Michael Steury
Joe Liechty
18 November 2008
Lincoln Book Review
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked as four airplanes were hijacked and used as missiles against targets in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. During the aftermath of the attack, officials high in the media, government, and other prominent places in society rushed to reassure the nation that this violence had
“nothing to do with religion” our of fear of backlash against American Muslims. George W.
Bush assured America that Islam was “a faith based in peace and love and compassion,” while other scholars of religion added that the attackers were not “real” Muslims and their motives were political rather than religious.
1
Bruce Lincoln in his book Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 attempts to address this claim and state that religion in the September 11 attacks is intertwined with the political agenda and played a prominent role in the development and completion of the attacks. By attempting to think through the nature of religion, identify its historical applications to culture, and specify its core components; Lincoln shows the connection between religion and September 11 attacks, not only on the side of the terrorists but here in the United States as well.
The book itself was not written in response to September 11 but is instead is a compellation of essays that were written over a period of 20 years. The book is divided
1 David Seljack, “Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11” review of Holy
Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 by Bruce Lincoln, Journal of
International Migration and Integration 4 (2003): 299.

into two main sections, the first reflecting upon the texts and speeches of prominent figures such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George W. Bush, and Osama bin Laden; the second focusing more on a rhetoric discourse and the history surrounding the placement of religion in societies and its effect.
2
In order to identify whether or not religion was the motivation and justification of the attacks one must first come to an agreement on the definition of religion. Formal definitions of religion have been attempted but upon critique all have fallen short of the mark as a universal standard. Lincoln instead defines his stance on religion by dividing religion into four major domains:
1) A discourse whose concerns transcend human, temporal, and contingent, and that claims for itself a similarly transcendent status
2) A set of practices whose goal is to produce a proper world and/or proper human subjects, as defined by a religious discourse to which these practices are connected.
3) A community whose members construct their identity with reference to a religious discourse and its attendant practice
4) An institution that regulates the religious discourse, practices, and community, reproducing them over time and modifying them as necessary, while asserting their eternal validity and transcendent value.
3
2 John C. Hammerback, “Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11” review of Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 by Bruce Lincoln, Rhetoric and
Public Affairs 8 (2005): 505.
3 Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2006), 5-7.

At some place in each point there is a reference to religious discourse being a major contributing factor to a religion. The letters that were found in the belongings of the hijackers reflected how arbitrary actions such as riding in a taxi could become a sacred duty towards a religious goal if the correct authoritative language is used in correlation with religious discourse. The instructions used religious texts that demonized the enemy as infidels, nonbelievers, and allies of Satan; as opposed to the people who were carrying out the attacks being lifted up and glorified as faithful, allies of God, and true believers.
Also, the detailed instructions gave purpose and meaning through the Quran show how religious discourse can construe mass murder and destruction and is the first step in tying religion and the September 11 attacks together.
4
On top of the four domains he goes on to explain the maximalist (+ religion/ - everything else) and minimalist (- religion/ + everything else) religious perspectives.
Certain Islamic countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia are an exceedingly maximalist society where religion is the prominent aspect of all activity and laws for the country. On the other hand, America is exactly the opposite. Sayyid Qutb, an influence Islamic author, after a visit to the United States remarked that “No one builds as many churches as America does....Notwithstanding all this, there is no one as removed from feeling the spirituality, respect, and sacredness of religion than the Americans.
5 ” Religion in the United States has been reduced to specific times, places, and occasions and no longer has a large role in controlling the behavior of people in other aspects of human activity. Qutb presents he
United States to be in a state of Jahiliyyah, an age of spiritual ignorance characterized by
4 Lincoln 7.
5 Lincoln 4.

the pre-Islamic state of barbarism and the 9/11 attack was not supposed to be a political cry for war but instead a spectacular event that overwhelmingly shifted America back on course to a proper religious community.
6 The attacks were justified in the aspect that
Jahiliyyah in America and other Western countries had weakened their community and in order to save their religion they must overcome the savage nonbelievers just as
Mohammed did and save Islam.
7
The terrorists are not the only side of the conflict that attempts to demonize the enemy while glorifying their own side; in fact the word terrorist itself is a prime example.
Speeches given by both Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush portray a Manichaean struggle that pits the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. A battle that is to be taken up by everyone and sides chosen without hesitation.
8 The conflict is displayed in such a light that being neutral is simply not an option.
Even though the conflict was spitted in a Manichaean light, George W. Bush and his administration did everything in their power to keep this from becoming a religious fight.
This is not a battle of Christians verses Muslims and could not be turned into another
Crusade. Bush avoided this labeling by presenting himself as the leader of America, governed in laws, elections, and the constitution. Alternatively, Osama bin Laden understood the benefits of a religious battle and presented himself as a holy warrior being religious and charismatic.
9 Osama tried to pit the conflict as the faithful against the infidels,
6 Lincoln 27.
7 Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Evil: 5 Warning Signs (New York: HarperOne,
2008), 216.
8 Lincoln 28.
9 Kimball 26.

a fight that any Muslim or Islamic state would potentially join in. America, on the other hand, pitted the attack as the civilized verses the uncivilized thus giving the option for other Islamic states to join with them or at least remain neutral in the conflict.
Any time that a secular group interacts with a religious faction of some kind great care must be taken. The secular state cannot be dismissive, insulting, indecisive, inconsistent, provocative, or anything else along those lines or else it empowers the religious faction and gives them an advantage that can spur on conflict.
10 The administration in this case, however, was calling for revenge and justice. The overwhelming cry for violence outweighed the risk of a misinterpretation of the response and empowered the opposition to continue.
It is not fair to blame any one group for the violent response to the attacks. The people of America had been wounded and out of that hurt a cry for revenge was born. The majority of the people were not looking for a peaceful response to the crisis, we were hurt and the only way to heal that pain was to destroy the group that inflicted the pain. As the initial pain began to recede the call for violence began to fade along with it, however the impact of our anger and hurt was already being felt around the world. America had thrown itself headlong into a fight that was larger than it could have ever imagined, against an enemies that has no one face or any one banner.
In this specific attack the word enemy became blurred and confusing as people tried to decide just who the enemy was. Was it al Qaeda? the harboring countries? Osama bin
Laden? The attack was even used as a stepping stone as a means to blame people within
10 Lincoln 68.

our own country. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson used the attack as a podium to strike out against gays, lesbians, abortionists or anyone else who did not fall within their views of
Christianity.
11 The two televangelists claimed that the only way to come back under “God’s veil of protection” is through the prayer and repentance of the nation. Their goals for the outcome of the conflict in a fashion mirrored those of Osama bin Laden’s as a cry for the maximalist ideas to become more prominent in the world (however with varying religious bases). They claim that the secularists in their own governments are the main barriers to a social and religious revival that would solve the problems of not only their own countries but rather the entire world.
12
Lincoln goes on to talk about the definition of culture and the differences between lower case “c” culture and upper case “C” culture. Robertson and Falwell’s reaction to the attacks represent the dominant form of “C” culture. This Culture consists mainly of choice works and select genres that enjoy privileged status, social cachet, and official support
(both Robertson and Falwell strongly supported the Bush administration). This Culture views itself as the custodian and arbiter of values and attempts to enforce and carry out those values within their societies. Essentially Culture is nothing more than hegemony.
13
In contrast, lower case “c” culture is everything that hegemony attempts to suppress, contain, and devalue. When the Culture (in this case the religious right) struck out and attempted to blame gays, lesbians, etc. for the attacks the collective identity of the lower case “c” culture simply would not allow it. They did so by mobilizing themselves and
11 Lincoln 36.
12 Seljack 300.
13 Lincoln 52.

effected their solidarity by excluding and condemning those that fell outside of the collective viewpoint, in the case of Falwell and Robertson the outcry was to large to ignore.
This differing of opinions had the potential to create a violent situation, however the shift from a maximalist to a minimalist culture is partly the reason why there was no conflict that developed. America is driven by a culture that is market based and philosophy has replaced religion as the predominant controlling role. Because the defining principles of the culture are not overly narrow and rigid, differences and discussion are permitted and encouraged and peaceful solutions are possible.
In the minimalist culture the role of religion has been reduced to mere metaphysical questions such as the existence of God, or the immortality of the soul. In a maximalist country comments such as those made by Falwell and Robertson potentially could have unleashed a wave of persecution against the demonized group. Making conflicts out of a religious perspective ensures that cultures most prominent conflicts will assume a religious rather than an ethical or aesthetic character. Conflicts of this kind can often be more destructive then ever.
14
Lincoln’s use of six independent articles makes the book a little hard to follow at points and leaves a lot for the reader to interpret and tie together. This interrupts the flow of the book and sometimes blurs the main points. He does, however, attempt to remedy this by ending with a nice concluding chapter that summarizes the main points. All in all,
Lincoln does a nice job of putting together a connection between the September 11 attacks and the religion that lies buried within it. His careful critique helps to illuminate that
14 Lincoln 63.

religious discourse construed the attacks as religious practices and how al Qaeda on a whole constitutes itself as a religious institution acting on behalf of the religious community.
15 And although less militant that the al Qaeda the televangelists Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson practice similar Maximalist viewpoints in America showing that religion, whether directly or indirectly a part of the attack, has played a role on both sides of the conflict.
Bibliography
15 Hammerback 507.

Hammerback, John C.. “Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11” review of
Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 by Bruce Lincoln. Rhetoric
and Public Affairs 8 (2005): 505-507.
Kimball, Charles. When Religion Becomes Evil: 5 Warning Signs. New York: HarperOne,
2008.
Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Seljack, David. “Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11” review of Holy
Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 by Bruce Lincoln. Journal of
International Migration and Integration 4 (2003): 299-301.