We often use the terms "religious fundamentalism" and "communalism" interchangeably, but there is a distinct difference between them, even though they appear to be two sides of the same coin.
- Fundamentalism: Fundamentalists are committed to follow- literally and to the letter - the worldview, spirituality, and mandates of core scriptures of their religions. This applies to the life of a person in different contexts such as in his (or her) personal, family, and social life, as well as to the political philosophy scripted in the scriptures and myths. They take an uncompromising stance against any ideology outside their own. Due to this latter trait, even within the camp of fundamentalists of a religion, stark divisions exist based on different interpretations of religious matters. Sometimes it may lead to violent intra-religion feud.
- Communalism: This is a philosophy of social, economic, and political hegemony centered on a specific religious community. Like fundamentalism, communalism takes an intolerant stance toward other communities. In that sense, fundamentalists are also inherently communal.
We may often observe a person to be intensely communal in practice, while disregarding religious faith and practices in his or her personal life. Conversely, people who prioritize religion in their personal lives may remain non-communal. Fortunately, such individuals still constitute the majority in our country and society.
The Resurgence of Fundamentalism
The late 20th century, particularly from the early 1980s onward, saw a global resurgence of religious fundamentalism.[1] During the 19th and 20th centuries, as science progressed and revolutionary social changes occurred, religion gradually retreated from the social sphere, and many rituals became irrelevant to modern life. Secularism became a universally accepted ideology for states.
In reaction to this, the guardians of theocracy sought to make religion relevant again by fostering fundamentalist movements. Consequently, their attacks are primarily aimed at secularism, modernity, and liberal humanism. We see striking similarities in how fundamentalism manifests across different religions, specifically regarding:
- Their reaction against secularism.
- A religion-centric worldview.
- The concept of God’s uniqueness and sovereignty as expressed in scripture.
- An absolute belief in the literal truth of sacred texts.
- The emphasis on social and political activism to establish "God's rule."
- Their outlook on democracy, the "Golden Age" of the past, and the afterlife.[2]
Four Characteristics of Fundamentalism
According to the Sociology Department at the University of Virginia[3], religious fundamentalism possesses four key characteristics:
- Theological: Formulating arguments in support of the core tenets of scriptures and religious doctrine against conflicting scientific theories and the "assault" of secularism.
- Political: Efforts to change society and enact laws consistent with religious morality and ideals.
- Cultural: Building an alternative society inspired by religious ideals and using missionary activities to influence a "hostile" secular cultural environment.
- Globalization: Spreading fundamentalist movements and organizations across different continents.
While shared traits exist, the character of fundamentalism varies based on the nature of the religion itself. Based on these characteristics, we may broadly categorize existing religions in two groups.
- Hegemonic Fundamentalism: Fundamentalism in "Abrahamic" religions—particularly Christianity and Islam—tends to be more aggressive and expansive. Historically, these faiths have inspired the spread of religion in tandem with imperial expansion. Currently, the aggressive role of Islamic fundamentalism is evident worldwide.
- Responsive Fundamentalism: In contrast, fundamentalism in relatively tolerant religions often emerges as a reaction to attacks from hegemonic fundamentalist groups. For example, Hindutva in India is becoming increasingly powerful and aggressive politically. One reason for its rise is a reaction to the influence of dominant global fundamentalist movements at both national and international levels.
By understanding the similarities and differences between these two types of fundamentalism, we can better analyse the arguments they present to the modern world.
Secularism: The Common Enemy
Almost all religions inherently consider secularism as a direct rival. In their view, secularism is inherently hostile and intolerant toward faith. They argue that it essentially denies the existence of God or supernatural power, and places human beings and rationale above religious wisdom. Fundamentalists from these religions raise the following shared grievances against secularism[4]:
- Marginalization of Faith: Secularism has pushed religion to the fringes of public life, making it a matter of private whim.
- The Social Wall: It builds a wall between religious practice and public life, weakening the social fabric.
- Spiritual Devaluation: It ignores the spiritual essence and aspirations of humanity, leading to a devaluation of the human soul.
- Neo-Paganism: By replacing a single, absolute God with multiple human "idols" or secular ideals, fundamentalists belonging to Abrahamic religions view secularism as a modern form of paganism.
- Moral Decay: They argue that this shift inevitably leads to the erosion of morality, the breakdown of law and order, and a rise in crime. It is secularism, they claim, that fuelled the nationalism, imperialism, and tyranny that turned the world into a killing field for genocide.
Secularism is questioned and hated by fundamentalists of any religion primarily because of its apparent equivalence with atheism. In communal politics of a country, it is also conceived by fundamentalists of its religious majority as a way to appease fundamentalists of religious minority.
Scriptural infallibility and submission
Every religion vouches the sacredness and infallibility of the text written in its core scriptures. In particular, both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists validate their existence through their respective holy books (the Quran and the Bible), which they consider infallible and timeless. They share several core convictions[5]:
- Return to Roots: Believers must return to the literal understanding and practice of the original sources to find direction for modern life.
- Divine Authority: The scriptures are the pure word of God—absolute, authoritative, and mandatory.
- Submission: Individuals must surrender themselves to God and His messengers[6] and work to implement these divine mandates within society.
However, there is a difference in their approach in tolerating the scriptural infallibility. In Islam, the infallibility of the Quran is a fundamental, undisputed fact for almost all devout Muslims, not just to fundamentalists. Therefore, proving its "correctness" is rarely the central focus of Islamic debate. On the other hand, the infallibility of the Bible is frequently challenged by liberal and secular Christians. Consequently, Christian fundamentalists place an immense amount of energy and emphasis on defending the literal truth of the Bible in their discourse.[7]
Political views
As all existing religions grew out of a feudal system, inherently they subscribe to feudal oligarchic political structures. However, there are differences in their views on active engagement in the governance and the politics. For example, in Christianity and Islam we observe the following differences.
- The Christian view: It follows the teaching of Jesus: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." [8] Most Christian fundamentalists accept that political power is ordained by God, and thus believers must generally obey the government unless it explicitly orders them to violate God's will.[9] For them, a President or a Prime Minister is a valid head of state.
- The Islamic view: Islam is viewed as a comprehensive system (Din) that encompasses all aspects of life. There can be no separation between religion and politics; they are an integrated whole.[10] For Islamists, any government not ruled by God-given Sharia is considered illegitimate or forced. The ideal head of state is a Caliph or Amir—the representative of God on Earth.[11]
In view of the above background, we will be examining specific nature and history of fundamentalism and communalism of major religion practiced today, that had been manifested over the periods in different parts of the world in our subsequent discussion.
(Translated from a Bengali article written by the author with the help of Google Gemini).
24/3/26
[1] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003.
[2] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003. pp. 3.
[3] Steven Jones, "Fundamentalism," in Hadden, ed., 1998. University of Virginia Sociology Department.
[4] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 126-127.
[5] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 128.
[6] The Arabic word Islam literally means "submission" or "surrender."
[7] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 129-130.
[8] New Testament: Matthew 22:20-21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25.
[9] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 165.
[10] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 165.
[11] David Zeiden, The Resurgence of Religion, Brill, 2003, pp. 192.
