Many are despondent at the spread of religious conflict in the Middle East. From persistent terrorist threats in the Maghreb to Hamas’s attacks on Israel and Israeli settler attacks on West Bank Palestinians to simmering Sunni–Shiite tensions in Iraq, it is hard to escape this tragedy. Some may see this as the eruption of “ancient hatreds” that are impossible to resolve.

Most of these religious conflicts are actually socially constructed and relatively recent. They result from downward spirals of religious mistrust that lock religious conflict into place. Despite being socially constructed, this downward spiral can seem just as real and impossible to change as if the conflicts had been unending throughout history.

Thankfully, academic research has grown out of the idea that religious conflict is not inevitable. It can provide insight into various ways to break this downward spiral and resolve religious conflict. In this article, I discuss four of these approaches, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, when used as a foundation for religious conflict resolution. I should note that this article is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of the relevant scholarly literature. Instead, I hope to provide a few examples that could be of interest to those observing or engaging in religious peacebuilding.

The Downward Spiral of Religious Conflict

A survey of religious conflict in the Middle East suggests that these conflicts have always been present with only brief interludes of peace. The radical Salafi-jihadi ideology of groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State appears to have been present in Islam since its founding, periodically breaking out and overcoming more moderate variants. Jews, Muslims, and Christians have been fighting over Jerusalem for more than a thousand years. Shiite and Sunni Muslims have hated each other since the Battle of Karbala in 680.

There is a school of thought that sees religious conflicts as fixed or inevitable. This so-called ancient hatreds explanation for ethnic and religious conflict arose during the breakup of Yugoslavia, but it has also been applied to the Middle East.^[1] This view holds that ethnic and religious identities have existed throughout history and have always been in opposition to each other. Powerful states or ideologies—such as Communism—can keep them in check, but ultimately, they will erupt into violence.

Despite the popularity of these terms in the media, most scholars reject them, arguing instead that religious conflicts are socially constructed, arising from practices and behaviors in the midst of tensions.^[2] Specifically, I would argue they take the form of “downward spirals.” These conflicts began for a variety of reasons—some religious, some random. Once they occur, however, the significance of religion in Middle East politics means they come to be defined in religious terms. Religious identities and symbols are readily available to make sense of conflicts or mobilize supporters.^[3] Previously peaceful religious communities come to mistrust and fight each other, spiraling downward into an obdurate religious conflict. Thus, the religious conflicts we see in the Middle East are not inevitable. That being said, this downward spiral is incredibly difficult to break out of.

Academic Insights into Resolving Religious Conflicts and Breaking the Downward Spiral

Contemporary academic research recognizes that religious conflict is still a serious threat and provides insights not only into religious conflict itself but also how to resolve it. In this section I will survey four of these approaches and discuss how they apply to Middle East religious conflicts.

One approach to reducing religious conflict focuses on changing religious doctrines or marginalizing extremist doctrines that promote violence. Some argue there is a range of religious traditions, with some being more moderate and others more fundamentalist or extreme. The latter tend to provoke and perpetuate religious conflict. Conflict resolution, then, would focus on encouraging the spread of more moderate forms of religious traditions.

One example is Daniel Philpott’s work.[4] He argues that religious politics can take on a peaceful or violent form depending on the nature of its political theology, which refers to the “set of ideas a religious community holds about legitimate authority.” This political theology is based in part on ancient traditions and teachings, but it also can change in response to historical conditions. Philpott also notes that institutional factors play a role, as I will discuss below. Similarly, Hassner argues that sacred spaces can become indivisible, with neither side willing to negotiate over them. However, religious authorities can address this by “reshaping the meaning of sacred spaces” through religious rulings and arguments.[5]

Some examples of this approach in practice include when Muslim scholars issued the Marrakesh Declaration in 2016, which affirmed minority rights as an Islamic doctrine, in the hope that this would influence Muslim legal codes and ease religious tensions.[6] Similarly, during the global war on terrorism, the United States sought to identify and support “moderate” Muslim scholars and activists who could counter the teachings of al-Qaeda and prevent that group’s terrorist attacks from igniting a religious conflict.[7]

However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. Many Muslim voices have been critical of efforts to support “moderate” Islam, seeing it as an outside intrusion into Muslim communities.[8] Additionally, some worry that this approach leads to “picking and choosing” among Muslims, with some categorized as bad and others as worthy of support.[9] Moreover, observers question the effectiveness of efforts such as the Marrakesh Declaration, since the scholars involved do not necessarily have influence over many in the Middle East.[10]

Another approach examines the role of institutional factors in contributing to or mitigating religious conflict. In particular, state-sponsored religious repression radicalizes religious communities, making religious conflict more likely. Likewise, close ties between religion and the state can politicize religion and may empower favored groups to persecute religious minorities. As Toft, Philpott, and Shah have shown in their work, the combination of political theology and the nature of the relationship between religion and the state can explain whether religious politics become violent.[11] Similarly, Grim and Finke have found that government religious restrictions lead to social religious tension.[12] Fox, Basedau, and Zellman have looked at the effects of discrimination against religious minorities and how it ties into violence by those groups.[13] And much of my work has found a connection between religious repression, religious favoritism, and violence.[14]

Numerous advocates make the case for religious freedom to help ease religious conflict. Farr has argued that religious freedom can promote political stability around the world.[15] Likewise, religious freedom advocates have called on the US government to “name and shame” religiously repressive states and push them to reform their religious laws and practices.[16]

The religious freedom approach has some challenges, however. While research has shown that religious repression leads to more religious conflict, it does not demonstrate how religious freedom resolves conflict. That is, it is unclear which specific religious freedom-related policy instruments can undermine religious conflict in the short term. In addition, some have argued that religious freedom and the framing of this approach is a Western norm imposed on Middle Eastern cultures that may exacerbate conflict.[17]

Another approach focuses on religious engagement. Scholars have examined efforts at interfaith dialogue, analyzing how to encourage it, and its impact on religious tensions. Others have looked at the ways on which religious authorities can reframe understandings of contentious religious issues. This approach would draw on these insights to establish religious dialogue initiatives to limit religious conflict.

There is a growing body of literature in this area. Driessen has studied inter-religious engagement programs in the Middle East and found that they “represent a significant intellectual, theological and sociological development” in the region.[18] He specifically noted the impact of efforts that focus on “inclusive citizenship,” regardless of religious affiliation.[19] Vinjamuri and Boesenecker have developed a typology of religious actors engaged in transitional justice, arguing that they differ according to the “logic” that drives their actions; some are driven by conceptions of faith, others by legalistic norms, and still others by an emotional need for reconciliation.[20] Schwarz has studied transnational faith-based organizations and found that their understanding of religious values shapes their peacebuilding behavior and their interaction with other non-governmental organizations.[21] Gopin has argued that shared elements of Abrahamic faiths can allow for interfaith understanding and ultimately peace.[22] Fahmi has suggested that the dialogue between Pope Francis and Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, the grand imam of the al-Azhar mosque in Egypt, can serve as a framework for resolving religious tensions in that country.[23]

Various initiatives have applied this approach in the Middle East. The government of the United Arab Emirates established a “Year of Tolerance” and hosted Pope Francis for the first known Roman Catholic mass on the Arabian peninsula. Israel also has a long history of interfaith engagements to ease tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.[24] Similarly, Iraq has hosted interfaith dialogue events to promote peace among Iraqi Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis.[25]

The biggest limitation in using this approach is the lack of rigorous research on how and when it is effective. Many of these studies sought to demonstrate that religion does matter in peacebuilding efforts; although this is an important start, more research is needed. Some have also criticized this approach as promoting religious tolerance while ignoring the deeper issues of religious freedom that cause religious conflict, or making authoritarian repression.[26]

A final approach focuses on “changing the subject” by examining the non-religious factors involved in religious conflicts. This approach accepts religion as an important cause of conflict but argues that peacebuilders must look elsewhere to resolve religious conflicts. Isak Svensson has argued that religion is an important driver of conflict, but the best way to resolve religious conflicts is to “desacralize” them.[27] For example, he noted that legalizing religious political parties or sharing resource revenues can reduce the salience of religious disputes.[28] Similarly, in my research on US religious outreach programs in the global war on terrorism, some experts said they tried to minimize the religious aspect of their engagement as it only raised tensions and suspicions.[29] Likewise, I argued that broad-based US aid to Iraq post-Islamic State would better resolve religious tensions there than aid directed specifically at Christians in Iraq.[30]

There are few clear applications of this, making it difficult to assess its effectiveness. Although the standard approach to conflict resolution looks to non-religious factors to resolve religious conflicts, it also tends to downplay the importance of religion in contributing to the conflict. Thus, there is ample opportunity for further testing of this approach.

Conclusions

It is understandable that many feel discouraged by the proliferation of religious conflicts in the Middle East. Yet, these conflicts are not the inevitable outcome of “ancient hatreds.” Instead, they result from a downward spiral of mistrust that hardens religious divisions and makes conflict resolution seem impossible. Fortunately, scholarly research on religious conflict suggests several means through which we can halt this downward spiral and resolve religious conflicts. Peacebuilding practitioners and those who wish to study this topic further can use this article as a resource in their efforts.

We can also gain a sense of the relative effectiveness of these approaches. As I have noted, there are positive applications of each, as well as tangible concerns with all of them. The religious doctrine approach can work when the reforms come from within the religious traditions, rather than from outside intervention. Similarly, the religious freedom approach can alleviate the grievances that lead to religious conflict, as long as it does not appear that Middle Eastern societies are being forced to accept Western norms. However, it would likely take decades before the full impact of changed doctrines and political institutions are apparent.

The approaches focused on religious engagement and “changing the subject” would have quicker results. Religious engagement actively brings people from different sides together, helping them to find common ground or reframe religious divisions. The problem, as I noted, is that we still do not know how best to develop these programs, although new research in this area is encouraging. Attempts to reduce the salience of religion in conflict may also work, as long as they do not deny the importance of religion in people’s lives.

One general warning I offer, however, has to do with the expectations for any approach. In researching my recent book on the uses of religion in foreign policy—including religious engagement in the global war on terrorism—one commonality I found had to do with the unexpected effects of grand ambitions. Efforts to find a comprehensive solution to religious conflict in the Middle East or to completely reframe religious relations so that they lose all contentious value, are not only unlikely to succeed, they may make things worse. Small-scale efforts that focus on interactions between specific communities or capacity-building for civil society organizations may not make headlines, but they may be the best way to break the downward spiral of religious conflict.

Bibliography

Abu Zeed, Adnan. “Iraq to hold interfaith dialogue with Vatican participation.” Al-Monitor, August 11, 2022.

Basedau, Matthias, Jonathan Fox, and Ariel Zellman. Religious Minorities at Risk. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023.

Driessen, Michael D. The Global Politics of Interreligious Dialogue: Religious Change, Citizenship, and Solidarity in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023.

Fahmi, Georges. “Al-Azhar and the Path Towards Inclusive Citizenship in Egypt.” In Human Fraternity and Inclusive Citizenship: Interreligious Engagement in the Mediterranean, edited by Fabio Petito, Fadi Daou, and Michael D. Driessen, 158–170. Milan: Ledizioni LediPublishing, 2021.

Farr, Thomas. World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty Is Vital to American National Security. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Gopin, Marc. Holy War, Holy Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Grim, Brian J., and Roger Finke. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Hassner, Ron E. War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Hayward, Susan. “Understanding and Extending the Marrakesh Declaration in Policy and Practice.” US Institute for Peace, September 30, 2016.

Henne, Peter S. “The Domestic Politics of International Religious Defamation.” Politics and Religion 6, no. 3 (2013).

—. “Economic Integration and Political Reconciliation in Iraq.” Center for American Progress, April 17, 2018.

—. “Government Interference in Religious Institutions and Terrorism.” Religion, State and Society 47, no. 1 (2019): 67-87.

—. Religious Appeals in Power Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2023.

Henne, Peter S., Nilay Saiya, and Ashlyn W. Hand. “Weapon of the Strong?: Government Support for Religion and Majoritarian Terrorism.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association, Toronto, Canada, March 2019.

Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. “What’s Wrong with Promoting Religious Freedom.” Foreign Policy, June 12, 2013.

—. Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.

Jonas, Gareth. “Were ‘Ancient Hatreds’ the Primary Cause of the Yugoslavian Civil War?” E-IR. May 22, 2019. https://www.e-ir.info/2019/05/22/were-ancient-hatreds-the-primary-cause-of-the-yugoslavian-civil-war/#google_vignette.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Kaufman, Stuart J. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Kull, Steven. Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

Mamdani, Mahmoud. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror. New York: Three Leaves Press, 2005.

Philpott, Daniel. “Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion.” American Political Science Review 101, no. 3 (2007): 505–525.

Rosenbaum, Alan. “Interfaith Dialogue: Making Religion Part of Israel’s Middle East Peace.” Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2023.

Schwarz, Tanya B. Faith-Based Organizations in Transnational Peacebuilding. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018.

Shea, Nina. “State Department Should Recognize Nigeria’s Egregious Religious Freedom Violations.” Hudson Institute, December 22, 2023.

Sheline, Annelle R. “Declaration Proliferation: The International Politics of Religious Tolerance.” Berkley Center for the Study of Religion, Culture and World Politics, July 11, 2019, https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/declaration-proliferation-the-international-politics-of-religious-tolerance.

Stavridis, James. “Syrian Ghosts.” Foreign Policy, November 6, 2015.

Svensson, Isak. Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars. Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2012.

Toft, Monica Duffy. “Getting Religion?: The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War.” International Security 31, no. 4 (2007): 97–131.

Toft, Monica Duffy, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Samuel Shah. God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2011.

Vinjamuri, Leslie and Aaron P. Boesenecker. “Religious Actors and Transitional Justice.” In Religious Pluralism, Globalization and World Politics, edited by Thomas Banchoff, 155–195. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Weiner, Scott. “Religious Tolerance Efforts in the Middle East.” USCIRF Spotlight Podcast, November 16, 2021. https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/uscirf-spotlight/religious-tolerance-efforts-middle-east

^[1] Gareth Jonas, “Were ‘Ancient Hatreds’ the Primary Cause of the Yugoslavian Civil War?” E-IR. May 22, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/05/22/were-ancient-hatreds-the-primary-cause-of-the-yugoslavian-civil-war/#google_vignette; James Stavridis, “Syrian Ghosts,” Foreign Policy, November 6, 2015.

^[2] Ron E. Hassner, War on Sacred Grounds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009); Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001).

^[3] Monica Duffy Toft, “Getting Religion?: The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War.” International Security 31, no. 4 (2007): 97–131; Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).

[4] Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Samuel Shah, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2011); Daniel Philpott, “Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion,” American Political Science Review 101, no. 3 (2007): 505–525.

[5] Ron E. Hassner, War on Sacred Grounds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009),

58.

[6] Susan Hayward, “Understanding and Extending the Marrakesh Declaration in Policy and Practice,” US Institute for Peace, September 30, 2016.

[7] Peter S. Henne, Religious Appeals in Power Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2023).

[8] Steven Kull, Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011).

[9] Mahmoud Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror (New York: Three Leaves Press, 2005).

[10] Henne, Religious Appeals in Power Politics.

[11] Toft, Philpott, and Shah, God’s Century; see also Philpott, “Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion.”

[12] Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

[13] Matthias Basedau, Jonathan Fox, and Ariel Zellman, Religious Minorities at Risk (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023).

[14] Peter S. Henne, “Government Interference in Religious Institutions and Terrorism,” Religion, State and Society 47, no. 1 (2019): 67–87; Peter S. Henne, Nilay Saiya, and Ashlyn W. Hand, “Weapon of the Strong?: Government Support for Religion and Majoritarian Terrorism,” Paper presented at the International Studies Association, Toronto, Canada, March 2019; Peter S. Henne, “The Domestic Politics of International Religious Defamation,” Politics and Religion 6, no. 3 (2013).

[15] Thomas Farr, World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty Is Vital to American National Security (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

[16] Nina Shea, “State Department Should Recognize Nigeria’s Egregious Religious Freedom Violations,” Hudson Institute, December 22, 2023.

[17] Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, “What’s Wrong with Promoting Religious Freedom,” Foreign Policy, June 12, 2013; Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015).

[18] Michael D. Driessen, The Global Politics of Interreligious Dialogue: Religious Change, Citizenship, and Solidarity in the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023), 7.

[19] Driesen, Global Politics of Interreligious Dialogue, 190.

[20] Leslie Vinjamuri and Aaron P. Boesenecker, “Religious Actors and Transitional Justice.” In Religious Pluralism, Globalization and World Politics, ed. Thomas Banchoff (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 155–195.

[21] Tanya B. Schwarz, Faith-Based Organizations in Transnational Peacebuilding (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018).

[22] Marc Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

[23] Georges Fahmi, “Al-Azhar and the Path Towards Inclusive Citizenship in Egypt,” in Human Fraternity and Inclusive Citizenship: Interreligious Engagement in the Mediterranean, ed. Fabio Petito, Fadi Daou, and Michael D. Driessen (Milan: Ledizioni LediPublishing, 2021), 158–170.

[24] Alan Rosenbaum, “Interfaith Dialogue: Making Religion Part of Israel’s Middle East Peace,” Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2023.

[25] Adnan Abu Zeed, “Iraq to Hold Interfaith Dialogue With Vatican Participation,” Al-Monitor, August 11, 2022.

[26] Scott Weiner, “Religious Tolerance Efforts in the Middle East,” USCIRF Spotlight Podcast, November 16, 2021, https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/uscirf-spotlight/religious-tolerance-efforts-middle-east; Annelle R. Sheline, “Declaration Proliferation: The International Politics of Religious Tolerance,” Berkley Center for the Study of Religion, Culture and World Politics, July 11, 2019, https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/declaration-proliferation-the-international-politics-of-religious-tolerance.

[27] Isak Svensson, Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2012), 6.

[28] Svenson, Ending Holy Wars.

[29] Henne, Religious Appeals in Power Politics.

[30] Peter S. Henne, “Economic Integration and Political Reconciliation in Iraq,” Center for American Progress, April 17, 2018.