13th International Conference on Social Science and Humanity (ICSSH 2025)

ABSTRACT

Religion has and continues to be one of the most controversial subjects in the society. While others consider it habitat for peace, others have strongly associated it with dogmatic positions that in most cases, lead to war. In the minds of some, religion is the bedrock and cornerstone of peace and reconciliation while in others, the two subjects are strangers to one another. Holy wars and crusades have made it even more difficult for some to associate peace and reconciliation with it. However, as the paper shall articulate, though the relationship between religion, peace and reconciliation is complex, a look into the intrinsic nature of religion will reveal that these subjects have never been strangers to one another. Religion and the outfits thereto have always been at the forefront in ensuring world peace and reconciliation.

Key words: Religion, violence, reconciliation, transitional justice, security, peace.

INTRODUCTION

Religion plays a crucial role to the success of any society. Since the beginning of written history, religion has showcased its ability to make people more cohesive. Through religion, conflicting parties have been able to reconcile their differences. In other cases, religious institutions have been the nexus between ignorant citizens understanding their human rights. This paper shall therefore seek to find the nexus between religion, human rights, violence and reconciliation. To understand this the paper shall explain the key role religion plays in the society in educating the masses on their human rights as well as diffusing politically volatile situations.[1]

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Religion and religious statements continue to evoke different views among different kinds of people. In a generation where secularism is slowly defining the order of business, many have chosen to stay away from any religious affiliations. The departure from religious affiliations means people may view religion as a source of conflict other than peace. Such philosophical undergirds makes it difficult for persons, institutions and the state to involve religion in reconciliation and the promotion of human rights.

RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is cognizant of religion as a human right which is inherent to all persons. Further, article 18 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights buttresses the aforementioned position by stating that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. As such, religion seems to be a fundamental part of a person’s existence.[2]

Scholars have rightly argued that human rights are best understood within a particular context. In western cultures such as America and Europe, human rights were enshrined to ensure little interference by the state of individual rights. As such, human rights are there to ensure governments do not encroach on the autonomy of individuals. In Asia, Latin America and Africa, human rights are emancipatory. That is to say, they are enshrined to relieve individuals from the long era of oppressive governments. Coming from colonization to the abuse of power by governments, human rights in the latter continents are there as historical lessons to ensure governments do not coerce citizens. In light of the foregoing, religion and human rights need to be viewed contextually.[3]

The sine qua non of all any human rights instrument is that all persons are born equal and shall therefore be treated equally. The right to be treated equally therefore means that no government anywhere shall discriminate anyone on the grounds of gender, sex, culture etc. In Latin America, Africa and Asia, the equality clause is more forward looking. That is to say, the clause was created to bar governments from repeating previous human rights violations. In the west, the clause was created with the inherent dignity of human beings in mind. The cultural context of the application of human rights therefore matters a lot.[4]

The same is replicated at the convergence of religion and human rights. It should not be lost to our minds that religion at its core is affected by the surrounding culture. Therefore, the perception of religion in the west is quite different from the same in the West, Africa and Latin America. Religion helped shape western governments. The Roman Catholic church has arguably helped shape civilization in Europe. In the Middle East, Islam is still the dominant religion with most countries employing Sharia as the law of the land. Furthermore, Buddhism is still the dominant religion in Tibet and surrounding regions. In all these regions, religion has played a different but significant role in advancing human rights.[5]

Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the western and African culture has helped shape human rights in several ways. In America, Christians were on the fore front in advocating for civil rights. Christians were also highlighted in the struggle to end slavery. William Wilberforce was a classic example of a staunch Christian and parliamentarian who came to the rescue of slaves in England. In his words, William stated that “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of slave trade and the reformation of morals…”[6]

Though many view Islam as anti-human rights, applied in its cultural context, Islam has helped shape human rights and civilization in the Middle East. Most Muslims believe Islam to be a universal religion with Allah as the Supreme Being. Further, they believe Allah to be just and fair to all without discrimination. The belief among most westerners that Islam goes against human rights is predicated on the cultural differences to wit; the liberal western culture vis a vis the conservative Islamic culture.[7]

The promotion of human rights by various religious functions should not obscure avenues where religion has been used as a tool to violate human rights. The quintessential example being the radical indoctrination by extremist Muslims. Such indoctrinations are known world over as the reasons for various terror attacks on various locations as well as formation of terror groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Al-Shabab. These terror outfits are well known for violating other people’s freedom of religion as well as the right to life. The convergence of religion and human rights is a complex issue which one must look at from both sides of the lens. On the one hand, religion has been very strong in ensuring governments uphold the rights of individual citizens.[8] Religious leaders, have rallied people such as during the civil rights movement, to ensure every citizen is equal before and under the law. Conversely, religion has had its own fair share of human rights violations. Extremist Islamic outfits have slaughtered many in the name of furthering their religious beliefs. Within the Christian circles, religious movements are known to be ambivalent hence doing little to protect the rights of the oppressed.[9]

RELIGION AND VIOLENCE

Defining Violence

The definition of violence has long been a vexed issue. What amounts to violence is different for different classes and cultures. The definition of what amounts to violence has led to the lack of unanimous definition of terrorism. The conventional definition of violence has for long been centered on the use of force to cause physical harm. However, while this definition is true, it does not give a full and accurate definition of what amounts to violence.[10] The above definition means that physical harm only comes about from force. However, acts such as chemical attacks are known to be fatal devoid of any physical force. Consequently, though a kidnapped person may fail to have any physical injuries, it does not mean that the action of the kidnapper lacked some force in it.[11] Therefore, the former critique shows that physical force is not an intrinsic feature of violence while the latter indicates that physical harm is not the only consequence. These twin difficulties in defining violence have led Mary Jackman to formulate an expansive definition of the term. According to Mary, violence encompasses actions that inflict, threaten or cause injury.[12] Violent actions, she continues, may be corporal, written, or verbal and the injuries may be corporal, psychological, material or social. With this being a proper definition of what amounts to violence, we may now delve into the nexus between religion and violence.[13]

In the eyes of many, religion is known as the vessel towards achieving both inner and social peace. How then do we link it to something as opposite to its definition as violence? The modern progressive culture as well as historical evidence seems to be the best form of evidence for the nexus between religion and violence.[14] According to Hall,[15] a move towards secularism has made it easy to link religion and violence. Under the current circumstances, acts that were formerly regarded as virtues are now regarded as oppressive. These include abortion rights, gay rights, transgender issues, euthanasia just to mention but a quartet. Progressive individuals therefore view religious institutions as violent simply because they remain conservative about the aforementioned.[16]

Furthermore, a moment of reflection will indicate how religion and violence have been interwoven since time immemorial. Several religious outfits have either propagated or justified violence at some point in time. Christianity has had its crusaders who slaughtered to promote Christianity in the Middle East. Islam has had its martyrs who are promised seventy virgins if they take part in jihad (holy war). 19^th Century China under the leadership of Mao Zedong killed millions under the belief that they were acting in accordance with the wishes of Mao, their supreme leader.[17]

To understand better how intertwined religion and violence are, it is important to acknowledge that since the existence of man, both religion and violence have been in place. Therefore, religion seems to be a central tenet to the existence of man. It shows that at the center of every human, there is a belief in some form of religion, either theistic or otherwise.[18] The three major “prophetic religions”, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have however been involved in more violence as compared to other religions due to the claim that they are universal. Christianity subscribes to God being the creator and sustainer of the universe. It further claims that there is only one way to heaven and that is through the belief of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. While Judaism does not believe in the person of Jesus Christ, they believe that God is the Supreme being, creator and sustainer of the universe. Islam believes that Allah is the creator and sustainer of the universe.[19] While the belief system is not inherently wrong, the three religions at times may portray some level of intolerance towards anyone with a different belief. Historically, Christians are known to send missionaries to preach the message of the bible to non-believers. This act has helped win some into the Christian faith. Others have however branded it as a form of religious intolerance thus leading to conflicts which sometime escalate into wars.

The belief in a universal religion doesn’t usually sit well with members of other religions since it nullifies whatever they believe. In most people who do not believe in these three religions feel offended by the claim that either of them is the only true religion leaving the rest as manmade. The universal concept of these religions also means that it could be the recipe for war to among them. The belief that Islam is the only true religion offends Christians thus pitching them against one another. Such religious beliefs only functions to propagate war.[20]

Is religion inherently violent

Having identified that religion and violence are not strangers to one another, it is therefore of importance to understand whether religion is intrinsically violent. According to Hall[21], no religion has violence as part of its central tenants. Religion has been one key way of ensuring cohesion among societies. Hall further opines that the only it is through religion that societies have understood the value of humanity. While this is true, hall does not go further to address why religions are becoming more radical within the 21^st century. Hall further states that radical Islam is recorded to be conducting more terrorism activities in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria. Therefore, the question that still lingers is why the growth in violence if religion is not inherently violent.

If we hold on to the idea that some religions are inherently violent while others are inherently peaceful, that would mean that there is something within them, such as creeds, texts, practices, dogmas or rituals, that make such religions either inherently violent or peaceful.[22] Taking this premise to be true, we should therefore expect some religions to be in a constant state of war while others to be in a constant state of peace. This would mean that some religions must be condemned to be violent by simply reading their creeds, statements of faith or spiritual texts. Monotheistic religions are taken to be more inclined towards violence owing to their exclusive nature and the belief in one true God. However, the contrary does not mean that polytheistic religions are more peaceful. In Sri Lanka for instance, Buddhists and Hindus are known to have fought each other for such a long time. In India, Muslims and Hindus have been in a constant state of war while in Hindus and Sikhs are known to be in constant confrontation.

Reliance to most religious texts can lead to violence or peace depending on the construction of the specific texts. As Chilton[23] points out, a study of the book of Genesis which Muslims, Christians and Jews believe, where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac, then later on provides a ram for the same, can be construed to mean violence. Though the text portrays God’s provision and His hatred for human sacrifice, Chilton argues that at some point, all the three religions have altered its meaning to glorify martyrdom and persecution. Even provisions in the Quran such as jihad wars to fight infidels have the inner meaning of fighting against sinful temptations by Muslims. In Chilton’s opinion, within the Christian faith, there are however those denominations which are inherently faithful such as the Quakers and Jehovah’s Witness.

When analyzing the link between religion and violence, it is necessary to consider that during the last decade, globalization has played a big role in the transformation of the current state of religion. Over the last three decades, globalization has helped religion become more ‘democratic.’ That is to say, people are increasingly thinking for themselves when it comes to religious matters thus removing the traditional hierarchies that have been in existence. This has made religion less institutionalized as people owe their relationship to God more on themselves other than traditional religious institutions.[24] According to Otis, individuals have redefined what religion means by establishing a connection between themselves and a transcendent power. By by-passing churches and other religious institutions, it has become relatively easy for people to achieve violence simply by stating that whatever they do is in accordance to God’s will. The simplicity and ease of such actions is as a result of being able to avoid all accountability that would otherwise have been offered by the religious institutions.

Therefore, based on the foregoing premises, it is safe to say that the violent or peaceful nature of any religion depends on the custodian of the text at hand. The radical interpretation by Osama bin Laden of the Quran as a call to war is one of the many interpretations in existence. In the same breadth, the call to war by Christians basing the same on the holy scripture is should not be a blanket accusation that Christianity is a call to take up arms since there exists several other interpretative mechanisms to condemn the same war. Another means of viewing another religion as inherently violent is being subjective in one’s view of religion. Viewing one’s religion and the others as promoting violence means one will be prejudiced when viewing any other religion.

An important factor when finding a nexus between religion and violence is to make a distinction between religion as a metaphysical and ethical system, and politicized religion as an anti-system revolt presented in a religious garb and legitimized in a religious language.[25] Oliver Roy, for example indicates that some of the Islamist attacks in Europe have nothing to do with Islam save for the religious garb that they have been given to wear. When legitimate Muslims go to demonstrate and picket in the streets, they are driven by the frustration of lack of integration and inclusion in all government services. Others demonstrate due to the systemic discrimination that faces them. These demonstrations have nothing to do with violence.[26] Therefore, a proper analysis of the nexus between politics and religion proves that most of these violent acts are driven more by political, ideological structural or geographical reasons and not religion.

Positive nexus between religion and diplomacy

As stated above, there is no religion that is inherently peaceful or violence. The nexus between religion and violence is sometimes attributed to political or geographical factors as compared to religion. In this regard, religion can be a tool among warring parties to push for various personal or political advancements. We should therefore note that religion has been used in the past to offer diplomatic solutions in cases where political diplomacy is not developed. The concept of faith-based diplomacy has been popularized by Douglas Johnston to emphasize the need for religious diplomacy as a substitute for or addition to other forms of diplomacy.[27]

Further, the introduction of the spiritual dimension to conflict resolution has proved to be successful in many ways since most conflicts are not devoid of the emotional aspect.[28] Religious leaders are particularly better placed to handle conflict resolution and mediation particularly because the position they hold in society. Most members of society still view them as kind and non-biased. Furthermore, their moral standpoint gives them better credence as compared to political diplomats who are viewed as having vested interests.[29]

A new concept in international peace keeping is also developing. This concept is known as religious peace keeping. Though it is still an incipient form of peace keeping, it has successfully been used in the past to provide mediation between conflicting parties. As Appleby[30] reports, religious peacekeeping, though fragile and sensitive, is instrumental in ensuring parties come to an agreement. Appleby further states that the moral soundness of religious leaders gives them an edge when it comes to peace keeping. This form of peacekeeping has been exemplified by the Holy See in peace keeping between Chile and Argentina. St. Egidio Community was actively involved in the peace process in Mozambique, Burundi, Congo and Kosovo. The Quakers were also actively involved in the mediation for peace in Sri Lanka.

Therefore, although religious institutions cannot replace the power and authority governments have in negotiations, they are useful in two main things to wit; first, it can determine the transformation of local leaders and civil society attitudes on which long lasting peace is based and secondly, it can create a network of civil society leaders whose common cause is long lasting peace.[31] Religion in and of itself has been a useful tool in ensuring societal cohesion. It the past, Christianity, for instance, was known to speak against the evil of gladiator games within the Roman empire. Buddhism and Hinduism was known to promote deep inner peace which is an antidote to violence. There are many useful factors and methodologies which religious actors can employ in peace building which is not available to other members of the society. Religions inspire people to be peaceful and respect one another. Religion has helped end some of the worst human violence in the world such as the American slave trade and slave ownership. It is through religion that slavery was eradicated in Britain. Thus, in the words of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, “if you are interested in peace in the 21^st century, you cannot ignore religion… Focusing on religion as the only instigator to violence is only half the story and quite frankly, dangerously inaccurate.”[32]

RELIGION AND RECONCILIATION

Is religion inherently peaceful? Answering this question will be critical in understanding the connection between religion and reconciliation. In the paper, we have seen that religion has been used in the past to perpetrate violence. Various religious factions have in the past used their religious knowledge to lead people to forms of violence. Even then, two have established that violence is not one of the central tenets of any given religion. As such, does that mean that the absence of violence as a tenet of religion makes them inherently peaceful? Church and Muslim leaders are known to lead the call to peace in various countries. These leaders are always on the forefront in trying to establish social cohesion among polarized members of a society. The Pope, as we have seen, helped in mediation between Chile and Argentina. This section shall therefore establish whether the reconciliatory effect of the religion is inherent to religious outfits or is based on extrinsic reasons.

One of the areas of reconciliation where religion has played a key role is in the idea of justice and to be specific, transitional justice. According to Vlas,[33] in many ways, it is difficult to separate the concept of religion from that of justice. According to the Christian worldview, justice is at the core of their belief. The Christian God is a God of justice who will ultimately punish evil. Consequently, Christians are required to be just in all their dealings. They are discouraged from taking what is not theirs, speaking the truth and taking care of the poor and widows just to mention but a few. Jews and Muslims also believe in the idea of equality before the law.

Religion has therefore been historically involved in transitional justice since time immemorial. Moreover, one of the distinctive areas of religious involvement in justice is the idea of reconciliation. Although it is not only religion that talk about reconciliation, as secular people do, and though they do not talk only about reconciliation, religion and reconciliation enjoy what Max Weber terms ‘elective affinity.’ Reconciliation finds its justification in all religious instruments including creeds, scriptural texts and theologies as elucidated by different theologians. Arguably, religion has played a key role in making reconciliation a fixture in today’s political discourse.[34]

Defining transitional justice

Human rights activists and international non-state actors have certain historical atrocities like the late Pinochet tried for his crimes, the public apology by President Bill Clinton of his failure to act during the Rwanda Genocide, the reparations Germany paid for the holocaust survivors and the payment of reparations by Britain to survivors of colonial injustices are some of the scenes that help elucidate what is transitional justice. Therefore, according to International center for transitional justice, “transitional justice refers to the ways countries emerging from periods of conflict and repression address large-scale or systematic human rights violations so numerous and so serious that the normal justice system will not be able to provide an adequate response.”[35]

To understand the relationship between religion and reconciliation in light of transitional justice, this paper will divide religion into two aspects, that is to say the thinkers and the doers.

The thinkers

Philosophers, theologians, scholars and all members of the academic field who have talked about transitional justice fall into two main categories. The first category is the liberal human rights category. This category mostly comprises of persons who do not have any theological understanding and are secular in their approach to transitional justice. The second category is the religious sect, and specifically those Abrahamic roots, who are Christians, Muslims and Jews. The second category has been largely involved in the idea of transitional justice.[36]

To understand why religion plays a key role in transitional justice, one must understand the affiliation between religion and penance. Forgiveness of sins is one of the central ideas of all religions. All traditional religions are premised on two principles. These are that Man is a sinner in need of forgiveness and that God forgives whoever goes to him for penance. The thinkers therefore understand that forgiveness is not the primary domain of political outfits. As a matter of fact, politicians are far too biased to promote forgiveness among members of any community. As such, religious thinkers believe that in most cases, where a political entity want to promote forgiveness, it is usually for an ulterior motive as politicians are known to promote both violence and peace for a particular agendum.[37]

Secondly, forgiveness is more internal than it is external. This means that for forgiveness to happen, the individual forgiving and the one accepting forgiveness must be pointed towards some higher moral good. Without this moral good, it is difficult for one to forgive or accept forgiveness. Liberal and political parties does little to nothing in pointing one towards some moral good. In fact, morality and politics are sometimes diametrically opposed. Religious thinkers therefore believe that religion, being intrinsically moral, is the best way towards achieving reconciliation. Religious reconciliation has been known to use Truth Commissions in ensuring both offenders and victims come together to reconcile their difference. Such was exemplified by the South African truth commission after the end of the apartheid regime. Under such circumstances, Truth Commissions help people to heal and thereafter continue co-existing within their community. It was Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s idea that retributive justice only serves to polarize people who are meant to co-exist in the same society.[38]

Legal scholars and international lawyers are usually of a contrary opinion. According to these groups, retributive justice is usually the best way to achieve reconciliation is make the perpetrators pay for their acts. The major justification for retributive justice is that it is premised on the rule of law. Therefore, punishing the perpetrators and vindicating the innocent ensures all members of the public adhere to the laws of the land and thus ensures a growth in democracy. Moreover, Lee Mardsen, a researcher on the role of religion in politics opines that the constitutional separation between the church and the states obliges the state to ignore religion in matters justice.[39] Mardsen further stated that religion in conflict resolution is an automatic barrier to the pacific world order.

Theological scholars have however been of the contrary opinion. In one of his most controversial books, Samuel P. Huntington in his thesis, states that conflict exist because of various political and cultural reasons such as history, language, culture and religion.[40] Huntington’s work is seen as a true reflection of his times looking at the war in Yugoslavia, the Rwandan Genocide and the conflict between Israel and Palestine.[41] As such, international scholars and lawyers who had ignored the role of religion in conflict and its resolution could not afford to do so any longer.

Religion has often played key role as an outcome rather than reason for power. In the current era, the main reasons for conflict are the desire for power or broken political systems.[42] Religion has therefore always been there to resolve conflict even though it has never been fully institutionalized. Professor Appleby therefore insists that religion has always played a significant role in reconciliation and should therefore be given the attention it deserves.[43] According to Appleby, though several religious groups are known to propagate violence, these same groups could be instrumental in the reconciliation process. Appleby uses the example of the Dutch Reformed Church which played a key role towards apartheid and its end.

From the thinkers, we see that religion and reconciliation are not strangers to one another. The thinkers believe that key to any reconciliatory process is religion. Just finding the nexus is not enough. The thinkers believe that reconciliation is inherent to religion. All religions are built around peace with one’s neighbor. It is however not lost to the thinkers that some causes of conflict in various parts of the world is due to religion. While this is true, it does not negate the centrality of peace and reconciliation in religion. As earlier seen in the paper, the use of religion to propagate violence is usually due to misconstruction or the misrepresentation of certain dogmas to the populace. As such it is very hard to squarely blame religion for violence.[44] This premise therefore supports the idea that religion and reconciliation are inseparable. It is therefore of importance to turn our attention to the doers and see whether their belief on religion and reconciliation is consistent with that of the thinkers.

Doers

Douglas Johnston, during the founding of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy stated that he was keen to create a “do tank” and not another “think tank.”[45] Have religious leaders actively participated in reconciliation efforts other than just coining good action plans to be followed. The answer to this question can be found in several political jurisdictions where active conflict has occurred. In war torn areas, religion has had a significant effect especially through the formation of peace commissions with the exemption of East Timor and post-communist Germany where religious leaders were at the fore in advocating for judicial litigation. In some cases, religious organization have both formed and run truth commissions. In Chile and Brazil, the catholic churches were at the forefront in investigating human rights violations. Evidence from their investigation was later supplied to the truth commissions of their respective countries for the reconciliatory efforts to begin. In Guatemala, the church, under the leadership of Archbishop Juan Gerardi launched its own Recovery of the Historical Memory Project, which was a truth commission that was hailed as having provided emotional and psychological relief for victims of human rights abuse.[46]

In other cases, once truth commissions have been formed by the powers that be, religious leaders are entrusted to guide their conduct. Archbishop Tutu’s led truth commission is renowned world over for promoting reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. Dressed in religious garb, the Archbishop was instrumental in ensuring both the victims and perpetrators could be hard and reconciliation achieved. Furthermore, in South Africa, as other countries, the church provided logistical support for the truth commissions to ensure a smooth flow of the reconciliation process.

One would quickly ask where the church derived such power and trust as to institute and conduct truth commissions geared towards reconciliation. The answer to this lies in the position the church holds within societies. Church leaders are believed to be more pro-citizens as compared to religious leaders. Moreover, as earlier stated, their moral standing is better in the eyes of members of the society as compared to those of political leaders. In this case, they are better entrusted to achieve a reconciliation effort more than political figures.[47] Secondly, their vocation is one that comes with charisma. This attribute makes it easy for them to blend with members of the society. It makes it easier for citizens to entrust them with information as compared to politicians. In countries where there is one main religion, religious leaders derive authority from that religion as was the case in East Timor. [48]

Therefore, it is true to indicate that the thinkers and doers are philosophically consistent in their thesis that religion is the best tool towards reconciliation. The doers have gone beyond the theoretical suggestions and ensured reconciliation between two polar sides. The catholic church in Argentina, Chile and South Africa are living examples of how religion has been actively involved in reconciliation. Therefore, having understood this, it is safe to state that the nexus between religion and reconciliation is inherent as religion’s primary teaching is that we should all be peaceful both internally and towards one another.

CONCLUSION

Religion, according to the premises elucidated above, has a close nexus with human rights, reconciliation and violence. With human rights, religion has been there as an advocate of human rights. In violence, religion has been portrayed as both the perpetrator and the mediator. In both cases, it seems to have played a critical role. It is however noteworthy to indicate that though religion has been linked with violence, enough scholars have indicated that violence is not intrinsic to religion. Most violence with religious undertones are usually out of misconstruction or misrepresentation of religious creeds, dogmas and texts to suit selfish reason. To this end, it is wrong, and sometimes dangerous to actively link religion to violence. Religion also has a close link with reconciliation. Religious outfits are known to preach both internal peace and peace among members of a society. The link between religion and reconciliation has been exemplified by truth and justice commissions in East Timor, Chile, Brazil and South Africa. Their success in these commissions owes to the intrinsic nature of peace that comes with the mention of religion. With this in mind, focus now shifts to whether aspects of mediation, reconciliation and advocacy are intrinsic to religion or based on external circumstances. Evidence has been adduced to indicate that religion has always been pro-human co-existence. As such, it is an exercise in futility to try separate the two.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appleby, R. Scott. "The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation." Pro Ecclesia 12, no. 1 (2003): 116-118.

Appleby, S. R. (1999). The ambivalence of the sacred: Religion, violence, and reconciliation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Beyer, Peter. Religion and globalization. Vol. 27. Sage, 1994.

Botha, Anneli. "Political socialization and terrorist radicalization among individuals who joined al-Shabaab in Kenya." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 37, no. 11 (2014): 895-919.

Chilton, Bruce. Abraham`s curse: The roots of violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Image, 2008.

Erskine, Noel Leo. Plantation church: How African American religion was born in Caribbean slavery. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Gready, Paul. The era of transitional justice: The aftermath of the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa and beyond. Routledge, 2010.

Hadley, Michael L., ed. The spiritual roots of restorative justice. Suny Press, 2001.

Hall, John R. "Religion and violence: Social processes in comparative perspective." Handbook of the Sociology of Religion (2003): 359-384.

Hall, John R. "Religion and violence: Social processes in comparative perspective." Handbook of the Sociology of Religion (2003): 359-384.

Henkin, Louis. "Religion, religions, and human rights." The Journal of Religious Ethics (1998): 229-239.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The clash of civilizations?." In Culture and politics, pp. 99-118. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2000..

Jackman, Mary R. The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press, 1994.

Johnston, Douglas M., and Brian Cox. "Faith-based diplomacy and preventive engagement." Religion and peace (2016): 179-196.

Johnston, Douglas, and Cynthia Sampson, eds. Religion, the missing dimension of statecraft. Oxford University Press, USA, 1995.

Johnston, Douglas, and Cynthia Sampson. "Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft." Islam & Christian Muslim Relations 10, no. 1 (1999): 77.

Kung, Hans. "Religion, violence and holy wars." Int`l Rev. Red Cross 87 (2005): 253.

Laue, Diplomacy Marc Gopin James H. Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking. Oxford University Press, USA, 2000.

Little, David, and Joyce S. Dubensky. "Peacemakers in action." (2007).

Marsden, Lee. "Religion and Conflict Resolution: An Introduction." The Ashgate Research Companion to Religion and Conflict Resolution (2016): 1.

Myerson Roger, B. "Game theory: Analysis of conflict." (1991).

Otis, Pauletta. "Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century." Religion and security (2004): 11-24.

Shore, Megan. Religion and Conflict Resolution: Christianity and South Africa`s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

Smock, David R., ed. Religious contributions to peacemaking: When religion brings peace, not war. US Institute of Peace, 2006.

Yang, Fenggang. Religion in China: Survival and revival under communist rule. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Sosis, Richard, and Candace S. Alcorta. "7. Militants and Martyrs: Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion and Terrorism." In Natural security, pp. 105-124. University of California Press, 2008.

Talikka, Sanna Julia. "Religion in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Alternative Approach to Transitional Justice?." (2018).

Thomas, Scott, Desmond Tutu, and Desmond Mpilo Tutu. The global resurgence of religion and the transformation of international relations: The struggle for the soul of the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Tibi, Bassam. The challenge of fundamentalism: Political Islam and the new world disorder. Univ of California Press, 2002.

Vlas, Natalia. "Is Religion inherently violent? Religion as a threat and promise for the global security." Politics and Religion Journal 4, no. 2 (2010): 297-314.

Vlas, Natalia. "Is Religion inherently violent? Religion as a threat and promise for the global security." Politics and Religion Journal 4, no. 2 (2010): 297-314.

Wallace, Anthony FC. "The Religions of the Oppressed. A study of modern messianic cults. Vittorio Lahternari. Translated from the Italian by Lisa Sergio. Knopf, New York, 1963. xxxii+ 343 pp. $6.95." (1963): 708-709.

Witte Jr, John, and M. Christian Green, eds. Religion and human rights: An introduction. Oxford University Press, 2011.