Can fundamentalism have a worldly meaning

Value pluralism and tolerance

Volker von Prittwitz

To person

Dr. rer. pol., born 1950; Private Lecturer in Political Science at the Otto Suhr Institute of the Free University of Berlin; Spokesman for the founding initiative IPA Institute for Political Analysis e.V., Berlin.

Address: Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Publication a.o .: Policy analysis, Opladen 1994.

Fundamentalism, Religious Freedom and the Responsibility of the Civil State

Religions differ in their relationship to civil society: Religions that recognize the civil state's monopoly on legislation and the use of force have a civil character and fulfill important social functions.


According to dominant public opinion, Islamic fundamentalism is political and not religious. "There is a connection between fundamentalism and security policy, the description of which is not about the religion of Islam. One can have a dialogue with Islam as a religion; Islamic fundamentalism, on the other hand, is an object of security policy. If Islam is a world religion, theirs Followers make up one fifth of the world's population (1.3 billion people), Islamic fundamentalism is a political movement that instrumentalizes and abuses religion for non-religious purposes. " [1]

  • PDF version: 51 KB

  • Looking at religious fundamentalism without analyzing religious structures appears to be in line with the requirements of political opportunity. Human rights and democracy can only be credibly represented in the Islamic world if the Muslim foundations of belief remain unaffected. By excluding religion as an object of analysis, any risk of argumentatively affecting the constitutionally enshrined protection of the free practice of religion is avoided. However, this implies that religion is implicitly set absolutely. It is therefore not surprising that the formula of purely political Islamism is used for Islamic conversion. At the beginning of 2002, the imam of the German-speaking Muslims of Berlin and Brandenburg declared that politics was not expected to have any effect on peace. The people and politics would falsify the doctrine of Islam again and again, which would lead to oppression and war. In contrast, he called for a return to the original divine text, the Koran, as a general orientation for action. [2]

    Anyone who wants to understand religious fundamentalism more deeply than the fundamentalism discussion, which is oriented towards political opportunity or theological motives for conversion, must, however, also face the relationship between religion and fundamentalism. Only on the basis of this analysis can the independent action perspective of the pluralistic civil society be established, in which religion can be practiced freely but does not represent an authority.