The scholarly analysis of violence, particularly when it intersects with religious belief, frequently suffers from a significant conceptual conflation. The motivations behind an act of violence are often blurred with the religious frameworks that seek to regulate or constrain it. This conceptual slippage has made it difficult for analysts, policymakers, and technologists to accurately interpret violent events and develop effective countermeasures. The present report establishes a clear, methodological distinction between violence inspired by religious belief and violence guided by religious belief. This framework is grounded in an understanding of the differing functions of religion: as an unconstrained cause (inspiration) versus a disciplined, institutional boundary (guidance).

At the heart of this episode's thesis lies the source and function of religion in the justification or limitation of violence. An act of violence inspired by religious belief is one where religion serves as the primary, often emotive, motive or trigger. The perpetrator perceives their belief as a direct, unmediated divine instruction, an eschatological necessity, or a prophetic fulfilment, often bypassing formal religious-legal structures and mainstream institutional sanction. In contrast, violence guided by religious belief refers to acts where the decision to engage in violence originates from non-religious factors, such as a political or strategic threat. The implementation of this violence, however, is deliberately constrained by and must adhere to a pre-existing religious legal or ethical framework. This report will explore these distinctions through theoretical frameworks, historical case studies, and contemporary examples, concluding with an application to AI ethics and content moderation.