The Scourge of Fundamentalism

Aziz-ul Haque
Religious fundamentalism has become an alarming global phenomenon. No religion or community has succeeded in making itself an exception. The Indian experience with fundamentalism has been bloody and traumatic. Mahatma Gandhi, before he could fully savour the fresh air of independent India, fell victim to a Hindu fundamentalist’s bullets. Indira Gandhi was gunned down by her own bodyguards in the aftermath of the Sikh fundamentalist movement. The burning alive of Graham Staines and his two sons has highlighted the brutality of fundamentalists. The serial blasts in Jaipur, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Ahmedabad have indicated the handiwork of Islamic fundamentalists. The recent atrocity on Christians in Orissa has been unleashed by Hindu fundamentalist groups.

There is a constant fear of terrorism by fundamentalist forces and hardly a day passes without some conflict between religious groups in our country. Our epoch is characterized by startling advances in science and technology on one hand, and escalating social conflict and disruption on the other.

It seems the formation of a separate identity as ‘‘fundamentalists’’ is deemed necessary for some believers who think their religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. Thereafter, it arises as a movement through which the adherents attempt to rescue their religious identity from absorption into the modern cultural milieu of religious liberalism and syncretism. According to the fundamentalists, this absorption has retarded progress in the wider religious community, thereby necessitating the assertion of a separate identity based upon the fundamentals of the religion concerned.

However, it is important to note that fundamentalism is not a common man’s attitude, but that of elite groups with vested interests. By examining the current fundamentalist trends and movements in India, it may be found that there is nothing religious about them; they are just economic and political manipulations by a few elites in the name of religion. The craving of the people today for socio-economic and political restructuring creates a deep crisis that is sought to be diverted by the ruling capitalistic groups to maintain their status quo. The masses are sought to be indoctrinated and their religious sentiments inflated to make them fight each other, thus diverting their discontent into forms of communal conflict. The elites use skilful strategies and manipulative mechanism as their modus operandi. They project themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation.

Indian secularism has very different meaning and implications from that of other countries. It is not anti-religious or atheistic or a state without religion. It is secular based on the principle of sarbadharma samabhab — equal respect for all religions, which is a hallmark of our Constitution. Our secularism has emerged as a political ideology in the course of national struggle for independence. Communal harmony is the basic building block of our country. The Indian state’s official commitment to secularism is seen as the guarantor of communal amity, and national unity considered as a prerequisite for pursuing the goals of democracy, prosperity, social justice and cohesion for successful modernization.

Among the many dreams of Mahatma Gandhi and his followers who forced the colonial power out, none was perhaps dearer to their hearts than the desire for the foundation of a secular democracy that would be free from the turmoil of religious violence.

Studies on recent communal clashes in India have brought out the point that religion is not the causative factor, but it is used as an instrument in such clashes and it is made to appear so. Ideological assumptions and economic and political factors play a large role in these riots. Therefore, what is needed today is the removal of the root causes of fundamentalism which may necessitate restructuring of our socio-economic and political systems for the benefit of the masses.

It is the responsibility of every citizen to uphold the values of secular democracy. In order to live in peace and harmony, communities have to learn and practice mutual respect and tolerance in a pluralistic society. No religion supports violence. What is required today is renewal of all religions taking into account the religious pluralism and secular democratic ideals of our nation. Moreover, our secular democracy must provide perspectives and challenges where people can enjoy religious freedom and equality and can come together for dialogue and collaboration to bring about greater communal harmony and to work together for national reconstruction.
(The writer is the Pastor of Guwahati Baptist Church)
source: sentinel assam editorial 26.09.08

Islam beyond fundamentalism

Islam beyond fundamentalism

— Benazir Suraiya

“When India lost a cricket match to Pakistan, some idiots within the community would burn crackers and I ended up bearing taunts from people. That was painful. I am a diehard Indian and I can’t tell you how such slurs feel”, says Fahim, a moderate Muslim.The idea that militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution is finding greater acceptance over time. But there is a growing confusion over who really is a moderate Muslim. The ideological side of the war on terror is making some, but limited, progress. The term “moderate Muslim” is not only becoming important in the post September 11 discussion of Islam and the West, it is also becoming highly contested. Some use the term to indicate a Muslim who is either pro-western in his politics or is being self-critical in his discourse. In some intellectual debates, the term “moderate Muslim” is used pejoratively to refer to a Muslim who is more secular and less Islamic than the norm, which varies across communities. In America, a moderate Muslim is one who peddles a softer side of Islam, is willing to coexist peacefully with people of other faiths, and is comfortable with democracy and the separation of politics and religion.Moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretatica of Islam. For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad is the last option. For militant Muslims, Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all. Moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and civilisation. They aspire for a society – a city of virtue – that will treat all people with dignity and respect. Jihad literally means a holy war, fighting against the evil without the use of weapons, guiding a person to the real path. However, the meaning of jihad has changed with the attitudes of the people. The stereotypical West has labeled jihad as a new face of terror, of course the militant Muslims have spread terror in the name of jihad, which was originally a fight against the evil, but now a carrier of evil.Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, there is a growing general public interest in Islamist fundamentalism as a perceived breeding ground for contemporary international terrorism, and a growing confusion in explaining its ideas and categorising its various components. Fundamentalism is the spearhead of religion engaging a counter attack on the secularism which had reduced its power during recent decades. The concept of the world as a battlefield where the forces of good and evil are fighting against each other, of a perennial universal battle going on everywhere and at all times is a defining characteristics of the fundamentalist groups. Today, the relationship between Islam and the rest is getting worse. Muslim militants are sowing seeds of poison and hatred between Muslims and the rest of humanity by committing egregious acts of violence in the name of Islam.Moderate Muslims do exist. But, of course, they constitute a very small movement when compared to the Islamic onsalught. There are a slew of films that project the voice of moderate Muslims. The Pakistani film Khuda Kay Liye is a reflection of liberal Islam. As the director of the film, Shoaib Mansoor, quotes “The film was born out of anger I had nourished all my life regarding the blatant misinterpretation of Islam”, so has the film succeeded to some extent in countering the image that Islam is synonymous with fundamentalism and terrorism. Liberal Muslims are shunned by their own kind internally for being modern in outlook, while the world at large sees them as potential suspects of terrorism just for bearing a ‘Muslim name’. This paradox is resulting in great suffering for a forward looking Muslim. The film is a bold attempt by Mansoor to portray the turmoil in the minds of Muslims as to adjust to the times, while still holding on to their Muslim identity that has been under attack post 9/11. The film tries to show that Islam is a progressive religion and Muslims would like to be seen as proud members of this religion rather than fundamentalists. The overwhelming response to the film shows how wrong the impression of the world about Muslim is. “I do not hate USA just because some Americans have done injustice to me. In the same way, do not hate all Muslims just because some of them have harmed your country”, said a moderate Muslim to his American wife. This was one dialogue in the film that won tremendous applause.Hence, there is a world of Islam beyond fundamentalism. More importantly, one should not forget that we are human-beings first, religion comes later. And religion is only a faith, a belief in God. It should not be muddled up with terror and violence. After all, the terrorists spread terror for their personal prejudices but they pollute a religion by carrying out evil ‘in the name of God’. Source: assam tribune editorial