contexts and reinterpreted to serve the strategic objectives of these organizations.
The preceding historical overview demonstrates that terrorism is a global phenomenon with multiple roots and dimensions. It predates both Islam and the modern state and has historically taken nationalist, left-wing, right-wing, and religious forms. Accordingly, reducing terrorism to an Arab–Islamic context does not reflect the true nature of the phenomenon, but rather represents a political and discursive bias.
Second: The September 11, 2001 Attacks and the Reproduction of the “Clash of Civilizations” Discourse
Since the end of the Cold War, several analytical approaches have been proposed to explain the nature of conflicts in the international system. Among the most prominent of these is the “Clash of Civilizations” thesis advanced by Samuel Huntington in his book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. This thesis was based on the premise that conflicts in the post–Cold War era would no longer be primarily ideological or economic, but would instead assume a civilizational and cultural character, with particular emphasis on the relationship between the West and the Islamic world.[x]
Despite the extensive criticism directed at this approach in academic literature—particularly for its generalizing and reductionist tendencies—the attacks of September 11, 2001 contributed to its revival and granted it unprecedented political and media momentum.[xi] The significance of the event did not stem solely from the scale of violence or its symbolic impact, but also from its susceptibility to interpretation within a framework that presents violence as the product of a broader civilizational conflict. Consequently, the attacks were not treated merely as a terrorist operation carried out by a specific organization; rather, they were utilized as a catalyst for reproducing a broader narrative that attached security and cultural connotations to Islamic civilization extending beyond the nature of the event itself.[xii]
Prior to the September 11 attacks, Islam was not generally portrayed in Western political and media discourse as a comprehensive security threat. Although acts of violence motivated by religious or ideological factors had occurred, such violence was typically interpreted within specific political or organizational contexts, with responsibility attributed to particular groups rather than generalized to Islam as a religion or to Muslims as a social community. However, the establishment of the September 11 attacks as a central interpretive reference point led to the reinterpretation of subsequent acts of violence involving Muslim actors within a broader narrative that transcended the specific contexts of each case.[xiii]
This shift contributed to reframing violence associated with jihadist groups within a wider civilizational perspective. It was no longer viewed exclusively as the product of particular political or organizational circumstances, but increasingly as an expression of a presumed cultural or civilizational tension. As a result, the discourse moved from focusing on a specific terrorist organization to addressing an entire civilization or system of values. This transition blurred the distinction between violent actors and broader religious identity, reducing complex political conflicts to a civilizational framework that overlooked their underlying structural dynamics.
This context provides an entry point for understanding how issues related to political violence were transformed into threats framed in comprehensive security terms, thereby enabling the justification of exceptional measures that exceeded conventional political and legal norms. In the case of the September 11 attacks, this transformation did not remain confined to violent jihadist organizations; it extended to Muslims as a social group and, ultimately, to Islam itself as a cultural and civilizational identity.
This shift was reflected in the widening scope of suspicion, as the focus moved from transnational networks of violence to Muslim communities in the West, which increasingly came to be perceived as potential incubators of extremism. Within this context, the logic of threat became intertwined with a civilizational binary (us/them), such that the threat was no longer defined solely as a specific violent behavior but increasingly as an identity in itself. This transformation did not remain confined to the discursive sphere; it was translated into security and legislative policies, including the expansion of surveillance powers, stricter immigration measures, and the growing securitization of issues related to social integration. These developments contributed to the reproduction of negative stereotypes about Muslims and reinforced the association between Islam and terrorism within certain political and policy discourses.[xiv]
Third: Reframing Conflicts in International Discourse
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, international political and security discourse witnessed a noticeable shift in the interpretive frameworks used to understand conflicts in the Middle East. Many of these conflicts were incorporated into a broader global security framework centered on the concept of the “war on terror.” This transformation expanded the interpretive scope of regional conflicts, which increasingly came to be understood not only through their local political, historical, or social determinants but also through their potential connection to transnational security threats.[xv]
Within this context, this discursive shift contributed to redefining the nature of actors in the region. Certain groups—and in some cases states—came to be viewed not merely as parties to specific regional conflicts but also as potential components within a wider system of security threats. This perspective strengthened the role of international security considerations in interpreting regional conflicts and enabled major powers to expand the scope of their military and security interventions beyond their geographical borders under the broader framework of maintaining international security and countering potential threats.[xvi]
The 2003 military intervention in Iraq represents one of the most prominent examples of this transformation. The political discourse accompanying the intervention was closely tied to a set of security-related considerations, including concerns about the possession of weapons of mass destruction and references to possible links with Al-Qaeda. This framing helped situate the intervention within a broader international security context, presenting it as part of a wider effort to confront global security threats rather than solely as a matter related to regional power dynamics.
More broadly, this pattern of discourse reflects a structural shift within the international system, in which terrorism emerged as a central interpretive framework for analyzing certain conflicts and redefining sources of threat. As a result, security considerations gained increasing prominence in the interpretation of conflicts, contributing to the reconfiguration of the relationship between international security and regional disputes in ways that extend beyond traditional frameworks centered on national interests or geopolitical balances.
This framework is not limited to the security dimension alone; it also extends to legitimizing military interventions. In certain discursive contexts, such interventions are framed in terms of protecting civilians or safeguarding international security, thereby contributing to their legitimization and conferring upon them an ethical or humanitarian character.
Within this context, a discursive differentiation can be observed in the characterization of various forms of violence. Certain acts of violence are categorized as terrorism when they are perceived as threats to international security, whereas the use of force within the context of international interventions is often presented within conceptual frameworks associated with maintaining security or restoring stability. This differentiation reflects the role that discourse plays in shaping interpretive frameworks of violence and determining its meanings within the broader political and international security context.[xvii]
Fourth: The Role of Media and Cinema in Shaping Perceptions of Arabs and Muslims
Media and cinema represent some of the most influential tools in shaping public perceptions within Western societies, given their capacity to influence public opinion and to reproduce collective understandings of events and identities. In this context, media coverage and cinematic productions have, through recurring patterns of narrative and representation, contributed to reinforcing certain perceptions of Arabs and Muslims, often linking them to issues of extremism and political violence.[xviii]
This influence operates through multiple mechanisms, most notably repetition, selectivity, and the presentation of particular cases as representative of broader realities. At the discursive level, for example, the frequent use of terms such as “jihadist” or “Islamic extremism” in violent contexts is often observed without clarifying conceptual distinctions or the broader historical and political contexts. Such patterns of representation tend to narrow the interpretive framework through which violent phenomena are understood, leading them to be read primarily through a religious lens while the social and political factors that contribute to their emergence receive diminished attention.
The significance of these perceptions lies in the fact that they do not merely describe reality; they also function as interpretive frameworks that shape how events are understood and evaluated. This, in turn, has implications for public policy, including immigration policies, security approaches, and relations between different cultural groups. In the context of political violence, such representations may be used to define perceived threats, reinforcing the association between the phenomenon and specific identities and influencing broader public debates surrounding integration and pluralism.
Collective memory also plays a central role in consolidating these representations through the repeated invocation of particular events—such as the September 11, 2001 attacks—as enduring reference points in interpreting violence associated with Muslims, while other events receive comparatively less prominence within the dominant narrative. This selectivity contributes to the persistence of a single interpretive framework that is reproduced over time.
Accordingly, it can be observed that certain trends in Western media coverage of terrorism have contributed to reinforcing a cognitive association between Islam and violence through interpretive frameworks that have gradually become entrenched within public discourse. Discourse analysis studies indicate that this association has not necessarily been the product of isolated events alone but rather the cumulative result of patterns of selective coverage that have emphasized the security dimension in representations of Muslims, while diminishing their presence as ordinary social actors. The following are among the most significant media mechanisms associated with this trajectory:
- News Media
News media constitute a central actor in shaping public perceptions through the patterns of coverage and selection they adopt. Numerous studies indicate disparities in the intensity of media coverage of terrorist attacks depending on the identity of the perpetrators. Incidents carried out by individuals of Muslim background tend to receive broader and more sustained coverage, often accompanied by a noticeable emphasis on the religious background of the actor as a primary explanatory factor for the event.[xix]
By contrast, a different pattern can be observed in the coverage of violent acts committed by individuals from non-Muslim backgrounds. Such incidents are frequently framed within individual, psychological, or social contexts and attributed to personal factors such as mental health conditions or individual circumstances, without linking them to a broader cultural or religious identity. In this context, media coverage often displays a tendency to separate the violent act from the ideological background of the perpetrator.[xx]
Media coverage also tends at times to present Muslim societies as homogeneous entities, reducing their cultural, doctrinal, and social diversity to limited and simplified representations. These societies are frequently portrayed primarily in relation to the West or within the framework of security threats, which contributes to presenting Muslims as a unified group with shared characteristics rather than as diverse individuals and communities.[xxi]
The role of the media is not limited to the selection of news; it also extends to language and imagery as central tools in the production of meaning. At the linguistic level, the repeated use of certain terms—such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihad”—in contexts of violence may contribute to the formation of linguistic associations between religion and violent action, particularly when these terms are not presented within their broader historical and religious contexts.[xxii]
At the visual level, the recurring media use of images associated with Islamic symbols—such as mosques, traditional forms of dress, or beards—within the context of reporting on violent events may, over time, contribute to the formation of relatively stable visual associations within collective memory. These associations can lead to a cognitive linkage between such symbols and violence or terrorism, even in cases where no direct or causal relationship exists.
- Cinema and Drama
Western cinema and television drama constitute highly influential tools in shaping cultural perceptions of Arabs and Muslims due to their capacity to influence perception and collective consciousness through entertainment narratives that often appear neutral. Over time, cinematic narratives have undergone a gradual shift from classical Orientalism toward what may be described as a “new Islamophobia,” in which Muslim characters are frequently portrayed in one of three roles: the terrorist, the fanatic, or the victim who requires Western rescue.[xxiii]
One illustrative example is the television series Homeland, which depicts certain Muslim characters primarily within security-related contexts or in roles associated with threat or duplicity. Such portrayals may contribute to reinforcing perceptions of suspicion and distrust toward Muslims.[xxiv]
The significance of these representations lies in the logic of symbolic accumulation through which they operate. Their influence is not measured by a single production but by the repetition of similar narrative patterns over time, which gradually shapes the broader interpretive framework through which issues of identity and violence are understood within popular culture.
Fifth: The Social and Political Consequences of Producing a Discourse of Threat
Media and cinematic narratives concerning Arabs and Muslims have generated profound effects within Western societies. These effects include the reinforcement of discriminatory policies, the strengthening of far-right discourse, the erosion of trust among different components of society, and the weakening of prospects for integration and mutual understanding. In this context, Islamophobia has evolved from a form of hate speech into a broader social and political structure that produces unequal relations of power.[xxv]
Institutional Islamophobia: In the contemporary Western context, Islamophobia is no longer confined to individual hostility or marginal cultural attitudes. Rather, it has gradually developed into an institutional phenomenon embedded within the structures of the state itself. This transformation is reflected in the incorporation of negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims into public policy through laws, legislation, and security practices that produce discrimination in systematic and legally sanctioned ways.[xxvi]
Institutional Islamophobia is particularly evident in immigration and asylum policies, as well as in extensive security surveillance programs targeting Muslim communities and collectively associating them with terrorism. It is also reflected in intensified monitoring of mosques, restrictions on religious symbols, and the banning of the hijab or niqab under the justification of security or social integration. In this way, discrimination shifts from the level of discourse to the level of official practice, becoming embedded within the logic of governance and administration.[xxvii]
The Reproduction of Extremism and Violence: Paradoxically, these policies may produce outcomes that run counter to their stated objectives. Rather than containing terrorism and extremism, they can contribute to their reproduction by reinforcing feelings of exclusion and alienation within segments of Muslim communities, particularly among younger generations. Such sentiments are frequently exploited by extremist and terrorist organizations to reinforce narratives centered on “Islamic victimhood” or the notion of an “existential war against Islam.”
Moreover, stereotypical representations of Arabs and Muslims within Western discourse may function as symbolic tools for mobilization. These representations can facilitate recruitment by enabling jihadist organizations to portray themselves as the only viable response to perceived injustice, exclusion, and Western domination. The result is what may be described as a vicious cycle of symbolic and material violence: the association of a particular religious, national, or ethnic identity with threat generates deliberate institutional marginalization and exclusion. In turn, this marginalization increases the susceptibility of certain individuals to radicalization and extremism, which is subsequently invoked to justify further repressive and exclusionary policies. Consequently, violence shifts from being an exceptional act to becoming a sustained structure reproduced through the ongoing interaction between securitization and extremism.
Conclusion and Final Findings
• An analytical reading of the evolution of the concept of terrorism in Western discourse reveals fundamental transformations in the way the phenomenon has been constructed and framed, extending beyond the academic sphere into the core of political and media practice. The concept has shifted from being understood as a form of organized political violence—subject to analysis within its diverse historical and social contexts—to a discursive instrument whose meanings are shaped by power relations and geopolitical interests. This shift is reflected in the term’s susceptibility to selective application when describing violence, depending on the identity of the perpetrator.
• The historical review of the phenomenon demonstrates that terrorism is not associated with a specific culture or religion. Rather, it represents a recurring pattern of political conflict that has appeared across different civilizations and societies—from the Sicarii in the first century CE, to the Assassins in the medieval period, and later to left-wing, nationalist, and religious organizations in the modern era.
• The attacks of September 11, 2001 marked a critical turning point in Western discourse on terrorism. The “clash of civilizations” thesis was revived within a new context, and the attacks were transformed from a specific terrorist operation into a permanent reference point for interpreting relations with Islam and Muslims. This shift contributed to the reframing of numerous conflicts in the Middle East within a global security perspective, enabling international powers to expand the scope of their military interventions under the umbrella of the “war on terror,” as seen in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, while also providing moral legitimacy for these interventions.
• Western media and cinema played a central role in consolidating this perspective through mechanisms of repetition, selectivity, and stereotypical representation. Within media and cinematic discourse, the image of the Muslim gradually shifted from that of an ordinary citizen to that of a security subject, frequently portrayed within a framework of suspicion and potential threat. The double standards in the characterization of violence—combined with the disproportionate emphasis on the religious background of Muslim perpetrators while minimizing similar considerations in other cases—contributed to reinforcing cognitive associations between Islam and terrorism within Western collective consciousness.
• The impact of these discourses has extended to the institutional level, where forms of institutional Islamophobia have emerged through discriminatory policies in areas such as immigration, asylum, and security, as well as through legislation targeting Islamic religious symbols. Rather than achieving their stated objectives of combating terrorism and enhancing security, such policies may contribute to the reproduction of extremism by reinforcing feelings of exclusion and alienation among some members of Muslim communities, thereby generating a vicious cycle of symbolic and material violence that is difficult to break.
• In light of the above, it becomes necessary to approach the phenomenon of terrorism through a multidimensional framework that moves beyond reductionist interpretations that attribute the phenomenon to a specific cultural or religious identity. As historical evidence demonstrates, terrorism is not inherent to any particular civilization; rather, it represents a form of political violence that emerges within specific contexts and is shaped by complex interactions among social, economic, and political factors.
• Accordingly, there is a pressing need to develop discourse and policies that avoid conflating religious identity with security threats and that move beyond narrowly securitized approaches—which may produce counterproductive effects—toward comprehensive strategies that address the underlying political, social, and economic drivers of extremism.
References:
[i] Stewart J. D’Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg, “Sicarii and the Rise of Terrorism.” Terrorism, vol. 13 (4–5), 1990, https://doi.org/10.1080/10576109008435840
[ii] Jefferson M. Gray, Holy Terror: The Rise of the Order of Assassins, History Net, 2010, https://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-of-assassins/
[iii] Jonathan Matusitz, What Is Terrorism?, TERRORISM AND COMMUNICATION, 2013, https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/51172_ch_1.pdf
[iv] David Rapoport, The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. In Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy (2004), edited by Audrey Kurth Cronin and James M. Ludes, pp. 46-73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/import/publication/Rapoport-Four-Waves-of-Modern-Terrorism.pdf
[v] The Islamic Military Counter-Terrorism Coalition, “Oslo Attacks – Bloody Terrorism with a Far-Right Madness,” https://www.imctc.org/ar/eLibrary/Magazine/Topics/Pages/Topic25042024.aspx
[vi] The Institute for Middle East Understanding, Meir Kahane & The Extremist Kahanist Movement, 2024, https://imeu.org/resources/resources/fact-sheet-meir-kahane-the-extremist-kahanist-movement/164
[vii] Ali Hamed, The Lord’s Resistance Army 1987-2012: A Historical Study, Arab Journal of Humanities, 2023, https://journals.ku.edu.kw/ajh/index.php/ajh/article/view/3029/2463
[viii] Khandakar Tahmid Rejwan, Militant Monks Fuel Government Terror in Myanmar, Terrorism Monitor, Volume 23 Issue 2, 2025, https://jamestown.org/militant-monks-fuel-government-terror-in-myanmar/
[ix] Paul Marshall, Hinduism and Terror, Hudson Institute, Jun 1, 2004, https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/hinduism-and-terror
[x] Ali Issa Abdulrahman, The Clash of Civilizations and the Renewal of Islamic Discourse, Ghiras for Intellectual Production, 2025, https://ghirascenter.org/2025/12/%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A/
[xi] ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN, The US media, Huntington and September 11, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 3, pp 529–544, 2003, https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/16987772.pdf
[xii] JOCELYNE CESARI, Muslims in the West after 9/11, Routledge, 2010, http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/16483/1/227.pdf
[xiii] Mustafa BÜYÜKGEBIZ, HOW THE ENEMY HAS CHANGED: ISLAMOPHOBIA AND POST 9/11
SYNDROME IN JOHN LE CARRE’S NOVEL; A MOST WANTED MAN, ,2016, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/411829
[xiv] Uzzi Ohana, THE SECURITISATION OF OTHERS: FEAR, TERROR, IDENTITY, PAPER PREPARED FOR THE 6TH PAN-EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: MAKING SENSE OF A PLURALIST WORLD 12-15 SEPTEMBER, UNIVERSITY OF TURIN, ITALY, 2007, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237211759_THE_SECURITISATION_OF_OTHERS_FEAR_TERROR_IDENTITY
[xv] Dina Mansour, Counterterrorism policies in the Middle East and North Africa: A regional perspective, International Review of the Red Cross, 2021, https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/reviews-pdf/2022-02/counterterrorism-policies-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-916.pdf
[xvi] Rimouche Soufiane, International Terrorism and the US National Security Strategy after the September 11, 2001 Attacks, PhD Thesis, University of Algiers, 2020, https://dspace.univ-alger3.dz/jspui/bitstream/123456789/3893/1/%d8%af.1409.320.pdf
[xvii] Joe Murphy, Coloniality, neo-orientalism, culture, and death Why it is time to move away from the ‘war on terror’ narrative, British Council, https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/new-voices-in-cultural-relations_1.-joe-murphy.pdf
[xviii] Azeezah Kanji, Framing Muslims in the “War on Terror”: Representations of Ideological Violence by Muslim versus Non-Muslim Perpetrators in Canadian National News Media, Religions, vol.9, 2018, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/274#Funding
[xix] Taryn Butler, The Media Construction of Terrorism Pre and Post-9/11, McKendree University, https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/butler-issue-24.pdf
[xx] Kimberly A. Powell, Framing Islam/Creating Fear: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism from 2011–2016, Religions 2018, 9(9), 257; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9090257
[xxi] FATIMA ABDUL RAHMAN, RUBA SALMA, Analyzing Media Representations of Terrorist Attacks Against Muslims: A Comparative Content Analysis of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks on BBC, Al Jazeera, and Al Arabiya Websites, International Journal of Communication, vol.18, 2024, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/20245/4541
[xxii] Syamsul Arifin, Nikmah Suryandari, Islamophobia and Media Framing in West Media, KARSA Journal of Social and Islamic Culture, vol. 29, pp.27-45, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353940352_Islamophobia_and_Media_Framing_in_West_Media
[xxiii] Mohamed Farid Ibrahim Moussa, Political Imagination and Mental Imagery in Cinema and Their Impact on the Growth of the Terrorism Phenomenon, PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University, 2024, https://www.scribd.com/document/720743193/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A
[xxiv] Media Portrayals of Religion: Islam, https://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/religion/media-portrayals-religion-islam
[xxv] Navid Ghani, THE ROLE OF MEDIA AND ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE UNITED STATES, Journal of Business and Social Science Review, Vol. 2; No.1; January 2021 pp.126-137, https://jbssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/10.pdf
[xxvi] KHALED A. BEYDOUN, EXPORTING ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE GLOBAL “WAR ON TERROR”, NYU Law Review, 2020, https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NYULawReviewOnline-95-Beydoun.pdf
[xxvii] ELEVENTH OIC OBSERVATORY REPORT ON ISLAMOPHOBIA, July 2017 – April 2018, PRESENTED TO THE 45th Council of Foreign Ministers, PREFACE BY THE OIC SECRETARY GENERAL, https://www.oic-oci.org/upload/islamophobia/2018/11th_Annual_Report_on_Islamophobia_English.pdf
