It is, I suggest, the contemporary religious challenge, without equal. How can we explain and understand the difference between the religious fundamentalist who, in essence, simply holds an absolute truth- and value-perspective, on the one hand, and the so-called fundamentalist who engages in the extremist and violent behaviours of terrorism, on the other?
Type Conference Contribution. Collections Arts and Social Sciences Papers []. Show full item record. As mentioned, the discourse of religious extremism has mostly been related to the political context Fealy, ; Zarkasyi, In an attempt to understand different forms of extremism more comprehensively, we compared these groups on the other three dimensions.
Before outlining our findings, it is important to note that the classification of a particular group as politically extreme was based on specific historical events and developments: by acts of political rebellion by Darul Islam Domain of Islam and Negara Islam Indonesia Indonesian Islamic State in This was also the basis for selecting as extreme the current political movement Hizbut Tahrir and Islamic defender front FPI who have gained support after the reform of Fealy, ; Muhtadi, ; Osman, a.
All groups score high in extremism on the political dimensions in that they demand a comprehensive legalization of sharia , a fully Islamic state, recreation of Caliphate, and the abolition of democracy in Indonesia.
For example, the Islamic Defenders Front FPI supports a comprehensive legalization of sharia, but endorses democracy and rejects the revival of the Islamic state and Caliphate Fealy, Another group Laskar Jihad or Jihad Troops demands comprehensive sharia and rejects democracy, but also rejects the revival of the Islamic state and Caliphate.
Both these commonalities and differences have consequences for their relationship with other religious groups and the way they aim to achieve their goals. While we acknowledge the importance of unpacking the political dimension into constituent elements in some cases, our argument is that to fully understand these groups, we also need to explore where these groups stand on the other three dimensions of religious extremism i.
In terms of extremism in the theological dimension, notions about an angry God who uses natural disasters punitively are particularly important to tease the different extremist groups apart. For instance, some Muslim groups in Indonesia claim that ritual celebration of the local tradition in Palu in Central Sulawesi is a main cause of the earthquake and tsunami that hit the Indonesian coast in , killing more than people.
Likewise, such attributions also dominated when explaining the earthquake in Lombok Island Habdan and Baits, These groups emphasized that the earthquake is a punishment from God to show disapproval of the politically different attitudes that are promoted by the political leader of the Island Hasan, Interestingly, such theological beliefs do not lead to a push for change of the political system, but only to an invitation to return to Islamic norms as they understand them.
This shows that an extreme theological belief may not be correlated with extremism on the political dimension. However, extremism in the theological dimension may also be related to a narrow interpretation of jihad as a core principle in Islam.
Most Muslim groups believe that jihad means any zealous effort to bring about a better world Esposito, Theological beliefs restricting the meaning of jihad to waging holy war have an impact on political extremism, in that these can drive believers into intentions to verbally or physically attack the hated out-groups to engage in jihad.
Finally, some groups that are located at the extreme end of the ritual dimension are actively campaigning to purify religious rituals and to suppress local traditions that are perceived as deviating from Islam.
For example, some groups such as the Salafi movement and al Wahdah al Islamiyah in Indonesia campaign against local traditions and push for the Muslims to relinquish traditions that are perceived as not taught by the prophet Salman, Importantly though, these movements do not use physical violence in their efforts, and they accept and participate in the political system in Indonesia.
Thus, although these groups tend to be extreme on the ritual dimension, they are more moderate on other dimensions. For example, they have a broader conception of jihad i. Even though such social extremism often involves intolerance of norm violations, social extremism is not always followed by extremism on other dimensions e.
In particular, social extremism in Indonesia is rarely linked to terror campaigns. The different ways in which religious groups express their religious identity on the theological, ritual, social, and political dimensions affect not only the ways they aim to achieve their goals but also the ways they relate to other religious groups.
Using social identity theory as a lens to conceptualize intergroup relations Turner and Oakes, , we propose that the nature of intergroup relations between moderate and extreme religious groups is determined by the perceived degree of similarity on the four dimensions.
As an illustration, two groups or more can cooperate with each other in their collective action when they perceive shared values and a larger identity, while breaking into conflict when internal differences are salient.
For example, in Indonesia, when the former governor of Jakarta Basuki Tjahaya Purnama aka Ahok was eventually indicted on charges of insulting a section of the Quran, many Muslim groups were united in their efforts to demand punishment of him. A series of mass protests against the perceived blasphemy were attended by hundreds of thousands of people across the country Fealy, From an identity perspective, it can be argued that the shared outrage about the former governor who was perceived to have insulted Islam brought different Muslim groups together, and different groups worked together to address the common grievances and the common threats to the superordinate Muslim identity.
Despite this example of unity, it is also clear that there are many instances when relationships between moderate as well as more extreme religious groups are more tense. We argue that these tensions can also be better understood by taking account of the way in which moderate vs.
For example, members of The Prosperous Justice Party PKS and members of Hizbut Tahrir largely take the same stance on the social dimension in that both groups want to generate a new Islamic social order via the legalization of sharia in Indonesia. Their disagreement emerges on the political dimension because PKS supports the democratic system, as indicated by their participation in the general election, while Hizbut Tahrir absolutely rejects the democratic system and avoids democratic politics as a way to raise political power.
The possibility of compromise between two politically extreme movements depends on the level of identity i. When they confront common enemies e. However, open conflict is also likely, even if the groups are similarly extreme on one dimension, when differences on another dimension are salient. A similar pattern may be observed among groups of Muslims who are identified as extreme in ritual dimensions.
The Salafy movement and other groups e. That is, when they face moderate Muslims e. However, those ritually extreme groups can conflict with each other when political differences are salient.
For example, many Salafy group members perceive that public protest is an illegitimate action according to Islam, while other groups who share their extreme identity on ritual dimension perceive it as legitimate tactic.
The differences along the political dimension can lead them into efforts to dominate each other, and open contests for power. The consequence of similarity and difference in the dimensions of religious extremism is relevant previous work on identity and conflict Haslam et al. In this model, the salience of subgroup identity e. However, when superordinate identity is salient e. According to this, an approach to religious extremism that focuses solely on one dimension will miss the different ways in which the two groups align e.
To apply this model in more practical uses, we need to revisit the reason of this multidimensional model development. Unidimensional categorization of moderate vs. We propose that extremism is expressed along different dimensions and the mapping of groups and individuals using multiple dimensions in the model will help to understand the patterns of narratives and actions delivered by the groups. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of religious violence whereby we acknowledge that violence can be motivated by different reasons not necessarily related to political causes and that the interplay between different dimensions on which extremism can be expressed can either fuel or restrict religious violence e.
Moving away from over-simplified representations of religious groups as politically motivated, the presented framework offers a practical method to understand the multi-faceted nature of extremism. It aims to analyze religion at both a group and individual level, augmenting scholarly understanding of the religious dimensions that may be relevant to enable accurate predictions of violent extremism based on ideological narratives Kruglanski et al.
Even though the four dimensions of religious extremism that we present here are informed by prior research on extremism and religiosity, the model that we developed is tailored to the context of Indonesian Muslims and their religious movements.
When adopting this model in different or wider contexts e. Practically speaking, when adopting the model in other contexts, researchers need to engage in qualitative exploration of the dimensions religious groups use to express their religiosity. For every dimension found in a particular context, the researchers should then explore what the indicators are of extremism compared to moderate beliefs.
Rich descriptive information about the context and specific intra- or intergroup processes need to be considered to enable a multidimensional model tailored and adapted to specific contexts.
In this, some dimensions e. Such an exploration may well lead to the conclusion that the political dimension is the most important dimension to explain violent behavior and that the other three proposed dimensions e. Violent actions against Rohingya Muslims in by Rakhine Buddhist were justified as mere crackdowns against suspected Rohingya insurgents, suggesting that the political dimension may be most important to understand extremism in this context.
However, in other contexts, other dimensions appear to have triggered violence. Specifically, the attack was motivated by a strong consensually shared belief among cult members that violence of this form would wash away their sins and this would allow them as a group to survive the imminent Armageddon.
What these examples also make clear is that the content of the different dimensions and the way that moderate vs. Specifically, while it is important to understand political violence among Indonesian Muslims in terms of views on sharia laws, in the Myanmar context, political extremism centers on views against minorities and their rights.
Or, while theological extremism in Indonesia is concerned with the view of God and ritual extremism relates to tolerance for deviating from generally accepted normative ways of enacting religion, for Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, extremism on these dimensions is related to narratives and beliefs around Doomsday. Finally, when applying the model in other contexts, it is important to consider new dimensions that may be important in understanding extremism.
For example, Smart identifies seven dimensions of Buddhist religiosity, including novel dimensions such as the mythological and the experiential. Scholars would discover if these dimensions or others are relevant to differences between moderates and extremists for example, if Buddhist groups who are more mystical are less likely to be extremist through exploratory research and pilot testing.
We, of course, support the prevention of violent extremism, but we also support the notion that being extreme in religious beliefs is not always linked to support for employing violent tactics Austin, Motivating people to participate in violent intergroup conflict, strong narratives about injustice and expected changes may be involved Moghaddam, ; Horgan, However, in many contexts i. By capturing how extremism is manifested across particular dimensions and how these dimensions predict support for violence, policy-makers can be more focused in countering the religious narratives that might be employed as the catalyst of violence and which are not relevant to address or even counter-productive.
This paper highlights that religious extremism is not a unified and ubiquitous phenomenon; rather, religious extremists differ on a number of dimensions in how they express their religion, and consequently, how they aim to achieve important group goals. For example, even though Salafi movements in Indonesia perceive politics as morally corrupt Chozin, ; Parveez, , they nevertheless tend to avoid a political debate, and obey the rules of the existing government insofar as the government does not prohibit their religious rituals Haron and Hussin, ; Parveez, In a similar vein, the group Hizb al-tahrir is extreme in its stance on the political dimension, as it aims to revive the Islamic empire by overthrowing the concept of the nation state e.
The group believes that jihad means a holy war, but not as the way to establish the Caliphate, but to conquer other nations after the Caliphate is established Azman, In addition, this group was actively involved in protests to reject the cultures and norms of other groups in Indonesia on behalf of Muslim as majority e.
We might argue that Hizbut Tahrir is not only extreme in its political dimension, but also theological and social dimensions. Nevertheless, this group seems to be moderate in the ritual dimension. Our purpose in this paper is to illustrate that different dimensions of religion are relevant to understanding religious extremism, and that the four dimensions discussed provide clarity in distinguishing a diversity of extreme vs. Identifying religious extremism as multidimensional helps moving beyond labeling Muslims simply as liberal, extreme, progressive, moderate, or radical.
We invite scholars to consider extremism in relation to individual and group positions on theological, ritual, social, and political dimensions, and to expect a diversity of contestations within a faith that do not always co-vary. With this approach, it is important to be mindful of the fact that when researchers explore the relationship of religious extremism and other psychological processes, the type dimension of extremism needs to be considered. In this way, we can advance knowledge of religious extremism, allowing us to move toward a more complete understanding of what is not just one phenomenon, but a constellation of related phenomena in an evolving, complex religious system of beliefs and acts embedded in broader historical and cultural change and stability.
Labeling groups or individuals as extremist is often misleading. The label has a narrow pejorative meaning which too often associates extremism with terrorism e. Failure to understand the complexity of religious extremism risks stigmatizing some religious groups as irrational and supporting of violence when this is not the case.
These negative stereotypes can lead to separation, status loss, and discrimination, as well as wasted resources in mis-targeted counter-terrorism initiatives, and squandered political capital. Our hope is that a more comprehensive understanding of religious extremism will facilitate better insight and nuanced dialogue. Understanding the multidimensionality of religion in the context of religious extremism will help in accurately depicting this phenomenon, and will facilitate understanding by scholars of the complex group processes associated with religious change, which have been neglected to date.
SW conceived of the presented idea. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We would like to thank Joshua Rhee, Zahra Mirnajafi, and Sam Popple for helpful editing suggestions on earlier versions of the manuscript. Altemeyer, B. Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and Prejudice. By historically defining terrorism and fundamentalism and then placing them within the context of current religio-political and socio-political discourse, one can observe the shift from nationalism into terrorism and therefore understanding the innate interconnectedness of fundamentalism and terrorism as a whole.
Keywords: religious fundamentalism, terrorism, religious terrorists, modern terrorism, religio-political discourse, socio-political discourse. T hroughout the beginning of the 21 st century, it is no surprise that terrorism has come to be a major concern worldwide. Due to the frequency and magnitude of violence, many scholars have and are trying to determine the sudden surge in activity.
Since the Cold War has ended, there seems to be one driving factor behind the atrocities, and focus has shifted from nationalism to religious fundamentalism as the cause of terrorist acts. From the World Trade Center bombings in and their eventual destruction on September 11th, , suicide attacks in Israel in Palestine, nerve gas in the Tokyo subway, and assassinations in India, Israel, and Algeria, religion has come to the forefront as motivation for the largest terrorist organizations in the modern world Juergensmeyer, In order to examine this phenomenon, one main question must be answered: How has religious fundamentalism accelerated terrorism in the modern world?
To establish a framework to respond, one must first examine the definitions of fundamentalism and terrorism, as well as their historical ties. In addition, understanding the dynamics between religion, politics, and society become important to place the nature of the violence into the correct context. Finally, one must determine the shift from nationalistic violence to fundamentalism, and use this to explain how fundamentalism has become the root of modern terroristic acts.
To define terrorism is akin to attempting to define any human experience, if only in the fact that terrorism defines itself to each person differently. If a hard and fast definition must be constructed, it should be simple and open to interpretation. We know the following: terrorist acts are violent or at least inherently dangerous , typically involve more than one target, and are perpetrated to initiate change whether societal, political, religious, or ideological.
Therefore, one may choose to define an incident as an act of terrorism if the violence or the threat of violence was used against more than one person in order to instigate change on a societal, political, religious, or ideological level. Fundamentalism, however, is much easier to define.
Though originally used to describe certain sects of Christianity, this strict adherence to theoretical doctrine has stretched to include all major world religions. Whether through the original political split inside of Islam or the eventual Shiite-Sunni split that has led to numerous conflicts, Islam has been in almost constant turmoil since its appearance, with fundamentalism and radicalization inside of its doctrine becoming a mitigating factor in most of the terrorist acts completed within the 21 st century White, With these definitions in mind, examining the historical background of both terrorism and fundamentalism will provide a context in which to place the influence of religious terrorism on politics and society.
Eventually, nationalism became the main motivation behind acts of terrorism; however, a clear shift had already begun as religion came to the forefront of terroristic reasoning. As terrorist ideologies have become more religious, terroristic violence has become more indiscriminate and targets appear to be more geographically dispersed.
Considering the shift that occurred, religious fundamentalism then came to been seen as an aggressive politicization of religion for the pursuit of nonreligious ends, being only a superficial form of terrorism or extremism; this definition fits more clearly with what fundamentalism has become in the late 20 th and early 21st centuries Tibi, When examining historical ties between terrorism and fundamentalism, one can look at the developed ideological and organizational requirements of modern fundamentalism from Emerson and Hartman , which closely resemble the process of radicalization and indoctrination of an individual into a terrorist organization described by White White describes the process of radicalization as involving an alienated young man, who upon meeting other alienated young men forms a group.
From there, the group gravitates towards religion, and attempt to outdo each other in their zeal for the cause. The religion then begins to be interpreted in militant terms- while most groups stop at this point, some continue development leading to a militant group that encounters a terrorist contact, and join the terrorists through a group decision White, Keeping in mind these ties of organization, the religio-political and socio-political discourses regarding fundamentalism and terrorism can now be examined.
Religio-Political and Socio-Political Discourse. First, one must note that while most think of Islam and politics as synonymous, terrorist attacks are driven by Islamic extremists and political Islam stands separate from that extremism, though they are just as disillusioned by with the Western World Ayoob, Specifically focusing on al Qaeda, some question the idea of the organization being fully religious, and instead define it as a violent political organization that attempts to hide behind Islam; while the doctrine of Islam is usually described as peaceful and tolerant by religious scholars, the basic mission of al Qaeda is to create a popular uprising that will destroy Western influence and reestablish the caliphate system Hart, , in White, After declaring war on the United States in , bin Laden had his religious council issue two religious fatwas in in order to validate his opposition of the Western world; since that time, al Qaeda has completed many terrorist attacks on the world stage, though its capabilities to do so have been slightly diminished Sageman, , in White, ; White, Cultural rights defenders Summary of issues in focus.
Mapping cultural rights: nature, issues and challenges. Universality and diversity. Cultural rights of women. Benefit from scientific progress. Intellectual property regimes. History and memory. Public spaces. Fundamentalism and extremism.
0コメント