Fundamentalism is an important source of social retardation. It obstructs the growth of knowledge and morality. Besides, it is a source of conflict in society, and a threat to human rights, including freedom of expression and right to life.
The Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary of Current English defines "fundamentalism" as the "maintenance of the literal interpretation of the traditional beliefs of the Christian religion (such as the accuracy of everything in the Bible), in opposition to more modern teachings."
Webster’s New World Dictionary gives the following meaning of "fundamentalism": "religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and regarded as fundamental to Christian faith."
Thus, to begin with, the word "fundamentalism" has been
used mainly in the Christian context. But it cannot be denied that
the word is also used to express similar beliefs and attitudes with
reference to other religions of the world. For example, we do talk
about "Islamic fundamentalism" and "Hindu fundamentalism". Therefore,
in a broader sense, "fundamentalism" means belief in the literal
truth of religious scriptures and fundamental religious beliefs
of
any religion.
The Christian fundamentalist, as noted earlier, believes in the literal truth of the Bible. The Muslim fundamentalist, on the other hand, believes in the literal truth of the Koran, whereas the Hindu fundamentalist believes in the literal truth of the Vedas, etc.
Now, this kind of attitude of strong belief in the literal truth of statements contained in the religious scriptures, in spite of a total lack of evidence in support of them, is bound to obstruct the growth knowledge. We need free and critical thinking for the growth of knowledge, which is just the opposite of the attitude of blind belief or faith, encouraged by the religious fundamentalists. The negative role of fundamentalism in this respect is amply demonstrated by the examples of Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and Darwin.
Free and critical thinking has been opposed by Christian, Muslim and Hindu religious scriptures. According to Christianity, god had asked Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Adam defied god by eating the forbidden fruit, and because of this "original sin" he was pushed down from heaven to earth!
Further, as pointed out by the well-known rationalist Dr A. T. Kovoor, the god of Bible denies political and religious freedoms, which are regarded as ideals in twentieth century. "The Bible prescribes death penalty for any one who dares suggest a change of religious belief." Kovoor quotes the following passage from the Old Testament in support of his contention:
If thy brother or thy son or thy daughter or thy wife of thy bosom entice thee secretly saying let us go and serve another God, thou shalt surely kill him or her. Thou shall stone him with stone till he dies.
As far as bigotry and intolerance are concerned, says Kovoor, even the New Testament does not fare any better. Jesus is quoted as saying in St. Luke: "But those mine enemies, which would not, that I should reign far over them, bring hither and slay them before me."
Similarly, Muhammad is said to have ordered the assassination of a poetess Asma bint Marwan because she wrote satirical poems criticizing him. Again, when Khomeini issued a fatwa declaring death sentence for Salman Rushdie, he quoted passages from Koran to justify his action.
Hinduism, too, does not lag behind in discouraging free and critical thinking. According to Manusmriti, anybody who argues critically and logically about dharmashastras ought to be ostracized. Non-believers including free thinkers, rationalists and Buddhists are not to be entertained respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they may be given food. The families of non-believers, according to Manu, get destroyed sooner than later. Similarly, it is suggested that a state with a large number of Shudras and nastikas soon meets its destruction. The Manusmriti is, in fact, full of abusive epithets for free thinkers and non-believers.
Again, there is a story in the Shantiparva of Mahabharata, according to which a Brahmin was, as a punishment, made to take birth as a jackal in his next birth, because, being addicted to logic, he used to indulge in debates, and he did not have faith in the Vedas.
Thus, the anti-logic, anti-freethought and anti-knowledge approach of fundamentalism is more than obvious. If religious fundamentalists really had their way, philosophy and science would not have developed at all, because both are based on critical thinking.
In addition to retarding the growth of knowledge fundamentalism also obstructs the growth of a rational, secular morality based on human desires and needs. No doubt, the religious scriptures, too, contain ethical dos and don’ts, but these are not defended rationally by showing that their observance will increase human happiness. On the contrary, they are believed blindly simply because they are mentioned in the religious scriptures. All that the religious scriptures have to offer in this regard is the fear of hell and the allurement of heaven. (In case of Hinduism it could also be the fear of being born as an owl or a hog in the next birth!) Behaviour motivated by fear and lure can hardly be described as "moral" behaviour.
It is quite possible that some actions prescribed by some religious scriptures can be defended rationally as well. On the other hand, there are many actions prescribed by all religions, which are not at all rationally defensible. Some of the prescriptions are positively wrong because they only increase human suffering, and violate fundamental human values like liberty and equality. For example, Hindu scriptures support varna vyavastha and untouchability. Islam does not grant equal rights to man and woman. Slavery, too, has been justified by the Koran. To quote Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I am Not a Muslim:
Slavery is recognized in the Koran. Muslims are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves (sura4.3); they are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves (sura4.28).
Similarly, there are passages supporting slavery in the Bible. Kovoor has quoted some of these passages in his book Begone Godmen. Fundamentalists have always been in the forefront of opposition to social reform and moral development. When Rammohun Roy campaigned against sati he was opposed by Hindu fundamentalists. Vidyasagar, too, had to face the wrath of Hindu fundamentalists when he advocated widow remarriage. Even more recently former Sankaracharya of Puri, Niranjandeva, is on record having supported sati and untouchability. Similarly, reforms in Muslim Personal Law in India are being opposed by Islamic fundamentalists who wish to perpetuate social evils like one-sided, oral divorce. Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that religious fundamentalism is a major source of social retardation.
Fundamentalism has been a major source of violent
conflict in society. The amount of bloodshed inspired and motivated
by religion has been terrible. Apart from open religious wars like
crusades and jihad, we also have the problem of what are known as
"communal riots" (a euphemism for riots between two
religious groups). During such riots persons belonging to one
religious group deliberately destroy life and property of persons
belonging to another religious group, even if they do not have any
personal enmity with them. Some rioters do not even hesitate in
sexually assaulting and raping women just because they belong to
a religious group that happens to be the target of their wrath at
that particular moment. In India there were large-scale communal
riots at the time of partition and independence. More recently there
were widespread communal riots in several parts of the county after
demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992. (The present union
home minister, L. K. Advani, and the present chief minister of UP,
Kalyan Singh, are among some prominent members of the BJP who have
been
charge sheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition case.)
Similarly, Sikhs were attacked and killed in some parts of the
country including Delhi after assassination of Indira Gandhi by her
Sikh bodyguards in November 1984. It is more than obvious that
communal riots lead to large-scale violation of Human Rights.
Fundamentalism—belief in the literal truth of the religious scriptures—and communalism, or antagonism and hatred for persons belonging to other religious groups, are closely related to one another. Given the pernicious nature of fundamental beliefs of various religions that we have enumerated above, and the kind of hatred for non-believers which is encouraged by some religions, any fundamentalist is bound to harbor some ill will for people believing in religions other than their own. It is true that a communalist is not necessarily a fundamentalist, but we must accept the fact that it is very easy for a fundamentalist to degenerate into a communalist.
Fundamentalism is also a threat to Human Rights. Freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom to freely choose, change and discard ones religion, and the right to life are some of the fundamental Human Rights which are threatened by fundamentalism. As mentioned earlier, some of the religions go to the extent of advocating death for non-believers and freethinkers. This, indeed, is a grave violation of Human Rights. The cases of Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen and M. F. Hussain are some prominent examples illustrating the violation of Human Rights by fundamentalism.
Notwithstanding the tall and ignorant claim by some people about all religions preaching "tolerance", Salman Rushdie’s freedom of expression and right to life were threatened just because he wrote a novel which was not liked by some religious fundamentalists! He had to remain in hiding for a long time to save himself from the alleged "tolerance" of religious people. Even in a secular and democratic country like India, his novel the Satanic Verses was banned. Thus, denying the Indian people the right to read his book. Similarly, the Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen was forced to flee from Bangladesh because of her critical comments on Koran.
Hindu fundamentalists, too, do not want to be left behind. While ceaselessly glorifying the "tolerance" of Hinduism, particularly in comparison to Islam, they have themselves grown more and more intolerant. The destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is too well known. In Mumbai itself, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal enthusiasts have repeatedly vandalized paintings of M.F.Hussain, and humiliated him just because they did not approve of some of his paintings. These "tolerant" worthies do not think twice before spoiling a playground or damaging a stadium to prevent Pakistani players and artistes from performing. Even the green colour has become like a red rag to them! Why? Because in their minds it is linked to Islam.
It will be wrong to conclude that Muslims alone are the targets of Shiv Sena’s anger. At one stage they had also demanded a ban on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s The Riddle of Ram and Krishna. Dr. Ambedkar has been all along one of their favourite targets.
The fact of fundamentalism being a threat to human rights is also illustrated by the examples of two Sikh scholars, Dr. Piar Singh and Dr. Pashaura Singh. In course of their research on Adi Granth or the Guru Granth Sahib, these scholars came to the conclusion that the fifth Sikh Guru, Guru Arjun Deva, had modified the mulmanter (the primary sacred formula) of the Granth, in the process of editing it. This aroused the ire of the Sikh fundamentalists who regard the Guru Granth as the final truth. Dr Pashaura Singh remained unscathed because he was in USA, but the Akal Takth, the highest religious authority of Sikhs, forced Dr. Piar Singh, to polish shoes at the Golden Temple, Amritsar, as a punishment! Not that there is anything wrong in polishing shoes, but to force a scholar to polish shoes as a punishment just because you do not agree with his or her research findings is truly nonsensical.
The problem with the fundamentalists is that they have no training in logical and scientific thinking. They are guided more by "feelings" than by reason. The moment you say something rational and scientific, their "religious feelings" are "hurt", and this becomes a convenient excuse for them to indulge in all kinds of anti-social and undemocratic activities.
Thus, to conclude, keeping in view the amount of harm being caused by fundamentalism, it becomes the paramount duty of all persons interested in social progress to expose and oppose fundamentalism. Soft-pedaling this issue is not going to help.