Violence: An International Journal

This article offers a discursive analysis of two contemporary Islamist ⁸ texts that frame violence not as a deviation from religious normativity, but as its necessary and even redemptive expression. It examines Daʿwa al-muqāwama al-islāmiyya al-ʿālamiyya (The Call to Global Islamic Resistance) by Abū Muṣʿab al-Ṣūrī (2004) and De l’idéologie islamique française by Aïssam Aït-Yahya (2015), two ideologically distinct yet rhetorically potent works that articulate violence as an existential necessity. Although relatively unknown to the general public, al-Ṣūrī’s manifesto has become a foundational text within ǧihādist circles, serving as a discursive matrix for constructing violence as both theologically sanctioned and strategically necessary. Aït-Yahya’s essay, though more elliptical and less widely disseminated, plays a significant role in shaping ideological polarization within French Muslim contexts. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, the article draws on critical discourse analysis to explore how sacred language, theological references, and affective strategies produce a grammar of legitimacy. From this perspective, radicalization is not approached as a deviant behavior, but as a discursive production—embedded in language, affect, and symbolic economy—that constructs violence as morally compelling and theologically grounded. The article also discusses how discursive structures may create potential openings for disengagement by revealing the interpretive tensions at the heart of radical narratives. It argues that understanding religious violence requires not only sociopolitical analysis but a careful reading of how language constructs normative obligations, moral antagonisms, and sacred temporality.

This paper examines how law institutionalizes and legitimizes violence within the Islamic Republic of Iran, using the country’s Islamic Constitution and legal codes as a case study. Through close analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions, it explores how religiously grounded legal frameworks produce systemic harm against women, children, and religious minorities. Rather than viewing violence as a deviation from legal norms, the paper argues that violence is embedded in the law itself—functioning through mechanisms of exclusion, inequality, and punishment sanctified by religious authority. Drawing on theories of structural and symbolic violence, the paper demonstrates how the law codifies hierarchies of gender, age, and belief. Structural violence operates through discriminatory legal provisions, while symbolic violence is enacted through moralizing narratives that mask domination as divine order. The paper focuses on areas where legal violence is most pronounced: unequal rights in family and criminal law, the diminished legal status of religious minorities, and the state’s use of corporal punishments that blur the line between judicial process and physical harm. By positioning the Islamic Republic as a case study, the paper contributes to wider debates on the intersection of religion, law, and violence. It asks how law—rather than restraining violence—can become its most powerful enabler under the guise of sacred legitimacy.

The PARTES project examines rising violence against places of worship in Europe, driven by terrorism, hate crimes, vandalism, and cyber-attacks. Between 2013 and 2023, these incidents grew in diversity and scope, involving both right-wing and jihadist groups. The current study highlights how radicalization and hate speech intensify inter-religious tensions and violence. Despite protective measures by European states, such as surveillance, these strategies remain insufficient, calling for more inclusive, participatory approaches involving law enforcement and religious communities. The project categorizes different types of attacks and stresses the growing threat of ideological violence, particularly online. It also highlights the need to combat misinformation and regulating hate speech, while promoting inter-community dialogue for peaceful coexistence. The findings advocate for a comprehensive approach that combines security, education, and interfaith collaboration. Future research should focus on digital threats, the effectiveness of protection systems, and the role of inter-religious dialogue in fostering cooperation.

This article explores the symbolic and structural violence embedded in heritage preservation practices, focusing on the case of the Collection Persévérance held by the Historical and Geographical Institute of Alagoas (IHGAL). Through an anthropological lens and field-based research, it interrogates the epistemological, racial, and spiritual silencing imposed on Afro-Brazilian ritual objects when they are removed from their cosmological and liturgical contexts and confined within traditional museum logics. The analysis reveals how these preservation models, often rooted in colonial, elitist, and hygienist frameworks, continue to marginalize Afro-Brazilian religious knowledge and maintain historical hierarchies. The article also highlights the recent recognition of the Perseverance Collection as Brazilian Cultural Heritage by IPHAN, emphasizing the importance of shared management with religious leaders as a step toward decolonizing museological practices. Ultimately, the article questions whether the very act of preservation, when detached from community-led interpretations, can itself become a form of symbolic violence.

Public understanding of what constitutes interpersonal violence has been the topic of much conceptual debate. In this study, we aim to contribute to this literature by generating empirical insight. We recruit a quota representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 724) and expose participants to vignettes describing interpersonal conflict. We use a conjoint design to manipulate six features of the vignettes and examine how these impact participants’ willingness to label the incident as violent. Results showed that – in line with ideal victim effects – events involving more vulnerable victims and more blameworthy perpetrators are more likely to be labelled as violence. Further, ‘traditional’ representations of interpersonal violence as events that produce physical injury to the victim, generated high violence ratings. Still, public understanding of interpersonal violence was relatively inclusive – various non-physical confrontations were also considered to be violent.

Reports of the Capitol Hill Riot (CHR) on 6 January 2021 emphasized how far-right activists converged from all over the United States and coalesced in violent public action. And yet, the riot itself was highly contested within online far-right communities, revealing underlying infighting. This paper draws on data from three forums and image boards, 8kun, 4chan, and TheDonald.win, to explore how online users interacted on the current political situation in the run-up to and the aftermath of the CHR. We explain far-right infighting through competing conspiratorial narratives that entail different attributions of who is deemed a traitor to the movement and then result in diverging logics for and legitimacies of political action. Drawing on qualitative content analysis of approximately 3000 posts, we demonstrate how these narratives shape internal conflicts, infighting, and proposed action. One perspective supports the riot as a necessary response to save Donald Trump after an allegedly stolen election, rendering anyone not fully in support of the CHR as hybrid; the second perspective depicts Trump as a traitor and part of more fundamental, systemic problems, therefore advocating for violence that supports a fundamental renewal of society. Our analysis thus traces the roots of political infighting amongst far-right actors to two differing conspiratorial narratives and diverging logics of political action.