Observing the Phenomena of Religious Radicalism

By Happy Susanto

The Marriot Hotel’s bombing and previous bombings indicate that the “religious radicalism” movement is a dangerous latent power that suddenly emerges. Violence in the name of religion leads to a situation where religion is enduring a critical historical test. Religion’s pendulum hangs on the perception and behavior of its disciples and swings toward two sides, ‘humanization’ or ‘dehumanization’.

Violence has been occurring for a long time. Violence is used as the effective means to fulfill the desire of individuals or groups of very complex matters. Violence is descending upon religions.

Within the fading attraction of modernity, as conveyed by Max Weber, the attraction of religion is fading too. For a long time, research in Islamic thinking focused on the debate about the relation between tradition (religion) and modernity (transformation)

Anyone who tends to reject modernity and uphold the function of religion’s formal role would tend toward the attitude of ‘fundamentalism’, and vice versa. While people who consider modernity as the only reality which could not be denied by shifting religious role, have a tendency to ‘secularism’; separating religion from the worldly life and separating religion from politics and the state.

Violence results from the polarization of both parties. Violence often is committed by the religious fundamentalist group because they are often marginalized and oppressed by the secular power of the authorities such that there is no other means of struggle except violence.

The Genealogy of Radicalism

Sometimes we often generalize the terms of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘radicalism’. Yet, both are different although they are originated from the same root. Fundamentalism (al-ushuliyah) is a belief to return to the fundaments of religion. It could be positive or negative. Negative excess caused by the fundamentalist view is an attitude of violence (extreme radicalism).

Radical groups often use violence to fulfill their desire or interest. But, radical groups are not identical to violence. In this article, what is meant as religious radicalism is ‘the rigid religious attitude which contains violence”. It is mentioned in order to simplify the categorization.

The genealogy of religious radicalism appears due to many reasons. In the case of Islam, Hassan Hanafi (2001) mentions that at least there are two reasons behind the violence in contemporary Islam. Firstly, it is due to the oppression of the prevailing political regimes. Islamic groups have no freedom of opinion. Secondly, the failures of secular ideology of the prevailing regime, hence the present of religious fundamentalism or radicalism are considered as ideological alternative as the only choice for Muslim communities.

Violence within religion appears due to the lack of capability to face modernity and transformation. It should be highlighted that fundamentalism is the movement’s spirit of religious radicalism. Reading of fundamentalism has been done by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby in Fundamentalisms Observed (Chicago and London, 1991). They affirmed that those fundamentalisms are a defense mechanism which appears as a reaction over the threatening crisis. It is the circumstantial crisis that determines their existence. Karen Armstrong (2000) has written also that the growing fundamentalism currently has a strong connection to modernity.

Since radicalism appears as a response to modernity we had better see the relation between tradition and modernity objectively. Modernity contained many negative excess too. We can’t deny that the influence of modernity implicate destruction of humanity’s existence. Modernity should be anticipated. But, anticipation does not cause a total denial in the name of religion. Modernity is a historical phase where there are positive and negative sides.

The solution for violence.

Violence is not a wise strategy for facing the world’s polarization due to the great upshot of modernity. Islam has many thoughtful frameworks for actualizing peace in the world. But exploration over the meaning of peace in Islam is contaminated by several violent attitudes by radical movements. The task of religionists is to find a solution to this violence, since violence is not an Islamic teaching.

The fact that some actors of bombing or terrorism come from religious Islamic groups can be justified by radical Islam. But, is Islam like that? No. whatever is done by the radical Islamic movement contains conditional complexity. It means that under the shield of religion, what they have done is participate in political, ideological and non religious interests. So, it is not due to a narrow religious interpretation.

Using Michael Foucault’s analysis, what has been done by radical Islam group has led religion toward its relation between knowledge and power. The discourse of knowledge of radical Islam group is that God’s law should be implemented in human life. In political terms, the discourse is a unification of ad-dien wad-daulah (religion and state). But the notion (knowledge) of religion is strengthened by the authority’s apparatus. Hence, the movement contains an ideological element. Negative excess due to violence leads religion to have a bad face. That’s why religion and power should be separated.

Since violence is the consequence of modernity, so Peter L. Berger (2003) suggested two strategies for responding to modernity and secularization: ‘religious revolution’ and ‘religion subcultures’. The former is how clerics are capable to transform the society totally and present the modern model of religion. The later is how our effort is to prevent outside influences from affecting religion.

This radical Islam movement emerges due to a rather textual, narrow, and black-white religious understanding. This understanding would easily lead the reader toward a rigid religiosity. Religious reading is being detached from its historical context. Religious understanding is dynamic. That’s why an open reading would deter us from the violence attitude.

Solutions suggested in facing religious radicalism are: firstly, demonstrate Islam as the universal teaching giving direction toward the creation of peace on the earth. Secondly, there must be action to reject violence and terrorism. This action involves all groups within religions which do not desire violence. Terrorism and violence is a form of despising the name of religion and humanity.

Thirdly, it is the time to raise a moderate religious characteristic and understand life’s dynamics by accepting “the other’s” thinking plurality outside of this group. A moderate plurality would eliminate polarization between fundamentalism and secularism in facing modernity and transformation. The middle Islam (ummatan wasathan) would form an Islam characterized by being democratic, open and rational.

Islam fulfills humanity and summons peace as well. It is our task to deliver a positive image for Islam which is indeed humanist and is against violence. Only history would prove whether religion can be present as it is wished for. Wallahu a’lam.

The article retrieved from: http://islamlib.com/en/page.php?page=article&id=657