Religious fanaticism

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Religious fanaticism carries a definition that cuts in two directions at once. On one side, it describes uncritical zeal or obsessive enthusiasm toward a religion. On the other, the very word "fanaticism" has a complicated history: in Christian antiquity, it was a term applied to discredit non-Christian religions rather than to describe dangerous behavior within any faith. It was the Age of Enlightenment that gave the term its present meaning and range. Psychiatry even has its own word for the same territory: hyperreligiosity. What this documentary explores is how scholars and historians understand the features that make religious devotion tip into extremism, why it has appeared across multiple traditions, and what ordinary words like "jihad" actually mean versus how they have been weaponized. The answers are more precise, and more contested, than the headlines suggest.

• 2. What Makes Fanaticism

  ›

  Lloyd Steffen identifies three interlocking features that scholars associate with religious fanaticism. The first is the depth of human spiritual need. People carry a longing for understanding and meaning, and that longing, Steffen argues, pushes toward some relationship with ultimacy, whether or not the seeker frames it as a transcendent other. Religion, he notes, has genuine power to meet that need. The second feature is what might be called attractiveness: fanatical religious forms present themselves in ways that draw people in and lead them to express themselves in terms consistent with the vision at the movement's core. The third feature is that fanaticism presents itself as a live option to the moral consciousness, one that addresses spiritual longing for meaning, power, and belonging simultaneously. These three features, taken together, explain why fanatical movements can draw sincere people rather than merely cynical ones. The framework also points ahead to the specific traditions where scholars have traced these dynamics in practice.

• 3. Christianity and the Use of Force

  ›

  J. Harold Ellens locates the start of Christian fanatic rule with the Roman Emperor Constantine I, arguing that when Christianity came to power under Constantine's empire, it proceeded to repress non-Christians and any Christians who did not conform to official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice. The Donatists offer one early case: a group that refused to accept back into the clergy any who had renounced the faith under persecution. Grant Shafer observes that Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence, which makes the subsequent trajectory all the more striking. The Crusades brought that trajectory into open warfare. Charles Selengut, writing in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, described them as holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control. The crusaders, Selengut writes, destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands on their way to the Holy Land, on the grounds that Jewish existence challenged the sole truth claimed by the church. Selengut's account of the Inquisitions is equally precise: he describes the inquisitors as men who generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs, but whose methods escalated during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century to the point where the distinction between genuine confession and remaining in error became muddled, and investigators invented techniques including torture. The Reformation then set off sectarian wars between Catholics and Protestants that culminated in what historians call the wars of religion.

• 4. Islam, Schism, and the Kharijites

  ›

  Islamic extremism, as scholars trace it, dates to the 7th century CE with the emergence of the Kharijites. The original dispute was political and religious at once: after the death of the prophet Muhammad, the question of who should lead the Muslim community, the Ummah, split believers. Shia Muslims hold that Ali ibn Abi Talib is the true successor; Sunnis consider Abu Bakr to hold that position. The Kharijites broke away from both groups during the First Fitna, the first Islamic Civil War. What set them apart was a radical approach to takfir, the practice of excommunication, through which they declared both Sunni and Shia Muslims to be infidels or false Muslims and therefore worthy of death for what they called apostasy. From an essentially political position, the Kharijites constructed an extreme theological one. That pattern, a political grievance transformed into a total religious condemnation, recurs in later movements. Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Islamist ideologue and prominent figure within the Muslim Brotherhood, promoted a pan-Islamist vision in the 1960s. When the Egyptian government under Gamal Abdel Nasser had him executed, Ayman al-Zawahiri founded Egyptian Islamic Jihad to continue the project of replacing the government with an Islamic state reflecting Qutb's ideas. Qutb's books were later cited frequently by both Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and his ideology shaped jihadist movements and groups including al-Qaeda and ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh.

• 5. Jihad and Its Distortions

  ›

  Since Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1998, jihad became an internationally recognized term, though the word as used in that context differs sharply from its meaning in Islamic tradition. In Arabic, jihad means simply struggle. Steffen outlines three distinct forms: the struggle to implement Islamic values in daily life, the struggle to counter arguments against Islam through debate, and self-defense when physically attacked because of religious belief. Steffen reads the Quranic passages that invoke military jihad as consistently defensive. His reading is explicit on this point: jihad in those passages does not endorse military aggression, and the Quran invokes it specifically to show that uses of force are always subject to restraint and qualification. Thomas Farr, in an essay titled Islam's Way to Freedom, makes a related observation: even though most Muslims reject violence, extremists' use of sacred texts gives their actions a kind of authenticity and recruiting power that straightforward political violence would not carry. Farr quotes the radical argument directly: true Muslims will pursue God's desire for Islam's triumph by any means necessary, including dissimulation, civil coercion, and the killing of innocents. Ellens applies this frame to the September 11 attacks, arguing that the al-Qaeda members who carried them out believed they were enacting a devastating blow against the evil of secularized and non-Muslim America, and that in their own understanding they were, as he puts it, cleansing this world, God's temple.