22.1 Introduction
Religion has traditionally been one of the major components of national identity — sometimes its most prominent feature. Almost every state comprises groups having faith in one religion or another (Northern Ireland: Protestants and Catholics; Sri Lanka: Christian Tamils and Buddhist Sinhalese; India: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians) and even within a particular religion there may be different sects.
Beyond religious fundamentalism, there is also secular fundamentalism — if fundamentalism is understood as an uncompromising belief in the original and most basic thought frameworks of certain principles and a commitment to them. So understood, totalitarianism in the form of fascism or communism amounts to fundamentalism. Religious and secular fundamentalism have much in common: conviction in basic principles, commitment to beliefs, and more or less a fanatical zeal in methods. Fundamentalism is not necessarily religious — it may be non-religious as well. It is rigid conformity to doctrines — religious, ideological, or both.
22.2 Meaning of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is variously described by different scholars. Heywood (Political Ideologies) defines fundamentalism as “a belief in the original or most basic principles of a creed, often associated with fierce commitment and sometimes reflected in fanatical zeal.”
Three implications from this definition:
- Belief in the original creed or its basic principles.
- This belief takes the form of commitment.
- This commitment takes the form of fanaticism.
If “creed” is taken as a religious concept, religious fundamentalism = belief in the original creed or basic principles of the creed together with commitment touching the boundaries of fanaticism. Any religion may take the shape of religious fundamentalism — Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and others.
Being a man of religion and being a fundamentalist are not the same thing. Religion implies a moral order, a sublime faith, and a spiritual end. Fundamentalism — especially its religious aspect — is the perversion of religion: the exploitation of religion, sometimes open and sometimes subtle; a tactical means to a wicked immoral end, converting religiosity into political/fanatical bellicosity.
Fundamentalism is opposed to secularism, rationalism, humanism, and tolerance. It seeks to divide civil society into numerous parts, pitting one against the other, preaching nothing but hatred. A fundamentalist knows his own religion only in his own interest — and to that extent does not even respect his own religion. A true follower of religion is not necessarily a fundamentalist; rather a fundamentalist is anti-religious. He projects his religious community as distinct and separate, gives precedence to his own interest over the common interest, and deals with citizens not individually but religion-wise.
Fundamentalism as a belief system is also an ideology. Every ideology — communism, fascism, liberalism — is a system-belief and, to a degree, fundamentalistic: in every ideology, there are beliefs, theories, foundational elements, followers who demonstrate faith, and people ready to accept martyrdom. Fundamentalism, in the wider sense, means an ideology or belief system to which commitment is more or less a matter of faith, in both words and deeds.
22.3 Ideology and Fundamentalism
Ideologies are religions as religions are ideologies in their own right. Religion becomes a pill to fundamentalism when belief in it becomes unchallengeable and other religions are made to appear separate and inferior. The common feature working in both ideology and religion is a system of beliefs — rigidity in beliefs leads to fundamentalism, both religious and non-religious.
Knowledge is science; belief is only faith, and faith is always unscientific. When knowledge ends up in belief, ideology and religion transform themselves into fundamentalism. When a religious precept says “truth shall win,” it is knowledge; when a man from a religion says “what he is saying is the truth,” it is belief — and therefore has in it all the essentials of fundamentalism. Similarly, when Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin claim their assertion alone is the gospel truth and want all others to believe so, it is secular or non-religious fundamentalism.
Faith in any form of fundamentalism is never questioned and stays beyond reason and enquiry. Ganguly (Faces of Fundamentalism): “We decide about an invariant faith; whenever discrepancies arise, we have to reinterpret, modify, ignore or destroy the sources of discrepancies.” As fundamentals become an article of faith, changes in ideological belief become impossible — and the ideology changes to fundamentalism. Neither religious nor non-religious fundamentalists can afford any dissent of voice or word. Silencing of voice and pen is a significant pursuit of all forms of fundamentalism. The fundamentalist’s demand is the surrender of individual consciousness to what he thinks is the basic principle of religion or ideology.
Fundamentalism must not be confused with revivalism. The rise of Buddhism and Jainism as a reaction to Hinduism, the Reformation movement as a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church, or movements by Muslim reformers are not fundamentalistic — they are attempts to reform religions or reinterpret precepts. Similarly, Lenin reinterpreting Marxism or Mao introducing Marxism-Leninism in China were not deviating from Marxian tenets. Hitler and Mussolini, on the other hand, were merely restating totalitarian fundamentalism.
22.4 Core Characteristics of Fundamentalism
The word “Fundamentalism” first received currency from a series of publications entitled The Fundamentals published in the United States in 1909 — originally indicating a belief that the Bible (or any holy book) is infallible as it contains the words of God.
Key characteristics:
1. Return to original sources with exclusive interpretation: A fundamentalist goes back to the original and definite sources, interprets them in his own words, and asserts the correctness of his interpretation. He would not accept the opposite interpretation nor change what he thinks is correct. In attitude he is uncompromising and aggressive; in conviction he is a fanatic.
2. Doctrinal conformity: The fundamentalist’s conviction in his doctrine is unassailable — its principles are inviolable, indefeasible, literal, and absolutely binding. He is absolutely certain that the essential core of his belief can solve all problems; his faith is inerrant, exclusive, and self-sufficient. Ganguly: “We can clearly comprehend why ‘revisionism’ is a deadly crime in communism and why apostasy is punishable by death in fundamentalist Islam.”
3. Imposition rather than conversation: Fundamentalism does not know the language of conversation, only that of imposition. Fundamentalists control deliberations and do not hesitate to intervene forcibly to ensure society conforms to the behaviours their worldview requires. Bidstrup: “The belief that they are right, without any question, justifies, in their own minds, taking upon themselves the right to impose their point of view, by force if necessary.”
4. Political law from doctrine: Fundamentalism seeks to institute a harsh set of rules as political law — the Sharia as in Khomeini’s Iran, Taliban’s Afghanistan; Hitler’s word in Nazi Germany; Stalin’s in the former USSR. As one Mormon leader said: “Do not think for yourself. The thinking has already been done.” A fundamentalist is never an audience, always a speaker.
5. Chauvinism: While talking in the name of God or ideology, a fundamentalist denies himself the power of God; while making a full cry of equality, he is by nature patriarchalistic; while claiming all life is based on faith, he declares all science wrong. He pays lip service to ideals while ignoring them in practice.
6. Evidence-less methodology: Fundamentalism starts with a conclusion and thereafter searches for (or creates) evidence to support it. This non-scientific methodology is not exclusive to any one religion. It promotes ignorance and does not permit “why.” Bidstrup: “Fundamentalism of any stripe is not progress but rather the impedance of progress.”
22.5 Identity of Secular and Religious Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism — whether secular or religious — negates science and rationalism. Every religion and every ideology thrives on belief systems where reasoning has no place.
It is not necessary to believe in God to be religious — many religions do not believe in a creator-deity. Buddhism in its original form did not postulate a creator-deity; Confucianism is essentially a system of moral code of conduct; Taoism similarly. Mussolini and Hitler were not regular visitors of any church; no Marxist believes in God or religion.
Many scholars see in communism (Marxism) almost all features of a religion:
- Toynbee: Marxism is a historical reaffirmation of Christian moral conscience.
- Russell: Marxism has the structure of a religion — “It has the Yahweh which is Dialectical Materialism, the Messiah that is Marx, the Elect that is the Proletariat, the Church that is the Communist Party.” It has “an absolute source of mystery (dialectical materialism), the revelation in the form of historical laws and its deterministic unfolding, and also its eschatology — the withering away of the state, the coming of the Communist Man.”
Marx’s philosophy was scientific in its intent — he fought against determinism. But as his philosophy came down to his followers, they made it doctrinal: Lenin closing it to fundamentalism and Stalin completing the progression, giving it the shape of a totalitarian doctrine.
Fundamentalism and totalitarianism go together in the political context. A fundamentalist is by nature totalitarian — aggressive in mood. A totalitarian is a fundamentalist — as oppressive as possible. Hitler and Mussolini were totalitarians and fundamentalists simultaneously; neither were friends of democracy or rationalism. Ganguly: “The irrational ideologies like fascism or religious fundamentalism go ahead without much ado to establish their hegemony by any means including large-scale distortions of truth and lying. The rationalist ideologies like Marxism developed further doctrinal justification for lying and terror.” Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed.”
22.6 The Fundamentalist Mind
Fundamentalists are invariably doctrinaire — essentially uncompromising. Their doctrine admits no contradiction, no qualification of what they think is the truth, no betrayal of the essentials, and no compromise with the enemy — making them anti-intellectual.
A fundamentalist’s mind does not permit the idea of unintended consequences. If anything happens, the happening must have a meaning — specifically, the meaning is found in the intentions of the person who has caused the act. Narrow as his thinking is, the fundamentalist never thinks beyond his own thinking. For those who think otherwise, it becomes a moral matter for the fundamentalist to defend and impose his worldview.
Fundamentalists seek support from “enemies of their enemies”, consolidating what Bruce calls “the bad people.” They do not see themselves against an array of different groups with different agendas — they always have a single collective enemy. Bruce notes: For US fundamentalists, communism is not a general political philosophy but “a single conspiracy.” When communism waned, they identified “secular humanists” as the enemy. Iranian Ayatollahs regard US imperialism, Judaism, Zionism, and Christianity as “all the same evil thing.”
Fundamentalists are always secretive — habitual in coding and decoding signs and discovering hidden connections. They are close to, or themselves, terrorists — ready to provide an all-purpose legitimisation (“Jihad” in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, and other terms in other religious fundamentalisms) for almost any act.
Conclusion (Bruce, Fundamentalism): “Fundamentalism grossly over-simplifies, presents an underlying moral order to everything, readily demonises its opponents and finds ‘reds under every bed.'”
22.7 Comparing Fundamentalism
The more monolithic a religion or ideology, the more the chances of it turning to fundamentalism. Islam and evangelical Protestant Christianity are monolithic religions — both believe in just one God, both are dogmatic, both believe it is possible to express God’s nature and will in specific propositions. These are necessary pre-conditions for fundamentalism.
Hinduism is less monolithic and dogmatic — hence less fundamentalistic. Reasons: diffuseness (different deities, a variety of gods); a variety of traditions, groups, and sects; no single holy book (unlike the Bible or Quran) but a large number of holy books and traditions; expressions of common themes vary from village to village and caste to caste, leaving little scope for enforcing conformity. Hindu fundamentalism is rare and typically arises only as a defensive reaction when anti-Hindu fundamentalism challenges it. Within itself, revivalistic attempts have been at work in Hinduism — Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism at an early period; Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, Ved-Samaj in the 19th century. Orthodoxy has always been met with revivalism in Hinduism. Bruce: “Hindu fundamentalism arises only when anti-Hindu fundamentalism challenges it.”
Protestantism and Islam — similarities and differences:
| Dimension | Protestant Fundamentalism | Islamic Fundamentalism |
| Potential | High — can generate fundamentalism | High — can generate fundamentalism |
| Aim | Assert primacy of religious belief systems | Assert primacy of religious belief systems |
| Coercion | Do not generally believe coercion is proper | Believe coercion is proper and necessary — literal “jihad” |
| Violence | Relatively pacifist (Christ: offer other cheek) | More action-oriented and more pronounced |
| Toleration | More tolerant (USA: freedom of religious expression, no state-sponsored religion) | Less tolerant — most Muslim countries more restrictive |
| Relation to state | Operate in largely secular countries, in more legitimate manner | Operate in largely theocratic countries; seek Muslim brotherhood and Islamic unity |
Christianity and politics stayed largely apart for most of history — Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire only in 373 AD. The Reformation made religion a private affair. Lewis: “The distinction between the church and the state is rooted in Christendom.” Bruce: “The core of Protestantism is correct belief, not correct action; orthodoxy rather than ortho-praxis.” With the emergence of the modern state, Christianity remained largely aloof from it.
Islamic fundamentalism is more pronounced, more vocal, and more action-oriented. From the beginning, Islam — unlike Christianity — remained political. The Prophet and subsequent Caliphs were both spiritual and political leaders. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Politics is part of religion. Caesar and what belongs to Caesar is for God Almighty alone.” Islamic fundamentalism demands conformity not only to creed but to actions — every aspect of daily life is regulated. Bruce: “For Islam, religion is a matter of obeying the Holy Law. As what God requires is obedience to the Law, then its imposition is not just acceptable but necessary.” Most Muslim countries, especially in the Middle East, have not been able to shed Islam despite efforts to Westernise — “Islam for them is more than a religion: it is their eye, it is their way.”
22.8 Summary (Key Takeaways)
- Fundamentalism is not religion but the perversion of religion — the exploitation of religion for political and fanatical ends.
- A fundamentalist considers his religion separate from and superior to others; becomes its spokesman/prophet; is doctrinaire to the extent of an impositionist; and an impositionist to the extent of a terrorist.
- Fundamentalism is both religious and secular — communism, fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies share all features of religious fundamentalism.
- Core characteristics: return to original sources with exclusive interpretation; doctrinal conformity; imposition rather than dialogue; political law from doctrine; chauvinism; evidence-less methodology that promotes ignorance.
- Fundamentalist mind: doctrinaire, uncompromising, anti-intellectual, paranoid (single enemy thinking), secretive, prone to terrorism.
- Comparative assessment: monolithic religions (Islam, evangelical Christianity) offer more fertile soil for fundamentalism than Hinduism. Islamic fundamentalism is more severe, more action-oriented, and more politically integrated than Christian fundamentalism. Protestantism is more tolerant and more pacifist in comparison.
- Fundamentalism has its base in untruth; its means are confined to violence; its objectives are to let terror rule. It arises from time to time but has never seen ultimate victory.
