Fundamentalism And A Civilized Society.

First of all, let us be clear what we mean by fundamentalism. Among several forms, I’ll be dealing with religious fundamentalism here in particular. Fundamentalist was a term coined for the Christians of late 19th and early 20th century who insisted on the literal truth of the Bible (more specifically the Protestants/evangelicals believing in the inerrancy of Bible, especially the four Gospels), and from there it moved on to the Muslims. Broadly speaking, fundamentalist is a person who insists that each and every word written in his religious book, that he claims to be from a Deity, is literally true and there is only one interpretation, literal. So, Mahateer Muhammad was technically wrong when he said that a fundamentalist is someone who acts upon the fundamental principles of a doctrine.

Religious fundamentalism, which in practical sense is akin to extremism, happens to be one of the scourges of a modern civilized society. How does this deranged phenomenon effect a civilized society? Let’s analyze.

A religiously motivated fundamentalist believes in the literal implementation of a book which was written thousands of years ago, in societies with a totally different social, political and religious backgrounds compared to today’s world. Man has evolved psychologically and so have the societies. It’s a natural phenomenon that with the psychological evolution of man, his morals and individual and collective priorities keep changing. That’s the requirement of the natural and perpetual progress. Keeping this in view, demanding the imposition of ancient morals and implementing them discreetly in the manner they were implemented in those times is something any person not blinded with religious prejudice would deem totally unreasonable and rather naïve.

Let’s deal with the single case of the punishment of theft in Islam. According to the notorious Shariah law, the punishment for any person who commits theft is to cut off his hand, as per Qur’anic verse:

“The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut-off their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful.” [5:38-39]

In consideration with the extreme severity and savageness (again, by the standards of a modern society) of the matter, as it happens very often in irrational religious matters, a platoon of apologists [1] has emerged who try to interpret the verse metaphorically and hence maintains that Islam does not order the ‘literal’ cutting off of the hand(s). Although this interpretation would be much more sensible and acceptable in a civilized society, the general consensus happens to be in favor of the literal implication of this punishment. According to the prominent scholars and classical jurists, and various accounts of the hadiths, it’s an almost agreed-upon decision that if a person commits theft that happens to be more than the price of an armor[2], his right hand should be cut off, if he again commits theft, his left foot should be cut, if again he does the same act, cut off his left hand and finally if he retains his attitude, mutilate him completely by cutting off his right feet as well! (Astounded? Look up the references, this is quite authentic.)[3]

A fundamentalist who advocates the literal cutting off of a thief’s hand(s), generally has the excuse that this severe punishment would be a perfect deterrent for further such acts and hence would be an efficient expedient in the betterment of the society. The severity of this punishment indeed serves as a lethal deterrent, but does it really guarantee a better society? Aren’t there other ways to punish a person without crippling him for the rest of his life, hence making a person entirely dependent on the social alms and thus actually creating a burden for the society? Wouldn’t this actually result as an impediment rather than being an expedient for the progress of the society? A fundamentalist needs to egress out of his religious prejudices and consider the matter on these, more humane lines.

This was just one example to depict the narrow-mindedness and irrationality of a religious fundamentalist. Countless other examples exist.

The advocates of literal interpretation and implication of ancient religious books not only exist in Muslim societies, they are quite abundant in Christian/Jewish/Hindu societies, especially, among the allegedly civilized countries, in the constitutionally secular state of America. Religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson (This man, by the way, stood as a serious candidate for the Republican party nomination for President in 1988, and generated more than 3 million volunteers to work for his campaign which can give you an idea about the influence of these people in American politics), Jimmy Swaggert, Garry Potter and alike[4] not only advocate extremely narrow and radical interpretation of Bible, they actually exert and possess wide influence in American media and politics and through it, in the public. The situation is further aggravated when the politics of America is dominated by the religiously motivated neo-conservatives, who, just like their Muslim counterparts, happen to be staunch believers in each an every word of their extremist religious texts. These are the people who advocate the clash of the civilizations, Greater Israel and the ridiculous concepts of Armageddon and the ‘returning of the Messiah’. Rigid belief in such doctrines induces them on small-scale clashes and large-scale wars with people of other faiths and hence “accelerate the second coming of the Messiah/Christ”. They cannot tolerate freedom of speech and expression and every person who contradicts with their ideas faces threats of physical/social infliction and even death by their Armies of God and Lashkers[5]. No matter Steve Weinberg was prophetic when he said: “It only takes religion for a good person to do bad things.” Religion, or let’s give the devil it’s due and say radical and literal interpretation of religion, leads people to believe in and commit insanely dreadful things and it’s this very thing that happens to be the biggest threat to a civilized society.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] A couple of websites advocating the metaphorical interpretation is as follows, but the number of such people is negligibly small: http://www.universalunity.net/Punishment_For_Theft.htm
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm
[2] An armor’s price in the time of Muhammad was 3 Dirham or 10 Dinar according to various harith accounts.

[3] Punishment of cutting off of the hand is not applied in certain cases like the theft of edibles like fruits, vegetables etc. or things that cost less than an armor’s price. If the price of fruit exceeds the price of an armor, the punishment would be applied otherwise double price would be fined (Abu Daood: Book of Hudood, under the chaper about the ‘ordinance of cutting and not cutting hand of a theif’)

Interestingly, according to shariah law, if a thief is forgiven by the trampled, he would be forgiven according to the law, but once the matter is brought in the court, it would be dealt with according to the law. (Nisai: Book of Cutting of the Hand of a Thief)

Apparently, this “mutual forgiving” applies on all crimes/punishments that come under the hudood law. (Abu Daood/Nisai: In reference to Mishkaah, Book of Hudood, ch.3)

[4] For a detailed discussion, exposition and analysis of the ideas and ideals of these lunatics refer to The God Delusion’s chapter 8: “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” And Paul Fundley’s book “Silence No More!”.

[5] Army of God is an extremist religious group the advocates the killing of doctors and burning of hospitals who operate people for abortion, and further similar lunacies. Larshkar-e-Tayyabah happens to be an extremist religious group in Pakistan, which now operates under the name of Jamaat ud Dawah.