What is Wrong with Fundamentalism
Abid Bahar
Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no. First, what is fundamentalism? It is the official practice of the basic principles of a religion and very importantly, as the dominant religion, imposing them to control the politics of a country. When that happens in a multi religious country, the rights of minorities are violated. Fundamenta lists do it with their claim of ownership of the country and by implication, see the other religious groups as foreigners. So primarily, it is a question of intolerance associated with fundamentalism.
Is fundamentalism a problem only in Islam? Let me start by saying that contrary to Western propaganda, fundamentalist movement is there in every religion. It is even present in its most dangerous manifestations in Buddhist countries such as in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka and in Cambodia, the latter even carried out a genocide against minorities. These are Theravada fundamentalist Buddhist countries. Here the innocent looking monks are very much active in politics even in the destruction of religious sites of other religions, namely, Muslim and Christian. In India and Pakistan minority rights were being denied by the fundamentalists claiming as in India as the Rama Raja, or Pakistan as a Muslim country.
Given the right mood, we see that the manifestation of fundamentalist outbeak can take place anywhere. We see this even in India, a country officially calls itself secular. In India, before 1992, the most unpopular party, BJP could only win two seats in the parliament. But in 1992 it took up the issue of Babri Mosque and claimed that it was the birth place of Rama, a Hindu God. But surprisingly Rama was not a historic figure. However, the claim by the BJP satisfied the Hindu majority and on the open day light Hindu fundamentalists marched to the Mosque site and destroyed the Mosque. About 10,000 people were killed in the carnage. Instead of putting the criminal leader Advani in jail, in Indian democracy this fundamentalist leader formed the government and became the Home minister; shaming a country claims itself as the world's biggest democracy. This is an issue of using religion in politics.
The worst part of fundamentalism is to display anger toward its enemy and its attack of civilian sites. In 2001 some alledgly fundamentalist followers of Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre buildings in New York city killing approximately 3000 innocent people which led to the release of huge anger among American people and leadership led by Protestant fundamentalist leader George W. Bush. Bush identified himself as the Christian zionist found an excuse to attack Iraq and even before attacked Afganistan causing the death of approximately a million people. Are the terrorists of the trade centre true Muslims? Most Muslims believe no. Is George who led an illegal war in Iraq a true Christian, the answer would be no.
Therefore, the problem with fundamentalism is its show of anger and retalliation against its perceived enemy and its use of violence in the name of God. In India the attack on Babri Mosque followed counter attacks in bombay and more counter attacks are going on in almost all the Indian cities. Here Hindus are killing Muslims and Christians and Muslim killing innocent Hindus. Only lately, some Pakistani fundamentalists entered India and attacked Bombay, killing close to two hundred innocent people and injuring many others.
In addition to the above, the biggest problem with most fundamentalist movements is, it does not allow diversification; it resists change. It demands a society to remain stagnant. It resists the growth in art, music, business, women's rights and in the other areas. It forces human spirit to die down. Fundamentalist movements in certain religions discurages women to not work outside their homes, thus allowing half of the population and the country to remain backward. It has been a lingering problem in Muslim countries thus helping the countries to stagnate allowing more powerful countries to attack them. This is very much a problem in Muslim countries.
The deadly fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, however, seem contrary to what the Prophet of Islam advised to his followers and said: "For knowledge even go to China." Education is essential for every Muslim man and woman." Contrary to the Talibans, in the days of the Prophet, Muslim man and women could pray together. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet was a business woman. Ibn Rusd, who was opposed by the fundamentalists of Cordova to be the chief advisor to the Caliph, but his ideas were known to have helped in the European Renaissance. Thus, he was recognized as one of the masters of European Renaissance. Strangely though, the Taliban's primitive practices in the rapidly changing economies of our time made Islam laughable to the humanity that is responding to the demands of global change.
Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, it is against change. It is against development, against human rights. It is against development because the fundamentalist leaders interpretation finds change to be wrong. As opposed to this, human history shows that change is the most unchanging thing in the world.
Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, because it brings religion into politics. It kills innocent people.
Finally, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? We can also say no, but only if religion remaines the personal belief of its followers as the sufis in Islam do. Sufis are very religious people but stay away from politics. There is nothing wrong in being religious, to observe the basic tenents of one's religion such as doing salat, fasting, going for hajj etc. Fundamentalism in that sense is not wrong. Then, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no.
Bangladesh to develop has to resist both the forces of Fascism and fundamentalism; because both preches violence. These two are as if like the same body of a poisonous two headed snake. They take every opportunity to kill their prey only to get to power.
What is at stake is to help save innocent lives from these angry primitives justifying their killings in the name of God and with the holy book in their hands reciting the lines of their choice and the Fascist leaders violating the rule of law, resort to control the country by controlling the streets.
|