-Abstract-
Human beings throughout history
have practiced religious beliefs and traditions. Within this religious
practice, mankind has experienced some forms of religious collective
hostilities. However, of the world major religions, there are traditions that
preach tolerance, peace, fairness, justice and human compassion. Whether people
are talking of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, each
religion has experienced some forms of violence through its history. However,
since September 11th 2001, Islam has been branded as a violent religion that
promotes violence. In this paper, the goal is to explore the claims that
Islamic identities and beliefs promote radical violence or terrorism. as some
people have seemed to suggest.
-Literature Review and Analysis-
Before September 11th 2001, there was less talk about
radical Islam. However, the aftermath of that day has brought Islam in the
forefront of public discourse in which Islam has been branded as a religion or
a faith that encourages violence. In order for people to understand more about
religious collective violence, it fits to look into human religious history. In
the Bible, there are references to violence.
For instance, Joshua attack on
Jericho Walls, Christians Conquest or crusades in Europe that resulted into
death of thousands of innocent people, and even recently, there have been some
forms of collective violence carried
out by Christians against Muslims in the
Balkan region during the Yugoslavia civil war ( Johansen, 1997). Or in Northern Ireland where Catholics and
Protestants murdered themselves in a cold bloody civil war resulting into mass
murder, displacement of women and children and total destruction of different
forms of lives just because of religious and political disagreements.
Because of
religious and political differences in Northern Ireland, younger people among
Catholics and Protestants became radicalized and got involved in a collective
violence against each other. Moreover, the crusade war of 11th - 13th is a
direct example of how Christianity was complicated or involved in an open war
against Islam. In the years following the beginning of the 11th century, Roman
Pope commissioned or rather sanctioned Christians to retake the Holy Land back
from Muslims after they conquered it. In a matter of a century, Christians
engaged in three violent crusades against Muslims in the name of securing a
right place for Christianity.
Push forward to the
fifteen century, there were other major wars in which Christians acted
violently. In 1562, Catholics in France fought against Huguenots. On the hand,
England fought a war with Spain over the killing of the Queen of Scots. More
importantly, the whole Europe experienced an ugly destruction during the Thirty
Years War which started as a conflict between Calvinists, Catholics and
Protestants (Trim, 2010). Yet,
Christianity did not get branded as a radical religion the way Islam has been
branded following the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
Regarding Judaism, people don't have to look back into 12th or 13 century
history to find evident of radical aspects of Judaism. Just recently in the
1947 before Israel became an independent state,
group of radical Jews organized an Apartheid-like practices and even carried out violence
against Palestinians women and children
in the Palestinian territories in which
innocent people died in the hands of radical Jews just because they
stood in the way of attaining a perfect Jewish state( Ellens, 2010). This Jewish radicalism continues to this very
day in the forms of political oppression in which successive Jewish governments continue to
organize different forms of aggressions and violent against Palestinians in
Gaza Strips and the West Bank territories.
Furthermore, through
human history, Hinduism and Buddhism on the other hand have experienced some of
their own infidelities. In India and Pakistan for example, there have been well
documented instances of violence in which Muslims and Hindus have killed
themselves because of religious differences and beliefs particularly in the
disputed area of Kashmir. In this disputed Kashmir area, each faith has
organized some forms of collective violence against each other which has
resulted into the growth of radical fanatics whose goal have been the
destruction of each other religion. Even
in Buddhism, which some people credited with the consolidation of nonviolence
as an alternative form of conflict resolution has some of its shortcomings. In
place like Sri Lanka and India, there have been incidences in which radical
believers assassinated some monks that they don’t like or in some cases, some
monks have targeted or organized the killing of other monks just because of
religious power greed (Johansen, 1997).
Not that I am defending Islam. Islam itself is no exception
to violence. There are historical references to violence in which Muslims have
conducted or organized collective violence against others. For instance, the
historical sectarian violence between Shia Muslims, Sunnis Muslims and Kurds
has been a prime example of how Islam has divided its followers to fight
against each other. Not only that, there have been examples of internal
violence in which Muslims has carried out physical and political violence
against their own Muslims brothers for instance, the killing of Egyptian’s
President Sadat, Pakistani’ President Ali Bhutto, brutal oppression of
Palestinian Refugees in Jordan during the 1970s, Seizure of Mecca city in Saudi
Arabia by radical Muslims and even the 1979 Iranian’s revolution in which
Ayatollah Khomeini followers violently fought the Khomeini opponents, Saddam
oppression of Shiites and Kurds in Iraq;
the past and the current Syrian’s internal civil war are few examples
of collective violence involving Islam
and the list goes on (Mansur, 1993).
Therefore, when Western critics of Islam chastise Islam as
violent religion, they point to both historical facts and contemporary radical
groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban,
Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab both
which people in the West have branded as radical Islamic organizations
that promote hate and violence against other religions. Having named these
Islamic organizations, the question becomes, is Islam more prone to violence?
And if so, what causes these organizations to embrace radical militancy against
the West and other religions? Examining these two questions would help people
understand if Islam promotes more violence than other religions as well as why
these Islamic organizations seemed to act violently against the people of other
faiths or within its self. Thus, in order to understand these individual
organizations, it is necessary to examine each organization individually as
follows:
Regarding
Hezbollah which owes it origin to religious and social renaissance in Lebanon;
it started as an Islamic reawakening
which started in the 1980 when groups of clerics raised the need to
consolidate the core principles of Islam concerning the lives of Muslims in
Lebanon (Qassem, 2005, pp. 55-86). It primary goals were to guide Muslim’s
faith in Lebanon during the time when Lebanon was experiencing political
turmoil, to provide community services like
education, healthcare, and sense of communal belonging in the absent of the
central authority. All these goals were aimed at alleviating standard of living
for many Lebanese who suffered both internal and external oppression. In
essence, Hezbollah was started as, “a movement of the oppressed by the
oppressed.” However, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah was forced
to choose between accepting Israel occupation or protecting Lebanon sovereignty
and territorial integrity.
Because of Israel
aggression and it occupation of Lebanon, Hezbollah leadership started to preach
hate of the Jews and launched barrages
of terrorist attacks against Israel and those that it believed to support
Jewish state occupation of their country.
The result of course has been the bombing of U.S. embassy in Beirut and
U.S. military barrack in which hundreds of people perished (Hamzeh, 1997, pp.
47-53). Given the power disparity between the mighty Israel Defense Forces
(IDFs) and Hezbollah militants, Hezbollah chose violent acts like bombing and
use of Improvised Explosive Devices
commonly known as IEDs as a mechanism to neutralize military
strength of Israel army forces.
Consequentially,
Hezbollah affinity for regional terrorism was a combination of several factors
of which some are directly linked to Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982 as well
as Israel general polices toward Muslims in the region. Before Israel started
to meddle in Lebanese political affairs, Hezbollah was only concerned with
internal social and political affairs. However, Israelis occupation of Southern
Lebanon bolstered Hezbollah resolve and gave its followers reason to preach and
practice violence against Israel.
Thereafter, did Hezbollah started to organize the youth to
carry out series of terrorist activities in the Israelis territories as well as
against Western interests inside Lebanon. Ever since, the Hezbollah violence
against Israel has been encouraged by Israel continues meddling in the Lebanese
affairs. In reality, Israel has become an agent that propagates incentive for
Hezbollah to engage in terrorist activities. For instance, the 2006 Israel war
with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon was a typical example of how Israel fueled
Hezbollah thirst for violence.
The result of course has been the death of hundreds of
innocent women and children as well as general destruction of homes. The
magnitude of destruction caused by the Israel Defense Forces became an
opportunity that Hezbollah used as a recruiting message indicting Israel for
terrorizing Lebanese civilians.
Moreover, this gave Hezbollah a platform to argue to the Lebanese people
that the only way to deal with Israelis
‘violence and aggression was for people of Lebanon to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Hezbollah to
punish Israelis for initiating violence.
In addition, viewing
Israelis-Palestinian conflict situation more analytically provides people with
several explanations that potentially culminated into better understanding of
the current state of violence that many people in the West try to exclusively
blame on Islam. First, because Hezbollah owed it foundation to Iranian
Revolutionary Guards, there is no denying that Hezbollah doesn’t have a radical
agenda. It shares the same theocratic agenda with Iran which is one of its main
financiers. However, despite its initial desire to create an Islamic Lebanese
government, there was no initial plan to meddle in the regional affairs.
Violence became an option when Israel invaded Lebanon provoking Hezbollah to
respond to Israel continuous violation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Within this
interactive context people could easily understand the origin of Hezbollah
violence and terrorism toward Israel. It is arguable to say that Israel might
has been the one that initiated the violence and that Hezbollah was reacting to
an external aggression orchestrated by a violent state just like the way the
United States reacted to the event of September 11th, 2001. When Al Qaeda
brought down the Twin Towers, America did not hesitate to invade Afghanistan to
go after Osman Bin Laden and those who supported or harbored them as President
George W. Bush put it.
Second, to
better understand Hezbollah and it terrorism involvement, people need to
separate it from Islam. It is a colossal mistake to generalize that Islam is a
violent religion without understanding individual radical organization. To
begin with, Hezbollah vision was the creation of a resistance movement in
Lebanon with a goal to restore Lebanon as a key player in the Islamic world.
This vision sounds radical, but did not call for the destruction of Israel
(Qassem, 2005). Of course distinction has to be made, Hezbollah charter calls
for the destruction of the enemy of Allah. However, this doesn’t mean that
Israel was a presumptuous enemy of Lebanon or Allah. It became Lebanon’s enemy
particular Hezbollah’s enemy after Israel attacked and killed innocent women
and children on several occasions during incursions in Beirut and Southern
Lebanon. So if one looks at the Hezbollah conflict with Israel in this way, one
might be able to separate facts from personal biases about Islam which is a
better way to analyze the nature of Hezbollah violence against the Jewish
people or other conflict for that matter.
Third, people have to understand that Hezbollah has almost
achieved a political party status within the Lebanese politics. It has
political aspiration and interest to protect inside the Lebanon and this has
evident in the way the Lebanese government treats Hezbollah. Sometimes,
Lebanese political situation dictates how Hezbollah respond to the government.
If the government acted violently, it explained instances of violence where
Hezbollah reciprocated it. Moreover, religious argument alone does not explain
Hezbollah political rise in Lebanon. Instead, its political and social
popularity can be understood through Lebanese political system analysis which
is why it’s a mistake to solely analyze Hezbollah within the realm of religion.
In regards to
Hamas, it started as a social organization to provide basic social services to
communities in Gaza strip and the West Bank areas where human suffering was
unbearable. Ideally, Hamas started as a charity organization inspired by desire
to alleviate people's anxieties, sufferings in a way that renewed hope and
aspirations for people who have lost hope in face of Israel occupation and
oppression. Since Hamas emerged as a
social organization, it has tried to bridge poverty gap by feeding the hunger,
train teachers, doctors, farmers, brought youth together through sports and
religious gatherings. Moreover, it acts as a source of micro finance for lot of
people who otherwise would have no other means of raising capitals to start
business.
If people are to
talk of current Arab-Israelis violence, then, it is arguable that the real
problem referencing to violence started with the 1947 Jewish expulsion of the
Arabs Israel-Palestine to make room for a future Jewish state (Hroub, 2006).
Few years later, it was followed by 1967 war in which Israel conquered Gaza and
West bank territories and annexed them to Israel till Israel withdrew from them
in 2005. It's such continued Jewish aggression that prompted Palestinian's
first Intifada in 1987. By examining the context of this era, it is arguable that
Hamas gravitation toward violent actions against Israel is a production
Israel's oppression and aggression in the Palestinian territories.
Although Hamas holds anti-Israel view, it has become
pragmatic over time which should be viewed as a positive development. For instance, Hamas has recently accepted or
showed willingness for the two states solution.
It is also showing willingness to
accept the possibility of recognizing a Jewish state as long as Israel abandon
occupation of the Arabs land in Palestine and relinquishing violence against
Palestinians (Hroub, 2006). Such spirit of Hamas to recognize the existence of
a Jewish state and accept two states solution is sign of a party that is
willing to work for peace except there is no equal partner to hold its hand on
the other side. The point is, Hamas tried to extend it hand to Israel but it
seems Israel is not willing to reciprocate it.
Moreover, the 2006 Hamas election victory that brought it to
power is a premonition that Hamas as an organization is not all about violence
as West would want people to believe. Instead, it shows that Hamas is well
organized both socially and politically to an extent of winning political
seats. In the case of sporadic violence
that took place since Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip area (Suicide bombers,
Improvised Explosive Devices), Hamas see them justifiable. In the eyes of Palestinians, Hamas and those
who embrace its charter perceive situation as a just struggle against a
powerful Jewish state that occupies
their lands and oppresses them in their own land.
On the other hand,
Hamas success in the Gaza Strip area is not because it is an Islamic radical
organization as some people would want people to believe. Much of the Hamas
successes happened because of it social programs to the war affected victims in
the region. Its ability to provide basic stuffs like food, medical care, builds
schools for children that attracted people to it. This is not a radical agenda by any measure,
and those who are quick to brand Hamas as a violent organization don’t portray
the whole picture of Hamas. In the Gaza Strip area for example, Hamas runs an
orphanage center that houses about 1,000 children who are victims of
Israel-Palestinian war, and operates a clinic that provides cheap medical care
to some refugees at a discounted price (Murphy, 2006).
These few examples
showed that Hamas is like any other social organization in the world. Its violent path as mentioned above revolves
around Israel continued occupation of the Palestinian lands. It is this
aggression that Hamas reciprocates toward the Jewish people. Moreover, given
the power imbalance which favors Israel leaves Hamas with no choice at. The
situation becomes a matter of a survival. Either Hamas embraces terrorism or
faces the threat of elimination by Israel. Therefore, this forces Hamas to use
violence as a strategy to stay viable in the face of elimination. In other
words, as long as Israel continues in its current path, it is unfortunate fact;
Hamas would likely get more violent.
Then, the question
becomes, what is the best way to understand and curtain radical violence from
Hamas? Obviously, people should not look to Islam as the sole source of Hamas
violence. Instead, they need to examine Israel-Palestinian conflict in a more
holistic manner. First, there is a need
for the West to examine Israel actions regarding how it treats Arabs and
Palestinians in the region. This would
include making sure Israel plays by international rules of wars. This notion of
allowing Israel to declare war on civilians’ targets and drops bombs any time
on nonmilitary targets without international condemnation is an act of violence
itself. It is this kind of irresponsible action by a sovereign state sanctioned
by some nations in the West that provokes groups like Hamas to resort to
violence.
Second, Western states by and large are contributing to the
magnitude of violence in the region particularly the United States which stands
with Israel irrespective of how gross Israel actions are on the Palestinian
people. The Palestinians in this context
see themselves as helpless which encourages them to resort to any survival
methods imaginable including human bombers and IEDs as mentioned above. Hence,
for a peaceful coexistence to return to this region, Western states need to
become neutral partners for peace and start to treat both Palestinians and
Israelis equally. This could be a good way to start and would likely encourage
Hamas and other anti-Israelis groups to abandon violent activities in favor for
a peaceful coexistence.
Third, instead of a
direct denunciation of Hamas as a radical violent organization, may be it is
time for the West and Israel to come to a negotiating table with Hamas. Just
present at the same table would be a sign of a mutual partnership and
collaboration in finding an equal lasting solution to their problem. Unfortunately, the problem has been that most
of the peace accords negotiated and perhaps signed as settlements to the
Israelis-Palestinian conflict have been initiated and forced by the West and
Israel on the Palestinian people with less or without them being consulted.
This of course has been the source of resistance and violence among some
Palestinians including Hamas followers who felt that they have been ignored or
not consulted to provide their input as a part of the settlement.
As it is the case with any other social
movement, refusal by the status quo to negotiate or talk with it usually
emboldens the social movement to press on using it tactics/strategies to force
the status quo to yield to it. This is exactly what is happening in the case of
Hamas. It is sticking to violence because it is the only way it knows to bring
Israel to the table which has been successful in the past. Therefore, to help
work to grow seeds for a peaceful cohabitation between Palestinians and
Israelis, it is about time to start at the grass root level both in Palestine
and in Israel by talking to average citizens and asking them about what kind of
society they wanted to leave behind for their children and grandchildren.
Taking this approach would give people some thoughts about
how they want to live their lives and more importantly to rethink critically
about the role of their current involvement in the conflict. In addition, this
would give both Palestinians and Israelis a sense of ownership over the
conflict in a way that would enhance partnership which would result into a
constructive dialogue to break the current conflict gridlock which the current
approach does not provide.
Fourth, using religion as a dividing force or blaming Muslims is not a
way forward. The West needs not to be afraid of Islam and it influences around
the world particularly in the Middle East. Rather western states should embrace
Muslims as peace loving people. This would require people in the West and in
Israel particularly to turn away from teaching and preaching their citizens
especially children about hating people of Islamic faith. The same approach is
true to Muslims and non-Arabs in the Palestinian territory. There’s need to
have some understanding about other religions and treat people of other faiths
in a way that makes the world’s main religions agents to unify humanity. Not
only would this bring understanding among people of different faiths, it would
likely neutralize common religious myths of violence that many people associate
to Islam as well as mischaracterizations of other religions.
Al Qaeda of course
falls into a separate category. Since its formation, Al Qaeda has been anti-
West especially the United States which Bin Laden viewed as an oppressor to
Muslims around the world. Therefore, it
is easy for people to find linkage between radical Islam and terrorism in
respect to Al Qaeda. Thus, when Al Qaeda brought down Twin Towers and Pentagon
on September 11th, 2001, it made more sense to blame radical Muslims like Bin
Laden for orchestrating violence against the United States which is completely
different thing from Islamic religion which many people confuse as Islam being
a violent religion. In the context of Al Qaeda, Islamic radicalism is
justifiable in a sense that all the nineteen hijackers were people of Islamic
faith who have out rightly declared Jihadist war against the United States and
the West in general.
Furthermore, Al Qaeda
has declared goals that distinguished it from the other radical violent groups
that discussed above. One, it has declared goal of inflicting a damaging attack
on the West particularly the United States for oppressing Muslims around the
world. Two, it has a declared goal of creating a networks of virtuous Jihadists
to oppose what Bin Laden called, “Zionist-Anglo-Saxon Protestant Coalition”
that he blamed for all Islamic cultural deterioration in the Arabs World and three, Bin Laden
wanted September 11th, 2001 to be a way to get the United States out of it hiding place into the open battlefield
where Jihadists would fight it to bankrupt America to where it would be unable
to support the Jewish State against the Arabs and Muslims in the region(
Blanchard, 2007).
In summary, I have presented historical backgrounds about the
world major religions. I have also highlighted the instances where each
religion or philosophy has been complicated or involved in a war or act of
violence. In addition, I have presented and analyzed three most talked radical
Islamic organizations in a way that created a meaningful dialogue about the
fate of Islam in the 21st century in respect to claim that Islam promotes
violence.
In my analyses, I have advocated that people should pause for a
moment and stop blaming Islam for violence that infested the Middle East and
being manifested regionally or globally in the form of terrorism by organizations
like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and many others. I suggested that to better understand each
organization, people need to look at different variables and compare to connect
the dots in way that allows people to make reasonable judgment or come to a reasonable
conclusion.
I challenged people to do the
followings: First, people need to
examine factors like leadership of the social organization and the movement’s
choices because leadership influences the direction and the goal of the social
movement. This has been the case in the radical movement discussed above. For instance, Bin Laden’s beliefs and his
philosophies have helped shaped the mission and goals of Al Qaeda. The same can
be said of Hassan Nasrallah the current leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon. His
views and beliefs have influenced most of the Hezbollah followers as oppose to
Islamic arguments that many people often throw around.
Though charisma is a good quality of
leadership in the West, those who possessed it can sometimes use it to impose
their own goals and visions upon the people they are leading. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, along with
Bin Laden, and Hassan Nasrallah fitted this description of leaders who wield lot
of charismas which have afforded them to draw a lot of people to follow them.
Therefore, people should not ignore leadership qualities and their styles
because the do matter when it comes to action of the whole organization. Instead, there is a need to put more emphases
to engage in an organizational leadership analysis instead of solely relying on
Islamic frame of analysis.
Second, the kind of institutional government which governs
the territory under which a social organization operates affects the behavior
of the social movement. If the governing
institution is forthcoming and allows great deal of freedoms and liberties to
its citizens, social organizations that operate in such territories would
likely have no reasons to radicalize. Based on the cases analyzed so far,
Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas and even Taliban rise to radical militancy were
influenced in part by political systems in those countries where they operate.
In Lebanon, the government during the time of Hezbollah
formation was weakened and some would say Lebanon was a failed state.
Afghanistan Taliban and Hamas in the Palestinian territories have their rise to
radical violence affected by the absent of a central government. In each case,
the presumptuous leaders took advantage of power vacuum and used it to promote
their radical agenda without sitting government to direct the limit of their activities. Thus,
it makes more sense for people to consider examining institution of governances
in each case to understand the dynamics behind each social group scope of violence.
Third, of course an
Islamic analysis is another way in which people can understand Muslims
behaviors, norms, attitudes, values and norms and how they affect their
actions. By this, I am referencing to both historical and contemporary teaching and preaching of the Quran.
Examining and understanding historical and current backgrounds about Islam and
the Koran could help people to build true knowledge about what Islam and Koran
actually says about violence. This can
be achieved by placing these variables in the context of institutions and
societies in which Muslims live in.
In other words, people need to explore questions like, what
kinds of societies and political cultures that these people live in? How do
these institutions affect or influence the manner in which Muslims act both in
social and political arenas. And more importantly, what does the Koran
specifically say about Muslims and non-Muslims relations? Analyzing Islam and the Koran in this context
would probably yield some factual data
that can help individuals to understand what the Koran and Islam sanctions and
which ones it prohibits and eventually establishes some factual base arguments
that would help explain the radical attitudes
or actions of some Islamic organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and
Taliban.
The point is whatever one's claims are about radical Islam
and its relationship to violence, people need to avoid generalization. Instead,
people need to look each case or radical Islamic organization individually.
Doing so would enable people to learn more about where each radical Islam
organization is coming from. Put it differently, this would help people to
learn more about Muslim cultures in a way that would enhance
cross-religious/cultural understanding. Finally, this may likely ease negative
perception that many people have about Islam when they understand and know that
there are indeed different factors that cause radical organizations to spring
up in the Arabs World. And it may even reduce radical violence associated with
Islam and the Koran when Muslims know that people in the West have respect for
their religion
References
Blanchard, M.
Christopher. (2007). Al Qaeda: Statements and evolving ideology. Retrieved from Congressional Research
Report.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf.
Ellens, J.
Harold. (2010). The destructive power of religion: Violence in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers. Retrieved from:
Hamzeh, A. Nizar.
(1997). Islamism in Lebanon: A guide to the groups. The Middle East Quarterly,
4(3), 47-53. Retrieved from:http://www.meforum.org/362/islamism-in-lebanon-a-guide-to-the-groups
Hroub, Khaled.
(2006). Hamas beginner guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Retrieved from:
http://www.dayan.tau.ac.il/Maddy-WeitzmanHamas.pdf
Johansen, C.
Robert. (1997). Radical Islam and
nonviolence: A case study of religious empowerment and constrain among
Pashtuns. Journal of Peace Research, 34(1), pp.53-71. Retrieved from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6541604/Radical-Islam-and-Nonviolence-a-C...
Mansur, Salim.
(1993). Muslims on Muslims violence: What drives it? Retrieved from:
http://www.mafhoum.com/press7/209S21.pdf
Murphy, Kim.
(2006). Hamas victory is built on social programs. Retrieved from Los Angeles
Time:http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/02/world/fg-charity2
O’ Sullivan, Dan.
(2009). The long game: Hamas, the IRA,
and politics of radicalization in Palestine and Northern Ireland. Retrieved
from:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&am...
Qassem, Naim. (2005). Hizbullah, the story from within.
Westbourne Grove, UK: SAQI
Sela, Avraham,
& Mishal Shaul. (2000). The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, violence, and
coexistence. New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AO-tZkbPDKYC&...
Trim, B. J.
(2010). Reformation and wars of religion: Part two in a series. Retrieved
January 8, 2012 from:http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1628
