The Role of Religious Text Interpretation in Shaping Worldviews:
Exploring the Connection to Religious Violence
Adis Duderija
THIS ESSAY IS BASED ON AN ACADEMIC
JOURNAL ARTICLE I PUBLISHED FEW YEARS AGO THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE-https://www.academia.edu/40255445/Mainstream_Sunnism_Islamic_Extremism_and_progressive_Islam
The recent Sydney church stabbing has
again propelled nation-wide discussions
surrounding the relationship between religion/Islam and violence. The
relationship between religion and violence has been extensively studied by
scholars, who have examined how certain interpretations of sacred texts can
lead to worldviews that justify religiously motivated violence. In this essay I
want to explore how the work of scholars R.W. Hood Jr., P.C. Hill, and W.P.
Williamson on psychology of religious fundamentalism and that of Douglas Pratt ,who has developed a nuanced model of how passive
fundamentalism can morph into violent extremism, can help us understand this
relationship in a nuanced and insightful manner.
The
Fundamentalist Paradigm
According to R.W. Hood Jr., P.C.
Hill, and W.P. Williamson[1],
fundamentalism can be understood in terms of
“communities of interpretation”
that form around specific approaches to interpreting sacred texts. These
communities are characterised by a deep commitment to the belief that the
sacred text /set of texts alone holds
the key to interpreting the world and providing meaning to life. In the context
of the Islamic tradition ( that I have expertise in) Hood, Hill, and Williamson’s model is
particularly relevant to jihadist Salafism and other puritanical and
fundamentalist approaches to Islam where
certain interpretations of the Qur’an,
hadith, and broader Islamic interpretive tradition plays a central role.
Hood, Hill, and Williamson underscore
the fact that , “Fundamentalism is a system of meaning rooted in the exclusive
reliance on a religious text/s to interpret the world and give meaning to life”.
[2]This
reliance on a canonised texts as the ultimate sources of authority create a
sense of certainty and absolutism among fundamentalists. Moreover, they view
their interpretation of the text as the only valid one, rejecting alternative
viewpoints and largely dismissing the possibility of multiple interpretations.
Intratextuality:
The Principle of Fundamentalist Thought
The fundamentalist paradigm is based
on the principle of intratextuality. Hood, Hill, and Williamson explain that
intratextuality refers to the process of interpreting a sacred text /set of
texts exclusively through a textualist approach. According to this principle,
the text is considered to alone determines its own meaning and should be the
sole point of reference for all thoughts and actions. This principle emphasises
the self-sufficiency of the sacred text and the exclusive reliance on it for
understanding the world.
By engaging in intratextuality,
fundamentalists believe they can directly access the absolute truths contained
within the text and construct their worldview based on these truths. Fundamentalists
perceive the absolute truths contained within the sacred text as the ultimate
authority and the basis for discerning right from wrong, good from evil. These
truths are seen as immutable and unchanging, providing a sense of stability and
certainty in an uncertain world. These truths are derived through the dialogic process
of intratextuality and are not subject to criticism from outside of this
principle by for example means of contextualisation. Fundamentalists construct
their worldview based on these absolute truths, viewing the outside world
exclusively through the lens provided by what they consider to be the meaning
of the sacred text. Any beliefs or
interpretations that fall outside the realm of what they consider to be absolute
truths are viewed with a lot of suspicion and are to be disregarded.
Moreover, Hood, Hill, and Williamson
highlight that fundamentalists reject
the view that the sacred text is subject to interpretation by “fallible”
humans, preferring instead to search for the true meaning through intratextual
analysis/. This rejection of fallible human interpretations reflects the
fundamentalists’ belief in the inherent holiness , purity, clarity and
coherence of the sacred text. They place a premium on preserving the purity of
the text’s that is viewed as having a
special, untainted metaphysical origin and
meaning and resist any external influences that may challenge or modify
their understanding of it.
Passive
Fundamentalism and Violent Extremism
Most forms of fundamentalism or
those who adhere to them ,however, do not evolve into violence extremism but
some do. Douglas Pratt’s work on
religious fundamentalism in Abrahamic religions delves into the concept of “passive fundamentalisms” and its potential to
contribute to violent extremism. Passive fundamentalism refers to non-violent
forms of fundamentalist thought that exhibit rigid adherence to absolute truths
but do not directly engage in violent acts. Pratt argues that this extreme
belief system can create a breeding ground for violence, as it forms the
foundation for more radical and extremist ideologies.
In this respect Pratt states, “What
began with ‘normative’ absolutism, that form of religious believing and concept
that holds rigidly to a set of assumptions, presuppositions and ideas as
absolute truth, then may evolve or emerge through a process of hardening
assertion to becoming, in extremis, an impositional form of religious ideology
that is expressed in terms of terrorizing behaviours and acts of violence. Many
examples across different religions, both historically and contemporaneously,
could be adduced to make the point.”[3]
Through numerous case studies across
different religions, Pratt demonstrates the link between religious fundamentalism and
violent behaviours becomes. Pratt’s research ,therefore, shows that passive
fundamentalism can act as a stepping stone towards violent extremism, as it
provides a framework for radicalisation. The rigid belief system inherent in
passive fundamentalism can, as such, contribute to the acceptance of violence
as a justifiable means to achieve religious goals.
Pratt’s findings highlight the
importance of recognizing the potential dangers of non-violent fundamentalism.
While not directly engaging in violent acts, passive fundamentalists contribute
to the broader ecosystem that supports and justifies violence. As Mark
Juergensmeyer , a leading scholar of the relationship between violence and
religion, aptly stated, “Religion often provides the mores and symbols that
make possible bloodshed – even catastrophic acts of terrorism.”[4] Understanding the mechanisms that drive
individuals to move from passive fundamentalism to violent extremism is crucial
for effective prevention and intervention strategies.
Conclusion
The relationship between religious
text interpretation and the formation of worldviews is a critical factor to
consider when studying religiously motivated violence. Hood, Hill, and
Williamson's concept of communities of interpretation sheds light on the
structure and processes that underlie fundamentalist thought. The principle of
intratextuality, as explained by Hood, Hill, and Williamson, guides
fundamentalists in deriving meaning nearly exclusively from the sacred text
itself, shaping their worldview and providing a sense of certainty and
absolutism.
Fundamentalists perceive the sacred
text as a repository of absolute truths, which they believe should be the
foundation for understanding and interpreting reality. This belief in objective
truths and the rejection of alternative interpretations can lead to the
construction of rigid belief systems that may justify or support violence.
Pratt’s research on passive fundamentalism highlights the potential dangers of
non-violent extremism, as it can provide a fertile ground for the acceptance of
more radical and violent ideologies.
Understanding the complex dynamics
between religious text interpretation, the construction of worldviews, and the
justification of violence is crucial for addressing and mitigating religiously
motivated violence. By delving into the nuances of religious text
interpretation and its impact on belief systems, we can gain valuable insights
into the factors that contribute to the manifestation of violence in the name
of religion and hopefully used these insights to prevent the incidents like the
Sydney church stabbing from occurring again.
[1]
R.W. Hood ( jr.) ,P.C. Hill and
W.P.Williamson. The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism, New York,
Guilford Press, 2005. The books has received excellent reviews e.g. Sara B.
Savage (2006)
REVIEW: "The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism", The
International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 16:3, 243-244.
[2] System
of meaning is defined as “a group of beliefs or theories about reality that
includes both a world theory
(beliefs about others and situations) and a self-theory (beliefs
about the self), with connecting propositions
between the two sets of beliefs that are important in terms of
overall functioning”, Wood, Hill and Williamson,
The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism, p. 14
[3] D.Pratt,
Religion and Extremism:
Rejecting Diversity, London: Bloomsbury, 2017, p.47.
[4] Mark
Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), xi.
